SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
221 posts categorized "Millennium Development Goals"
For the last 15 years, the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have formed the bedrock of global development efforts -- goals on hunger, gender equality, and child and maternal mortality, among others. Bread for the World's recent analysis of the value of the MDGs refers to the goals as "an uprecedented global effort to achieve development goals that are identified collectively, achievable, and measurable."
Now, the MDG clock is ticking. When the goals were adopted in 2000, a 2015 deadline was set. They are to be replaced by a new set of goals-- Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) -- starting in September 2015. Unlike with the MDGs, the process of determining what might follow them, a "post-2015" development agenda, has featured an active international debate. The U.N. High Level Panel on Post-2015 (HLP) -- the official process through which the post-MDG global development agenda is being shaped -- met four times for consultations that aired the views reported by a wide range of other groups.These meetings were held in New York in September 2012; London in November 2012; Monrovia, Liberia, in January 2013; and Bali, Indonesia, in March 2013. In May 2013, panel members presented a report outlining their vision and priorities for post-2015 development to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, while in July, Ki-moon outlined his response to the HLP in his own report.
The process of negotiating the SDGs continued in 2014. In September, a special event on the MDGs and the post-2015 agenda was held during the 69th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York. The theme was "Delivering On and Implementing a Transformative Post-2015 Development Agenda."
Earlier this month, on December 4, the Secretary General released an advance version of his synthesis report on the post-2015 development agenda, The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. The synthesis report aims to support U.N. member states’ post-2015 negotiations based on the world's experiences with the MDGs. The report proposes a set of six essential elements as well as a means of implementing the goals. The six elements are:
Dignity -- eradicating poverty as the agenda's overarching objective, and addressing challenges related to inequality and the rights of women, youth, and minorities;
People -- addressing education; health; violence against women and girls; and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH);
Prosperity-- calling for inclusive growth that ensures all people have employment, social protection, and access to financial services;
Planet-- equitably addressing climate change; halting biodiversity loss and addressing desertification and unsustainable land use; protecting forests, mountains, oceans, and wildlife; and reducing disaster risks;
Justice-- issues including governance, reconciliation, peacebuilding, and state-building; and
Partnership-- elements of transformative partnerships that place people, planet, and mutual accountability at the center.
According to the Secretary General's report, implementation of the post-2015 agenda should focus on:
- Committing to a universal approach with solutions that address all countries and groups;
- Integrating sustainability in all activities;
- Addressing inequalities in all areas;
- Ensuring that all actions advance and respect human rights;
- Addressing climate change drivers and consequences;
- Basing analysis in credible data and evidence;
- Expanding a global partnership for means of implementation; and
- Anchoring the new compact in a renewed commitment to international solidarity.
Today — unlike in 2000 when the MDG era began — 72 percent of the world’s poor people live in middle-income countries. Others live in developed countries -- in the United States, for example, 15 percent of the population was living in poverty during the Great Recession, and nearly a quarter of all children lived in households that had trouble putting food on the table. Both of these factors mean that the next set of goals must apply to all countries if the SDGs are to end extreme poverty by their deadline of 2030. The post-2015 development agenda provides an opportunity to promote equity and equitable growth in a way that is truly universal.
Posted by Faustine Wabwire on December 16, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Agriculture, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Inequality, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, U.S. Hunger | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Improvements in the status of women drove about half of the dramatic reduction in child malnutrition that the developing world has achieved in recent decades. This and many more pieces of evidence brought together in the 2015 Hunger Report affirm that ending discrimination against women and girls–besides being the right thing to do–is crucial to ending hunger. Here are three compelling charts that show how this plays out across an array of important empowerment measures:
The three charts above compare rates of child stunting (a key measure of chronic malnutrition) in low- and middle-income countries against three sample empowerment indicators: rates of secondary school completion for females; rates of death from complications of pregnancy or childbirth; and rates of child marriage. Each dot represents one country.
Measuring gender discrimination is complicated because it is pervasive. It cuts across all aspects of human life. This is why the United Nations named a minimum list of 52 gender indicators that are essential to gauging progress. (Yes – these 52 items are the minimum list). The indicators encompass five areas: health, education, human rights, public life, and economic participation.
