Developing World Has Less Than 5 Percent Chance of Meeting UN Child Hunger Target

A new study published in The Lancet suggests that developing countries as a whole have a less than 5% chance of meeting the UN’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target for the reduction of child malnutrition by 2015(http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60647-3/fulltext#article_upsell). The Article analyses trends in the weight and height (two simple indicators that can permit to define if the malnutrition is chronic or acute) of more than 7•7 million children worldwide between 1985 and 2011 in 141 countries. They also looked how levels are likely to change if current trends continue.  It is the first large-scale study to provide a detailed examination of trends in children’s weight and growth in all developing countries.

Why this study is important?

The phenomenon of hunger does not only weigh on the individual, it also imposes a crushing economic burden on the developing world as economists estimate that every child whose physical and mental development is stunted by hunger and malnutrition stands to lose 5-10 percent in lifetime earnings. Moreover, the first two years of a child’s life are particularly important, as optimal nutrition during this period will lead to reduced morbidity and mortality, to reduced risk of chronic diseases and to overall better development. In fact, optimal breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices are so critical that they can save the lives of 1.5 million children under five every year.

Progresses are made …..

Professor Majid Ezzati, from the School of Public Health at Imperial College London, UK, and the article’s senior author, said: “Our analysis shows that the developing world as a whole has made considerable progress towards reducing child malnutrition, but there are still far too many children who don’t receive sufficient nutritious foods or who lose nutrients due to repeated sickness. Severe challenges lie ahead.”

To summarize the key results

• 61 of these 141 countries have likely a 50—100% chance to achieve the target – particularly in some parts of Asia and Latin America.

• The prevalence of moderate-and-severe stunting (insufficient growth in height for their age) declined from 47•2% to 29•9% and underweight from 30•1% to 19•4% between 1985 and 2011 in developing countries as a whole.

• In 2011, over 300 million children were mildly to severely stunted and over 250 million mildly to severely underweight, with 17 countries – mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania – seemingly undergoing no improvement in the number of children who are underweight or restricted in growth.

• Undernutrition worsened in sub-Saharan Africa from 1985 until the late 1990s, when height and weight scores began to improve. The deterioration may have been due to economic shocks, structural adjustment, and trade policy reforms in the region in the 1980s and 1990s. In Ivory Coast and Niger, nutritional status was measurably worse in 2011 than it had been in 1985.

• South Asia, the region with the worst nutritional status in 1985, has improved considerably, but undernutrition is still a major issue. About one half of the world’s underweight children live in South Asia, mostly in India.

• China has undergone the largest improvement in children’s height over the last 25 years, with Latin America and the Caribbean region also experiencing significant improvements in this area. The authors suggest that, in many of these countries, the improvements seen are down to overall improvements in the populations’ nutrition, rather than specific interventions targeting children at high risk.

• Some countries in Latin America, such as Chile, now have almost no undernutrition. The proportion of underweight children almost halved per decade in Brazil.

What’s next?

The statistics presented in this article suggest that in most countries, the improvements are due to population-wide improvements in nutrition, rather than interventions targeting high-risk children.

Moreover, according to Professor Ezzati, “There is evidence that child nutrition is best improved through equitable economic growth, investment in policies that help smallholder farmers and increase agricultural productivity, and primary care and food programs targeted at the poor. We mustn’t allow the global economic crisis and rising food prices to cause inequalities to increase, or cut back on investments in nutrition and healthcare.”

To continue in the same direction – strategies that can contribute to the improvement of the overall nutritional status of children:

In a book entitled “Just Give the Money to the Poor, The Development Revolution from the Global South”, the authors showed through a specific example that equitable economic growth at the community level permits  a population-wide nutritional improvement, among other social and economic improvements.  

In  this book, the authors discussed a new strategy – direct cash transfers (CTs). These are regular payments by the state directly to poor people, similar to welfare in developed countries.  The authors showed that this strategy can have a significant social and economic impact. CTs are affordable and the recipients use the money well and do not waste it. As a result, cash grants are an efficient way to directly reduce current poverty, and they have the potential to prevent future poverty by facilitating economic growth and promoting human development.

