Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition, in the context of urbanization and rural transformation

A. Urban and peri‑urban food systems for FSN

Interventions in U‑PU food systems should be oriented towards creating food systems that are: equitable, just and inclusive; productive and prosperous; participatory and empowering; resilient; regenerative and respectful to the ecosystem; and healthy and nutritious. This requires action across all food‑system activity clusters. 

Production: Local governments, with other subnational government actors (provincial, county, etc.) should formulate and encourage provisions to protect and promote sustainable food production, through agroecological principles and other innovative methods, in U‑PU areas through:

• land‑use zoning to protect urban agriculture, livestock and fishing activities;
• prioritizing access to land, water, innovation and technology, and finance for projects that support urban livelihoods, address the needs of the most food insecure and promote sustainable practices;
• supporting territorial systems and shorter supply chains to facilitate market access for U‑PU producers and to increase accessibility of fresh produce for U‑PU residents;
• and partnering with civil society and research organizations to provide extension services to U‑PU farmers and producers, promoting regenerative and nutrition‑sensitive practices.

Trade: National governments, together with local government actors, should work to ensure that trade regulations and policy are oriented towards increasing access and affordability of healthy diets, with a particular focus on poor families, protecting U‑PU populations from the increasing availability and targeted marketing of foods high in sugar, salt and fat and protecting the interests of small‑scale and informal
operators. This can be done through:

• including local government in national dialogues on food‑trade policy to raise awareness of the specific needs and contributions of U‑PU food systems to the national economy and FSN, and by strengthening the capacity of urban food‑policy actors to engage with trade and investment policy stakeholders;
• considering the implications of trade policies on poor and food‑insecure U‑PU consumers; and assessing the role of the informal sector in cross‑border trade and integrating provisions in policy to support and protect this trade from harassment and extortion.

Midstream: Addressing the midstream activities (storage, processing, transportation and wholesale) in urban food supply chains is essential for creating equitable and efficient food policies that benefit all stakeholders in the supply chain. National and local government and private‑sector actors should work together to:

• encourage both public and private investments in infrastructure, logistics, innovation and technology and capacities in the intermediary sector of urban food value chains, particularly for fresh and perishable foods;
• foster diversity of midstream food actors through mechanisms to support small‑scale and informal‑sector actors, including the development and maintenance of public food infrastructure (for example wholesale, traditional and digital markets), and ensuring fair supply‑chain practices to redistribute value;
• ensure that food‑system planning codes and regulations include informal processors operating in U‑PU areas; and
• support wholesale markets to strengthen connections with small‑scale producers, leveraging them to increase access to affordable, diverse and healthy diets.

Markets and retail: National and local governments, in accordance with their respective functions, should:

• strengthen different types of markets and retailers (wholesale, traditional, wet, weekly) in the U‑PU areas in enabling access to healthy and affordable foods and promoting livelihoods;
• protect and sustain traditional markets, incentivizing investment in infrastructure, operations, logistics, innovation and technology, and access to water and energy, as well as fostering closer links to small-scale food producers and local communities;
• work with market traders and street vendors to improve food safety by: (i) creating an enabling environment (where local and national authorities support food safety through investment in basic infrastructure, policy and regulation, capacity building and monitoring and surveillance activities); (ii) providing appropriate training and technology for value chain actors; and (iii) providing incentives for behaviour change;
• incentivize the sale of healthy and sustainable food, while disincentivizing unhealthy food and food that is harmful to the environment through appropriate legal and regulatory instruments, such as taxes and subsidies, warning labels, food licenses, preferential trading locations for vendors selling healthy foods and zoning restrictions on the marketing and sale of foods high in sugar, salt and fat; 
• provide incentives for the establishment of healthy food outlets in underserved areas, encouraging food‑retail diversity;
• prioritize – together with private‑sector actors – support for innovation and technologies for small businesses and projects that connect consumers to smallholder farmers through apps and delivery services, such as community‑supported agriculture programmes; and
• promote behaviour change towards healthier food choices on the part of consumers through targeted education and awareness raising, informed by the structural drivers of food choice, which can include front‑of‑pack labelling, public education campaigns and taxation of foods high in sugar, salt and fat.

