2013 Global Hunger Index Launch Event IFPRI Presentation


Published on

Presentation by Derek Headey, IFPRI at 2013 Global Hunger Index Launch event held at IFPRI on October 18, 2013. "The Challenge of Hunger: Building Resilience to Achieve Food And Nutrition Security".

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Global averages mask dramatic differences among regions and countries.Compared with the 1990 score, the 2013 GHI is 23 percent lower in Africa south of the Sahara,34 percent lower in South Asia, and28 percent lower in the Near East and North Africa.Progress in East and Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean was even more remarkable, where GHI scores feel by 50 percent or more.
  • The lower the intensity of the shock, the more likely the household, community, or system will be able to resist it effectively, absorbing its impacts without major changes. A somewhat larger shock or stressor may require incremental adaptive changes, such as new farming techniques or taking out loans.Much larger shocks may warrant even bigger changes that permanently alter the system or structure in question. For example, droughts in the Horn of Africa may push people out of pastoralism and into sedentary agriculture or urban occupations because they can no longer rebuilt their herds.
  • This slide shows how in theory three hypothetical African pastoral communities fare before, during, and after drought.Community A is relatively resilient. It has three assets that make it resilient:A large cattle herd (large enough to rebuild after drought)The ability to graze and water its animals over a large and diverse geographical area gives it the adaptive capacity to move its animals to less drought-affected areas (changing its migration routes, if needed)Remittances sent home from communitiy members who left to work in the capital city after earlier droughts have increased the community’s transformative capacity. Community B is on the path to increasing vulnerability.This community is less able to absorb the impacts of the drought by moving cattle and rebuilding its herd. It may resort to violence to acquire herds, grazing land, and water resources of other groups.Community C is becoming even poorer and more vulnerable.When drought strikes, this community does not have many options. It has a much smaller herd and more limited grazing and watering mobility (reduced by a mix of land enclosures, tribal conflict, and irrigation developments). It becomes dependent on emergency relief and members switch to a new, less lucrative livelihood.
  • Are there gaps in strategies? Is there the right balance between preventative measures and cures? Are agencies and partnerships structured in the best possible way? Do we need to scale up safety nets?
  • Yes, we have early warning systems of a sort
  • Food aid receipts can be used as a proxy for resilience. Whereas food aid receipts remain high in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, successes in Bangladesh, Malawi, and Zambia show that building resilience within a generation is a real possibility.The data reflect the standard narrative of “permanent crisis” in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, where food aid receipts were roughly as large in 2008-2011 as they were about 20 years ago.In contrast, Malawi and Zambia have seen improvements in recent years due in part to controversial fertilizer subsidy programs that expanded maize production.Bangladesh has made great progress in reducing its dependency on food aid.Its 85% drop in food aid receipts from the early 1990s to 2008-2011 is consistent with the country’s dramatic economic and social achievements, which include rapid agricultural growth (through new crop varieties and other modern inputs), sharp reductions in fertility rates, dramatic expansion of education (especially for females), a microfinance revolution, and sustained job creation outside agriculture.While we have much to learn about why some vulnerable regions make so little progress, some shock-prone countries seems to have advanced. SSuccess stories like Bangladesh, Malawi, and Zambia show that building individual, community, and national resilience within a generation is a real possibility.
  • 2013 Global Hunger Index Launch Event IFPRI Presentation

