2012
–
–
–
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX
THE CHALLENGE OF HUNGER: ENSURING SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY
UNDER LAND, WATER, AND ENERGY STRESSES
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2012
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX
THE CHALLENGE OF HUNGER: ENSURING SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY
UNDER LAND, WATER, AND ENERGY STRESSES
IFPRI:
Klaus von Grebmer, Claudia Ringler, Mark W. Rosegrant,
Tolulope Olofinbiyi, Doris Wiesmann, Heidi Fritschel,
Ousmane Badiane, Maximo Torero, Yisehac Yohannes
Concern Worldwide:
Jennifer Thompson
Welthungerhilfe and Green Scenery:
Constanze von Oppeln, Joseph Rahall
Bonn / Washington, DC / Dublin
October 2012
–
–
–
–
–
“An alternative vision is possible, of inclusive and sustainable
growth that provides livelihoods for all, preserves the environment
and is sustainable over time.”
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–2
European Report on Development, 2012
Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
FOREWORD
The 2012 GHI report focuses particularly on the issue of how to
Is there enough planet for all of us?
Recent events—drought, scrambles to invest in farmland
ensure sustainable food security under conditions of water, land, and
around the world, shifts in energy prices, and shocks in energy sup-
energy stress. Demographic changes, rising incomes and associated
plies—underline the scarcity of resources we depend on to produce
consumption patterns, and climate change, alongside persistent pov-
the world’s food supply. It is increasingly clear that sustainably feed-
erty and inadequate policies and institutions, are all placing serious
ing 9 billion people—the projected world population in 2050—who
pressure on natural resources. In this report, IFPRI describes the evi-
will consume at the rate of 12 billion people, if they follow the current
dence on land, water, and energy scarcity in developing countries and
consumption pattern of industrialized countries, will require a much
offers two visions of a future global food system—an unsustainable
more careful and integrated approach to the use of land, water, and
scenario in which current trends in resource use continue, and a sus-
energy than we currently apply.
tainable scenario in which access to food, modern energy, and clean
It is an absolute must that we start now to produce more food
water improves significantly and ecosystem degradation is halted or
using fewer resources and to use the harvest more efficiently. But we
reversed. Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe provide on-the-
also face the reality that decades of effort and rhetoric have so far failed
ground perspectives on the issues of land tenure and title as well as
to eradicate hunger. The 2012 Global Hunger Index, published jointly
the impacts of scarce land, water, and energy on poor people in Sierra
by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Concern
Leone and Tanzania and describe the work of their organizations in
Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe, shows that progress in reducing the
helping to alleviate these impacts.
proportion of hungry people in the world has been tragically slow.
Based on these research findings and experiences in the field,
According to the Index, hunger on a global scale remains “serious.”
IFPRI, Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe propose holistic strate-
Twenty countries still have levels of hunger that are “alarming” or
gies for dealing with all four sectors—land, water, energy, and food.
“extremely alarming.” Among the world’s regions, South Asia and
These strategies involve governing natural resources more responsibly,
Sub-Saharan Africa continue to have the highest levels of hunger. These
scaling up innovative solutions for using scarce resources, and address-
results represent extreme suffering for millions of poor people.
ing the factors that contribute to natural resource scarcity, including
This is the seventh year that IFPRI has calculated the Global
climate change. Such strategies will not emerge spontaneously; they
Hunger Index and analyzed this multidimensional measure of global
must be expressly designed and implemented. All disciplines that can
hunger. It is important to note that the GHI scores present country
contribute must do so—from the water specialist to the energy expert,
averages: even in countries classified as having “moderate” or “seri-
from researcher to practitioner, from farmer to policymaker, and from
ous” hunger, there can be areas where the situation is “alarming” or
economist to nutritionist.
“extremely alarming.” This report offers a picture not of the present,
There is enough planet for all of us—if we don’t waste it.
but of the recent past. The calculation of the GHI reflects the most
recent data available from governments and international agencies, but
these data suffer from significant time lags. Because up-to-the-minute
data on global hunger are not available, the report does not reflect the
impact of the latest events. We hope that governments and international
agencies will work together to gather more timely and complete data
on hunger in their countries and worldwide.
Dr. Wolfgang Jamann
Dr. Shenggen Fan
Tom Arnold
Secretary General and
Director General
Chief Executive
Chairperson
International Food Policy
Concern Worldwide
Welthungerhilfe
Research Institute
2012 Global Hunger Index | Foreword
3
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
5
CHAPTER
01
The Concept of the Global Hunger Index
02
Global, Regional, and National Trends
10
03
Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses
22
6
04
The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders
34
05
Policy Recommendations
46
A
Data Sources and Calculation of the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 Global Hunger Index Scores
54
B
Data Underlying the Calculation of the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 Global Hunger Index Scores
55
C
Country Trends for the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 Global Hunger Index Scores
57
APPENDIXES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
61
PARTNERS
67
4
Contents | 2012 Global Hunger Index
SUMMARY
World hunger, according to the 2012 Global Hunger Index (GHI), has
investments in land in a number of developing countries, putting local
declined somewhat since 1990 but remains “serious.” The global
people’s land rights at risk. In addition, water is scarce and likely to
average masks dramatic differences among regions and countries.
become scarcer with climate change.
Regionally, the highest GHI scores are in South Asia and Sub-Saha-
To halt this trend, more holistic strategies are needed for deal-
ran Africa. South Asia reduced its GHI score significantly between
ing with land, water, energy, and food, and they are needed soon. To
1990 and 1996—mainly by reducing the share of underweight chil-
manage natural resources sustainably, it is important to secure land
dren—but could not maintain this rapid progress. Though Sub-Saha-
and water rights; phase out inefficient subsidies on water, energy, and
ran Africa made less progress than South Asia in the 1990s, it has
fertilizers; and create a macroeconomic environment that promotes
caught up since the turn of the millennium, with its 2012 GHI score
efficient use of natural resources. It is important to scale up techni-
falling below that of South Asia.
cal solutions, particularly those that conserve natural resources and
From the 1990 GHI to the 2012 GHI, 15 countries reduced
foster more efficient and effective use of land, energy, and water along
their scores by 50 percent or more. In terms of absolute progress,
the value chain. It is also crucial to tame the drivers of natural
between the 1990 GHI and the 2012 GHI, Angola, Bangladesh, Ethio-
resource scarcity by, for example, addressing demographic change,
pia, Malawi, Nicaragua, Niger, and Vietnam saw the largest improve-
women’s access to education, and reproductive health; raising
ments in their scores.
incomes and lowering inequality; and mitigating and adapting to cli-
Twenty countries still have levels of hunger that are “extremely
mate change through agriculture.
alarming” or “alarming.” Most of the countries with alarming GHI scores
Food security under land, water, and energy stress poses daunt-
are in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (the 2012 GHI does not,
ing challenges. The policy steps described in this report show how we
however, reflect the recent crisis in the Horn of Africa, which intensi-
can meet these challenges in a sustainable and affordable way.
fied in 2011, or the uncertain food situation in the Sahel). Two of the
three countries with extremely alarming 2012 GHI scores—Burundi
and Eritrea—are in Sub-Saharan Africa; the third country with an
extremely alarming score is Haiti. Its GHI score fell by about one quarter from 1990 to 2001, but most of this improvement was reversed in
subsequent years. The devastating January 2010 earthquake, although
not yet fully captured by the 2012 GHI because of insufficient availability of recent data, pushed Haiti back into the category of “extremely alarming.” In contrast to recent years, the Democratic Republic of
Congo is not listed as “extremely alarming,” because insufficient data
are available to calculate the country’s GHI score. Current and reliable
data are urgently needed to appraise the situation in the country.
Recent developments in the land, water, and energy sectors
have been wake-up calls for global food security: the stark reality is
that the world needs to produce more food with fewer resources, while
eliminating wasteful practices and policies. Demographic changes,
income increases, climate change, and poor policies and institutions
are driving natural resource scarcity in ways that threaten food production and the environment on which it depends. Food security is now
inextricably linked to developments in the water, energy, and land sectors. Rising energy prices affect farmers’ costs for fuel and fertilizer,
increase demand for biofuel crops relative to food crops, and raise the
price of water use. Agriculture already occurs within a context of land
scarcity in terms of both quantity and quality: the world’s best arable
land is already under cultivation, and unsustainable agricultural practices have led to significant land degradation. The scarcity of farmland
coupled with shortsighted bioenergy policies has led to major foreign
2012 Global Hunger Index | Summary
5
01
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
High levels of hunger are generally found in those countries
and regions where access and property rights to land, water, and energy
are limited or contested.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
6
–
Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
THE CONCEPT OF THE GLOBAL
HUNGER INDEX
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively
and Somalia, and now also for the Democratic Republic of Congo and
measure and track hunger globally and by region and country. Calcu-
Myanmar, lack of data on undernourishment prevents the calculation
lated each year by the International Food Policy Research Institute
of GHI scores.3 Despite the existence of abundant technological tools
(IFPRI), the GHI highlights successes and failures in hunger reduction
to collect and assess data almost instantaneously, enormous time
and provides insights into the drivers of hunger. By raising awareness
lags persist in reporting vital statistics on hunger. More up-to-date
and understanding of regional and country differences in hunger, the
and extensive country data on hunger are urgently needed. Some
GHI will, it is hoped, trigger actions to reduce hunger.
efforts are underway to improve data on undernourishment and the
1
A number of different indicators can be used to measure hun-
distribution of food consumption. The Food and Agriculture Organi-
ger (see “Concepts of Hunger” on page 9). To reflect the multidimen-
zation of the United Nations (FAO) is currently revising its methodol-
sional nature of hunger, the GHI combines three equally weighted indi-
ogy for estimating undernourishment in order to provide more timely
cators in one index:
data that integrates all relevant information, including findings of the
large number of household surveys that have become available in
1. Undernourishment: the proportion of undernourished people as a
recent years (FAO 2011b). Improvements in collecting high-quality
percentage of the population (reflecting the share of the population
data on hunger and food consumption will allow for a more complete
with insufficient caloric intake)
and current assessment of the state of global hunger and, in turn,
more effective steps to reduce hunger.
2. Child underweight: the proportion of children younger than age five
The GHI scores are based on source data that are continually
who are underweight (that is, have low weight for their age, reflect-
revised by the United Nations agencies responsible for their compilation,
ing wasting, stunted growth, or both), which is one indicator of child
and each year’s GHI report reflects these revisions. These revisions
undernutrition
result in improvements in the data, but they also mean that the GHI
scores from different years’ GHI reports are not comparable with one
3. Child mortality: the mortality rate of children younger than age five
another. Like the 2011 GHI report, though, this year’s report has the
(partially reflecting the fatal synergy of inadequate caloric intake and
advantage that it contains not only the most recent GHI, but also GHI
unhealthy environments)
scores for three other reference periods—1990, 1996, and 2001—
that are, in fact, comparable with one another, allowing for in-depth
This multidimensional approach offers several advantages. It reflects
analyses of trends.
the nutrition situation not only of the population as a whole, but
also of a physiologically vulnerable group—children—for whom a
lack of nutrients leads to a high risk of illness, poor physical and
1
2
cognitive development, and death. In addition, by combining independently measured indicators, it reduces the effects of random
measurement errors.2
The GHI ranks countries on a 100-point scale in which zero is
3
For background information on the concept, see Wiesmann (2004) and Wiesmann, von Braun,
and Feldbrügge (2000).
For a multidimensional measure of poverty, see the index developed by the Oxford Poverty and
Human Development Initiative (OPHI) for the United Nations Development Programme (Alkire
and Santos 2010).
FAO no longer publishes country-level estimates of undernourishment and dietary energy supply
per capita for the Democratic Republic of Congo (FAO 2011a), which according to past reports
had the largest relative and absolute increase in GHI scores since 1990. Similarly, no GHI could
be calculated for Myanmar because of lack of data on undernourishment.
the best score (no hunger) and 100 the worst, although neither of
these extremes is reached in practice. The scale in Box 1.1 on the following pages shows the severity of hunger—from “low” to “extremely
alarming”—associated with the range of possible GHI scores. The
2012 GHI is calculated for 120 countries for which data on the three
components are available and for which measuring hunger is considered most relevant. (The GHI calculation excludes some higher-income
countries because the prevalence of hunger there is very low.)
The GHI is only as current as the data for its three component
indicators. This year’s GHI reflects data from 2005 to 2010—the
most recent available country-level data on the three GHI components. It is thus a snapshot not of the present, but of the recent past.
For some countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Papua New Guinea,
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | The Concept of the Global Hunger Index
7
WHAT IS THE GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX?
BOX 1.1
0
5
≤ 4.9
low
10
5.0–9.9
moderate
10.0–19.9
serious
CONSTRUCTING THE GHI: ABOUT THE DATA
The 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 GHI scores presented in this
Data for the 2012 GHI span the period 2005–10. The undernourish-
report reflect the latest revised data for the three components of
ment data are for 2006–08 (FAO 2011a; authors’ estimates); data
the GHI. Where original source data were not available, estimates
on child mortality are for 2010 (UNICEF 2012b); and data on child
were made for the GHI components based on the most recent data
undernutrition are for the latest year for which data are available
available. The “child mortality” and “undernourishment” compo-
in the period 2005–10 (WHO 2012; UNICEF 2012a, c; MEASURE
nents for the 1990, 1996, and 2001 GHI scores were revised
DHS 2012; authors’ estimates). See Appendix A for more detailed
using updated data from the United Nations Children’s Fund
background information on the data sources for and calculations
(UNICEF) and FAO, respectively. In addition, the 1990, 1996,
of the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 GHI scores.
1
2001, and 2012 GHI scores use revised calorie data from FAO for
“child underweight” estimates. The “child underweight” component of the four GHI scores includes the latest additions to the
World Health Organization’s Global Database on Child Growth and
Malnutrition, the most recent Demographic and Health Survey
(DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) reports, and
statistics from UNICEF (2012a). These enhancements in the
underlying data improve the quality of the GHI.
8
The Concept of the Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
30
20
40
20.0–29.9
alarming
≥ 30.0
extremely alarming
CONCEPTS OF HUNGER
The terminology used to refer to different concepts of hunger can
1
be confusing. “Hunger” is usually understood to refer to the discomfort associated with lack of food. FAO defines food deprivation,
or “undernourishment,” specifically as the consumption of fewer
than about 1,800 kilocalories a day—the minimum that most people require to live a healthy and productive life.2
2
For previous GHI calculations, see von Grebmer et al. (2011); von Grebmer et al. (2010);
von Grebmer et al. (2009); von Grebmer et al. (2008); IFPRI/Welthungerhilfe/Concern
(2007); Wiesmann (2006a, b); and Wiesmann, Weingärtner, and Schöninger (2006).
FAO considers the composition of a population by age and sex to calculate its average
minimum energy requirement, which varies by country (from about 1,690 kilocalories per
person per day in Eritrea to 2,000 kilocalories per person per day in the Netherlands for
2006–08). The country’s average minimum energy requirement is used to estimate undernourishment (FAO 2011a).
“Undernutrition” goes beyond calories and signifies deficiencies in
any or all of the following: energy, protein, or essential vitamins and
minerals. Undernutrition is the result of inadequate intake of food—
in terms of either quantity or quality—poor utilization of nutrients
due to infections or other illnesses, or a combination of these factors, which are in turn caused by household food insecurity; inadequate maternal health or child care practices; or inadequate access
to health services, safe water, and sanitation. “Malnutrition” refers
more broadly to both undernutrition (problems of deficiencies) and
overnutrition (problems of unbalanced diets, such as consumption
of too many calories in relation to requirements with or without low
intake of micronutrient-rich foods).
In this report, “hunger” refers to the index based on the three indicators described on page 7.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | The Concept of the Global Hunger Index
9
02
The need to produce more with less – and to do so more sustainably
and in a manner that prioritizes the poor – will remain.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
10
–
Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
GLOBAL, REGIONAL, AND NATIONAL
TRENDS
Improvements in global hunger since 1990 continue to be small.
Large Regional and National Differences
Although the number of undernourished people was on the rise from
These global averages mask dramatic differences among regions and
the mid-1990s until 2006–08, the proportion of undernourished peo-
countries. Compared with the 1990 score, the 2012 GHI score was
ple in the world declined in the same time period (FAO 2011a). Because
16 percent lower in Sub-Saharan Africa, 26 percent lower in South
the GHI measures relative hunger—that is, it refers to the proportion
Asia, and 35 percent lower in the Near East and North Africa (Figure
of people who suffer from hunger, broadly defined by the three com-
2.1). Progress in Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbe-
ponent indicators—the index shows a positive trend. The 2012 world
4
an was particularly remarkable, with the GHI scores decreasing by 46
GHI fell by 26 percent from the 19905 world GHI, from a score of 19.8
percent and 44 percent respectively (although the score was already
to 14.7 (Figure 2.1).
low in the latter region). In Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth
The three indicators contributed differently to the decline in the
world GHI score since 1990. A decline in child underweight lowered
of Independent States, the 2012 GHI score was 46 percent lower
than the 1996 score.6
the world GHI score by 2.7 points, whereas changes in the child mor-
Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean have
tality rate and the proportion of undernourished people in the popula-
experienced a fairly consistent reduction in GHI scores since 1990. In
tion contributed reductions of 1.1 and 1.3 points, respectively.
the Near East and North Africa, the decrease of GHI scores has accel-
The world GHI declined most rapidly—by 2.6 points—between
erated after a period of virtual stagnation between 1990 and 1996. In
1990 and 1996, and progress slowed thereafter. Undernourishment
South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa—the two regions with the highest
and underweight in children improved most between 1990 and 1996,
GHI scores, at 22.5 and 20.7 respectively—the rates of progress have
whereas progress in reducing child mortality has accelerated since
also been uneven.
2001. The proportion of undernourished people has remained almost
constant at the global level since 1995–97, falling by just 1 percentage
point. The index for hunger in the world, however, remains “serious.”
FIGURE 2.1
CONTRIBUTION OF COMPONENTS TO 1990 GHI, 1996 GHI, 2001 GHI, AND 2012 GHI, BY REGION
35
Under-five mortality rate
Prevalence of underweight in children
Proportion of undernourished
30.3
30
GHI score
20
24.6 24.8
24.0 24.3
25
22.5
23.7
20.7
19.8
17.2
16.3
14.7
15
14.5
12.0
9.6
10
7.9
8.2
7.9
8.8
6.8
7.4
5.3
6.1
5.2
4.9
5
4.4
2.8
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
'90
'96
'01
'12
'90
'96
'01
'12
'90
'96
'01
'12
'90
'96
'01
'12
'90
'96
'01
'12
'90
'96
'01
'12
'90
'96
'01
'12
World
South Asia
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Southeast Asia
Near East &
North Africa
Latin America &
Caribbean
Eastern Europe &
Commonwealth of
Independent States
Note: For the 1990 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 1990–92; data on child underweight are for the year closest to 1990 in the period 1988–92 for which data are available;
and data on child mortality are for 1990. For the 1996 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 1995–97; data on child underweight are for the year closest to 1996 in the period
1994–98 for which data are available; and data on child mortality are for 1996. For the 2001 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 2000–02; data on child underweight are for the
year closest to 2001 in the period 1999–2003 for which data are available; and data on child mortality are for 2001. For the 2012 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 2006–08,
data on child underweight are for the latest year in the period 2005–10 for which data are available, and data on child mortality are for 2010.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends
11
BOX 2.1
GHI AND INCOME IN INDIA AND ELSEWHERE
45
1990
1996
2001
2012
40
Bangladesh
35
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
Global Hunger Index
30
India
25
20
Mozambique
Sri Lanka
15
10
Brazil
China
5
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Gross national income per capita
Source: Based on data on per capita GNI from the World Bank (2012).
Note: Data on gross national income (GNI) per capita are based on purchasing power parity and expressed in constant 2005 international dollars. The black trend line was predicted from a
regression of 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 country-level GHI scores on GNI per capita for all countries with available data. Data points for 1990 GHI, 1996 GHI, 2001 GHI, and 2012 GHI correspond
with GNI per capita data for 1989–91, 1995–97, 2000–02, and 2008–10, respectively.
12
India has lagged behind in improving its GHI
recent data on undernourishment are for
regression of the GHI on GNI per capita for
score despite strong economic growth. After
2006–08, and India’s latest available
117 countries with available data. India’s
a small increase between 1996 and 2001,
nationally representative data on child
data points fall consistently above the pre-
India’s GHI score fell only slightly, and the
underweight were collected in 2005–06.
dicted line. This result means that given
latest GHI returned to about the 1996 level,
Given that the Government of India has
India’s per capita income, it has higher GHI
as the above graph shows. This stagnation in
failed to monitor national trends in child
scores than would be expected. Between
GHI scores occurred during a period when
undernutrition for more than six years, any
1990 and 1996, India’s trend line moved in
India’s gross national income (GNI) per cap-
recent progress in the fight against child
parallel with the predicted line, indicating
ita almost doubled, rising from about 1,460
undernutrition cannot be taken into account
that its GHI score was falling commensurate
to 2,850 constant 2005 international dollars
by the 2012 GHI.
with economic growth. After 1996, however,
between 1995–97 and 2008–10 (World
Nonetheless, even bearing in mind that possi-
the disparity between economic development
Bank 2012).
ble recent advances in the fight against child
and progress in the fight against hunger wid-
When comparing GHI scores with GNI per
undernutrition are not yet visible in the latest
ened, and India moved further away from the
capita, it must be emphasized that India’s
GHI, India’s track record is disappointing.
predicted line.1
latest GHI score is based partly on outdated
Generally, higher incomes are associated
In two other South Asian countries—Bang-
data: although it includes relatively recent
with less hunger. This pattern is shown by
ladesh and Sri Lanka—GHI scores were also
child mortality data from 2010, FAO’s most
the black line, which was predicted from a
higher than expected but decreased almost
Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
proportionally with GNI per capita growth
from 2005–10, India ranked second to last
sary to reduce child undernutrition, these
(that is, largely in parallel with the predicted
on child underweight out of 129 countries—
measures alone are usually insufficient. The
line). Compared with countries at a similar
below Ethiopia, Niger, Nepal, and Bangla-
findings of a recent IFPRI study imply that in
level of economic development, Sri Lanka
desh. Only Timor-Leste had a higher rate of
the absence of concurrent improvements in
achieved impressively high literacy and life
underweight children. By comparison, only
health and education, only modest impacts
expectancy through welfare-oriented poli-
23 percent of children are underweight in
on child undernutrition in India are to be
cies, investment in public healthcare and
Sub-Saharan Africa (although India has a
expected from income growth (Bhagowalia,
education systems, and a commitment to
lower proportion of undernourished in the
Headey, and Kadiyala 2012). A multisec-
gender equality (Samarage 2006). Bang-
population than Sub-Saharan Africa2).
toral, well-coordinated approach is needed
ladesh has benefited from broad-based
It must be emphasized that child undernutri-
to successfully fight child undernutrition in
social progress, and its vibrant NGO sector
tion is not simply the outcome of a lack of
India and elsewhere (Headey, Chiu, and
and public transfer programs helped reduce
food in the household. There are many other
Kadiyala 2011; von Braun, Ruel, and Gulati
child undernutrition among the poorest.
potential causes, such as lack of essential
2008; Bhutta et al. 2008).
Bangladesh has also closed the gender gap
vitamins and minerals in the diet, improper
India has moved on a number of fronts to
in education through targeted public inter-
caring and feeding practices, or frequent
improve food security and nutrition in past
ventions and has overtaken India on a range
infections, which often result from inade-
years and has recognized the need for mul-
of social indicators, including the level and
quate health services or unsanitary environ-
tisectoral action (Kadiyala and Menon
rate of reduction of child mortality (UNICEF
ments. Women’s low status in India and other
2012). The government operates several
2012b; World Bank 2005; Drèze 2004). The
parts of South Asia contributes to children’s
large-scale, nutrition-relevant social pro-
country is also committed to regular monitor-
poor nutritional outcomes in the region
grams, but poor design, low coverage, and
ing of children’s nutritional status.
because children’s development and moth-
insufficient monitoring are continual chal-
China has lower GHI scores than predicted
ers’ well-being are closely linked: women’s
lenges. In the absence of up-to-date infor-
from its level of economic development. It
poor nutritional status, low education, and
mation on nutrition outcomes, program
lowered its levels of hunger and undernutri-
low social status undermine their ability to
effectiveness remains uncertain. Home to
tion through a strong commitment to pover-
give birth to well-nourished babies and to
the majority of the world’s undernourished
ty reduction, nutrition and health interven-
adequately feed and care for their children
children, India is in dire need of monitoring
tions, and improved access to safe water,
(von Grebmer et al. 2010). According to sur-
systems for child undernutrition and relat-
sanitation, and education. Brazil successful-
veys during 2000–06, 36 percent of Indian
ed indicators that produce data at regular
ly implemented targeted social programs (von
women of childbearing age were under-
intervals, in order to improve program per-
Braun, Ruel, and Gulati 2008). Since 1992,
weight, compared with only 16 percent in 23
formance and scale up impact (Kadiyala et
Mozambique has been recovering from a
Sub-Saharan African countries (Deaton and
al. 2012).
long-lasting civil war and has witnessed eco-
Drèze 2009).
nomic growth and poverty reduction (van den
Research has shown that early nutritional
Boom 2011), coupled with hunger reduction:
deprivation causes lasting damage to chil-
all three components of the GHI improved
dren’s physical and cognitive development,
since 1990.
schooling outcomes, and economic produc-
In India, 43.5 percent of children under five
tivity in later life (Victora et al. 2008). These
are underweight (WHO 2012, based on the
findings underline the urgent need to address
2005–06 National Family Health Survey
the issue of child undernutrition effectively,
[IIPS and Macro International 2007]): this
focusing particularly on the thousand days
rate accounts for almost two-thirds of the
from conception to a child’s second birthday.
country’s alarmingly high GHI score. Accord-
Whereas increases in food production and
ing to the latest data on child undernutrition,
improved distribution of food may be neces-
3
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends
1
2
3
Unless child underweight was almost halved in India between
2005–06 and 2008–2010—which is extremely unlikely—
this statement holds even if progress in reducing child underweight has recently accelerated. Recognizing the dearth of
up-to-date information on child undernutrition in India, an
alliance of civil society organizations conducted a nutrition
survey in selected districts in 2011. The findings, while not
nationally representative, indicate some improvement: child
underweight fell from 53 to 42 percent in high-burden districts between 2002–04 and 2011, and the rate of reduction
was lower in better-off districts (Naandi Foundation 2011).