We can see that stunting rates are lower in countries where women are more empowered – i.e., where they do better on these indicators. This is an issue that merits a more robust research agenda because it shows us an important way forward on hunger.
A note on stunting: stunting means that a child has suffered chronic malnutrition before her/his second birthday. We can “tell by looking” because stunted children are far too short for their age, but the most significant effects can’t be seen: damage to health and cognitive development. Stunting undermines how well a child does in school and even her lifetime earnings. At the national level, stunting can cost several percentage points in GDP growth. Globally, one in four children is stunted.
Visit an interactive tool on the 2015 Hunger Report website to compare global stunting rates with any of 15 important women’s empowerment indicators, view trends by region, and see where individual countries fall. Read this to learn the story of how the tool was created.
This post is part of Institute Notes’ ongoing series on data to end hunger.
Posted by Bread on December 15, 2014 in Africa, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
These children will reach higher and go farther with proper nutrition. (Photo credit: accesstonutrition.org)
What is the extent of malnutrition and how effective are the measures being taken to fight it around the world? What’s being done by governments through policy mechanisms, development assistance, and donors with their program partners? Is civil society sufficiently prepared to be active partners and eventually take over efforts in their own countries? What measures of program and policy effectiveness have been developed?
The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) seeks answers to all these questions. First launched in London last month, its launch in Washington, DC, takes place today with events at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), which co-authored the report, and later at USAID, where Administrator Rajiv Shah will speak to his agency’s and U.S. government efforts to reduce malnutrition through its programs and policies. The GNR is a “call to action” to place malnutrition – both undernutrition and obesity – higher on the development agenda.
IRPRI notes in the GNR that "165 million children under the age of five are estimated to be stunted (i.e. low height for age). Two billion people are estimated to be deficient in one or more micronutrients. Nearly 1.5 billion people are estimated to be overweight and over 500 million to be obese. These conditions all have severe consequences for survival, for morbidity, and for the ability of individuals, the economy and society to thrive.... and yet, resources to specific nutrition programs amount to a small fraction of one per cent of domestic or aid budgets."
The GNR includes a “dashboard” of more than 80 indicators of nutrition outcomes, program coverage, funding, and political commitments for all 193 United Nations member countries, “…which they can use to hold policymakers to their commitments and urge them to make new ones.” The report was first announced at the Nutrition for Growth Summit in 2013, and its release was a main topic of discussion at the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) held in Rome last month.
The report was delivered by an Independent Expert Group and guided at a strategic level by a Stakeholder Group whose members also reviewed the report. IFPRI oversaw the production and dissemination of the report, with the support of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in London. The Lancet medical journal provided an external review of the report, which is funded by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Canada, the Children's Investment Fund Foundation, the European Commission, Irish Aid, 1,000 Days, and the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition & Health.
Recommendations in the report for governments, donors, NGOs, and nutrition community stakeholders include:
- Building and sustaining global alliances to generate substantial improvements in nutritional status at the national level;
- Larger investments in human infrastructure;
- Scaling up nutrition interventions by scaling up local partner capacities; and
- Expanding investments in “nutrition-sensitive” actions in agriculture, social protection, water, sanitation and hygiene, education, and women’s empowerment programs.
The GNR emphasizes that key challenges remain -- especially in the area of accountability, which must be strengthened in all areas. The report notes pointedly that relying on coordinated actions across development sectors, none of which have nutrition as the primary goal, allows policymakers to avoid responsibility.
Three suggestions were made for improving accountability and leadership. First, in the new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 that is currently being developed through a global process, the nutrition stakeholder community needs to ensure that more ambitious SDG targets are set, including a target for nutrition, and that additional nutrition indicators are included. Second, national legislation and policies must insist on accountability among nutrition stakeholders, including self-evaluation and monitoring processes for member countries of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement.
And finally, there is an urgent need to fill the huge gaps that remain in collecting nutrition data. As an example of this, the report says that only 60 percent of the 193 member states of the UN have sufficient data to assess whether or not they are on course to meet global targets.
