المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

أسهم هذا العضو في:

    • Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments and feedback during this open consultation period on Building Resilient Food Systems- Scope of the report. We have gathered the inputs from specialist in various areas and our suggestions are meant to be constructive. 

      Key points: 

      1.- We suggest narrowing the scope of the report. 

      2.- Start by adopting the FAO definition of resilience

      3.- Take the SOFI 2021 report on resilience as a foundation. Update information, identify gaps and new needs and elaborate on best practices and case studies.

      4.- Build on this report in gaps and areas such as tools to measure resilience. 

      5.- Integrate gender and an intersectional lens throughout the report. Gender and social inequalities are deeply entrenched within our global agrifood systems.

      We have made further comments following the guiding questions provided. Attached 

      We look forward to continuing to collaborate with the development of this report. 

      Thank you/merci 

      Catalina Canas- GLOBAL AFFAIRS CANADA 

      Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments and feedback during this open consultation period on Building Resilient Food Systems- Scope of the report. We have gathered the inputs from specialist in various areas and our suggestions are meant to be constructive. 

      Key points: 

      1.- We suggest narrowing the scope of the report. 

      2.- Start by adopting the FAO definition of resilience

      3.- Take the SOFI 2021 report on resilience as a foundation. Update information, identify gaps and new needs and elaborate on best practices and case studies.

      4.- Build on this report in gaps and areas such as tools to measure resilience. 

      5.- Integrate gender and an intersectional lens throughout the report. Gender and social inequalities are deeply entrenched within our global agrifood systems.

      We have made further comments following the guiding questions provided. 

      We look forward to continuing to collaborate with the development of this report. 

      1.- Different ways of defining resilience : 

      We define resilience according to FAO definition: Agri-food systems’ resilience is the capacity over time to prevent, anticipate, absorb, adapt, recover and transform in the face of foreseen or unforeseen shocks, stresses and disruptions, so that agri-food systems can contribute to food security and nutrition, decent livelihoods and incomes for agri-food systems’ actors. 

      Main types of vulnerabilities:  

