SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
136 posts categorized "Latin America"
Photo credit: NASA
By Michele Learner
Ending global hunger requires enabling and equipping all people – all 7 billion and counting -- to feed themselves and their families, no matter where they live. As the world makes steady progress against hunger, one inconvenient truth is that the people and communities still living with hunger become harder and harder to reach. This is, after all, why many have not benefited from the progress made so far.
Many of the “last miles” in building food security are in the world’s 50 identified fragile and conflict-affected states. It’s not hard to understand why conflict-affected countries have high rates of hunger. The main aim of conflict – destruction – is directly at odds with what’s needed for sustainable development. Peace is a precondition for lasting progress on hunger. In its absence, local, national, and international humanitarian relief efforts are saving countless lives, but they can at best hold the line on hunger. They can’t enable nations, communities, or individuals to move forward.
What makes a country "fragile"? In its June 2015 report, States of Fragility, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), one of the main sources of information and analysis on fragile states, argues that fragility can apply to some degree in any country.
The report identifies five factors, based on indicators in the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), that help determine a country's degree of fragility. These are:
peaceful and inclusive societies
access to justice
accountable and inclusive institutions
economic inclusion and stability
capacities to prevent and adapt to social, economic, and environmental shocks and disasters
Unsurprisingly, the countries identified as weak in all five clusters form a very similar list of countries as earlier lists of fragile states. These are the Central African Republic (CAR), Guinea, Chad, Swaziland, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Cote d’Ivoire, Haiti, Yemen, and Sudan.
But countries that are vulnerable based on just a couple of the five areas include some that have not traditionally been considered fragile -- for example, Venezuela, Fiji, and Kenya. In fact, the report says, 12 countries on the OECD "50 most fragile" have never appeared on a list of fragile states.
States that have a significant degree of fragility thus vary widely -- in size, location, income level, specific challenges, and more. The world's remaining 795 million hungry people have not yet all been "mapped" precisely, but we know that a large number of them live in fragile and conflict-affected states.
This blog post has only just begun to consider where to start in the world's difficult but essential task of reaching hungry people in such a variety of difficult situations. Future posts will consider some examples of countries where hungry people are concentrated and look at research on policy improvements that could better enable them to feed themselves and their families.
Melinda Gates announced a new foundation pledge of $776 million over a six-year period to fight malnutrition. Gates made the announcement June 3 at the European Development Days forum on development and international cooperation.
Gates said that efforts to end malnutrition are underfunded, adding, “I know of no other problem in the world that does so much damage yet receives so little attention.”
Malnutrition is the underlying cause of almost half of all preventable deaths of children younger than 5. Many millions more who survive—one in four of the world’s children—are stunted, meaning that early childhood malnutrition has permanently damaged their physical and cognitive development.
The 2015-2020 Gates Nutrition Strategy centers around five initiatives: country impact; new solutions; food systems; data, analytics, and evidence; and advocacy, policy, and alignment. The efforts will include reaching more women, young children, adolescent girls, and others at risk with proven solutions such as breastfeeding and food fortification, improving food systems so that people have better access to nutritious and affordable food, and support a data revolution in nutrition to strengthen the evidence for nutrition actions and track progress.
The Gates Foundation will focus its efforts on five countries that have both high rates of child malnutrition and significant opportunities to make improvements: India, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Burkina Faso.
Gates called on European donors to continue to support maternal/child nutrition efforts, particularly at the upcoming Financing for Development conference, to be held in Addis Ababa in July, and at the U.N. General Assembly in September, where global leaders will be finalizing targets and financial commitments for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs will set the global development agenda through 2030, including targets for reducing malnutrition and child mortality. The SDGs succeed the Millennium Development Goals (September 2000-December 2015).
Posted by Scott Bleggi on June 03, 2015 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 Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs, Women's History Month | Comments (0)
The number of hungry people in the world has dropped below 800 million for the first time, according to this year’s State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI) report, released today. The report, authored by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the World Food Program, takes stock of the progress being made toward global hunger goals.
