Executive summary

Image by USDA Photo by Lance Cheung
1 Share section

Stronger commitments for greater action

The global nutrition crisis we faced even before Covid-19[1] has become far worse, with worrying trends across every form of malnutrition, from hunger to obesity. People affected by hunger leaped by 150 million since the Covid-19 outbreak, from 618 million in 2019 to 768 million in 2021, while those unable to afford a healthy diet[2] rose by 112 million to 3.1 billion in 2020 alone.[3] Almost a third (29.3%) of the world’s population, 2.3 billion people, were moderately or severely food insecure[4] in 2021, up from 25.4% before the pandemic.[5] At the same time, what we eat across the world continues to fall short of the minimum standards for healthy and sustainable diets[6] with resulting obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) on the rise and at epidemic levels – around 40% of all adults and 20% of all children are now overweight or obese.[7] Policy interventions to date are failing to reverse these trends, while conflict around the world – including the recent war in Ukraine – and the impacts of climate change, which are key drivers of increases in malnutrition, continue unabated.[8] It is countries faced with food and nutrition insecurity,[9] and the most vulnerable populations, that are threatened the most.

These are complex and pervading issues that must be tackled by all, working together, if we are to achieve what is necessary to shift our current outlook for nutrition. It was in recognition of this that 2021 was named the Nutrition Year of Action, with a concerted effort to mobilise monumental action across the world. The year culminated in the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit where stakeholders stepped up to make an unprecedented level of commitments to improve global nutrition. As part of these efforts, the Global Nutrition Report (GNR) was endorsed by stakeholders to create the world’s first independent nutrition accountability framework (NAF) to ensure commitments – including and beyond N4G – can deliver transformative change. The NAF enables all actions to improve nutrition across the world to be captured as SMART[10] commitments that can be consistently monitored and reported on publicly. By capturing commitments from anyone at any time, it has the potential to improve our understanding of nutrition action like never before. Such a step change in accountability will equip all actors with the vital data and evidence they need to deliver greater nutrition action.

The 2022 Global Nutrition Report: Stronger commitments for greater action therefore sets out the vital role of accountability and its ability to transform action to tackle this nutrition crisis that affects all. It analyses the hard work already underway through an unprecedented number of commitments made by governments, civil society organisations (CSOs), private sector businesses, donors and international organisations. It emphasises the unique and vital role of every stakeholder to demonstrate why collaboration and coordination is the only way we can deliver sustainable nutrition outcomes. And it highlights where greater effort both across the board and from specific actors is needed to ensure actions translate into impact.

Although the 2022 Global Nutrition Report analyses commitments made before the war in Ukraine, its emphasis on stronger commitments, accountability and action has a heightened significance in the face of the war’s impact on food and nutrition security globally. The need for stakeholders to step up and take action to mitigate these impacts and improve nutrition for all has never been more urgent.

The report finds much to celebrate with a remarkable number of commitments registered in the NAF and a concerted effort from stakeholders to make those commitments SMART. Low- and lower-middle-income countries stand out in particular, with all stakeholders stepping up to commit over US$42.6 billion. Overall, the goals that are set out in commitments show strong support to leadership and governance and for addressing undernutrition,[11] and a significant proportion of commitments are aligned with key global nutrition targets on maternal, infant and young child nutrition. We do however identify gaps in some critical areas; few goals are focused on improving food and nutrition security, and a relatively low proportion of commitments focus on poor diets or obesity and diet-related NCDs. There is also the need for a more concerted effort across a far broader constituency of actors to take more and stronger action in light of the global nutrition crisis that is fuelled by Covid-19, climate shocks and conflicts around the world.

The 2022 Global Nutrition Report showcases the value of the NAF and the insights it can bring that have the potential to significantly improve nutrition action over time. It sets the baseline for monitoring nutrition actions and their impact over time. Crucially it serves as a powerful call to action for all stakeholders in the global fight against malnutrition. Every actor has a unique position, capacity and responsibility in this complex landscape, and all must step up in their role. It is only by having everyone’s contribution accounted for, monitored and reported on that we can deliver the change that people across the world need and deserve.