      • Rural women are the most affected by poverty, food insecurity, biodiversity loss and climate change, and agriculture is their primary source of income. In rural areas of developing countries, women not only produce most of the food consumed locally, but they also have critical roles in the food system, from management of land and other productive resources, care of crops and livestock, collecting and preserving agricultural biodiversity including seeds, processing and selling food, preparing nutritious meals for their families to fetching water and fuel. Women are also critical to the development and maintenance of social capital within rural community life and agri-food systems. Despite these vital contributions, many women, in particular smallholder women farmers, face diverse challenges including, among others, mobility restrictions, gender-based violence, high illiteracy rates, unpaid care responsibilities, limited decision-making powers, biased legal and financial systems that prevent them from owning land, and difficulties in accessing loans due to gender and social norms or lack of collateral. All of these barriers contribute to increased vulnerability to shocks and stressors for women and girls as well as other groups in vulnerable situations 
      • Agriculture is highly vulnerable to climate change and biodiversity loss. Climate-change related changes in precipitation patterns, temperatures, extreme weather events, and increased pests and diseases are likely to lead to reduced crop and livestock productivity. Biodiversity loss can have significant impacts on food production, affecting crop yields, soil health, nutrient cycling, pest control, and other ecosystem services that support agricultural productivity. Over 75% of global food crop types rely on animal pollination and many of these pollinators are threatened by habitat loss and other factors associated with biodiversity loss. These shocks and stressors linked to climate change and biodiversity loss can reduce productivity and yields undermine farmer livelihoods, increase food prices and reduce access to nutritious food, particularly in regions where food insecurity is already prevalent.   
      • Low soil fertility and mismanagement of soils, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, limits agricultural productivity and nutritional content of food, exacerbates variability in crop and livestock productivity, and increases vulnerability of farmers to shocks. 
      • Water scarcity and lack of access to water in agriculture are strong determinants of poverty. Agriculture accounts for 70% of global freshwater withdrawals, and more than 90% of its consumptive use. Rainfed agriculture remains the predominant production system in many poor countries, yet climate change is increasing the variability of rainfall and causing increasing frequency and severity of drought and flash flood events. The absence and weakness of transboundary and sub-national cooperation agreements for watershed management contribute to sub-optimal investment conditions for improved irrigation, monitoring and social unrest and conflict between different user groups (e.g., farmers and pastoralists; upstream and downstream consumers). 
      • Economic shocks can elevate food prices, reducing the purchasing power of those living in poverty, increasing poverty rates, malnutrition and hunger. Supply chain disruptions following COVID-19 restrictions, and reduced exports through the Black Sea immediately following the invasion of Ukraine have created additional volatility to already high food prices. The effects are felt most acutely by consumers living in poverty and by those living in vulnerable situations who spend a higher share of their incomes on food. Women are also often more vulnerable to food shortages and scarcity conditions in crisis situations like the pandemic because they have less access to resources, opportunities and information. 
      • Weak governance within public and private institutions can leave agri-food systems, and the individuals within them, vulnerable to shocks and stressors. Preparedness and early warning mechanisms rely on inclusive governing bodies that can make, implement, monitor, and enforce decisions that promote multi-stakeholder engagement, diversity and inclusion of marginalized groups, and strengthen accountability and resilience at household, institutional and national levels. A human rights-based approach to international assistance is key to addressing multiple and intersecting vulnerabilities in the food security space. This approach is also key to ensuring participation and inclusion of stakeholders at the early stages of an intervention.  
      • Many agricultural risk management tools are not available or not well-suited to the needs of smallholder farmers. In many places, risk management tools like credit, guarantee funds, and agricultural or crop insurance are not available for farmers or financial institutions due to high transaction costs, under development of markets, low level of financial or human resources, lack of inclusive governance, or market failures. Where they do exist, they are often not designed in a way to be accessible by smallholder farmers due to limited land, resources, information or assets, a challenge that is more pronounced for women farmers. 
      • One of the potential consequences of the different types of vulnerabilities facing food supply chains for the consumer as the ultimate food systems actor is increased risk of malnutrition. 
      • Inequities and power imbalances:  
      • Gender inequalities have been exacerbated by several crises and increasingly undermining nutrition for the most vulnerable women and adolescent girls, resulting in the rise in acute malnutrition. Often, women-owned enterprises face gender inequality barriers, such as unequal access to financial resources and operational resources such as seeds, mechanical equipment and extension services. Poverty and income inequity continue to affect resilient Food Security and Nutrition, especially for those groups facing multidimensional and intersectional aspects of inequality and vulnerability. These inequities continue to contribute to the disruption of the systems that support access to nutritious foods and diets, deliver essential services necessary for good nutrition, and promote positive feeding and care practices. 
      • What resilience frameworks are there that should be explored?  
      • Theory of Change Framework for Nutrition Resilience 
      • Determinants, assets and skills that lead to resilience at different scales (household, community, national, regional) 
      •  Financial support measures, such as short-term, low-interest loans, to micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises to enhance resilience of food supply chains. 
      • Flexibility to leverage nutrition interventions across multiple systems such as health and education systems for Iron-Folic Acid Supplementation for adolescents. Food systems and social protection services to scale-up production and distribution of fortified foods.  
      • Prioritizing the most vulnerable groups, particularly through the social protection system 
      • Expanding and strengthening local capacities and empowering communities, e.g., community health workers training caregivers to screen for child wasting at home to improve early detection of child wasting and thus initiate treatment as soon as possible.  
      • Shared management information systems, innovative technologies, collaborative platforms and swift decision-making. 
      • How Nutrition Resilience can be measured at different scales: 
      • Measurement of Nutrition Resilience can be at the level of impacts and outcomes.  For impact Measurement, it has been recommended to use stunting as a start and end point impact resilience indicator and variability of wasting trends as a regular resilience impact indicator. For the outcome measurement, it is recommended that more nutrition-sensitive outcome objectives and indicators be incorporated into interventions of sectors allied to nutrition, such as agriculture, WASH, education, social protection, etc. 
      • Indicators that could be used to measure nutrition resilience 
      • Minimum Dietary Diversity Score 
      • Wasting/Acute malnutrition screening for children 
      • Weak points in global food systems in terms of ensuring resilience of nutrition 
      • Food systems are failing in their primary goal of supporting human nutrition, and this is evident by the result of most country currently affected by at least one form of malnutrition. According to Woods et al[1], the weak points in global food systems are (i) food insecurity, (ii) interconnected environmental and nutritional decline, (iii) Food Systems illiteracy and Inequity and governance. When these challenges are reframed through the resilience lens, the following four transformative pathways are identified for sustainable and resilient food systems: (i) Nurtured diversity at all scales, (ii) managed connectivity, (iii) equitable distribution of power and benefits, and (iv) increased traceability and transparency.  