Public procurement and non-market initiatives: In addition to strengthening markets, non‑market food sources, such as public procurement, community kitchens and remittances, should also be supported and developed to cater to the most vulnerable population groups and to provide buffer in times of crises. National and local governments should:

• invest in nutrition‑oriented public procurement programmes, specifically targeted at vulnerable populations within U‑PU populations; 
• prioritize local, agroecological and small‑scale farmers in public procurement programmes, particularly
  within school feeding programmes and programming aimed at nutrition in the first 1 000 days;
• develop local bylaws that support the decentralized development of food banks and community kitchens, as well as deferral of surplus food to food banks, community kitchens and other food distribution programmes, informed by principles of dignity and agency; and
• strengthen the role of civil society organizations in providing food aid in times of crisis, harnessing their capacity to reach vulnerable populations.

Food loss and waste: Local governments, in collaboration with market associations, private sector actors, resident associations, as well as individual establishments, should strive to minimize food loss and waste. This could be achieved by:

• providing supportive infrastructure (shading, cold storage units) and access to innovation and technology to informal‑sector actors to increase fresh food access, preserve vitamins and minerals in perishable foods and reduce food loss and waste; 
• providing restaurants with guidelines, training and resources to mitigate food waste;
• creating awareness among consumers to reduce food waste; and
• promoting and supporting circularity through composting, biogas digestion, feeding waste to livestock, donation of surplus food to food redistribution programmes, etc.

B. Urban and peri‑urban non‑food systems for FSN

Food security and nutrition are affected not only by food systems, but also by interrelated systems such as health, education, housing, water, energy, infrastructure and finance. In U‑PU areas, spatial inequality and unequal access to services is an important driver of poor FSN outcomes. It is critical to adopt a holistic approach with policies targeting key actions in these other systems, and to address U‑PU poverty and inequality.

National and subnational government, together with private‑sector actors and civil society organizations should:

• ensure that infrastructure investments, including for transport, are equity sensitive, and include informal‑sector actors and food‑insecure consumers;
• explicitly integrate food into urban planning, including incorporation of food‑sensitive planning and design principles;
• integrate food‑trade infrastructure in transport planning to enable the sale of healthy meals to commuters;
• incorporate food‑security planning into housing and zoning policy;
• establish financial mechanisms, such as microcredit or subsidies, to assist small‑scale producers and food‑system actors in acquiring inputs and technology;
• incentivize investments towards low‑income residents and neighbourhoods for the provision of water, sanitation, waste management and reliable energy to enable healthy diets, safer food handling, and washing, preparation and cooking of meals at home;
• enhance decent work and employment in U‑PU food systems, including by providing childcare spaces within traditional markets, promoting occupational safety and health, guaranteeing labour rights, etc.;
• strengthen urban health services (neonatal and infant nutrition guidance, prevention diagnostics) for FSN outcomes;
• acknowledge temporal variation in U‑PU food insecurity and frame social protection policies and programmes to be responsive to periods of heightened food insecurity;
• develop and invest in social protection programmes targeting specific U‑PU contexts; and
• promote nutrition in health services, particularly for women of childbearing age and pregnant and breastfeeding women, and in paediatric services. These should be informed by the lived experience of U‑PU residents.

C. Urban and peri‑urban governance for FSN

Addressing U‑PU FSN requires shifts in governance approaches at the national and local levels, recognizing the prevalence of U‑PU food insecurity. This recognition should drive investment and governance approaches that are inclusive of subnational governments and incorporate a broad range of voices from civil society, research and the small‑scale private sector. It is essential to prevent and mitigate the negative effects of concentration in food supply chains on urban livelihoods and on the accessibility and affordability of diverse, sustainable and healthy diets in urban areas. This entails promoting policies that foster competition and diversification within these supply chains.

National governments should:

• increase financing and capacity of local and urban governments, particularly in LMIC contexts, to tackle urban food‑system challenges, and identify and promote innovative approaches for mobilizing resources (such as municipal bonds) and ensure sufficient municipal staff with holistic skills to address food‑system challenges;
• include local and subnational government in the development of national policies that are relevant to the food system, inclusive of agriculture, nutrition, environment, gender and trade policy; and 
• ensure that municipal financing is adequate and coherent with municipal mandates.

