SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
150 posts categorized "Assets for the Poor"
We’ve talked before about how workers can benefit from an increased minimum wage, but the advantages continue even after health problems keep people from employment. A higher minimum wage allows people to pay more into the Social Security system, therefore qualifying for increased disability and retirement benefits.
We can compare the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour to what would happen if Congress passed the minimum wage bill it’s currently considering. To make the numbers simple, assume that any wage changes would occur on January 1 each year. The minimum wage would be $8.20 an hour in 2016, $9.15 an hour in 2017, and $10.10 in 2018. After that, it would increase based on the Consumer Price Index; let’s assume an increase of 2.76%, which was the average increase over the past 25 years (1989-2013). After rounding to the nearest nickel as the law dictates, that would be $10.40 in 2019, $10.70 in 2020, and $11 in 2021.
What would this really mean for someone who becomes disabled? Imagine a woman named Anne. She started a minimum wage job on her 19th birthday, which was January 1, 2014, and works an average of 30 hours a week. That’s not uncommon; in 2013, there were over 1.6 million people aged 16-24 in minimum wage jobs.
By the end of 2021, Anne would earn a total of $25,038 more if the minimum wage were increased as described above than she would if her salary stayed at $7.25 an hour. From this additional income, she would contribute $1552 more than she otherwise would have into Social Security’s disability and retirement insurance system, if the withholding rate for those programs stays at its current level of 6.2%.
That extra investment in Social Security could pay off for Anne. At the end of December 2021, Anne experiences a severe health problem that keeps her from working, she will qualify for higher Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. Nobody likes to think about becoming too sick to work, but over 224,000 people aged 30 and under get SSDI; some of the most common reasons include injuries, mental illness, intellectual disabilities, and neurological disorders like epilepsy. Experiencing medical problems is challenging enough without adding hunger and extreme poverty to the equation.
Using the detailed Social Security benefits calculator we can see what a difference a change in the minimum wage would make to Anne. If the minimum wage increased as described above, she’d receive $1091 a month in disability benefits in 2022. If the minimum wage stays at $7.25 an hour, she’d get just $1010 a month. It might not sound like a big difference, and it will be a challenge to live on either amount in 2022, but raising the minimum wage will increase Anne’s disability benefits by more than 8%. From the time Anne starts receiving SSDI (there is a five-month wait after becoming disabled) to the end of 2027, assuming annual cost-of-living adjustments of 2.76%, raising the minimum wage would provide her an extra $5859. That’s money for housing, for transportation to the doctor’s office, for retraining in a new career. It could be money for food.
Raising the minimum wage would help people like Anne while she works, and also allows them to pay more money into the Social Security system. This helps strengthen the system for current retirees and people with disabilities, and provides a stronger safety net if their working lives do end.
What can $1247 a month buy you? Imagine paying for housing, food, utilities, transportation, and other essentials on that amount, which is full-time work at the federal minimum wage. Factor in little things that can bust a tight budget: a Christmas present for your mom, an occasional haircut, some tissues and medicine when you get a bad cold. Could you afford to put aside anything for a medical emergency, a car repair, or retirement? Would you feel motivated and prepared to go back to school, or to get married and start a family?
In this situation, don’t count on public benefits. A single, childless person with this income would earn $2 too much for SNAP benefits and be $52 a month over income for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). In many states, this minimum wage worker would also fall into a coverage gap, earning too much for Medicaid and not enough to receive a subsidy for private medical insurance.
There are two big ways to help low-wage workers in this situation: raise the minimum wage, or expand the EITC. They each have pros and cons, but the good news is we don’t have to choose.
The EITC arrives once a year. A lump sum can help pay off debt or create savings accounts for retirement or emergencies, but if it’s November and your car breaks down or your day care bill is due, it doesn’t do much good to have a bunch of money heading your way in April. Researchers have studied the best way to have EITC payments arrive throughout the year and various forms of this “periodic EITC” are part of Rep. Paul Ryan’s and Sen. Marco Rubio’s anti-poverty plans, but this could be a lot more complicated, inaccurate, and burdensome for employers to calculate than a simple change in the minimum wage would be.