The Nutrition Accountability Framework

Responding to the need for a global, independent public platform that enables monitoring and strengthening of nutrition action for greater impact

It was highlighted by key N4G stakeholders in 2021 that to deliver a step change in action we need much stronger accountability across the many and varied stakeholders that have a role to play. Long-standing challenges with accountability are well recognised and have impeded progress to date. Addressing these requires ensuring accountability is systematically built into the commitment-making process and streamlined across stakeholders. Crucially, it has required the creation of a central public platform for registering nutrition commitments in a way that helps ensure they are SMART and consistently categorised, so that progress and impact can be effectively monitored and reported.

As the GNR has played the historic role of independently tracking N4G commitments, it was endorsed to deliver this solution. In 2021, GNR launched the world’s first Nutrition Accountability Framework (NAF). The NAF ensures all nutrition commitments to take action can be made SMART and are captured, standardised and monitored transparently. In doing so, it builds trust and supports stronger collaboration between stakeholders, and it provides the information needed to deliver better nutrition outcomes.

The GNR created the NAF in time for the Tokyo N4G Summit at the end of 2021 to be used both for N4G commitments and all other nutrition commitments moving forwards. The NAF was endorsed by multiple stakeholders including the government of Japan, the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, USAID and many others. All N4G commitment-makers were required to register their commitments via the NAF, but anyone can register a commitment at any time and receive recognition for the efforts they make. All stakeholders involved in any pledging moment for nutrition are actively encouraged to make use of the NAF, including working with the GNR to ensure it meets their needs, as this is critical if accountability is to improve.

How the NAF strengthens nutrition action through strengthened accountability

For the first time, all actions for nutrition can be accounted for and monitored, transparently and consistently. This allows us to understand what action is being taken and by whom, what is working, and where gaps in action remain so that efforts to improve nutrition in all countries can be made increasingly strong and more impactful.

The NAF comprises a range of tools that have been created independently using best practice approaches and providing full transparency about how they have been developed. These novel tools include:

  • The NAF Platform: A central, online, publicly available platform for stakeholders to sign up, register and, later, to report on the progress of their commitments. Forms used include standardised data fields to ensure commitments are SMART and allow progress to be systematically monitored and understood across commitments.
  • The Nutrition Action Classification System: A classification system that identifies the type of action taken as enabling, policy or impact, each further divided into four distinct sub-categories (e.g. ‘financial’ is an enabling sub-category, and ‘undernutrition’ an impact sub-category). This means that for the first time we are able to map nutrition action in a holistic and clear way.
  • The Nutrition Action SMARTness Index: A ranking system that enables assessment and reporting of the SMARTness of commitments as high, upper moderate, lower moderate or low. This measure assesses the completeness and coherence of each commitment against predefined criteria (it does not account for the potential importance, scale or impact of the commitment). In doing so, it supports stakeholders to make their commitments as SMART and as trackable as possible.
  • The NAF Commitment Tracker: An online, interactive platform for making all data on commitments publicly available to explore with ease, with the ability to track progress over time as that action is delivered and progress data is provided. Through the verification process,[12] stakeholders can provide additional clarifications that are subsequently reflected on the NAF Commitment Tracker. This can lead to improvements in the SMARTness of their commitments.

As part of the NAF, the GNR also monitors the alignment of commitments with the global nutrition targets, across maternal, infant and young child nutrition targets and diet-related NCDs. This complements the Nutrition Action Classification System, which goes beyond these targets and provides detailed insight into the nutrition action developed to address these.

The NAF will evolve as more commitments are registered, leading over time to strengthened tools and processes.[13] Lessons learnt, both in the implementation of the NAF and engagement with stakeholders, will continue to inform this evolving and dynamic global framework.

Towards a virtuous cycle of accountability, action and impact

Promoting transparency and a shared culture of responsibility across diverse actors, the NAF is a tool that supports stakeholders to come together and ensure their promises translate to action. It increases evidence, knowledge and learning about nutrition action in a way that builds trust, enhances collaboration and strengthens efforts that lead to ever more impactful action.

As stakeholders register commitments to capture the actions they intend to take and report their progress, gaps in action and priorities can be identified, results can be celebrated and learnings can be shared. In doing so, it can inspire stronger action and strengthen commitments over time to deliver the progress we urgently need to see in the state of global nutrition.

This potential should now be harnessed by governments, businesses, donors, CSOs and others who have a unique role to play and duty to work together to eradicate malnutrition in all its forms in light of the global crisis we face.