National and local government should:

• identify the mandates of different levels of governance in shaping FSN and food systems in U‑PU areas, and ensure that U‑PU food systems policy is multilevel, multisectoral and multi-actor;
• clearly delineate the mandates and responsibilities over the urban food system across different tiers of government and other sectors to ensure accountability for action to urban residents (including through stakeholder mapping to assess responsibilities, available instruments and financial and human resources); and
• ensure coherence and coordination of policies and programmes within urban departments and across levels of government and sectors, including through urban food strategies, joint integrated food policy offices and strategies, coordinated urban food units or multistakeholder platforms.

National government, local government, civil society organizations and private‑sector actors should:

• develop inclusive multi-actor platforms to encourage active participation of local communities in decision‑making processes, including through building their capacity to effectively engage, and addressing inherent power imbalances; and
• build capacities of urban food‑system actors (especially the underrepresented, such as traditional market‑trader associations and consumer associations) to enable stronger representation.

D. Urban and peri‑urban resilience and sustainability

Urban and peri‑urban food systems and U‑PU areas more broadly are increasingly vulnerable to shocks and crises. The impacts of these are unequally experienced and often increase U‑PU inequality. There is a need for proactive planning to reduce vulnerabilities and increase systemic resilience. Resilience planning should be informed by the lived experience of vulnerable populations, should include civil society organizations, and should apply practices that have demonstrated impacts on household and community resilience.

National and local government should:

• develop U‑PU food‑system resilience plans and establish contingency planning and early warning systems for fragility and shocks;
• identify critical food infrastructure to be prioritized in times of crisis, and populations and areas most vulnerable to food insecurity in times of disaster and shock;
• embed resilience thinking into urban planning and design;
• include food‑system support in disaster‑response funding plans at all levels, from national to local;
• maintain and enhance food system diversity in terms of sources, supply chains and retail typologies, to bolster systemic resilience, considering the impact of U‑PU food‑system decisions on resilience in rural hinterlands and beyond;
• and integrate food into climate‑adaptation plans.

E. Data, research and knowledge for FSN

There is a need for more granular, U‑PU‑specific FSN data and research. Evidence‑based decision‑making
needs targeted data collection, management, analysis and dissemination across food‑system actors and
interactions across different systems.

National and subnational government, in partnership with academia and civil society should:

• develop U‑PU‑specific FSN data tools;
• add a specific food security module to city household surveys;
• invest in information technology and digital systems to improve the evidence base for policymakers and food‑system actors to plan, prioritize, design and track food system activities;
• ensure finer‑grained disaggregation of data (along the urban–rural continuum, city size, intracity), to allow analysis of intersectional vulnerability;
• incorporate qualitative data into U‑PU food policy;
• use geographic information systems, remote sensing, digital tools and participatory mapping to identify areas most vulnerable to food‑system disruption to inform long‑term planning and crisis response;
• invest in monitoring and evaluation of food policies and programmes, including non‑food specific impacts (such as economic development and environmental sustainability); and
• invest in and learn from city food networks as a mechanism for sharing knowledge, training and increasing local government voice in national and international policy spaces.

Read the recommendations' chapter

Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition

A. Tackle inequalities within food systems

1. States, intergovernmental organizations, the private sector and civil society should work across sectors to ensure more equitable access to land, forests, aquatic resources and other food production resources, applying rights-based approaches. 

• Bolster the land and resource rights of women, peasants, Indigenous Peoples and other marginalized groups, including legal recognition and inheritance rights; protect communal and collective tenure rights to resources, including enshrining free, prior and informed consent, and promote sustainable community-based management of those resources. 
• Design regulations to improve the functioning of markets for land, inputs, services, and water, while protecting the vulnerable and preventing the concentration of resources. 
• Strengthen accountability, monitoring and the requirement for local consent with respect to corporate/international land, forest and water acquisitions. 
• Design and implement asset-building and livelihood programmes, such as land and livestock transfers, tailored for resource-poor, disadvantaged groups. 
• Monitor and limit concentration of ownership (over land, transport, wholesale, retail, etc.) in food systems.

2. States, intergovernmental organizations, private sector and civil society should facilitate the organization of disadvantaged stakeholders and build inclusive institutions and partnerships to improve representation. 

• Build and support farmer, fisher, peasant, food-producer, landless and migrant-worker organizations; self-help groups and cooperatives; as well as labour organizations throughout food systems – particularly including women – to ensure better representation and agency. Explicit consideration should be given to inclusivity in participation and group decision-making and the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining.
• Leverage the benefits of collective action to improve access to inputs, finance, information, value chain opportunities, certification/standards and market opportunities, as well as decent work, safe working conditions and a living income based on careful consideration of, and with a clear plan to address, local contexts and power asymmetries.

