全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Dear colleagues,

Please find attached OHCHR’s contribution to the draft VG on Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment in the Context of Food Security and Nutrition.

Please let us know if you have any question.

Kind regards,

Stefania Tripodi

I am impressed by the completeness of the guidelines, actually I just wanted to congratulate you with this elaborated work. I think more or less everything is covered, anyway, I was thinking about a few extra words to empower the discussion. I have put three suggestions for the text, mentioned in bold italics.

3.4 Women’s economic empowerment in the context of sustainable food systems, 

(in the  82. Policy areas for discussion): i. Promotion of legal rights that support women’s ownership, access to and control over natural and productive resources, as well as their access to services, loans and subsidies, and knowledge to capitalize on them.

3.6 Access to labour markets and decent work  

(102...) Agriculture is one of the most hazardous occupations given exposure to agrochemicals, machines and equipment and livestock care, and women often lack access to social protection systems and to information and training that would enable them to protect themselves. (To be added in the: 106. Policy areas for discussion, iii. Policy interventions: To know the gender disaggregated impact of agrochemicals on reproductive health of men and women before allowing exposure to (one or more of) it and before application for food production. 

3.8 Women and men’s ability to make strategic choices for healthy diets and good nutrition

(115 ...) Therefore, policies, gender specific research on nutrition, and inter-sectoral interventions to support women’s and girls’ specific nutritional needs are of critical importance.

I started to see the zero draft CFS voluntary guideline at a glance and it seems very comprehensive in terms of content and well-articulated. From my professional observations, I want to forward the following points for you to consider it in the guideline as appropriate.

To ensure gender equality - there are different actors and initiatives going on across the world. And as studies revealed the progress made thus far isn’t reassuring compared with the amount of resources invested on it. For example there is no organization be it humanitarian or development working without involving gender issue as one of the main pillars of its intervention areas. I think this creates huge resources or effort duplications. Thus, it is good for this guideline to address this matter somewhere in the document (e.g. to avoid it by designing feasible and applied strategies complemented for each other based on the countries contexts).    

The gender inequality matter is chronic and result of years and years of traditions, it also interconnected with deep rooted societal norms, cultures, religions and therefore open for different interpretations and dialogs by the community themselves. Hence, context and evidence based programming worth much more than the predefined recommendations, like one fits for all mightn’t work and it is good to consider this in the guideline.

As well discussed in the document, food security and nutrition related problems, one way or another attributed by the gender inequality and women disempowerment. Therefore, working on women empowerment may be a prerequisite to address the issue of food security and nutrition and on the way gender equality could be ensured. Here what makes the big difference is the country’s specific context applicable/feasible programming approach. E.g. something successful in the pacific region might not work for African or Asian society. However, what we observe in reality is this, and might be one of the contributing factors for the low result achievement in ending violence against women and girls. So the guideline good to present general principles by recommending further country specific programming approaches/strategies.

My last point is issue of men/public figures engagement in the women empowerment/ gender equality interventions. In most VAWG prevention and response projects, I observed that men/public figures engagement mentioned for the sake of meeting discussions but less attention given with practical programming. However, the men/public figures active engagement is very crucial to address the chronic causes of gender power dynamics associated with the societal deep rooted sociocultural perceptions and attitudes. This could be one of the most important thematic areas in the gender/ food security and nutrition programming. Wishing gender equality to happen without men/public figures engagement is like simply ‘providing counseling and analgesics only for a malaria patient without giving antimalarial drugs’. And then this patient either will die of malaria or remain weak and debilitated as he/she couldn’t get the right treatment.

Therefore, to ensure gender equality, food security and nutrition through successive women empowerment efforts, first multitude of contributing factors for the matter need to be investigated, analyzed and context specific and appropriate recommendations advised to be applied openly and freely.       

English translation below

Comentarios al Borrador Cero

• ¿El Borrador  Cero  recoge de  forma apropiada  los  principales  retos  y  barreras que limitan el  progreso  para  alcanzar  igualdad  de  género  y  la  plena  realización  de  los derechos de  mujeres  y  niñas?

