SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
144 posts categorized "U.S. Hunger"
Photo courtesy of Bradipus/Creative Commons
By Steve Damiano
The fight to end hunger depends on the fight to find people living with hunger.
At the Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in July, the international community will pledge money to achieve the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which succeed the Millennium Development Goals.
Countries will likely commit to ending hunger and malnutrition by 2030 as part of the second SDG. But to end hunger and malnutrition, the world will first have to accomplish a more hidden SDG. Goal 17 (under its target 18) calls on donors by 2020 to increase the capacity of the least developed countries and small island states to collect timely and reliable data on all socioeconomic groups.
The FAO estimates that the world had 795 million food insecure individuals in 2014. Yet among developing countries, many governments lack the income data needed to provide targeted food assistance, largely because the countries have large informal sectors and weak tax systems. Instead, these governments rely on national household expenditure and consumption surveys, which allow them to measure whether households are poor and food insecure based on how much money they spend and the quality and quantity of food they consume.
Just as Bread for the World Institute recently showed that most of the data needed to advance gender equality is missing, Smith et al discovered that a significant amount of data on household food security is absent. They found that only half of all national household expenditure and consumption surveys have the data needed to determine if households receive enough calories or are undernourished. Even worse, the problem goes beyond not collecting the specific information needed to not collecting information at all: the percentage of developing countries that had conducted recent household surveys ranged from 39 percent of countries in the Middle East and North Africa to 85 percent in sub-Saharan Africa.
We can see why good data is needed by looking at food subsidies in Egypt and Iran. Both countries have a history of providing bread subsidies to reduce hunger. Both countries also carry out household surveys to measure the economic well-being of their populations. Yet only Egypt asks questions related to household food security as Iran focuses more on household expenditures.
In 2014 and 2010, Egypt and Iran respectively began reforming their food subsidy programs to try to better target poor families. Egypt started limiting the number of subsidized bread loaves individuals could buy to reduce price speculation and began giving people smart cards rather than a monthly food basket so they could buy more nutritious foods. Iran sought to replace its bread subsidies with cash transfers to poor households, but the government lacked the data to identify poor households. In the end, it gave the cash transfer to the entire population. But this was too expensive to sustain. In 2014, the Iranian government resorted to handing out food directly to people in need, sparking national outrage as Iranians waited for hours in lines outside food distribution centers. While Iran has used its oil wealth to achieve lower hunger rates than Egypt, the Egyptian government has collected the data needed to ensure that its limited resources go as far as possible in reducing hunger.
Steve Damiano is a Crook Fellow with Bread for the World Institute this summer. He recently earned master's degrees from the University of Texas at Austin in both Global Policy Studies and Middle Eastern Studies. Aid effectiveness is one of Steve's areas of interest.
This year, 2015, is a significant year in the history as well as the future of global development. For example, September this year, 2015, will mark the sunset of the Millennium Development Goals, and usher in the more ambitious post-2015 development agenda. The MDGs—which were adopted in the year 2000—have provided a unified agenda for addressing the world’s most pressing development challenges, such as hunger and extreme poverty. As articulated in the Millennium Declaration, the MDGs promised to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity, as well as work toward a world free from hunger and extreme poverty.
Over the last decade, the world has seen tremendous progress, and several MDG targets have been met. Most notably, the world has reduced extreme poverty by half. According to a report by the United Nations, in 1990, almost half of the population in developing regions lived on less than $1.25 a day. This rate dropped to 22 percent by 2010, reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty by 700 million. Although the hunger target has not been achieved, it is within reach. Recent evidence shows that the proportion of people who suffer from chronic hunger continues to decline, but immediate additional efforts are needed to reach the MDG hunger target. This is where the post-2015 agenda comes in.
Over the last two years, Member States of the United Nations have been working to define Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as part of the post-2015 universal development agenda. The SDGs will carry on with the “unfinished agenda” of the MDGs, and will apply to all countries, including the United States. This agenda will be adopted by Member States at the Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015.