3.  States, intergovernmental organizations, the private sector and civil society should make equitysensitive investments in supply chains and in disadvantaged areas.

• Invest in territorial approaches in food systems and regional development planning, including in agroecology and in local markets, strengthening regional trade and market connections to create a judicious mix of local and distant market opportunities for small-scale producers and to benefit local consumers.
• Ensure that supply chains, especially local ones, are enabled to provide improved access to nutrient-dense foods for all consumers at affordable prices.
• Invest in rural transport, market infrastructure, nutrient-preserving food processing and food storage, with special consideration for disadvantaged groups and places, and supporting territorial markets.
• Invest in filling the gaps in access to finance among micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) along the value chain, with special consideration for groups that are traditionally disadvantaged, including small-scale producers, small-scale input providers and traders, and women, as well as those with limited current commercial orientation.
• Invest in information systems across food systems, leveraging digital technologies – such as marketprice information services and video-based extension – to help overcome asymmetries in access to information and to spread knowledge and opportunity equitably, with consideration for upholding data privacy and data ownership.
• Invest in expanding rural, nonfarm employment opportunities to ensure that income-generating opportunities exist outside agriculture as alternative pathways to FSN.
• Invest in civil society and government staff working more closely with marginalized communities, including enhancing their legal capacity to uphold their right to food, decent work and a clean environment.

4. States, intergovernmental organizations, private sector and civil society should plan and govern food environments including trade, retail, processing with an equity focus. 

• Undertake proactive planning of food environments in areas of rapid demographic growth to ensure equitable and affordable access to food, promoting access to nutrientrich foods, facilitating access to local fishers’ and farmers’ markets, and restricting marketing and advertising of unhealthy foods.
• Recognize the role of informal vendors in meeting the FSN needs of populations, including marginalized groups populations, and develop planning and policy tools to create an enabling environment to enhance their capacity to sell nutritious and safe food.
• Undertake targeted interventions in food retail environments to mitigate unequal FSN outcomes, especially for populations at risk of food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition, such as children, youth and the urban poor. Depending on the specific context, these interventions may include: restricting the sale of unhealthy food products near educational premises; and promoting public procurement programmes for nutritious foods.
• Implement specific measures aimed at limiting processing and marketing of unhealthy food, with the aim to promote healthy eating. These can include: introducing fiscal measures such as taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and other unhealthy foods, while subsidizing healthy foods; and labelling the nutritional content and/or detrimental effects of ultra-processed foods to support FSN improvements among particularly vulnerable groups.

B. Tackle inequalities in related systems

5. States should ensure universal access to services and resources that have a direct impact on FSN.

• Ensure universal access to FSNrelevant services, including primary healthcare, immunization, nutrition education, sanitation and safe drinking water.
• Ensure universal access to social protection as direct support for FSN among the most marginalized groups, and to enhance access to productive assets for those with food systems-dependent livelihoods.
• Maximize the fiscal space available to improve basic public services, including more comprehensive and progressive national and international taxes on income, profits, land, wealth and commodity speculation, and use the proceeds to support the most marginalized and address the drivers of unequal FSN.
• Contribute to ensuring access to decent work for all, including in food systems, as a key condition for a living wage and access to food. This would include implementing labour protection policies, strategies and programmes (such as those on occupational safety and health, regulations on working hours and pay, maternity protection) that protect both the labour and human rights of food system workers.

6. States and international organizations should embed an equity focus into trade, investment and debt governance related to FSN.

• Monitor and regulate, as appropriate, corporate power asymmetries in food systems governance and decision-making, and the FSN implications of the expansion of large agribusiness and food corporations.
• Ensure, through equity-impact assessments that include the representation of affected groups, that multilateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements do not negatively impact food environments and diets, including a redressal process available to marginalized groups’ representatives when complaints arise.
• Ensure greater transparency in the preparation of international and bilateral trade and investment negotiations, and develop systems to support domestic decision-making, coordinated between sectors involved in food, the environment, public health, industry and trade, to ensure that issues of equity are considered and that marginalized groups have a say.
• Take action toward restructuring or cancelling the debt of countries where FSN is constrained by debt.
• Continue efforts to decrease subsidies on agricultural production in high-income and emerging countries, except those aiming to enhance the nutritional or environmental qualities of food production and to reduce FSN inequalities, so as to level the playing field for LMICs.

