SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
227 posts categorized "Millennium Development Goals"
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.
Photo by Laura Elizabeth Pohl/Bread for the World
Two years ago, on the eve of the first-ever United Nations Day of the Girl, 15-year-old schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai was in the hospital. We reported here on Institute Notes on her courageous advocacy for girls' education in Pakistan -- advocacy that so angered conservative Taliban forces that, in a now world-famous act of barbarism, they shot her in the head at point-blank range.
Tomorrow, October 11, we celebrate the third Day of the Girl. Things have changed. Malala Yousafzai has just been named a a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Her work has galvanized support for adolescent girls denied the right to go to school. World outrage greeted the abduction of nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by another reactionary armed group, Boko Haram. The global rate of girls' enrollment in secondary school is catching up to boys' enrollment, at between 97 and 98 girls for every 100 boys.
Also in recent years, there has been an intensified global campaign against child marriage, an all-too-common form of gender-based violence. An unwitting activist even younger than Malala published a book about her story, I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced. Media coverage of girls who have fled marriage has become more frequent. Numerous education and advocacy campaigns have helped communities understand that the poverty that often leads them to arrange for their young girls to marry much older men is only being perpetuated by child marriage, and have supported them in finding alternatives.
Poor communities cannot afford the waste of human potential when a 13-year-old becomes a mother rather than studying algebra in a junior high school. She has a much higher chance of dying in childbirth --as a girl under 15, her risk is five times that of a woman older than 18. She and her surviving children are far more likely to be malnourished than women who married as adults. As we have said many times here on Institute Notes and in our other materials, education for girls is the factor that has made the biggest difference to child malnutrition -- it has helped more than having more food available.
They don't seem to get much attention, even on the Day of the Girl, but girls of 13, 14, 15 who are married are girls just as much as their peers who are closing those secondary school enrollment gaps. Very few (estimates are 2 percent) continue to attend school once they are married, and even they drop out once they become pregnant. Prevention of child marriage is, of course, an urgent necessity. So are efforts to help married girls and young women who were married as children regain hope for a better life.
Very often, they are the most isolated from their communities. One way to reach them is through the health sector as they come in during complications of pregnancy and childbirth and afterwards -- for example, with conditions caused by giving birth at an age when a person's body is not yet mature, such as obstretric fistula. Another time when community services can reconnect with married girls is when the teenagers bring their babies and young children in for vaccinations and medical care.
Programs can build on those contacts to put girls in touch with other community services and with each other in support and self-help groups, as well as with programs such as bridge schools that allow them to resume their education to some degree. These efforts exist, but are far more rare than they should be given the world's tens of millions of child wives. On this Day of the Girl, the world should recommit to helping teenagers whose lives, though marred by child marriage, are not over. Barriers can be removed so that they may yet take their places as empowered contributors to their societies.
A new report, issued by UNICEF along with other U.N. agencies and the World Bank, highlights a dramatic decrease in child mortality. Since 1990, the number of children under age 5 who die each year has been cut in half: from 12.7 million then to 6.3 million now. This is a remarkable achievement that amounts to saving 17,000 lives every day.
Looking at it another way, the rate of decline in child mortality is falling three times faster than previously projected. As a result, 100 million children are alive who would have died if the death rate had remained at 1990 levels—including 24 million newborns that would not have made it more than a few weeks.
Girls playing in Angola, which still has the world’s highest rate of under-5 mortality. Young children there are 25 times more likely to die than those born in the United States. © UNICEF/NYHQ2007-1773/Nesbitt
The report, Committing to Child Survival: A Promise Renewed, says that the child deaths over the past 20 years were largely preventable. There were large geographical disparities: where a child was born made a big difference as to whether he or she survived.
Together, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia were the homes of 80 percent of those who died. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in every 11 children die before their fifth birthday. That is 15 times the death rate in high-income countries, where an average of one in 159 children don’t reach their fifth birthday.
Moving forward, the most important area in which to focus health and nutrition interventions is the first month of a child’s life, which is called the neonatal period. Two million infants die within a week of birth. Some effective and low-cost interventions for both mothers and children are available. These could make a big difference, but sometimes this needs to be communicated to pregnant women, their husbands, their families, and their communities. For example, breastfeeding within an hour of birth reduces the risk of neonatal death by 44 percent—but less than half of newborns around the world have that opportunity.
The “Promise Renewed” of the report title has two goals. The first is to keep the promises of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 — to reduce the under-5 mortality rate by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015, and MDG 5 – to reduce maternal mortality by three-fourths in this time period. The second goal is to keep moving forward, beyond 2015, until no child or mother dies from preventable causes. In 2012, nearly 180 governments pledged to scale up efforts and speed up the decline in preventable maternal, newborn, and child deaths.
The Institute has written extensively about the MDGs, most recently in a blog about another recent report, the 2014 State of Food Insecurity in the World, whichconfirms that the goal of halving hunger that is part of MDG 1 is within reach. What’s clear in both reports is that despite recent successes, a concerted effort focused on MDG goals and targets must be sustained. Further country-led development efforts in nutrition, health, and agriculture are key to achieving the goals.