In 2006–08, 19 percent of the population was undernourished in India, and 27 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO
2011a).
This number is the population-weighted average for all these
countries, which comprise roughly two-thirds of Sub-Saharan
Africa’s population.
13
Among the regions, South Asia has the highest 2012 GHI score. South
began with a lower GHI score in 1990. Sub-Saharan Africa’s GHI score
Asia reduced its GHI score by more than 6 points between 1990 and
increased marginally between 1990 and 1996, fell slightly until 2001,
1996—mainly through a large 15-percentage-point decline in under-
and declined more markedly until the period reflected in the 2012 GHI
weight in children—but this rapid progress could not be maintained.
score. The large-scale civil wars of the 1990s and 2000s ended, and
Stagnation followed, and the region has lowered its GHI score by only
former conflict countries became more politically stable. Economic
about 2 points since 2001 despite strong economic growth (see Box
growth resumed on the continent, and advances in the fight against
2.1). The proportion of undernourished people did not decline between
HIV and AIDS contributed to a reduction in child mortality in the coun-
1995–97 and 2006–08 and even showed a transient increase of
tries most affected by the epidemic.
about 2 percentage points around 2000–02. Social inequality and
Since 2001, child mortality rates—both for infants and for
the low nutritional, educational, and social status of women are major
children under the age of five—have declined in Sub-Saharan Africa.
causes of child undernutrition in this region and have impeded
While a range of factors may have played a role, a major reason seems
improvements in the GHI score.
to be the decrease in the prevalence of malaria, which coincided with
Though Sub-Saharan Africa made less progress than South
the increased use of insecticide-treated bed nets and other antima-
Asia in the 1990s, it has caught up since the turn of the millennium,
larial interventions (Demombynes and Trommlerová 2012). Other fac-
with its 2012 GHI score falling below that of South Asia. However,
tors that may have contributed to reduced mortality rates include
South Asia’s overall decline was greater because Sub-Saharan Africa
higher immunization rates and births in medical centers; improved
BOX 2.2
14
THE SAHEL: A SUDDEN CRISIS OR A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM?
In the spring of 2011, reports of an
year average. Taken together, the entire
increased steadily over the past few years,
impending famine in the African Sahel
region of West Africa plus Chad produced
although the trends are highly variable.
region began to appear in the media.
5 percent more than that average.
Here, too, domestic production and com-
About 18 million people were estimated
Moreover, domestic production is only one
mercial imports have matched or exceeded
to be at risk of starvation, mainly because
source of supplies to meet local demand for
aggregate demand every year, without even
of poor harvests in several countries. The
food. The other sources are commercial
taking into consideration food aid and infor-
warning of the impending crisis was trig-
imports and food aid. When commercial
mal cross-border trade (Eilerts 2012).
gered by a large production shortfall in
imports are accounted for, supply levels for
The history of food prices in West Africa
2011—a 26 percent decline in the Sahe-
each country, as well as for the West Afri-
shows that the food balance situation in this
lian countries—compared with 2010.
can region as a whole, far exceed local
region is actually more stable than in other
That statistic alone, however, is somewhat
demand. For the Sahelian countries, com-
regions of Africa. Prices have risen less
misleading.
mercial imports bring the net excess sup-
than elsewhere on the continent.
The year 2010 was a record production
ply to nearly 600,000 metric tons—not
So why the crisis? The real issue may not be
year, and, when compared with the aver-
including food aid. The net surplus for the
sudden famine, but rather persistent, chron-
age of the preceding five years, produc-
Economic Community of West African
ic vulnerability among certain segments of
tion in 2011 does not appear to be dra-
States (ECOWAS), without Nigeria and
the population that is not being addressed
matically below recent trends, except in a
Guinea, exceeds 2 million metric tons.
in a systemic way. Operating in crisis mode,
few countries (see figure at right). Taken
Niger has the second-highest GHI score in
as is currently being done, leads to costly,
together, the eight Sahelian countries had
West Africa and is by far the most vulnera-
blanket-style, short-term interventions, while
an aggregate shortfall of just 3 percent
ble country in the region. Yet even here, the
the root of the problem remains. This “crisis
compared with the preceding five-year
production shortfall in 2011 was not excep-
approach” may be effective in raising funds,
average. In contrast, the eight neighbor-
tionally large by historical standards, nor
but it can disrupt the very policies that are
ing coastal countries together produced
were harvest levels in preceding years
needed to build resilience among the most
9 percent more than the preceding five-
exceptionally poor. In fact, production has
vulnerable groups. Such policies require
Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
antenatal care and access to clean water and sanitation facilities;
1990 (Figure 2.3). Turkey’s notable progress since 1990 is due
and increasing levels of income, leading to better nutrition and
mainly to significant reductions in the prevalence of child under-
access to medical care.
weight (which fell by almost 7 percentage points) and child mortal-
The recent crisis in the Horn of Africa, which intensified in
ity (which fell by about 6 percentage points), while undernourish-
2011, is not reflected in the 2012 GHI. The crisis, and the current situ-
ment in the country remained very low. After 1996 Turkey’s GHI
ation in the Sahel (see Box 2.2), demonstrates that, though the situa-
score began to decline substantially, and between the 2001 GHI
tion in Sub-Saharan Africa is improving, food security remains fragile
and the 2012 GHI, its score was halved. Kuwait’s progress in reduc-
in parts of the region and vulnerability to shocks is still high.
ing hunger is due mainly to its unusually high score in 1990, when
Iraq invaded the country: its GHI score fell by more than 5 points
Best and Worst Country-Level Results
(or 57 percent) until 1996, and has fallen by about 1 point since
From the 1990 GHI to the 2012 GHI, 15 countries reduced their
(see country trends in Appendix C).
scores by 50 percent or more (Figure 2.2). Forty-four countries made
With the exception of North Korea, all the countries in which
modest progress, reducing their GHI scores by between 25 and 49.9
the hunger situation worsened from the 1990 GHI to the 2012 GHI are
percent, and 21 countries decreased their GHI scores by less than
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Increased hunger since 1990 in Burundi,
25 percent. Only one country in Sub-Saharan Africa—Ghana—is
Comoros, and Côte d’Ivoire can be attributed to prolonged conflict and
among the 10 best performers in improving their GHI score since
political instability. In Comoros, the GHI score fell after a peak in 2001,
7
national governments to exercise leadership
CHANGES IN CEREAL PRODUCTION AMONG SAHELIAN
and to embrace (1) systemic and sustained
AND OTHER WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES
efforts to raise productivity among the most
vulnerable, (2) targeted safety-net programs
and wider interventions that are consistent
Production
(million tons)
% change in 2011 production
compared with:
with and supportive of the goal of building
long-term community resilience, and (3)
2010
2010
concerted efforts to remove barriers to
2011
2006–2010
cross-border trade.
The region’s strong agricultural and broader
-26
22.1
economic growth suggests that the chances
16.4
-3
Sahelian countries
for the first two measures to succeed are
better now than at any time in the recent
38.1
past. Moreover, the best argument for fur-
38.4
+1
Coastal West
African countries
+9
ther opening up cross-border trade is the
fact that the region as a whole is in a sur-
60.2
plus situation while isolated areas of indi-
54.8
vidual countries are suffering from the
effects of localized production shortfalls.
56.7
Alongside these efforts, a more unified and
coherent approach to resilience, and more
specifically to community resilience, is
required of all stakeholders at national,
international, and multilateral levels.
ECOWAS
countries
52.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
All West
African
countries
70
-9
+5
-7
+4
-25 -20 -15 -10
-5
0
5
10
Source: Based on CILSS/AGRHYMET (2012).
Note: Sahelian countries are those that belong to the Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel
(CILSS); ECOWAS = Economic Community of West African States.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends
15
BOX 2.3
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: SHOCKS HIT A GROWING REGION
Since the late 1980s, almost all Latin Amer-
external shocks, the food price crises signifi-
ican countries have adopted far-reaching
cantly raised food inflation in most countries
worrisome. The prevalence of child stunting
economic reforms. The resulting increase in
in Latin America and the Caribbean.
is only 2 percent in Chile, but it is more
economic openness has gone hand in hand
Before the crises, most countries in the region
than 27 percent in Bolivia and Ecuador;
with large financial inflows—particularly in
were on track to reach the Millennium Devel-
nearly 30 percent in Haiti and Honduras;
the first half of the 1990s—and brought
opment Goal of halving the proportion of peo-
and 48 percent in Guatemala.
new sources of economic growth. Although
ple who suffer from hunger by 2015; with the
Haiti, the poorest and most food-insecure
overall growth slowed after 1995, strong
food crises, many countries experienced set-
country in the Western hemisphere, is still
growth has resumed in the past five years.
backs in their progress toward this goal. The
feeling the effects of the January 2010 earth-
With the exception of a handful of countries,
impact has been greatest on net food-import-
quake, which killed more than 300,000 peo-
this economic growth has been accompa-
ing countries—specifically, Mexico and Cen-
ple and affected 3 million—about one in
nied by relatively modest inflation.
tral America—as well as on poor consumers
three Haitians. More than 1 million people
Despite these positive results, virtually all
in peri-urban and rural areas. When the food
lost their homes, hospitals and other crucial
Latin American countries share similar prob-
price crisis of 2007–08 hit El Salvador, for
infrastructure were destroyed, the health sys-
lems: uneven economic growth, lagging agri-
example, the food budget of a rural house-
tem was greatly weakened, and food avail-
cultural growth, and, in certain cases, unac-
hold bought only 56 percent of what it had
ability declined (World Bank 2010; Rosen et
ceptably high rates of poverty and malnutrition.
bought 18 months before (WFP 2008). Such
al. 2012). As a consequence, from 2009 to
More than 60 percent of the region’s poor live
declines in food purchasing power are dispro-
2010 child mortality in Haiti more than
in rural areas, where slow economic growth,
portionately felt by the poorest segment of the
doubled, exceeding its 1990 level (IGME
unequal distribution of assets, inadequate
population.
2011). Lack of access to food, shelter, clean
public investment and public services, and
The food price shocks hit a region where
water, and health services increased the
vulnerability to natural and economic shocks
nutrition status is mixed. The average prev-
risk of child undernutrition (World Bank
are major policy issues. The 2007–08 and the
alence of child underweight in Latin Amer-
2010). Two years after the disaster, more
2010–11 food price crises exacerbated these
ica and the Caribbean is 4 percent, but in
than half a million Haitians still lived in
problems. Although the region was considered
Guatemala and Haiti rates are 13 and about
tents and under tarpaulins in hundreds of
relatively stable and capable of absorbing
19 percent, respectively. Rates of stunting
camps (Oxfam 2012).
for children under five are even more
PREVALENCE OF UNDERWEIGHT AND STUNTING IN CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN FIVE YEARS (%),
VARIOUS YEARS FROM 2004 TO 2010
40
30
20
Regional
average
Venezuela
Uruguay
Suriname
Peru
Paraguay
Panama
Nicaragua
Mexico
Jamaica
Honduras
Haiti
Guyana
Guatemala
El Salvador
0
10
17.5
19.1
23.0
15.5
23.2
7.5
10.7
6.0
13.9
3.7
15.6
4.0
15.0
4.3
3.4
3.9
5.7
29.7
29.9
1.9
5.7
3.4
8.6
10.5
18.2
18.9
20.6
13.0
29.0
Ecuador
Dominican
Republic
Cuba
Costa Rica
Colombia
Chile
Brazil
6.6
27.2
2.2
7.1
0.5
2.0
3.4
12.7
1.1
5.6
3.5
7.5
3.4
10.1
6.2
8.3
4.5
Bolivia
2.3
Argentina
Stunting
50
48.0
Underweight
Source: WHO (2012); UNICEF (2012a); MEASURE DHS (2012).
16
Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
Iceland
Norway
Finland
COUNTRY PROGRESS IN REDUCING GHI SCORES
FIGURE 2.2
(percentage decrease in 2012 GHI compared with 1990 GHI)
Canada
Canada
Ireland
Portugal
United States
of America
Sweden
Estonia
Belarus
Neth.
United
Kingdom Bel. Germany Poland
Czech
Rep.
Lux.
Ukraine
Aust. Slova.
Mold.
Switz. Slov. Hung.
France
Cro.
Rom.
Bos. & Herz. Serb.
Mont. Bulg.
Georgia
Mace.
Italy Alb.
Armenia Azerb.
Spain
Turkey
Greece
Tunisia
Algeria
Cuba
Dom. Rep.
Jamaica
Belize
Haiti
Honduras
Guatemala
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Trinidad & Tobago
Panama
Costa Rica
Venezuela
Guyana
French Guiana
Suriname
Colombia
Brazil
Angola
N. Korea
China
Afghanistan
Iran
Zambia
Pakistan
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Myanmar Lao
PDR
India
Thailand
Cambodia Vietnam
Sri Lanka
Philippines
Brunei
Malaysia
Papua
New
Guinea
Indonesia
Timor-Leste
Mauritius
Botsw.
Swaziland
South
Africa
Madagascar
Australia
Increase
Decrease of 0.0–24.9 %
Decrease of 25.0–49.9%
Decrease of 50% or more
Striped countries have 1990
and 2012 GHI of less than five
No data
Industrialized country
Lesotho
Uruguay
Note: An increase in the GHI indicates a worsening of a country’s hunger situation.
A decrease in the GHI indicates an improvement in a country’s hunger situation.
GHI scores were not calculated for countries with very small populations.
but it is not yet clear if this constitutes a reversal of past trends.
In Côte d’Ivoire, the 1999 military coup and the 2002–07 civil war con-
Between 1990 and 2001, Burundi’s GHI score increased steadily, but
tributed significantly to the high level of hunger in the country. Since 2001,
it has declined slightly since. With the transition to peace and political
its GHI score has increased by 1.6 points (see country trends in Appen-
stability that started in 2003, the country began a slow recovery from
dix C). Between 1999 and 2007, the prevalence of child underweight rose
decades of economic decline. However, its high level of undernourish-
by 10 percentage points. Recent research examining the impact of the
ment remains a serious issue: the proportion of undernourished peo-
civil war on child health found that children residing in regions more affect-
ple has been rising, although the rate of increase has now slowed. The
ed by the conflict had significant health setbacks compared with children
prevalence of child underweight has declined since 2000, but it
in less-affected regions (Minoiu and Shemyakina 2012).
remains one of the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa. The country’s child
For the Democratic Republic of Congo, another conflict-rid-
mortality rate has been improving, mainly since 2001 (see country
den country in Sub-Saharan Africa and by far the worst performer
trends in Appendix C).
in terms of GHI scores in past GHI reports, data availability is no
FIGURE 2.3
GHI WINNERS AND LOSERS FROM 1990 GHI TO 2012 GHI
Winners (Percentage decrease in GHI)
Losers (Percentage increase in GHI)
Fiji -56
Vietnam -56
China -57
Saudi Arabia -57
Ghana -58
Nicaragua -59
Iran, Islamic Rep. -60
Mexico -62
Kuwait -71
Turkey -74
-80
-60
North Korea +21
Burundi +17
Swaziland +17
Comoros +16
Côte d'Ivoire +10
Botswana +2
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Note: Countries with both 1990 GHI and 2012 GHI scores of less than five are excluded.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends
Japan
Nepal
Malawi
Zimbabwe Mozambique
Namibia
Paraguay
Argentina
Kyrgyz Rep.
Tajikistan
Comoros
Bolivia
Chile
Turkmenistan
Mauritania Mali
Oman
Niger
Chad
Senegal
Yemen
Eritrea
Sudan
The Gambia
Burkina Faso
Djibouti
Guinea-Bissau
Benin Nigeria
Guinea
Côte Togo
Ethiopia
Central African
Sierra Leone
d'Ivoire Ghana
Cameroon Republic
Liberia
Somalia
Uganda
Equatorial Guinea
Congo,
Kenya
Gabon Rep. Congo, Rw.
Dem. Rep. Bur.
Tanzania
Ecuador
Peru
Mongolia
Uzbekistan
Kuwait
Bahrain
Qatar
Saudi Arabia U.A.E.
Egypt
Libya
Western Sahara
Kazakhstan
S. Korea
Cyprus
Syria
Lebanon
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Morocco
Mexico
Russian Federation
Latvia
Lithuania
Denmark
17
longer sufficient to calculate the GHI (see note 3 on page 7).
have the highest prevalence of underweight in children under five—
Renewed efforts should be made to collect high-quality data in order
more than 40 percent in all three countries. Burkina Faso, Chad, Dem-
to fill current gaps.
ocratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Sierra Leone, and Somalia have the
In Swaziland, the HIV and AIDS epidemic, along with high
highest under-five mortality rate, ranging from 17 to 18 percent.
income inequality, has severely undermined food security despite
growth in national income. In 2009, Swaziland’s adult HIV prevalence
4
was estimated at 26 percent—the highest in the world (UNAIDS 2010).
Although the country’s GHI scores worsened throughout the 1990s,
the negative trend has been partly reversed since 2001. Swaziland and
several other African countries have made great strides in preventing
5
mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and child mortality rates have
dropped again after a peak around 2003 (UNAIDS 2010; IGME 2011).
Botswana and Lesotho have also been heavily affected by HIV and AIDS
6
7
and have benefited from advances in treatment and improved access
to anti-retroviral drugs. The pattern in their GHI scores is similar to that
of Swaziland, with peaks in 2001, caused partly by transient increas-
8
The “world” includes all developing countries for which the GHI has been calculated; it also
includes Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, and
Somalia, for which data on child underweight and child mortality are available or could be estimated and provisional estimates of undernourishment were provided by FAO only for the purpose
of regional and global aggregation. Because much of the data for these countries is estimated or
provisional, country GHI scores were not calculated. As noted earlier, data for some other countries are not available, and most high-income countries are excluded from the GHI calculation.
The year 1990 was chosen for comparison because it is the reference point for achieving the targets under the Millennium Development Goals.
For Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, the 1996 GHI score was used
for comparison because data are not available to calculate the 1990 score.
The numbers in this sentence and the previous one refer to the 86 countries for which (1) data
for the 1990 and 2012 GHI scores are available and (2) either or both of those scores is greater
than 5.
The Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, which are likely to have high proportions of
undernourished as well, could not be included in this comparison because of lack of data.
es in undernourishment and partly by rises in child mortality up to 2001
(see country trends in Appendix C).
In North Korea, widespread starvation threatened in 1995 but
was averted by large-scale food-aid deliveries (CIA 2012). The country’s GHI rose sharply between 1990 and 1996 and has declined only
slightly since, providing evidence of chronic food insecurity in spite of
considerable international humanitarian assistance (see country trends
in Appendix C). A weak economy, high military spending, weatherrelated crop failures, and systemic problems in the agriculture sector
have hampered progress (CIA 2012).
Some countries achieved noteworthy absolute progress in
improving their GHI scores. Between the 1990 GHI and the 2012 GHI,
Angola, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, Nicaragua, Niger, and Vietnam
saw the largest improvements—by 13 points or more—in their scores.
In Burundi and Comoros, however, the GHI rose by about 6 and 4
points, respectively.
Twenty countries still have levels of hunger that are “extremely
alarming” or “alarming” (Figure 2.4). Most of the countries with alarming GHI scores are in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Two of the
three countries with extremely alarming 2012 GHI scores—Burundi
and Eritrea—are in Sub-Saharan Africa; the third country is Haiti. Haiti’s GHI score fell by about one quarter from 1990 to 2001, but most
of this improvement was reversed in subsequent years (see Box 2.3 and
country trends in Appendix C). The devastating January 2010 earthquake, although not yet fully captured by the 2012 GHI because of
insufficient availability of recent data, pushed Haiti back into the category of “extremely alarming.”
In terms of the GHI components, Burundi, Eritrea, and Haiti
currently have the highest proportion of undernourished people—more
than 50 percent of the population.8 Bangladesh, India, and Timor-Leste
18
Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
TABLE 2.1
Rank
1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
9
11
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
52
54
54
COUNTRY GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES BY RANK, 1990 GHI, 1996 GHI, 2001 GHI, AND 2012 GHI
Country
Azerbaijan
China
Malaysia
Paraguay
Trinidad & Tobago
Gabon
Mauritius
El Salvador
Kyrgyz Republic
South Africa
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Panama
Guyana
Peru
Ecuador
Honduras
Thailand
Suriname
Ghana
Nicaragua
Armenia
Dominican Republic
Swaziland
Mauritania
Vietnam
Congo, Rep.
Mongolia
Lesotho
Indonesia
Philippines
Bolivia
Guatemala
Namibia
Botswana
Senegal
Sri Lanka
Benin
Gambia, The
Nigeria
Tajikistan
Uganda
Mali
Guinea
Malawi
Burkina Faso
Zimbabwe
Cameroon
Côte d'Ivoire
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
North Korea
Togo
Kenya
Tanzania
1990
11.8
9.0
7.9
7.1
8.4
8.0
10.1
6.9
10.1
14.6
14.5
13.5
13.5
15.1
10.3
21.4
22.4
14.2
9.3
22.6
25.6
23.6
16.5
12.6
18.5
19.9
16.9
15.2
20.3
13.4
18.3
20.8
21.3
16.2
24.1
18.7
27.8
22.4
29.9
23.5
18.6
21.6
16.5
20.7
22.7
15.7
26.4
20.7
23.2
1996
14.6
8.9
6.7
5.8
7.5
6.9
7.4
8.7
9.0
6.5
10.0
9.0
9.7
8.9
10.7
10.8
13.2
11.8
9.3
16.3
17.8
14.3
11.8
12.6
16.7
21.4
24.1
17.5
13.6
15.4
17.6
14.3
15.8
19.1
15.4
19.6
18.4
20.1
20.1
20.9
24.1
20.3
26.3
20.0
27.5
22.4
22.3
22.2
17.8
20.8
25.2
20.1
22.0
20.8
28.0
2001
7.8
6.7
6.6
5.4
6.2
7.2
6.0
5.4
9.0
7.4
8.9
10.8
8.9
7.8
9.0
8.9
10.0
9.2
10.1
12.8
12.3
11.3
10.9
12.9
16.6
15.5
15.7
14.8
13.9
14.2
14.2
12.3
15.1
16.3
15.7
19.2
15.2
16.8
16.3
18.2
24.6
17.3
23.0
21.6
22.5
21.8
21.3
19.0
16.6
21.4
25.0
20.1
23.3
20.4
25.9
2012
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.7
5.8
5.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.7
8.1
8.5
8.9
9.1
9.2
10.0
10.9
11.1
11.2
11.4
11.7
11.9
12.0
12.2
12.3
12.7
13.2
13.7
13.7
14.4
14.6
15.6
15.7
15.8
16.1
16.2
16.6
16.7
17.2
17.3
17.4
18.2
18.4
18.9
19.0
19.0
19.3
19.3
Rank
56
57
57
57
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
66
68
69
70
71
72
73
73
75
76
77
78
79
Country
Cambodia
Lao PDR
Pakistan
Rwanda
Nepal
Sudan
Djibouti
Niger
Madagascar
India
Mozambique
Zambia
Bangladesh
Angola
Yemen, Rep.
Sierra Leone
Comoros
Central African Rep.
Timor-Leste
Chad
Ethiopia
Haiti
Eritrea
Burundi
1990
31.8
28.6
25.5
28.2
26.9
28.7
30.8
36.4
24.1
30.3
35.5
24.8
37.9
41.9
29.0
32.7
22.2
27.4
39.3
42.2
33.9
31.6
1996
31.5
25.2
21.8
32.7
24.4
24.5
25.7
35.9
23.8
22.6
30.7
25.0
36.1
39.9
27.6
30.1
26.9
28.4
35.6
38.6
32.2
37.8
35.9
2001
26.0
23.6
21.7
25.6
23.0
25.9
25.3
30.5
24.9
24.2
28.8
27.2
27.8
33.0
27.9
30.1
29.7
27.4
26.1
30.4
34.5
25.8
37.8
38.0
2012
19.6
19.7
19.7
19.7
20.3
21.5
21.7
22.3
22.5
22.9
23.3
23.3
24.0
24.1
24.3
24.7
25.8
27.3
27.3
28.3
28.7
30.8
34.4
37.1
COUNTRIES WITH 2012 GHI SCORES LESS THAN 5
Country
´90 ´96
Albania
8.5 5.2 8.2
´01 ´12
<5
Country
Latvia
Algeria
6.7 7.3 6.0
<5
Argentina
´90 ´96
´01 ´12
-
<5
<5
<5
Lebanon
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Libya
<5
<5
<5
<5
Belarus
-
<5
<5
<5
Lithuania
-
<5
<5
<5
Bosnia & Herzegovina
-
<5
<5
<5
Macedonia, FYR
-
<5
<5
<5
Brazil
7.4 6.4 5.4
<5
Mexico
7.9 5.4
<5
<5
Bulgaria
<5
<5
<5
<5
Moldova
- 5.7 5.2
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Montenegro
-
<5
9.2 6.8 5.8
<5
Morocco
7.6 6.8 6.2
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
-
<5
<5
<5
6.3 6.2
<5
<5
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Estonia
Fiji
<5
<5
<5
<5
Romania
-
<5
<5
<5
Russian Federation
<5 6.5
<5
<5
Saudi Arabia
8.0 6.7 5.3
<5
Serbia
-
-
<5
<5
<5
Slovak Republic
-
6.3
<5
<5
<5
Syrian Arab Republic
- 8.7 6.0
<5
<5
<5
<5
6.7 5.7 5.4
<5
<5
<5
Tunisia
<5
<5
<5
Iran, Islamic Rep.