Something that perhaps you don’t know! And we didn’t know before reading this book.

45 countries in the Global South now give CTs to more than 110 million families. Every program is different, from universal child benefits in Mongolia to pensions in Africa to family grants in Latin America. Some grants are tiny – only $3 a month – whereas others give families more than $100 a month; some cover more than one-third of the population, and others aim only for the very poorest. The size of public spending varies from 0.1% of GDP to 4%, although most programs fall in the range of 0.4% to 1.5%.

What are the outputs/outcomes of this kind of program?

  • Social protection and security for the young, old, disabled
  • Development and economic growth – CTs give poor people the security they need to invest in higher risk/return options like new crops, or migrating in search of work
  • Breaking intergenerational poverty by ensuring children are better nourished and educated than their parents
  • Rights and equity – reducing income inequality and promoting the status of women

To give you a concrete example on how this strategy can impact the life of people

The villagers of Otjivero village (a very destitute rural community) in Namibia have received each month the equivalent of 15 US$ as part of a pilot study to evaluate the socio-economic impact of direct cash transfer.

One of the first and immediate results was the creation of a whole range of economic activities in this small village.

After two years, the program team that managed this pilot study was able to report:

• A decrease of the number of people living below the poverty line from 76 to 37%

• Less than 10% of the children were malnourished – before the experiment, almost half of children were malnourished

• 90% have finished their education – before, they were only 60%

• And crime has dropped

This pilot study has also shown that CT has an impact not only on production but also on demand. In Africa, the purchasing power is usually centered in a few centers, forcing people to leave the countryside to cities, where slums eventually spread. The CT allows rural to grow, it creates local markets and allows people to be self-sufficient.

When you know that you will recieve each month some cash to support your family, this brings some sort of financial security. This kind of initiative helps to ensure that the basic needs for the family are covered but also helps to invest in the future. It creates the first step to equitable economic growth.

Something to meditate! 

Sources:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112650992/developing-world-has-less-than-5-percent-chance-of-meeting-un-child-hunger-target/

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2012/week27/Thursday/12070507.htm

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=2547

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2010/04/29/les-miracles-du-revenu-minimum-garanti

Advertisements

Hunger and Obesity Are Food Security Issues ….

…. Or we can also define them as the visible outcomes of the failure of our global Food Security System…

The U.N. says nearly a billion people go to bed hungry every night. At the same time, hundreds of millions of others are obese. To solve those twin crises, we will need to know who is wielding the power over food and marketing.

Raj Patel (http://rajpatel.org/), author of Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System (http://rajpatel.org/2009/10/27/stuffed-and-starved/) says hunger and obesity are not just a matter of eating too little or too much. It has to do with what people are eating and the systems and institutions driving consumption.
To summarize his analysis and to add some of our thoughts:

There’s growing investment in agriculture around the world to feed an expected population of 9 billion by 2050. But as emerging economies grow in Africa and Asia, consumers in those regions are switching to a more Western diet. It’s a diet many blame for obesity, as well as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. However, many others say that people have a choice as to what to eat. They don’t have to buy foods rich in fat, salt and sugar.

And are we really having the choice?

Patel said that’s no.

“When you look at the amount of money that is spent promoting food, the ratio of good food to junk food marketing is about 1 to 500. In other words, for every dollar that’s spent promoting fresh fruits and vegetables 500 is spent promoting junk food,” he said.

And this discrepancy means so much to us with the London Olympic Games that is approaching. All the big food companies are partners of this major event…. Sport is associated with junk food and not with healthy food or healthy eating behaviors.

Again for this Olympic Games, we won’t see an encouragement for healthy nutrition and how this combination – sport and good nutrition – can have a dramatic impact on health. So important for the future of children… Unbelievable!

