SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
206 posts categorized "Millennium Development Goals"
Today at the Chicago Council’s Global Food Security 2014 event in Washington, DC, Senior White House Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice announced the release of the USAID Nutrition Strategy.
This is a landmark step toward ensuring that nutrition concerns remain at the heart of the U.S. development assistance agenda.
Bread for the World Institute has been an active participant in the development of the nutrition strategy, along with other members of the nutrition stakeholder community (both advocacy and operational partners of USAID). The draft strategy was first released for public comment in December 2013.
The nutrition strategy recognizes the essential role of nutrition in human development (especially in 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 carries other economic costs. The USAID strategy also lays the foundation for the development of a comprehensive “whole-of-U.S.-government” nutrition strategy later this year.
Improving maternal and child nutrition has been a major part of the Institute’s non-legislative advocacy efforts for the past three years. The USAID nutrition strategy comes after our successful efforts to clarify exactly where nutrition programs are funded within the federal budget, to persuade the administration to identify a high-level spokesperson for nutrition in the U.S. government (Administrator Shah was named), and to help win needed reforms in U.S. food aid policies and programs. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the “farm bill”) authorized changes that will increase the efficiency of food aid programs and delivery, allow greater flexibility to purchase food for distribution closer to where it is needed, and provide additional options for using new specialized food products that have been fortified with vitamins and minerals.
The strategy recognizes that nutrition is “multi-sectoral”-- meaning that effective nutrition interventions can be done not only in health programming, but also in agriculture, education, and water, sanitation and health (WASH) projects. Direct nutrition interventions can be complemented by indirect nutrition actions for maximum impact. Key direct actions 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. 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 (see box), 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 programs of reducing stunting in the regions where Feed the Future works by 20 percent in five years.
The Nutrition Strategy will ensure flexibility (as new evidence of successful interventions becomes available) by including a robust learning agenda that supports research to fill knowledge gaps, a rigorous program of monitoring and evaluation, and a means of quickly disseminating and apply lessons learned to ongoing programs. USAID will immediately begin issuing guidance for its overseas missions on how to implement the strategy. A framework document for the wider whole-of-U.S. government nutrition strategy, called the Global Nutrition Coordination Plan, has been completed, and additional information on this plan and a request for public comment have now been released.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on May 22, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, 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, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) speech earlier this month at the American Enterprise Institute advocated constructive conservatism, which he described as an approach to ending poverty that relies on data-driven, evidence-based solutions. Media in his home state of Ohio called the talk Portman’s “anti-poverty coming out speech.”
The speech offered plenty of room for debate. While there is support across the political spectrum for responding to the country’s drug addiction problem with treatment rather than incarceration, a key part of the senator’s speech, Portman also opposes raising the federal minimum wage, in contrast to Bread’s position.
But looking at the bigger picture, the idea of “constructive conservatism” deserves attention from hunger advocates. Collecting data and evaluating evidence of the effectiveness of various anti-poverty programs—and then scaling up the best-performing programs to achieve national targets for reducing poverty—may seem like no more than common sense. But many of Sen. Portman’s colleagues in Congress oppose this approach, as AEI president Arthur Brooks noted after the speech. Since they do not agree that the federal government should fund a safety net at all, they consistently vote to cut spending on anti-poverty programs. So far, we have not heard much from these decision makers about the impact in the future of reducing national anti-poverty efforts now.
“Constructive conservatism” could be an alternative that does indeed foster progress against poverty. In the hunger policy community, we know that setting and striving toward goals on reducing poverty works. Back in 2000, when the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were adopted by nearly 200 countries, many leaders and experts thought that the targets were strikingly ambitious, if not outright unreachable. Cut hunger in half within 15 years? Ensure universal access to primary education? But today, the evidence shows that the world is on track to meet nearly all of the MDGs by their deadline, December 2015.
