SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
A couple of years ago, the thousands of Central American children fleeing poverty and violence – and arriving at the U.S. southern border – was a phenomenon ignored by policymakers and scarcely mentioned in the U.S. media.
Fast forward to 2015 and we have a New York Times op-ed penned by Vice President Joe Biden calling for more U.S. investment in the region, backed up by a $1.1 billion Obama administration budget request “promoting prosperity, improving governance, and enhancing security” in Central America.
The President’s proposal would increase funding to the Northern Triangle nations of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador – the home countries of most of the children who migrate – to a level four times that of fiscal year 2014. As reported in Devex, the request would make Guatemala the single largest recipient of funding from USAID’s Development Assistance account.
Meanwhile, the State Department and USAID are developing a new strategy to reduce poverty and improve security in Central America. A new strategy was mandated in the congressional spending bill passed in December 2014. Unlike the president’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, which is an aspirational document, the new State Department/USAID Central America strategy includes $130 million allocated to implement it. It is a “done deal.”
Yet another proposed strategy in the mix is the proposal for the region advanced by the Inter-American Development Bank, the “Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle.” This plan, as well, was created in response to the child migration issue and seeks to improve the economic and security situation in the region.
Within the past six months or so, Congress, the president, and an important multilateral organizations have all proposed major re-thinking and increases in funding to respond to the Central American child migration crisis.
But what does that mean for Central Americans? According to Vice President Biden’s op-ed, the Northern Triangle nations are already taking ownership of the problem by attacking corruption. But on the ground, we’ve seen little to no change.
The Northern Triangle’s problems of inequality, poverty, and violence are decades – if not centuries – in the making. There is no quick solution. But policy proposals from Washington will certainly need to have an impact in the countries themselves if they are to be taken seriously.
Analysts expect details of the State Department plan to be made public in the coming weeks. So far, there is little information publicly available about how Washington’s analysis of the causes and impacts of poverty and violence in migrant-sending regions will be reflected in the plan’s policies and programs. The administration’s previous strategy was called the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).
A May 2014 Congressional Research Service report on the $800 million CARSI project states, “It is unclear what has been accomplished with the funding appropriated thus far since U.S. agencies have not released the metrics they are using to assess the initiative’s performance.” Subsequent evaluation has found some positive impact from CARSI but overall, the program has a mixed record in addressing the regions insecurity problems.
Analysts have stated that the State/USAID team drafting the new strategy has realized that CARSI was not working and are integrating those critiques into the new plan.
Reducing poverty should be front and center in any new strategy seeking to create alternatives to undocumented immigration for Central American children and adults. While the motivations for migration from the region are mixed, poverty and a lack of economic opportunity are primary factors in driving migrants to the United States.
In the coming months Bread for the World Institute will be analyzing and sharing examples of programs and strategies that U.S. development agencies can adopt – and then work to bring to scale – to help ease the deep socioeconomic divisions and inequalities in the three Northern Triangle nations.
Dr. Rajiv Shah welcomes guests to the launch of Bread for the World Institute's 2011 Hunger Report in November, 2010. (Laura Elizabeth Pohl/Bread for the World)
Dr. Rajiv Shah will be departing USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) this week. His appointment as USAID Administrator came in the wake of Haiti’s devastating earthquake in early 2010, just as famine was hitting South Sudan and at a time of continued powerful aftershocks from the global food price crisis. USAID sets and implements the U.S. government’s development and emergency food aid policies, and its employees staff U.S. Missions in countries around the world where hunger and poverty are endemic. In addition to managing a series of crises, Dr. Shah also set out to revitalize an agency that had long been criticized for being overly bureaucratic and dependent on large U.S. implementing partner organizations to carry out many of its programs.
We will remember Dr. Shah’s time at USAID for his passionate commitment to and impatience in the fight to end hunger and malnutrition. In five years, remarkable progress has been made against food insecurity and malnutrition, and U.S. leadership has played an important role. In 2010, Dr. Shah created the Bureau for Food Security at USAID to implement Feed the Future, the U.S. global food security initiative. Under his leadership, USAID also developed the first-ever Multisectoral Global Nutrition Strategy, which will improve coordination across the agency’s bureaus and programs and, most importantly, the effectiveness of U.S. investments in nutrition.