8.8 7.3
5.1
<5
Turkey
5.7 5.3
<5
<5
Jamaica
6.7 5.0
<5
<5
Ukraine
<5
Jordan
<5
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
9.1
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Uruguay
<5
<5
<5
<5 5.4
<5
Venezuela, RB
6.7 7.1 6.4
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Note: Ranked according to 2012 GHI scores. Countries with a 2012 GHI score of less than
five are not included in the ranking, and differences between their scores are minimal.
Countries that have identical 2012 GHI scores are given the same ranking (for example,
Paraguay and Trinidad & Tobago both rank fourth). The following countries could not be
included owing to lack of data: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bhutan, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Iraq, Myanmar, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, and Somalia.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends
19
Greenland
2012 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX BY SEVERITY
FIGURE 2.4
Sweden
Iceland
Norway
United Kingdom
Denmark
Canada
Neth.
Ireland
Bel.
Portugal
Spain
United States
of America
Germany
Poland
Lux.
Czech Rep.
Slovakia
Austria
Hungary
Switz.
Slov.
France
Croatia
Italy
Bos. &
Herz.Serb.
Mont.
Mace.
Albania
Greece
Tunisia
Morocco
Algeria
Libya
Western Sahara
Mexico
Cuba
Dom. Rep.
Belize Jamaica
Honduras
Guatemala
El Salvador
Mauritania
Haiti
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Trinidad & Tobago
Panama
Venezuela
Guyana
Sierra Leone
Suriname
Colombia
Senegal
The Gambia
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea
French Guiana
Ecuador
Liberia
Mali
Niger
Chad
Burkina Faso
Benin
Nigeria
Côte
Togo
Central African
d'IvoireGhana
Republic
Cameroon
Equatorial Guinea
Congo,
Gabon Rep.
Peru
Brazil
Angola
Bolivia
Namibia
Paraguay
Chile
Argentina
Uruguay
> 30.0 Extremely alarming
20.0–29.9 Alarming
10.0–19.9 Serious
5.0–9.9 Moderate
< 4.9 Low
No data
Industrialized country
20
Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
Finland
Russian Federation
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Belarus
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Mold.
Mongolia
Romania
Bulgaria
Georgia
Armenia Azerb.
Turkey
Kyrgyz Rep.
Uzbekistan
N. Korea
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
S. Korea
Syria
Cyprus
Lebanon
Israel
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Pakistan
Bahrain
Qatar
U.A.E.
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
China
Afghanistan
Iran
Japan
Nepal
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Myanmar
India
Oman
Eritrea
Lao
PDR
Philippines
Thailand
Yemen
Sudan
Cambodia Vietnam
Djibouti
Ethiopia
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Uganda
Kenya
Papua
New Guinea
Rw.
Bur.
Congo,
Dem. Rep.
Indonesia
Tanzania
Timor-Leste
Comoros
Zambia
Brunei
Malaysia
Malawi
Zimbabwe Mozambique
Mauritius
Botswana
Madagascar
Swaziland
South
Africa
Australia
Lesotho
Note: For the 2012 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 2006–08, data on
child underweight are for the latest year in the period 2005–10 for which data are available,
and data on child mortality are for 2010. GHI scores were not calculated for countries for which
data were not available and for certain countries with very small populations.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends
21
03
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
“The tight interconnections between water, energy and land make clear
that the management of each of them cannot be considered in isolation,
but must be seen as part of an integrated system.”
–
–
–
–
22
–
European Report on Development, 2012
Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY UNDER
LAND, WATER, AND ENERGY STRESSES
In the pursuit of agricultural and economic growth, natural resource scar-
tory systems are weaker. Moreover, land deals are found more often
city and degradation have generally been afterthoughts. The rate of con-
in those countries with high GHI values. While demand for land is rising,
sumption growth, even more than population growth, has proven difficult
continued land degradation is posing challenges. Soaring oil prices
to slow, testing our ability to meet the basic needs of the most vulnera-
have also contributed to both higher food prices and the drive for land
ble people (Ehrlich, Kareiva, and Daily 2012) by putting pressure on
investments in developing countries, particularly for the production
resources and pricing poor people out of access to these resources.
of first-generation biofuels (Anseeuw et al. 2012b). Rapid growth in
Recent developments in the land, water, and energy sectors
domestic and industrial water demand—as a result of population and
have been wake-up calls. The stark reality is that we need to produce
economic growth, increased urbanization, and associated, changing
more with less while eliminating wasteful practices and policies. In
lifestyles—as well as changing climate, increased variability in rain-
other words, we need a new socioeconomic model that is sustainable
fall patterns, and rapidly growing water pollution levels, have increased
and that prioritizes poor and marginalized people.
water scarcity across much of the developing world, especially in
Higher food prices are one signal of the need for a new model.
emerging countries (Rosegrant, Ringler, and Zhu 2009). Water pollu-
Prices rose by nearly 40 percent in 2007 and further increased in
tion and poor access to sanitation, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa
2008, pushing 130–155 million people into extreme poverty. During
and South Asia, contribute to the contamination of food and drinking
this same period the number of children suffering permanent cogni-
water and lead to diarrheal disease, a major source of childhood ill-
tive and physical injury due to malnutrition may have increased by 44
ness and death in the developing world. The need for increased invest-
million (World Bank 2009). Food prices flared up again in 2011 as
ment to achieve water security has, for example, been recognized by
well as in 2012 and are unlikely to decline in the foreseeable future
China, which plans to invest an unprecedented US$630 billion in
to the levels achieved in the early to mid-1990s. In addition to food
water conservation over the next 10 years (Huang 2012).
price increases, food price volatility increasingly affects poor consumers and producers across the globe (von Grebmer et al. 2011).
The way we use land, water, and energy plays a significant
As a result of economic and population growth, wealthier populations in the developed and increasingly the developing world are
juxtaposed with nearly 1 billion food-insecure people and 2 billion
role in the changing global food economy. Partly in response to the
people suffering from micronutrient deficiencies. High levels of hun-
food price hikes, the number of international and national agricultu-
ger are generally found in those countries and regions where access
ral land deals has soared over the past 5–10 years (Anseeuw et al.
and property rights to water and land are limited or contested and
2012a, b). Many of the land leases and other agreements have tar-
where modern energy sources and access to sanitation are under-
geted Sub-Saharan Africa, where land rents are cheaper and regula-
developed (see Figure 3.1).
100
90
80
ENERGY USE AND ACCESS TO SANITATION AND FOOD BY REGION
Access to sanitation
Access to food
Energy use
10,000
9,000
8,000
70
7,000
60
6,000
50
5,000
40
4,000
30
3,000
20
2,000
10
1,000
0
0
South Asia
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Latin America &
Caribbean
Middle East &
North Africa
East Asia
Energy use per capita (kilowatt hours)
Share of the popuation with access to
sanitation and food (%)
FIGURE 3.1
OECD countries
Sources: Access to food: based on child malnutrition levels calculated from IFPRI’s International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) (Rosegrant et al. 2008b);
access to sanitation and energy use: World Bank (2011b).
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses
23
Energy use is particularly low in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia,
FIGURE 3.2
where people still make heavy use of traditional biomass, such as
their primary cooking fuel (Legros et al. 2009). Although the poorest people spend relatively little on energy (Figure 3.2), in part
because of poor access, their use of traditional energy has other
costs in terms of their time, health, and environment. Collection of
fuelwood, for example, constitutes a major time burden for women
and children, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Indoor air pollu-
Urban Rural
almost 70 percent of people rely on wood (and its by-products) as
Ethiopia, 1999
between 2006 and 2030 and could double between now and 2050
(Foresight 2011).
As a result of increasing natural resource scarcity, sustainable food security is now inextricably linked to developments in the
water, energy, and land sectors (Figure 3.3). Pressures on these sectors for nonfood uses, from biofuel mandates and urban and indus-
Urban Rural
report, demand for energy is projected to increase by 45 percent
65.6
9.3
60.1
9.4
Guatemala, 2000
% of total
expenditures
50.5
1.3
Food
47.6
Energy
1.3
Tajikistan, 2003
Urban Rural
et al. 2011; von Braun 2007). Overall, according to the Foresight
63.8
7.7
Bangladesh, 2000
tion from the burning of biomass contributes to the death of nearly
2 million people annually, particularly women and children (Martin
69.5
10.4
Urban Rural
fuelwood, cow dung, and crop residues. In Sub-Saharan Africa,
POOR PEOPLE’S SPENDING ON FOOD AND ENERGY
0
70.7
4.9
73.7
4.2
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
trial development, as well as uncoordinated, injudicious use of these
natural resources, will directly affect the food security of the poor
and most vulnerable.
FIGURE 3.3
Source: von Braun (2007), based on Ahmed et al. (2007).
Notes: These data reflect spending by people living on less than US$1.08 a day. Energy costs
include cooking, lighting, and heating fuels.
HOW WATER, ENERGY, AND LAND POLICIES CAN THREATEN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY
Water
Ad hoc, uncoordinated sectoral
policies at local, national,
and international levels
Desertification
>
Degradation
Inefficient use of water
>
Ad hoc, uncoordinated investments
>
Expropriation of traditional smallholder
water rights
Focus on short-term
economic gains
Threats to
sustainable
food
security
Land
>
>
Energy
>
not food
“Land grabbing”
>
Deforestation
>
Exploitive production
>
Hydropower development without
>
Expropriation of traditional land
>
rights
protection against adverse social
Trade-offs between natural
resources and human well-being
and environmental impacts
>
Source: Authors.
24
Land used to produce fuel,
Increased energy dependence
of agriculture
Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses | Chapter 03 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
FIGURE 3.4
PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH,1975–2100
Less-developed regions
Least-developed regions
More-developed regions
80
60
40
20
2095–00
2090–95
2085–90
2080–85
2075–80
2070–75
2065–70
2060–65
2055–60
2050–55
2045–50
2040–45
2035–40
2030–35
2025–30
2020–25
2015–20
2010–15
2005–10
2000–05
1995–00
1990–95
1985–90
1980–85
0
1975–80
Annual population growth (in thousand people)
100
Note: More-developed regions comprise Europe, North America, Australia/New Zealand, and Japan. Less-developed regions comprise all regions of Africa, Asia (excluding Japan), and Latin America and
the Caribbean, plus Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. The least-developed countries include 33 countries in Africa, 9 in Asia, 5 in Oceania, and 1 in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Source: Authors, based on UN (2011).
Contributors to Natural Resource Scarcity
Almost all of the additional population will live in the group of “less-
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES. According to the United Nations medium variant9
developed” countries (Figure 3.4). Strong income growth in many of
scenario, the world’s population is expected to reach more than 8 bil-
these countries will drive the shift in diets toward more protein-rich
lion by 2025 and more than 9 billion by 2050 (UN 2011). This increase
and more resource-demanding commodities (such as meat and milk).
occurs in the midst of major demographic changes. Fertility has
Those countries with growing populations and limited ability to increase
declined rapidly in recent decades in most low- and middle-income
domestic production in line with growing demand, particularly in the
countries. Total fertility rates are converging toward replacement
Middle East and Africa, will experience an increase in demand for
level—that is, the rate at which population growth through reproduc-
imported staples and high-value agricultural commodities.
tion will be approximately zero—except in 35 countries, mainly in Sub-
In addition to population growth, migration from rural to urban
Saharan Africa (World Bank 2007). In countries where fertility has
areas in developing countries will have significant effects on food con-
declined significantly10 and mortality rates have fallen, population
sumption patterns. About 52 percent of the world’s population cur-
growth has slowed and the population has become older. However,
rently lives in urban areas; by 2050, 67 percent will live in cities (UN
countries where the population is still growing rapidly, mainly in Sub-
2011). When people move to urban areas, they tend to eat fewer basic
Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, will face significant challenges
staples and more fruits, livestock products, and cereals requiring less
because of expanding demand for public services, goods (such as food
preparation. It will be a challenge to meet this demand in a sustainable
and clothing), and investments in education and health. Countries will
manner (Tokgoz and Rosegrant 2011).
need to increase such investments as the population increases, making
it difficult for them to invest in other key sectors such as agriculture
(World Bank 2007).
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses
25
Rapid
al net carbon savings of first-generation biofuels have been questioned,
economic growth in some developing countries over the past sever-
particularly when production-induced land use changes are considered
al decades is supporting the emergence of a relatively wealthy, gen-
(Searchinger et al. 2008), and impacts on both water quantity and qual-
erally urban middle class, estimated at 2 billion people (Court and
ity, which can be significant, are growing (Moraes, Ringler, and Cai 2011).
HIGHER INCOMES AND UNSUSTAINABLE RESOURCE CONSUMPTION.
Narasimhan 2010). While economic progress is laudable, its impacts
on natural resource use are substantial. Wealthier, more urbanized pop-
Evidence of Natural Resource Scarcity
ulations have transitioned toward more diversified diets, increasing their
ENERGY.
consumption of not only meat, but also vegetables and sugars—all of
years and are projected to continue to rise, albeit more slowly. If cur-
which require much more water and energy per unit of calorie produced.
rent policies continue, the International Energy Agency projects an
The lifestyles in industrialized countries are particularly characterized
increase in real crude oil prices from US$78 a barrel in 2010 to
by overuse of both renewable and fossil resources.
US$140 by 2035. This represents a 2.4 percent annual increase. If
Moreover, the benefits of economic growth have not reached
everyone: even though global poverty levels have declined overall, the
Global energy prices have increased significantly in recent
aggressive investments in alternative energy fuels were to be made, oil
price increases would be somewhat lower (IEA 2011).
number of people living on between $1.25 and $2 a day nearly doubled
Rising energy prices affect agriculture in several ways. Higher
between 1981 and 2008: from 648 million to 1.18 billion. The rate of
energy prices make biofuels more profitable, increasing the demand for
growth in the number of people earning more than $2 a day has slowed
agricultural land to be converted to the production of biofuel crops. At
(Chen and Ravallion 2012). In some countries and regions, these poor
the same time, rising energy prices raise farmers’ costs, especially given
are trapped in downward spirals of abject poverty, low prospects for eco-
that the agriculture sector has become more energy intensive. For exam-
nomic activity, and unavailable or degraded natural resources.
ple, farmers use diesel fuel and gasoline for tillage, planting, transportation, and harvesting. They use electricity, liquefied petroleum, gasoline,
Demographic change and eco-
and natural gas to irrigate fields; operate livestock, poultry, and dairy facil-
nomic growth are the fundamental drivers of natural resource scarcity,
ities; and process and store perishable commodities (USDA 2006). Anoth-
but the future of land, water, and energy security will be decided by
er important energy cost component is fertilizer use. According to Pimen-
agricultural, climate, energy, science, and trade policies and institutions
tel (2006), conventional agricultural production in the United States uses
(Ringler, Biswas, and Cline 2010). One policy area—biofuels—is brief-
approximately 1,000 liters of fossil energy per hectare, divided approxi-
ly discussed to highlight the much broader issues behind this topic.
mately equally among petroleum-based fertilizers, mechanization, and
POOR POLICIES AND WEAK INSTITUTIONS.
A number of factors have driven interest in biofuels as a
other activities and inputs, such as pesticides. More broadly, the price of
renewable energy source. These include higher energy prices stemming
energy influences the prices of inputs, water, and transportation and
from increased demand for energy, concerns about climate change, the
marketing, all affecting agricultural production and food prices.
desire to reduce dependence on imported energy sources, and the
The share of energy in farmers’ costs varies significantly with-
potential for rural growth and employment generation (Ewing et al. 2010;
in and between countries. Among the crops grown in the United States,
Kammen 2006). Biofuel policies have, however, resulted in increased
the share of energy in total operating costs ranged from about 55 per-
pressure on land and water. Given that biofuels are not yet economical-
cent for wheat to about 20 percent for cotton in 2004 (USDA 2006).
ly viable, biofuel policies typically include significant tax breaks for bio-
Energy accounts for a smaller share of farmers’ costs in developing
fuel refineries combined with subsidies for feedstock and consumption
countries, but that share is rising as agricultural activities in those coun-
targets or mandates for biofuels in the transportation sector. These man-
tries increase their use of technology and become more mechanized.
dates have resulted in large-scale investment in biofuels and expansion
In Vietnam, for example, energy accounted for 18 percent of total
of crop area to produce biofuel crops. If these biofuel mandates were
operating costs for maize in 2000 (IFPRI 2001). Newer estimates will
met through domestically grown feedstocks alone, they would require
likely show larger energy contributions to total production cost.
30 percent of US agricultural area to be dedicated to produce fuel for
Because of rising energy costs, agriculture-intensive producers
transportation; in Europe, the share would be 72 percent (Ewing et
will see their cost of producing, transporting, and processing agricul-
al. 2010). The increased biofuel demand during 2000–2007, com-
tural commodities rise. Higher energy prices will induce farmers to shift
pared with previous rates of growth, is estimated to have accounted for
to less energy-intensive crops. At the same time, energy-saving agri-
30 percent of the increase in weighted average grain prices during this
cultural practices such as conservation tillage, low-water-pressure and
period, resulting in a significant increase in the number of malnourished
low-water-use irrigation, and improved fertilizer management will become
children (Rosegrant 2008; Rosegrant et al. 2008a). Moreover, the actu-
more profitable.
26
Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses | Chapter 03 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
Energy prices will also affect how water resources are used. It will
become more expensive to extract and convey irrigation water—particularly using pump irrigation—and to desalinize seawater for drinking and
household use. The higher cost of obtaining water will create incentives
to develop more efficient mechanisms for allocating water and to reduce
water losses, leaks, and runoff. Government subsidies for water and ener-
Tomnissoi Davlat
gy services and fertilizers will become increasingly expensive and may
District Baljuvon,Tajikistan
become fiscally unsustainable for many developing countries. This situation could provide incentives for reforming water policies and reducing
subsidies. To date, however, there is little evidence of such reform. Higher energy prices also drive higher demand for hydroelectric power—often
with positive impacts for domestic, industrial, and irrigation uses, but
also with adverse social and ecological effects, such as resettlements
“This year, I only harvested 500 kilograms of wheat
per hectare. I sowed my seeds too late because fuel
prices rose sharply at the beginning of spring....
Once I had enough money for fuel and plowing
services, it was too late.”
and loss of fish and other freshwater ecosystem services.
LAND. Globally, agriculture occurs within a context of land scarcity, both
because the world’s best arable land is already under cultivation and
because agricultural practices have led to the degradation of significant amounts of farmland. At the same time, the rising demand for
nonfood products (feed, fuel, and fiber) is putting additional pressure
on agricultural production and on land use.
Cultivated systems11 cover 25 percent of the globe’s terrestrial
Robert Mugabe
Kabarole District, Uganda
surface. A 10–20 percent increase in current crop area and pastureland may be needed to meet growing food demand. This increase
would come mainly from grassland and forestland (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, b). Demand for nonfood agricultural products could push the need for land significantly higher. Such an expansion will have both direct and indirect impacts on other ecosystems
and particularly on biodiversity. Intensification—that is, practices that
allow for greater output from a given amount of land—will be key to
minimizing the conversion of natural land to cropland and thereby
preserving terrestrial biodiversity. At the same time, if poorly man-
“I have no income. I only have a couple of acres to
cultivate maize, cabbage, beans, tomatoes, and onions.
At the same time I have to care for my mother and
sister. So the increasing prices made it very stressful
for me to buy paraffin and firewood. But I’m working
hard and selling some of my products…. The most
important thing is that we have enough to eat. So we
are saving on energy. Instead of using four paraffin
lamps to light the house, we now use only one.”
aged, intensification can increase runoff of fertilizers and pesticides
into water bodies, adversely affecting public health and inland and
coastal aquatic ecosystems.
Unsustainable agricultural practices have already resulted in
land degradation, including desertification, deforestation, salinization,
and soil erosion. The causes underlying these forms of land degradation include high population density, poverty, lack of land tenure, and
lack of access to extension services and other forms of knowledge, infra-
Fulmani Mandi
structure, and markets (Nkonya et al. 2011). Distortionary trade policies,
Jharkhand, India
output price policies, and input subsidies, particularly for water and fer-
“I am very worried about my children’s future. Now we
tilizer, have also contributed to degradation.
One way of assessing land degradation is to measure the loss
of net primary production—essentially, the decline in vegetative vigor.
12
Figure 3.5 shows the loss of net primary production from 1981 to
have 2.5 acres of land. I have three sons. When they
divide the land, each one of them will get only 0.8 acre,
which is of no use. I don’t know how they will survive.”
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses
27
FIGURE 3.5
LOSS OF ANNUAL NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION, 1981–2003
Loss of NPP (kg/ha/year)
0–10
10–20
20–30
30–40
40–50
50–60
>60
no data
Source: Nkonya et al. (2011), based on data from Bai et al. (2008).
Note: The boxes on the map outline key areas of land degradation.
2003. Substantial degradation has occurred in most parts of the
eutrophication of lakes and oceans, and damage to mangrove swamps
world. Past efforts to combat land degradation have often focused on
that support rich fisheries and provide many ecosystems services such
drylands, where degradation causes desertification. However, the
as water filtration and prevention of erosion (Rosegrant, Nkonya, and
highest rate of degradation took place in humid and subhumid areas
Valmonte-Santos 2009).
(marked by rectangles in Figure 3.5), which accounted for 78 percent
Forests have important rainfall-regulating functions. Tropi-
of land degradation over this period (Nkonya et al. 2011). The imme-
cal forests can soak up storm water and then release it slowly,
diate causes of land degradation include biophysical causes, includ-
reducing flood and drought cycles. Water-regulating functions are
ing topography, which determines soil erosion hazard, and climatic
particularly important in upper watersheds, where forests also help
conditions, such as rainfall, wind, and temperature. Unsustainable
reduce soil erosion and thus prevent river sedimentation. Despite
land management, such as deforestation, forest degradation, soil
these and other important ecosystem functions, deforestation has
nutrient mining, and cultivation on steep slopes, also contributes
also been significant in much of the world, as shown in Figure 3.6.
directly to land degradation.
The most serious deforestation has taken place in Africa and Cen-
For agricultural producers, farm-level land degradation can
tral and South America. Some good news is also evident: refores-
lower crop yields and raise production costs because farmers need to
tation is occurring in East, South, and West Asia and in the Carib-
apply more fertilizers and other inputs to offset yield losses. Degrada-
bean. China has led the way in East Asia, with aggressive policies
tion can also have off-site costs in the form of excessive runoff of
supporting reforestation. However, deforestation has accelerated in
fertilizers and pesticides, siltation of dams and irrigation systems,
Southeast Asia.
28
Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses | Chapter 03 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
FIGURE 3.6
CHANGE IN FORESTED AREA BY REGION, 1990–2010
1990–2000
2000–2010
Caribbean
West Asia
South Asia
Europe
Central Asia
North America
North Africa
World
Central Africa
Southeast Asia
Oceania
Southern Africa
South America
East Africa
West Africa
Central America
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0
0.5
1.0
Annual % change in forested area
Source: Computed by Ephraim Nkonya, IFPRI, based on FAO (2011c).
One outcome of the scarcity and degradation of farmland is the grow-
agriculture accounts for a small share of gross domestic product
ing number of deals giving land-scarce or resource-demanding coun-
(GDP) (less than 5 percent) and where hunger is low or moderate (a
tries access to farmland in land-abundant countries. Of the approxi-
GHI score of less than 10) received land investments affecting about
mately 1,000 international land deals (many of which are implemented
1.2 million hectares. In contrast, 32 countries where agriculture
with national partners) recorded as of May 2012, 46 percent targeted
accounts for a higher share of GDP (more than 5 percent) and hun-
land in Sub-Saharan Africa and 37 percent land in Asia (International
ger is serious or alarming (a GHI score of more than 10) received
Land Coalition 2012). Among the 665 international land investments
investments affecting about 41 million hectares, accounting for the
that report a specific crop, 55 percent relate to biofuel production,
bulk of the total investment—73 percent. Thus, the majority of inter-
19 percent to forestry products for wood and fiber and flowers, and the
national land deals to date have occurred in those countries that expe-
remainder to food production. Altogether, as of May 2012, the recorded
rience higher levels of hunger and where the population and nation-
deals affected 57 million hectares of agricultural land, or 1.2 percent
al incomes depend heavily on agriculture. In 17 of those,
of global agricultural area (International Land Coalition 2012). It is
international land deals account for more than 5 percent of current
important to note that foreign investment in land also has important
agricultural area, and in 7 countries, land deals account for more than
implications for local water availability and use (Anseeuw et al. 2012a).
10 percent of total agricultural area: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Indonesia,
Figure 3.7 presents the size of land deals as a share of agri-
Lao PDR, Liberia, the Philippines, and Sierra Leone. Out of the 245
cultural area for 52 target countries, relative to the importance of
land deals in these seven countries where the commodity grown is
agriculture in each country and its GHI score. Four countries where
known, 75 deals or 31 percent are for trees, including acacia, euca-
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses
29
lyptus, rubber, and flowers; 112 deals or 46 percent of all invest-
One country, Republic of Congo, has a high GHI score, a low share of
ments with known crops relate to biofuels; and the remainder are for
agricultural GDP (less than 5 percent) and limited international land
other agricultural commodities.
investment (approximately 100,000 hectares); 13 countries have a
Research to date reveals high social and environmental risks of
low GHI score partnered with agricultural GDP greater than 5 per-
such investments, while the promised benefits often fail to materialize
cent, accounting for 25 percent of total land investment areas. This
(see also case studies in Chapter 4). Both anecdotal and emerging case
group includes such agricultural heavyweights as Argentina, Brazil,
study evidence has shown that local and national land rights systems
and China, as well as Malaysia, which accounts for the largest num-
in most of these countries remain weak; as a result, local communities
ber of land deals as a share of national agricultural area. Other coun-
that once used some of the land acquired by foreign governments and
tries in this group with investments greater than 500,000 hectares
companies have lost their traditional or customary rights.
include Ghana, Peru, and Ukraine.