The report identifies what still needs to be done as the world transitions to the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals, which will follow the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) when they sunset this year. In 1996, 182 countries at the World Food Summit committed “… to eradicate hunger in all countries, with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished people to half their present level no later than 2015.” The first of eight MDGs, all adopted in 2000, encapsulates this commitment, including the target “cutting in half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by the year 2015.”
So how is the world doing?
The report reviews progress for every country and region. The news is good overall -- improvements outweighed setbacks. But as can be expected with such a broad and ambitious worldwide goal, problem areas remain, and in some regions hunger is still a stubborn problem.
Twenty-five years ago there were a billion hungry people. According to the new SOFI report, this number has now dropped to 795 million. The countries that improved the most had two features in common: strong economic growth that included investments in poor people, agriculture, and food production; and relative political stability. These countries were largely in East Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. A solid majority of countries (72 of 129) have met the ambitious target of cutting hunger in half.
These are certainly impressive achievements. Consider that natural disasters, civil and regional conflict, and weak governments can damage to poor countries disproportionately. Also, the world population has grown rapidly: it is higher by 1.9 billion people than it was in 1990. Predictions of widespread famine have for the most part not come true, but certainly there have been famines, such as the 2011 one in Somalia that killed at least 100,000 children younger than 5.
Sub-Saharan Africa’s hunger rate is still more than 33 percent, and more African countries (24) are experiencing food insecurity now than in 1990. Hunger rates in countries with continuing crises are more than three times higher than elsewhere, according to SOFI. In Africa and South Asia, “progress has been slow overall, despite success stories at country and sub-regional levels … there is no one size fits all solution.”
This is why sustaining the development work being done in USAID’s flagship hunger and poverty reduction initiative, Feed the Future, is so important. Feed the Future’s focus areas were developed specifically to sustainably reduce global poverty and hunger. It has demonstrated progress in “significantly reduc[ing] both poverty and stunting (a measure of chronic food insecurity)” in countries where it operates, and adequate funding is essential so this progress can continue.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on May 27, 2015 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
By Michele Learner
When I first heard the term "QDDR," it was 2010 and Hillary Rodham Clinton was Secretary of State. Was it just another acronym on the list of official Washington's contributions to the English language?
QDDR is the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, produced by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). As you can guess from my mention of it now, it wasn't just another acronym.
Even in 2010, advocates had been arguing for some time that diplomacy and development are necessary tools for U.S. national security. As Bread and other organizations explained, development assistance to reduce hunger and poverty was "not just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do."
Now, it seemed, the State Department and USAID agreed. The first-ever QDDR was a comprehensive assessment of how best to use diplomacy and development as tools to reach objectives such as the Millennium Development Goal of cutting hunger in half. The Department of Defense is required by law to prepare a periodic comprehensive assessment, but, of course, its Quadrennial Defense Review focuses on defense as a tool. The 2010 QDDR was a companion document that helped to elevate diplomacy and development as equal partners with defense in U.S. foreign policy.
This week, the second QDDR was released by Secretary of State John Kerry. As the State Department explains, the review identifies major trends "that constitute threats or opportunities," sets priorities, and recommends reforms "to ensure our civilian institutions are in the strongest position to shape and respond to a rapidly changing world."
The new QDDR is more narrowly focused than the first. Secretary Kerry said that he was given some good advice early in his career: If everything is important, nothing is important. Accordingly, the State Department and USAID will concentrate on four global policy priorities:
- preventing and mitigating conflict and violent extremism
- promoting open, resilient, and democratic societies
- advancing inclusive economic growth
- mitigating and adapting to climate change
"Each of these priorities is related to the need for better governance across the globe," said Kerry. "They're all linked."