       

       To assess resilience of the project and resilience through the project during the different stages of project development, the World bank Resilience Rating System (RRS) is recommended.  The Resilience Rating System (RRS) offers clear assessment and reporting criteria to track resilience in projects, whether by their design or by the tools, institutions, and infrastructure they provide to address climate change impacts, economic shocks, and natural disasters. This methodology is versatile and can be applied to various investments, including those in the private sector. The RRS evaluates resilience in two key aspects: the resilience of project design and resilience through project outcomes.  For more info: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/701011613082635276/pdf/Summary.pdf   

      For ex-ante and ex-post resilience measurement the first approach uses the Resilience Index Measurement Analysis (RIMA) which is a multidimensional household-level resilience framework for food insecurity.  The Resilience Capacity Index is measured using the RIMA developed by FAO. RIMA was created using the following definition of resilience: “The capacity of a household to bounce back to a previous level of well-being (for instance food security) after a shock”. RIMA measures household resilience to food insecurity using four key pillars: Access to Basic Services; Assets; Social Safety Nets; and Adaptive Capacity (FAO-RIMA II, 2016). 

      Regarding the use of the RIMA-Resilience Capacity Index for project monitoring and evaluation, please find the links to: 

      •  The RIMA Short Questionnaire: It allows collecting the minimum information needed for estimating the household Resilience Capacity Index through short interviews; 
      • The Shiny RIMA web application: It allows users to estimate household resilience under the RIMA II framework easily and rapidly; 
      • An example of using RIMA to assess the effects of the Pro-Resilience Action (“Building resilience and promoting durable solutions in Lower Shabelle” project) in Somalia. 

      The second approach uses Resilience Capacity Score (RCS), a subjective household-level resilience metric borrowed from World Food Programme (WFP).   

      The RCS is a pilot indicator under consideration for the Corporate Results Framework 2022 – 2025 (CRF) as part of measuring United Nations’ World Food Programme’s contributions to the Changing Lives Agenda. The RCS indicator measures a household’s perception of their resilience capacities to generic or country specific shocks and stressors. This indicator specifically refers to four kinds of resilience capacities (anticipatory, absorptive, adaptive, transformative) and five kinds of livelihood capitals (human, financial, social, political, and informational) that support the different resilience capacities (WFP, 2022). The RCS is based on the Subjectively Evaluated Resilience Score (SERS) and WFP’s Climate Resilience Capacity Score (CRCS) and consists therefore of a subjective approach to resilience measurement.   