In fact, the MDG effort has been so successful that the world is now setting new, post-2015 development goals. As Bread for the World participates in the global process of determining just what those goals should be, we are hopeful that the goals will apply universally – to all countries.
Such universality would support the United States in establishing hunger and poverty as priority problems and in tracking our progress. It could also help bring together Americans from across the political spectrum who support constructive efforts to reduce poverty -- to put effective solutions in place.
2013 was an historic year for nutrition advocacy. As part of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, civil society organizations (CSOs) around the world committed to supporting and holding their governments accountable on plans of action to improve nutrition. SUN focuses on pregnant women and children in the “1,000 Days” from pregnancy to age 2, since this is the most critical period for human nutrition. CSOs can range from small groups working in community settings to nationwide alliances that advance common interests. The SUN Civil Society Network (SUN-CSN) was formed to establish and support SUN Civil Society Alliances (SUN-CSA), as well as to facilitate, communicate, and coordinate across the network.
In the lead-up to the 2013 G-8 summit in London and its Nutrition for Growth event, nutrition CSOs coordinated actions as part of a “Global Day of Action”. Their goal was to show global support for decisive actions at the G-8 to tackle food insecurity and malnutrition. CSOs from Bangladesh, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia led events in their countries to increase awareness of the need for governments to make greater investments in programs and policies to overcome malnutrition.
This year marks an alignment of several key moments in global nutrition. The 67th meeting of the World Health Assembly takes place the week of May 19-23 in Geneva. This is an opportunity for countries to report on progress in achieving global nutrition targets that were set in 2012. The African Union Summit in June will focus on agriculture, food security, and nutrition. The Second International Conference on Nutrition will be held at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in November.
During the week of May 4-11, 2014, a second “Global Day of Action” was held in many of the SUN-CSA countries. The goal was to influence both national nutrition policies and regional development agendas while also highlighting SUN-CSN as a “global, impactful, and agenda-setting network.”
The Global Day of Action’s objectives were:
- Advance multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral efforts to address nutrition as a priority and to scale-up nutrition intervention efforts;
- Add to continued, growing public pressure on national leaders to continue their focus on nutrition, increase progress toward the 2013 WHA global targets, deliver on commitments to SUN and commitments made at the Nutrition for Growth event;
- Increase the public and political profile of nutrition in member countries;
- Highlight SUN-CSN as an effective international campaigning network; and
- Show an inclusive, global constituency in support of nutrition.
We’ve already seen effective social media and press coverage of Global Day of Action events by SUN-CSAs using the Twitter hashtag of #ActingTogether4Nutrition in Zambia (@wchilufya), Bangladesh (@SUNCSABD), Ghana (@ghaccssun), Malawi (@CSO_Nut.Alliance), and Uganda (@UCCOSUN).
Altogether, 19 country-level CSOs committed to displaying strong public support for nutrition issues.
At the inaugural meeting of SUN-CSN, in June 2013 in Washington, DC, I witnessed a real commitment from advocates from all over the world to share ideas and build a Community of Practice on efforts to scale up nutrition. SUN countries are those with the world’s highest burdens of malnutrition. They are working together with very limited resources in ways that are most impressive. I hope political leaders will take note of their advocacy and live up to their governments’ commitments to meet global nutrition targets by 2015.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on May 13, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger 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)
Bring Back Our Girls is big news. In Washington DC, where I work, the media was out last Friday to report on a vigil for more than 200 Nigerian school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.
Earlier that morning, I attended a briefing at the Capitol by the nongovernmental organization PCI on the difficulties of trying to measure women’s empowerment. The room was packed with representatives of other NGOs, but I didn’t notice any media. The briefing was titled Measuring the Hard to Measure, which says a lot about why development programs struggle to provide effective help in reducing gender inequality, and maybe about why the media isn't interested yet.