FIGURE 3.7
TYPOLOGY OF LAND ACQUISITIONS ACCORDING TO 2012 GHI SCORE AND AGRICULTURAL GDP
65
Size of land deals as a %
of agricultural area
60
LBR
0.01
55
20.00
50
40.00
NER
SLE
ETH
Agriculture as a % of GDP
45
61.24
40
MLI
NGA
35
KHM
MOZ
RWA
BFA
LAO
30
MWI
GHA
TZA
25
MDG
KEN
UGA
CIV
SDN
VNM
PAK
20
SEN
CMR
ZWE
IDN
15
THA
MYS
10
UKR
AGO
PER
COL
CRI
ZMB
SWZ
ECU
SUR
RUS
MEX
CHL
2
GTM
CHN
BRA
0
BOL
PHL
ARG
TUR
5
BGD
IND
COG
ZAF
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
2012 GHI score
Source: Anseeuw et al. (2012b).
30
Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses | Chapter 03 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
WATER.
Currently, 36 percent of the global population—approximately
steeper in water-scarce basins (Rosegrant, Ringler, and Zhu 2009).
2.4 billion people—live in water-scarce regions, and 22 percent of the
Thus, current levels of water productivity, under a scenario of medi-
world's GDP (US$9.4 trillion at 2000 prices) is produced in water-
um economic growth, will not be sufficient to ensure sustainability
scarce areas. Moreover, 39 percent of global grain production is unsus-
and reduce risks to people, food systems, and economies. By 2050,
tainable in terms of water use (Ringler et al. 2011), and 1.4 billion peo-
it is projected that under ”business as usual” 52 percent of the glob-
ple live in areas with sinking groundwater levels (FAO 2009).
al population (4.8 billion people), 49 percent of global grain produc-
Water resources are distributed unequally across the globe,
tion, and 45 percent of total GDP (US$63 trillion at 2000 prices)
generally not in proportion to respective populations or land areas. For
will be at risk due to water stress. This water stress will likely affect
example, in 2005 per capita water availability in the most populous coun-
key investment decisions; increase operational costs in the water,
tries—China and India—was fairly low, at 1,691 and 1,101 cubic meters,
energy, and food sectors; and affect the competitiveness of water-
respectively. In contrast, per capita water availability in Brazil (ranked
scarce regions (Ringler et al. 2011).
fifth in terms of population) was 32,525 cubic meters and in Russia
(ranked seventh in terms of population), 28,259 cubic meters. As a result
CLIMATE CHANGE.
of demographic changes in China and India, water availability is expect-
irrigated systems in Asia, is extremely vulnerable to the adverse impacts
Agriculture, particularly rainfed systems in Africa and
ed to further decline to 1,507 and 856 cubic meters per capita respec-
of climate change (ADB/IFPRI 2009; Nelson et al. 2009a; Nelson et
tively by 2030, but subnational variations will be much larger.13 Falken-
al. 2010). FAO estimates that by 2085, climate change could result in
mark, Lundqvist and Widstrand (1989) suggest that per capita annual
the loss of 11 percent of arable land in developing countries. For Afri-
water availability of less than 1,000 cubic meters limits economic
ca, the estimate is far higher (FAO 2012).
development and human health and well-being, and availability of less
Higher temperatures reduce crop yields in much of the world
than 500 cubic meters, experienced in much of the Middle East and
while encouraging the proliferation of weeds, plant diseases, and pests.
North Africa, constitutes a major constraint to life.
Changes in precipitation patterns shift growing seasons and increase
Agriculture consumes 80 percent of the world’s “blue water”
the likelihood of crop failure in the short run and production declines
from rivers and aquifers, and is therefore both vulnerable to water scar-
in the long run. Although climate change could lead to gains in yields
city and a contributor to it (Rosegrant, Cai, and Cline 2002). Water
and cultivated area for some crops and in some regions, the overall
scarcity is exacerbated by climate change, especially in the driest areas
impacts on agricultural production are projected to be highly negative,
of the world, which are home to more than 2 billion people and to half
with increasing food prices intensifying the risk of hunger.
of all poor people. Moreover, increased flooding as a result of climate
According to Parry et al. (2009), the number of people at risk
change and environmental degradation threatens agriculture in many
of hunger is projected to increase by 10–20 percent by 2050 because
parts of the world.
of climate change. IFPRI IMPACT projections show increases in the
Besides population growth, other factors affect current and
number of malnourished children of up to 21 percent by 2050 as a
future global water use. Economic growth, for example, increases
demand for water by households, industries, and farmers. Urbanization is associated with more water-intensive diets (meats, milk, vege-
Kaseija Jailesi
and Irene
Kaseija
tables, and sugars). Higher energy prices raise the cost of pumping
water for irrigation and increase demand for hydropower. Climate
change is raising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns,
directly increasing demand and reducing availability of water for both
rainfed and irrigated agriculture across the world.
Kabarole District,
Potential for growth in water supplies is limited, but domestic
Uganda
and industrial demand for water is growing rapidly. As a result, water
is being transferred from agriculture to domestic and industrial uses
(Rosegrant, Cai, and Cline 2002). This transfer will make irrigation
water scarcer in rapidly growing, less-developed countries, and particularly in China and some countries in the Middle East and North Africa. By 2050 only 66 percent of irrigation water demands can likely
be met, down from 78 percent in 2000. The decline will be much
“Already now it is difficult to reach the wells, as you
have to cross people’s land to reach them. That is
prohibited though, and many landowners even fence
in their land. With the worsening of the land situation,
the water situation will become more difficult.”
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses
31
result of climate change (Nelson et al. 2009a). Because the impact of
The Sustainable World scenario postulates an increased focus on the
climate change on child malnutrition is projected to be greatest in Sub-
conservation of water, land, and energy resources through more invest-
Saharan Africa, efforts to improve the various dimensions of the GHI
ment in technologies and more efficient resource use. It focuses on
need to be particularly strengthened there.
those investments that reduce hunger and malnutrition, such as
At the same time, agriculture contributes 9 percent to global
enhanced crop yields and livestock growth and increased investments
greenhouse gas emissions. If land use change and deforestation, which
in sanitation and female secondary education. Other factors are also
are linked directly to agriculture, are added, the total contribution
crucial for better outcomes for the poor and the environment, includ-
increases to 17 percent of global emissions (WRI 2010). Three-quarters
ing improved governance, reduced inequality and greater inclusion of
of all agricultural emissions stem from developing countries. Thus, the
marginalized social groups.15 Compared with the Conventional World,
task at hand will be to identify those interventions that reduce the
this scenario includes both higher economic growth and lower popula-
adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture and at the same time
tion growth (using the UN low-variant projection of population growth)
reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint.
(see also Nelson et al. 2010). Moreover, the scenario projects rapid
increases in water productivity and agricultural growth with increased
ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS UNDER GROWING NATURAL RESOURCE SCARCITY
efficiency in the use of research, among other things, as a result of
Over the next four decades, agricultural production will need to increase
spillover effects. As a result, by 2030, grain yields are 15 percent great-
substantially to meet the demands of a growing and increasingly wealthy
er than in the Conventional World scenario, and by 2050, they are 35
population. With current levels of investment and economic develop-
percent larger. Livestock yields and herd size increase by 30 percent from
ment, however, projected production increases can be achieved only
2015 to 2050 compared with the Conventional World Scenario. More-
at much higher prices. An alternative vision or model for development
over, there is a more aggressive move toward second-generation biofuel
would seek not only to increase future production, but also to achieve
development. The Sustainable World scenario also meets a climate change
better outcomes for the poor and pay more attention to sustainability,
target of no more than a 2˚C rise in temperature. Increased investments
reducing adverse environmental impacts. Future demand could be low-
help ensure that all girls have access to secondary schooling by 2030 and
ered somewhat by more resource-conserving lifestyle choices and a
all people have access to safe drinking water by 2050.
move away from first-generation technologies for large-scale produc-
These two development pathways have significantly different
tion of biofuels, for example, but the need to produce more with less—
results for land and water. Under the Conventional World scenario, total
and to do so more sustainably and in a manner that prioritizes the
harvested crop area is expected to grow globally at 0.23 percent a year,
poor—will remain.
or 169 million hectares in total, during the period 2005–2050. The con-
To assess the relative impact of two alternative development
tractions in crop area in some industrial and Asian countries are more
pathways in 2030 and 2050, IFPRI modeled the future world food
than offset by increases in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Much
system under two scenarios:
of the area expansion, however, will come from marginal and forest areas.
In the Sustainable World scenario, important forest areas can be pre-
1. The Conventional World scenario (as shown in Figure 3.3 on page
served as crop area contracts by 116 million hectares by 2030, and by
24) reflects a continuation of recent trends in population and eco-
201 million hectares by 2050. Furthermore, total water withdrawals are
nomic growth and other variables, including limited investment
544 cubic kilometers lower by 2030, and 1,369 cubic kilometers below
in agricultural research and thus in land, water, and energy effi-
Conventional World levels by 2050. This scenario thus releases large
ciency. First- generation biofuel development continues following
resources for important domestic and environmental water needs.
set mandates. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions rapidly
The two scenarios also have divergent results for food prices and
increase, water scarcity grows, and hunger and malnutrition
nutrition. As a result of very high agricultural productivity growth in the
remain serious problems in developing countries (Nelson et al.
Sustainable World scenario, average cereal prices are 21 percent lower by
2010; Rosegrant et al. 2008a).
2030 and 39 percent lower by 2050 compared with the Conventional
World scenario. Significantly lower food prices under the Sustainable World
2. The Sustainable World scenario (as shown in Figure 5.1 on page 47)
scenario boost affordability and thus access to food, increasing daily cal-
focuses on increased agricultural research and development spend-
orie availability in the developing world by 496 kilocalories per capita by
ing in developing countries, coupled with increased social invest-
2030, and by 1,336 kilocalories per capita by 2050. Thanks to large new
ments and more judicious use of natural resources to sustainably
agricultural and social investments in developing countries, as well as more
improve rural livelihoods and incomes.14
efficient use and preservation of natural resources, the Sustainable World
32
Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses | Chapter 03 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
scenario results in 50 million malnourished children in 2050, compared
with 115 million in the Conventional World scenario - a sharp decline of
57 percent. In India, for example, which is home to the largest number of
malnourished children, the proportion of malnourished children would
decline to 27 percent in the Sustainable World scenario by 2050, compared with 39 percent in the Conventional World scenario.
The calculations show that eradicating hunger in the near and
Ato Liben Boru Liben
Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia
medium term is a complex, multifaceted challenge. Significant achievements can be made through changes in investments and policies. Key
“Pastoralists are migrating to urban areas because
factors that can make a difference for child malnutrition include accel-
of high competition for water and pasture.
However, only a few are successful in securing a
job or engaging in income-generating activities,
like opening small shops.”
erated growth in a diversity of crops, access to safe drinking water, and
full female secondary school enrollment. Many of these changes both
contribute to and will be driven by higher economic growth and slower
population growth. The Sustainable World scenario assumes continued
use of land and water resources for first-generation biofuel production
following current mandates, but has a much larger focus on secondgeneration technologies. Removing current biofuel mandates would
arguably have additional positive impacts for the eradication of child
malnutrition, as well as water, land, and biodiversity conservation.
A sustainable vision for 2050 would mean that everyone in the
Lespérence Fedner
world has access to, and is empowered to make use of, food, modern
Technical Coordinator
energy, and clean water while at the same time ecosystem degradation
Welthungerhilfe, Jean Rabel, Haiti
is halted or reversed. In the Sustainable World scenario, humankind
makes large strides toward reducing hunger and improving water access
but cannot entirely eliminate hunger and malnutrition by 2050. Achieving that goal would require additional targeted policies and institutional
investments in key food crisis areas and other targeted, supporting
measures (such as social support systems) for those suffering from
chronic hunger (see also Runge et al. 2003).
The UN also projects low- and high-variant scenarios of population growth.
Determinants of fertility rate change are social, cultural, and economic variables, such as women’s
education level, employment status, urban-rural residence, household poverty, the cost of raising children, the cost of contraception, women’s autonomy, and husband’s occupation (World Bank 2007).
11
Cultivated systems are defined as areas where at least 30 percent of the landscape is in croplands, shifting cultivation, confined livestock production, or freshwater aquaculture.
12
Net primary production is the rate of carbon dioxide fixation by vegetation minus losses through respiration. It is a widely used indicator of land degradation for global and regional studies because it
can be captured by satellite, making it relatively inexpensive to measure. Another major advantage is
that long-term time-series data are available, allowing for comparison of land degradation over time.
13
These projections were calculated using IFPRI’s International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade, or IMPACT.
14
A summary of these two scenarios is presented in Ozkaynak et al. (2012). The outcomes for these two
scenarios were modeled using IFPRI's IMPACT model. IMPACT is designed to examine alternative futures
for global food supply, demand, trade, prices, and food security. It covers 45 commodities, which account
for virtually all of world food production and consumption. It is specified as a set of 115 country-level supply and demand equations where each country model is linked to the rest of the world through trade. To
explore food security effects, IMPACT projects the percentage and number of malnourished preschool children (0 to 5 years old) in developing countries as a function of average per capita calorie availability, the
share of females with secondary schooling, the ratio of female to male life expectancy at birth, and the
percentage of the population with access to safe water. The model is integrated with a Water Simulation
Module and a Global Hydrologic Model to assess the impacts of water supply and demand and climate
change, respectively, on food outcomes. The model includes energy crops but not a full energy model.
15
Many of these factors, however, can only be assessed qualitatively; they are outside the reach of
quantitative simulation models.
“My expenses in terms of energy and water have increased sharply in recent years. Moreover, because of
the problems of environmental degradation, water is
increasingly scarce, and rare from the taps at home.
I have to build a private tank to store water for
household needs in periods of little water.”
9
10
Florence Akiiki
Bamuturaki
Kabarole District, Uganda
“In the future, I am confident that there will be enough
water and energy for our people as the country is
developing.... I’m afraid the access to land is going to
be a big problem in the nearer future. There will not
be enough land for everyone. Our population is growing
too fast, whereas land is a static resource which
doesn’t grow according to the population living on it.”
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses
33
04
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
“Equitable access to land and natural resources is an
essential element of the right to food for rural populations in general
and for vulnerable and marginalized groups in particular.”
–
–
–
34
–
FAO Right to Food, 2008
Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
THE CENTRALITY OF LAND, WATER,
AND ENERGY FOR SMALLHOLDERS
Smallholder farmers are among the poorest and most food-insecure
trast to the decades before the war—Sierra Leone is a net importer
people in the world. They live in the most ecologically and climati-
of food. At the same time, 50–60 percent of the population depends
cally vulnerable regions of the world and must draw their livelihoods
on farming for its livelihood. These are mostly small-scale, peasant
from these same conditions. In the face of multiple challenges, it is
farmers who rely on the bush fallow system, in which fields are cul-
small-scale farmers who feed the majority of the world, producing food
tivated for a few years until soil fertility is depleted and then left fal-
for about 70 percent of the world’s population (ETC Group 2009). For
low for 10 to 15 years.
many of these farmers, scarcity scenarios are nothing new.
Because of the neglect of agricultural and rural development
Vast Lands Available for Smallholders as well as for
over past decades, secure land tenure and access to safe water and
Large-scale Foreign Investment?
energy supplies have remained out of reach for many people, while
To deal with low productivity and food insecurity, the government of
national agricultural sectors have suffered structural deficits and low
Sierra Leone is promoting agricultural modernization by means of
productivity.
mechanization and commercialization. In 2010, a five-year US$400
The “triple-F” crises (food, fuel, and finance) and the emerg-
million Smallholder Commercialisation Programme (SCP) was launched
ing scarcity scenarios discussed in Chapter 3 have helped push agri-
with the aim of linking smallholders to markets and commercial value
culture to the top of the global policy agenda, forcing governments and
chains.16 A new emphasis on large-scale, commercial agriculture has
international institutions to rethink the ways in which the world produces
also emerged, with the government campaigning to attract foreign
and distributes food. This is resulting in a renewed emphasis on the
direct investment in agriculture. Investment delegations from China
potential of agriculture, and governments in recent years have intensi-
and elsewhere were received by the president; trade and investment
fied efforts to commercialize their agricultural sectors.
forums were held in London and Freetown in 2009 and 2011 respec-
Such initiatives can already be observed in Sierra Leone and
tively; and the Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency
Tanzania, where Welthungerhilfe, Concern Worldwide, and their part-
(SLIEPA), supported by the European Union and other donor funding,
ners cooperate with farmers in the areas of agriculture, rural devel-
promises investors “easy access to land with smooth facilitation process”
opment, and food security. The governments of both countries have
(SLIEPA 2012a).
adopted initiatives to accelerate agricultural growth through both
SLIEPA argues that there are vast areas of available land with
the commercialization of smallholders and the promotion of large-
“only 15 percent of the country’s 5.4 million hectares of cultivatable
scale corporate farming. As these initiatives gather pace, the situa-
land being farmed as recently as 2003” (SLIEPA 2012b). These fig-
tion in which smallholder producers find themselves is becoming
ures contrast with a study by the German Ministry of Economic Coop-
increasingly precarious.
eration and Development (BMZ) indicating that much of the land is
In Sierra Leone, local farmers have already lost land to largescale investors. Civil society is organizing itself, demanding transpar-
already overused and little room exists for agricultural expansion (Bald
and Schroeder 2011).
ency, and challenging the dominant notion of “agricultural modernization,” which has already resulted in the acquisition of approximately
The “Big Push”—For Whose Benefit?
20 percent of the agricultural land available by foreign enterprises. In
Between 2008 and mid-2012, almost 1 million hectares of farmland
the case of Tanzania, Concern is supporting smallholders to secure land
across the country were leased or under negotiation for lease.17 Inves-
title and improve their access to water as the government advances a
tors are predominantly interested in oil palm, sugarcane, and food crops
wider program to transform the agricultural sector.
such as rice—evidence of the extent to which land acquisitions are
driven particularly by the food and fuel crises. Most of the projects are
export oriented, and at least one investor—the Swiss-based Addax Bio-
How pressure for land transforms rural
livelihoods in Sierra Leone
energy, leasing 44,000 hectares in the northern Bombali District of
Since emerging from a civil war that lasted from 1991 to 2002, Sierra
products in Sierra Leone (Anane and Abiwu 2011).
Sierra Leone for the production of sugarcane—aims to produce ethanol for export to the European Union and to sell electricity from the by-
Leone has been working to overcome severe poverty and food inse-
Although investors are looking to satisfy consumption needs in
curity. In spite of those efforts, the level of food insecurity remains
the global North, it is argued that large-scale foreign direct investment
alarming (the country’s 2012 GHI score is 24.7). Domestic produc-
in agriculture can also have benefits for the local population (see, for
tion of a range of food items falls short of local demand and—in con-
example, World Bank 2011a). The following case study by Welthun-
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders
35
gerhilfe and the Sierra Leonean nongovernmental organization Green
tion Socfin registered in Luxemburg—leased 6,500 hectares of land in
Scenery takes a closer look at the reality behind the rhetoric and the
the area to grow oil palm and rubber for export. The lease covers approx-
impact of large-scale land investments on the food and livelihood secu-
imately one-quarter of the area of Malen Chiefdom and includes 24 vil-
rity of the rural poor in Sierra Leone.
lages (see map on page 37). It is effective for 50 years, with the pos-
18
sibility of extension for another 21 years. As a direct result of this lease
Case Study: SAC investment in Malen Chiefdom, Pujehun District
agreement, smallholder farmers no longer have access to agricultural
Welthungerhilfe had been working in Pujehun District since 2007,
land and forested areas, and most project activities that Welthungerhil-
engaging with smallholder farmers to rehabilitate rural infrastructure,
fe had undertaken in partnership with local farmers have had to stop.
increase incomes, and foster food security through efficient and envi-
In this case, as in many others, there are two major concerns relat-
ronmentally safe use of available natural resources. In 2011 Socfin Agri-
ing to the land deal: the way in which the acquisition is decided upon and
cultural Company Sierra Leone Ltd (SAC)—a subsidiary of the corpora-
the impact on local food and livelihood security (Anseeuw et al. 2012b).
BOX 4.1
TIMELINE OF THE INVESTMENT OF SOCFIN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY SIERRA LEONE LTD. (SAC) IN MALEN CHIEFDOM
2009
From April 2011 onward
Feasibility study was conducted in the area (involving, for example,
Farmers’ oil palm plantations were measured to determine com-
soil samples and surveying). The general population was not informed.
pensation. Existing oil palm plantations were cleared. Operations
in nursery started. Infrastructure was prepared.
September 2010
At a chiefdom meeting in Sahn Malen, the paramount chief
May 30, 2011
informed representatives of the local communities that a company
At a stakeholder meeting in Pujehun, the conflicting parties recon-
would come and take over the former government plantation.
ciled and expressed their intention to work together for the wellbeing of the people.
February 2011
At a chiefdom meeting in Sahn Malen, the paramount chief
June 4, 2011
informed community representatives that all the land in the chief-
At a chiefdom meeting in Sahn Malen, the contract was fully read
dom would be taken over by SAC to plant oil palm and rubber.
publically for the first time and partly translated into the local lan-
Malen landowners expressed unwillingness to lease land.
guage Mende. The legality of the contract was questioned.
February/March 2011
October 2011
Village chief of Semabu held meeting. The community expressed con-
Concerned landowners published a statement detailing their griev-
cern about what would happen to their plantations and food produc-
ances (Malen Land Owners Association, “Grievances of Land Own-
tion. Paramount Chief (PC) said that all land would be taken by the
ers in Malen Chiefdom,” letter to district officer of Pujehun Dis-
company, with or without consent. When people asked where to get
trict, October 2, 2011, accessible at www.greenscenery.org).
food, the PC said they should buy it using the money that they receive.
More than 100 landowners blocked access to the area leased by
SAC. Forty were arrested; 15 were charged on counts of riotous
conduct, conspiracy, and threatening language.
March 5, 2011
At a chiefdom meeting in Sahn Malen, the lease agreement was to
be signed. Armed police were present. Village chiefs who signed
Source: Melbach (2012).
got money to redistribute to the landowning families in their village.
Villagers and village chiefs who did not want to sign kept away from
the meeting. According to the lease agreement only five of the nine
sections of Malen signed.
36
The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders | Chapter 04 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
“There was never a chance to say ‘no’ to the land deal;
we felt coerced.”
Rural land in Sierra Leone is held by landowning families, with a chieftaincy structure that plays a significant administrative and custodial
role. There exists a strong, pervasive notion of the fundamental inalien-
S. J.
ability of land from the landowning extended families and chiefdoms.
Sinjo village, Malen Chiefdom,
Thus, traditionally land is not leased but allocated. Statutory law, how-
Sierra Leone
ever, provides a procedure for non natives to acquire leaseholds,
requiring the consent of both the chiefdom and local councils. Investors can either lease land directly from the landowners or sublease from
the government as the primary leaseholder.
“Today I have a quarter of what I used to have. The food
situation is far worse than before because there is no
more farming. We used to eat two times a day; now we
eat only once a day and we have to buy everything. I paid
200,000 SLL to the Socfin [SAC] foreman for my four
children to get employment. I told them [my children] I
am going through challenges and that they have to work;
four sons work now for the company. One son I have
taken out of school to work in the plantations instead.”
SIERRA LEONE
Kono
Betty Sengeh
Western Area
Kailahun
Kenema
Sinjo village, Malen Chiefdom,
Sierra Leone
Bo
“Sometimes our family has to take credit or a loan;
Pujehun
currently our debts amount to 1,100,000 SLL. Out of
this, 200,000 SLL are food debts. It is the first time
that we have had food debts. For the past two months
I have not been able to pay back any debt because my
children who work with the company were inadequately
paid. We expected annual payments for the plantations
we owned, but this did not materialize.”
Pujehun
“I was employed by Socfin, but then I got sick and
Project Districts of Welthungerhilfe
Malen Chiefdom
Area affected by SAC investment
Source: Welthungerhilfe/Green Scenery based on official maps.
had to stop. Previously I used to work on our own farmland, now I am just sitting at home.… For the short
term, I do not see any benefit in this development. For
the long term, I don’t know. I have little understanding
of what they want to achieve. If I do get that understanding, it may help me to determine whether there
is future benefit. We don’t understand much, because
we see how the chief, the company, and the authorities
are more together than they are with us.”
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders
37
In Malen Chiefdom, the SAC investment was presented as a far smaller
At the time the agreement was concluded, some villages, hoping for new
deal than was actually the case. Local landowners and users were
employment and education opportunities, accepted the terms imposed.
informed only after the decision had been made by the tribal authori-
The anticipated opportunities, however, did not materialize. By August
ties and were told to thumb print or sign without knowing or under-
2011, two more villages that had been more favourable toward the deal
standing the details of the agreement. Indeed, it was a full three months
initially, had become critical.
after the contract had been signed that it was fully read out publicly
with ad hoc translation into the local language (see Box 4.1).
“We used to have far more food.”
The land lease rent, amounting to US$5 per acre (US$12.50
In times gone by, Malen Chiefdom was a farming society with a consid-
per hectare) per year, was fixed by the government rather than
erable degree of self-sufficiency. Today, it is a quasi-landless society
negotiated with farmers. Landowners receive only 50 percent of the
dependent on uncertain and irregular demand for labor and suffering all
yearly lease payment, while the other half is divided between the
the anxiety and uncertainty that comes with such dependency.
different levels of government administration (the district and the
When SAC took over the land, farmers received a one-time pay-
chiefdom each receive 20 percent, and the national government
ment amounting to 1 million leones (SLL) (approximately US$220) for
receives 10 percent).
every acre of oil palm plantation lost. No compensation was offered for
TABLE 4.1
PRICES OF SELECTED FOODS IN PUJEHUN DISTRICT, SIERRA LEONE, 2011–12
Product
Unit
Prices (SLL) in May 2011
Prices (SLL) in May 2012
Average price
change (%)
Village
Local
Regional
market
market
market
Average
Village
Local
Regional
market
market
market
Average
Local rice
Cup
1,000
n.a.
1,200
1,100
1,100
1,200
1,200
1,167
+6.1
Imported rice
Cup
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
933
978
-2.2
Raw cassava
Kg
500
n.a.
1,000
750
917
2,000
1,333
1,417
+88.9
Cup
250
250
200
233
400
300
n.a.