Another difference is while everyone earning the minimum wage would benefit from its increase (so would many of those earning slightly more, who would get raises to keep their salaries above less senior workers) the EITC is highly targeted. It’s more generous to married couples and people with children, it is only available to people aged 25-64. Also, you have to file a tax return to get it. This might be a good way to encourage people to file tax returns, which helps the government keep track of people’s earnings so they get the right amount of Social Security benefits later on. The EITC also rewards people who get married and helps ease the financial burden of having kids; that’s good for them but not for younger, older, or childless workers. There’s bipartisan support for expanding the program, but disagreement on how to pay for that.
“How to pay for that” is the final difference between raising the minimum wage and expanding the EITC—but it’s not as big a difference as some might think. Wages are paid by employers, some of whom may cut their profits or raise their prices if they are required to pay their workers more. This means shareholders and consumers ultimately pay the price. The EITC is paid by the government, from taxes and other revenues. Either way, the costs get spread around quite widely. So does the cost of inaction, of keeping wages and tax subsidies low. When full-time workers qualify for SNAP or go to the emergency room without insurance, the public pays.
The EITC and the minimum wage are not opponents; they are two roads to the same place. If the minimum wage goes up, fewer people will need the EITC. And by increasing the number of people served by the EITC and the benefit they receive from it, we can help people attain the stability they need to train and apply for higher-wage jobs. The minimum wage and the EITC are different, but they can both make a big difference.
Last week, President Obama hosted the historic U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, DC. The summit, whose theme was Investing in the Next Generation, brought together 50 leaders from across the African continent, members of Africa’s civil society, private sector actors, and various faith communities. The three-day summit, August 4-6, focused on strengthening trade relations between the United States and African nations and opening new economic partnerships that are based on mutual responsibility and mutual respect.
The summit took place in the context of the Obama administration’s deepening engagement with African countries. In June 2012, President Obama released the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa, which outlined a comprehensive U.S. policy for the region. This strategy reflects and builds on many of the initiatives launched earlier in Obama’s presidency, such as Feed the Future. In addition, the Strategy supports the integration of existing U.S. government initiatives to boost broad-based economic growth in Africa, including through trade and investment.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), signed into law in 2000 by President Clinton, remains the most important piece of legislation that defines trade relationships between the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa. Since the legislation went into effect, the region’s exports have increased by more than 500 percent, from $8.15 billion in 2001 to $53.8 billion in 2011. AGOA applies to only a small portion of these exports, since during this period, about 95 percent of Africa’s exports outside the continent were oil and gas.
AGOA’s achievements illustrate its great potential to spur economic growth. Agriculture-led growth, which has the greatest impact on poverty, is still urgently needed. The food price crisis of 2007-2008, followed by the worldwide economic downturn, have meant an increase in hunger and malnutrition and continued high poverty rates. An estimated 80 percent of Africa’s hungry and poor people support themselves through agriculture.
AGOA is due for reauthorization in 2015. Bread for the World championed the authorization of AGOA in 2000 and has remained engaged ever since. As Bread for the World President Rev. David Beckmann said during last week’s summit, facilitating regional trade that supports smallholder farmers and local businesses amplifies the efforts of U.S. government-funded programs such as Feed the Future and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). U.S. agriculture and trade policy – for example, the structure of import tariffs and an assortment of commodity payments made to U.S. farmers -- has sometimes undermined African countries’ efforts to use agriculture to take the first steps out of poverty. A robust AGOA, however, has the potential to boost the livelihoods of hungry and poor people while allowing them to determine their own development path and invest in the future generations.
During his visit to three African countries in 2013, President Obama announced two new initiatives designed to spur economic growth and investment on the continent. Trade Africa aims to both encourage greater regional integration and increase trade and investment between the United States and sub-Saharan African countries by aligning U.S. assistance with national government and private sector priorities.
Power Africa, on the other hand, is led by the private sector. The goal of this innovative initiative is to double access to electricity in Africa, where more than 600 million people currently lack access. At the summit, Obama announced a renewed commitment to Power Africa, pledging a new level of $300 million in annual funding to expand the project’s reach. The new goal is to provide 30,000 megawatts in additional electrical capacity, increasing access by at least 60 million households and businesses. The president also announced $6 billion in new private sector commitments, bringing the total private sector investment in Power Africa to more than $20 billion. Some of the additional commitments are part of Beyond the Grid, a new sub-initiative announced at the U.S-Africa Energy Ministerial meeting in June of this year. Beyond the Grid will foster private investment in off-grid and small-scale energy solutions that focus on remote areas.