El borrador representa una buena hoja de ruta que plantea temas relevantes y urgentes para la transversalización de género. Sin embargo hay un marcado énfasis binario en la identificación de los sujetos, invisibilizando a la comunidad LGBTIQ+ de estas medidas. Sería relevante revisar y actualizar la manera en que a través del lenguaje e identificación de grupos clave, se pueda avanzar a no perpetuar las exclusiones de género que denunciamos. 

• ¿La  Parte  2  del  Borrador  Cero  refleja satisfactoriamente los  principios  básicos  en  que  se fundamentan  las Directrices?

A pesar de ser un documento que muestra comprehensivamente los principios básicos a abordar, faltan referencias más directas y concretas sobre la incidencia de estas guidelines en los espacios privados o domésticos, puesto que representa un correlato de lo que se hace en el espacio público y el cómo se entiende el género y a las mujeres. Esto cobra relevancia cuando se adopta un enfoque de Sistemas Alimentarios, donde no se puede hablar de alimentación invisibilizando cómo ésta es ejecutada en el cotidiano. En ese sentido, hablar sobre la economía de los cuidados (que está mejor desarrollado en el punto 3.7 pero que podría ser relevado desde antes) es fundamental cuando hablamos de inseguridad alimentaria y alimentación, cuestionar quiénes cuidan, a quiénes se cuida, cómo se cuida, es parte del impulso de acciones que sean género transformadoras. Las políticas públicas pueden jugar un rol fundamental en la relectura de los modelos tradicionales de género y en presentar alternativas más equitativas que eliminen el sesgo sexista que infravalora las tareas del ámbito privado por sobre aquellas realizadas en la esfera pública.

• ¿Las  nueve  secciones de  la  Parte  3  del  Borrador  Cero  cubren  de  manera  integral  las esferas de  políticas  que  deben abordarse?

Las nueve secciones abordan temas importantes y urgentes de ser abordados en materia de género. Considerar que las esferas políticas del debate que estén enfocadas a cambios estructurales o a nivel de sistemas alimentarios, se posicionan como una vía efectiva y pertinente para lograr la equidad de género, al levantar el peso que representa responsabilizar individualmente a las personas de ciertos elementos que sobrepasan la mera elección individual (i.e.: indicar que las personas realicen elecciones más saludables, cuando hay factores económicos (precio, acceso) y sociales (jornadas extenuantes, sobrecarga de labores domésticas que dificultan cocinar en casa, patrones culturales) que dificultan esa elección). 

• ¿La Parte  4  del  Borrador  Cero  proporciona  todos  los  elementos  necesarios  para la implementación  y  el  seguimiento  efectivos  del  uso  y  la  aplicación  de  las  Directrices?

Faltan énfasis en pasos concretos sobre cómo implementar estas directrices, a pesar de ser voluntarias, sería útil ayudar a los interlocutores que muchas veces no están sensibilizados con temas de género, lo que podría derivar en la construcción de indicadores que no capturen el cumplimiento de estas metas, o sean insuficientes. Sugerencias sobre espacios dónde incorporarlo en las políticas, como por ejemplo en la identificación de los/as beneficiarios, uso de un lenguaje no sexista, campañas de comunicación, etc. entendiendo que cada elemento aportan de manera diferente y complementaria a la transversalización de género. En ese sentido, la sección 4 resulta insuficiente como apoyo para la implementación y seguimiento efectivo de las directrices, al plantear principios que aún están presentado como ideas más teóricas que prácticas.

Comments on the Zero Draft

• 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?

The draft is a good roadmap that raises relevant and urgent issues for gender mainstreaming. However, there is a marked emphasis on the binary identification of individuals, excluding the LGBTIQ+ community of the proposed measures as a result. Reviewing and updating the way in which we use the language and identify key groups would be relevant, in order to avoid future gender exclusions.

