APPENDIX 5: HOW ACCOUNTABLE IS THE GLOBAL NUTRITION REPORT? B
ased on recent publications on nutrition accountability (Kraak et al. 2014; te Lintelo 2014), this report uses a simple account- ability framework to guide its work: identifying commitments, tracking progress, identifying accountability, using the account- ability, and responding to the accountability. Table A.5 describes how the report attempts to promote accountability in nutrition (including its own accountability) at each step in the cycle.
Issues related to the report’s (1) validation of data, (2) inde- pendence, (3) legitimacy, and (4) sustainability are addressed in a paper found on the report’s website (
www.globalnutrition
report.org). The first three of these aspects of the report can be briefly described:
1. Validation of data. The report’s data and conclusions will be validated (or not) by a wide series of reviews (internal and external), transparency of process, open access to all data, and country launches.
2. Independence. Each member of the Independent Expert Group (IEG) has a particular perspective as a result of disci- plinary training, geographic and institutional location, and life experiences. IEG membership is diverse, based primarily on individual perspectives, reputation, and expertise.
Individuals were openly nominated, and the selection pro- cess was stated at the time of nomination. IEG members’ statements of competing interests on the website promote transparency and support confidence in independence. The report also has a diverse set of funders, and this diver- sity protects against dependence.
3. Legitimacy. For whom does this report speak, and why should anyone pay attention to it? The legitimacy of the report derives from the call for an accountability report in the Nutrition for Growth Compact. This call was further refined by the establishment of a Stakeholder Group that delivered formal terms of reference for the report, including the formation of an IEG that would be accountable for the quality of the report. Nevertheless, the Stakeholder Group and the IEG are not formal entities, and so issues of legiti- macy are especially pertinent. We have sought to strength- en our legitimacy by being inclusive at all stages. Ultimately the quality (rigor, relevance, innovativeness, comprehensive- ness, timeliness, and accessibility) of the report will be the reason people do or do not pay attention to it.
86
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118