A city-level response to the drivers for emergency food aid . . .

Our project report Food insecurity in Birmingham — a city-level response? was submitted it to the APPG on Hunger and Food Poverty at the end of October. They thanked us for our ‘huge contribution’.

Maybe they gave this reaction because our project took a different stance from most. We asked: Is it possible to have an effective city-level response to the drivers of emergency food aid? And, if so, what does it look like?

Like this? The city with this strategic aim with regard to food security: We aim for all our citizens to have safe, tasty, healthy meals . . . and eat them in good company.

And actions to achieve this under-pinned by four core principles:

  1. Food security is a public good as well as a human right.
  2. Reciprocation, fairness and equality in all food exchanges whether monetized or not.
  3. Hospitality: Eating is social glue.
  4. Encourage food sector profit to derive from local entrepreneurship, not rent (e.g. as in franchises).

We collated the ideas generated by everyone who took part on the project into six levels, some of which inevitably overlap:

  1. The city infrastructure
  2. Regional infrastructure
  3. Institutions
  4. “Smart” opportunities
  5. Neighbourhoods
  6. Birmingham City Council: Procurement and other commercial relationships

The city looking like that? What are your thoughts? Do comment below and/or via email at info@newsite.birminghamfoodcouncil.org

Logos_BarrowCadbury_Ashrammoseleynote too: This report of ours, which Geoff Tansey read on the train down to London, got a big plug at the launch of the Fabian Commission’s final report Hungry for Change in Westminster on 28th October.

We’re grateful to both the Barrow Cadbury Trust and ashrammoseley for their support of this project.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *