Improving the nutrition impacts of social protection requires targeted improvements to programme designs. GAIN believes that good social protection design involves meaningfully leveraging vulnerable beneficiaries’ voices. Doing so can help administrators better understand how to overcome constraints and address beneficiaries’ specific nutritional needs. Beneficiaries have the advantage of proximity to the key issues: they understand their specific constraints and challenges better than any other system actors. While the need to incorporate beneficiaries’ perspectives, and the value of doing so, is well accepted by social protection administrators, they often face substantial hurdles to doing so in practice: logistical constraints, language barriers, differing value systems, power dynamics, and other factors make meaningful engagement with beneficiaries a significant challenge. GAIN has set out to identify ways to support administrators to overcome these constraints, particularly through human-centered design (HCD).
Final distribution to the consumer is a key challenge in addressing affordability for lower-income consumers, particularly in rural and remote areas or crowded lower-income urban neighbourhoods. One way to address this, particularly in places where there are few existing retail outlets, is through creation of a bespoke last-mile distribution (LMD) network. Creating such a network involves recruiting and training distribution/sales agents; equipping them for the job; and providing them with appropriate pay, incentives, and supervision. The agents can be employees, contactors, or micro-franchisees and can sell on foot, bike, using a pushcart or adapted motorcycle, from their homes, or through stalls.
We expect to be eating peanuts, not extreme amounts of aflatoxins, and chicken but not E. coli. We expect that our salads are washed with clean water, and that the person who prepared the salad first washed their hands. We cannot, however, always assume the expected and thus need to be ready for the unexpected. Unexpected events can take the form of natural disasters, such as earthquakes or floods. They might also come from power cuts or amid sudden political change. Such events can disrupt food availability, accessibility and safety, leaving us exposed to increased levels of unsafe food.
Every year, the voices and discourses on gender equality and women’s rights become loudest around International Women’s Day (March 8th). The rest of the year, women’s voices are seldom heard and considered, especially in corridors of power. Men and women have distinct needs, and there are intersecting vulnerabilities such as poverty levels, ethnic affiliation, age, and disabilities which further limit women’s voices. However, the voices of women must be systematically and consistently included in all conversations, at every stage, and on all topics, especially when it comes to policies.
In March, GAIN attended the 68th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), an annual event held at the UN Headquarters in New York that brings together stakeholders from all over the world to discuss the state of gender equality and women’s empowerment, resulting in Agreed Conclusions.
Vending food products in flexible quantities (i.e., loose, as opposed to in packages) is commonly used worldwide in both traditional and formal retail outlets. While it has other advantages (e.g., reducing packaging materials), the main advantages from the affordability perspective are the ability to buy very small amounts (at lower cost) and to not have to pay the costs of packaging.
The global community is dealing with multiple and interconnected crises. 735 million people faced hunger in 2022, while two in three women have at least one micronutrient deficiency. At the same time, overweight and obesity are rising (1, 2). Over 3 billion of us – 42% of the global population – cannot afford a healthy diet
From the consumer perspective, product costs can include not only monetary costs but also time and effort costs of acquiring, preparing, and consuming foods: for the consumer, these jointly shape the product's effective affordability. The cost of time and fuel to prepare food is not insignificant in many low- and middle-income countries.
One of the simplest ways to alter affordability is simply to sell products in small package sizes. This is probably the most common strategy used for reaching lower-income consumers across product types and contexts.
In a cross-subsidisation model, one product is sold with a larger margin, with the excess profit used to subsidise another product sold at a smaller margin (e.g., by covering all or most company fixed costs with the higher-margin channel). BMR’s systematic review found several examples of companies using this strategy with the same product sold in different forms or settings to different groups of consumers.