      International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) commissioned by USAID’s Bureau for Resilience and Food Security to map the evidence on Resilience and Food Security 

      2.- Understanding what we must be prepared for – the nature of shocks 

      Types of shock:  

      • Nutrition focus: Conflicts, erratic weather patterns, earthquakes, droughts, floods, food price spikes, financial shock, biological/medical shocks such as emerging diseases and contaminated foods continue to be very relevant to food systems and will continue to negatively impact food security and nutrition if not properly mitigated. Another potential shock is that of technology as a cyber attach could have high impact on computerised systems that are integral to the production, distribution, and supply of nutritious food.  
      • The impact of gender and equity issues, structural approaches, such as food safety regulations or tariffs, mobilization of public and private sector actors facilitating relationships to improve markets. regulations on processing, storage and packaging, and regulatory approaches to financing on FSN and food systems have been identified in literature to be under-researched. 

      Impact on resilience programming  

      • Focus on Nutrition: Resilience strengthening initiatives must focus deliberately on improving women and children’s nutritional status through nutrition sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions to ensure sustainable improvements in human capital and well-being[1]. These interventions should specifically account for the varying nutritional impact of shocks and stresses on nutritionally vulnerable populations (e.g., women, adolescent girls, and children). 
      • There is still a major need to examine the relationship between resilience capacities and nutritional status more closely.  Resilience-strengthening initiatives aimed at reducing nutritional vulnerability must measure and monitor nutritional status, and the ability of individuals and households to maintain nutritional status in the face of shocks and stresses.  

      Policy changes needed 

      • Policies that incorporate multi-level nutrition monitoring as a key component of adaptive management should be adopted. These should integrate nutritional indicators in frequent monitoring and early warning systems to ensure that the threat of acute malnutrition is monitored and managed effectively. Also, integration of monitoring nutritional status by families into country, region, project level policy and program design. Furthermore, incorporating nutritional indicators as accountability criteria to incentivize community management committees.  
      • Policies that incorporate a stronger focus on women and adolescent girls should be adopted, and implemented. As women and girls are often the most severely impacted by shocks and stressors, a programmatic focus on women’s own health, and protecting the women and girls from the impacts of shocks and stressors should be included.  women’s financial empowerment and decision-making should be supported. Linkages between women’s savings groups and nutrition programming should be improved upon. Market access for women and girls should be improved while gender and social norms related to women’s diet, caring, and feeding practices should be addressed to strengthen transformative capacities.  
      • Diverse agricultural and livestock production activities to improve the diets of women and children all year-round should be employed. Including design of strategies to address the social and economic barriers women and their families face in accessing and consuming safe, nutritious foods. Production and consumption of foods that fill critical gaps in local diets, particularly for women of reproductive age and children under two should be promoted. Shock-appropriate, marketable livestock assets to support income generation and ensure availability of critical animal source foods and diets should also be promoted. 

      • Policies to promote the integration of programs addressing the immediate causes of malnutrition with other activities such as strengthening health practices and primary health care at the household and community level. Supporting Ministries of Health efforts to achieve full immunization coverage of children for common childhood diseases (which reduce appetite and burn calories and other nutrients) and caretakers for pandemic infectious diseases. Incorporating social protection interventions that can improve nutrition outcomes, including targeted cash transfers to increase access to nutritious foods through community-based nutrition programs, maternal and child health programs, education, or childcare. Ensuring the capacity to rapidly scale up critical nutrition components e.g., community management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) and improved coverage of social safety net programs in response to shocks. Integrating Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) programming, open-defecation elimination, and control for environmental enteropathy as needed. 

         

      • [1] Mock, N. & Jennings, J. (2022). Nutrition and Resilience: Discussion Brief on Better Integration of Nutrition into Resilience-Strengthening Programs. Washington, DC: Resilience, Evaluation, Analysis and Learning (REAL) Associate Award 
      •  

      4.- Existing programmes and policies to promote resilience – a gap analysis of current strategies and recommendations: 

      Under the Feminist International Assistance Policy, Canada takes a human rights-based approach to international assistance. This approach aims to enhance the resilience of project outcomes by focusing on capacity building of rights-holders (beneficiaries) to know and claim their human rights. It also focuses on building the capacity of duty-bearers (state actors) to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights obligations towards project beneficiaries.  