So far under Power Africa, 12 U.S. government agencies have begun working closely with African governments, both to identify and overcome the key legal, regulatory, and policy constraints to investment and to implement policies that will enable good governance and sustainable growth for Africa’s growing power sector. Early experience shows that carefully targeted capacity building in trade and investment aids efforts to reduce hunger and malnutrition and achieve other critical development initiatives. Significant progress is made possible, for example, by reducing post-harvest losses associated with lack of access to cold storage facilities.
The Africa Leaders Summit highlighted several opportunities for trade and investment to intersect with efforts to end hunger and malnutrition. To make the most of these opportunities, U.S. government initiatives should adopt a coordinated approach that is data-driven, goal-oriented, and strategic, and that builds on the experience of relatively new U.S. foreign assistance programs such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and Feed the Future.
Posted by Faustine Wabwire on August 12, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Assets for the Poor, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Good Governance, Inequality, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Challenge Account, Millennium Development Goals, Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) recently issued a report that projects the food security of 76 low- and middle-income countries for the years 2014-2024. The assessment was based on two main factors: capacity to produce food, and capacity to import.
The report is a follow-up to ERS’ first report that made 10-year food security projections, which covered 2013-2023 and was based on the same factors.
The ability to produce food domestically is, of course, especially important in the parts of Asia and Africa that rely most heavily on local agriculture. The ability to pay for food imports is a much more significant factor in Latin America, the Caribbean, and North Africa, where countries import a large proportion of the food they need. ERS weighed both factors in order to project the number of people in each country or region who will be food-insecure.
Over the short term, ERS believes that the overall situation in the 76 countries will improve. The share of the population that is food-insecure fell 1.6 percent during the year 2013 to 2014. This is expected to translate into a 9 percent drop in the overall numbers of hungry people, from 539 million in 2013 to 490 million in 2014 (for the 76 countries in the report).
However, over the decade 2014-2024, ERS projects that the number of people who are food-insecure will increase. This is because the share of the population that is food-insecure is expected to grow from 13.9 percent now to 14.6 percent in 2024. As might be expected, the main reason that ERS identified is that the food supply – what can be produced domestically plus what a country can afford to import – is expected to grow slowly, while demand for food is already strong and will grow more quickly.
What does the report mean for global hunger? The ERS says that short-term improvements in improving food security in these countries, while positive, will not be sustained in the long-term due to population growth, weak country infrastructure and other factors. Improving production capacities of small-holder farmers, most often women, is essential. Giving women farmers improved access to land, seed, fertilizer and markets in these countries is an important key to this, and will help build the foundation to a future where food insecurity and hunger are a thing of the past.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on July 23, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This Thursday is the five-year anniversary of the last time Congress raised the federal minimum wage. Despite growing worker productivity and ever-rising living costs, the minimum wage has been immobile at $7.25 an hour since July 2009. If the minimum wage had kept up with U.S. productivity growth since 1950, it would be $18.67 today.
Minimum wage workers and their families know that $7.25 an hour means life is little more than a daily struggle just to survive. A full-time, year-round minimum wage worker earns only $15,080 annually. This is well below the poverty line for a family of four ($23,850 in 2014), and only a fraction of what an American family of four actually needs to support even a modest standard of living (see the graphic above).
It’s simply not possible for one or even two adults working full-time for minimum wage to provide for their families’ basic needs. The graphic to the right provides a breakdown of what the Economic Policy Institute has calculated a worker living in a part of the country with average living costs (Topeka, Kansas in this example) needs to sustain a secure living for a family of four.
In 2012, 10 million full-time workers in our country were paid poverty-level wages -- 28 percent of all full-time workers. Low-wage workers and their families are, by and large, the face of American poverty. If these 10 million workers had earned enough to put them over the poverty line – that is, the $23,850 figure, not the $63,364 to meet basic needs – there would have been 58 percent fewer families living in poverty.