Without better data and stronger accountability, we stand to lose much of the global momentum on fighting malnutrition that has been built in just a few years’ time. The next GNR could contain more failures than passing grades. But if we sustain the political will that has been created, build local capacities, and scale up successful nutrition interventions, a goal once thought to be merely aspirational gets ever closer: ending hunger and malnutrition in our lifetimes.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on December 10, 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, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Religion and Hunger, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
HIV/AIDS is one of the many consequences of gender-based violence. Photo: USAID Thailand.
Earlier this week, on December 1, the world marked yet another World AIDS Day. Since HIV was first identified in 1981, efforts to combat, contain, and cure HIV/AIDS have mobilized the global community as few other issues have. For many years, HIV was unstoppable; in some countries, such as Botswana, up to 40 percent of the adult population was HIV-positive at one point.
Thankfully, there have been signs of hope in the intervening years -- most notably, the development of antiretroviral (ARV) medicines, which can allow people with HIV to live a near-normal life, and the scaling up of ARV treatment efforts to include millions of people in poor countries. As we saw in Rebecca Vander Meulen's guest post for World AIDS Day, people like Esperanza in Mozambique, once on the very brink of death, are working, parenting, and living their lives today thanks to ARVs.
With all that has been done, there are still blind spots in the global struggle to prevent and treat HIV. Since these are areas that are not always recognized, they have not been fully examined and effective responses developed and prioritized. Case in point: one of the most significant forces that make people vulnerable to HIV -- gender-based violence.
Bread for the World Institute has focused on gender-based violence -- most often directed against women and girls, sometimes against transgender people and gender nonconforming men -- as a shockingly common human rights violation and as a barrier to reducing and ending hunger and extreme poverty.
The implications of gender-based violence and discriminatory policies for the HIV/AIDS pandemic are also far-reaching. Just two examples: In most countries, marital rape is not a crime, and many women have become HIV-positive through forced sex. And the fear of rape and HIV infection by men not known to the victim can stifle women's efforts to travel in order to work and participate in community life.
Although the connections are widely recognized among people working in communities and among scientists, research and policy responses have lagged behind. One of the first efforts to remedy this situation was a conference organized by UNESCO in the summer of 2013, held in Tanzania and focusing on five countries of Africa's Great Lakes region. Among the recommendations were mainstreaming a focus on gender-based violence into all HIV intervention programs, including policies, plans, programming, monitoring, and evaluation; and allocating government resources for issues specific to gender-based violence.
PEPFAR, the U.S. government global HIV/AIDS initiative that has significantly expanded access to ARV medications, prevention efforts, and care for patients and orphans, has begun working to incorporate responses to gender-based violence into its programs.
Efforts to contain the HIV/AIDS pandemic and reach the hoped-for "AIDS-free generation" envisioned by policymakers, much like efforts to end hunger and extreme poverty, will be frustrated until policy responses to gender-based violence are developed and scaled up -- and, ultimately, until people are far less frequently made targets of violence based on their gender or gender identity.
By Rebecca Vander Meulen
Editor's Note: Rebecca Vander Meulen has lived and worked in the province of Niassa in northern Mozambique since 2003. Bread for the World Institute thanks Rebecca for allowing us to repost her World AIDS Day 2014 reflection and photos from her website, Views from Mozambique.
Photo by Rebecca J. Vander Meulen
AIDS in Africa is no longer the cover story that it was when magazines like Newsweek and Time drew my attention to it back in 2000. We have responded deeply—both those of us in places where HIV touches every family, and those of us in places where HIV hides in pockets, away from the view of many.
Globally, the number of new HIV infections each day has gone down steadily since 2000. More than 13 million people around the world are now taking life-giving HIV medications. How miraculous are these antiretrovirals!
Mona’s daughter, Fernanda, who didn’t believe in antiretrovirals (ARVs) and was convinced they would make her sicker, now vigorously runs her household and serves as an informal neighborhood ARV officer, hounding her positive neighbors when they are late in going to the health post to replenish their ARV stock.