C. Tackle social and political drivers of inequality

7. States, intergovernmental organizations, the private sector and civil society should leverage SDG 10 (‘reduced inequalities’) to address the systemic drivers of unequal distribution, access and representation, including by mainstreaming participatory approaches in policymaking and practice to amplify marginalized voices.

• Ensure policies target the most marginalized people, explicitly state which groups they aim to impact, strive to remove barriers and not impose burdens on the most vulnerable, and speak directly to the 2030 Agenda approach of leaving no one behind.
• Ensure that social policy pays specific attention to women’s role, time burdens and other existing burdens in ensuring FSN; envisages men taking on a greater role in FSN and addresses adequate compensation of care workers and community health workers, while avoiding arrangements that exacerbate women’s “triple burden” of care.
• Create interministerial platforms on FSN, with the participation of agriculture, livestock, fisheries, forest, health, economy and finance, and trade ministries to enable the convergence of ministerial actions in FSN policy, and charge and equip these platforms to have a strong focus on reducing inequalities.
• Identify and manage conflicts of interest between more powerful and less powerful groups in food systems, including where private sector interests and public policy goals conflict; and protect research against undue influence, bias and corruption.
• Strengthen inclusive spaces for dialogue, participation and coordinated action at global, national and local levels that centre on building equity, including within negotiations on climate, trade and investment agreements and related policy fora.

8. Based on a human rights approach, states and intergovernmental organizations should embed equity principles into policy.

• Identify policies and interventions that can support individuals and groups to break out of intergenerational food insecurity and malnutrition.
• Leverage existing human rights instruments such as UNDROP, UNDRIP, the Right to Food, the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition and various CFS guidance documents to strengthen equity-sensitivity of policies.
• Strengthen national institutions to understand and apply human rights conventions to harmonize policies relating to food systems, agriculture and nutrition from an equity perspective.
• Make redressal mechanisms available to marginalized communities when cases of inequities are identified.

9. States, intergovernmental organizations and civil society should take into account the context of climate, ecological, political and economic crises in all FSNrelated actions.

• Ensure adequate prioritization of populations most affected by climate change, conflict and other contemporary global crises in targeting policy and allocating resources.
• Work across the humanitarian– development–peace nexus to address the multiple drivers and manifestations of FSN inequalities in fragile states.
• Explore the option of establishing a fund, for example using the countrylevel funding for the follow-up to the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), to support transformation towards more equitable food systems.

D. Strengthen data and knowledge systems to enable improved understanding and monitoring of equity in FSN-relevant domains

• Fill data gaps (particularly related to diets, micronutrient status, food composition) by systematically collecting information to identify which groups have the poorest FSN outcomes and food system opportunities in different contexts, paying special attention to historically marginalized groups, women and disadvantaged regions.
• Improve major routine public data collection and analysis efforts, sampling adequately along the major axes of inequality within each context, to enable a full understanding of inequality; and apply a more equity-sensitive approach to reporting data in global reports such as SOFI and GNR.
• Integrate equity-sensitivity and incorporate diverse knowledges in FSN research.
• Boost public agricultural and food systems research with strong consideration for equity-sensitivity of the research portfolio, including research tailored to marginal environments and climate-resilient technologies for small producers. Mainstream gender, equity and intersectionality considerations into all aspects of research. Ensure all research applies the precautionary principle to ensure no groups are exposed to harm as a result of the research, and ensure individuals and communities retain the right to decline participation.
• Enable a richer understanding of the root causes and systemic drivers of FSN inequalities by encouraging and funding qualitative research to capture the lived experiences of actors in food systems. This includes facilitating the understanding and inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge of Indigenous and local communities in policymaking.

Read the recommendations' chapter

Data collection and analysis tools for food security and nutrition: towards enhancing effective, inclusive, evidence-informed, decision making

CREATE GREATER DEMAND FOR DATA FOR DECISION-MAKING AMONG GOVERNMENTS, POLICY MAKERS AND DONORS

Demand for data for decision-making is a prerequisite for achieving more and better investments and more effective data utilization. But many political, economic and other considerations are brought to bear on policy and programmatic decisions, so that data may not always be a high priority. Data transparency and clear national data strategies are vital to ensure that actionable data are available to policymakers when they need them, and in forms that facilitate their utilization. Another way to enhance data utilization is to illustrate the potential economic implications of not using data. Surprisingly however, few studies have quantified the economic cost to countries of policy and program measures that were not adequately informed by data. This must change.