350
+50.2
Pint
1,000
1,000
1,200
1,067
1,400
1,500
1,433
1,444
+35.3
800
1,000
850
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
+17.7
Processed
cassava (gari)
Local palm oil
(dura variety)
Masanke palm oil
(tenera variety)
Pint
700–
800
Sweet potato
Pile
500
n.a.
1,000
750
917
1,000
1,333
1,083
+44.4
Flour
Cup
1,000
900
1,000
967
n.a.
1,100
1,500
1,300
+34.4
Salt
Cup
700
800
n.a.
750
1,000
500
500
667
-11.1
Sugar
Cup
2,000
2,200
2,000
2,067
2,000
2,000
2,500
2,167
+4.8
Note: n.a. = not available.
Source: Prices were recorded by Welthungerhilfe project staff. However, village-level prices were taken in different locations within the region affected by the lease in 2011 and 2012. The inflation rate
of 2011 was 18.5 percent and is estimated to decline to 8.5 percent in 2012 (World Bank 2011a).
38
The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders | Chapter 04 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
other crops. This amount is relatively small compared with the annual
income farmers would otherwise have earned—income that many families used to pay to send their children to school.
In the smallholder cultivation system, each family member contributed to the farm’s success. Today, the large-scale plantation requires
Sama Amara
less labor, and former farm households must rely on the income of indi-
Kortumahun village,
vidual family members. Jobs are largely casual, and labor is recruited
Malen Chiefdom, Sierra Leone
on a day-to-day basis. While the plantation attracts a lot of laborers
from outside the area, no provision is made for the employment of those
women and men who have leased their land.
Although payment levels at the plantations are in accordance
with similar investment projects in Sierra Leone, a daily wage of
US$2.20 (SLL 10,000) is insufficient to cover the food needs of a
family, especially in view of rising consumer prices. Between May
2011 and May 2012, market prices for food in the region affected
“The resources we had from the plantations are
depleted. For example, cassava and rice were available
all year round. I used to store palm oil and groundnuts
throughout the year and would sell some whenever
food was needed.… Today, our family consumes 8
cups of rice a day; previously we used to eat 20 cups.
Still we try to eat two times a day.”
by the large-scale land acquisitions have risen by 27 percent, on
average (see Table 4.1).
As the level of self-sufficiency falls and the price of food
rises, access to sufficient food is becoming an issue of concern for
many. All those interviewed in May 2012 cited a fall in both the
quantity and quality of food available to them since the SAC deal.
In particular, interviewees said that they consume less meat since
bush meat is much harder to find following the clearing of forested
areas for the SAC plantation.
The conversion of former agricultural areas and bush land into
plantations has had other serious consequences. People are increas-
Memai Charles
FIGURE 4.1
QUALITY OF COCOA EXPORTED BY THREE COOPERATIVES
Kortumahun village,
IN SIERRA LEONE, 2008–09 TO 2011–12
Malen Chiefdom, Sierra Leone
% of defects in cocoa exports
100
Defects
< 10%
80
10–15%
60
15–20%
20–25%
40
> 25%
20
“There is no alternative to earn a living. If there were
an alternative, I would not be working with Socfin
[SAC]. When I was farming independently, I could
decide how much I would eat and how much I would
sell. This was good. Now, I am
constricted with a small amount of money, and I
have to buy everything.”
“It is pretty difficult now, because all things are
0
2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
being measured. When we did our farming there was
no need to measure. And the cost of living is
increasing.”
Note: High-quality cocoa has less than 10 percent defects. The share of high-quality cocoa rose
from less than 10 percent of country exports in 2008–09 to more than 75 percent in 2011–12.
Source: Welthungerhilfe Project in cooperation with a distributor.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders
39
ingly concerned about the loss of firewood (the primary source of
tives “to improve income and well-being of farm families through improved
domestic energy, as in most of Sub-Saharan Africa; see Chapter 3,
production and marketing of cocoa and coffee” in eastern Sierra Leone.
page 24) and more difficult access to herbal medicines.
This work, which began in 2007, has involved approximately 10,000
small-scale producers cultivating an average farm size of 2.4 hectares. It
Promoting dialogue about alternative forms of investment
has shown that substantial improvements in both quantity and quality are
National governments are responsible for respecting and protecting
possible, even in contexts where production is “atomized” among thou-
their citizens’ right to adequate food. In many settings, however, the
sands of smallholders. Between 2007 and 2009, average household
voices of those who caution against misguided developments that
income from coffee and cocoa increased by 81 percent (US$190), and
threaten food security are marginalized. It is essential in these cases
15 percent of this increase can be attributed directly to the project (com-
to support the efforts of civil society organizations to engage their own
paring prices in project and nonproject villages). The quality of the cocoa
government representatives in a dialogue about the observed conse-
exported through the three project cooperatives has also improved con-
quences of policy decisions.
siderably (see Figure 4.1).
To collect evidence about the impacts of the SAC investment in
The above data demonstrates the economic potential of small-
Pujehun, Welthungerhilfe and Green Scenery have assisted in setting up
holders. With appropriate and adequate support and inexpensive train-
a community-based monitoring system and are supporting the local pop-
ing methods such as farmer field schools, small-scale producers can
ulation in Malen Chiefdom in assessing longer-term livelihood changes.
overcome constraints along the value chain while maintaining the
At the time of writing, Green Scenery is setting up a database to register
diverse and sustainable structures of the cocoa agroforestry systems.
all large-scale land acquisitions in Sierra Leone as part of a larger initia-
However, the up-scaling and sustainability of such successes
tive with other civil society organizations to increase transparency of large-
rely to a large extent on the vision of “agricultural modernization” pro-
scale investment deals. The information collected will be used to engage
moted by the government of Sierra Leone and the priority and support
with national-level politicians and the national media about the conse-
given to smallholders in that vision.
quences of large-scale land deals. This initiative and many more aim to
raise awareness about the risks of large-scale foreign direct land investments and to promote alternative models of agricultural investment.
In eastern Sierra Leone, smallholder cocoa and coffee farmers
face similar constraints as those observed in Pujehun and elsewhere
Land title and water in rural Tanzania:
Protecting the livelihoods of poor farmers
in rural Sierra Leone. Yields are low because of the reliance on low-
Tanzania is a country of contrasts. In recent decades, it has experienced
productivity varieties and techniques, as well as the advanced age of
a healthy economic growth rate, with annual GDP growth between 2012
many trees. Because of poor quality, farmers are paid low prices by
and 2016 set to exceed 7 percent. At the same time, it suffered from
middlemen. They lack incentives to invest in proper harvesting, fer-
drought and food insecurity in 2009 and 2010. In addition, the year-on-
menting, drying, or marketing, and many are tied into a credit system
year rate of food inflation remains unchanged at 25.3 percent, and the
that maintains the status quo.
food component of the consumer price index, which accounts for 47.8
While policies are clearly formulated at the national level, the
percent of the basket of goods used to measure inflation, has also seen
role and functions of the local government in terms of rural development
an increase. In 2012, an estimated 1 million people are food insecure
are not yet well understood or implemented. The introduction of farm-
while 42 percent of households regularly have inadequate food. Tanza-
er field schools under the Smallholder Commercialisation Programme,
nia ranks 54th in the 2012 GHI out of 79 countries.
for example, has yet to reach the majority of households. The cocoa sec-
Farming is the mainstay of Tanzanian life, with more than 80
tor is neglected in terms of extension services, and cocoa exports have
percent of Tanzanians relying on agriculture for their livelihoods. Of the
remained stagnant for many years, far below their pre-war levels.
estimated 2.1 million hectares under production, 95 percent is culti-
Against this backdrop, the experiences of Welthungerhilfe in
vated by smallholder farmers with holdings of between 0.9 and 3.0
Sierra Leone show that—with adequate support—smallholder agricul-
hectares. These farmers use traditional methods and produce primarily
ture has commercial potential that goes beyond increasing food avail-
for subsistence.
ability in local and regional markets.
These farmers face many challenges including low productivi-
Supported by the European Commission, Welthungerhilfe, the
ty, dependence on rainfed agriculture, underdeveloped support facili-
Agro Eco Louis Bok Institute, and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Interna-
ties, inappropriate technology, impediments to food market access,
tionale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) have worked with three national coopera-
and low levels of public expenditure. But there is one underlying chal-
40
The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders | Chapter 04 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
Sinaraha
Adam Ng’omwa
Iringa District, Tanzania
“Today or tomorrow I might not be here, and neighbors could encroach if the boundaries are not clear.”
Mustafa Kibibi
Balizila
Kibondo District, Tanzania
A completed certificate of customary right of occupancy
“Having the certificate is a security for the
lenge of which many are unaware. Although more than 90 percent of
farmers claim ownership, the reality is that less than 10 percent of Tanzanians hold official title to their land.
Tanzania’s 1999 Land Act No. 4 and Village Land Act No. 5
were established to allow smallholder farmers to formalize their land-
children so that if I die, they can keep the land. I also
added my wife’s name to the certificate, as she is my
first wife. I included her because we have worked the
land together since we were teenagers, so it is her right
as well, and for her children. I think it is important to
have her included.”
ownership by acquiring a certificate of customary right of occupancy
(CCRO). The acts recognize occupancy of land and seek to legally
secure existing rights, especially the customary rights of smallholders.
to purchase equipment and inputs in order to increase production, food
Ali Mtuli
and Edna
Mafunde
security, and livelihood standards.
Pawaga Division,
They give women the same rights as men to acquire, hold, use, and
transfer land, either in their own name or jointly with men, regardless
of customary and religious restrictions. Aside from securing land tenure,
CCROs were also intended to be used as collateral, enabling farmers
Tanzania
There have been challenges, however, in implementing the acts.
Most occupancy rights have not been registered, and as CCROs are not
recognized as instruments of mortgage, financial institutions are reluctant to recognize them as collateral. In addition, while the land laws
recognize women’s equal right to secure tenure, customary law and traditional practices can mean these provisions are not realized. Married
women are not allowed to transact property without their husband’s
“When we have the money we would be interested in
getting one [a CCRO] to ensure security of our land.
Previously land was not valued, but demand is
increasing now, and we hear on the news that people
are beginning to grab land, so it is worth protecting.”
permission, and attitudes and behaviors can be such that women prefer not to be involved in land issues.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders
41
Given these difficulties, the government initiat-
THE SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL
Ngara
ed a Strategic Plan for the Implementation of
GROWTH CORRIDOR OF TANZANIA
the Land Acts in 2006. The issuance of land
Southern Agricultural
Growth Corridor of Tanzania
(indicative)
Concern’s Program Areas
Concern’s Country Office
title is also a pillar of Kilimo Kwanza, the
national strategy that attempts to trans-
Kigoma
form Tanzanian agriculture into a modern commercial sector. The challenges
remain, but the need to accelerate the
TANZANIA
DAR ES SALAAM
process grows as the government actively
Source: Based on SAGCOT (2012).
Note: The Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor covers approximately one-third of mainland
Tanzania. It extends north and south of the
central rail, road, and power “backbone” that
runs from Dar es Salaam to the northern areas
of Zambia and Malawi.
Iringa
pursues initiatives to increase production and
encourage commercial investment in the sector.
Concern’s Work on Land Title and Irrigation
Concern Worldwide has been working in Tan-
Mtwara
zania since 1978, when it was invited by the
first president, Julius Nyerere, to implement
community development projects in Iringa.
Located in the southern highlands, this region was once the bread-
THE KEY STEPS IN THE CCRO PROCESS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
basket of Tanzania. Over the past 20 years, however, Iringa has
>
suffered persistent periods of drought. In 2011 alone, more than
43,000 of its population of 245,000 required food assistance.
Providing resources to district land officers, including GPS stations,
computers, registry boxes, land seals, and software;
>
Holding awareness-raising meetings on Village Land Act No. 5 of
1999 and Land Dispute Act No. 2 of 2002;
Land remains of vital importance to the people of Iringa, with
90 percent of the population earning its living from agriculture and
>
Forming land tribunals and committees;
livestock production. Much of the potential remains untapped, howev-
>
Training tribunals and committees on their responsibilities;
er, and while 40 percent of its land is suitable for agriculture, just over
>
Preparing village land use plans in collaboration with the Village
23.3 percent is actually cultivated.
Council and Village Assembly;
Securing land title and irrigation are two core elements of
>
Concern’s work in this region and beyond. Since 2006, Concern’s
Demarcating and surveying village boundaries in collaboration with
Village Land Committees;
livelihoods programs have focused on the fulfilment of the right to
>
Preparing and issuing the certificates of villages;
an adequate standard of living for poor and vulnerable citizens in
>
Carrying out land adjudication of individual land parcels within the
village;
Iringa, Kilolo, and Mtwara districts. A key objective of its programs
is to increase access to, and control over, land by formalizing own-
>
ership through acquisition of CCROs. These efforts have borne
much fruit. Concern has supported the issuance of more than
facilities such as seals, village land registers, and cabinets;
>
Establishing a database of land-related information such as GPS
coordinates for land parcels;
9,500 CCROs, equal to approximately 16 percent of the total number issued across Tanzania since the Land Acts first came into
>
force in 2001.
>
Since 2009, Iringa District has demarcated 103 of its 125 vil-
Establishing village land registries and equipping registries with
Registering and issuing CCROs to individual owners; and
Paying the cost per CCRO, per household, as set by the District
Land Council of TSh50,000 (US$31.60).
lages and issued village land certificates to each in preparation for
demarcation and issuance of individual CCROs to households. Concern
The Benefits of Land Titling
has supported the development of village land use plans in 12 villag-
This collaboration has been among the most successful of its kind in
es and provided support for all other steps in the titling process with
Tanzania in terms of the number of land titles issued. For individual
the exception of demarcation and survey of boundaries, for which the
farmers, the overwhelming benefit is security. Land titles give farmers
District Land and Village Council is responsible. More than 8,000 land
legal recognition. If land is appropriated thereafter, compensation must
titles have been issued in Iringa District, of which more than 6,000
be paid. This is particularly important in light of a new government ini-
were supported by Concern.
tiative launched at the World Economic Forum Africa Summit in 2010.
42
The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders | Chapter 04 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
The Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT)
encompasses one-third of mainland Tanzania, stretching from Dar Es
Salaam in the east to Morogoro, Iringa, Mbeya, and Sumbawanga in
the west. It is a strategy designed to empower both smallholder and
larger-scale farmers to make a commercial success of farming through
partnership with government, businesses, and donors. Over time, this
Hamidu N’gulali
initiative is likely to have a significant impact on smallholder farmers
Ruaha Village, Tanzania
as commercial enterprises look to invest in Tanzania. Ensuring that
those farmers have secure tenure is an important step in strengthening their position in the future.
Access to loans, which enable farmers to invest and increase their
yields, is a second tangible benefit of land titling. The process has also
clarified the amount of land actually available. Many villages and local
authorities have discovered there is not as much land as initially thought.
“Growing onions is very demanding, and lack of labor
has been a big constraint. It is not possible to prepare
your farm and plant on your own. And despite
cultivating the whole acre of rice this year, I was still
only able to manage 10 bags as the rain stopped
earlier this year.”
According to the Assistant Commissioner for Land, Southern Zone,
Msigwa Malaki, “When the land was demarcated, we thought there was
enough; we thought there was idle land. But when it was surveyed, the
villages found that they did not have enough land for inclusion under
SAGCOT” (Msigwa Malaki, personal communication). Clearer boundaries
and ownership of natural resources have reduced the opportunities for
The Challenge of Irrigation
Safia Mohamed
Kikwebe
Securing a land title is part of the solution. Water is also a major
Kibondo District, Tanzania
exploitation as well as the number of ongoing disputes.
issue for the farmers of Iringa. With rainfall patterns becoming
increasingly unpredictable, reliance on rainfed agriculture is becoming too risky. Less than 40 percent of the district has irrigation, and
many farmers are unable to cultivate their land. For this reason, irrigation is a key component of Concern’s Integrated Livelihood Programme, which works with the District Ministry of Agriculture to
improve irrigation infrastructure by supporting improvement of canals
“I feel even if I die, I know the land is safe as I have
written the names of four of my children on the
certificate, two girls and two boys. (Four was the
maximum number I could include.) I have 6.23
acres of land, and I grow maize, beans, potatoes,
and cassava.”
and construction of water gates. The introduction of drip irrigation
has also become a key strategy for Concern.
In Luganga, for example, gates have been installed along the
canal to help regulate the amount of water flowing to farmers. Concern
has supported the strengthening and training of water user groups and
their management committees—consisting of and elected by the vil-
“One of my sons is married, so I farm and my son
helps me. We also exchange crops, so if either of
us has a problem we share the harvest (cassava or
maize). I eat two meals a day, lunch and dinner, as
I go to farm very early.”
lagers themselves—who are responsible for monitoring water usage,
collecting fees, and overseeing maintenance of the canal. This canal
provides irrigation to 300 farmers, who are able to cultivate their farms,
increase their food security, and improve their livelihoods.
This progress is not without problems though. Loss of water
through seepage along the canal has been a challenge that, if addressed,
“I think the certificate is important. One
advantage is that you can rent your farm out for
money. I plan to do so if there is an emergency. I can
rent the land out so I can still pay for the children to
go to school.”
could enable a second harvest, improving food security and incomes. Water
loss also affects the value of the land, which decreases as production falls.
Conversely, the value of land increases with access to water. At the begin-
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders
43
ning of 2012, a temporary connector was put in place to facilitate the flow
tected through land title before companies enter into areas that are being
of water to an additional 450 farms. Since its construction, the volume
utilized already. Titles should precede determination of SAGCOT areas.
available to all farms has fallen, reducing the level of production.
Water-related tensions between pastoralists and farmers in the
There is a need for more communication and information in relation to land titling on the part of both the community and local Village Coun-
district are also becoming more common. Although pastoralists may
cils too. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about the process
have designated land, their land may not have a water source, leaving
and who has responsibility for instigating it. Official procedures call for
them at times with little choice but to encroach on farmland and accept
farmers to apply to the Village Land Council and have their claim veri-
that they will have to pay a fee to the relevant farmer to allow their ani-
fied by the Village Land Tribunal; then a batch of applications is sent
mals’ access to pasture and water.
to the District Land Department. At times, though, Village Councils
were waiting for the District Land Department to approach and notify
them of their next visit to demarcate land.
Moving Forward with Land Titling
While benefits of the land titling process in Iringa are beginning to emerge,
Concern’s experience with the titling process highlights the need
progress rolling out the Land Acts has been extremely slow since they
for strong political will, alongside complementary policies and integrated
first came into force in 2001. According to the Iringa District land offi-
programming initiatives, including supportive financial and extension ser-
cer, land has not been given priority in national budgets, and sectors such
vices and water programs. Each of these elements is as important as the
as health, education, and infrastructure have been prioritized instead.
other. In the absence of any one, the overall impact will be diminished while
Iringa has a total district budget of TSh189 million. Of this total, TSh10
together, they can sustain and strengthen the considerable investment in
million have been allocated to come from the national government. The
and impact of the land-titling process in Tanzania in the years to come.
District Land Office estimates that in reality, they are likely to receive just
one-third of what has been allocated. Furthermore, the amount for land
Conclusion
administration in Iringa has been capped at TSh5.4 million (US$3,412)
The examples from both Sierra Leone and Tanzania show the particular
for 2012/2013. Pressure on overall budgets and limits on the budget for
vulnerabilities of smallholder producers given scarcity of resources and
land administration raise questions and concerns in relation to the prior-
increased competition. Though national policies such as the Smallhold-
ity being given to the issue of land title. More investment is required if
er Commercialization Programme in Sierra Leone and the Land Acts in
more communities and farmers are to get titles.
Tanzania may be in place, the actual benefit to small-scale family farm-
Over the past 10 years, the government has made agricultural
ers appears limited. Findings suggest that such policies can reach their
investment an increasing priority. With the high-level promotion of SAG-
full potential and respond to the rights and needs of smallholder farmers
COT, it is particularly important that similar support, both technical and
only if they are accompanied by the appropriate resources and capacities
financial, be given to land and the land-titling process. People must be pro-
and recognized as part of a wider vision of “agricultural modernization”
that is explicitly and implicitly supportive of smallholder farmers.
Chapter 5 puts forward recommendations detailing the requisite policies and frameworks for responsible governance of natural
resources. It presents technical advances and approaches that have
successfully managed to address the interconnectedness of land, water,
and energy policies, as well as the measures that should be taken to
address the drivers of the rush for resources.
Kaleta Sharaba Kabika
Kibondo District, Tanzania
“We own the land, cultivate it, and get food for our children.
I would feel bad if my name was not on the certificate. If my
husband died this would be a risk to me and my children. Another risk is that my husband could sell the land or rent it without my knowledge. Now because the certificate is in both our
names, it has to be a joint decision if we wish to sell or rent it.”
44
The program has a planned budget of US$403 million. However, as of July 2012 the SCP had
been accorded US$50 million from the multi-donor Global Agriculture and Food Security Program
(GAFSP), administered by the World Bank. Furthermore, the Islamic Development Bank had
announced a contribution of US$20 million. A number of other programs, with a joint volume of
US$83 million, are understood as forming part of the SCP because they support some of the program’s components (the World Bank’s Rural Private Sector Program, the African Development
Bank’s Agricultural Rehabilitation Program, and the Rural Finance and Community Improvement
Program and Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project of the International Fund for Agricultural Development).
17
These monitoring data are from the Sierra Leonean nongovernmental organization Green Scenery
(www.greenscenery.org).
18
In August 2011 Welthungerhilfe commissioned an independent case study to get a better insight
into the perspectives of local farmers on the deal and to understand the early impacts of the land
acquisition. The full study can be accessed through Welthungerhilfe’s webpage (Melbach 2012).
16
The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders | Chapter 04 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
BOX 4.2
A CASE STUDY OF LAND TITLING IN IRINGA DISTRICT, TANZANIA
Although Anna has had her title for four
years, she has not used it to obtain credit. But she knows exactly what she would
do with a loan: “I would like to borrow
TSh500,000 to buy pigs and grow more
crops. I would like to diversify the crops that
I grow and earn more money, but I am not
sure how to go about getting a loan.”
Uncertainty about using the titles to obtain
credit is a common challenge in Iringa. So
far only 21 of the more than 8,000 people
with titles have been able to use their land
titles as collateral. Furthermore, these farms
were generally well developed, grew cash
crops, and were more mechanized. Financial institutions look for these characteristics and thereby limit opportunities for
smallholder producers.
In addition, the titles are not yet fully recognized as instruments of mortgage, and as
a result financial institutions are reluctant
or unwilling to accept them. While the
Ministry of Land is currently working on
getting titles included in the Land Registration Act, this will take time. In the meantime the benefit of the asset is being limited, given the lack of additional relevant
information and complementary supportive policies.
Water is an additional challenge for Anna.
“If I don’t get enough water from the
Anna Mdeka proudly holds up her certificate of customary right of occupancy (CCRO).
canal, weeds sprout on my land. The canal
is not in good shape. If Concern had not
Anna Mdeka proudly holds up her CCRO.
came home he encouraged me to apply. He
been rehabilitating it over the last three
For her, this title represents important
explained that the CCRO could be used to
years, we would not be able to farm in this
security and independence. Some years
apply for credit, and I liked the thought of
village.” Anna’s plot is on the canal, and
ago, Anna lost one of her legs, and her life
avoiding being harassed about my farm. As
she can grow rice, harvesting between 26
changed in a number of ways. Whereas she
I am married, I had to approach my hus-
and 30 bags of rice a season. Once the
used to engage in trade, she now relies sole-
band about the application. He has two
main harvest is over and the land becomes
ly on her farm for her livelihood. Concern
other wives but agreed to give me two acres
drier, she grows maize. On average she
Worldwide first started supporting the CCRO
of land, and I applied for the CCRO in my
earns TSh600,000 (US$380) a season.
process in Luganga village, Pawaga Divi-
name only.”
She also trades some of her rice for maize
sion, in 2006, working with the Village
Concern supported Anna through the process,
and meat.
Council to raise awareness about the pro-
covering the fee of TSh50,000 (US$31.60)
Before leaving, Anna explains that her
cess and to survey and demarcate land.
estimated by the Iringa District Land Office
CCRO inspired her husband to look into the
Anna’s was among the first farms to be sur-
for demarcation and preparation of the title.
process, and he has since secured his own.
veyed in 2008, and a year later, she was
For Anna, the main benefit of having a title
Concern’s support of the titling process is
one of the first five people to receive an offi-
is a feeling of security, as she knows those
expanding, empowering many within the
cial CCRO.
two acres belong to her and cannot be taken
community to secure control over the land
“It was my son who first told me about the
away. As one of three wives, Anna also now
they have farmed for years. In 2011, a fur-
CCROs. He had been at a meeting where
has more independence and protection over
ther 119 parcels of land were surveyed and
they were talking about it, and when he
her own livelihood.
demarcated in Anna’s village.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | The Centrality of Land, Water, and Energy for Smallholders
45
05
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
“States can and must achieve a reorientation of their agricultural systems
towards modes of production that contribute to the progressive
realization of the human right to adequate food.”