Of course, developing an effective strategy for a nearly limitless topic such as "global affairs" requires a close look at that globe through more than one lens. From a different viewpoint than the policy priorities, for example, the QDDR focuses on four "cross-cutting areas." These flow from analysis of major long-term trends. They are:
- increasing partnerships and engaging beyond the nation-state (for example, partnering with mayors since almost 60 percent of the global population will be urban by 2030)
- improving governance (partnering with nations and individuals committed to what the review describes as "the difficult work of building strong, democratic governance")
- managing and mitigating physical risk (Kerry's remark that "diplomats cannot avoid risks in their work" headlined some media coverage of the QDDR's release)
- enhancing the use of data, diagnostics, and technology ("better application of data for crisis prevention," "greater accountability for strategic planning")
Photo Credit: Stephan Bachenheimer/World Bank
The sooner the world achieves gender equality, the sooner it will end hunger. Throughout the month of March (Women’s History Month), we have dedicated this blog to showing why this is true. We’ve examined some of the ways that gender discrimination contributes to hunger, and explained the concept of women’s empowerment and why hunger will persist until the barriers to women’s empowerment are removed. But when will women’s empowerment become a reality? And what can we do to speed up progress?
A recently published study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that at current rates of progress, women in the United States will not receive equal pay for equal work until 2058. Few readers of our blog will still be working then— just one obvious sign that pay equity is much too far away. Although these findings are discouraging, the study also indicated that years or even decades can be shaved off the projection with dedicated leadership and the right action steps.
Returning to the 2015 Hunger Report’s main focus on women’s empowerment in developing countries, here are three high-impact actions that will help achieve both gender equality and the end of hunger more quickly.
1. Elect More Women
Women are half of the global population, but hold an average of just 22 percent of seats in national parliaments. Research has found that women in public office at all levels tend to place greater emphasis than men on social services such as education, clean water and sanitation, and nutrition. They are also, not surprisingly, better positioned to understand and advocate for laws and policies that improve the status of women. Gender quotas are one way of ensuring that women’s voices are represented in government, and more than 80 countries have adopted them. Rwanda offers a compelling example. Once women got a foot in the door in that country’s national parliament, they exceeded their “quota” and now hold more than 60 percent of seats.
2. Strengthen Collective Women’s Groups
When marginalized people are free to speak and act collectively, their causes are more likely to be taken seriously by those in power. Beyond government, women can raise their collective voices through labor unions and religious and civil society groups. This can bring change sooner. But in many countries, social norms or even laws bar women from participation in the most influential groups. In Bangladesh and Nepal, women’s efforts to organize labor unions have been suppressed, sometimes violently. This is true particularly in key sectors that pay poorly, such as the garment industry. Yet effective collective bargaining groups represent these women’s best opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty by commanding higher wages and better working conditions.
3. Include Men
As we said in last week’s post, when women flourish, so do men. Evidence repeatedly affirms that empowering women benefits everyone. It adds whole percentage points to economic growth, reduces poverty and hunger, and improves health and nutrition for men, women, and children. But people do not always act according to reason and evidence. Restrictions on a person’s work and productivity based on gender are irrational, but sexist stereotypes and traditions persist at everyone’s expense. The people with the most power to change them – men – appear to be particularly prone to such misconceptions. Gender equality requires that both men and women examine and challenge their perceptions of what is an equitable division of labor. Public policies should not, explicitly or implicitly, reinforce stereotypes that force men into breadwinning roles or women into caregiving roles. Progress requires that men be intentionally, if carefully, welcomed into the discussion. Shared understanding can produce enthusiastic male advocates, and their credibility with other men can speed up social change.
The recommendations in this post were drawn mainly from Chapter 3 of the 2015 Hunger Report. View and download the full Hunger Report and explore stories, infographics, and interactive tools online at hungerreport.org.
Posted by Bread on March 30, 2015 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Data to End Hunger, Economic Development, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Inequality, Latin America, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs, Women's History Month | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Heather Higginbottom, far left, and U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Cathy Russell, far right, with this year's International Women of Courage awardees. Photo credit: U.S. State Department.