    2. 2. Why a Global Hunger Index? • To capture different dimensions of hunger • To raise awareness of regional and country differences in hunger • To show progress over time • To help learn from successes and failures • To provide incentives to act • To focus on one major hunger-related topic every year
    3. 3. The GHI measures three dimensions of hunger • Undernourishment • Child underweight • Child mortality GHI score Proportion of the population that is undernourished (%) = + Prevalence of underweight in children under age five (%) 3 + Mortality rate of children under age five (%)
    4. 4. The GHI ranks countries on a 100-point scale • An increase in a country’s GHI score means the hunger situation is worsening; a decrease indicates improvement in the country’s hunger situation. • Minimum (zero) and maximum (100) values are not observed in practice.
    5. 5. About the 2013 GHI • 120 developing countries • reflects data from 2008 to 2012—the most recent country-level data available • The 2013 world GHI fell by 34 percent from the 1990 world GHI, from a score of 20.8 to 13.8 • Plenty of success stories: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Rwanda, Vietnam • But 19 countries still “alarming” or extremely so • South Asia’s progress has slowed down
    6. 6. Regional performance and progress
    7. 7. Understanding resilience for food and nutrition security • This year’s special topic (chapter) was “resilience” in a food & nutrition security context • Very topical . . . o Global food, fuel and financial crises o Climate change to increase incidence of shocks o Major “natural” disasters in the Horn & Sahel • Cognizance that we can do better in bridging the remaining divide between relief & development
    8. 8. Understanding resilience for food and nutrition security • What is resilience? • Is it new? How is it related to existing concepts? • Is it useful in a food & nutrition security setting? • What does it mean for strategizing, programming, capacity building, monitoring, evaluation, research? • What do we know about building resilience based on previous experience?
    9. 9. Concepts: From “bouncing back” to absorption, adaptation and transformation
    10. 10. Resilience as a dynamic concept: 3 hypothetical pastoral communities
    11. 11. Academic perspectives on resilience • Academically, the new resilience paradigm has close ties to the vulnerability paradigm (lessons!) • Debate about which paradigm better captures the importance of human agency, power relations, etc • Isn’t yet a universal definition of resilience • Concerns of negative forms of resilience (stubbornness; negative coping strategies) • Concerns that “bouncing back” isn’t enough
    12. 12. Policy perspectives on resilience • On the policy front, what’s new? • Unifying concept for achieving relief & development • Acceleration of an existing trend? o Foreign food aid>>>locally sourced food or cash o Conditional cash transfers, productive safety nets o “Relief” agencies engaging more in development • But perceptions that existing approaches are still inefficient or too small
    13. 13. Policy perspectives on resilience • How would we redesign development practices if we were serious about achieving resilience? • Strategic changes: development strategies & goals • Operational changes: between and within agencies, national & subnational govts, line ministries, etc • Portfolio changes: Focus more on prevention? • Experimentation: safety nets and beyond
    14. 14. Measuring and evaluating resilience “Measurement drives diagnosis and response” (Barrett 2010) • Resilience is dynamic, but measured with snapshots • Irrespective of how we ultimately define resilience, we must have high frequency surveillance systems • Build on nutrition surveillance systems, such as HKI’s long-running NSS in Bangladesh • Multi-purpose: early warning, real-time welfare monitoring, impact evaluation, learning • Accurate diagnosis; timely & appropriate response
    15. 15. 1998 1999 2000 Dec Oct Aug Jun Apr Feb Dec Oct Aug Jun Apr Feb Dec Oct Aug Jun Apr Feb % of children suffering from wasting Trends in child wasting in Bangladesh: Feb 1998 to Dec 2000 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
    16. 16. Flood in July and August prolonged hungry season Regular but intense hunger seasons: AprilAugust 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1998 2000 Dec Oct Jun Apr Feb Dec Oct Aug 1999 Aug Jun Apr Feb Dec Oct Aug Jun Apr 0 Feb % of children suffering from wasting 20
    17. 17. Focusing on success stories • One of the motivations of the GHI • What sorts of communities, programs, policies and countries have had success in building resilience? • What are the roles of different sectors in building resilience? Agriculture, nutrition, health, education, infrastructu re, water, sanitation? • What are the relevant economic, social and political lessons?
    18. 18. Trends in food aid receipts, 1988-2011 45 Food aid (kg) per capita in rural areas 40 1988-91 1992-95 1996-99 2000-03 2004-07 2008-11 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Horn of Africa Sahel Malawi Zambia Bangladesh
    19. 19. • Report available in English, German, French, an d Italian • Download from www.ifpri.org www.welthungerhilfe.de www.concern.net • Or download the report on Google Play, Google Books, Amazon, and iTunes. • See the report and related content through a free IFPRI mobile app.