The battle seems to be lost in advance…

Just a handful of corporations control much of the global food market. It raises the question of what’s considered normal eating?
It is true. “You have kids growing up who think it is normal to be drinking 32 ounces of soda, basically sugar and empty calories. Children who are disconnected from where their food comes from and who are being raised in some very unhealthy eating habits.” Patel said.

Evidence can clearly be found in the United States as well as in some emerging countries like Mexico, India and South Africa.

For example:

• “One in three children who were born in the year 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes. And if we’re talking about children of people of color then that’s near a one in two children will develop type 2 diabetes,”

• “India is a country that’s suffering [from] an epidemic of hunger at the same time as an epidemic of the kinds of disease that used to only happen in rich economies”.

And this is an interesting question …… what can we consider as normal eating?

Is it the same everywhere in the world or do we have major differences based on food tradition, culinary culture as well as genetic background? Can we have a universal approach to this concept?

And finally, if we take the example of Canada, country where CKi is located – what is the legitimacy of having one unique food guidance policy in a country where there are so much different ethnic groups? Recent studies have shown a dramatic level of metabolic diseases in the new immigrant population in Canada. These are some of the questions we ask and we try to answer.

In fact, modern diets are often very different from what our ancestors ate and a lot of people around the world are currently eating. Diversity in food, respect of the tradition around food as well as the culinary culture are keen and we need to value them.

There is hope for better nutrition.

“There’s an amazing kind of rebirth of the food movement in the United States and around the world of people who are excited to be reconnecting with growing their own food, with eating locally and sustainably and organically. And that’s a fight that’s well worth talking about as well, because it’s a way of reducing some of the problems associated with diabetes – the diseases of the modern food system,” he said.

Personally, I was amazed to find a local organization in Port-au-Prince – Buy Local Haiti (Kore Pwodiksyon Lokal – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npvx4F9JZyo) that advocates for good food and educates people to eat well based on their culture and tradition and this, despite the socio-economic difficulties in Haiti.

I met these people and I learnt a lot about the importance of the food movement, dignity and human rights, more importantly in countries like Haiti overwhelmed by American rice. In fact before 1970s, Haitian people ate rice only one time/week (mostly on Sunday); nowadays and as a result of the cheap American rice availability, it became the unique daily dish.

Buy Local Haiti has made a video showing a weekly menu based on Haitian culture and tradition. This weekly menu contains only one-time meal with rice. This was a great success on the Haitian TV….. People had water in their mouth!  It reminded them their childhood. They saw that it is possible to eat differently.

Consumers and communities around the world are realizing they have a health and economic crisis on their hands linked to diet. Patel says they’re taking action by defining their own food and agriculture policies. Haiti is also part of this movement! There is hope for a better future….

Source: http://www.voanews.com/content/decapua-food-power-27jun12/1253203.html

To read more about Raj Patel: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/who-says-raj-patel-is-the-messiah/article566168/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/sep/15/healthmindandbody.health

Developing World Are Rapidly Consuming More Unhealthy Food

Big Food is making a big headway in the developing world, highlighting the need for researchers and policymakers to examine how the food and beverage industry markets unhealthy products implicated in chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease.

In an interesting article, David Stuckler and al (Manufacturing Epidemics: The Role of Global Producers in Increased Consumption of Unhealthy Commodities Including Processed Foods, Alcohol, and Tobacco, June 2012; PLOS medicine – http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001235) from the University of Cambridge examined market data on processed food and soft drink sales for up to 80 countries between 1997 and 2010.

These are the key points as highlighted:

• The rate of increase in consumption of “unhealthy commodities” (soft drinks and processed foods that are high in salt, fat, and sugar, as well as tobacco and alcohol) is fastest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with little or no further growth expected in high-income countries (HICs).

• The pace at which consumption is rising in LMICs is even faster than has occurred historically in HICs.

As a result, the developing world is also set to match the First World’s unhealthy commodity consumption rates within three decades.