In addition, President Obama and Administrator Shah have been relentless advocates at the global level for greater and smarter investments in agriculture, food security, and nutrition. They secured new commitments of resources from other countries, multilateral institutions, and the private sector. Dr. Shah served on the Lead Group of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, helping to provide strategic direction as SUN was getting off the ground. At the country level, USAID has been a key SUN partner. Today, SUN, whose members at last count are 54 countries with high rates of childhood stunting, has begun to change national policies and commit funding to fight malnutrition.
We also remember Dr. Shah’s time at USAID for increasing attention to strengthening local capacity and institutions, including recognizing the key role of local civil society. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, is a member of USAID’s Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, designed to give policy guidance directly to the Administrator, and was honored to participate in an ACVFA working group that developed a paper on local capacity development. Beckmann later co-chaired the ACVFA task force on strengthening Feed the Future’s collaborations with civil society. Reflecting on Shah’s tenure, Beckmann said, “I thank God for Raj Shah’s outstanding leadership. USAID’s increased effectiveness is making a difference in the lives of millions of people, and it has set the stage for bipartisan collaboration in the U.S. Congress on international development issues. ”
We were honored by Dr. Shah’s presence at important moments for Bread for the World. At Bread’s 2011 Hunger Report launch, Dr. Shah called the report, Our Common Interest: Ending Hunger and Malnutrition,
“the best statement [he’s] read about the importance of Feed the Future to U.S. efforts to combat global hunger and malnutrition.” He announced the establishment of the Bureau of Food Security at the launch. Dr. Shah was also the keynote speaker at Bread’s 2012 Gala to End Hunger.
He addressed Bread for the World members, representatives of international civil society, and global nutrition stakeholders at the 2013 Sustaining Political Commitments to Scaling Up Nutrition event in Washington, DC. It was here that he announced USAID’s plan for a Global Nutrition Strategy.
Dr. Shah’s individual accomplishments, and USAID’s accomplishments during his tenure, are too numerous to list. Under his leadership the agency prospered. Bread for the World developed closer working relationships with key management and program staff. He has set the bar very high for his successor and has put in place strategies and programs that assure continued U.S. government leadership in the global fight to end hunger and extreme poverty. We at Bread for the World wish Dr. Shah continued success in all his endeavors and look forward to working with the next USAID Administrator.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on February 13, 2015 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Immigration, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Challenge Account, Millennium Development Goals, Religion and Hunger, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
President Obama released his final budget on Monday, February 2, 2015. As was reported by Bread for the World in a press release, the budget invests in people as a key to sustained economic recovery. It includes increased funding for maternal, newborn and child health, and it prioritizes early childhood care and education.
The budget can be lauded for these important domestic funding initiatives, but it is more of a mixed bag in addressing international food and nutrition security. It requests a $14 million reduction from Fiscal year 2015 enacted funding levels in nutrition spending, which is allocated to USAID’s Global Health Bureau. This is disappointing given worldwide recognition of nutrition’s role across development sectors, and global momentum to improve nutrition policies and programs, especially those focused in the 1,000 days ‘window of opportunity’ from a women’s pregnancy to her child’s second birthday. Investments here are among the smartest that can be made, with long-term health, social and economic benefits accruing to both individuals and countries themselves.
The International Affairs (150) account in the budget, which funds overseas operations, counterterrorism efforts, humanitarian relief and development assistance is again less than 1% of the total. At $54.8 billion it does enjoy a small (2.4%) increase over the previous year’s funding but is still many billions below what was spent as recently as the year 2010.
As was reported by the World Food Program, “…humanitarian aid programs were among those that got hit the hardest by budget cuts. Overall humanitarian accounts went down by 13%. International Disaster Assistance was cut by $154 million. Food Aid was cut by $66 million.” All this during times of historic demand for global assistance. To say that USAID and its implementing partners are stretched thin is an understatement. In fact, according to the Famine Early Warning System web site, there are eight “areas of concern” – Central African Republic, Central America and the Caribbean, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Yemen – that are being watched closely. Any of these countries or regions can easily slip into food insecurity, requiring additional funding. Save the Children reported it was “concerned with the funding levels for humanitarian assistance”.
The President’s budget builds on the Administration’s efforts to increase access to early childhood care and education for U.S. children from birth to age five. But at the same time it proposes cuts in disaster assistance, food aid and nutrition, cuts which paradoxically, could have a devastating effect on children from birth to age five overseas in countries where help is most needed.