Humanity has a lot of stories about heroes. Even if we only count written ones, stories about heroes date back nearly 5,000 years to the epic saga of Gilgamesh, first "published" in cuneiform script on 12 clay tablets.
"Heroine," though, doesn't necessarily convey the same meanings. Depending on the story, the heroine may be someone whose main role is to be rescued or whose hand in marriage is the goal of a hero's quest. A few heroines have stories akin to those of heroes -- for example, Atalanta, who survived being abandoned outside at birth to become a famous athlete and warrior in ancient Greece.
Since there are several ways to interpret "heroine," I've chosen to stay with "hero" for this blog post. The people pictured above are heroes: the recipients of the 2015 International Women of Courage (IWOC) Award. The award is given to women "who have exemplified exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for human rights, women’s equality, and social progress, often at great personal risk."
One day in April 2013, an angry man asked Nadia Sharmeen, a journalist covering a political rally in Bangladesh, why she was there as a woman. She told him she wasn't there as a woman -- she was there as a journalist. "He did not accept this," she said -- a significant understatement, since moments later, a group of 50 or 60 men began attacking her. "They wanted to kill me," she said. Before colleagues managed to get her to safety, she sustained injuries that kept her in the hospital for five months. Her employer refused to pay for her medical treatment although it was clear that she was injured in the line of duty. Her family stood by her, however, which is why she later said that she felt lucky compared to some other victims of gender-based violence.
Another IWOC awardee, Tabassum Adnan of Pakistan, was married at the age of 13 to a much older man. She was a mother of three before she was out of her teens. She endured many years of domestic violence -- but went on to found and lead Da Khwendo Jirga (the Sister's Council), the country's first women's council. It is dedicated to seeking justice for victims of such crimes as acid attacks and honor killings.
A third Woman of Courage, Burmese activist May Sabe Phyu, has for several years spoken up for the rights of thousands of vulnerable women and children displaced by conflict into makeshift camps. Threats and legal harassment have not deterred her from her work as co-founder of the Kachin Peace Network and head of Gender Equality Now, an umbrella group of more than 90 women's rights organizations.
I wish I could tell the stories of all 10 of this year's IWOC heroes. But the picture above helps sum it up. Left to right (beginning immediately to Deputy Secretary Higginbottom's left) are:
- Nadia Sharmeen, journalist, women’s rights activist (Bangladesh)
- Majd Chourbaji, External Relations Director, Women Now for Development Centers (Syria)
- May Sabe Phyu, Director, Gender Equality Network (Burma)
- Captain Niloofar Rahmani, Afghan Air Force (Afghanistan)
- Arbana Xharra, Editor-in-Chief, Zeri (Kosovo)
- Tabassum Adnan, Founder, Khwendo Jirga (Pakistan)
- Rosa Julieta Montaño Salvatierra, Founder and Director, Oficina Jurídica para la Mujer (Bolivia)
- Marie Claire Tchecola, nurse, Ebola survivor and activist (Guinea)
- Sayaka Osakabe, Founder and Representative, Matahara Net (Japan)
The International Women of Courage Award is the only State Department award for emerging leaders who are female, and the first year it was awarded was 2007, so the total number of IWOCs is modest as yet. But each year's award winners add to the world's comparatively small supply of stories about heroes who are female.
As a policy analyst, my life revolves around data related to hunger, poverty and nutrition of mothers and their children. Statistics are the tool of my trade. I use them to report, to convey information, and often to advocate on issues. A few stay with me: 805 million hungry people in the world (one person in nine); 165 million stunted children who will never reach their full potential in life.
In my research for the Institute’s series celebrating Women’s History Month, I came across another statistic that will stay with me for a long time. A study by the respected British medical journal The Lancet found that the United States is one of only eight countries where maternal mortality (death from complications of pregnancy or childbirth) is on the rise. The other countries are Afghanistan, Greece, and several countries in Africa and Central America.