2 Share section

Key findings

An unprecedented number of commitments to take action on nutrition worldwide have been made, including over US$ 42.6 billion in financial investments.

Share chart

Overview of commitments made by stakeholders to improve nutrition

Overview of commitments made by stakeholders to improve nutrition
Governments Civil society Private Sector Donors International organisations Academia Total
Stakeholders 78 56 30 21 7 7 198
Commitments 223 92 62 36 13 7 433
Goals 470 207 107 61 34 18 897

Source: Global Nutrition Report: Nutrition Accountability Framework Commitment Tracker. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/resources/naf/tracker. For the dataset used in this analysis, please see the report annex.

  • 198[14][15] stakeholders from 84 countries made 433 commitments with 897 goals aiming to improve nutrition; progress will be measured against the goals. Most were made by 78 country governments[16] (in a non-donor role), followed by 56 CSOs, 30 private sector businesses, 21 donors,[17] seven international organisations and seven academic institutions. Less than half (184 of 433, 42%) of all commitments were joint, with more than two-thirds (153 of 223, 69%) of government commitments submitted on behalf of multiple entities.
  • The Tokyo N4G Summit was the most successful to date with 859 goals committed – making up 96% of all goals registered in the NAF to date.[18] This is almost double the number of goals made at previous N4G summits (456 across 2013 and 2017 summits). Stakeholders committed their highest ever level of funding at an N4G Summit: US$42.6 billion[19] based on the NAF platform, a stand-out achievement.
  • There was substantial mobilisation from stakeholders to address nutrition impacts related to Covid-19. A quarter (212, 24%) of all goals were reported to be developed in response to the pandemic, with no such goals committed by the private sector.

Stakeholders focus strongly on supporting governance and undernutrition, but little attention is paid to poor diets, obesity and diet-related NCDs or food and nutrition security.

Share chart

Overview of commitment goal types, by nutrition action category and sub-category

Overview of commitment goal types, by nutrition action category and sub-category
Nutrition action category Nutrition action sub-category Percentage of goals
Enabling 45
Enabling Leadership and governance 21
Enabling Financial 9
Enabling Operational 8
Enabling Research, monitoring and data 9
Enabling Missing 0.1
Policy 29
Policy Food supply chain 8
Policy Food environment 7
Policy Consumer knowledge 4.1
Policy Nutrition care services 9
Policy Missing 0.9
Impact 26
Impact Diet 6
Impact Food & nutrition security 1.6
Impact Undernutrition 15
Impact Obesity and diet-related NCDs 2.6

Note: Figures in the chart do not equal 100% due to rounding.

  • Almost half (408, 45%) of all commitment goals were categorised as enabling, focused on creating an enabling environment for nutrition action. ‘Leadership and governance’ was the most prominent type, recognising bold political leadership and good governance as foundations for delivering effective nutrition policies.
  • Roughly a third (260, 29%) of all goals were policy actions and, of those, most focused on improving ‘nutrition care services’; yet these were still relatively low overall (9% of all goals). Lower attention was given by governments to transforming domestic food systems through the ‘food supply chain’ and ‘food environment’ policies, yet we see notable involvement in these areas from the private sector in their goals.
  • The rest of the goals were impact (229, 26%), with a strong focus on ‘undernutrition’; this tallies with low and middle-income countries being mostly targeted. By contrast, ‘diet’ (6% of all goals), ‘obesity and diet-related NCDs’ (2.6%) and ‘food and nutrition security’ (1.6%) received the least attention.

A far larger proportion of commitments align with the global nutrition targets on maternal, infant and young child nutrition than diet-related NCDs.