The two events occurred on the same day purely by coincidence, but it seems fitting that they were happening together. On the one hand, we’ve got the backlash represented by Boko Haram, men who feel threatened by the thought of women being less than submissive to their demands. On the other, empowerment programs have mostly been about increasing the rate of girls attending school -- relatively easy stuff. Looking ahead we have to face up to the challenge that there is much harder work to do in reducing gender inequalities, and a lot more backlash inevitably. The guys in Boko Haram have a lot more to fear than girls going to school and they know it.
Increasing women’s participation rates in public office has proven much more difficult than increasing school attendance. Globally, women hold an average of just 22 percent of seats in national parliaments. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) call for reaching 30 percent by the end of 2015.
It is interesting to observe how income does little to reduce the gender gap in political representation. Developed countries have done only slightly better than developing ones, and neither group will meet the MDG target. Both started out alike in 1990 - the MDG baseline year - with an average of 13 percent. Presently developed countries have reached 25 percent and developing countries 21 percent.
Progress has been slow because of discriminatory laws, underinvestment in woman’s human capital, norms that cast doubt on their decision making capacity, and unpaid care work that takes up a disproportionate share of women’s time compared to men’s…among other things. But those are some important ones for starters. The confluence of so many inequalities makes it hard to disentangle them to address individually. That was the take away from the PCI briefing. Gender inequality is a multidimensional problem demanding multidimensional solutions.
The World Bank recently released the 2014 World Development Indicators—the most current and accurate collection of global and country-level development data available. Each year, the World Bank works to expand and improve the body of data available to more consistently gauge progress on an ever-growing number of development variables.
Women’s empowerment is an area where data has been notoriously inconsistent and incomplete. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted in 2000, included a goal to “promote gender equality and empower women” as MDG 3. But meeting a goal depends greatly on its indicators of success. The MDGs defined progress on women’s empowerment almost exclusively by whether girls have equal access to primary education and by whether more women are serving in national parliaments. By those measures, the world has indeed made great strides since 2000. Today the global gender gap in access to both primary and secondary education is nearly closed, and about one in five parliamentarians in the developing world is now female (Rwanda's parliament is majority female). Yet, there are significant limitations to what the current MDG indicators can tell us about how empowered women are throughout the world.
One of the more revealing new datasets released by the World Bank this year shows that in many countries, a large number of people – both women and men – do not support women’s equal participation in household decisions. One of the starkest demonstrations of this is shown in the graphic above, which lists the 10 countries with the highest proportion of women who agree that a husband is justified in beating his wife when she argues with him.
There may not be many areas of consensus in the development community, but the belief that women are the key to ending hunger and extreme poverty is one of them. Women’s dual roles as producers and caregivers make them essential actors in every family. When women share decision-making power equally with men in the household and in society, their families are healthier and more prosperous. The next generation is better off because women, more than men, spend their additional income on feeding and educating their children. And generally, two capable adults working in partnership can accomplish far more than one can alone.
Legal rights are necessary but not sufficient. As the global community reaches consensus on the set of global goals that will replace the MDGs in 2016, it will need to diversify its toolbox of indicators for measuring women’s empowerment, adding indicators that capture the influence of less tangible factors like cultural norms and stigmas. Countries will need to explore ways to help men and women examine and question these staunch norms that undermine women’s agency. Women who see themselves as equals who are entitled to express their opinions without fear of violence will be better equipped to provide for their own families and contribute to a healthier society and economy.
Posted by Bread on May 05, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Prices, 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)
Editor’s note: Welcome to Institute Notes’ blog series on Success in Fighting Hunger. Today, Derek Schwabe shares a big-picture global success story that is not as well-known as it should be. Later in the series, our Institute colleagues present more “things that are working.” Today’s smaller success stories -- programs whose potential impact is seemingly modest -- are not only of vital importance to the people who participate, but may well contain the kernels of large-scale future progress. Thus, this series celebrates sustainable progress against hunger, no matter what its scale.