The President’s budget has been presented to Congress, which will likely now develop a budget of its own. If the final budget is approved with additional cuts to the 150 Account and any new global humanitarian conflicts arise, a very tight funding scenario could turn disastrous.
The advocacy community will surely be focused with Congress on restoring funding to this critical account. And surely Congress can find ways to not have the most vulnerable population overseas – women and children - bear a disproportionate amount of cuts in a budget of $4,000,000,000,000.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on February 06, 2015 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Immigration, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Challenge Account, Millennium Development Goals, Religion and Hunger, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Ana Zamora was a guest of the First Lady at the 2015 State of the Union Address. Zamora is a 20-year old immigrant who lives in Dallas, TX. She was brought to the United States at the age of 1.
Words are powerful, but sometimes what’s left unsaid truly tells the tale. That was the case during President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, where despite the fact that he barely mentioned immigration, his message was clear: It’s time to move on from past immigration debates and enact comprehensive reform.
In addition, the Republican English-language response delivered by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) was silent on immigration. However, the Spanish-language response delivered by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL.) called for immigration reform.
The chances of a major Congressional overhaul of immigration policy during 2015 are slim, but there will be major action next month as the administration begins implementation of President Obama’s 2014 executive action. The action will provide relief from deportation for about 4 million undocumented immigrants.
This implementation is expected to move forward despite the fact that House Republicans continue to challenge the action in Congress and in the courts. The Congressional challenge has little chance of success as President Obama has already indicated that he will veto any bill seeking to roll back the action, known as the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program.
But the court challenge by 25 states, led by Texas, could create a fearful atmosphere locally for undocumented immigrants eligible for the program. That will be the true challenge to the DAPA program.
Bread for the World supports the president’s action because it will provide more opportunity for low-income people to move out of poverty. The action will allow some undocumented immigrants the ability to seek further education, job training, find new jobs, and start their own or enhance an existing small business.
Research finds that deferred action can lead to an average wage increase of 8.5 percent for immigrant workers and that it also can have benefits for the U.S.-born and the overall economy.
The very few words devoted to this issue by the president and the Republican’s rebuttal may be an acknowledgement that in spite of the continuing Congressional rhetoric, both sides know that the debate of words on DAPA is winding down and that the action of implementation is about to begin.
Photo: Official White House photo by Pete Souza
President Obama announced a series of executive actions to extend paid leave to the American workforce—the only modern workforce in the world that still lacks it. The announcement marks another essential step recently taken by the federal government toward helping working families escape hunger and poverty.
The president’s actions include:
- Signing a memorandum to guarantee all executive branch federal employees six weeks of paid family leave to care for a new child or ill family member.
- Calling Congress to pass legislation that grants millions of American workers up to seven days of paid sick time per year.
- Committing money to help states develop their own family and medical leave programs—$2 billion in the president’s 2016 budget proposal and $1 million from the 2015 budget to fund state- and local-level feasibility studies.
The memorandum will immediately improve the work quality and flexibility for nearly 3 million executive branch employees, fully securing them a minimum six weeks of paid family leave. It is now up to Congress to do the same for the rest of the federal workforce, and carry out the president’s other actions to extend paid sick and family leave to the 43 million private sector workers who still don’t have it.
The executive action reflects key recommendations in the Institute’s 2014 Hunger Report, Ending Hunger in America. The report points out that changing dynamics in the U.S. family and economy have left working families more vulnerable to hunger. Between 1980 and 2010, mothers in the workforce with children under age 18 increased by 14 percent; mothers with children under age 6 by 19 percent, and mothers with infants by 25 percent. In survey after survey, parents, regardless of their income level, report that they are exhausted and under stress from juggling work and family commitments. This imbalance hinders a parent's ability to adequetly care for and nourish his or her children. Poor nutrition, particularly in the 1,000 Days between pregnancy and age 2, can hurt a child's phyiscal and cognitive growth and keep her from reaching full potential.
Children in low-income families are more likely to have chronic health problems. One reason families become poor is that when a parent is forced to choose between keeping a job and caring for a sick child, she or he generally opts to take care of the child. Federal standards that require paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave will go a long way toward helping parents—and all workers—balance work and care responsibilities, leaving them less vulnerable to hunger and poverty.