• Does Part 2 of the Zero Draft satisfactorily reflect the core principles which should underpin the Guidelines?

Despite being a document that comprehensively details all the basic principles to be addressed, there is a lack of more direct and specific references to the impact of these guidelines at the private/household level. The draft describes what is being done at the public level and how gender and women are perceived. This is particularly relevant when adopting a food systems approach, as is not possible to discuss food related issues without taking the domestic sphere into account. In this sense, addressing unpaid care and domestic work (this topic is well covered in section 3.7 but could be discussed in previous sections) is essential when it comes to food and food insecurity. Challenging who are the caregivers, who do they take care of and how do they carry out this unpaid work is part of a set of gender-transformative actions. Public policies can play a fundamental role in rethinking traditional gender models and presenting more equitable alternatives that eliminate the sexist bias that undervalues domestic tasks, compared to those undertaken in the public sphere.

• Do the nine sections of Part 3 of the Zero Draft comprehensively cover the policy areas to be addressed?

The nine sections address important and urgent gender issues. The policy spheres of the debate should be focused on structural changes or transformations at the food systems level. These are an effective and relevant way of achieving gender equity, as they relieve the people of the burden of their individual responsibility on certain aspects that go beyond their possibilities (e.g. making healthier choices can be challenging when economic [price, access] and social factors [strenuous working hours, overburdened household chores that hinder home cooking, cultural customs] limit the options).

• Does Part 4 of the Zero Draft provide all the elements necessary for effective implementation and monitoring of the use and application of the Guidelines?

Greater emphasis should be given to concrete steps on how to implement these guidelines, even though they are voluntary. Helping stakeholders who might not be particularly sensitive to gender issues could be helpful. There is a risk of developing indicators that are insufficient or do not capture the achievement of the intended targets. Specifying where to implement the guidelines at the policy level would be helpful (e.g. in the identification of beneficiaries, in the use of non-sexist language, in communication campaigns, etc.). It should be noted that each action and each individual contributes to gender mainstreaming in different and complementary ways. In this sense, section 4 seems insufficient as a support for the effective implementation and monitoring of these guidelines: it sets out principles that are still considered theoretical concepts, rather than practical ideas.

Message from the facilitator

Dear participants and FSN Forum members,

As promised, here I am to report some of the outputs of the regional consultation for Asia and the Pacific.

We are very satisfied with the active participation during the regional consultation for Asia and the Pacific and we really appreciated the presence of the following keynote speakers: the CFS Chairperson, Mr. Gabriel Ferrero de Loma-Osorio; H.E Lenny N. Rosalin, Deputy Minister for Gender Equality, Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection of Indonesia, and Chair of the ASEAN Committee on Women (ACW); Dr. Lok Nath Paudel, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development of Nepal; and Mr. John Aylieff, Regional Director, World Food Programme (WFP), Asia and the Pacific.

As in previous consultations, the second plenary discussion on Day 2, intended to discuss Part 3 of the Zero Draft, started with the three themes/sections identified by participants as priority at the time of registration: Section 3.1 Women’s participation, voice and leadership in policy and decision-making at all levels; Section 3.3 Access to education, capacity building, training, knowledge and information services; and Section 3.4 Women’s economic empowerment in the context of sustainable food systems.

I mention here only some of the many comments received to possibly further stimulate the discussion on the FSN Forum, while I invite you to read the full report on our webpage to learn more.

There was a caution that while promoting women’s economic empowerment is very positive, this should not be at the expense of instrumentalizing women by placing the sole responsibility for food security on their shoulders. A truly transformative approach needs to address systemic inequalities and ensure that women’s triple burden of work is not compounded. What in your experience would help to enable this transformative approach? And who should lead it?

Furthermore, there were calls to include the issue of male out-migration in the draft, and to document and respond to its impacts on the women who are left behind: in particular, we need to understand the challenges and needs of female-headed households. What policies and actions could be of help in addressing them?