Supporting demand for data can be facilitated by a framework for aligning and coordinating assistance from international organizations and donors.

To this effect, we recommend that:

• the UN System provide guidance that lays out good practices for priority setting guided by frameworks for data decision-making; and develop practical guidelines on data-informed ex-ante and ex-post policy evaluation in the FSN domain for national-level policymakers and administration;
• organizations in the UN System and national and international academic institutions develop and promote the use of e-learning and continuing education courses in data prioritization and utilization for policymakers;
• donors, supported by international organizations and academia, develop and use costing and cost-benefit analysis to assist policymakers to estimate the cost trade-offs of decision-making using data from varying sources;

— the World Bank, in its efforts to estimate the cost of nutrition-specific and nutritionsensitive actions to achieve the SDG2 targets, also estimate the costs of decisions and actions that are not informed by up-todate, accurate data on the FSN situation in countries, and estimate the savings that may be accrued by acting on better data;

• governments (via their ministries and agencies, including statistics offices) as well as private sector agents, international organizations and research institutions, complete a data-informed decision-making process matrix for FSN each time they are requested to address a specific challenge;
• for all FSN-related legislation and policy proposals, the responsible government authority include a detailed data annex, presenting available data sources and the analytic tools intended to be used for their treatment;
• governments encourage empirical analysis of existing FSN microdata in administration, statistics institutes, agencies and universities; promote the hiring of statisticians, data scientists and experts in the analysis of qualitative FSN data; and create an annual forum for data-informed discussion on national FSN policies.

OPTIMIZE AND, IF NEEDED, REPURPOSE CURRENT DATA-RELATED INVESTMENTS, WHILE INCREASING COLLABORATION BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENTS, CIVIL SOCIETY, ACADEMIA AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR, TO HARMONIZE AND MAXIMIZE THE SHARING OF EXISTING FSN DATA

While additional investment in generating data is certainly needed, much can be accomplished through better use of existing data-related resources and by reinforcing the role of international organizations as producers of official FSN data as public goods.

The cost of surveys and all data collection efforts can be substantially reduced by being selective in what data to collect. It is therefore crucial to plan how data will be used from the outset to avoid collection of data whose purpose and utilization is unclear. Optimizing the data cycle for FSN is a key priority to reduce costs and enhance data-informed policy responses. The time from data collection to utilization can be decreased by developing analytical plans. Digital technologies and remote sensing hold enormous promise to reduce data collection costs, as does streamlined sampling. Finally, we must be open to change in technologies and processes for data collection, analysis and dissemination. As technologies advance, long-standing data collection systems must be adapted quickly and efficiently. In this respect, it is critical to harmonize data models and ontologies.

Although some initiatives are already in place to coordinate existing data collection activities and their governance, greater internal and international coordination is needed to avoid the proliferation of disconnected data initiatives, which can lead to costly duplication of efforts and contribute to sending conflicting signals. To the extent possible, initiatives should promote the use of data, including qualitative data, generated by the private sector, civil society and academia, in addition to official statistics, but these sources should never be intended to substitute national data systems. The main call should not be for more data, but, rather, for actions that will ensure that data generated are relevant, timely and useful.

To support the achievement of the SDGs, the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) is intensifying efforts to develop indicators and integrate geospatial and statistical data. However, not all countries have the same capability to establish food-data systems capable of collecting detailed, disaggregated data over time. Therefore, for these initiatives to succeed, efforts to modernize national statistics systems must be accompanied by assistance to countries with limited capabilities.