The president’s announcement on paid leave is the latest in a series of recent executive actions which address key recommendations from the 2014 Hunger Report. Other recent actions include: free community college for most students, greater home affordability, access to high-speed broadband, and an executive order that relieves four million undocumented immigrants of the threat of deportation.
To read more about the 2014 Hunger Report and the elements of its four part plan for ending hunger in America, download the report and view infographics on top issues at hungerreport.org.
Congress has more than 100 women for the first time in U.S. history.
An ongoing string of news articles has been triumphantly proclaiming this news ever since the November elections. People like the number 100 because they’re thinking of 100 percent and the ideas associated with it -- completeness, sufficiency, even perfection. Years of chasing after 100 on countless school exams have ensured that I will always look on it favorably. But when it comes to women in Congress, 100 is hardly a number to celebrate.
Compared to other high-income countries, the United States has a much lower percentage of women elected to government office, and November’s elections did not change that. Among the 10 most developed countries (according to the United Nations Development Program), the United States ranks last on female representation in national elected offices. See the chart above. Women in the 114th Congress hold 19.4 percent of seats, up less than one percentage point from last year. And this is the highest percentage in history. Other high-income countries now average 25 percent women in national parliaments, with Nordic countries closest to equal representation with consistent shares of one-third or more. Currently 95 countries have larger shares of women in national parliaments than the United States.
The evidence shows that women who are elected to office have different priorities and achieve results that are different from those of their male counterparts. Women legislators introduce many more bills on health care, education, and child care than men do. Women also tend to work harder than their male counterparts to keep legislation they’ve sponsored alive, and they are more collaborative, seeking consensus so the bills will pass. In a study of the U.S. House of Representatives, these factors made female legislators more effective than males at getting their legislation advanced and passed.
Although we can’t stereotype and pigeonhole all women as more “nurturing,” female members of Congress have proven to be more collaborative and more focused on social issues. It makes sense that electing more women could help reduce political polarization and potentially advance an agenda of ending hunger and poverty in the United States.
You can read more about the historical impact of women in the U.S. Congress in Chapter 4 of the 2015 Hunger Report: When Women Flourish … We Can End Hunger.
As we mentioned in our earlier post on incarceration as a hunger issue, one result of sending people to prison is that they lose their jobs, and therefore any ability to help support their children and other family members.
Many inmates do, however, work while serving their sentences. In fact, prison labor is big business. UNICOR (also known as Federal Prison Industries, Inc.) has an annual net profit of more than $600 million and employs 8 percent of medically-eligible federal inmates. The company has said its goal is to employ 25 percent of the federal prison workforce. Other prisoners manufacture everything from airplane components and furniture to artisanal goat cheese and wooden canoes.
Working while incarcerated allows people to keep busy and perhaps learn a skill, but it is not a path to financial stability. Federal inmates earn between $0.23 and $1.15 an hour. From this, they must pay for phone calls, stamps, many of the toiletries they use, and more. There is little if any money left over to pay child support or save for their release date.
When they are released after serving their sentences, therefore, people have little money of their own. The prison system does not give them much either -- a maximum of $500 for federal prisoners and even less “gate money” from most state prisons. It takes time to find a job and start getting paid, even in the best-case scenarios. And for many, the situation is further worsened not only by employers’ reluctance to hire people with prison records, but also by government policies.
Formerly incarcerated people may qualify for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps) in some states. But in others, a felony drug conviction can mean that a person is never again eligible for SNAP benefits. In Georgia, for example, one can be convicted of felony drug possession if caught with one ounce of marijuana -- and forever barred from receiving SNAP benefits.
SNAP could be a bridge for people returning to the community at a stressful time in their lives. Instead, many former inmates add hunger to their list of problems. Without SNAP benefits, they are forced to rely on support from family, friends, or charities—and if they do not have that safety net, stealing or another crime may appear to be the best of their few options. The United States has a high rate of recidivism – repeat offenses. In fact, more than 28 percent of former state prison inmates are re-arrested within six months of their release. Of course, hunger is not the only cause of recidivism. But it is one of the easiest to solve.
Our country's high rates of incarceration carry consequences beyond the fate of individual inmates and their families. In the final piece of our short series on incarceration, we will examine its impact on hunger in the wider society -- and for prospects for change through advocacy.
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)
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.