In 2004, there were fewer than a dozen sites in the whole diocese (the northern half of Mozambique) where HIV testing was available, and even fewer offering HIV treatment. I didn’t actively encourage people to get HIV tests, because if they found out they were positive, it was hard to know what to do. I remember thinking that the global “3 by 5” goals (getting 3 million people on treatment by 2005) were excessively ambitious—but those goals have been met, and now we’re talking about 20 x 20 (20 million people on treatment by 2020). Science has made great strides, and we are at a point where medical understanding and pharmaceuticals mean that a person living with HIV can live as long and as well as a person not living with HIV. What progress we’ve made in the past decade!
Photo by Rebecca J. Vander Meulen
But this is not the reality for many people living with HIV in Mozambique. Perhaps we have claimed victory too soon. There is still much more work ahead of us—oh, so much more. At least three friends died of AIDS-related causes this year. One had told me of his HIV positive status and proclaimed how eager he was to live openly with HIV, but when he told his wife, she beat him and refused to acknowledge his status. He then decided that telling people he’d gotten a false positive result—and not pursuing treatment—was easier than bearing the stigma associated with HIV. Another friend developed cerebral TB, but her family took her to traditional healers for several weeks before seeking hospital treatment. She was too unwell to argue. And another had been a keen student of HIV, asking just the right questions and understanding the key role of the church in responding to HIV. I never knew he was living with HIV until he died a few months later. We live in the already-but-not-yet of advent—so much good has already happened, and so much is left to be done.
Global figures hide specific pockets, and Mozambique is one of those pockets in which the fight against HIV and its effects is lagging behind. As a country, we are making much slower progress than our neighboring countries. I am particularly concerned about young girls—kids who I might have carried on my back when I first started working in Mozambique—and who now are at risk of acquiring HIV sexually. 6% of Mozambican women aged 15-24 are living with HIV (more than double the level of men in the same age group), and a quarter of all girls have had their first sexual relations before age 15, many with older boys or men, and often in exchange for a simple gift, like a new skirt. Just yesterday in a conversation about HIV, a church leader decided that the root of the problem was that we see women as objects, not as equal human beings. In Mozambique, the community of people living with HIV grows by one every five minutes, on average, and every seven minutes a family loses someone to AIDS-related causes. The science may be there, but we still have so much work to do in terms of improving access to testing and treatment, in providing safe environments in which talking about HIV is as non-interesting and matter-of-fact as talking about malaria, in helping everyone understand how HIV can be prevented, and in creating contexts in which people who choose to prevent HIV are able to do so. “Até quando?,” we lament! “How much longer?”
Photo by Rebecca J. Vander Meulen
that HIV might be behind it. He was spot-on, and his HIV result was positive. We went to the hospital together for a follow-up CD4 count, and when the nurse gave a result of 29, I asked for clarification—certainly I wasn’t hearing him correctly. I’d never before met someone with a CD4 count so low who was still managing to walk and get on with life. But Paulo’s CD4 count is now in the 300’s, and he’s back at work (doing a lot of manual labor), and just got a promotion. His wife and baby daughter are still negative, and they shamelessly accompany him to his appointments. Paulo is alive thanks to antiretroviral medications.
And as I was writing this, Rafael came into my office to talk about his robust business. If he hadn’t sent me a text message first, I might not have recognized him. Not so long ago, he looked like someone who might be blown away by a strong Lichinga wind—but now, taking antiretrovirals, he is now strong and healthy. HIV is no longer the focus of Rafael’s life. HIV didn’t come up in the conversation until I asked about his CD4 count, which last registered at 1050—a level well within the range of someone not living with HIV. Yes, he’ll need to
Esperanza, whose name means "hope." Photo by Rebecca J. Vander Meulen
take medication for the rest of his life, but he’s not alone in that: his eight-year-old daughter affectionately pesters him not to forget his medication, ever.
As I post this, we are wrapping up the first 22 of 52 World AIDS Day celebrations to be held this week in the Diocese of Niassa. The 3,000 activists taking part are together celebrating the progress made and re-kindling the energy that will drive the continued work ahead. May we each let those around us know they have our love—regardless of whether or not there is a specific virus circulating in their veins. We must continue, united. Onward.