In this country, 18.5 mothers died for every 100,000 births in 2013—almost 800 women died here that year alone. This is double the rate of Canada and triple the rate of the United Kingdom! What is going on here? How is it that women in the United States are dying at a faster rate from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth than in almost any other place in the developed world?
There seem to be several contributing factors. Some of the reported rise in mortality is likely due to more rigorous data collection; the United States is one country where data on almost anything is readily available. Another factor is the rise in the number of pregnant women here who have conditions—such as hypertension and diabetes—that contribute to making their pregnancies “high risk.” More girls with heart or neurological diseases are surviving to adulthood—good news, but they remain at higher risk during pregnancy and childbirth.
Perhaps the most shocking statistic is that American women of color – particularly African Americans -- are three times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy or giving birth than their white counterparts. Higher poverty rates, which carry numerous consequences such as more chronic health problems and less access to prenatal care, are a major reason that women of color in our country run much higher risks in becoming mothers.
There is a parallel between efforts to end maternal mortality and efforts to end global hunger. We know that a lack of available food is not the problem. It is getting access to nutritious food — a particular problem for pregnant women and children – that is a major problem. Affording food and reaching a place where it is available pose the biggest challenges. Researchers have found the same to be true in efforts to end maternal mortality -- particularly during or shortly after childbirth. The major problems are affordability and access to skilled care. This is true in the United States as in many developing countries.
The situation is even worse in “fragile states,” developing countries suffering armed conflict or civil war while also confronting high rates of food insecurity.
In its State of the World’s Mothers 2014 (SOWM) report, the international organization Save the Children says: “These countries and territories (more than 50 in number) lack resilience to emergencies and face chronic underlying challenges, including extreme poverty, weak infrastructure, and poor governance. In these settings, children and mothers face an everyday emergency, whether or not a humanitarian crisis is officially recognized by the international system.”
During this Women’s History Month, I encourage you to read Save’s SOWM report and take a look at the statistics on maternal mortality compiled by the World Bank and the United Nations World Health Organization. As a result of a concerted effort by governments, international donors, and civil society, we are making remarkable progress toward the goal of ending hunger. Much less progress has been made toward the fifth Millennium Development Goal of reducing maternal mortality by three-fourths. An equally concerted and collaborative effort, accompanied by sustained funding for healthcare programs in the United States and overseas, particularly in fragile states, is needed to help women survive as they secure humanity’s future by bearing children.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on March 04, 2015 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, 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 Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs, Women's History Month | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Editor’s note: This post kicks off our celebration of Women’s History Month (March). Throughout our 2015 Hunger Report, When Women Flourish … We Can End Hunger, as well as in much of the Institute’s other analytical work, we emphasize the necessity of women’s empowerment and gender equity – not only as a matter of individual rights, but also as an absolute necessity for further progress against hunger and malnutrition. The link between gender discrimination and hunger has proven persistent both in the United States and globally. This month we present stories, graphics, and analysis to help show the way forward on both fronts – gender equity on one hand, and ending hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity on the other.
Consider two children from poor households living in an Indian city. They are both 7 years old. They live in the same neighborhood and are both excelling in mathematics at the same primary school, showing every sign of a bright future. But one of these children is more likely than the other to still be in poverty as an adult, simply because she is a girl.
People are born into or fall into poverty for many reasons. But the reason a bright young girl is more likely to remain there than a bright young boy has everything to do with empowerment. Empowerment is what is needed when members of a society lack bargaining power—the ability to negotiate favorable economic outcomes for themselves. When women and girls lack bargaining power, they are denied the opportunity to develop and use their gifts so they can support themselves and their families.