The U.S. contribution to the MDGs is largely made through two USAID programs, the Global Health Initiative (GHI) and Feed the Future (FtF). Congress has enacted legislation on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR (part of GHI), through which nutrition funding is authorized. FtF currently lacks formal authorization through legislation, but both the House of Representatives and the Senate are considering versions of the Global Food Security Act, which will make FtF part of U.S. law.
U.S. efforts in international agricultural development and nutrition largely focus on the 1,000 Days, the “window of opportunity” between a woman’s pregnancy and her child’s second birthday. Leading economists agree that development assistance investments here yield a very high rate of return. More importantly, these investments save mothers’ and children’s lives.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on September 22, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, 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)
Today the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released the 2014 edition of The State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI). The report, Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Food Security and Nutrition, confirmsthat the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of cutting the rate of hunger in half is indeed within reach. But the MDGs expire at the end of December 2015, so time is growing short.
According to the report, the global number of hungry people fell more than 100 million over the past decade, and by more than 200 million since 1990-92.
Despite all the progress, several regions and sub-regions still lag behind. In Sub-Saharan Africa, more than one in four people are chronically undernourished, while Asia, as the world's most populous region, is home to the majority of hungry people - 526 million.
The absolute number of hungry people—which takes into account both progress against hunger and population growth—fell in most regions. The exceptions were Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and West Asia.
According to a statement by the heads of the three U.N. agencies (FAO, IFAD, and WFP) that jointly publish the annual SOFI report, "This is proof that we can win the war against hunger and should inspire countries to move forward, with the assistance of the international community as needed.”
Dr. Jomo Kwame Sundaram, FAO Assistant Director-General provides an overview of the SOFI key findings
Additional information on global hunger:
2014 State of Food Insecurity in the World (Executive Summary)
Quick Facts on Hunger
1. Some 805 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth.
2. The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 13.5 percent of the population is undernourished.
3. Asia is the continent with the greatest number of hungry people – two-thirds of the total. The percentage in South Asia has fallen in recent years, but West Asia’s rate has increased slightly.
4. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest percentage of hungry people: one in four people.
5. Malnutrition causes nearly half (45 percent) of all deaths in children under 5 – that’s 3.1 million child deaths each year.
6. One in six children in developing countries -- roughly 100 million -- is underweight.
7. One in four of the world's children are stunted. In some countries and in the poorer regions of others, the proportion rises to one in three or even higher. Stunted children do not reach their full physical or intellectual potential.
8. Studies estimate that if women farmers had the same access to resources as men, the number of hungry people in the world could be reduced by up to 150 million.
9. Across the developing world, 66 million primary school children attend classes hungry.
10. The WFP calculates that $3.2 billion is needed each year to reach all 66 million.
Last month, two U.S. citizens who contracted Ebola in Liberia were flown home for treatment. Their amazing recovery within just a couple of weeks must seem like a fantasy to desperate communities in the outbreak-stricken countries of West Africa.
Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone are the hardest-hit by the Ebola crisis, which has killed nearly 2,300 people so far. These three countries are also among the poorest countries in the region and are in dire need of immediate assistance. Domestic food production has declined and markets are shutting down. Economic activity has slowed causing a sharp drop in state revenues necessary to combat the outbreak.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that economic growth is likely to decline from 11.3 percent to 8 percent in Sierra Leona; from 6 percent to 2.5 percent in Liberia; and from 3.5 percent to 2.4 percent in Guinea. In the same report, Liberia's Finance Minister Amara Konneh stated that the outbreak was threatening the country's post-civil war recovery.
If the Ebola crisis was occurring in the United States, it most certainly would not look anything like what it does in West Africa. The U.S. health care system has the capacity to minimize the effects of the outbreak. There would be no shortage of beds, medical personnel, and supplies as we’ve seen in the West African countries.
Bread for the World has always maintained that it’s cheaper to prevent a crisis than to respond after it has occurred. The Ebola epidemic is just one illustration of this principle. The United Nations has stated that controlling the epidemic will cost at least $600 million and will require three or four times the current number of healthcare workers. The funding for preparedness and contingency planning always seems to be in short supply.
In a statement last week, USAID Administrator Raj Shah stated, "The U.S. is committed to supporting the African Union's response to the urgent needs across West Africa as a result of this vicious disease." To date, the U.S. government response is as follows:
- The United States will spend an additional $10 million to fight Ebola in West Africa, bringing its total investment against the epidemic to more than $100 million.
- The new funds, announced Tuesday by USAID will support the African Union's deployment of roughly 100 health workers to support exhausted medical personnel.
- The Pentagon announced Monday that it would send a 25-bed portable hospital to Liberia to care for sickened healthcare workers.
Resilience is a popular word these days for people who work on international development. We use it mostly to talk about the capacity to bounce back after a crisis. But we have also began to understand that resilience means the capacity to adapt as necessary to prevent shocks such as Ebola.
The U.S. government must continue to adapt its own approach to development assistance through investments in early warning, closer coordination with development partners including partner countries, the private sector and civil society. Over the last decade the U.S. government and its development partners have made some great progress improving how they provide development assistance. But shocks such as Ebola remind us how fleeting progress can be if it doesn’t include investments in institutions and systems, such as health care. This is why resilience must be prioritized on the global development agenda.
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.