Footnote: HIV is not just a Mozambican issue. More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV, and almost 1 in 7 are unaware of their infection. If Washington, DC, were a country in Africa, it would rank 23rd out of 54 countries in percentage of people living with HIV. For those in the United States, AIDSvu can show you local prevalence levels, and perhaps one of the organizations listed on Avert’s website of services available in the United States could help you get an HIV test or put you in touch with someone who would be willing to trust you with his or her story. If you are not someone living with HIV, try to get to know someone living with HIV in your own community—and learn how HIV can so quickly affect more than just physical health. We enrich each other.
Policy discussions of U.S. development assistance that promote women’s empowerment tend to head in two directions: improving women’s ability to participate in the economy and increasing girls’ enrollment in school.
There’s no question that policymakers should indeed be talking about these dimensions of empowerment. But I wish they’d also talk about what I’ll describe as a “third way”: increasing the share of women leaders in government. Here we scarcely hear a word.
The eight Millennium Development Goals include a goal to promote gender equality and empower women. One of the targets is to increase the percentage of women in national parliaments to 33 percent. Globally, women currently hold about 25 percent of seats in national parliaments. Given that women are half the population, I think it’s fair to say that they are still grossly underrepresented in government leadership. In addition to the obvious injustice here, there are implications for efforts to end hunger and poverty. Experience worldwide shows that when women gain a larger share of political power, governments enact more policies that reduce gender inequalities and promote women’s empowerment.
Earlier this year I was in Rwanda, the only country in the world where women hold a majority of the seats in the national parliament. Sixty-three percent of Rwandan parliamentarians are women. One way countries have increased the share of women in parliament is by reserving a fixed percentage of seats for women. These countries include Rwanda, which reserves 30 percent of seats for women. But in the last three election cycles, women’s share of parliamentary seats has increased from 49 percent to 56 percent to 63 percent. Clearly, it’s more than the reservation policy that has brought a majority female parliament to Rwanda.
I went to Rwanda because I wanted to see the effects on policy development of having a majority of women in parliament, and I guess I wanted also to test my own assumptions about women’s leadership. I tend to think that the fastest way to reduce gender inequality and promote women’s empowerment is to elect more women to office. I’m all for improving women’s ability to participate in the economy and increasing enrollment rates of girls in school, but those are part of the longer-term strategy. A reservation policy allows a society to put gender equity on the fast track by giving a jolt to the status quo.
Having a female parliamentary majority has made Rwanda a more equitable society. For example, all proposed legislation is reviewed to determine whether it perpetuates or reduces gender bias. No piece of legislation that moves through parliament escapes this scrutiny. That’s the kind of jolt I’m talking about.
In the 2015 Bread for the World Institute Hunger Report, When Women Flourish…We Can End Hunger, we recommend that all U.S. development assistance include similar gender analysis – aimed at ensuring that policies and programs do not perpetuate gender inequalities or discriminate against women and girls. In practice, this would mean, for instance, that agricultural development assistance must serve female and male farmers equitably.
A major change like this might even produce a great enough seismic effect to affect how the U.S. government conducts domestic policy. Here in the United States, women hold less than 20 percent of seats in Congress. In the 1970s, when Congress was debating the Equal Rights Amendment, policymakers considered congressional reservations as a way of giving women more political voice. This was not the sole reason the ERA failed to gain ratification, but an association with the ERA may be one reason we scarcely ever hear members of Congress -- including women -- talk about political reservations as a strategy to increase the share of women in Congress.
It is difficult to imagine what the impact on legislation of a female majority in Congress would be. Perhaps there would be no difference at all, although I doubt it. There is too much room for improvement. Just one example: the United States remains the only developed country in the world that does not offer paid maternity leave. I suspect that would change if there were a majority of women in Congress.
Posted by todd post on November 20, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, U.S. Hunger | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This is the second in a series that previews Bread for the World Institute’s 2015 Hunger Report, When Women Flourish … We Will End Hunger. The report will be released on November 24.
Last time, I talked about gender discrimination. While it’s critical to identify the many facets of discrimination and their implications, naming the problem is just the first step in solving it. We have much to say in When Women Flourish… about solutions. It starts, as so many things do, with economic power and influence.