Some of the most common ways of increasing one’s bargaining power include getting more education, participating fully in the economy (which requires, for example, access to financial services such as a bank account or credit), and benefiting from basic social services such as health care. The availability of such “bargaining power builders” varies widely from country to country, but disempowerment means that women and girls almost always have less access to them than men and boys. In fact, our schoolchildren example may be overly optimistic, because it ignores the likely possibility that, even at age 7, the schoolgirl has already encountered home- or community-level barriers to her health, nutrition, and/or education.
It’s worth noting that neither women nor men living in poverty have much economic bargaining power, especially in developing countries where the vast majority of the population does low-paying, low-productivity work. But even within the constraints of poverty, working conditions for men and women are far from equal: women suffer many more forms of discrimination, which worsen the effects of poverty on their lives.
Empowering women is not only the right thing to do—it is an economic no-brainer. Excluding women from an economy is forgoing the efforts and talents of half the workforce. Studies consistently show that increasing women’s and girls’ bargaining power is one of the most effective ways to lift families out of poverty and boost economic growth, because women are more likely than men to invest their earnings back into the well-being of their families.
Discrimination that establishes and reinforces women’s lower status in society starts within the family and extends through social norms and national laws. Women all over the world have struggled for many years to empower themselves by creating change in all of these areas, sometimes aided by their governments and/or male allies – and there have been many improvements. Check back on Institute Notes later this week for a look at what has been achieved so far and what remains to be done.
A couple of years ago, the thousands of Central American children fleeing poverty and violence – and arriving at the U.S. southern border – was a phenomenon ignored by policymakers and scarcely mentioned in the U.S. media.
Fast forward to 2015 and we have a New York Times op-ed penned by Vice President Joe Biden calling for more U.S. investment in the region, backed up by a $1.1 billion Obama administration budget request “promoting prosperity, improving governance, and enhancing security” in Central America.
The President’s proposal would increase funding to the Northern Triangle nations of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador – the home countries of most of the children who migrate – to a level four times that of fiscal year 2014. As reported in Devex, the request would make Guatemala the single largest recipient of funding from USAID’s Development Assistance account.
Meanwhile, the State Department and USAID are developing a new strategy to reduce poverty and improve security in Central America. A new strategy was mandated in the congressional spending bill passed in December 2014. Unlike the president’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, which is an aspirational document, the new State Department/USAID Central America strategy includes $130 million allocated to implement it. It is a “done deal.”
Yet another proposed strategy in the mix is the proposal for the region advanced by the Inter-American Development Bank, the “Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle.” This plan, as well, was created in response to the child migration issue and seeks to improve the economic and security situation in the region.
Within the past six months or so, Congress, the president, and an important multilateral organizations have all proposed major re-thinking and increases in funding to respond to the Central American child migration crisis.
But what does that mean for Central Americans? According to Vice President Biden’s op-ed, the Northern Triangle nations are already taking ownership of the problem by attacking corruption. But on the ground, we’ve seen little to no change.
The Northern Triangle’s problems of inequality, poverty, and violence are decades – if not centuries – in the making. There is no quick solution. But policy proposals from Washington will certainly need to have an impact in the countries themselves if they are to be taken seriously.
Analysts expect details of the State Department plan to be made public in the coming weeks. So far, there is little information publicly available about how Washington’s analysis of the causes and impacts of poverty and violence in migrant-sending regions will be reflected in the plan’s policies and programs. The administration’s previous strategy was called the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).
A May 2014 Congressional Research Service report on the $800 million CARSI project states, “It is unclear what has been accomplished with the funding appropriated thus far since U.S. agencies have not released the metrics they are using to assess the initiative’s performance.” Subsequent evaluation has found some positive impact from CARSI but overall, the program has a mixed record in addressing the regions insecurity problems.
Analysts have stated that the State/USAID team drafting the new strategy has realized that CARSI was not working and are integrating those critiques into the new plan.
Reducing poverty should be front and center in any new strategy seeking to create alternatives to undocumented immigration for Central American children and adults. While the motivations for migration from the region are mixed, poverty and a lack of economic opportunity are primary factors in driving migrants to the United States.