      Note that Canada has a new Resilient Agri-Food Systems Framework. The Framework provides new strategic, policy and technical guidance to improve Canada’s international development agri-food systems programming, policy and advocacy to build resilience to future crises. It complements and reinforces Canada‘s Feminist International Assistance Policy. The Framework promotes evidence-based food systems approaches and shows how programs can support multiple development objectives, including the empowerment of women, gender-transformative change, reduction of climate change and biodiversity loss, reducing malnutrition, and supporting inclusive economic growth. Through this Framework, Canada seeks to strengthen agri-food systems’ resilience to climate, agronomic, economic and conflict shocks at various scales to deliver gender-responsive outcomes. It focuses on four paths of action that are defined from inclusive participatory processes and evidence-based analysis of high impact interventions: 

      1. Climate-smart Agriculture to ensure the sustainable production of sufficient, nutritious food that is biodiversity-friendly, adapted to future climate change pressures and supports lower carbon development pathways. 

      2. Sustainable Agri-Food Value Chains to build diversity and resilience along value chains to boost incomes and ensure stable supply of sustainable, affordable and nutritious foods during and after shocks. 

      3. Inclusive Food Systems Governance to enhance the enabling environment for institutional and government action and inclusion of marginalized actors in decision-making processes that support, inform and invest in agri-food resilience activities. 

      4. Productive Safety Nets to help farmers living in poverty and vulnerable situations to maintain their farming and agricultural business activities during and following shocks. 

       5. Share recent literature, case studies and data that could help answer the questions listed above. 

      UNICEF, World Food Programme (WFP), Standing Together for Nutrition (ST4N), Micronutrient Forum (MNF). Global resilience report: Safeguarding the nutrition of vulnerable children, women, families and communities in the context of polycrisis. Washington, DC: MNF; 2024  

      Wood, A., Queiroz, C., Deutsch, L. et al. Reframing the local–global food systems debate through a resilience lens. Nat Food 4, 22–29 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00662-0 

      Mapping the evidence on Resilience and Food Security https://www.3ieimpact.org/research/mapping-evidence-resilience-and-food-security  

      Mock, N. & Jennings, J. (2022). Nutrition and Resilience: Discussion Brief on Better Integration of Nutrition into Resilience-Strengthening Programs. Washington, DC: Resilience, Evaluation, Analysis and Learning (REAL) Associate Award 

      D. General Comments  

      Comment/ suggestion  

      Source 

      Please provide a link to support your comment  

      Given that nutrition is both an input to, and an output of strengthened resilience, increased effort should be made for resilience-building interventions to be nutrition-sensitive. For instance, reducing malnutrition is vital to strengthening resilience, while households that are least resilient are most affected by shocks and therefore face the greatest risk of malnutrition. 

      UNICEF, World Food Programme (WFP), Standing Together for Nutrition (ST4N), Micronutrient Forum (MNF). Global resilience report: Safeguarding the nutrition of vulnerable children, women, families and communities in the context of polycrisis. Washington, DC: MNF; 2024 

      Upon reviewing the document, there is one glaring gap – that is “the importance or critical nature of Gender Equality in building a resilient food system” or “the analysis of gender inequality and food insecurity, and the disproportionate impact of gender inequality on women and girls” in the report - Building resilient food systems. FIAP is the guiding policy of GAC development assistance/IA with Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls in all their Diversity as the core action area and cross-cutting theme. This is not just for GAC but gender equality is integrated in the entire SDGs (why gender equality matters across all SDGs). 