This is a tremendous opportunity for world leaders as well as citizens of every country, to ensure that the next 15 years will be transformative, and that attention will focus on ending poverty everywhere. Yet, we also know that the world has dramatically changed since the year 2000, when the MDGs were adopted. For example, in 2000, the world’s poor people lived in low-income but mostly stable countries. Today, it is estimated that middle-income countries and fragile states are home to over 70 percent of the world’s poor people. This means that in order to achieve the post-2015 "transformative" agenda by 2030, the means of implementation cannot be "business as usual."National governments, the international community and citizens around the world must commit to hold each other accountable toward delivering for the world's poorest populations. The United States and its partners must ensure that commitments made through the SDGs focus on delivering outcomes, and that they “leave no one behind,” particularly those living in Least Developed Countries (LCDs), and fragile states.
As the 2015 MDG deadline nears, and as the world prepares to adopt the SDGs this September, experts in global development are thinking ahead. Last week, the President’s Global Development Council (GDC) released its second annual report, highlighting 5 recommendations for the U.S. government’s engagement in a rapidly changing post-2015 development landscape:
- Further galvanizing the private sector;
- Promoting sustainable growth while building resilience to climate change;
- Driving innovation for development results;
- Increasing collaborative resource mobilization for development; and
- Further catalyzing economic opportunities for women and youth, especially in megacities.
The 2015 full report of the GDC can be found here.
Posted by Faustine Wabwire on May 29, 2015 in A Climate to End Hunger, Agriculture, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Data to End Hunger, Economic Development, Food Prices, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Inequality, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Women's History Month | Comments (0)
Photo Credit: Stephan Bachenheimer/World Bank
The sooner the world achieves gender equality, the sooner it will end hunger. Throughout the month of March (Women’s History Month), we have dedicated this blog to showing why this is true. We’ve examined some of the ways that gender discrimination contributes to hunger, and explained the concept of women’s empowerment and why hunger will persist until the barriers to women’s empowerment are removed. But when will women’s empowerment become a reality? And what can we do to speed up progress?
A recently published study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that at current rates of progress, women in the United States will not receive equal pay for equal work until 2058. Few readers of our blog will still be working then— just one obvious sign that pay equity is much too far away. Although these findings are discouraging, the study also indicated that years or even decades can be shaved off the projection with dedicated leadership and the right action steps.
Returning to the 2015 Hunger Report’s main focus on women’s empowerment in developing countries, here are three high-impact actions that will help achieve both gender equality and the end of hunger more quickly.
1. Elect More Women
Women are half of the global population, but hold an average of just 22 percent of seats in national parliaments. Research has found that women in public office at all levels tend to place greater emphasis than men on social services such as education, clean water and sanitation, and nutrition. They are also, not surprisingly, better positioned to understand and advocate for laws and policies that improve the status of women. Gender quotas are one way of ensuring that women’s voices are represented in government, and more than 80 countries have adopted them. Rwanda offers a compelling example. Once women got a foot in the door in that country’s national parliament, they exceeded their “quota” and now hold more than 60 percent of seats.
2. Strengthen Collective Women’s Groups
When marginalized people are free to speak and act collectively, their causes are more likely to be taken seriously by those in power. Beyond government, women can raise their collective voices through labor unions and religious and civil society groups. This can bring change sooner. But in many countries, social norms or even laws bar women from participation in the most influential groups. In Bangladesh and Nepal, women’s efforts to organize labor unions have been suppressed, sometimes violently. This is true particularly in key sectors that pay poorly, such as the garment industry. Yet effective collective bargaining groups represent these women’s best opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty by commanding higher wages and better working conditions.
3. Include Men
As we said in last week’s post, when women flourish, so do men. Evidence repeatedly affirms that empowering women benefits everyone. It adds whole percentage points to economic growth, reduces poverty and hunger, and improves health and nutrition for men, women, and children. But people do not always act according to reason and evidence. Restrictions on a person’s work and productivity based on gender are irrational, but sexist stereotypes and traditions persist at everyone’s expense. The people with the most power to change them – men – appear to be particularly prone to such misconceptions. Gender equality requires that both men and women examine and challenge their perceptions of what is an equitable division of labor. Public policies should not, explicitly or implicitly, reinforce stereotypes that force men into breadwinning roles or women into caregiving roles. Progress requires that men be intentionally, if carefully, welcomed into the discussion. Shared understanding can produce enthusiastic male advocates, and their credibility with other men can speed up social change.
The recommendations in this post were drawn mainly from Chapter 3 of the 2015 Hunger Report. View and download the full Hunger Report and explore stories, infographics, and interactive tools online at hungerreport.org.