Bargaining power is what’s needed: women’s bargaining power as workers in the larger economy, and, in the household, as people who have the power to make decisions about economic issues that affect them and their families.
The majority of women in developing countries rely on farming for their incomes, but gender discrimination often puts them at a significant disadvantage. They are less likely than men to own the land they farm. They have less access to inputs and credit. They get less help from extension agents. These and other inequities reduce their productivity and hence their ability to earn an adequate income.
Earlier this year, my Institute colleague Faustine Wabwire and I were in Malawi on field research for this report. Our contacts at the National Smallholder Farmers' Association of Malawi (NASFAM) offered to show us how they work with women farmers to reduce the gaps in their bargaining power as compared to men.
Smallholder farmers operating independently have very little bargaining power in agricultural markets. Farmers form associations—which may have anywhere from five or 10 farmers to several hundred—to take advantage of economies of scale. When smallholders pool their resources, suppliers of seeds or capital who might not be interested in marketing to just one of them now see an entity worth dealing with. Together, farmers can purchase seeds, fertilizer, and tools and other infrastructure that no one would be able to afford by herself.
For example, one of the most common and most serious problems for farmers in the developing world is losing large shares of their harvests to spoilage. Farmers’ associations, however, can afford to build secure storage facilities that will accommodate all their members. The warehouse constructed by the group of farmers we visited with NASFAM had cut their post-harvest losses from 40 percent down to 5 percent.
What makes this an effort that enables women in particular to overcome economic barriers? Economic principles, of course, apply to farmers regardless of gender. But the gendered dimension of NASFAM’s program becomes clearer when we see how it affects individual households. In Malawi, men and women in the same household both farm, sometimes on the same small plots of land, but generally produce different crops and do not combine their incomes. Typically, men control cash crops, crops raised for sale such as tobacco in the case of the farmers we visited, while women control food crops that are consumed by the family.
This bifurcation of the family farm enterprise is inefficient and, because “women’s crops” are considered less valuable since they do not bring in money, it also reduces women’s influence over household spending decisions such as those on children’s health and education. So NASFAM has begun to encourage mixed-gender farmers’ associations. The associations are begun by women, but men are welcome to participate as long as they are willing to share decision making power with their female colleagues. One reason men join NASFAM associations is for the training in marketing and business operations that is provided. If men want to receive training that will increase the profitability of their farming, they must suspend their prejudices against women.
Husbands and wives are expected to work together, making decisions mutually about their farm enterprises. Along the way, the husbands learn that their wives are quite capable decision makers. Ideally, once they see the gains in their livelihoods, husbands become more open to sharing incomes and sharing the household chores that traditionally fall mostly to their wives. We heard many testimonials and a lot of laughter as men described how they’d come around.
In the 2015 Hunger Report, we share more about NASFAM associations and other examples as we explore how to get from recognizing that “we must reduce barriers to women’s economic empowerment” to actually accomplishing this in real communities.
(Blog was originally submitted to the Sabin Vaccine Institute and the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases in support of their policy brief Toward a Healthy Future: Working Together to End Neglected Tropical Diseases and Malnutrition, endorsed by 22 global health organizations)
Nutrition is a foundational element in human development, and a growing body of evidence shows that it is a vital link across international development sectors. Although nutrition was once solely the domain of public health professionals, development assistance practitioners in agriculture, education, gender, and water/sanitation/hygiene (WASH) are realizing that their successful project outcomes can have a direct and positive effect on nutrition.
Does a value-chain project in horticulture or livestock production improve nutrition? What about efforts to keep girls in school an extra year or two before they assume family and village responsibilities? Does improved hand-washing and food preparation hygiene improve nutrition? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes!
The number of people in the world affected by at least one of the 17 NTDs listed by WHO is approaching 1.5 billion, and we know now that NTDs can damage a person’s nutritional status at any point in life. Worse, contracting an NTD can cause infection and other problems that cancel out or even reverse efforts to improve nutrition.
As nutrition started to be at the core of development assistance across sectors, it was clear that a comprehensive strategy to coordinate efforts was necessary. In May 2014, USAID announced its Nutrition Strategy. Bread for the World Institute participated in its development, along with other members of the nutrition stakeholder community (advocacy and operational partners of USAID).