       Why gender equality matters across all SDGs - UNW 

       

      See the attachments:

    • Input from CANADA General points • Practitioners vs. Policy: The report could provide more useful analysis to practitioners of urban agriculture and not just facilitate a policy discussion on urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA). • Science context gap: There is a need for more agronomic measurement, assessment, scenario modeling discussion, need to identify key research questions, and the important role of technology and innovation. The report currently does a poor job of including this real-world context that is crucial to guiding sound policies and devising effective policy instruments. More specifically: o Agronomic Constraints: The report is lacking important analysis on the agronomic constraints to urban agriculture, in particular to specify key growth-limiting and growth-reducing abiotic and biotic factors. Strongly suggest inclusion of more thorough agronomic discussion on UPA (perhaps in section 4.5). Many key resources exist but are not referenced (Constraints to urban agriculture in southeast Nigeria | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (nature.com); Agronomic considerations for urban agriculture in southern cities | 10 (taylorfrancis.com); Sustainability | Free Full-Text | What Constraints the Expansion of Urban Agriculture in Benin? (mdpi.com); Full article: Which urban agriculture conditions enable or constrain sustainable food production? (tandfonline.com)) o Research Agenda: The report seems limited to discussing policies that influence UPA and should provide some analysis and advice on what the key agricultural and economic research questions are that are needed to advance and improve UPA, or how best to frame a research agenda to support UPA. This is important to inform the research agenda of the CGIAR. For example, is UPA better served by research outputs that focus on the urban-rural linkages around local food consumption pathways or are there distinct research questions common across cities in different areas of the world. Propose another section (under 6.0 or new section) that specifies research technical questions for UPA and clarifies if UPA is a distinct area of research and independent of local context, or best addressed within local agricultural research agenda, but by elaborating the rural research agenda into specific urban contexts. o Emerging technologies: There is only a single sentence that mentions emerging technologies such as hydroponics and aeroponics systems, vertical farming, building-integrated agriculture, rooftop agriculture, and controlled environment agriculture. There is also no specific mention of smart farming, precision/decision agriculture, artificial intelligence-based tools for food supply optimization, data collection etc.. The report would be strengthened if it included a summary and context on the role of emerging technologies in supporting urban agriculture, resilient and sustainable food systems. The need to prioritize access to technology is highlighted in Section 4.5.1.3 Technology and innovation: drivers of transformation in UPA practices (page 61). Here there needs to be a broader discussion on ways forward for sharing of scientific and technological knowledge, data, tools linked with different technologies. • Urban agriculture growth and water demand: With an estimated 50% increase in urban water demands in the next 30 years, how water is managed is crucial. The report mentions this in different ways, but it would be informative to include available future outlooks on water demand linked with rural agriculture and urban agriculture. • Nature-Based Solutions: Including a section briefly discussing the role of Ecosystem/Nature-based solutions (EbS/NbS) as measures, from a whole-systems perspective, that seek to improve the efficiency, resiliency, and sustainability of food systems, would strengthen the report. Specific Points Section 1.3 Framing questions and core concepts (P.4) The questions seem comprehensive in addressing key aspects of urban and peri-urban food systems. However, there may be some elements that could further enhance the understanding or efficacy of strengthening these systems by drawing attention to cultural aspects as well as technology and innovation: On cultural Aspects, exploring how cultural preferences, traditions, and societal behaviors impact food systems can be crucial. This includes understanding the influence of cultural diversity, food habits, and preferences in shaping these systems. On technology and Innovation, investigating the role of technology and innovation in improving urban and peri-urban food systems can be valuable. This could involve looking at how technological advancements, such as vertical farming, precision agriculture, or food preservation techniques, can contribute to enhancing food security and nutrition. Chapter 4 | Urban and peri-urban food systems (related to question 3 (p.4)) The structure of this chapter is currently weak. Since this chapter aimed to address question (#3) of the framing questions {What are the characteristics of urban and peri-urban food systems, and what aspects of urban and peri-urban food systems need to be strengthened in order to achieve urban and peri-urban FSN?