•  Multinational companies like PepsiCo, Netsle and Danone have now achieved a level of penetration of food markets in middle-income countries similar to what they have achieved in HICs.

• Higher intake of unhealthy foods correlates strongly with higher tobacco and alcohol sales, suggesting a set of common tactics by industries producing unhealthy commodities.

• Contrary to findings from studies undertaken several decades ago, urbanization no longer seems to be a strong risk factor for greater consumption of risky commodities at the population level, with the exception of soft drinks.

• Rising income has been strongly associated with higher consumption of unhealthy commodities within countries and over time, but mainly when there are high foreign direct investment and free-trade agreements. Economic growth does not inevitably lead to higher unhealthy-commodity consumption.

o A free-trade agreement with the U.S. is associated with about a 63.4% higher level of soft drink consumption per capita for low- and middle-income countries.


o For example, Mexico experienced a rapid rise in soft drink consumption after the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement dramatically reduced barriers for trade with the United States. As a result, the % of the Mexican population aged 15 and above who is overweighed or obese is superior to 69% (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2011-en/12/02/03/index.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2011-109-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html).


o In contrast, Venezuela – which does not have a similar trade agreement with the U.S. – has maintained steady soft drink consumption rates despite high levels of economic growth.

Unfortunately, all the people in this world are not treated in the same way!

While many companies have pledged to eliminate trans fats and reduce salt, sugar and fat in foods sold in wealthy countries, these nutritional improvements are often not implemented in poorer markets.

There is a need to identify population-level social, economic and political interventions that could stem the rise of unhealthy commodity consumption, and overcome the political barriers to their implementation, as has been done for tobacco control.

It is also imperative to associate these strategies to the current initiative on food security and nutrition that was proposed during the latest G8. A focus on sustainable farming is currently a hot spot but this battle can’t have a real impact in the long term if people see “junk food” like sexy (the food that people living in developed countries love – see one of our previous blog on the same topic) or as the only affordable choice.

Their results and analysis were is part of the journal’s “Big Food” series, which is examining the influence of the food and beverage industry on public health (http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info:doi/10.1371/issue.pcol.v07.i17).

Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/356675/20120626/soda-big-food-developing-world-processed-nafta.htm

African child mortality – The best story in development

Africa is experiencing some of the biggest falls in child mortality ever seen, anywhere

Sixteen out of the 20 African countries whom have had detailed surveys of living conditions since 2005 reported decreases in their child-mortality rates (this rate is the number of deaths of children under five per 1,000 live births). Twelve had falls of over 4.4% a year, which is the rate of decline that is needed to meet the millennium development goal (MDG) of cutting by two-thirds the child-mortality rate between 1990 and 2015 (see chart). Three countries—Senegal, Rwanda and Kenya—have seen falls of more than 8% a year, almost twice the MDG rate and enough to halve child mortality in about a decade. These three now have the same level of child mortality as India, one of the most successful economies in the world during the past decade.

Image

The decline in African child mortality is speeding up. In most countries it is now falling about twice as fast as during the early 2000s and 1990s. More striking, the average fall is faster than it was in China in the early 1980s, when child mortality was declining around 3% a year, admittedly from a lower base.

The only recent fall comparable to the largest of those in Africa occurred in Vietnam between 1985-90 and 1990-95, when child mortality fell by 37%—and even that was slower than in Senegal and Rwanda. Rwanda’s child-mortality rate have halved between 2005-06 and 2010-11. Senegal has cut its rate from 121 to 72 in five years (2005-10). It took India a quarter of century to make that reduction. The top rates

of decline in African child mortality are the fastest seen in the world for at least 30 years.

One important observation is the fact that the falls have happened in countries large and small, Muslim and Christian, and in every corner of the continent. The three biggest successes are in east, west and central Africa. The success stories come from Africa’s two most populous countries, Nigeria and Ethiopia, and from tiddlers such as Benin (population: 9 millions).

Why this decline?