Share chart

Alignment of commitments with MIYCN and diet-related NCD global nutrition targets

Alignment of commitments with MIYCN and diet-related NCD global nutrition targets

to be added

Proportion of aligned commitments
Only maternal, infant and young child nutrition targets 41%
Only diet-related non-communicable disease targets 8%
Both sets of targets 33%
Neither set of targets 18%
  • Stakeholders self-reported which of the World Health Assembly global nutrition targets their commitments aligned to, with many commitments often aligned with multiple targets. Most commitments aligned with the maternal, infant and young child nutrition (MIYCN) targets. For example, across all 433 commitments, 58%[20] aligned with childhood stunting, 55% with childhood wasting and 46% with anaemia. By contrast, fewer commitments aligned with the diet-related NCD targets: 38% with adult obesity, 31% with adult diabetes, 27% with raised blood pressure and 27% with salt/sodium intake.
  • On aggregate, we see that 33 (8%) commitments were aligned only with diet-related NCD targets (76% of which were made by the private sector), as opposed to 177 (41%) commitments aligning only with MIYCN targets. The focus on MIYCN targets is in line with such malnutrition burdens being prominent in low- and lower-middle income settings, with more and more countries experiencing the double burden of malnutrition. A third (33%) of the commitments aligned with both MIYCN and diet-related NCD targets.
  • The private sector is the only stakeholder group that reported fewer commitments as aligning with the MIYCN targets, and instead aligned the majority of its commitments with the diet-related NCD targets.

The NAF facilitates the development of SMART and trackable commitments and highlights how they can continue to be improved.

Share chart

The SMARTness of commitment goals made

The SMARTness of commitment goals made

to be added

Smartness level Percentage of goals
Low 30
Lower-moderate 31
Upper-moderate 16
High 24

Note: Figures in the chart do not equal 100% due to rounding.

  • Around a quarter (24%) of commitment goals ranked high for SMARTness, 16% were upper moderate, 31% were lower moderate and less than a third (30%) were low. This pattern varied across stakeholders, with almost half (46%) of donor actions and 41% of CSO actions being low in SMARTness, and therefore not trackable; by contrast, only 13% of the private sector goals were low. Little variation in SMARTness was seen across commitment types.
  • Receiving a lower SMARTness ranking was usually due to missing or unclear data on the indicator used to measure progress against the goal (and how Measurable it is). For example, not specifying the name and unit of the indicator (e.g. annual US$ disbursement), and its baseline and targeted value result in lower ranking. This data is key to ensuring the goal can be tracked and reported on. Of note, there was substantial variation in the selection of indicators across stakeholders and for similar goals highlighting the lack of consensus in how to best track progress.
  • Missing information on the cost and funding of the commitment was also a very frequent reason for lower SMARTness (and how Achievable it is). Costs associated with the delivery of two-thirds of the commitments were not reported, either because this had not been estimated (245 commitments, 57%) or estimated but not willing to disclose (48, 11%). It is recognised that such information may not be readily available at registration, as it takes time to provide an accurate figure; missing data can be provided via the verification process.
3 Share section


Governments have a fundamental responsibility and authority to safeguard their populations’ nutrition, resilience and wellbeing through wide-ranging enabling, policy and impact actions.

Low- and lower-middle-income countries made the vast majority of domestic commitments, allocating substantial financial resources to improve their populations’ nutrition.

  • Governments, almost all from low- and lower-middle-income countries, have shown an outstanding level of engagement, representing the largest stakeholder group. Their domestic (non-donor) goals prioritised enabling (196, 42%) and impact (183, 39%) actions, rather than policy (91, 19%). Specifically, ‘nutrition care services’ (43, 47% of policy goals) and ‘food system policies’[21] (37, 41%) received relatively equal attention, but were comparatively low overall.
  • ‘Leadership and governance’ was the main focus for enabling actions committed by governments domestically. Key examples are the development of national laws, policies and nutrition plans and improving national coordination mechanisms. All financial goals are grouped as enabling actions, and governments pledged over US$13.3 billion as domestic nutrition-specific and/or nutrition-sensitive investments, including by increasing their national budget allocation to nutrition. Considering the constrained financial resources in lower-income settings, this is a notable achievement.
  • Given the critical role governments have in improving the nutrition outcomes of their population, impact actions were also prioritised. ‘Undernutrition’ was the focus of such actions, mainly committing to directly decreasing stunting, wasting, anaemia and low birth weight. These findings show that low- and lower-middle-income countries are concentrating their malnutrition efforts on tackling undernutrition rather than obesity and diet-related NCDs. Of note, ‘food and nutrition security’ was largely not prioritised domestically.
4 Share section

Civil society organisations

CSOs have a vital role in advocating for nutrition, supporting governments to deliver effective nutrition action, and directly providing nutrition interventions.

Civil society organisations have stepped up through a range of commitments that showcase the diverse role they play in nutrition action.

