The report represents an impressive, comprehensive, and nuanced account of the way in which socio-economic inequalities interact with food security and nutrition. It is undoubtedly successful at conveying both the vastness and the specificity of the problems that inequalities pose for the improvement of global food and nutrition security. The effort is commendable, necessary, and welcomed. With regards to some of the feedback questions, these are our inputs:
1) The Framework is a good encapsulation of the mechanism underlying the impact of inequities and inequalities on the six dimensions of food security. If the authors of the report might seek to expand on it and increase its descriptiveness, my suggestion would be to distinguish more explicitly which form of inequality impacts which dimension of FSN, and how. For instance, gender-based discrimination has several ways in which it can be detrimental to FSN, and these pathways go through the different dimensions of FSN. Sexism means reduced female-led agricultural and economic activity (availability), unequal access to food, suboptimal food choices because of lack of educational resources (utilisation), and reduced human capital development (stability), etc. These are discussed in Chapter 2 of the report, but that could benefit from further formalisation in terms of clarity.
7) The report covers a lot of ground, managing to both provide a clear description of its individual pieces and an insightful analysis of how they interrelate. One aspect that could be expanded is double- and triple-burdens of malnutrition (page 34), due to its increasing relevance (and incidence) in the context of contemporary global development trends. Perhaps its definition can be expanded, and issues related to it better represented throughout the rest of the report (especially in the action section).
Similarly, the increasing relevance of double-duty actions is briefly mentioned in the final conclusion, alongside an introduction of multiple-duty actions. As the importance of these concepts is emphasised and common use of the terms sparse, we believe the report could benefit from an expansion of these ideas in the actions section. Further, the term ‘syndemic’ is briefly mentioned, yet could use a slightly more in-depth explanation before being mentioned in passing in the conclusion.
Overall, the report addresses issues of fundamental importance, and it does so clearly and effectively. Our most sincere congratulations, and thanks, for the impressive and insightful analysis.
On behalf of Andrea Moreschi and Caitlin Mahoney, at WFP Social Protection.
Mr. Andrea Moreschi