You might expect that countries that reduced their birth rates the most would also have cut child mortality comparably. This is because such countries have moved furthest along the demographic transition from poor, high-fertility status to richer, low-fertility status. But it turns out that is only partly true. Senegal, Ethiopia and Ghana all have majorly reduced fertility and child mortality. But Kenya and Uganda also did well on child deaths, though their fertility declines have stalled recently. So it cannot all be just about lower birth rates. Liberia, where fertility remains high, did poorly on child mortality—but so did low-fertility places such as Namibia and Lesotho. The link between mortality and broader demographic change seems weak.

What makes a bigger difference? It is some combination of broad economic growth and specific public-health policies, notably the increase in the use of insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) which discourage mosquitoes, which cause malaria.

Ethiopia, Ghana, Rwanda and Uganda have been among Africa’s star economic performers recently, with annual GDP growth averaging over 6.5% in 2005-10. At the other end of the scale, Zimbabwe saw its GDP fall and mortality rise. This seems intuitively right. An increase in national income should reduce mortality not just because it is usually associated with lower poverty and better nutrition but also because growth can be a proxy for other good things: more sensible economic policies; more democratic, accountable governments; and a greater commitment to improving people’s living standards.

But growth offers no guarantees. Liberia, with high-mortality rates, actually saw an impressive GDP increases whereas Senegal, whose record in child mortality is second to none, had a rather anemic growth rate by recent African standards (3.8% a year, half that of Rwanda). “The miracle of low mortality” has taken place in different circumstances suggests there can be no single cause. To look for other explanations, therefore, we can look at Kenya in more detail*.

And good riddance

Kenya is a test case. It has cut the rate of infant mortality (deaths of children under one year old) by more than any other country. It has had healthy economic growth (4.8% a year in 2005-10) and a functioning democracy, albeit after horrendous post-election violence in 2008. Moreover, it increased the use of treated bed nets from 8% of all households in 2003 to 60% in 2008. As a result, half the overall drop in Kenya’s infant mortality can be explained by the huge rise in the use of ITNs in areas where malaria is endemic.

Bed nets are often taken as classic examples of the benefits of aid, since in the past they were pioneered by foreign charities. Consistent with the view that aid is vital, Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist, recently claimed that a big drop in child mortality in his Millennium Villages project (a group of African villages that his Earth Institute of Columbia University, New York, is helping) is the result of large increases in aid to villagers. In fact, argues Mr Demombynes, a World Bank representative, the mortality decline in these villages was no better than in the countries as a whole.

The broad moral of the story is that the different sources of aid does not seem to be the decisive factor in cutting child mortality. No single thing was. But better policies, better government, new technology and other benefits are starting to bear fruit. “This will be startling news for anyone who still thinks Africa is mired in unending poverty and death,” says Mr Clemens of the Centre for Global Development. But “that Africa is slipping quickly away.”

Based on an article published in the economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21555571

Hunger eradication essential to achieve sustainable development – UN Food Agency

Sustainable development will not be achieved unless hunger and malnutrition are eradicated, stated by the United Nations food agency in a recent report.

One of the great flaws in current food systems is that despite significant progress in development and food production hundreds of millions of people are hungry because they lack the means to produce or purchase the food they need for a healthy and productive life.

“We cannot call development sustainable while this situation persists, while nearly one out of every seven men, women and children are left behind, victims of undernourishment,” said the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), José Graziano da Silva, in a news release.

In the report – entitled Towards the future we want: end hunger and make the transition to sustainable agricultural and food systems – was prepared for the UN Sustainable Development Conference (Rio+20), which will be held in Brazil next month.  The FAO stresses the need to address the flaws in the current food system so that hundreds of millions of people in developing countries have the means to produce or purchase the food they need for their own consumption and income.

“The quest for food security can be the common thread that links the different challenges we face and helps build a sustainable future,” Mr.Graziano da Silva said. “At the Rio Summit we have the golden opportunity to explore the convergence between the agendas of food security and sustainability to ensure that happens.”