The nutrition strategy recognizes the essential role of nutrition in human development (especially during the “1,000 Days” period from pregnancy to age 2). Moreover, the strategy acknowledges that high rates of chronic malnutrition can cause significant losses in a nation’s GDP and impose other economic costs. The USAID strategy also lays the foundation for the development of a comprehensive Global Nutrition Coordination Plan among all U.S. government offices.
The strategy treats nutrition as “multi-sectoral”-- meaning that effective nutrition interventions can be made not only in health programming, but also in agriculture, education, and WASH projects. The most important direct nutrition interventions include 11 “essential nutrition actions” articulated by the World Health Organization and identified as particularly effective in fighting malnutrition in the research published in the Lancet Maternal and Child Nutrition series. Indirect nutrition actions are nutrition-sensitive activities that target the underlying causes of undernutrition, and direct interventions can be complemented by indirect nutrition actions for maximum impact. In fact, combining direct and indirect actions by “bundling” projects that include both has been found to be the most effective development investment a country can make.
USAID is committed to the World Health Assembly 2025 Nutrition Targets and is developing additional nutrition targets it will use to track and evaluate its development assistance. Included in these is a target in Feed the Future of reducing stunting by 20 percent in five years in regions where this initiative has programs.
Companion legislative bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that would authorize Feed the Future as the government’s primary program for global food and nutrition security. Despite recent improvements reported by FAO, there are still 805 million chronically undernourished people in the world. With legislation, we can solidify U.S. leadership in fighting hunger and malnutrition, build and improve upon vital work that has been done, and leverage a government approach across all sectors and programs to meet specific goals for progress against global hunger and malnutrition.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on October 28, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, 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, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
On November 24, which is the Monday of Thanksgiving week, Bread for the World Institute will launch our 2015 Hunger Report: When Women Flourish … We Will End Hunger. Just before Thanksgiving is when we launch each new edition of the report. What better time of the year in the United States to draw attention to hunger?
In the coming weeks, as the launch approaches, I plan to preview the report on this blog. I’ll share a little of what’s in the report and offer some personal reflections. I write most of the report, but I don’t get the opportunity within it to discuss how writing it has affected me.
When Women Flourish is about women’s empowerment, and why women’s empowerment is so important to ending hunger. The last several editions of the Hunger Report also had plenty to say about women’s empowerment, but this is the first one where we’ve put the issue front and center.
Hunger persists mainly because poverty persists. To really eradicate hunger, you have to address the root causes of poverty, and discrimination is the most fundamental of all root causes. Discrimination defines who we think people are and what we believe they are worth. It determines the limited aspirations that too many parents have for their daughters. If girls are seen as an economic burden to a family, for example, it is not surprising that they die in greater numbers than boys as a result of underinvestment in their health -- including the share of food they receive.
Ending hunger ultimately depends on working with and through women: in the developing world, women work predominantly as subsistence farmers, and subsistence farming is the backbone of community food security. In addition, at the household level, women are responsible for preparing the food that nourishes children and other family members. (This holds true for the most part in rich countries, too).
Yet we did not want to instrumentalize women – seeing and talking about them only as foot soldiers in the fight against hunger. Empowerment is about much more than food production and preparation.
Similarly, discrimination is about more than just gender discrimination. Race, ethnicity, religion, caste, and other drivers of social exclusion also figure into who goes hungry and who doesn’t. We could have done a report focused on race, ethnicity, or any other layer – they all interact. But in this report, we start with gender.
The report looks at three fundamental topics: improving women’s bargaining power in the economy and in the household; reducing the burden of unpaid domestic work and sharing it more equitably between men and women and between families and government; and strengthening women’s collective voice by increasing their political representation and leadership in civil society. I’ll write more about each of these in the coming weeks. For the remainder of this blog post, I’d like to offer a personal reflection.
I learned a great deal while working on the 2015 Hunger Report, as I do on each edition, but on this report there were some real jaw droppers. Let me single out child marriage. When I learned that one out of nine girls around the world becomes a child bride – that’s 39,000 per day -- it was a moment when amazement doesn’t seem too strong a word.