Every American who works 40 hours each week should earn enough to keep her or his family out of poverty. There have been times in U.S. history when that principle was upheld. This week’s anniversary is nothing to celebrate. Instead, it reminds us once again that the time to resume honoring our country’s values of fairness and the work ethic is long ov
Some Americans are raising awareness for the five-year anniversary by taking the Live the Wage Challenge--attempting to live on a minimum wage income for just one week. After housing costs and taxes, that's just $77 per week. You can read stories and find instructions for how to take the challenge at livethewage.com.
Why are so many more unaccompanied children crossing the U.S. border with Mexico? Most (about 75 percent) of the new wave of minors are not actually from Mexico, but have made the long journey through Mexico from the Central American countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
If the surge of child migrants were caused by softer U.S. policies -- or rumors of softer U.S. policies -- we would expect many to be from Mexico. After all, Mexico, which shares its long border with the United States, is the home country of the majority of undocumented immigrants here. But as we see in the above graphic, Mexico is not the source of the increase. In fact, the number of unaccompanied Mexican children has changed little, and even declined since 2009.
The primary causes are, instead, deep poverty and extreme levels of violence in Central America. The striking disparities between the haves and have-nots in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador sustain high levels of hunger and malnutrition, particularly among young children, whose rates of stunting are soaring. At the same time, the three are the most violence-plagued nations in the hemisphere. Gangs often choose to recruit elementary school children; those who refuse to join are sometimes killed along with their entire families, and girls are frequently targeted for gang rape. This is why so many of those trying to cross the U.S. border are children and teenagers.
As long as poverty, inequality, and weak governance persist – and often worsen – many families in these three countries face a dilemma no parent should have to face: keep their children home even though they can’t protect them, or send them on long, dangerous journeys in hopes that they will reach a safer place.
To resolve the crisis of the unaccompanied child migrants, border control is not enough. The root causes are at home. Thousands of desperate families have determined that fleeing, even with the risk of never reaching their destination, is the best option their children have. The United States can do a great deal to help alleviate poverty and enable Central American governments to protect their citizens. Read more about specific policy recommendations from the Institute’s senior immigration policy analyst, Andrew Wainer.
Posted by Bread on July 14, 2014 in Assets for the Poor, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Immigration, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It was not so long ago— in 2007-2008 and 2010-2011—that spikes in the prices of staple foods accompanied by food price volatility caused a surge in hunger around the world, sending millions more people to bed hungry. Sudden spikes in the prices of essential commodities such as food affect all families, but especially those who are poor since poor people spend so much of their entire incomes—often 50 percent to 70 percent—on food. With so little discretionary money in the household budget, it is very difficult to adjust to rapid price increases. The global food crisis was a wake-up call for the global community, who had by that time dramatically cut back investments in agriculture. The crisis spurred new attention to the vital role of global agriculture—both now and in the future.
Photo: Laura Pohl/ Bread for the World
Long before the global food crisis, however, member states of the African Union (AU) had already laid out a plan to reinvest in agriculture as a pathway to fight hunger and spur economic transformation on the continent. In 2003, the AU’s New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) launched the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). That year, African heads of state met in Maputo, Mozambique and agreed, in the Maputo Declaration, both to begin devoting 10 percent of their national budgets to agriculture by 2008, and to set a goal of achieving an average annual growth rate of 6 percent in the agricultural sector by 2015. As detailed in Bread for the World Institute’s analysis The Push-Up Decade: CAADP at 10, 10 out of 54 AU member states have reached or exceeded the target of allocating 10 percent of their national budgets to agriculture: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Malawi, Mali, Niger, and Senegal, who have already exceeded the 10 percent investment target. At the same time, 10 countries have met or exceeded the CAADP target of 6 percent growth in agriculture: Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania. Another four have achieved growth of between 5 and 6 percent.
The analysis shows that filling the investment gaps in agriculture is necessary to promote broad-based economic growth. Fifteen out of 19 CAADP countries that have failed to meet the 10 percent CAADP target leave a $4.4 billion total shortfall in funding. On the other hand, Niger and Ethiopia are two of the four countries that have met the target, and both are on track to halving extreme poverty by 2015.