The key points in this report are:

  • To establish and protect rights to resources, incorporate incentives for sustainable consumption and production into food systems, promote fair and well-functioning agricultural and food markets, and invest public resources in public goods, especially innovation and infrastructure, among other measures.
  • To help farmers who operate 500 million small farms in developing countries and whose resources are limited due to insufficient access to food and nutrition.
  • The need to change consumption patterns in the developed world to reduce food waste. FAO estimates that global food losses and waste amount to 1.3 billion tons per year, which represents roughly one-third of the world food production for human consumption.
  • To be able to feed the expected global population of nine billion people in 2050, an improved governance of the food and agricultural system is required.

“Unless purposeful action is taken, the increase in food production of 60 per cent needed to meet effective demand will still leave over 300 million people behind who are expected to suffer from chronic hunger in 2050 because they will remain without the means to access food,” FAO noted.

To read more on this issue, go to:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42119&Cr=sustainable+development&Cr1

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/50781

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/development-impossible-without-hunger-eradication/117305/

The Global Food Security Index – A needed tool that integrates nutrition as a key parameter

According to the UNs, the world will need at least 50% more food to feed a growing population by 2030, (expected to swell from 7 billion to 9 billion people by 2050). Another important deadline is the millennium development goal – to halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger between 1990 and 2015. Unfortunately, the progresses for this specific goal are so far really disappointed.

In this context, global food security is more and more a top concern of many governments as illustrated by the recent G8 and G20 summits. The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, announced at the Camp David G8 Summit in May, highlights the shared commitment among G8 and African leaders, private business and non-governmental organizations to achieve global food security.

Consequently, a food security index is becoming increasingly important given the growing world population and the potential limits on our ability to provide food in coming years. So any additional and long-term measures than can give an overall picture of food security are seemingly useful.

Why improving food security (and indirectly nutrition) so important?

The truth is that food security is a prerequisite to economic growth and job creation. You cannot educate a hungry child, and you cannot hope for productive employment if citizens are going without food. Moreover, according to the latest analyses that focused on child and maternal health, there is a critical window of opportunity for improving child nutrition; it goes from pregnancy through the first 24 months of life. The deficits acquired by this age are difficult to reverse later and can affect dramatically the possibility for each child to achieve his or her full potential.

As claimed by the World Bank a few years ago, it is time to reposition nutrition as central to development and part of an global food security strategy (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NUTRITION/Resources/281846-1131636806329/NutritionStrategy.pdf).

Who takes the lead on this new set of indicators?

DuPont, a developer of genetically altered crops, commissioned the Global Food Security Index to measure hunger worldwide, and identify areas for improvement and where reforms are most urgently needed. This new index was launched by the Economist Intelligence Unit, an advisory and forecasting research firm (http://www.multivu.com/players/English/56895-eiu-global-food-security-index-dupont/) a few days ago.

As highlighted by DuPont in their press released: “We share a common goal of food security; we do not share a common language. To truly address the root cause of hunger, we must have a common path forward to tackle such pressing issues as food affordability, availability, nutritional quality and safety. Literally billions are being invested to address food security, but until today, we had no comprehensive, global way to measure food security and the impact of investments and collaborations at the local level.”

Accordingly, the Global Food Security Index addresses the underlying factors of food insecurity in 105 countries and points to areas for improvement and reforms. We hope that the Global Food Security Index will be used appropriately to promote collaboration, make better informed decisions and stimulate action necessary to feed our growing population and impact positively the growing epidemic of malnutrition, i.e hunger and obesity.

What does this new index measure?

The Global Food Security Index measures levels of food security by answering a central question: “How can consumers in each country easily access sufficient amounts of safe, high-quality and affordable food?” said Leo Abruzzese, Economist Intelligence Unit Global Forecasting Director.

This new index seems to a comprehensive tool that will help to move from rhetoric to results. It is based on 25 global indicators that measure specific aspects of food affordability, accessibility, availability, nutritional value and safety. Because food security is a politically sensitive issue, the project tries to keep these indices are independent, credible and transparent that it is possible.

