the zero draft already provides a good overview of the importance of gender in the context of food security and nutrition and the many inequities girls and women experience. Writing from the perspective of MISEREOR, a faith-based development organization that strongly believes in the agency of its partners, I first need to point at the very rich collection of comments already provided by the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism. I hope that the following comments can provide further input to this important work.
Does the Zero Draft appropriately capture the main challenges and barriers that hinder progress in achieving gender equality and the full realization of women’s and girls’ rights in the context of food security and nutrition? If not, what do you think is missing or should be adjusted?
The draft rightly focuses on gender equality and the appreciation of human rights of each individual. It is important to specify that this applies irrespective of differing definitions of gender within societies, individual identification with different genders, and individual sexual orientation. This is even more important, as failing to confirm with predominant gender norms exposes persons to extreme infringements of their human rights. This should be made visible throughout the guidelines.
Paragraph 8: As food security depends on gender equality and not on the attempt to establish it, it would be appropriate to replace “Providing adequate support to women in food Systems” with “Establishing equitable conditions for persons of all genders in food systems”.
Does Part 2 of the Zero Draft satisfactorily reflect the core principles which should underpin the Guidelines? If not, how do you propose to improve these principles?
Genderbased discrimination is exacerbated by unjust food systems. Supporting the transition to just food systems should therefore be a guiding principle. Based on the 14th HLPE report, Agroecology, as defined in its 13 principles, should be considered as a preferred tool to transform existing food systems.
Paragraph 28: Private sector partners that support gender equality should be regularly supported through favorable regulations and not through singular partnerships. Focusing on partnerships ignores the case of businesses that never come into being without genderresponsive regulations. Small, less-well connected businesses are unlikely to profit from partnerships. Additionally, the role of businesses goes beyond the supply of food. In a food systems context it is important to consider potentially positive or detrimental contributions to food security through incomes and food environments. Hence, we suggest to change the last sentence to: “The Guidelines aim to provide support for their gender approaches and to demonstrate how regulations that support gender equity can bring about positive change on food security and nutrition through accessible and affordable healthy diets, fair economic conditions, and supportive food environments in sustainable food systems.”
Do the nine sections of Part 3 of the Zero Draft comprehensively cover the policy areas to be addressed to achieve gender equality and the full realization of women’s and girls’ rights in the context of food security and nutrition? If not, what do you think is missing?
Paragraph 48: This paragraph should prioritize the right of women and girls to education and how infringement on that right affects them. This should be stated before the description of positive externalities on child and family nutrition. While such externalities are important, it must be clear that the wellbeing of women and girls is a sufficient end in itself.
Paragraph 82, ii.: This sentence may be rewritten as “Addressing social norms, regulations, and patterns in the provision of public services that directly or indirectly condition women´s involvement in agricultural investments, value chains and access to markets.” In many countries (legal) structures persist to support unequal power between genders, even if not explicitly targeting one gender. One practical example is the existence of joint income taxation of couples that has been shown to promote the labor market participation of the person with higher potential income, which – for different, largely discriminatory reasons tends to be male (see e.g. Alesina et al. (2011))
Section 3.4 “Women’s economic empowerment in the context of sustainable food systems”: We suggest to add a paragraph on the importance of supporting different market structures and forms of exchange. In many contexts women play an important role in traditional markets, wet markets, as street vendors and in other informal markets. These markets are vital to the provision of healthy diets, their proximity can make them more accessible for women costumers, and they are often easier to enter for womenowned businesses than so-called modern markets. Likewise, women play an important role in the non-market provision of food, e.g. through sharing and in social activities and initiatives. Yet, governments commonly ignore these activities, do not support them on equal terms with other (market) structures, or actively inhibit them (e.g. by banning street vendors).
Section 3.5.2: This section misses a reference to laws, norms, and customs that affect the ownership of productive assets. Differences in dowries, inheritances, and the division of assets in case of separation all affect women´s control over productive assets. Thereby, they also affect women´s intrahousehold bargaining position and their influence in household decision making processes.
Paragraph 123 ii.: Based on the food systems approach, we suggest to add reference not only to knowledge but also to promotion, advertising, and information. The text can be changed to “Provide adequate nutrition knowledge and information and restrict the proliferation of unhealthy diets through advertisements and promotion in order to strengthen the ability of persons of all genders to make strategic choices over their own and their family’s healthy diets and good nutrition.”
References
Alesina, A., Ichino, A., & Karabarbounis, L. (2011). Gender-based taxation and the division of family chores. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2), 1-40.
Dr. Lutz Depenbusch
Valued writing team, Dear FSN Forum members,
the zero draft already provides a good overview of the importance of gender in the context of food security and nutrition and the many inequities girls and women experience. Writing from the perspective of MISEREOR, a faith-based development organization that strongly believes in the agency of its partners, I first need to point at the very rich collection of comments already provided by the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism. I hope that the following comments can provide further input to this important work.
Does the Zero Draft appropriately capture the main challenges and barriers that hinder progress in achieving gender equality and the full realization of women’s and girls’ rights in the context of food security and nutrition? If not, what do you think is missing or should be adjusted?
Does Part 2 of the Zero Draft satisfactorily reflect the core principles which should underpin the Guidelines? If not, how do you propose to improve these principles?
Do the nine sections of Part 3 of the Zero Draft comprehensively cover the policy areas to be addressed to achieve gender equality and the full realization of women’s and girls’ rights in the context of food security and nutrition? If not, what do you think is missing?
References
Alesina, A., Ichino, A., & Karabarbounis, L. (2011). Gender-based taxation and the division of family chores. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2), 1-40.