  • CSOs have a substantially stronger presence in 2021 compared to previous N4G summits. Their focus was on enabling actions (109 goals, 53%) followed by policy (62, 30%) and impact (36, 17%), going beyond advocating for and supporting nutrition action.
  • CSOs’ advocacy role was largely reflected by their enabling goals. Supporting stronger ‘leadership and governance’ was fundamental, such as through cross-organisation and country partnerships and national nutrition plans. ‘Operational’ efforts, such as developing training and building capacity for food production and farming, were also high on the CSO agenda. Financial investments committed for nutrition interventions and plans were over US$567 million.
  • Providing ‘nutrition care services’ was the focus of CSO policy actions (27, 44% of policy goals) such as wasting, stunting and anaemia treatment and vitamin supplementation programmes. Closely linked to that were impact actions to directly improve ‘undernutrition’ and ‘diet’ outcomes, such as stunting, low birth weight, as well as diet diversity and quality.
5 Share section

The private sector

The private sector is an essential player, with the ability to help transform our food system and enable access to healthy, affordable and sustainably produced food.

Commitments from private sector businesses demonstrate the critical role they can play both for their workforces and improving the nutrition of the wider population.

  • The private sector was represented by 23 food businesses and seven non-food businesses, mostly multinationals headquartered in high-income countries. They committed predominantly to policy actions (85, 79%) with global or multi-country reach targeting consumers and their workforce. Fewer actions were enabling (21, 20%) and just one was impact (1, 0.9%).
  • There was a strong focus on adopting internal corporate policies. These aimed primarily at transforming the ‘food supply chain’ through food reformulation to improve the nutritional value of products, improvement of agricultural practices, increase of plant-based products and reduction of food loss and waste. The private sector further targeted the ‘food environment’ by expanding the healthy options for employees in cafeterias and providing workplace nutrition programmes.
  • To create an enabling environment for nutrition within their companies, the private sector prioritised ‘operational’ actions, including training and educating their employees on how to prepare healthy meals and reduce food waste. Externally, businesses committed to ‘leadership and governance’ goals, such as joining global alliances. Their financial goals were about US$54 million.
6 Share section


Donors have a critical role to play in mobilising and providing financial investments required to achieve global nutrition targets and respond in periods of crisis.

Donors have committed more funding than ever before, with a third of this total to respond to the impacts of Covid-19, but there is a reliance on a relatively small number of actors.

  • Donors were represented by donor governments (14), philanthropies (3), multilateral development banks (3) and international organisations (1). Their goals were mainly enabling (52, 85%), which encompasses financial investments. Only a few were policy (6, 10%) – focused on ‘food supply chain’ and ‘nutrition care services’ – and impact (3, 5%), focused on stunting and wasting.
  • More than US$26.3 billion, the largest amount committed by donors across N4G summits, was pledged by nine donor governments and five donor organisations. Of this amount, more than US$8.2 billion was committed to address the impacts of the pandemic on food and health systems. All but one[22] of these 14 donors were based in high-income countries in North America and Europe. Indicators used to track and report on financial spending varied, highlighting the lack of a standardised approach in monitoring finances for nutrition.
  • Although financial investments are the primary focus for donors, their actions go beyond that. In fact, most of their enabling actions focus on leadership and governance, for example strengthening policy influence and partnerships in low and middle-income countries with the aim of advancing the implementation of nutrition-sensitive programmes.
7 Share section

International organisations

International organisations are vital in setting agendas, promoting coordinated nutrition action across the globe, and championing action where it is needed most.

International organisations are demonstrating the important support and coordination role they play, focusing most on supporting governments to deliver effective nutrition actions.

  • International organisations, comprising seven UN agencies, continue their key role in supporting governments in the global fight against malnutrition under the auspices of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition. More than half (19, 56%) of their goals were enabling, just under a third (10, 29%) were policy and a few (5, 15%) were impact.
  • UN enabling goals focused on strengthening ‘leadership and governance’ (15, 79%), with actions such as supporting the development of policies and programmes, enhancing public–private partnerships and developing environments that improve nutrition outcomes. Financial investments were made by one organisation and reached US$2.4 billion
  • Of their policy actions, most (7, 70%) focused on enhancing ‘nutrition care services’. Examples of these efforts include improving the prevention and treatment services for undernutrition, such as wasting and micronutrient deficiencies, as well as supporting nutritional improvements among patients with NCDs. Less focus was given to impact actions aiming to address ‘undernutrition’, specifically stunting, wasting and anaemia.
8 Share section

Key recommendations

1. We need a far broader constituency of actors to step up worldwide and make commitments to improve nutrition that can be accounted for.