What we find really important is the fact that this index uses a multidisciplinary approach and measures at different levels (micro to macro) affordability, availability as well as quality and safety (see above).  Another aspect that we really like it is the big emphasis on the quality of the diet consumes by people in the different countries. Some aspects that resonate positively to us are diet diversification, micronutrient availability and not the last, protein quality (see below the result for Ghana).

This panel of indexes will not only measure affordability and availability but it will position nutrition as a vibrant and essential component of the overall food security strategy.    

Go and explore the Global Food Security Index website at http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/, it is part of the public domain.

You will be amazed by the large range of graphical representations that presents the data generated for the 105 countries. It is user friendly and you will be able to create your own representation using the Food Security Index data tool (see below).

When you click on a circle that represents one country, you get of course the name of the country but also some key information on food security for this country.    In the example above, the overall score for this new index is represented in function of the overall food consumption as a share of the household expenditure. France is in orange, the other European countries are in purple and the rest of the world in Grey.

What we see? France has one of the higher overall score and food consumption represented more than 20% of the household expenditure (which is significantly superior to USA that got the highest overall score). We all know that food or “le bien manger” is really important in France.  We also can see that there is a big difference among the European countries, that includes also East Europe and Central Asia countries.

What are the first results?

• The results show that the U.S., Denmark, Norway, France and the Netherlands are the most food-secure countries in the world. • The five most impoverished nations at the bottom of the Index, indicating they are have extensive food security problems, are Madagascar, Haiti, Burundi, Chad, and Congo.

• The good news is that several of the countries at the very bottom of the index, notably Mozambique, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Nigeria, are also ones with strong economic growth, suggesting that their food situation may improve as living standards rise and as sound policies are hopefully put in place.

• The index also indicated that China experienced the least volatility of agricultural production during the last 20 years (explained by generous subsidies that create a floor for food commodity prices), while the North African countries of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria had some of the most variance.

• The landlocked countries show only a modest increase in food insecurity, on average seven points lower on a scale to 100.

• Residents of wealthy nations have 55% more food available than people in poorer countries:  3,400 calories a person per day compared with the daily intake of 2,300 calories recommended by the United Nations to live a healthy and active life.

• People in the United States and other advanced nations consume an average of 1,200 calories per day more than those in low-income countries, but even in these wealthy nations food supplies lack enough micro-nutrients. In fact, an abundant food supply doesn’t guarantee that a nation will have the healthiest or safest diet. This is an interesting result – quantity doesn’t mean quality at all!

• Another interesting result is a strong correlation between women’s economic opportunity and access to affordable, safe food. The Global Food Security Index shows a hefty 0.93 correlation with the EIU’s Women’s Economic Opportunity Index, which measures female economic participation. “The FAO estimates that if women had access to the same productive resources as men—better seeds, fertilizers and fungicides—they could increase their yield by 20% to 30%. As women make up 43% of the world’s farmers, this would increase total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5% to 4%, and reduce hunger globally by 12% to 17%, according to the FAO.”

• Interestingly, the correlation between food security and EIU’s Democracy Index was only 0.77, a much weaker link than with women’s labor equality. This result may suggest that what happens in the political sphere is a bit less important than what happens on the social sphere, in terms of food and nutrition security.

Great job! They validate some important evidences.

Stay in contact with us …..

Resources:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dupont-calls-for-common-food-security-metrics-2012-07-10

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/10/us-food-report-idUSBRE8690KR20120710

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/10/food-security-index#data

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-10/nations-with-most-food-may-lack-best-diets-study-finds

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/07/global-food-security

Millennium development goals: Two down, six to go

The United Nations has met two of its eight development goals, well ahead of the 2015 deadline. Six goals are still on the road (http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html).