Why was I so surprised? Maybe because child marriage isn’t a big issue here in the United States. I was already aware of the grotesque levels of gender-based violence, the one in three women who will experience it during their lives. Gender-based violence, on the other hand, is also common right here in the United States as elsewhere, so even though the statistics are still disturbing and I wouldn’t say I’ve become indifferent, there’s a certain degree of numbness that sets in after time.
The child marriage figure one in nine is for the whole world, so when you zero in on the countries where this is a common occurrence, you find statistics like three out of four girls in Niger, two out of three in Bangladesh, and one in two in India. Most countries where child marriage is prevalent have laws against it, but changing cultural norms is not as simple as changing laws.
Five years ago, I was in Bangladesh visiting an agricultural program and talking with beneficiaries. The program officer brought me to the farm of probably the most successful farmer in the village. She was not only an able farmer but clearly had charisma. She was probably no more than 30 at the time, and her daughter, a girl about half her age, walked with us by her mother’s side. Behind us was a much older man, over 60 at least, possibly beyond 70. He had trouble keeping up. Only when we stopped and she described what she was doing on each part of the farm did he catch up, standing quietly off to the side until we charged on ahead again. He was her husband. The word marriage doesn’t seem to fit this situation, though. Given the age of their daughter, the farmer could have become this man’s wife when she was as young as 12 or 13. Find out more about child marriage and the damage it does here.
Posted by todd post on October 24, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Global Hunger, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Religion and Hunger, U.S. Hunger | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This year's World Food Day focuses on supporting and strengthening the 500 million smallholders growing food in developing countries, including Joao, a maize farmer in Mozambique. Photo by Kate Raisz.
Over the past few years, most lists of global problems have come to include climate change -- along with older concerns such as hunger, poverty, limited resources, and population growth. It often appears to be simply another challenge on the list. But although our mission of ending hunger requires facing and overcoming a number of challenges, climate change is different from other problems.
We can't make an "apples to apples" comparison between climate change and longstanding human problems. Climate change is much more like an apple tree than simply an apple among other apples. If we don't find ways to prevent further damage to Earth's climate and to mitigate the impacts that poor communities in particular have already been suffering for years, it will not matter nearly as much what we do about individual apples. Responding effectively to the dangers of climate change (improving the health of the tree, if you will) is a precondition for responding effectively to any other development challenge.
As we mark World Food Day (and, bracketing today, the three-day Borlaug Dialogue in Des Moines, Iowa), I've been thinking about the concept that language shapes our reality. What people think about the importance and urgency of climate change depends partly on how we talk about it. For example, when the administration launched its Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture last month, it said that climate change poses "a range of unprecedented threats to the livelihoods of the world’s most vulnerable people..." [emphasis added]. By definition, "unprecedented" can only be used once for any given category of events -- otherwise, it's just hyperbole. It's a word that should catch people's attention, information overload notwithstanding.
The evidence shows that human activity is causing the changes in the world's climate that are now so readily observable. Climate change must be an urgent global priority for the foreseeable future if we are to contain the damage we have already caused to the planet that sustains us.
One pressing need is for communities to be able to access data on climate issues specific to them, so that they can make informed decisions at the local level. This is a relatively neglected middle ground between global- and continent-level data, and a myriad of anecdotal accounts from people who are witnessing climate change firsthand.
Three U.S. agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are making available higher-resolution elevation datasets based on information collected by sensors on the U.S. space shuttle. Datasets for Africa have been released and are available at the USGS’s Earth Explorer website. Datasets for Latin America are to follow in the coming months.
Designed "to empower local authorities to better plan for the impacts of severe environmental changes," the data resolves to 30 meters (compared to the 90 meters that was the clearest previously available) and will be used to "improve environmental monitoring, climate change research including sea-level rise impact assessments, and local decision support."
Of course, better data alone will not enable local leaders to solve a global problem with roots in faraway developed countries. But equally obviously, informed decision-making requires information. Climate change is enormously complex. Distilling what is happening in particular locations will help support country ownership of a global problem.
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.