On intersectionality and multi-dimensional approaches, there were calls to move beyond a gender binary approach and to reflect the specific needs of LGBTI people and others facing discrimination. These issues were raised several times during the regional consultations. However, there were some debates on this among the participants and a call to use only internationally agreed terms. I appreciated a useful clarification from a participant that we need to ensure non-discrimination to ensure no-one is left behind on the grounds of race, gender identity, religion and other differences.

Finally, I have very good news. At the request of some participants, we have been able to extend the deadline for this e-consultation to November 30th.

So, I warmly invite you to post your comments, if not already done, or in the hope that my questions have stimulated further reflection.

Thank you and see you soon!

Marina

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 captures the main challenges and barriers that hinder achievement of gender equality. However, it is important to:

Include pregnant women and young adolescent girls in the group of women and girls at heightened risk of gender-based violence.

To truly achieve gender equality, we must expand to non-binary gender to include LGBTQ+ who also face discrimination in food systems.

Include educational goals for orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries. These should be assessed at a national level. In many developing countries, agriculture can be the primary means of employment for the vast majority of the population. When the family unit is disrupted, many of these children, including girls, lose their opportunity to learn basic farming skills.

Ensure the guidelines are supported by data and evidence throughout to increase credibility. E.g. Par. 102 indicates, Agriculture is one of the most hazardous occupations given exposure to agrochemicals, machines and equipment and livestock care. This is not backed by evidence. Further review and discussion is required.

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?

The core principles are satisfactorily covered. However, these should be reflected throughout the guidelines. Particularly, with reference to human rights, it is important that the guidelines recognize the rights of non-binary gender.

To be consistent with other CFS products, it is important to recognise agroecological approaches alongside other innovative approaches as important contributors to sustainable agricultural production. Par. 93 should therefore include other innovative approaches.

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?

To enhance access to financial services, mechanisms should be put in place to offer education and training to financial service providers to ensure the needs of women are embedded in financial products. Access to banking services that ensure women directly receive payment for their agricultural production is essential. Savings accounts are needed, as is affordable micro-credit, insurance and access to opportunities in the value chain. Financial decision makers, who are mostly men, can play a critical role in changing financial policies that discriminate women.

Social protection programs to include provision of access to proper maternal health services for women and focus particularly on nutrition for the first 1000 days of mother and child. Include improvement of women’s, adolescent girls’ and children’s nutritional status as an explicit goal and expected outcomes of agriculture, food and nutritional security-related programmes, strategies and policies.

Does Part 4 of the Zero Draft provide all the elements necessary for effective implementation and monitoring of the use and application of the Guidelines? If not, what do you propose to add or change?

Training is crucial to raising awareness of the guidelines and promoting their uptake. Knowledge exchange, technology transfer and information sharing can promote greater uptake.

It is important to develop indicators that will help measure the success of the guidelines.

About this submission

The George Institute for Global Health is pleased to contribute to the Consultation for the development of the CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment in the Context of Food Security and Nutrition. We welcome the opportunity to further engage with the Committee on World Food Security regarding this important issue.

The George Institute is a leading independent global medical research institute established and headquartered in Sydney. It has major centres in China, India and the UK, and an international network of experts and collaborators. Our mission is to improve the health of millions of people worldwide by using innovative approaches to prevent and treat the world’s biggest killers: non-communicable diseases and injury. Our work aims to generate effective, evidence-based and affordable solutions to the world’s biggest health challenges. We research the chronic and critical conditions that cause the greatest loss of life and quality of life, and the most substantial economic burden, particularly in resource-poor settings.

The George Institute’s food policy team works in Australia and overseas to reduce death and disease caused by diets high in salt, harmful fats, added sugars and excess energy. The team conducts multi-disciplinary research with a focus on generating outputs that will help government and industry deliver a healthier food environment for all.

The George Institute’s Global Women’s Health Program has a focus on promoting a life-course approach to addressing the burden of non-communicable disease and injury as well as focussing on important women-specific health issues. Our areas of research and advocacy include sex-disaggregated analysis and intersectional, gender-sensitive research; women as healthcare workers and carers; and gender based-violence.