In the coming months Bread for the World Institute will be analyzing and sharing examples of programs and strategies that U.S. development agencies can adopt – and then work to bring to scale – to help ease the deep socioeconomic divisions and inequalities in the three Northern Triangle nations.
Dr. Rajiv Shah welcomes guests to the launch of Bread for the World Institute's 2011 Hunger Report in November, 2010. (Laura Elizabeth Pohl/Bread for the World)
Dr. Rajiv Shah will be departing USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) this week. His appointment as USAID Administrator came in the wake of Haiti’s devastating earthquake in early 2010, just as famine was hitting South Sudan and at a time of continued powerful aftershocks from the global food price crisis. USAID sets and implements the U.S. government’s development and emergency food aid policies, and its employees staff U.S. Missions in countries around the world where hunger and poverty are endemic. In addition to managing a series of crises, Dr. Shah also set out to revitalize an agency that had long been criticized for being overly bureaucratic and dependent on large U.S. implementing partner organizations to carry out many of its programs.
We will remember Dr. Shah’s time at USAID for his passionate commitment to and impatience in the fight to end hunger and malnutrition. In five years, remarkable progress has been made against food insecurity and malnutrition, and U.S. leadership has played an important role. In 2010, Dr. Shah created the Bureau for Food Security at USAID to implement Feed the Future, the U.S. global food security initiative. Under his leadership, USAID also developed the first-ever Multisectoral Global Nutrition Strategy, which will improve coordination across the agency’s bureaus and programs and, most importantly, the effectiveness of U.S. investments in nutrition.
In addition, President Obama and Administrator Shah have been relentless advocates at the global level for greater and smarter investments in agriculture, food security, and nutrition. They secured new commitments of resources from other countries, multilateral institutions, and the private sector. Dr. Shah served on the Lead Group of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, helping to provide strategic direction as SUN was getting off the ground. At the country level, USAID has been a key SUN partner. Today, SUN, whose members at last count are 54 countries with high rates of childhood stunting, has begun to change national policies and commit funding to fight malnutrition.
We also remember Dr. Shah’s time at USAID for increasing attention to strengthening local capacity and institutions, including recognizing the key role of local civil society. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, is a member of USAID’s Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, designed to give policy guidance directly to the Administrator, and was honored to participate in an ACVFA working group that developed a paper on local capacity development. Beckmann later co-chaired the ACVFA task force on strengthening Feed the Future’s collaborations with civil society. Reflecting on Shah’s tenure, Beckmann said, “I thank God for Raj Shah’s outstanding leadership. USAID’s increased effectiveness is making a difference in the lives of millions of people, and it has set the stage for bipartisan collaboration in the U.S. Congress on international development issues. ”
We were honored by Dr. Shah’s presence at important moments for Bread for the World. At Bread’s 2011 Hunger Report launch, Dr. Shah called the report, Our Common Interest: Ending Hunger and Malnutrition,
“the best statement [he’s] read about the importance of Feed the Future to U.S. efforts to combat global hunger and malnutrition.” He announced the establishment of the Bureau of Food Security at the launch. Dr. Shah was also the keynote speaker at Bread’s 2012 Gala to End Hunger.
He addressed Bread for the World members, representatives of international civil society, and global nutrition stakeholders at the 2013 Sustaining Political Commitments to Scaling Up Nutrition event in Washington, DC. It was here that he announced USAID’s plan for a Global Nutrition Strategy.
Dr. Shah’s individual accomplishments, and USAID’s accomplishments during his tenure, are too numerous to list. Under his leadership the agency prospered. Bread for the World developed closer working relationships with key management and program staff. He has set the bar very high for his successor and has put in place strategies and programs that assure continued U.S. government leadership in the global fight to end hunger and extreme poverty. We at Bread for the World wish Dr. Shah continued success in all his endeavors and look forward to working with the next USAID Administrator.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on February 13, 2015 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.