Posted by Bread on March 30, 2015 in Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Data to End Hunger, Economic Development, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Inequality, Latin America, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs, Women's History Month | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Bread for the World Institute is pleased to announce the publication of a new briefing paper, Harnessing Immigrant Small Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth.
The paper, written by senior immigration policy analyst Andrew Wainer, is based on his research in three U.S. cities: Miami, Florida; Des Moines, Iowa; and Salt Lake City, Utah. Immigrant-owned small businesses are the faces of U.S. immigration policy for most Americans. They are a key employer -- 14 percent of all small business employees work for an immigrant-owned business. They can also be a means of lifting a family out of poverty.
Yet there are few specific policies or resources, at either the national or local level, to support immigrants who own or want to start their own businesses. The briefing paper, which was released today at a panel discussion hosted by New America in Washington, DC, offers detailed recommendations on access to business capital, program coordination, federal immigration policy, and integrating immigrant-owned businesses into small business sector services.
Photo credit: Rick Reinhard for Bread for the World.
As a policy analyst, my life revolves around data related to hunger, poverty and nutrition of mothers and their children. Statistics are the tool of my trade. I use them to report, to convey information, and often to advocate on issues. A few stay with me: 805 million hungry people in the world (one person in nine); 165 million stunted children who will never reach their full potential in life.
In my research for the Institute’s series celebrating Women’s History Month, I came across another statistic that will stay with me for a long time. A study by the respected British medical journal The Lancet found that the United States is one of only eight countries where maternal mortality (death from complications of pregnancy or childbirth) is on the rise. The other countries are Afghanistan, Greece, and several countries in Africa and Central America.
In this country, 18.5 mothers died for every 100,000 births in 2013—almost 800 women died here that year alone. This is double the rate of Canada and triple the rate of the United Kingdom! What is going on here? How is it that women in the United States are dying at a faster rate from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth than in almost any other place in the developed world?
There seem to be several contributing factors. Some of the reported rise in mortality is likely due to more rigorous data collection; the United States is one country where data on almost anything is readily available. Another factor is the rise in the number of pregnant women here who have conditions—such as hypertension and diabetes—that contribute to making their pregnancies “high risk.” More girls with heart or neurological diseases are surviving to adulthood—good news, but they remain at higher risk during pregnancy and childbirth.
Perhaps the most shocking statistic is that American women of color – particularly African Americans -- are three times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy or giving birth than their white counterparts. Higher poverty rates, which carry numerous consequences such as more chronic health problems and less access to prenatal care, are a major reason that women of color in our country run much higher risks in becoming mothers.
There is a parallel between efforts to end maternal mortality and efforts to end global hunger. We know that a lack of available food is not the problem. It is getting access to nutritious food — a particular problem for pregnant women and children – that is a major problem. Affording food and reaching a place where it is available pose the biggest challenges. Researchers have found the same to be true in efforts to end maternal mortality -- particularly during or shortly after childbirth. The major problems are affordability and access to skilled care. This is true in the United States as in many developing countries.
The situation is even worse in “fragile states,” developing countries suffering armed conflict or civil war while also confronting high rates of food insecurity.
In its State of the World’s Mothers 2014 (SOWM) report, the international organization Save the Children says: “These countries and territories (more than 50 in number) lack resilience to emergencies and face chronic underlying challenges, including extreme poverty, weak infrastructure, and poor governance. In these settings, children and mothers face an everyday emergency, whether or not a humanitarian crisis is officially recognized by the international system.”
During this Women’s History Month, I encourage you to read Save’s SOWM report and take a look at the statistics on maternal mortality compiled by the World Bank and the United Nations World Health Organization. As a result of a concerted effort by governments, international donors, and civil society, we are making remarkable progress toward the goal of ending hunger. Much less progress has been made toward the fifth Millennium Development Goal of reducing maternal mortality by three-fourths. An equally concerted and collaborative effort, accompanied by sustained funding for healthcare programs in the United States and overseas, particularly in fragile states, is needed to help women survive as they secure humanity’s future by bearing children.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on March 04, 2015 in A Climate to End Hunger, Africa, Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Data to End Hunger, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Immigration, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Success in Fighting Hunger, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs, Women's History Month | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
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)
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.
A continuing chorus of news articles has been triumphantly proclaiming this news ever since the November Congressional elections. People like the number 100 because they tend to think 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)
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.