Acknowledgement of Country

The George Institute acknowledges the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation as the Traditional Custodians of the land on which our Australia office is built, and this submission was written. We pay our respect to Elders past, present and emerging.

Terms of Reference

The George Institute supports the main challenges and barriers as captured in the Zero Draft. It is crucial for gender considerations to be included in food systems discussions, and there is growing global momentum to include this lens [1]. We believe the Zero Draft is an important step in moving towards more equitable outcomes for women and girls.

To strengthen the Zero Draft, we recommend several areas that could be improved:

* The George Institute recommends an emphasis on nutrition for women and girls throughout the life-course. There is a strong focus in the draft on increased nutrition requirements during pregnancy and breastfeeding, along with a focus on women in terms of ‘traditional’ roles as caregivers of children. However, the health of women as they age, particularly in terms of non-communicable disease (NCD) burden is crucial and is a component that is largely lacking in the Zero Draft.

NCDs are the leading causes of death for both women and men globally [2]. Women are more likely than men to live longer, but with more co-morbidities, for example, living longer but in poor health [2, 3]. Diet is an important modifiable risk factor for many NCDs [4], and as such, gender-sensitive policies are needed to reduce the diet related NCD burden for women.

Further consideration of a life-course approach to food security and nutrition in the Zero Draft would highlight the importance of reducing the risk of the diet-related burden of disease, including its economic, social, and cultural impact.

* The George Institute recommends the promotion of policies that support the ongoing recognition of women in the workforce and agricultural production. Menstruation, childbearing, childcare, and breastfeeding impact on women’s access to work and economic independence.

* The George Institute recommends better inclusion of data throughout the Zero Draft. For the Zero Draft to be as impactful as possible, it must include data that (a) describes the challenge, (b) provides evidence for suggested strategies and (c) identifies targets or priority target areas. Where there is a lack of data, this should be stated and appropriate strategies to address this deficit described. Please refer to below comment regarding ‘Point 25’ for further feedback on this recommendation.

This is particularly important throughout ‘Part 1.1’ and ‘Points 4 and 5’, which should reference data on the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women and girls, and the link to food security and adequate nutrition. Data and references for the “large body of evidence” for ‘Point 5’ should also be provided.

2. 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?

The George Institute support ‘Part 2’ of the Zero Draft and agree with the core principles included to underpin the Guidelines. It is encouraging to see a focus on gender transformative approaches (Point 21), strengthening policy coherence (Point 22) and including an intersectionality and multidimensional approach (Point 27). To strengthen the Zero Draft, we believe there are several areas that could be improved:

* The George Institute supports a commitment to Human Rights and Realisation of the right to adequate food under ‘Point 19’. Included in this is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically “Recognizing also that respect for Indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment” [5]. The rights include the right to self-determination that is also highly relevant to the Guidelines’ principles.

* The George Institute recommends an additional principle be included that specifically speaks to the rights of self-determination of Indigenous and Tribal women and girls.

* The George Institute supports the need for reinforcing the collection and use of gender-disaggregated data under ‘Point 25’. However, the principle falls short in failing to recognise the importance of abiding by principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty that should be applied to all types of data. We suggest this rewording: “The Guidelines recognise that regular collection and use of sex-, age- and disability-disaggregated data and gender-sensitive statistics and indicators are critical to the development of policies that advance gender equality”.

* The George Institute supports inclusiveness and participation in policymaking under ‘Point 26’. This Point should include recognition that First Nations women are cultural knowledge holders and as such, their involvement in policy development would strengthen those policies. We suggest this rewording: “Enabling and promoting the participation of women in marginal and vulnerable situations, including indigenous women, is not only critical to ensure that policy goals respond to their priorities, but also offers a strategic means for overcoming social exclusion. Further, the Guidelines recognise Indigenous and Tribal women can be cultural knowledge holders, and as such, their direct involvement in policy development would serve to strengthen policies”.