It is thefeore appropriate that at the 2014 AU summit last week in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, African leaders recommitted to doubling their commitment to the Maputo pledge to boost regional food security. Elements of the renewed focus include:
- Set a goal of eradicating chronic hunger by 2025
- Strengthen CAADP by including links to social protection
- Establish an Africa Solidarity Trust Fund to support four new sub-regional projects aimed at increasing food security and nutrition in 24 African countries.
These are all timely, encouraging steps.
This is a critical moment for Africa. There are positive economic trends: over the last decade, 10 of the world’s fastest-growing economies have been on the African continent. Yet despite these impressive growth rates, hunger and poverty still plague a large section of the population. The majority of poor people—approximately 75 percent—live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Targeted investments in agriculture are therefore critical and urgent. Investments must take a comprehensive approach that prioritizes smallholder farmers with emphasis on women and youth. Areas of focus should include access to credit; access to protective assets such as land; social protection programs such as cash transfers; and infrastructure—including irrigation, transportation, and energy.
As the world negotiates a new set of global development goals to succeed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) after their deadline in late 2015, Africa must step up to the plate and translate its commitments to support smallholder farmers into action. Development partners such as the United States should continue to support Africa’s efforts by helping CAADP strengthen its capacity and fill in resource gaps, particularly in the development of energy, access to markets, and infrastructure to prevent post-harvest losses. These investments should move beyond simply increasing production to emphasize access to highly nutritious foods. They should focus more on the food security of rural populations and provide employment opportunities for youth and women.
Globally, the importance of focusing on smallholder farmers as essential to achieving the first MDG cannot be over-emphasized. The United Nations General Assembly declared 2014 The International Year of Family Farming as a way of raising the profile of smallholder farmers. According to the Food and Agricuture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), family farming is important because:
- Family and small-scale farming are inextricably linked to world food security.
- Family farming preserves traditional food products, while contributing to a balanced diet and safeguarding the world’s agro-biodiversity and the sustainable use of natural resources.
- Family farming represents an opportunity to boost local economies, especially when combined with specific policies aimed at the social protection and well-being of communities.
With just three weeks left before the historic 2014 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit to be held in Washington DC (August 4-6), I hope that agriculture, climate change and trade will rank high on the agenda. These are critical if Africa is to sustain its recent impressive economic growth path.
Posted by Faustine Wabwire on July 11, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Gender, Global Hunger, Inequality, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This past Saturday, Bread for the World Institute, in partnership with the website, HelpMeViz, hosted the very first HelpMeViz Hunger Report Hackathon at Bread's Washington, DC office. The event brought together a diverse group of justice-minded statisticians, web developers, coders, designers, and data geeks who volunteered their time, skills, and creative energy to take on two compelling data questions on global women’s empowerment and nutrition. The goal? To scour massive World Bank and UN datasets to find and visualize answers. We gave them four hours. They gave us a lot to think about. Here’s our storify-style recap of how the day went down:
Two Data Challenges—Two Dynamic Groups
Challenge 1: There’s a lot of data missing on women’s empowerment. How do we tell that story visually?
Challenge 2: Stunting hurts one in four children around the world. When women are more empowered, do stunting rates drop?
Getting Started: Cleaning Data and Brainstorming Ideas
Both teams were thrown a number of very large datasets. Some were manageable and easy to understand—most were not. So the first step was to get to know the data, share some tips on where to start, and find ways to clean it up and make it easier to analyze. The close second step was to begin brainstorming ideas for how to use that data.
Team 1: How Do You Visualize Nothing?
Team 1 had an atypical data challenge—not to tell a story about the data that we have, but to focus on what's missing. Thankfully, they were up to it.
Team 2: Reaching Two Audiences
After cleaning their data, team two quickly began to find correlations between increased empowerment of women and lower stunting rates. But they wondered about the best way to tell the story. For advocates and academics, a data-heavy visualization would work, but probably not for policy makers. So the team decided to craft two ways of telling the same story: an infographic, and an interactive data app. They made good use of the sketch pads.
Data is about cleaned, which means we're going to move from analog to digital. #helpmeviz— HelpMeViz (@HelpMeViz) June 28, 2014
Four Hours Later: Data—Visualized!
