Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

CFS Policy Recommendations on Data collection and analysis tools for food security and nutrition

Here: GER position on the e-consultation on the V0 draft of the corresponding HLPE Report

General remarks

We thank the CFS and HLPE for submitting the V0 draft of the report “Data collection and analysis tools for food security and nutrition” and for the possibility to provide input. We welcome that the CFS addresses the issue of data and data processing, especially in the context of food security and nutrition. We emphasise that data collection needs to be considered in a way that it can be used for policy making from the outset. In this context, the Complex Risk Analytics Fund (CRAF'd) is an important multilateral instrument that aims to support a stronger data ecosystem and build shared capacity to use data to better anticipate, prevent and respond to complex risks in fragile and crisis-affected areas.

With regard to the distributed V0 draft of the HLPE Report we would like to suggest that it could be more goal-oriented in terms of how improved data collection and analysis can contribute to the overall goal of improved food security and nutrition, considering the following aspects related to the current structure of the report:

• Identify priority data gaps and analyse existing initiatives in terms of their distinct added value.
• Focus on how capacities at the national and international level could be strategically improved – particularly, more work regarding the international level is needed.
• Particularly consider initiatives, technologies and other solutions that could make a significant impact for food security and nutrition globally.
• Focus not on what an ideal governance would look like but particularly on how key aspects of data governance could be strengthened strategically.

Remarks with regard to the individual chapters of the report:

Chapter One

• The conceptual framework is well-developed in order to capture the relevant gaps and overlaps of information at different levels.
• However, additional dimensions could be added to this analysis regarding the quality of existing information.

Chapter Two

• Regarding the list of existing initiatives, specification in terms of the selection of criteria is necessary. Rather than being complete, the list could include the most relevant initiatives.
• Besides, criteria could be developed to determine the distinct added value of existing initiatives. This could be based on question such as: Who elevates primary data and what is the geographical scope? Who has capacities to analyse data? Ultimately, this analysis could contribute to the identification of priority gaps in data collection and analysis.
• Moreover, it would be helpful if the report came back to visualize at which level there are crucial gaps or overlaps of information.
• In addition, it should discuss missing pieces for strategic decision-making, not only at the national, but also at the global level (e.g. regarding what we really know about hunger and all other forms of malnutrition and which kind of information is needed).
• Finally, the establishment and the objectives of the FAO’s International Platform for Digital Food and Agriculture should be considered.

Chapter Three

• This chapter provides a thorough and sound analysis of many pressing challenges for data collection and analysis. While it is true that national level capacity is probably the principal challenge for improving global data on food security and nutrition, at the same time, the international level constraints in terms of, for example, lack of coherent indicators and comparable data deserve more attention.
• Chapter 3.3 could further discuss issues around ownership of national statistical system as well as challenges and opportunities for integrating data from different sectors. In this regard it could also address incentives for governments to improve and make use of data for decision-making.

Chapter Four

• The relevance and potential of several of the mentioned technologies as well as future technological innovations is undisputed.
• In the framework of this report, however, it would make sense to focus, firstly, on generally conducive framework conditions for policy makers to make better use of technological opportunities that could serve advancement of public goods and, secondly, focus on those specific technologies that have a clear relevance in terms of adaptability, geographical coverage etc. as well as potential to make a significant difference for food security and nutrition globally.

Chapter Five

• This chapter is particularly important and should be further developed in terms of opportunities and priorities for political engagement to improve data governance. It should detail how international governance mechanisms can provide incentives and put the right mechanisms in place to improve and develop global data and information systems strategically.
• Chapter 5.6 could identify possible pathways on how data governance could be improved to make a difference in terms of food security and nutrition, rather than providing a list of ideal conditions needed to be in place for “good data governance”.

Chapter Six

• The proposed recommendations should not only be directed at single Member States but also at the global governance level in order to identify pathways to contribute to improving data collection and analysis collectively.