* The George Institute recommends an intersectional approach be incorporated throughout the Guidelines under ‘Point 27’. An intersectional approach recognises that gender is only one part of a person’s identity and different parts of one’s experience or identity may be the target of discrimination and / or racism, contributing significantly to systemic, cumulative disadvantage. This cumulative disadvantage may relate to one’s identity or experience in terms of, race and / or ethnicity, transgender, gender diversity, neurodivergence, sexual orientation, gender expression, ability, immigration status, class and / or socio-economic status, among other identities and experiences.

* The George Institute recommends acknowledgement of gender as a construct that varies across cultures and geographies. This should include a recognition that the concept of gender has changed and continues to change over time and is not a binary construct. For example, there are genders beyond man and woman.

• * The George Institute recommends a definition of food security that includes access to healthy, nutritious, and safe food, and a sufficient quantity of food. For example, “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” [6].

We agree that critical to the success of these Guidelines is the collection of data to (1) describe the current status of gender equality in the context of food security and nutrition, (2) focus local policy efforts and (3) monitor progress. Acknowledging and addressing existing data gaps could be included here.

3. 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?

The George Institute support the nine sections of ‘Part 3’ of the Zero Draft. To strengthen the Zero Draft, we believe there are several areas that could be improved:

* The George Institute recommends that problem statement (Point 32) specifically refer to First Nations women. We suggest this rewording: “Women, particularly First Nations women, are insufficiently represented in decision-making processes for food security and nutrition at all levels”.

* The George Institute recommends that ‘Point 36’ also refer to experiences of racism. We suggest this rewording: “Together with other factors, such as discrimination and racism, limited access”.

* The George Institute recommends a re-write of ‘48 problem statement’. While the emphasis in the original statement on education of women is critical, it must also include the education of men and boys about gender roles and the unpaid work of women. We suggest this rewording: “Women and girls’ education correlates positively with healthier dietary practices for themselves and their families…”.

* The George Institute recommends additional text in ‘Section 3.4, Point 74’. We recommend this rewording: “Women play active roles across food systems. This is particularly the case for First Nations women; however, access to, and the sustainability of, traditional diets and food systems have been disrupted by colonisation and dispossession. However, The legal inequality together with discriminatory institutional frameworks, social norms, and cultural practices …”.

* The George Institute recommends ‘Part 3.5’ explicitly reference the importance of food aid that is healthy and nutritious. ‘Part 3.5’ makes note of the severe impacts that climate-induced weather-related events can have on food security, particularly for women (Point 89). However, it does not note that a significant portion of food aid comes in the form of energy dense, nutrient poor, ultra-processed and packaged foods [7]. While food aid used in times of acute crises can have important short-term benefits, prolonged use of this type of aid, or introduction of this type of food into communities through aid, can go on to have negative long-term health impacts. This is contributing to the prevalence of women living with overweight and obesity [8] over time. We recommend food that is provided as ‘food aid’ be healthy, nutritious, and where possible utilise relevant Indigenous foods and knowledge. This should fit in the policy area for ‘Discussion 94.iii and 94.iv’. We agree that special attention must be paid to tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples under ‘Point 92’. Refer to comments regarding the impact of colonisation under ‘Point 74’ above.

* The George Institute recommends a re-write on ‘107 problem statement’. We suggest replacing ‘productive’ with ‘paid’ and including the lack of engagement of men and boys in unpaid care work as part of the problem statement.

• * The George Institute recommends several amendments to ‘Part 3.8’:
  • - ‘Point 116’ should focus on healthy food options also being the cheapest food options, whereby healthy food is also affordable and appropriate for women and girls.
  • - ‘Point 117, 118 and 119’ should include a life-course approach for women, beyond reproductive capacity. In 2019, dietary risks for women were ranked as the second highest contributor to deaths, with high systolic blood pressure ranking first [8]. It is crucial that food and nutrition are understood as being essential factors in health and wellbeing throughout the life-course. Food security should also entail access to safe and nutritious foods that reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases.
  • - ‘Policy area for discussion 123.II’ should broaden its focus to include policies and programs that encourage and enforce healthier food environments, and not education alone.