  • Given the global nutrition crisis we face, every actor should step up with unprecedented effort to tackle it, and there are some stakeholders that are not yet well represented in commitment-making.
  • Higher income governments should see themselves as more than just donors and follow the example set by lower income countries. Far more should register commitments for their own populations, where poor diets, obesity and diet-related NCDs in particular are a significant and growing problem.
  • Greater diversity of actors within the donor group is needed to ensure that funding decisions and allocations are based on an inclusive agenda and to reduce the vulnerability of the funding base they provide.
  • There is also a clear gap for greater representation from within the private sector among smaller and national-level businesses that are minimally represented in commitment-making and yet have a unique and important role to play.

2. We need commitments to reflect sustained and increased external and domestic public and private financing for nutrition that can be easily tracked.

  • The immense effort to deliver funding for nutrition action is clear and evident in commitments. Yet, the scale of the challenge we face means we are far from closing the financing gap required to end malnutrition.[23] Commitments should reflect the level and range of actions we need.
  • Commitments from governments, donors, CSOs and international organisations should be sustained, increased, and made ever more inclusive, not least through diversifying the funding base externally and domestically. In addition, stakeholders that can provide or leverage new and innovative forms of finance, such as the private sector, should step up and commit to action in this area in recognition of the need to mobilise untapped resources.
  • Mobilising more finance to build nutritional resilience and equip actors to respond decisively in times of crisis is crucial, reducing both the immediate and long-term financial and human costs of crises on nutrition.
  • Critically, we need transparent and consistent reporting of funding commitments and spending, so we have a far better understanding of how money is being spent, where it is going, and the return on that investment. Building consensus across stakeholders providing funding about how their data is reported and tracked should be key in such efforts. This is the only way we can enhance the impact of funding increasingly over time.

3. We need far greater attention on food security that truly includes nutrition security in commitment-making.

  • The lack of commitments focusing on food and nutrition security across all stakeholders is worrying. It is a significant problem in both low- and high-income countries, impacting all forms of malnutrition, and exacerbated by recent crises including Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine.
  • There is a clear need for far more actions that aim to increase food and nutrition security and go beyond calories to put explicit emphasis on nutrition. This should be complemented by screening of diet quality when assessing food security interventions. This focus is vital to ensure people are accessing sufficient levels of food that also promote wellbeing and prevent illness and disease.
  • In doing so, such actions will equitably address hunger and diet-related diseases – bringing together historically siloed areas of attention, both of which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities and compound existing inequities.
  • Commitment-making in this area can and should come from every stakeholder group and be supported by guidance and policies that address the current neglect of nutrition in food and nutrition security efforts.

4. We need commitments that will bring transformative policies for our food system and deliver universal access to healthy, affordable and sustainably produced food.

  • To transform the food system, significant effort from all stakeholders is needed to improve the food environment and food supply chain, yet commitments currently in this area come predominantly from the private sector.
  • Governments in particular should ensure they are overseeing and coordinating any action that impacts the food system, since this determines whether their populations are able to access and afford healthy diets that are sustainably produced. This includes developing and setting standards for the private sector as necessary for this to be achieved.
  • Such policies are far ranging and far reaching from production to consumption, with the ability to impact diets and multiple forms of malnutrition at once. They include crop diversification and improving the nutrient profile of products through reformulation and fortification, through to subsiding school meals and regulating labelling, marketing and advertising practices.
  • It is clear everyone has a part to play, and commitments should now reflect this with coordination and collaboration at the heart of implementation to ensure efforts are mutually reinforcing and deliver improved nutrition outcomes.

5. We need commitments that promote universal access to nutrition care services that are integrated in the health system.