By the end of the hackathon, both teams, with some help from online participants, produced some impressive visualizations and prototypes that attacked the data challenges from all angles. Heat maps, small multiples, scatter plots, bar charts and some very artful designs all brought fresh insight to the nutrition and women’s empowerment policy discussion, and striking content ideas to the 2015 Hunger Report. Here are some of them:
We Had a Lot of Thanking to Do
Thanks to everyone for a terrific first #HelpMeViz Hackathon! Hope the conversation continues.— HelpMeViz (@HelpMeViz) June 28, 2014
New Friends Made, New Projects Started
It’s clear to see that many stellar ideas were born in the three hours that our two teams had to work at this hackathon. The next step in some cases is simply to refine and polish. But in others it may be to continue building out the concept. We at Bread for the World Institute are eager to create opportunities for the teams to continue their work and to ultimately ready their visualizations for publication in the 2015 Hunger Report. We are now following up to decide on the best way to continue partnering with participants to carry on the work to that point.
Posted by Bread on July 01, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Gender, Global Hunger, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), endorsed by 189 countries in 2000, are an unprecedented global effort to achieve development goals that are identified collectively, achievable, and measurable. Globally, substantial progress has been made toward many MDG targets. The targets for MDG 1, the first of the eight goals, are to cut in half the proportion of people living with hunger and poverty by December 2015. The poverty target has been met. The hunger target has not, but it is still within reach if all countries are willing to do their part. According to the latest State of Food Insecurity (SOFI) report, 842 million people, or roughly one in eight people in the world, suffered from chronic hunger in the period 2011-2013. This is down from the figures for 2010-2012 (868 million) and for 2009 (1.02 billion).
This is a historic time. As the December 2015 MDG deadline approaches, global efforts to establish an agreed post-2015 development agenda are intensifying. The world’s attention and resources will be focused on this new set of goals for the next 15 years. Unlike the MDGs, which were crafted by a team of experts who came mainly from the United Nations, the process of setting a post-2015 development agenda is largely participatory. The U.N. is working with governments, civil society, the private sector and other partners to identify public priorities through the My World Survey.
Informed by the experience of the MDGs, Bread for the World Institute's briefing paper A Global Development Agenda: Toward 2015 and Beyond emphasizes that formulating a universal post-2015 development agenda is critical to promote equity and equitable growth worldwide. It is also an opening to recognize that key areas are clearly interwoven: food security and good nutrition for all; agricultural development; women’s economic empowerment; and good governance and effective institutions. The new goals should be conceptualized and worded in ways that capture the great potential of coordinated approaches, which have proven to be highly effective in responding to complex development challenges with many “moving parts.”
In May 2013, the High Level Panel on the post-2015 development agenda—a group tasked with advising the United Nations Secretary General—released its report A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development. The report advocates five “global shifts”:
- Leave no one behind;
- Put sustainable development at the core;
- Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth;
- Build peace and effective, open, and accountable institutions for all; and
- Forge a new global partnership.
Another group helping to conceptualize and frame the post-2015 development agenda was formed as a result of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development (usually called “Rio+20”), which took place in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The conference’s outcome document, The Future We Want, called for the creation of an intergovernmental Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals. The OWG was tasked with developing a proposal that both built on the progress made under the MDGs, and created a single post-2015 framework that placed poverty reduction and sustainable development at its core.
This week, June 14-20, the 12th Session of the Open Working Group met at U.N. headquarters in New York. The OWG's Working Document outlines 17 Focus Areas that are likely to succeed the current MDGs. They include sustainable agriculture, food security and nutrition; gender equality and women's empowerment; and promoting equality among nations.
While the My World Survey, High Level Panel recommendations, and Open Working Group document are all important to the creation of truly global post-2015 development goals, the most critical task is still ahead: to establish effective implementation mechanisms of the goals and their targets so that the world’s poor and marginalized people- wherever they may be- are not left behind. This should apply to all countries.