- Michele Learner, editor of Institute Notes
Too few people know this, but more people escaped poverty during the 2000s than during any other decade in history. More importantly, progress on not only poverty, but hunger, child mortality, and a host of other debilitating human problems occurred in every major region of the world. Bill Gates was right in his foundation’s myth-busting 2014 annual letter: “By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been.”
The chart above shows that the world has already met and surpassed the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of cutting extreme poverty in half by 2015 -- as measured by the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 per day. The chart below digs deeper into that data, revealing that, though poverty reduction has been slower in some regions than in others, it has indeed occurred in every region. Both of these graphics first appeared in the 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach: Global Development Goals.
It may not be possible to prove a direct causal link, but it is no coincidence that this progress coincided with global efforts to reach the MDGs. When the MDGs were launched in the year 2000, leaders from every country in the world pledged their support. Few could have known at the time how influential these goals would become.
Since 2000, the MDGs have been the dominant global development framework, and they have galvanized public support around the world for ending hunger and extreme poverty. Individual countries have used them as a model for their own national development plans. Civil society groups, particularly faith-based ones, have been loyal advocates of the MDGs, dedicated to holding government leaders accountable for following through on their pledges.
As the December 2015 deadline for the MDGs fast approaches, and leaders inch toward consensus on what should replace them, we should pause to celebrate the power of goal-setting. Developing new post-2015 goals offers a rare opportunity to enable national leaders and communities to set their own country-specific development goals. The experiences of countries as different as Ghana, Brazil, Rwanda, Vietnam, and Bangladesh have proven that with good leadership and a comprehensive, country-owned, and data–driven strategy, setting goals can work on a national level too.
Development organizations such as the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development have embraced the goal-setting approach of the MDGs and are now rallying behind an ambitious goal: to eradicate extreme poverty worldwide by 2030. Here in our own country, Bread for the World is urging President Obama to do the same, starting with a goal to end U.S. hunger. Development experts and economists agree that, thanks to the successes of recent decades, such a goal is now within reach.
Get the full global success story of the MDGs in the 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach: Global Development Goals, and learn about what it would take to eliminate U.S. hunger in the 2014 Hunger Report, Ending Hunger in America.
Posted by Bread on April 28, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Global Hunger, Hunger Report, Millennium Development Goals, Religion and Hunger, Success in Fighting Hunger, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
A single statistic—the world is home to 842 million chronically hungry men, women, and children—is enough to show that effective U.S. foreign assistance is urgently needed. We must make every dollar count, because the lives of millions of people and the quality of life of hundreds of millions more depend on it.
Last week, the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) issued a fresh call for U.S. foreign assistance reform, citing examples of how reforms will lead to more effective development. In its new policy paper, The Way Forward: A New Reform Agenda for 2014 and Beyond, MFAN emphasizes that development and development co-operation need to promote inclusive, accountable partnerships that support country-led processes that will improve the lives of hungry and poor people. The U.S. government is in a better position today to build on past achievements, redouble its reform efforts, and accelerate progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This is the time.
Country ownership—the idea that countries should decide on and direct their own development priorities—is the foundation of sustainable development. This is what will bring lasting change.Country ownership was one of four basic principles for development cooperation agreed upon by development stakeholders, including major aid donors, at the most recent high-level forum on aid effectiveness, in November 2011 in Busan, Korea. The Busan forum builds on commitments made in the Paris Declaration in 2005 and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action.
For several years now, country ownership has been gaining traction across the donor community. Development partners, including the U.S. government, are making commitments to support capacity development in areas that respond to the needs and priorities of local actors in countries. This commitment recognizes that country ownership requires strong, effective institutions in both government and civil society. These are built over time, not overnight. In turn, countries adopt strategic priorities that focus on long-term impact in order to reduce hunger and poverty.
In the two and a half years since the Busan forum, country ownership has also emerged as a key element of U.S. foreign assistance reform efforts. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development has rebranded the Implementation and Procurement Reform (IPR) component of USAID Forward as Local Solutions.
This is a good first step. The hard work has just begun.