  • Nutrition services that are built into healthcare services – whether public or private – are vital to achieving the significant mutual benefits to be gained by integrating health and nutrition.
  • This recognition in fact led to the World Health Organization highlighting that Universal Health Coverage cannot be achieved without the integration of nutrition services. That was reflected in UN agencies committing most of their policies on improving such services, with a focus on undernutrition.
  • While CSOs have committed notable policy actions to nutrition care services, as have country governments, few (9%) commitment goals overall focused on nutrition care services.
  • There is a clear need for more commitments from all stakeholders, particularly governments, to ensure nutrition is built systematically into their health systems. Policy commitments should capture the breadth of malnutrition burdens from undernutrition to diet-related NCDs focused on preventing and treating disease, including nutrition supplementation programmes, breastfeeding support and nutrition counselling.

Share Executive summary

Executive summary - 2022 Global Nutrition Report

Download a PDF of the executive summary of this year's report

Download the summary


  1. Global Nutrition Report. 2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2021-global-nutrition-report/

    Return to source text
  2. Definition according to the Food and Agriculture Organization: a healthy diet is one that meets daily energy needs as well as requirements within the food and dietary guidelines created by the country. Affordability is measured by comparing the cost of a healthy diet to income levels in the country. If the cost exceeds 52% of an average household’s income, the diet is deemed unaffordable.

    Return to source text
  3. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food and Nutrition Security Around the World: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable. Rome, Italy: FAO, 2022. Available at: https://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2022/en/.

    Return to source text
  4. Definition according to the Food and Agriculture Organization: A person is food insecure when they lack regular access to enough safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life. This may be due to unavailability of food and/or lack of resources to obtain food.

    Return to source text
  5. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food and Nutrition Security Around the World: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable. Rome, Italy: FAO, 2022. Available at: https://data.unicef.org/resources/sofi-2021/.

    Return to source text
  6. Global Nutrition Report. 2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2021-global-nutrition-report/

    Return to source text
  7. Overweight and Obesity. World Health Organization. 2021; published online 9 June. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed 15 November 2022.

    Return to source text
  8. Global Nutrition report. 2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2021-global-nutrition-report/

    Return to source text
  9. The 2022 Global Nutrition Report refers to food and nutrition security to draw explicit focus to quality of food since it is often overlooked in food security policies and interventions that pay greater attention to access to quantity of food.

    Return to source text
  10. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound.

    Return to source text
  11. Undernutrition is a diet-related condition resulting from insufficient food intake to meet needs for energy and nutrients, including stunting, wasting, underweight and micronutrient deficiencies.

    Return to source text
  12. The verification process is also new and involves contacting stakeholders to obtain missing and/or unclear data relevant to the commitments they registered.

    Return to source text
  13. The NAF provides a platform for self-reporting of nutrition commitments by various stakeholders. It does not prescribe nutrition priorities or have a regulatory nature with regards to validating the self-reported data, including holding stakeholders accountable for actual delivery of commitments.

    Return to source text
  14. All findings are based on commitments registered in the NAF platform from 14 September 2021 (date of platform launch) until 15 March 2022. Self-reported, unverified data has been used for the present analyses, which have subsequently been cleaned and standardised. The verification of these commitments started in November 2022, and as such data presented herein may be subject to change.

    Return to source text
  15. The number of unique stakeholders is 198, with one government being classified as both a country government and a donor.

    Return to source text
  16. NAF data for ‘governments’ captures commitments made by any government body at any administrative level. This report shows data from 78 government bodies across 65 countries.

    Return to source text
  17. A donor is any stakeholder making a commitment outside their own national boundaries, entity or workforce, for example a government contributing financial and non-financial resources to another country (i.e. acting as a donor government).

    Return to source text
  18. Recognising that most commitments registered are N4G ones (linked to the Tokyo N4G Summit), observed patterns may not truly reflect the global nutrition landscape.

    Return to source text
  19. Financial goals registered across all stakeholders are N4G ones. Total amounts may underestimate the full magnitude of financial investments, as amounts were not reported for all financial goals.

    Return to source text
  20. A commitment may align with one or more global nutrition targets (or none); as a result, the percentages do not total 100.

    Return to source text
  21. Including policy goals focused on ‘food supply chain’ (12) and ‘food environment’ (25).

    Return to source text
  22. One multilateral development bank was based in a lower-middle-income country. All other donors, including donor governments, were based in high-income countries.

    Return to source text
  23. Global Nutrition Report. 2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2021-global-nutrition-report/

    Return to source text