Posted by Faustine Wabwire on June 20, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Prices, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Inequality, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Nutrition and education link in Guatemala school feeding. (Joe Molieri/Bread for the World)
We recently marked the first anniversary of the historic global nutrition event “Nutrition for Growth: Beating Hunger Through Business and Science” (N4G), held in London in conjunction with the 2013 G-8 Summit. Co-hosted by the governments of the U.K. and Brazil and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), the event brought together leaders from business, government, science, academia, and civil society. They made ambitious financial and political commitments to provide better nutrition to women and children in the 1,000 Days “window of opportunity” from pregnancy to age 2; reduce the numbers of stunted children; and help put an end to deaths from severe acute malnutrition. More specifically, they agreed to prevent at least 20 million children from being stunted and to save at least 1.7 million lives by 2020.
How pervasive a problem is malnutrition? The number of people suffering from chronic hunger declined from 868 million in 2012 to 842 million in 2013. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the number of undernourished children has been reduced by 17 percent in 20 years. Yet undernutrition is still the cause of nearly half of the deaths of children under age 5.
Globally, nearly one in four children younger than 5 is stunted due to chronic micronutrient deficiencies. Stunting is a condition linked to increased susceptibility to common illnesses, lower levels of academic achievement, and lower lifetime earnings, said UNICEF in its recent report, "Improving Child Nutrition: The Achievable Imperative for Global Progress".
Severe acute malnutrition is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate attention. According to the World Health Organization, there is a 30 percent to 50 percent mortality rate for children younger than 5 who develop severe acute malnutrition.
How ambitious were the N4G commitments? Altogether, leaders pledged an historic $4.15 billion to tackle malnutrition via investments in multiple sectors: agriculture; health; water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH); education; and social protection programs. They did so in the realization that nutrition is intertwined with all these sectors -- and that a person who is malnourished in early childhood can never reach her or his full potential.Commitments were made to new partnerships and scaled-up research. An annual Global Report on Nutrition was announced (the “first annual” report will be released in November 2014 at the Second International Conference on Nutrition). An annual global nutrition meeting alongside the UN General Assembly was initiated. A Global Nutrition for Growth Compact puts nutrition at the center of the world’s development agenda. A group of businesses has pledged to improve the nutrition (and hence the productivity and health) of 927,000 employees in 80 countries. See a complete list of commitments.
A year after N4G, what progress has the United States made? The U.S. government has made nutrition a higher priority in meeting our global development assistance commitments. In a time of almost universal budget cuts, Congress reached a bipartisan agreement to boost funding for nutrition in the FY 2014 federal budget. USAID recently announced a new global multisectoral nutrition strategy. The agency credits the “strong advocacy and dedication” of civil society organizations such as Bread for the World Institute for the release of the strategy, which will “align our important global nutrition commitments.” The USAID strategy will be used to develop a U.S. Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan, to include USAID, four cabinet-level departments (Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Treasury, State), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the White House. The plan is designed to accelerate “progress toward relevant WHA targets and other U.S. government commitments by maximizing the impact of government actions.”
Civil society organizations, including those in the nutrition stakeholder community such as the Institute, are clearly a driving force in getting this high level of U.S. government commitment to nutrition. Legislative and non-legislative advocates are working seamlessly to increase funding for nutrition activities and to shape an effective policy and program operations agenda. USAID operational partners are designing nutrition projects that encompass several sectors of development assistance.
Of course, commitments and action by the governments of countries with high burdens of malnutrition are essential to success. To date, 51 such countries have come together in the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement in order to work -- governments and civil societies together – to expand successful nutrition programs.
Working together, civil society will monitor the pledges made at N4G to ensure that they are honored. We will help ensure that diverse government nutrition policies and programs come together in the most effective way possible. Malnutrition is a major component of global hunger, so tackling it more effectively will bring us much closer to our very feasible goal, ending global hunger by the year 2030.
In a recent blog post, David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World and Rick Leach, CEO of WFP-US said: “From climate change to civil liberties, the world is at a critical point right now with many issues. Global nutrition is no different, and, as such, deserves adequate attention as its reach is vast and implications deep. Future generations depend on decisions we--governments, NGOs, faith leaders, community leaders, investors, scientists, educators, and others--are making and actions we are taking right now to ensure that they can reach their full potential. Not only can we reduce undernutrition--we must if our children's children are to thrive.”
Posted by Scott Bleggi on June 13, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Immigration, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Challenge Account, Millennium Development Goals, Religion and Hunger, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.