–
–
–
–
–
–
–46
Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
In the coming decades food security will be increasingly challenged by
Against this backdrop, there are three overall areas in which action
water, land, and energy scarcity. If progress and improvements to the
is needed:
well-being and nutritional status of the poor are to be realized, we will
need to make a diverse range of foods more available and accessible,
1. Responsible governance of natural resources: getting the policy
identify and address wasteful practices and policies, and assure local
frameworks right
communities of greater control over and access to productive resources.
a. Secure land and water rights
b. Phase out subsidies
As a result of growing food price volatility and food price spikes,
c. Create a macroeconomic enabling environment
in part driven by land, water, and energy scarcity, many countries have
started to rethink agriculture and food security strategies. This rethinking provides an opportunity to ensure that food security strategies are
2. Scaling up technical approaches: addressing the nexus
aligned with plans in relation to land, water, and energy. More holistic
a. Invest in agricultural production technologies that support
strategies for dealing with land, water, energy, and food can reduce the
increased land, water, and energy efficiency
adverse impacts of policy incoherence across these areas and promote
b. Foster approaches resulting in more efficient land, water, and
the sharing of successful innovation.
energy use along the value chain
Greater collaboration is needed among government ministries
c. Prevent resource depletion by monitoring and evaluating strategies in water, land, energy, and agricultural systems
as well as with communities, civil society, and the private sector in policy design, implementation, and monitoring. It is crucial to monitor both
the human and the environmental outcomes of developments in the
3. Addressing the drivers of natural resource scarcity: managing the risks
land, water, and energy sectors and of alternative agricultural and food
a. Address demographic change, women’s access to education, and
and nutrition strategies.
reproductive health
b. Raise incomes, lower inequality, and promote sustainable lifestyles
c. Mitigate and adapt to climate change through agriculture
FIGURE 5.1
USING LAND, WATER, AND ENERGY SYNERGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY
Water
Local, national, international
policies coordinated
Land
>
Secure land rights
>
Transparent foreign direct investments
>
>
Efficient use of water
>
Secure water rights
>
Integrated watershed and pasture
management
Sustainable
food
security
Preservation of biodiversity
>
Soil conservation
Energy
>
Rigorous assessment of
renewable energy
>
Planning at the landscape level
>
Focus on sustainable,
long-term gains
Land use changes reflect priority
for food security
>
Scaling-up energy efficient
approaches and technologies
Synergies are fully utilized
>
Agroforestry
Source: Authors.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 05 | Policy Recommendations
47
Responsible Governance of
Natural Resources: Getting the Policy
Frameworks Right
Akello Grace Acyanga
Lira, Uganda
Secure Land and Water Rights
As natural resources become scarcer, how land and water rights are allocated will have increasing implications for the social and economic devel-
“Land is the only wealth people are left with in the
village, and people think if they sell it, they have sold
everything they have.”
opment of states and their citizens, and particular impacts on the livelihoods of the poor.
Though most regions of the world have some form of rights system, many are underdeveloped and underfinanced and neither grounded
“I think my children will not have sufficient
fuelwood for cooking and heating in the future
because the current generations are cutting down trees
for fuelwood and they are not replacing them.”
in statutory law nor respectful of customary arrangements. In these contexts, rights holders are vulnerable to expropriation. The recent increase
in the number of land deals within and between countries has amplified
these challenges and raised important questions about how rights to local
resources should be handled in such cases.
In May 2012 the Committee on World Food Security adopted Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (see Box 5.1).
These guidelines allow government authorities, the private sector, civil
society, and citizens to judge whether their proposed actions and the
actions of others constitute acceptable practices and are geared toward
protecting smallholder land and water rights. Moreover, the Committee
on World Food Security is currently debating principles for responsible
agricultural investment that will become available in 2013. Preliminary
studies on cases of land acquisition have shown that the rights of small
Immaculate Nakee
farmers and marginalized groups have so far not sufficiently been taken
Nakapiripirit District, Uganda
stakeholders to stop large-scale land acquisitions need to be examined
into account. Therefore, requests by farmers’ organizations and other
in the light of these guidelines and principles.
“To increase water and energy supplies and access to
land, the communities should be sensitized, elderly
people should launch a campaign to educate the actors
to stop excessive cutting of big trees, more boreholes
should be drilled where there are new settlements, and
rainwater ponds should be constructed for animals and
domestic use.”
Phase Out Subsidies
To ensure more sustainable and efficient use of water, land, and energy
resources, direct subsidies for fuels and fertilizer should be phased out.
Instead, countries should provide limited, carefully targeted direct payments to support poor farmers and consumers. Subsidies on water and
energy lead to the overuse of these scarce resources, put pressure on
tight government budgets, and often fail to reach the poorest producers
and consumers. Nonetheless, many countries subsidize water and energy, both directly (through fuel or electricity subsidies and free delivery of
irrigation water) and indirectly (by subsidizing fertilizers) in order to provide income support for farmers and boost production. The International Energy Agency suggests that global fossil fuel subsidies may rise to
US$660 billion in 2020 from US$409 billion in 2010. In contrast, renewable energy subsidies totaled US$66 billion in 2010. These fossil fuel
48
Policy Recommendations | Chapter 05 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
subsidies do not necessarily help the poorest people. In 2010 the poorest
cipitation, climate change is projected to reduce crop productivity in devel-
20 percent of the population received approximately 8 percent of the
oping countries and thus to substantially increase their imports of major
US$409 billion (IEA 2011), and the more than 1 billion people without
grains. Trade can partially compensate for the projected loss of produc-
access to modern forms of energy were fully excluded from this support.
tivity and thus help spread the risks associated with climate change,
In South Asia, increased national spending on energy subsidies
is raising pressure on groundwater resources (because energy is used to
increasing the resilience of individual countries that might be hard hit by
climatic events in particular seasons or years.
pump water for irrigation) and energy supplies. For example, partly as a
Farmers should be encouraged to move up the value chain by
result of energy subsidies, up to 60 percent of India’s food production
assuming increased roles in processing, packaging, and marketing
now stems from groundwater resources, which are often exploited at
their products. By promoting economies of scale, cooperatives can
unsustainable levels.
make it easier for farmers to add value (see case study on Sierra
To reduce dependence on fossil fuels, some countries increasingly focus on sources of renewable energy. So far, however, these renewable
Leone in Chapter 4), help them gain a stronger market position, and
open avenues for trade.
energy strategies continue to depend heavily on first-generation biofuels.
Although biofuel development can be beneficial to the economies of some
countries, such as Brazil, the biofuel mandates instituted by the United
Scaling Up Technical Approaches
States, the European Union, and a handful of other countries have contributed to reducing both the quantity and quality of water and land avail-
Invest in Agricultural Production Technologies That Support
able for growing food, hence contributing to higher food prices and to
Increased Land, Water, and Energy Efficiency
increased competition for land. This competition has major risks for small-
Although private investment is rising, few developing-country governments
holder farmers in countries were land is being leased (see Chapter 4).
have increased their investments in agricultural research, development,
or extension, which have benefits for poor people’s food security and
Create a Macroeconomic Enabling Framework
income. In the 2003 Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Secu-
Market solutions, which encourage behavior through market signals rath-
rity, African governments committed themselves to allocate at least 10
er than through explicit directives, can provide payments to farmers who
percent of national budgetary resources to agriculture and rural develop-
conserve water, land, and associated ecosystem services (Stavins 2005).
ment policy within five years. As of 2008, only eight countries had met
For example, the formal and informal water markets that have developed
this goal. Nine countries reported rates between 5 and 10 percent, and
in water-scarce, agriculture-dependent countries have been shown to sig-
28 others reported rates of less than 5 percent (Omilola et al. 2010).
nificantly increase the efficiency of water and energy use (Easter, Rose-
However, not only the quantity, but also the quality of investment
grant, and Dinar 1998). Payments for ecosystem services, for example,
must adjust to maximize water, land, and energy security for better food
from downstream reservoirs to upstream farmers and foresters who reduce
and nutrition outcomes. Most past efforts have focused on improving
erosion in watersheds is another way to promote efficient use of resourc-
seeds and ensuring that farmers are provided with a set of inputs that can
es and avoid the negative impacts of poor resource use, but this approach
increase yields. This approach replicates an industrial process, in which
depends on identifying downstream entities that can and want to pay for
external inputs serve to produce outputs in a linear model of production.
these services.
Instead, smart, site-specific agroecological approaches that increase pro-
Enhanced regional and international trade can help make produc-
duction, conserve natural resources, and are tailored to specific human
tion more efficient and ensure that agricultural products are produced in
and environmental conditions should be favored. Such approaches include
those countries where inputs are most abundant or cheaply available. To
integrated soil fertility management, alternate wetting and drying of rice
ensure that trade generates full and equitable benefits, continued devel-
land and direct seeding of rice, on-time water delivery and microirriga-
opment of domestic and regional institutions and pro-poor policies to man-
tion, and increased fertilizer use efficiency.
age globalization is important. In particular, there is a need for reform of
For example, integrated soil fertility management involves apply-
fiscal and financial policies and institutions; property and contract laws
ing both organic and inorganic fertilizers to the soil while also practicing
that foster modern commerce; flexible and efficient markets for products,
reduced tillage and increasing the reuse of crop residues—practices that
labor, and capital; and development of technology and human capital.
help protect the soil and add nutrients. Many studies in Sub-Saharan Afri-
Enhanced trade of agricultural commodities is also relevant to
ca have shown that integrated soil fertility management increases the soil
help offset the negative effects of climate change on agricultural produc-
moisture content, improves energy efficiency, and raises farmers’ crop
tivity (Nelson et al. 2009b). Through its effects on temperature and pre-
yields. It also increases soil organic carbon, which is particularly crucial
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 05 | Policy Recommendations
49
in this region (see, for example, Bryan et al. 2011; Bationo et al. 2007;
BOX 5.1
NEW GUIDELINES ON GOVERNING LAND,
Marenya et al. 2012). Alternate wetting and drying of rice fields, direct
FISHERIES, AND FORESTS
seeding of rice, and dryland rice cultivation are all technologies that can,
under appropriate conditions, reduce water use, energy use, and green-
New Guidelines on Governing Land, Fisheries, and Forests
house gas emissions while maintaining or increasing crop yields. Several
In May 2012 the United Nations Committee on World Food
of these technologies are now being adopted for their labor-saving rather
Security adopted a set of voluntary guidelines to help countries
than their natural resource–conserving properties. For example, direct
establish laws and policies to better govern land, fishery, and
seeding of rice, which helps conserve labor (Pandey and Velasco 2005),
forest tenure rights, with the ultimate aim of supporting food
has been adopted on almost half of all rice area in Vietnam (Farooq et al.
security and sustainable development. Over the course of almost
2011). There are, however, no general solutions. The best approach for
three years, 96 national governments, civil society organiza-
each set of conditions must be determined on a case by case basis.
tions, private sector entities, international organizations, and
academics participated in developing the guidelines.
Foster Approaches That Lead to More Efficient Land, Water,
Though the guidelines have been discussed predominantly in
and Energy Use along the Value Chain
connection with large-scale land acquisitions (“land grabbing”),
To ensure that food and nutrition objectives for poor, food-insecure com-
they actually address a wide range of issues including:
munities and households can be met, it is important to go beyond agri-
>
>
>
recognition and protection of legitimate tenure rights, also
cultural production to assess the implications of water, land, and energy
under informal systems
policies along the entire value chain. Water and energy efficiency should
best practices for registering and transferring tenure rights
be increased in the processing and retail sectors as well; and transporta-
(including making tenure administrative systems accessible
tion, transaction, and trade costs of the final product should be factored
and affordable)
into land intensification plans as well as new land development.
management of expropriations and restitution of land to
Some recent studies suggest there is significant potential for
people who were forcibly evicted in the past
reducing postharvest losses along the value chain from the farm to the
approaches to ensuring that investment in agricultural lands
consumer in both the developing and developed world (see, for exam-
occurs responsibly and transparently, including consider-
ple, Gustavsson, Cederberg, and Sonesson 2011). If postharvest loss-
ation of investment models that do not result in the large-
es of agricultural commodities in developing countries account for
scale transfer of tenure rights
10–40 percent of total production, depending on the commodity, and
>
mechanisms for resolving disputes over tenure rights
if a significant share of these losses could be reduced, pressure on
>
good practices and policies for land consolidation and redis-
energy, water, and land resources could be considerably lowered.
>
tributive reforms, where required
>
Other studies, however, have found that developing-country
transparent and participatory implementation of regulated
postharvest losses might be much lower (see, for example, Greeley
spatial planning
1982; Reardon, Chen, and Minten, forthcoming), and the economics of
loss recovery has yet to be established (see, for example, Rosegrant,
The adoption of the voluntary guidelines is only a first step. The
Tokgoz, and Bhandary 2012). To better understand the potential bene-
FAO, with partners, is now developing a series of technical hand-
fits of reducing postharvest losses and food waste, researchers must
books designed to help countries adapt the guidelines to their
better assess the recoverable losses along the value chain for key com-
local context and put them into play. To the same end, the FAO
modities and analyze the cost of reducing those losses through specific
will also provide targeted technical assistance to governments.
interventions in developing and developed countries.
Equally if not more important will be support to civil society.
Funds and training should be made available to allow civil soci-
Prevent Resource Depletion by Monitoring and Evaluating Strategies
ety to use the voluntary guidelines as a tool to monitor govern-
in Water, Land, Energy, and Agricultural Systems
ment policies and to increase government accountability—
The long-term availability of natural resources is crucial for food security.
especially in those countries where the secure use of and
The increasing demand for agricultural products needs to be addressed
access to natural resources provides for the livelihood of large
in a sustainable way to prevent resource depletion. To fully reflect the
parts of the population.
value of natural resources and set appropriate incentives to help manage
them sustainably, decisionmakers should take into account the full cost
50
Policy Recommendations | Chapter 05 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
of environmental degradation as well as the full range of benefits and services that ecosystems provide. To do so, however, they need information
on which technologies and development pathways can optimally promote
food security, poverty alleviation, and environmental sustainability.
The links between water, land, energy, and food mean that we
need better ways to track, monitor, and evaluate the impacts of poli-
Jean Véa Dieudonné
cies supporting the sustainable use of natural resources. In the case
Jacmel, Haiti
of food, agriculture, and bioenergy, new metrics are necessary to
assess, for example, the nutrition and health implications of natural
resource strategies as well as the effects on food security strategies.
“In 10 years the prices for land have tripled, and a
tendency has developed to pay in US dollars.”
Once established, the best approaches can be developed into monitoring systems to generate evidence for sound policies.
In recent years, several initiatives have started to monitor the
socioeconomic and environmental impacts of agricultural systems. It
is important that these initiatives develop a wide range of indicators
“We must rather say that things have changed but not
in the right direction. The water does not suffice for
the population; neither does the electricity. All the
land on the outskirts of the city has become slums.”
encompassing water, energy, land use, food, nutrition, and health outcomes. Moreover, indicators need to be simple and affordable to collect, including by developing-country government agencies and farmers themselves. Most important, such monitoring systems must be
transparent, and data must be provided in a timely manner, allowing
“What should be done to improve the situation is
better management of the natural resources we have
and better control of the distribution of these
resources.”
governments, the private sector, and civil society to make appropriate
adjustments in response to indicator values. To integrate modern science with local knowledge, monitoring and research should be conducted with local farmers, particularly small-scale producers. Their participation will ensure that solutions are not one-size-fits-all, but fitted
to the specific circumstances and responsive to actual needs.
Addressing the Drivers of Natural
Resource Scarcity
Address Demographic Change, Women’s Access to Education, and
Reproductive Health
Economists, demographers, and policymakers have long debated the relationships between reproductive health, population change, and economic well-being. In recent years, however, a growing number of studies across
U Khwin Thein
Pauk Township, Myanmar
“I know that the forest around our village was badly
denuded. When I was young, perhaps 20 years of
age, the forest between Pauk and our village was very
dense. Nobody could dare to pass through it even
during daytime.”
disciplines have shown that declines in fertility affect the structure of a
country’s population (see, for example, World Bank 2007; Joshi 2012).
The emerging age structure has a lower dependency ratio (fewer young and older people per working-age adult), which creates a window of opportunity for economic development. Studies have also shown
that access to family-planning services contributes to a reduction in
fertility, which frees up household resources and allows women to make
more investments in education. Better access to education, particular-
“In fact, perhaps the situation could be improved with
the introduction of alternative fuel sources other than
wood and perhaps by using fuel-efficient stoves. I had
once such a stove made out of clay. I kept it for a
long time to show it to others and encourage them to
use it. But myself, I could never use it because I did
not manage to persuade my wife….”
ly by women, will in turn lead to positive food and nutrition security
outcomes: the 2009 Global Hunger Index report suggests that there is
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 05 | Policy Recommendations
51
a particularly strong relationship between education and hunger. Educated women have better nutritional status themselves, are better cared
for, and provide higher-quality care for their children. To help address
the challenge of providing adequate family-planning services, a recent
U Ye Myint
Pauk Township, Myanmar
“As my village is located in the lowlands near the Yaw
River, it is easy to drill wells and find water. We suffer
from too much instead of too little water, especially in
the latter part of the rainy season. Water is pouring on
the village from uphill and endangering houses.
Therefore we want to reforest these 5 acres on top of
the hill in order to reduce the water flow.”
summit on family planning led to pledges toward halving the number
of women in developing countries who want, but lack access to, modern contraception (DFID 2012).
Raise Incomes, Lower Inequality, and Promote Sustainable Lifestyles
Rising income levels, with corresponding changes in lifestyle and consumption patterns, are likely to increase demand for a wide range of
goods and services. Developing countries will have valuable opportunities to realize the wealth-creating potential of water, energy, and land
resources, but they also face the risk of using these resources in ways
that exacerbate economic inequality and environmental degradation.
Natural resources are often the principal source of income for
the world’s poorest people. In countries with weak governance of natural resources, civil society and the international community need to
help strengthen governance systems by monitoring the natural resource
base and ensuring that it is not expropriated at the expense of marginalized parts of society. Programs and initiatives such as those described
in Chapter 4 can help strengthen the capacity of civil society groups
to support poor and marginalized people in securing their rights and
sustaining their livelihoods.
At the same time, economic growth in many developing countries is associated with more resource-intensive lifestyles that have
Lespérence Fedner
proven to be unsustainable. Rising incomes should therefore be used
Technical Coordinator, Welthungerhilfe,
demonstrate the potential of lifestyles that are consistent with sustain-
Jean Rabel, Haiti
able global development. Such lifestyles must not only be environmen-
as an opportunity to leapfrog unsustainable natural resource use and
tally sustainable, but also allow poorer countries to catch up with the
“During recent years, land prices have
increased dramatically.... The pressure on
land leads to the urbanization of areas which are
actually reserved for agriculture.”
industrial countries in terms of human well-being. The largest onus of
adjusting resource-intensive lifestyles, however, will remain with the
industrial countries, in the interest of both sustainability and equality.
Moreover, broader action is needed to address the growing gap
between the rich and the poor. While the exact dimensions of inequali-
“The population must be conscious, motivated, and
aware of the problem of availability of resources for
the future needs of our children.”
ty vary from country to country, depending on the ethnic, regional, and
religious situation, a systematic picture of inequality between rural and
urban populations, between social or ethnic groups, and between the
poorest and the rich is evident for almost all regions of the globe. In view
of the growing inequities outlined in the Conventional World scenario in
Chapter 3, increased investments in agriculture, rural infrastructure,
health, education, and social protection19 are urgently needed in lowincome developing countries to close the gaps between the rich and the
poor and promote a model of development that is both socially and environmentally more sustainable. The industrial countries need to recon-
52
Policy Recommendations | Chapter 05 | 2012 Global Hunger Index
sider their lifestyles and consumption patterns and demonstrate that
responsible use of natural resources benefits everyone in society.
Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change through Agriculture
Sustainable practices are critical for helping agriculture adapt to climate
change. At the same time, agriculture has been shown to significantly
Ebwongu Edison
contribute to climate change, primarily by producing and releasing green-
Kaberamaido district, Uganda
house gases and altering land cover and land use. Consequently, it will
be necessary not only to reduce the adverse impacts of climate change
on agriculture and the rural poor but also to minimize agriculture’s impact
on the climate. Developing countries will require funding for both agricultural adaptation and mitigation, and this financial and technical assistance should be additional to other aid commitments. It should also be
targeted to those countries and regions most vulnerable to climate
change, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Critical adaptation measures include targeted investments in agri-
“I foresee my children not having sufficient water in
the future. This is because currently we are already
facing a safe water shortage (something that never
used to happen in our village). Additionally, with the
rapidly increasing population, there will be continuously
growing contamination of the underground water wells
due to human activities. This will render most of the
water sources unfit for human consumption.”
cultural research and extension, rural infrastructure, and strengthened
social protection programs. The goal should be to develop crops and livestock that are resilient in a range of production environments. Within
countries, extension programs can help farmers adapt through new tech-
“To counteract the scarcity of land, there is a need to
sensitize the community to practice family planning to
check the rapidly growing population.”
nologies, build farmers’ knowledge and skills, and encourage them to form
networks for sharing information and developing community-based adaptation options, such as farmer-managed irrigation systems and tree nurseries. Understanding the interactions between agriculture and climate
well enough to support adaptation and mitigation activities requires major
improvements in data collection, dissemination, and analysis.
In addition, greenhouse gas mitigation in the agricultural sector
should be addressed through policy reforms. To date, agriculture has
played a relatively minor role in greenhouse gas mitigation. Because of
Daw Thaung Kyi
the large number of smallholder farmers that need to participate in miti-
Pauk Township, Myanmar
gation projects to achieve significant savings in greenhouse gases, the
administrative cost of agricultural mitigation is higher than in other sectors. In addition, more research is needed to establish the greenhouse
gas savings from a number of specific agricultural practices. Carbon market schemes for agriculture could help reduce carbon emissions, although
so far they have proven effective only for large-scale farmers. If the transaction costs for small-scale projects can be reduced, they might be an
important source of income for small-scale farmers in the future. Most,
“When I was young my parents’ main earnings were
from charcoal burning. I became to know that is a
main cause for the lack of forest nowadays. And if
there are no trees, rain may be lacking. I would like to
plant some trees to get good timber in order to
construct a house. And I also have great interest in
installing a solar plate in order to get electric light.”
if not all, agricultural practices that have been shown to reduce emissions
also increase productivity and reduce other environmental impacts. Examples are agroecological approaches, such as integrated soil fertility management, which can be adapted to specific conditions.
Social protection includes benefits provided by governments to individuals or households to reduce hunger, poverty, and other forms of deprivation. These benefits include safety nets, such as public works
schemes or cash welfare payments; drought, illness, and unemployment insurance; and other social sector policies including direct nutrition interventions and free primary education.
19
2012 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 05 | Policy Recommendations
53
A
APPENDIX
Data Sources and Calculation of the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012
THE GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:
Global Hunger Index Scores
All three index components are expressed in percentages and weighted
equally. Higher GHI values indicate more hunger. The index varies between
GHI = (PUN + CUW + CM)/3
a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 100, but these extremes do not occur
with
GHI: Global Hunger Index
PUN: proportion of the population that is
in practice. The maximum value of 100 would be reached only if all chil-
undernourished (in %)
dren died before their fifth birthday, the whole population was undernour-
CUW: prevalence of underweight in children
ished, and all children under five were underweight. The minimum value
younger than five (in %)
of zero would mean that a country had no undernourished people in the
population, no children under five who were underweight, and no children
CM:
proportion of children dying before the
age of five (in %)
who died before their fifth birthday. The table below provides an overview
of the data sources for the Global Hunger Index.
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX COMPONENTS, 1990 GHI, 1996 GHI, 2001 GHI, AND 2012 GHI
GHI
Number of
Indicators
Reference years
Data sources
1990–92 b
FAO 2011a and authors’ estimates
1988–92 c
WHO 2012 and authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality
1990
UNICEF 2012b
Percentage of undernourished in
1995–97
countries
with GHI
1990
97
Percentage of undernourished in
the population
a
Percentage of underweight in
children under five
1996
117
b
FAO 2011a and authors’ estimates
the population a
Percentage of underweight in
1994–98 d
2001
118
WHO 2012; UNICEF 2012a;
and authors’ estimates
children under five
Under-five mortality
1996
Percentage of undernourished in
2000–02
IGME 2011
b
FAO 2011a and authors’ estimates
1999–03 e
WHO 2012 and authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality
2001
IGME 2011
Percentage of undernourished in
2006–08
the population a
Percentage of underweight in
children under five
2012
120
b
FAO 2011a and authors’ estimates
the population a
Percentage of underweight in
2005–10 f
Under-five mortality
WHO 2012; UNICEF 2012a, c; MEASURE DHS
2012;g and authors’ estimates
children under five
2010
UNICEF 2012b
Proportion of the population with calorie deficiency.
Average over a three-year period.
c
Data collected from the year closest to 1990; where data for 1988 and 1992, or 1989 and 1991, were available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 1990.
d
Data collected from the year closest to 1996; where data for 1994 and 1998, or 1995 and 1997, were available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 1996.
e
Data collected from the year closest to 2001; where data for 1999 and 2003, or 2000 and 2002, were available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 2001.
f
The latest data gathered in this period.
g
WHO (2012) data are the primary data source, and UNICEF (2012a, c) and MEASURE DHS (2012) are secondary data sources.
a
b
54
Data Sources and Calculation of the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 GHI Scores | Appendix A | 2012 Global Hunger Index
B
DATA UNDERLYING THE CALCULATION OF THE 1990, 1996, 2001, AND 2012 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES
Country
Proportion of undernourished in the
Prevalence of underweight in
Under-five mortality
population (%)
children under five years (%)
rate (%)
90–92
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
95–97 00–02
06–08
-
-
-
-
11 *
5*
5*
5*
4*
67
5
5
61
52
4*
41
1*
Armenia
-
36
28
Azerbaijan
-
27
11
2*
Bahrain
-
-
-
-
38
41
30
Belarus
Benin
-
1*
20
18
1*
44.9
Argentina
Bangladesh
1*
2*
15
88–92 94–98 99–03 05–10
2*
21
26
1*
12
10.4 *
11
10
4*
9*
Burkina Faso
14
Burundi
44
Cambodia
38
Cameroon
33
34
Central African Rep.