To this effect, we recommend that:

• organizations in the UN System develop minimum standards that set clear criteria for optimizing the use of existing data in the area covered in their respective mandate, streamlining the processes to be followed when using data for decision-making in FSN; and prioritize all types of remote and digital data and the development of appropriate datamanagement plans;
• governments, using such standards, review existing national data-collection systems relevant for FSN, with the aim of identifying opportunities to streamline and modernize them, and enhance their efficiency and relevance;
• academic institutions throughout the world coordinate to consolidate existing FSN data and respond to the need for continued innovation in the areas of data science and survey-based research to address FSN questions;
• efforts to modernize national statistics systems in order to establish comprehensive, coordinated FSN data systems and to sustain the collection of the disaggregated and detailed data needed over time, be accompanied by technical and financial assistance to countries with limited capabilities;
• UN System organizations and donors establish a Global Food Security and Nutrition Data Trust Fund, to which governments of eligible countries and other stakeholders interested in generating and benefiting from data (including, for example, communities and organizations of Indigenous People) can apply, in order to obtain the necessary financial resources to establish FSN data plans; conduct FSN assessment surveys for specific communities; and create and own data dissemination platforms;
• international organizations that produce key FSN data form a joint commission to harmonize and coordinate the release of datasets, avoiding the publication of competing datasets on important FSN domains (such as food commodity balances, food prices and market prospects, food security assessments, etc.);
• all these initiatives devote priority and specific attention to the transfer of ownership of the used data and methodologies to the countries involved, promoting the institutionalization of such data systems in national platforms.

INCREASE AND SUSTAIN INVESTMENT IN THE COLLECTION OF ESSENTIAL DATA FOR FSN

This report illustrates the multiple types of data essential to diagnosing and informing FSN actions. Data are woefully lacking in most countries for agriculture, food environments, household-level food access and dietary intake and nutrition outcomes . Often, most data exist only in the form of national-level statistics and indicators, providing few insights into subnational differences, inequalities across population groups, and other variations that may hold relevance for FSN. Increased and sustained investment in sufficiently disaggregated data collection is therefore urgently needed to fill these gaps, accompanied by clear standards to enhance the granularity of data and ensure that those most likely to be affected by inequalities are appropriately represented. Such investments must be accompanied by concurrent investment in capacity, structures and institutions to ensure effective data-related activities from prioritization through utilization.

To this effect, we make a strong plea to donors and governments for increased and sustained financial investment for the collection and consolidation of essential FSN data. Likewise, and recognizing the challenges in increasing investments, we recommend that:

• governments, especially those of low- and middle-income countries where FSN data gaps are particularly large, elaborate national plans to define priorities for FSN data collection and analysis and to improve and optimize existing national data systems for FSN. Countries that require support should be supported both technically and financially by international organizations and donors, and should follow international standards, while preserving country ownership;
• UN system agencies, in their respective areas of competence, develop specific guidance for governments and national statistics offices to streamline data collection in order to prioritize the collection of actionable data;
• donors; private entities in the information, communication and industrial technology sectors; civil society groups; and academic research institutions invest in further refinement, validation and application of resource-saving data collection approaches, such as remote sensing, natural resource scanning by drones and digital data collection tools; • tools and technology that streamline and simplify data collection (such as REDCap) be used and promoted at all levels;
• international organizations and academic research institutions improve existing analytic models and develop new ones to be employed in various areas of relevance for FSN decisionmaking, especially model-based approaches, in order to forecast future values of FSN determinants and outcomes, ensuring that such models are transparent and flexibly implemented so that they can generate predictions under clear, alternative scenarios (avoiding the use of black-box modelling).

INVEST IN HUMAN CAPITAL AND IN THE NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURES TO ENSURE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYTIC CAPACITY

Investments specifically aimed at developing the human capital to collect, manage and analyse quality data, but also to synthesize and translate data into actionable insights for decision-making are urgently needed. Among other capacity gaps, we must address the differential between high- and low-income countries, and between the private and public sectors, in terms of ability to exploit the enormous potential that resides in existing data, accessible through the internet via increasingly affordable technology. Adequate data literacy is needed, especially among policymakers who rely on the results of sophisticated models for data analysis to make policy or investment decisions.

Promoting data literacy for the general population would also be a potent way to promote agency on the part of those whose FSN is at stake. Specific attention should be devoted to promoting sufficient minimum understanding of modern statistics and data science at all levels, for instance, by including these topics in school and academic curricula.