The achievements:

1)     Halve the number of people living in extreme poverty (or on less than $1.25 a day): For the first time since the World Bank started recording statistics in 1981, and despite the economic recession, poverty fell in every region of the world (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVCALNET/Resources/Global_Poverty_Update_2012_02-29-12.pdf). However, hunger is still an important issue that can compromise the long term benefice of this improvement as well as others. It is why focusing on sustainable agriculture development and food security is more and more an obligation.

2)     Halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water : which is part of the environmental sustainability goal: More than 2 billion people gained access to safe drinking water between 1990 and 2010, meaning 89 percent of the world’s population now has access. Meeting the basic sanitation target will be much harder to achieve but together, this will have a major impact on preventable dieases.  diseases that are preventable.

Room for improvements and long term achievements:

1)     Achieve universal primary education: Although enrollment in primary education rose to 89 percent in the developing world in 2008, the pace of progress is “insufficient” to ensure that all girls and boys will complete a full course of primary schooling by 2015, according to the U.N. Ethiopia, one of Africa’s poorest countries, is one of the countries on track to meet the goal. We can learn from them which integrated strategies work. Some local NGOs have shown that getting children in classrooms is just a start — they also need to be brought up to basic literacy levels (http://www.voanews.com/content/ethiopia-set-to-achieve-universal-primary-education-by-2015-139051809/159579.html).

2)     Promote gender equality and empower women: The U.N. reports that gender gaps in university-level education and in some developing regions remain high. The proportion of women employed outside agriculture is still as low as 20 percent in Southern Asia, Western Asia and northern Africa.  While the proportion of women in government is rising globally, it’s happening very slowly.

3)     Reduce child mortality: While child deaths are falling — the U.N. reports they fell by 28 percent between 1990 and 2008 — they are not falling fast enough. Almost 9 million children still die annually before they are 5. In sub-Saharan Africa in 2008, one in seven children died before their 5th birthday. Is this a bad result? Not sure about this. And as it was highlighted in an article published in the Lancet a few years ago, what is important is not necessary to reach the goal but to see an acceleration of the decrease/improvement over the past few years– this trend shows that we are moving in the right direction. Moreover, what we need to keep in mind is the fact that any improvement in child mortality is a more complex result than some other MDGs. In fact, a reduction in child mortality appears to be a good marker of poverty reduction. In contrast to access to water (simple as building a well), we need to observe improvements of a combination of different sectors like infrastructure, economic growth, education, access to primary health, pandemic disease eradication, nutrition security, food security…. before to observe the normalization of child mortality in developing countries. Several interesting articles related to this achievement have been published recently – discussing more details of ideas we have summarized here.  We will highlight some of them in upcoming next blogs.

4)     Improve maternal health: Although serious progress has been made in maternal health, mortality for mothers remains very high. The millennium development goal calls to reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio. While some sub-Saharan African countries have halved those levels, and other regions have done even better, others are still missing the mark. The Guardian argued (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/mar/06/world-bank-strategy-maternal-health?newsfeed=true) that the World Bank should cut health-care user fees and expand grants in spending on reproductive health if there is a desire to truly improve the health of mothers. Other aspects are important like sanitation and access to diversify and nutritious food!

5)     Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases: The number of new HIV infections fell from a peak in 1996 of 3.5 million to 2.7 million in 2008. Deaths from AIDS-related illnesses have also dropped, and the epidemic appears to have stabilized in most regions. However, HIV infections are still rising in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria must now reach the local non-governmental organizations in Africa to ensure that achieving these results continues.  (http://allafrica.com/stories/201202291079.html).

6)      Develop a global partnership for development: In some way, the Millennium Development Goals actually are the global partnership for development. But the U.N. says that in order to declare that it accomplished this goal, levels of official development assistance need to continue to rise, especially in Africa. Good governance, efficiency and transparency regarding the use of official development assistance funds are still an important corner stone for effective global partnership for development.

This discussion is based on a blog published in the Washington Post – To read more go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/millennium-development-goals-two-down-six-to-go/2012/03/06/gIQAA3VKvR_blog.html