44
47
53
43
Chad
60
Chile
7
China
18
12
9
9*
6
10 *
8.2
<5
5.6
4.7
3.6
6.7
7.3
6.0
<5
19.5
16.1
41.9
39.9
33.0
24.1
3.4 *
4.7
2.4 *
2.3
2.7
2.2
1.9
1.4
<5
<5
<5
<5
5.4 *
2.7
2.6
4.7
5.5
4.1
3.2
2.0
-
14.3
11.3
9.2
11.8 *
8.8
5.9
8.4
9.3
7.9
6.5
4.6
-
14.6
7.8
5.0
6.3
7.6
6.7 *
5.8 *
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.0
-
-
-
-
61.5
56.7
14.3
10.7
8.1
4.8
37.9
36.1
27.8
24.0
2.3 *
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.3
0.6
-
<5
<5
<5
21.5
20.2
17.8
15.6
14.0
11.5
21.3
20.1
16.8
14.6
24.8 * 14.1
12.7
13.9
10.7
8.5
5.6
-
-
-
-
4.5
12.1
9.7
7.9
5.4
16.9
14.3
12.3
12.3
4.7 *
9.3
4.3 *
15.1
1.2 *
41.3
26.8
15.2 *
1.7 *
45.4
26.0 *
9.7
Bulgaria
5.2
21.7
34.0
Brazil
-
8.5
6.8
2*
-
1.8
24.3
27
25
-
2.7
3.0
4*
-
3.4
15.1
22
27
14.9
4.1
8.3
4*
2010
15.0
27.5
24
23
2001
15.3
37.0
-
1996
20.9
11.3
29
19
6.3
1990
9.2
Bhutan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
17.0
28.4 *
34.4 *
Bolivia
Botswana
7.1
33.6 *
GHI
1990
1996
2001
2012
(with data
(with data
(with data
(with data
from 88–92) from 94–98) from 99–03) from 05–10)
7.0 *
4.2
1.6
1.9
1.2
0.9
0.8
-
<5
<5
<5
10.7
11.2
5.9
8.2
9.5
4.8
13.4
15.4
15.7
13.7
<5
5.3
4.5
3.7
2.2
5.9
4.6
3.4
1.9
7.4
6.4
5.4
2.6 *
2.8 *
2.4 *
2.1 *
2.2
2.3
2.0
1.3
<5
<5
<5
<5
26.0
20.5
19.7
18.9
17.6
23.5
22.4
21.8
17.2
12
8
56
59
62
32.6 * 34.4 * 38.9
35.2
18.3
17.3
16.2
14.2
31.6
35.9
38.0
37.1
40
29
25
45.4 *
28.8
12.1
12.0
9.6
5.1
31.8
31.5
26.0
19.6
26
22
43
40
39
4*
12
3*
10
2*
10
35.9 *
35.4 * 34.5
42.6
39.5
18.0
17.8
16.3 *
16.6
13.7
14.8
14.7
13.6
21.6
22.2
19.0
17.4
21.6 *
20.4
21.8
26.1
16.5
17.7
17.5
15.9
27.4
28.4
27.4
27.3
37.3 * 34.3
29.4
28.7 *
28.3
1.0 *
12.6
20.7
19.6
18.8
17.3
39.3
35.6
30.4
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.9
<5
<5
<5
<5
10.7
7.1
3.4
4.8
4.1
3.1
1.8
11.8
8.9
6.7
5.1
Colombia
15
11
10
9
8.8
6.3
4.9
3.7
3.1
2.6
1.9
9.2
6.8
5.8
<5
Comoros
38
47
54
47
16.2
22.3
25.0
21.8 *
12.5
11.3
10.2
8.6
22.2
26.9
29.7
25.8
33.6
24.2
18.1
18.1
18.1
17.0
-
-
-
-
11.8
11.6
10.9
10.3
9.3
23.6
24.1
15.7
11.4
Congo. Dem. Rep.
Congo. Rep.
-
-
-
-
23.6 *
30.7
42
41
20
13
17.3 *
20.5 * 16.7 *
3.4
Costa Rica
3*
4*
4*
4*
2.5
1.9
1.5 *
1.1
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.0
<5
<5
<5
<5
Croatia
-
13 *
9*
3*
0.6 *
0.5
0.4 *
0.4 *
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
-
<5
<5
<5
Cuba
6
14
2*
1*
3.6 *
4.6 *
3.4
3.5
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
<5
6.5
<5
<5
Côte d'Ivoire
15
17
17
14
19.5 *
20.9
18.2
28.2
15.1
15.4
14.5
12.3
16.5
17.8
16.6
18.2
Djibouti
60
50
40
26
20.2
16.0
25.4
30.1
12.3
11.2
10.4
9.1
30.8
25.7
25.3
21.7
Dominican Republic
28
26
25
24
8.4
4.7
3.9
3.4
6.2
4.8
3.9
2.7
14.2
11.8
10.9
10.0
Ecuador
23
16
17
15
7.5
Egypt. Arab Rep.
El Salvador
4*
3*
12.2 *
12.5
6.6 *
5.5 *
5.2
3.9
3.1
2.0
13.5
10.8
8.9
3*
4*
10.5
10.8
8.7
6.8
9.4
6.3
4.3
2.2
8.0
6.7
5.3
<5
11.1
9.6
6.1
6.6
6.2
4.5
3.2
1.6
10.1
8.7
5.4
5.7
-
38.3
34.5
32.2 *
14.1
11.0
8.9
6.1
-
37.8
37.8
34.4
0.8 *
2.1
1.7
1.2
0.5
-
<5
<5
<5
18.4
15.7
13.6
10.6
42.2
38.6
34.5
28.7
13
12
7
9
Eritrea
-
64
70
65
Estonia
-
5
5
69
62
48
Ethiopia
4*
41
2.9 *
39.2
1.1 *
1.1 *
38.1 * 42.0
34.6
Fiji
8
5
3*
3*
7.8 *
6.2 *
5.1 *
3.6 *
3.0
2.5
2.2
1.7
6.3
<5
<5
<5
Gabon
6
5*
4*
4*
10.0 *
6.7 *
8.8
4.9 *
9.3
8.9
8.7
7.4
8.4
6.9
7.2
5.4
15.6
Gambia. The
14
23
21
19
18.0 *
19
12
6
2.2 *
28
13
9
5
Guatemala
15
20
22
22
Guinea
20
19
20
16
Guinea-Bissau
22
26
25
22
19.0 *
Guyana
20
11
7
8
17.2 *
Haiti
63
60
53
57
23.7
24.0
Honduras
19
16
14
12
15.8
19.2
12.5
India
20
17
20
19
59.5
41.1
44.4
Indonesia
16
11
15
13
22.5
19.6
Georgia
Ghana
15.4
18.1
16.5
14.1
12.4
9.8
16.2
20.1
16.3
2.7
1.1
4.7
3.9
3.2
2.2
-
8.7
6.0
<5
25.1
19.6
14.3
12.2
10.9
9.7
7.4
21.4
16.3
12.8
8.9
22.7 *
21.7
18.7
13.0
7.8
5.7
4.7
3.2
15.2
15.8
15.1
12.7
24.4 *
21.2
27.9
20.8
22.9
19.7
17.0
13.0
22.4
20.0
21.6
16.6
17.4 * 21.9
18.1
21.0
18.9
17.4
15.0
20.7
20.8
21.4
18.4
10.3
11.9
10.5
6.6
5.5
4.5
3.0
14.6
8.9
7.8
7.2
13.9
18.9
15.1
12.5
10.6
16.5
33.9
32.2
25.8
30.8
8.6
5.8
4.5
3.6
2.4
13.5
13.2
10.0
7.7
43.5
11.5
9.7
8.3
6.3
30.3
22.6
24.2
22.9
24.0
23.2
3.2 *
31.0
28.9
Iran. Islamic Rep.
3*
3*
4*
4*
16.9 *
13.8
Iraq
-
-
-
-
10.4
11
6
5
5
5.2
5.6
Jamaica
Jordan
3*
Kazakhstan
-
8.5
6.4
5.2
3.5
18.5
15.4
14.2
12.0
3.8 *
6.5
5.0
4.1
2.6
8.8
7.3
5.1
<5
12.9
7.1
4.6
4.4
4.2
3.9
-
-
-
-
4.1
1.9
3.8
3.3
3.0
2.4
6.7
5.0
<5
<5
<5
7.1 *
5
5
3*
4.8
3.8
3.6
1.9
3.8
3.3
2.8
2.2
<5
<5
<5
1*
8
0*
6.0 *
6.7
3.8
4.9
5.7
4.9
4.3
3.3
-
<5
5.4
<5
19.3 *
18.7
17.5
16.4
9.9
11.6
10.8
8.5
20.7
20.8
20.4
19.3
Kenya
33
Kuwait
20
5
6
5
5.7 *
5.4
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
9.1
<5
<5
<5
-
13
17
11
5.3 *
8.2
4.9 *
2.7
7.2
5.9
5.0
3.8
-
9.0
9.0
5.8
29
26
22
40.3 *
35.9
31.6
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao PDR
Latvia
Lebanon
32
31
33
33
14.5
10.8
8.4
5.4
28.6
25.2
23.6
19.7
-
3*
4*
3*
3.0 *
1.1 *
36.4
1.2 *
0.7 *
2.1
2.2
1.6
1.0
-
<5
<5
<5
3*
3*
3*
3*
6.1 *
3.5
3.8 *
2.7 *
3.8
3.3
2.8
2.2
<5
<5
<5
<5
Note: * indicates IFPRI estimates.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Appendix B | Data Underlying the Calculation of the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 GHI Scores
55
B
DATA UNDERLYING THE CALCULATION OF THE 1990, 1996, 2001, AND 2012 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES
Country
Proportion of undernourished
Prevalence of underweight in
Under-five mortality
in the population (%)
children under five years (%)
rate (%)
90–92
95–97 00–02
06-08
88–92 94–98 99–03 05–10
GHI
2010
1990
1996
2001
2012
(with data
(with data
(with data
(with data
from 88–92) from 94–98) from 99–03) from 05–10)
1990
1996
2001
Lesotho
15
16
14
14
13.8
14.0
15.0
13.2
8.9
10.7
12.7
8.5
12.6
13.6
13.9
11.9
Liberia
30
32
36
32
15.3 *
23.4 * 22.8
14.4
22.7
20.2
16.1
10.3
22.7
25.2
25.0
18.9
Libya
1*
1*
1*
1*
4.8 *
4.3
4.3 *
5.6
4.5
3.3
2.6
1.7
<5
<5
<5
<5
Lithuania
-
2*
1*
1*
3.2 *
1.4 *
1.0 *
0.6 *
1.7
1.5
1.1
0.7
-
<5
<5
<5
1.9
2.0
Macedonia. FYR
3.9
2.2
1.5
1.2
-
<5
<5
<5
Madagascar
21
26
28
25
35.5
33.0
37.0 * 36.3 *
15.9
12.3
9.7
6.2
24.1
23.8
24.9
22.5
Malawi
43
36
30
27
24.4
26.5
21.5
13.8
22.2
19.9
15.9
9.2
29.9
27.5
22.5
16.7
22.1
17.7
16.7
12.9
1.8
1.3
1.0
0.6
9.0
6.7
6.6
5.2
30.9 *
31.0
30.1
18.9
25.5
22.9
21.0
17.8
27.8
26.3
23.0
16.2
14.2
Malaysia
-
3*
Mali
27
9*
1*
25
6*
2*
18
3*
2*
12
2.9 *
2.9 *
Mauritania
12
9
8
8
43.3
29.3 * 30.4
Mauritius
7
7
5
5
14.6 *
13.0
Mexico
5*
5*
4*
4*
13.9
Moldova
-
9*
9*
6*
Mongolia
28
33
27
27
4.5 *
10.8
22.6
16.7
16.6
11.1
1.5
8.0
7.4
6.0
5.4
<5
3.6
2.8
1.7
7.9
5.4
<5
5.0 *
4.1 *
3.2
3.7
3.0
2.6
1.9
-
5.7
5.2
<5
5.0
10.7
7.9
5.7
3.2
16.5
17.5
14.8
11.7
<5
11.5 * 11.6
-
-
8*
-
-
6
6
4*
8.1
7.7
59
47
46
Namibia
11.1
1.8
4.9
-
Myanmar
11.5
2.2
3.4
6
25.5 *
11.8
2.4
6.0
Montenegro
38
12.4
9.7 *
7.7 *
Morocco
Mozambique
11.3 *
7.3 *
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.8
-
-
-
5.5 *
8.6
6.6
5.3
3.6
7.6
6.8
6.2
<5
19.1
17.3
13.5
35.5
30.7
28.8
23.3
26.0
23.0
18.3
21.9
-
-
-
-
28.8
31.9
30.1
23.0
11.2
9.6
8.5
6.6
-
-
-
-
32
30
21
18
21.5
20.3 * 20.3
17.5
7.3
6.9
7.5
4.0
20.3
19.1
16.3
13.2
20.3
Nepal
21
20
18
17
45.5 *
42.9
43.0
38.8
14.1
10.4
8.0
5.0
26.9
24.4
23.0
Nicaragua
50
38
25
19
10.4 *
10.2
7.8
5.7
6.8
5.1
4.1
2.7
22.4
17.8
12.3
9.1
Niger
37
37
27
16
41.0
45.0
43.6
36.6
31.1
25.7
20.9
14.3
36.4
35.9
30.5
22.3
35.1
32.4 * 27.3
26.7
21.3
20.4
18.2
14.3
24.1
20.9
18.2
15.7
21.5 *
22.4 * 21.3
18.8
4.5
7.8
4.9
3.3
15.7
20.1
20.1
19.0
Nigeria
16
10
9
6
North Korea
21
30
34
35
Oman
-
-
-
-
19.2
10.0
11.3
8.6
4.7
3.0
2.0
0.9
-
-
-
-
Pakistan
25
20
24
25
39.0
34.2
31.3
25.4 *
12.4
11.1
9.9
8.7
25.5
21.8
21.7
19.7
Panama
18
20
19
15
9.0 *
6.3
5.1
7.0
-
-
-
-
19.3 *
Paraguay
16
10
10
10
Peru
27
21
18
16
8.8
5.7
5.2
Philippines
24
20
18
13
29.9
28.3
20.7
-
4.8
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
-
-
-
-
Romania
2*
2*
1*
0*
Russian Federation
Rwanda
44
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
2*
22
Serbia
Sierra Leone
4*
53
2*
26
3*
38
1*
26
-
-
-
45
39
43
1*
32
1*
19
8*
35
2.8
5.0
2.7 *
17.7 * 18.0 *
3.3 *
4.6 *
2.6
2.8 *
3.8
1.0 *
3.3
2.8
2.5
2.0
10.1
9.7
8.9
9.0
8.0
7.2
6.1
-
-
-
-
3.4
5.0
4.1
3.4
2.5
7.9
5.8
5.4
5.3
4.3
7.8
5.5
3.8
1.9
14.5
10.7
9.0
7.4
20.7
5.9
4.6
3.9
2.9
19.9
17.6
14.2
12.2
-
2.1
1.5
1.2
0.8
-
-
-
-
3.0 *
3.7
3.1
2.6
1.4
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.7 *
2.7
2.6
2.2
1.2
-
<5
<5
<5
20.9
16.6
9.1
28.2
32.7
25.6
19.7
24.2
12.4 *
13.5
19.0
19.6
20.3
-
-
1.6
2.9
1.7
1.2
0.7
-
-
-
<5
25.1 * 24.7
21.7
27.6
26.3
22.6
17.4
32.7
30.1
30.1
24.7
<5
-
8.8 *
5.3
4.5
3.2
2.5
1.8
6.3
6.2
<5
<5
14.5
13.9
13.3
11.4
7.5
18.3
19.6
19.2
13.7
Slovak Republic
-
3*
5*
4*
4.0 *
1.5 *
1.8
1.4
1.1
0.8
-
<5
<5
Somalia
-
-
-
-
-
-
22.8
32.8
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
-
-
-
-
South Africa
4*
5*
4*
3*
8.0
10.1
8.7
6.0
6.4
8.1
5.7
6.9
6.5
7.4
5.8
10.8 *
1.3 *
18.0
16.3
24.3
25.4
22.2
3.9
18.0
0.9 *
Sri Lanka
28
25
20
20
31.3 *
27.5
23.3
21.6
3.2
2.6
2.2
1.7
20.8
18.4
15.2
14.4
Sudan
39
29
28
22
34.7 *
32.8 * 38.4
32.2
12.5
11.8
11.3
10.3
28.7
24.5
25.9
21.5
Suriname
14
13
15
15
11.7 *
10.6 * 11.4
7.5
5.2
4.4
3.9
3.1
10.3
9.3
10.1
8.5
Swaziland
12
21
18
19
6.4 *
5.8
9.6
10.0
11.6
7.8
9.3
12.6
12.9
10.9
3*
3*
3*
6.8 *
9.1
Syrian Arab Republic
4*
12.3 *
11.3
10.1
3.8
2.7
2.2
1.6
6.7
5.7
5.4
<5
Tajikistan
-
42
46
26
13.5 *
19.5 * 18.7 *
11.1
15.0
11.6
10.8
9.0
6.3
-
24.1
24.6
15.8
Tanzania
29
42
40
34
25.1
26.9
16.2
15.5
15.2
12.5
7.6
23.2
28.0
25.9
19.3
Thailand
26
18
18
16
16.1 *
15.4
7.0
3.2
2.0
1.7
1.3
15.1
11.8
9.2
8.1
Timor-Leste
39
32
28
31
-
-
40.6
45.3
16.9
13.1
9.7
5.5
-
-
26.1
27.3
Togo
43
36
36
30
21.5
16.7
21.6 *
16.6
Trinidad & Tobago
11
14
11
11
25.3
8.0 *
14.7
13.2
12.2
10.3
26.4
22.0
23.3
19.0
6.7 *
5.0 *
4.4
2.3 *
3.7
3.4
3.1
2.7
7.1
7.5
6.2
5.3
Tunisia
1*
1*
1*
1*
8.5
5.7
3.5
3.3
4.9
3.6
2.7
1.6
<5
<5
<5
<5
Turkey
1*
1*
1*
1*
8.2 *
9.0
4.5 *
1.7
8.0
5.9
3.9
1.8
5.7
5.3
<5
<5
Turkmenistan
Uganda
-
9
9
7
19
23
19
22
10.3 *
12.8 * 10.5
19.7
21.5
19.0
8.0
9.8
8.3
7.2
5.6
-
10.0
8.9
6.9
16.4
17.5
16.4
13.9
9.9
18.7
20.3
17.3
16.1
<5
Ukraine
-
4*
2*
1*
2.2 *
2.3 *
2.5
0.8 *
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.3
-
<5
<5
Uruguay
5
4*
3*
3*
6.4 *
5.1 *
5.4
4.5 *
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.1
<5
<5
<5
<5
Uzbekistan
-
5
19
7.1
4.4
7.7
6.8
6.2
5.2
-
9.0
10.8
6.9
11
9.6 *
15.3
Venezuela. RB
10
14
13
7
6.7
4.4
3.9
3.7
3.3
2.8
2.4
1.8
6.7
7.1
6.4
<5
Vietnam
31
22
17
11
40.7
38.2
26.2
20.2
5.1
4.1
3.4
2.3
25.6
21.4
15.5
11.2
Yemen. Rep.
30
31
31
30
44.3 *
40.9
43.1
35.3 *
12.8
11.0
9.7
7.7
29.0
27.6
27.9
24.3
Zambia
35
38
43
44
21.2
19.6
23.3
14.9
18.3
17.4
15.3
11.1
24.8
25.0
27.2
23.3
Zimbabwe
40
44
41
30
8.0
11.7
11.5
14.0
7.8
11.1
11.3
8.0
18.6
22.3
21.3
17.3
Note: * indicates IFPRI estimates.
56
Data Underlying the Calculation of the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 GHI Scores | Appendix B | 2012 Global Hunger Index
C
COUNTRY TRENDS FOR THE 1990, 1996, 2001, AND 2012 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES
NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA
45
1990
1996
2001
2012
40
35
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
30
25
20
15
10
5
Turkey
Tunisia
Jordan
Lebanon
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Iran
Algeria
Egypt
Morocco
Syria
Yemen
0
WEST AFRICA
45
1990
1996
2001
2012
40
35
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
30
25
20
15
10
5
2012 Global Hunger Index | Appendix C | Country Trends for the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 Global Hunger Index Scores
Ghana
Mauritania
Senegal
Benin
The Gambia
Nigeria
Mali
Guinea
Burkina Faso
Côte d'Ivoire
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Togo
Niger
Sierra Leone
0
57
C
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN AFRICA
45
1990
1996
2001
2012
40
35
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
30
25
20
15
10
Gabon
South Africa
Swaziland
Congo, Rep.
Lesotho
Namibia
Botswana
Cameroon
Chad
Central Afr. Rep.
Angola
5
EAST AFRICA
45
1990
1996
2001
2012
40
35
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
30
25
20
15
10
58
Mauritius
Uganda
Malawi
Zimbabwe
Tanzania
Kenya
Rwanda
Sudan
Djibouti
Madagascar
Zambia
Mozambique
Comoros
Ethiopia
Eritrea
Burundi
5
Country Trends for the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 Global Hunger Index Scores | Appendix C | 2012 Global Hunger Index
C
SOUTH AMERICA
45
1990
1996
2001
2012
40
35
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
30
25
20
15
10
Chile
Argentina
Uruguay
Brazil
Venezuela
Colombia
Trinidad & Tobago
Paraguay
Guyana
Peru
Ecuador
Suriname
Bolivia
5
CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN
45
1990
1996
2001
2012
40
35
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
30
25
20
15
10
2012 Global Hunger Index | Appendix C | Country Trends for the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 Global Hunger Index Scores
Cuba
Costa Rica
Mexico
Jamaica
El Salvador
Panama
Honduras
Nicaragua
Dom. Rep.
Guatemala
Haiti
5
59
C
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Lao PDR
Pakistan
Cambodia
North Korea
Georgia
Sri Lanka
Kazakhstan
Philippines
Macedonia, FYR
Slovak Rep.
Indonesia
Estonia
Mongolia
Latvia
Bosnia & Herz.
Vietnam
Romania
Thailand
Croatia
China
Ukraine
Lithuania
Fiji
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
Russian Federation
Malaysia
1990
1996
2001
2012
Belarus
SOUTH, EAST, AND SOUTHEAST ASIA
Timor-Leste
45
40
Serbia
35
Montenegro
30
Moldova
25
Albania
20
Bulgaria
15
Azerbaijan
10
Kyrgyz Rep.
5
Uzbekistan
EASTERN EUROPE AND COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
Turkmenistan
1990
1996
2001
2012
Country Trends for the 1990, 1996, 2001, and 2012 Global Hunger Index Scores | Appendix C | 2012 Global Hunger Index
Armenia
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
60
Tajikistan
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADB/IFPRI (Asian Development Bank/International Food Policy Re-
Bhagowalia, P., D. Headey, and S. Kadiyala. 2012. Agriculture, In-
search Institute). 2009. Building Climate Resilience in the Agricul-
come, and Nutrition Linkages in India: Insights from a Nationally Rep-
ture Sector of Asia and the Pacific. Manila and Washington, DC.
resentative Survey. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1195. Washington, DC:
Ahmed, A., R. Hill, L. Smith, D. Wiesmann, and T. Frankenberger.
International Food Policy Research Institute.
2007. “The World’s Most Deprived Characteristics and Causes of Ex-
Bhutta, Z. A., T. Ahmed, R. E. Black, S. Cousens, K. Dewey, E. Gi-
treme Poverty and Hunger.” 2020 Working Paper 43. International
ugliani, B. A. Haider, B. Kirkwood, S. S. Morris, H. P. S. Sachdev,
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Alkire, S., and M. E. Santos. 2010. Multidimensional Poverty Index:
2010 Data. Oxford, UK: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford. www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/.
M. Shekar, for the Maternal and Child Undernutrition Study Group.
2008. “What Works? Interventions for Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Survival.” The Lancet 371 (9610): 417–440.
Bryan, E., C. Ringler, B. Okoba, J. Koo, M. Herrero, and S. Silvestri. 2011. Agricultural Management for Climate Change Adaptation,
Anane, M., and C. Y. Abiwu. 2011. Independent Study Report of the
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, and Agricultural Productivity. IFPRI Dis-
Addax Bioenergy Sugarcane-to-Ethanol Project in the Makeni Region
cussion Paper No. 1098. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
of Sierra Leone. Study carried out on behalf of Sierra Leone Network
Research Institute.
on the Right to Food (SiLNoRF), Bread for All, Switzerland, Bread
for the World, and Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst (EED). Accessed
Chen, S., and M. Ravallion. 2012. “An Update to the World Bank’s
August 7, 2012. www.brotfueralle.ch/fileadmin/deutsch/01_Service/
Estimates of Consumption Poverty in the Developing World.” Brief-
Medien_Texte/Mediencommuniques/Independent%20Study%20Re-
ing note. Accessed August 7. http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteincente.
port%20Addax%20Final.pdf.
netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Global_Poverty_Update_2012_02-29-12.pdf.
Anseeuw, W., L. Alden Wily, L. Cotula, and M. Taylor. 2012a. Land
Rights and the Rush for Land: Findings of the Global Commercial Pres-
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). 2012. The World Factbook. Wash-
sures on Land Research Project. Rome: International Land Coalition.
ington, DC. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.
Anseeuw, W., M. Boche, T. Breu, M. Giger, J. Lay, P. Messerli, and K.
html.
Nolte. 2012b. Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global
CILSS/AGRHYMET (Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la
South: Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix Database. Bern,
Sécheresse dans le Sahel/Centre Regional de Formation et d’Appli-
Switzerland; Montpellier, France; and Hamburg, Germany: Centre for
cation en Agrométéorologie et Hydrologie Opérationnelle). 2012.
Development and Environment; CIRAD; and German Institute of Global
and Area Studies (GIGA).
“Productions Agricoles Campagne 2011–2012.” Presentation at the
Conférence régionale sur la situation agricole et alimentaire de la cam-
Bai, Z. G., D. L. Dent, L. Olsson, and M. E. Schaepman. 2008. Global
pagne 2011–2012 et les opportunités d’échange des produits agricoles
Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement. 1. Identification
et alimentaires dans le Sahel et en Afrique de l’Ouest (CORPAO), March
by Remote Sensing. Report 2008/01. Wageningen, the Netherlands:
26–30, Lomé, Togo.
ISRIC–World Soil Information.
Court, D., and L. Narasimhan. 2010. “Capturing the World’s Emerg-
Bald, J., and P. Schroeder. 2011. Study on Rural and Agricultural
ing Middle Class.” McKinsey Quarterly, July. http://www.mckinseyquar-
Finance in Sierra Leone: Product Innovation and Financial Access.
terly.com/Capturing_the_worlds_emerging_middle_class_2639.
Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and De-
Deaton, A., and J. Drèze. 2009. “Food and Nutrition in India: Facts
velopment.
and Interpretations.” Economic & Political Weekly 44 (7): 42–65.
Bationo, A., B. Waswa, J. Kihara, and J. Kimetu, eds. 2007. Advances
Demombynes, G., and S. F. Trommlerová. 2012. What Has Driven
in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Chal-
the Decline of Infant Mortality in Kenya? World Bank Policy Research
lenges and Opportunities. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Working Paper 6057. Washington, DC: World Bank.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography
61
DFID (UK Department for International Development). 2012. London
Greeley, M. 1982. “Editorial” and “Farm-level Post-harvest Food
Summit on Family Planning. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/fpsummit.
Losses: The Myth of the Soft Third Option.” IDS Bulletin 13, No. 3.
Drèze, J. 2004. “Bangladesh Shows the Way.” The Hindu, September 17.
Sussex, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
Gustavsson, J., C. Cederberg, and U. Sonesson. 2011. Global Food
Easter, K. W., M. W. Rosegrant, and A. Dinar, eds. 1998. Markets for Wa-
Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes, and Prevention. Rome: Food
ter: Potential and Performance. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.
Ehrlich, P. R., P. M. Kareiva, and G. C. Daily. 2012. “Securing Natural
Capital and Expanding Equity to Rescale Civilization.” Nature 486
(7401): 68–73.
org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf.
Headey, D., A. Chiu, and S. Kadiyala. 2011. Agriculture’s Role in the
Indian Enigma: Help or Hindrance to the Undernutrition Crisis? IFPRI
Eilerts, G. 2012. “Niger 2011–12: A Crisis of Prices?” Presentation at
World Bank Knowledge and Learning Forum “Calling a Spade a Spade:
When Do Food Prices Turn into a Crisis?” April 30, Washington, DC.
ETC Group. 2009. Who Will Feed Us? Questions for the Food and Climate Crises. Communique, Issue No. 102. Ottawa, Canada.
Discussion Paper 1085. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Huang, J. 2012. “Feeding Growing Food Demand in China.” Presentation at the conference “Growing Food: New Places, New Technologies,” Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International
Ewing, M., M. W. Rosegrant, S. Msangi, and T. Zhu. 2010. “Biofuels,
Food Security, and the Environment: A 2020/2050 Perspective.” In
Global Change: Impacts on Water and Food Security, eds. C. Ringler,
A. Biswas, and S. A. Cline. New York: Springer.
Studies, Washington, DC, April 17.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2011. World Energy Outlook
2011. Paris.
Falkenmark, M., J. Lundqvist, and C. Widstrand. 1989. “Macro-scale
Water Scarcity Requires Micro-scale Approaches: Aspects of Vulner-
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2001. IFPRI-
ability in Semi-arid Development.” Natural Resources Forum 13 (4):
SubNIAPP (unpublished household data set, southern Vietnam).
258–267.
Washington, DC.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2009.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute)/Welthungerhilfe/
How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome.
———. 2011a. Food Security Data and Definitions. Accessed January
Concern. 2007. The Challenge of Hunger 2007: Global Hunger Index:
Facts, Determinants, and Trends. Washington, DC, Bonn, and Dublin.
17. www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/fs-data/ess-fadata/en.
IGME (Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation). 2011. CME
———. 2011b. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011.
Info Database. New York. www.childmortality.org/index.
Rome.
———. 2011c. State of the World’s Forests. Rome.
———. 2012. Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change. Accessed Au-
IIPS (International Institute for Population Sciences) and Macro International. 2007. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06:
India. Vol. 1. Mumbai: IIPS.
gust 7. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/aj982e/aj982e02.pdf.
International Land Coalition. 2012. Land Matrix Database. http://
Farooq, M., K. H. M. Siddique, H. Rehman, and T. Aziz. 2011. “Rice
Direct Seeding: Experiences, Challenges, and Opportunities.” Soil
and Tillage Research 111 (2): 87–98.
landportal.info/landmatrix.
Joshi, S. 2012. Reproductive Health and Economic Development:
Foresight. 2011. The Future of Food and Farming. London: The Govern-
What Connections Should We Focus On? Research Brief. Washington,
ment Office for Science.
DC: Population Reference Bureau.
62
Bibliography | 2012 Global Hunger Index
Kadiyala, S., and P. Menon. 2012. “Need to Assess the Efficacy
Naandi Foundation. 2011. Fighting Hunger and Malnutrition: The
of Programmes to Fight Undernutrition.” The Economic Times,
HUNGaMA Survey Report 2011. Hyderabad, India.
February 11.
Nelson, G. C., M. W. Rosegrant, J. Koo, R. Robertson, T. Sulser, T. Zhu,
Kadiyala, S., P. K. Joshi, S. Mahendra Dev, T. Nanda Kumar, and V.
C. Ringler, S. Msangi, A. Palazzo, M. Batka, M. Magalhaes, R. Valmon-
Vyas. 2012. “A Nutrition Secure India: Role of Agriculture.” Eco-
te-Santos, M. Ewing, and D. Lee. 2009a. Climate Change: Impact on
nomic and Political Weekly 47 (8): 21–25.
Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. Food Policy Report. Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Kammen, D. M. 2006. “Bioenergy in Developing Countries: Experiences and Prospects.” In Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and
Nelson, G. A., A. Palazzo, C. Ringler, T. Sulser and M. Batka. 2009b.
Challenge. 2020 Focus 14. Washington, DC: International Food Poli-
The Role of International Trade in Climate Change Adaptation. Issue
cy Research Institute.
Brief No. 4. Geneva and Washington, DC: International Centre for
Legros, G., I. Havet, N. Bruce, S. Bonjour, K. Rijal, M. Takada, and
C. Dora. 2009. The Energy Access Situation in Developing Countries:
A Review Focusing on the Least Developed Countries and Sub-Saha-
Trade and Sustainable Development and International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council. http://www.agritrade.org/documents/IssueBrief4.pdf.
ran Africa. New York and Geneva: United Nations Development Pro-
Nelson, G. C., M. W. Rosegrant, A. Palazzo, I. Gray, C. Ingersoll, R.
gramme and World Health Organization.
Robertson, S. Tokgoz, T. Zhu, T. B. Sulser, C. Ringler, S. Msangi,
Marenya, P., E. Nkonya, W. Xiong, J. Deustua, and E. Kato. 2012.
“Which Policy Would Work Better for Improved Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, Fertilizer Subsidies or Carbon Credits?”
Agricultural Systems 110: 162–172.
Martin, W. J., R. I. Glass, J. M. Balbus, and F. S. Collins. 2011. “A
Major Environmental Cause of Death.” Science 334 (6053): 180–181.
MEASURE DHS. 2012. Demographic and Health Surveys. Calverton,
MD, USA. www.measuredhs.com/.
and L. You. 2010. Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change
to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. DOI http://dx.doi.
org/10.2499/9780896291867.
Nkonya, E., N. Gerber, J. von Braun, and A. De Pinto. 2011. Economics of Land Degradation: The Costs of Action versus Inaction. IFPRI
Issue Brief 68. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Omilola, B., M. Yade, J. Karugia, and P. Chilonda. 2010. Monitoring
Melbach, G. 2012. Increasing Pressure for Land: Implications for
and Assessing Targets of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Devel-
Rural Livelihoods and Development Actors: A Case Study in Sierra
opment Programme (CAADP) and the First Millennium Development
Leone. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe.
Goal (MDG) in Africa. ReSAKSS (Regional Strategic Analysis and
Knowledge Support System) Working Paper No. 31. Washington, DC:
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. Living Beyond Our Means:
International Food Policy Research Institute. http://cgspace.cgiar.org/
Natural Assets and Human Well-Being. Washington, DC: Island Press.
bitstream/handle/10568/2431/RESAKSS_WP31.pdf?sequence=1.
———. 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Oxfam. 2012. Haiti: The Slow Road to Reconstruction: Two Years after
the Earthquake. Washington, DC.
Minoiu, C., and O. N. Shemyakina. 2012. Armed Conflict, Household Victimization, and Child Health in Côte d’Ivoire. Working Paper
245. Palma de Mallorca, Spain: Society for the Study of Economic
Inequality.
Ozkaynak, B., L. Pinter, D. P. van Vuuren, L. Bizikova, V. Christensen,
M. Floerke, M. Kok, P. Lucas, D. Mangalagiu, R. Alkemade, T. Patterson, J. Shilling, D. Swanson, A. Bassi, F. Feldmann, J. Jäger, W.
Ochola, W. Qu, K. Ramakrishna, C. Ringler, P. Ertor, and N. Pervushi-
Moraes, M., C. Ringler, and X. Cai. 2011. “Policies and Instruments
na. 2012. “Scenarios and Sustainability Transformation.” In GEO-V
Affecting Water Use for Bioenergy Production.” Special Issue: Bio-
(Global Environment Outlook): Environment for the Future We Want.
energy and Water. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 5 (4): 431–
Malta: United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/
444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.306.
geo/geo5.asp.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography
63
Pandey, S., and L. Velasco. 2005. “Trends in Crop Establishment
Rosegrant, M. W., S. Tokgoz, and P. Bhandary. 2012. “Future of the
Methods in Asia and Research Issues.” In Rice Is Life: Scientific Per-
Global Food Economy.” Mimeo, International Food Policy Research
spectives for the 21st Century, edited by K. Toriyama, K. L. Heong,
Institute, Washington, DC.
and B. Hardy. Proceedings of the World Rice Research Conference,
Tsukuba, Japan, November 4–7, 2004. Los Baños, Philippines, and
Rosegrant, M. W., T. Zhu, S. Msangi, and T. Sulser. 2008a. “Global
Tsukuba, Japan: International Rice Research Institute and Japan In-
Scenarios for Biofuels: Impacts and Implications.” Review of Agricul-
ternational Research Center for Agricultural Sciences.
tural Economics 30 (3): 495–505.
Parry, M., A. Evans, M. W. Rosegrant, and T. Wheeler. 2009. Climate
Change and Hunger: Responding to the Challenge. Rome, Washington, DC, New York, London, and Reading, UK. World Food Programme,
International Food Policy Research Institute, New York University
Center on International Cooperation, Grantham Institute at Imperial
College London, and Walker Institute at University of Reading.
Pimentel, D. 2006. Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency
of Energy Use in Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Organic Center. http://organic.insightd.net/reportfiles/ENERGY_SSR.pdf.
Reardon, T., K. Chen, and B. Minten. Forthcoming. The Quiet Revolution in Staple Food Value Chains in Asia: Enter the Dragon, the
Elephant, and the Tiger. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Ringler, C., A. Biswas, and S. A. Cline, eds. 2010. Global Change:
Impact on Water and Food Security. Berlin: Springer.
Ringler, C., T. Zhu, S. Gruber, R. Treguer, A. Laurent, L. Addams,
N. Cenacchi, and T. Sulser. 2011. “Sustaining Growth via Water Productivity: Outlook to 2030/2050.” International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington, DC. Mimeo.
Rosegrant, M. W. 2008. “Biofuels and Grain Prices: Impacts and Policy Responses.” Testimony for the US Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, May 7. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/biofuels-and-grain-prices.
Rosegrant, M. W., X. Cai, and S. A. Cline. 2002. World Water and
Rosegrant, M. W., C. Ringler, S. Msangi, T. Sulser, T. Zhu, and S. A.
Cline. 2008b. International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural
Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description. International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.ifpri.org/
sites/default/files/publications/impactwater.pdf.
Rosen, S., B. Meade, S. Shapouri, A. D’Souza, and N. Rada. 2012.
International Food Security Assessment, 2012–2022. Washington,
DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service.
Runge, C. F., B. Senauer, P. G. Pardey, and M. W. Rosegrant. 2003.
Ending Hunger in Our Lifetime. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
SAGCOT (Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania). 2012.
About Us. http://www.sagcot.com/about-us/what-is-sagcot/.
Samarage, S. M. 2006. “Health Care System: Sri Lanka.” Abstract
presented at “Migration and Human Resources for Health: From
Awareness to Action,” Geneva, March 23–24.
Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J.
Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu. 2008. “Use of US Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions
from Land-Use Change.” Science Express 319: 1238–1240.
SLIEPA (Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency).
2012a. “Be Part of the New Sierra Leone.” http://www.sliepa.org/whysierra-leone. Accessed July 19.
Food to 2025: Dealing with Scarcity. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
———. 2012b. “Investment Opportunities in Sectors with High Growth
Potential.” http://www.sliepa.org/investment. Accessed July 19.
Rosegrant, M. W., C. Ringler, and T. Zhu. 2009. “Water for Agriculture: Maintaining Food Security under Growing Scarcity.” Annual
Stavins, R. N. 2005. “Experience with Market-based Environmental
Review of Environmental Resources 34: 205–222. http://arjournals.
Policy Instruments.” In Handbook of Environmental Economics, ed-
annualreviews.org/eprint/T6e4KXUcGtcSNwJxd6pE/full/10.1146/an-
ited by K. G. Mäler and J. R. Vincent. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
nurev.environ.030308.090351
Tokgoz, S., and M. W. Rosegrant. 2011. “Population Pressures,
Rosegrant, M. W., E. Nkonya, and R. A. Valmonte-Santos. 2009.
Land Use, and Food Security in the Least Developed Countries: Re-
“Food Security and Soil Water Management.” Encyclopedia of Soil
sults from the IMPACT Model.” Mimeo, International Food Policy
Science 1: 1–4.
Research Institute, Washington, DC.
64
Bibliography | 2012 Global Hunger Index
UN (United Nations). 2011. World Population Prospects: The 2010
von Grebmer, K., M. T. Ruel, P. Menon, B. Nestorova, T. Olofinbiyi,
Revision. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and
H. Fritschel, Y. Yohannes, C. von Oppeln, O. Towey, K. Golden, and J.
Social Affairs, Population Division. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/
Thompson. 2010. 2010 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hun-
panel_indicators.htm.
ger: Focus on the Crisis of Child Undernutrition. Bonn, Washington,
UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS). 2010. Global
Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva.
DC, and Dublin: Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy
Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2012a. Childinfo Statis-
von Grebmer, K., M. Torero, T. Olofinbiyi, H. Fritschel, D. Wiesmann,
tics on Child Nutrition. Accessed August 7. www.childinfo.org/under-
Y. Yohannes, L. Schofield, and C. von Oppeln. 2011. 2011 Global
nutrition_nutritional_status.php.
Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Taming Price Spikes and
Excessive Food Price Volatility. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin:
———. 2012b. The State of the World’s Children 2012. New York.
———. 2012c. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). Accessed
August 7. www.childinfo.org/mics_available.html.
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.
WFP (World Food Programme). 2008. Internal report with data from
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2006. “Agriculture
DIGESTYC, EHPM, 2003 and MAG, División de Información de Mer-
and Rural Communities Are Resilient to High Energy Costs.” Amber
cado, Mayo 06–Enero 08. San Salvador, El Salvador.
Waves, April. Washington, DC.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2012. Global Database on Child
van den Boom, B. 2011. “Analysis of Poverty in Mozambique: House-
Growth and Malnutrition. www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/database/coun-
hold Poverty Status, Child Malnutrition and Other Indicators 1997,
tries/en/index.html.
2003, 2009.” Mimeo, Centre for World Food Studies, Amsterdam.
Wiesmann, D. 2004. An International Nutrition Index: Concept and
Victora, C. G., L. Adair, C. Fall, P. C. Hallal, R. Martorell, L. Richter,
H. Singh Sachdev, for the Maternal and Child Undernutrition Study
Group. 2008. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Consequences for
Adult Health and Human Capital.” The Lancet 371 (9609): 340–357.
von Braun, J. 2007. “When Food Makes Fuel: Promises and Chal-
Analyses of Food Insecurity and Undernutrition at Country Levels.
Development Economics and Policy Series 39. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
———. 2006a. 2006 Global Hunger Index: A Basis for Cross-
lenges of Biofuels for Developing Countries and for Food Security of
Country Comparisons. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
the Poor.” Presentation at the Crawford Fund Conference “Biofuels,
Research Institute.
Energy, and Agriculture: Powering towards World Food Security?” Canberra, Australia, August 15.
———. 2006b. A Global Hunger Index: Measurement Concept,
Ranking of Countries, and Trends. Food Consumption and Nutrition
von Braun, J., M. Ruel, and A. Gulati. 2008. Accelerating Progress
Division Discussion Paper 212. Washington, DC: International Food
toward Reducing Child Malnutrition in India: A Concept for Action.
Policy Research Institute.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Wiesmann, D., J. von Braun, and T. Feldbrügge. 2000. An Internavon Grebmer, K., H. Fritschel, B. Nestorova, T. Olofinbiyi, R. Pandya-Lorch,
and Y. Yohannes. 2008. Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger
2008. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin: Deutsche Welthungerhilfe,
International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.
tional Nutrition Index: Successes and Failures in Addressing Hunger
and Malnutrition. ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy No.
26. Bonn, Germany: Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF) [Center for Development Research].
von Grebmer, K., B. Nestorova, A. Quisumbing, R. Fertziger, H. Fritschel,
R. Pandya-Lorch, and Y. Yohannes. 2009. 2009 Global Hunger Index:
Wiesmann, D., L. Weingärtner, and I. Schöninger. 2006. The Chal-
The Challenge of Hunger: Focus on Financial Crisis and Gender Inequal-
lenge of Hunger: Global Hunger Index: Facts, Determinants, and
ity. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin: Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, In-
Trends. Bonn and Washington, DC: Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and In-
ternational Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.
ternational Food Policy Research Institute.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography
65
World Bank. 2005. Bangladesh: Attaining the Millennium Development Goals in Bangladesh. Report No. 31846-BD. Washington, DC:
World Bank, Human Development Unit, South Asia Region.
———. 2007. Population Issues in the 21st Century: The Role of
the World Bank. Health, Nutrition, and Population Discussion Paper
40583. Washington, DC.
———. 2009. Global Economic Prospects: Commodities at the Crossroads. Washington, DC.
———. 2010. Promoting Nutrition Security in Haiti: An Assessment
of Pre- and Post-earthquake Conditions and Recommendations for the
Way Forward. Washington, DC.
———. 2011a. Sierra Leone: Country Brief. Accessed August 7.
http://go.worldbank.org/COWMCN2VS0.
———. 2011b. World Development Indicators Database. Washington, DC.
———. 2012. World Development Indicators Database. Washington, DC.
WRI (World Resources Institute). 2010. Climate Analysis Indicators
Tool Version 7.0. Washington, DC.
66
Bibliography | 2012 Global Hunger Index
PARTNERS
About IFPRI
Our vision: A world in which all people can
The International Food Policy Research
exercise their right to lead a self-determined
Institute (IFPRI®) was established in
life in dignity and justice, free from hunger
1975 to identify and analyze alternative
and poverty.
national and international strategies and
policies for meeting food needs of the developing world on a sustain-
Who we are
able basis, with particular emphasis on low-income countries and on
Welthungerhilfe was formed in 1962 as part of a ground-breaking glo-
the poorer groups in those countries. While the research effort is geared
bal campaign – the “Freedom from Hunger Campaign”. Established
to the precise objective of contributing to the reduction of hunger and
under the umbrella of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
malnutrition, the factors involved are many and wide-ranging, requir-
we are now one of Germany’s largest private aid agencies. We are an
ing analysis of underlying processes and extending beyond a narrowly
independent organisation and firmly rooted in German society through
defined food sector. The Institute’s research program reflects world-
our member organisations, donors and supporters. We stand for cour-
wide collaboration with governments and private and public institutions
age, a passion for life and humanity as part of our mission.
interested in increasing food production and improving the equity of
its distribution. Research results are disseminated to policymakers, opin-
What we want
ion formers, administrators, policy analysts, researchers, and others
We promote food security for all people, rural development and the
concerned with national and international food and agricultural policy.
preservation of natural resources. We believe in the power of dreams
because dreams drive people forward. For this reason, we have increas-
IFPRI is a member of the CGIAR Consortium.
ingly been linking our partners in Germany and the project countries
to a dynamic global network and are making development cooperation
a reality.
Our identity – who we are
What we do
Concern Worldwide is Ireland’s largest
We help people in developing countries to provide for themselves now
non-governmental organisation, dedicated
and in the future. As a large German aid agency with 50 years of inter-
to the reduction of suffering and working
national experience, we have been chalking up success stories in Afri-
towards the ultimate elimination of extreme poverty. We work in 25 of
ca, Asia and Latin America. As part of our political activities, we fight
the world’s poorest countries and have over 3,100 committed and tal-
to change the conditions that lead to hunger and poverty. In Germany,
ented staff.
we mobilise people to support and help implement our vision.
Our mission – what we do
How we work
Our mission is to help people living in extreme poverty achieve major
We pursue a holistic, quality- and impact-oriented concept ranging from
improvements in their lives which last and spread without ongoing sup-
immediate disaster aid and reconstruction to long-term development
port from Concern Worldwide. To this end, Concern Worldwide will work
projects. In this context, we work with the affected people on equal
with the poor themselves, and with local and international partners who
terms – offering competence, reliability and transparency. We support
share our vision, to create just and peaceful societies where the poor
partner organisations in the project countries thereby ensuring that
can exercise their fundamental rights. To achieve this mission we
structures are reinforced from the bottom up and that successful proj-
engage in long-term development work, respond to emergency situa-
ect work can be secured for the long term.
tions, and seek to address the root causes of poverty through our development education and advocacy work.
Our vision – for change
A world where no-one lives in poverty, fear or oppression; where all
have access to a decent standard of living and the opportunities and
choices essential to a long, healthy and creative life; a world where
everyone is treated with dignity and respect.
2012 Global Hunger Index | Partners
67
IMPRINT
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V.
Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 1
53173 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 228-2288-0
Fax +49 228-2288-333
www.welthungerhilfe.de
Secretary General and Chairperson:
Dr. Wolfgang Jamann
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
2033 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA
Tel. +1 202-862-5600
Fax +1 202-467-4439
www.ifpri.org
Director General:
Dr. Shenggen Fan
Authors:
IFPRI: Klaus von Grebmer (Senior Research Fellow and Strategic Advisor), Claudia
Ringler (Deputy Director, Environment and Production Technology Division), Mark
W. Rosegrant (Director, Environment and Production Technology Division), Tolulope
Olofinbiyi (Research Analyst), Doris Wiesmann (Independent Consultant), Heidi
Fritschel (Editor), Ousmane Badiane (Director, Africa), Maximo Torero (Director,
Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division), and Yisehac Yohannes (Research Analyst)
Concern Worldwide: Jennifer Thompson (Advocacy Officer for Hunger)
Welthungerhilfe: Constanze von Oppeln (Food Aid and Food Security Policy)
Green Scenery: Joseph Rahall (Director)
Ordering number:
460-9412
ISBN:
978-0-89629-942-9
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896299429
Concern Worldwide
52-55 Lower Camden Street
Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel. +353 1 417 7700
Fax +353 1 475 7362
www.concern.net
Chief Executive:
Tom Arnold
Editors:
Constanze von Oppeln, Claudia Rommel, Klaus von Grebmer, Olive Towey
Design, Arrangement, and Production:
muehlhausmoers corporate communications gmbh, Cologne, Germany
Tobias Heinrich, Pascal Schöning
Printing:
DFS Druck, Cologne, Germany, dfs@dfs-druck.de
Picture credits:
Cover photography: Imagechina/Corbis, China, Chongqing Municipality, a Chinese farmer shouldering empty buckets walks across dried-up fields to seek water during a drought
in Magou village, Anwen town, Qijiang county, 2011; page 2: Brockmann/Welthungerhilfe, Kenya, Welthungerhilfe is renovating boreholes and dried-up water reservoirs in
Chifri, 2011; page 6: Pilar/Welthungerhilfe, South Sudan, Nyamlel, children fetch water
at a water pump with Welthungerhilfe canisters in a settlement in Nyamlel; page 10:
Böthling/Welthungerhilfe, India, Purulia, Millenniumsdorf Gandhiji Songha, farmer uses
the method called system of rice intensification (SRI) to intensify rice production and
increase yields with less water consumption, 2008; page 22: Lohnes/Welthungerhilfe,
Indonesia, Simeulue, farmer Jamil prepares his rice field with a two-wheel tractor close
to the village of Leubang Hulu on the island of Simeulue, Aceh, Indonesia; the tractor
was a donation from Welthungerhilfe designed to improve the livelihood and income of
the farmer, 2006; page 34: Desmarowitz/Welthungerhilfe, Sierra Leone, Ngeihun, at the
cocoa farmers cooperative “Millennium Cocoa Growers” in Ngeihun, Finda, wife of the
cocoa farmer Tamba Kaitongay, produces palm oil, important for feeding her family and
generating her own income, 2008; page 41: Jennifer Thompson/Concern, Tanzania, a
completed certificate of customary right of occupancy, 2012; page 45: Jennifer Thompson/Concern, Tanzania, Iringa, Anna Mdeka holds her copy of her CCRO, Luganga Village, Pawaga Division, 2012; page 46: Creutzmann/Welthungerhilfe, Cuba, Havana, at
an urban agriculture project of Welthungerhilfe in the Alamar quarter of Havana, a worker irrigates plants being cultivated in seedling trays in the greenhouse, 2006; Portraits:
The potraits were taken by staff from Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide.
With kind support from our image partner Corbis.
Disclaimer:
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the maps herein do
not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI), Welthungerhilfe, or Concern Worldwide.
Scan this QR code to go to the
2012 GHI website
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/
2012-global-hunger-index
FOOD RIGHT NOW is an international education campaign run
by Alliance2015 and supported
by the European Union.
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V.
International Food Policy
Research Institute
Concern Worldwide
Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 1
53173 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 228-22 88-0
Fax +49 228-22 88-333
www.welthungerhilfe.de
2033 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA
Tel. +1 202-862-5600
Fax +1 202-467-4439
www.ifpri.org
52-55 Lower Camden Street
Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel. +353 1-417-7700
Fax +353 1-475-7362
www.concern.net