}, one could expect the report to consider the following key elements of the UPA : 1. Supply Chain Dynamics: Examining the complexities within the food supply chain, including transportation, storage, and distribution mechanisms, can offer insights into potential bottlenecks or inefficiencies that affect FSN outcomes. 2. Economic and Market Forces: Considering the influence of market dynamics, trade policies, and economic disparities on food access and affordability in urban and peri-urban areas can provide a holistic view of the challenges faced. Page 26- The report highlights the ‘view food insecurity through an intersectional lens’ stating that ‘Gender disparities in food insecurity result from shocks and differences in education, income, opportunities, social networks, and entitlements’ Because of the intersectional nature of Food security and Nutrition, there is an opportunity to integrate an intersectional approach throughout the whole report and explore how food insecurity is experienced differently based on overlapping identities. Moreover, the report states that “Explicitly integrating gender in urban food policy and governance through targeted initiatives, research and planning is vital”; However, the report misses an opportunity to mainstream gender throughout the whole document. Furthermore, the report could expand the use of language around gender transformative change in Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation. Since intersectionality is such an important factor, the report could mention this word more than once. To make it easier to the reader, the report could include boxes with concrete examples of how more than 2 axis of identity factors such as education, household income, age, disability, race play into the variation of food insecurity incidence. Page 34- C) Convenience: time use, women’s roles, and institutional environment shape urban dietary consumption patterns Canada appreciates that the report highlights how gender roles play a role within food security. Page 68 GENDER Canada is pleased to see the report has included a section on Gender However, as mentioned before, the report could consider mainstreaming gender and consider how gender disparities in urban and peri-urban settings influence food insecurity and nutrition. Gender and intersectionality should be informing the whole report. After page 68 the word ‘gender’ is no longer mentioned. Page 68- The sentence: …by harassment or violence from elements of the public It would be important to elaborate on what are the “elements of the public”. We would recommend being specific, and fully address Gender-Based Violence (GBV) including all forms of harassment and violence within this context. Women and girls are more at risk of GBV, and it should be noted as such, however, the report should be informed by the principles of intersectionality and explore intersection of disability, age, religion, caste and other factors with food insecurity and nutrition. The report continues with mentioning that…. women street vendors had been sexually harassed, with 5% reporting rape. Following, we would recommend rewording this sentence to make clear that women are experiencing Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and address the disturbing correlation between food insecurity and GBV. The sentence `Enabling environments...’ The section should also address GBV. There is vast empirical evidence to support and illustrate this issue. Examples (in a box) would allow the reader to have better understanding of the extent of this problem. This report could include inspiring examples, with stories that illustrates concrete actions to prevent, penalize GBV and advocate to transformative gender change Page 86 - According to the HLPE (2020: 14), “a food and nutrition policy approach that is grounded in a sustainable food systems framework embodies critical policy shifts that have been occurring in recent decades and which have been consistently advocated by the HLPE across all of its reports (HLPE, 2017d)”. This report builds on those six critical policy shifts and associated policy recommendations, making explicit what are the most salient characteristics of those changes for urban and peri-urban food systems, as stated below. It would be helpful to list the six critical policy shifts as a reminder to the readers, (e.g. a footnote or a box text) Related citable work from AAFC and FAO (forthcoming): 2024. N.K. Newlands, A. Alfarra, A. Kubursi, Urban Food Security in a Crisis Prone World: The Urban, Water, and Food Nexus AAFC-FAO Book. Springer Nature. New York. Forthcoming. 2024. A. Alfarra, A. Kubursi, N.K. Newlands. Summary, Recommendations, and Roadmap for Global Food Security. Chapter 15, In: Urban Food Security in a Crisis Prone World: The Urban, Water, and Food Nexus. A. Kubursi, N.K. Newlands, A. Alfarra (eds.) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Springer Nature. New York. Forthcoming. 2024. N.K Newlands and A. Alfarra. Redesigning and Transforming Food Systems to be More Resilient to Disruption and Disaster: Lessons Learned from COVID. Chapter 2, In: Urban Food Security in a Crisis Prone World: The Urban, Water, and Food Nexus. A. Kubursi, N.K. Newlands, A. Alfarra (eds.) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Springer Nature. New York. Forthcoming.