To this effect, we recommend that:

• targeted scholarship programmes be created by national governments – and adequately funded by donors – to allow young people from low-income countries, especially girls, to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines;
• governments take action to expand primary and secondary education curricula to include statistics and data science early in public education programmes;
• national statistics offices offer training opportunities to all staff, of all ages, to enhance their competences in using opensource software for data analysis, and reward demonstrated achievement;
• UN System organizations and international research institutions contribute to eliminating language barriers, by expanding the set of languages in which relevant e-learning platforms are offered;
• international organizations, in collaboration with academic institutions, establish criteria for the quality of e-learning materials for data science and create a framework providing objective quality assessment and ranking of existing, open-access on-line learning opportunities, to identify the best, up-to-date courses and draw attention where quality improvement is needed;
• international organizations avoid crowding out local capacity, by making all efforts to work closely with young professionals from national public institutions whenever the need exists to analyse FSN data at national and subnational levels.

IMPROVE DATA GOVERNANCE AT ALL LEVELS, PROMOTING INCLUSIVENESS TO RECOGNIZE AND ENHANCE AGENCY AMONG DATA USERS AND DATA GENERATORS

Agency refers to the ability to identify one’s own data needs and to generate and use data to guide individual and collective decisionmaking in a two-way flow of data between the micro- and the macro levels. The inclusion of agency as one of the dimensions of FSN has important repercussions in the collection, analysis and use of data for FSN. It highlights, for example, how effective use of existing and new data will greatly benefit from concerted efforts to promote institutional and governance arrangements that favour data sharing at all levels and across all sectors involved in FSN, thus enhancing the agency of all those involved. We strongly subscribe to and support the call made by the 2021 World Development Report to work towards “a new social contract for data – one built on trust to produce value from data that are equitably distributed” (World Bank, 2021 p. 17). Thus, it is fundamental to enhance the role of data collection, analysis and utilization in giving voice to the people most affected by FSN policies, that is, to farmers and other food producers, to Indigenous Peoples, women, youth and vulnerable groups. A humanrights-based approach to FSN and to the realization of the right to food call for greater attention to citizens as right-holders and to their demand of accountability from the state as duty bearer in the realization of this right. Data can be an instrument of empowerment as it enables checks on the accountability of government actors and, as relevant, of the private sector. Recognizing the importance of agency for data users and generators and enhancing agency require a conducive policy environment and capacity development. Enhancing agency in data generation and access (especially through digital technologies) can help address ethical concerns linked to power imbalances in data ownership and control, and can contribute to reducing inequalities.

To this effect, we recommend that:

• governments, international organizations, civil society, private companies and research institutions, both public and private, comply with existing open-access principles for data and analysis tools, ensuring access to and reproducibility of relevant research results, and continually adapt to enhance data access, as open-access principles and guidance evolve;
• all government data that refer to agriculture and FSN be treated as “open by default” as recently endorsed by the UN statistical commission;
• governments and multilateral organizations in the UN System work to improve legal frameworks that protect sensitive data and privacy, developing accountability systems for their implementation;
• FAO and other UN System organizations that have a mandate for agriculture, food and nutrition, develop a code of conduct for data generation and use, based on FAIR and CARE principles, that addresses the diversity of FSN data-governance-related issues – including power imbalances, inclusiveness, the operationalization of open access and transparency principles – for all types of actions in data generation, consolidation and utilization; and that FAO become a FAIR and CARE certifier for agriculture, food and nutrition datasets;
• CFS explore the possibility of establishing one or more data trusts for food security and nutrition, where a subgroup of CFS members can act as trustees, receiving the legal right to make decisions – such as who has access to specific data and for what purposes – on behalf of the data owners; and that such a data trust may constitute the legal basis to support the sharing of data collected with funds obtained through the global FSN data trust fund; • CFS convene a workshop to assess the state of private data sharing in agriculture, food security and nutrition and consider exploring the possibility of piloting the aforementioned data trust for food security and nutrition;
• appropriate collaborative data initiatives between governments, international organizations, civil society and private companies in the information and communication industry should be put in place to guarantee access to all relevant, non-personal, food security and nutrition data generated and stored by private agents;
• upon justified request, personal data collected and stored by private agents be mandatorily made accessible to governmental and intergovernmental organizations for research and policy-guidance purposes, in a way that protects against misuse and violation of privacy and other individual rights;
• when relevant, private and public sectors, together with all the previously mentioned actors, engage in analytical processes that incorporate the science–policy interface, through, for example, foresight analyses (e.g., Foresight4Food), DELPHI processes, or approaches that incorporate multiple analytical approaches to engage diverse stakeholders and policymakers (e.g. the INFORMAS approach for the study of food environments).

Read the recommendations' chapter