* The George Institute recommends ‘Part 3’ should include potential harms caused by the food industry when using gender stereotypes to promote unhealthy foods, along with the targeting of marketing to children [9,10].

* The George Institute recommends ‘Part 3’ highlight the need to adopt, implement, and monitor the World Health Organization (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes [11,12]. There are well established benefits of breast milk and breast feeding in terms of health for both the person breast-feeding and the infant receiving breast milk [13,14,15], in addition to food security benefits. However, harmful marketing practices encouraging use of infant formula are still prevalent, and there is evidence that the use of formula is increasing [16]. Focus needs to be given to adopting, implementing, and monitoring the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes [12], and ensuring policy making processes are free from conflicts of interest, particularly from manufacturers and industry.

The George Institute supports ‘Part 4’ of the Zero Draft. To strengthen the Zero Draft, we believe there are several areas that could be improved:

* The George Institute recommends ‘Part 4’ be strengthened to encourage key stakeholders to participate in reform. This must include involving women as participants and in leadership roles in reform processes. This will be crucial to the process of formulating and implementing successful policy. Monitoring the applications of Guidelines must also be included to enable civil society groups, health and nutrition stakeholders and others to hold governments to account.

* The George Institute recommends ‘Point 4.3’ should be strengthened. CFS is leading the development of these Guidelines, and as such CFS programs of work should be complying to these Guidelines. In addition, CFS could actively advocate for governments to use these Guidelines to frame national policy priorities and related indicators.

* The George Institute recommends a platform to support and monitor adoption of these Guidelines is developed. This platform could act as a mechanism that progress of governments and organisations who adopt these Guidelines can be monitored. Fundamental to monitoring progress will be the collection and reporting of sex-disaggregated data, and a platform that supports governments and organisations to do this will be critical. For example, the Global Food 50/50 report [1], shares experiences and outcomes reported.

References

[1] Global Health 50/50; and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2021. 2021 global food 50/50 report: A review of the gender- and equity-related policies and practices of 52 organizations active in the global food system. Washington, DC: Global Health 50/50. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134569

[2] Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. 2021. Global Burden of Disease (GBD 2019). [online] Available at: http://www.healthdata.org/gbd/2019

[3] Luy M, Minagawa Y. Gender gaps-Life expectancy and proportion of life in poor health. Health Reports. 2014 Dec 1;25(12):12

[4] Afshin A et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1958-72

[5] Humanrights.gov.au. 2021. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples | Australian Human Rights Commission. [online] Available at: <https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-pe…;

[6] FAO. 2002. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome

[7] Wentworth C, editor Unhealthy aid: Food security programming and disaster responses to Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu. Anthropological Forum; 2020: Taylor & Francis

[8] Murray CJ, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi-Kangevari M, Abd-Allah F, Abdelalim A, Abdollahi M, Abdollahpour I: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet 2020, 396(10258):1223-1249

[9] Clark H, Coll-Seck AM, Banerjee A, Peterson S, Dalglish SL, Ameratunga S, et al. A future for the world’s children? A WHO– UNICEF–Lancet Commission. The Lancet 2020;395(10224):605-58

[10] Castronuovo L, Guarnieri L, Tiscornia MV, Allemandi L: Food marketing and gender among children and adolescents: a scoping review. Nutrition Journal 2021, 20(1):1-16

[11] Marketing of breast-milk substitutes: national implementation of the international code, status report 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

[12] World Health Organization. (‎1981)‎. International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40382

[13] GrummerStrawn, LM & Rollins, N (2015) Summarising the health effects of breastfeeding. Acta Paediatr 104, 1–2.

[14] Chowdhury, R, Sinha, B, Sankar, MJ et al. (2015) Breastfeeding and maternal health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr 104, 96–113.

