Data collection and analysis tools for food security and nutrition

agency
 and 
sustainability
, along with the four other 
dimensions of 
availability
, 
access
, 
utilization
, and 
stability
. These six dimensions 
of food security are reinforced in conceptual 
and legal understandings of the 
right to food
 
(HLPE, 2020, p. xv). 
All six dimensions of food security and nutrition 
can be further understood/analysed by exploring 
their linkages to food systems, health systems 
and environment systems in a manner that is 
not entirely captured by existing conceptual 
frameworks for food systems (HLPE, 2020), food 
security (Kanter 
et al., 2015) and nutrition (Black, 
Lutter and Trude, 2020). For example, agency and 
sustainability should be considered as they relate 
to all three systems (food, health and environment) 
to better understand how these dimensions shape 
FSN outcomes. An exhaustive review of the many 
existing frameworks regarding food systems, food 
security and nutrition is beyond the scope of this 
report. However, this chapter illustrates why a 
synthesis of different frameworks is necessary to 
provide a coherent conceptualization of the various 
systems and levels affecting food security and 
nutrition to inform data collection and analysis 
tools for policymaking.
The HLPE-FSN 
Sustainable Food System 
Framework (2020) advances the understanding 

---

[
13
1 
SETTING THE STAGE
that many diverse drivers (e.g. environmental, 
technology and innovation, sociocultural) 
interact with both food systems and policy/
governance, which in turn influence food security 
and, ultimately, nutrition and health outcomes. 
However, it remains unclear how all food 
system components interact at different societal 
levels. To this aim, we elaborate on the HLPE-
FSN (2020) framework by placing its overall 
components (drivers, systems and individuals) 
in a socioecological context (Bronfenbrenner, 
1979). This framing permits a clear view of how 
the various elements that influence FSN operate 
at different, but interrelated, levels in a society, 
ranging from the more distal, macro level, to the 
individual level. Embedding the socioecological 
context within our conceptual framework 
reveals how macro level drivers contribute to 
shaping food systems at the meso level, and 
how meso level systems include elements 
determined at the micro level. For example, 
macro level infrastructure (such as paved 
roads) and environment (global climate change, 
for instance) affect national (meso level) food 
systems: the extent of paved roads influences 
how food is transported from place to place, and 
global climate change has myriad ramifications 
for national environmental shifts (such as 
extended droughts or extreme temperatures) 
that affect both agricultural production and 
the relevant infrastructures (including, for 
instance, greater need for cold storage). In 
terms of elements determined at the micro 
level which impact the meso level, the most 
obvious example are the many actors involved 
in food systems, from farmers and fishers, to 
intermediaries in charge of transport, to vendors 
– big (supermarkets) and small (local farmers’ 
markets).
When combining solely the HLPE-FSN and 
socioecological frameworks, it becomes 
apparent that health systems and local 
environments, which are inextricably linked 
with both food systems and their subsequent 
impacts on human health and nutrition, are 
not sufficiently taken into consideration. For 
this reason, we added health and environment 
systems to the conceptual framework, which 
are not explicit in the HLPE-FSN Sustainable 
Food System Framework at the meso level. 
Furthermore, macro level drivers and meso 
level systems do impact individual food security 
and nutrition outcomes independently; rather, 
they do so in concert and are interdependent. As 
expressed by UNICEF (1990), we emphasize the 
fundamental importance of resources (human, 
economic, organizational) and agency as basic 
elements of nutritional outcomes. In this regard, 
the meso level determinants influences the 
myriad of decisions that are made at the micro 
level, which lead to individual FSN outcomes. 
Thus, continuing to build on Bronfenbrenner’s 
socioecological context, between the meso 
and individual levels of our framework, we 
have added the micro level determinants, 
which reflects how meso level systems impact 
individual FSN outcomes via decision-making 
processes. Finally, the concept of livelihoods 
as conveyed in the Sustainable Livelihoods 
Framework (SLF) (DFID 1999) inspired the 
addition of groups, alongside individuals and 
households, at the micro level of the framework. 
In the SLF framework, the unit of analysis 
is an “identifiable social group”, remaining 
nonetheless aware of the lack of homogeneity 
within communities and households (DFID, 1999 
p. 7).
Leveraging elements in each of the four 
aforementioned inspiring frameworks, this 
report takes a 
systems perspective
, recognizing 
the linkages between the various elements that 
form what can be termed the 
food security and 
nutrition socio-ecosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 
1979).
Figure 1 illustrates this conceptualization by 
showing how the boundaries between macro, 
meso and micro level determinants are blurred 
and how all of them permeate down to the 
individual level, jointly contributing to determine 
food security and nutrition outcomes, such as 
individuals’ dietary adequacy, nutritional status 
and overall well-being.

---

14 
]
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION
Elements of macro level drivers, such as, those 
related to climate, the environment and the 
educational systems within a country, permeate 
into more proximal levels, represented by local 
agriculture and food, health and environment 
systems, influencing them in different ways and 
at different levels of intensity. One example of 
the blurred boundaries between the macro and 
meso levels is the geopolitical environment, 
such as the role of war, armed conflict or 
civil disturbance, as a proximate driver of 
food insecurity. These proximal systems are 
fundamentally shaped by both public and private 
international and domestic economic and 
political actors (i.e. civil society, and public and 
private sectors). For example, public and private 
international trade and foreign investments 
related to food and agricultural production 
(particularly in logistics and infrastructure) have 
a direct impact on individual FSN though the 
availability and accessibility of products, despite 
being beyond the direct, immediate control of the 
individuals.