The need for U.S. food aid reform is one good example. The practice of buying food aid on local and regional markets for distribution, for instance, can be both quicker and more cost effective than traditional in-kind food aid. The flexibility and timeliness of such programs mean that humanitarian organizations can deliver food aid when it’s most needed while supporting local systems, markets, and communities so that countries are better equipped to provide for their people in the future.
This is “The Way Forward.”
Editor’s note: Welcome to Bread for the World Institute’s blog series on A Climate to End Hunger. The other day when I realized that Earth Day was approaching, I winced at my conflation of Earth Day with climate change. But it makes sense. Climate change is the biggest threat yet to Earth’s environment – and increasingly widespread hunger is one of its most tragic potential consequences. In this series, we reflect on how we can help prevent such a catastrophe.
Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III published the third and final contribution, Mitigation of Climate Change, to the organization’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report. Working Group III, made up of hundreds of the world’s leading scientists, was tasked with surveying thousands of the latest peer-reviewed studies to gauge the current status of climate change, the hazards it poses to humanity, and, of course, what people can do to prevent and/or cope with those hazards. The Guardian’s Leo Hickman summed up the group’s findings best – and at Tweetable length:
Climate change is real. We are to blame. It will get worse if we fail to act. The solutions are available and affordable. But time is short.
The group’s findings support the warning – stronger than ever – of the threat posed by climate change not only to hungry and poor people, but to the entire global economy. Climate change is increasingly straining global food systems. The message to policymakers is that if all countries, rich and poor alike, do not act quickly and cooperatively, the hard-won global progress against hunger and extreme poverty of the past few decades could be rapidly undone.
More specifically, climate change threatens global food security by causing declining crop yields; disruptions in food access, utilization, and price stability; and significantly reduced access to water, food security, and agricultural incomes in rural communities.
As the report’s chart (above) shows, about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions are generated by the “Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use” (AFOLU) sector — more than by the transport and building sectors combined. Sustainable agricultural practices will be crucial to reducing AFOLU emissions while still producing enough food for the growing population. Promising mitigation options include afforestation and sustainable forest management, improved cropland management, and restoration of organic soils.
At its core, responding effectively to climate change means building resilience in communities where people have always struggled to produce enough food. It demands strong and organized political leadership, infrastructure, and resources at all levels — local, regional, national, and global. Strengthening local capacity to create and implement informed, effective adaptation strategies is vital to building resilience.
Chapter 5 of the 2014 Hunger Report, Ending Hunger in America, examines how agriculture has been part of the climate change problem, and more importantly, how it must be part of the solution. Visit www.hungerreport.org to read more.
Posted by Bread on April 14, 2014 in A Climate to End Hunger, Agriculture, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Food Prices, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Millennium Development Goals, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
IFPRI’s Global Food Policy Report (GFPR) has become an annual reminder that global food security must remain very much at the top of the development agenda. This year’s report, the third, underscores that with more than 840 million people hungry, addressing hunger and malnutrition is a moral imperative. The report comes out just as the Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals begins to discuss the Focus Areas for the post- 2015 global development framework. Its recommendations are very timely to feed into the working group’s discussion, which starts March 31, and I hope they do.
The report captures the recent political momentum on nutrition and makes very clear that we can no longer talk about ending hunger without also addressing malnutrition. Undernutrition in the first 1,000 days between pregnancy and age 2 accounts for nearly half of all preventable deaths of children under 5. For children who survive, the consequences are life altering. They suffer irreversible physical and cognitive damage that affects their long-term health and productivity.
Stunting is the outward manifestation of the devastation caused by undernutrition. Today, there are 162 million children who are stunted. That is one in four children under 5. From the very beginning of their lives, their potential and their ability to lift themselves out of hunger and poverty is severely compromised. In addition, they are more likely to become overweight and obese as adults—the double burden of malnutrition. Two billion people are obese or overweight globally; the number of obese or overweight children under 5 has doubled since 1990 and is expected to double again by 2025. This is a global crisis that affects all countries.