[15] Sankar, MJ, Sinha, B, Chowdhury, R et al. (2015) Optimal breastfeeding practices and infant and child mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr 104, 3–13

[16] Baker, P., Smith, J., Salmon, L., Friel, S., Kent, G., Iellamo, A., Dadhich, J. and Renfrew, M., 2016. Global trends and patterns of commercial milk-based formula sales: is an unprecedented infant and young child feeding transition underway?. Public Health Nutrition, 19(14), pp.2540-2550

In fact, energy poverty has an impact on the food security of women and children.

I understand that the lack of access to energy for cooking influences the quality of food consumed and mainly affects women and children, as they are responsible for household chores and spends more time indoors.  

Public policies that improve access to energy, as well as incentivize a more efficient and sustainable source, would bring benefits to these people, such as improved nutritional quality, reduced health problems caused by domestic air pollution, increased time available for study and leisure, as well as improvements in safety of women and girls who are exposed to risks when collecting solid biomass to use in the kitchen.

The intersectional approach that is being taken is very important, as the issue of energy poverty affects, in particular, black women, traditional and low-income populations, both in rural areas and on the outskirts of large urban centers. In this way, the multidimensional view contemplates the differences of race, class, gender, sexuality and so on.

Thanks for the opportunity to share feedback from World Vision Australia; the notes below come largely from Gayathri Jayadevan (Snr Advisor on Women's Economic Empowerment).

The problem statements are presented with comprehensive analysis, however the policy areas for consideration lack articulation and Part 4 on implementation and monitoring of the use and application of the voluntary guidelines is presented over half a page (as an afterthought), and from an implementation and monitoring perspective which a lot of the target audience are, both of these areas could use more depth and practical guidance – for example, key performance indicators, perhaps as a next version to the guidelines?

A few other minor points for consideration:

Page 4 - The rationale speaks of women as active agents in food system but does not fully recognise that women produce 60-80% of food in developing countries and are responsible for half the world’s food production while working in the informal, most precarious, vulnerable sectors yet their key role as food producers, providers and contributors is unrecognised, unpaid, invisible. It might add value to explore the extent of vulnerability of women’s role in the food system, rather than merely recognising them in the food system.

Page 8-9 – Women’s participation, voice and leadership in policy and decision-making at all levels does not fully recognise the important role women have in influencing decision making at household level. Although the problem analysis highlights this and women’s decision making in relation to food security is later recognised (in page 21, 123 iii), the power to influence household decision making overall (in financial and non-financial domains) is an important precedent to making informed choices on food security, and this needs highlighting in 3.1 i-iv.

Page 14-18 – Women’s economic empowerment in the context of sustainable food systems does not fully recognise that women are time-poor, have high-labour demands and are resource-poor (particularly in urban settings / living with disability), and this together with climate change impacts mean investments in food systems need to happen in non-traditional sectors that demand less time, less labour and less resource dependency, i.e. bee keeping, mushrooms were highlighted by FAO as emerging sectors for gender transformative climate resilient food production, yet these don’t get a mention in addition to farm-based activities in 3.5.2.

A more thorough exploration of how women are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and the gender-specific challenges of climate change adaptation, would better integrate these Voluntary Guidelines with COP26, SDGs and NDCs. For instance, women in many poor contexts are more vulnerable to climate change due to both their reduced ability to adapt (e.g. they are less able to migrate, like men) and their lack of decision-making power in regards to climate adaptation. Similarly, household energy consumption is a further dimension on gender equality; in poor rural contexts, women (and girls) are expected to gather fuelwood and are more exposed to risks from sexual violence while out of the house, or to indoor air pollution or fire in the house; this also influences their ability to provide food or income for the family. These linkages could be further enhanced in the Guidelines.

Lastly: overall, and throughout the guidelines, the urban-rural disparity could be better explored as well as disability inclusion and gender diversity – the latter being the most vulnerable and food insecure of all genders.