The GFPR raises the level of ambition ahead of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development framework by calling for the end of hunger and malnutrition by 2025. Analyzing the success of four countries, the report makes a compelling case that the right mix of agriculture, social protection, and nutrition policies can lead to dramatic progress in reducing hunger and stunting. This multisectoral approach to nutrition has been embraced and championed by the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement.
Nutrition is included in the OWG’s Focus Areas along with Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security. The two indicators directly related to nutrition under consideration in this focus area are: ensuring year-round access by all to affordable, adequate, safe, and nutritious food; and ending child malnutrition and stunting. It would be great to see these indicators make it through into the final recommendation from the OWG. In addition, given the multisectoral nature of malnutrition, the OWG should include indicators under the health, gender, WASH, and education focus areas. NGOs working on nutrition advocacy have developed a set of recommended goals, targets, and indicators. These build and expand on the World Health Assembly nutrition targets.
In addition, the GFPR calls for a data revolution. This is vital and should include data that is disaggregated by gender, income, age, race, and ethnicity. Since even short bouts of hunger and undernutrition can lead to irreversible damage in children, we need timely data and improved indicators of dietary quality and diversity, especially among women of reproductive age and young children.
Connie Bwiza, member of Rwandan Parliament (Photo credit: IGIHE LTD)
Faustine Wabwire and Todd Post continue reporting from Rwanda.
On Monday we met with Connie Bwiza, a member of parliament, to hear how women in Rwanda are shaping policy and helping to transform the country. Connie has been in parliament since 1998. She represents Kiyovu, an area of Kigali.
We learned of Connie back in Washington, DC. She has played a prominent role in Rwanda's post-conflict reconcilaition and rehabilitation. She is also involved in several international women's organizations.
When we contacted her before leaving Washington, DC, she was excited to meet and share what women have accomplished in Rwanda since the genocide in 1994. She also arranged for us to meet with her teenage sons and niece in a separate interview to talk with them about Rwandan youth, the generation born after the genocide, but we’ll say more about that later in the week.
The same day as our interview with Connie an article about Rwanda appeared in the New York Times discussing some of the latest developments in the country’s meteoric rise since the genocide. The article scarcely mentions the role of women and conveys how much of a secret it remains to the public at large.
It turned out to be a mournful day for East African women, especially Faustine, because the parliament in her native Kenya had just passed a bill legalizing polygamy. Connie was outraged and explained how damaging the bill is to all East African countries. Not only is it an affront to women in the region, but it threatens to wreck the close economic ties that countries in the region are building.
The difference between attitudes towards women in Rwanda and Kenya is not as gaping as this bill might cause you to think. Faustine describes it as a shocking anomaly, and I should add that it remains to be seen whether the president of Kenya will sign the bill into law. Public pressure is already mounting to strike it down.
Such a bill would never come up in Rwanda. A female majority in parliament would not allow it. Moreover, it would not be possible because it does not comply with the rule of law. In Rwanda, the law mandates that every bill introduced in parliament must be evaluated for its effect on men and women, and if a bill is not deemed gender neutral it has no chance of passage.
There is something to be said for the importance of reaching critical mass. Rwanda has held three elections since a new constitution was passed. In the first election cycle, women gained 48 percent of the seats in parliament, and then increased it to 56 percent, and in the most recent increased it still further to 64 percent. Norms don’t change all on their own, change requires a prod from policy, and in Rwanda with a majority of women in parliament there is a veritable guarantee there will be a prod working to up end gender inequality.
Countries all over the developing world have passed laws reserving a share of the seats in parliament for women. Thirty percent is the most common figure because the gender equality goal of the Millennium Development Goals includes a 30 percent target. But what is equal about 30 percent, when women make up 50 percent of the population?
Posted by todd post on March 25, 2014 in Africa, Agriculture, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Report, Inequality, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.