The Hunger Report

Since the early 1990s, Vietnam has had a tremendous growth spurt. Extreme poverty declined from 58 percent of the population in 1993 to 16 percent in 2006.

Vietnam’s progress is due to a combination of economic reforms and technological innovations in its agricultural sector.

The most significant policy changes include loosening state controls on agriculture while implementing land reforms that provided market incentives to farmers. These were followed by permitting more private sector activity in agricultural processing and marketing. Farmers responded by increasing production, growing two or three successive crops on the same piece of land each year. From 1993 to 2006, per capita food production grew at 3.8 percent per year, equaled or surpassed by only five countries in the world.¹

The last several decades have shown once again that people will seize opportunities to escape poverty. Whole countries have been able to make huge leaps forward. India and China, the two most populous countries in the world, have dramatically reduced poverty and are now major players in the global economy. Because of their size, they receive great attention, but there has also been progress in many other nations. Ghana and Chile, two very different countries, have sharply reduced hunger. Haiti and Uganda, with strong support from donors, are making progress against infectious diseases, especially HIV/AIDS.

There is ample proof that large gains can be made in the fight against hunger, poverty and disease. Contrary to what sometimes seems like a never-ending stream of bad news, the situation appears much more positive once we step back to gain a broader perspective. Since 1980, the percentage of people in the developing world living in extreme poverty has fallen from one in two to one in four.² A cursory look at what was accomplished in the second half of the twentieth century is all it takes to regain confidence in the chances for continued progress. The eradication of smallpox, dramatic gains against polio and other diseases, increases in life expectancy, reductions in infant and maternal mortality, hundreds of millions of children now attending school—these and other examples demonstrate that a combination of political will, flexible approaches to development, and the mutual commitment of governments and donors can lead to real results.

Also encouraging has been the growing numbers of people around the world demanding that national leaders raise the plight of poor people to the top of the political agenda. The ONE Campaign in the United States, the Make Poverty History Campaign in the United Kingdom, and the Global Call to Action Against Poverty, an international campaign, all have mobilized millions of citizens in support of development. Because of pressure from groups such as these, at the G8 Summit of 2005—a meeting of some of the richest countries in the world—heads of state agreed to double development assistance and expand debt relief for poor countries. Debt relief is a cause that bore fruit because the advocacy community would not let it go. Since 2000, developing countries have been able to redirect $17 billion into anti-poverty programs that otherwise would have gone to pay down debts.³

The Millennium Development Goals

Human development encompasses an interdependent web of connections. Hunger makes treating infectious diseases more difficult, it causes women to die during childbirth and children to grow up stunted, it leads to poor school attendance and performance and can even cause environmental damage as poor farmers cut down forests to put land into production to grow food. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) recognize this web of connections. The goals call for eradicating hunger and poverty, providing all children with access to a primary school education, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, promoting gender equality, combating infectious diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and establishing partnerships for development between developed and developing countries.

The MDGs are a grand vision, but they are also a roadmap for action. They build on decades of knowledge and success in development programming. Developing countries have taken the lead in designing and implementing MDG strategies; more than 140 have produced their own plans in pursuit of the goals.⁴ But developing countries cannot achieve the goals alone; they need the support of developed countries, and the latter have agreed to be partners, understanding that lack of progress in one part of the world reverberates everywhere, and to ignore the MDGs imperils everyone.

While progress in human development may be their most obvious virtue, the MDGs have ramifications for every country, rich and poor. It is no longer possible to ignore the web of connections that exist between all countries. Borders have not vanished and the oceans continue to separate continents, but the world is rapidly becoming a smaller place. Bird flu originating in a remote area in Asia can board a plane and arrive in the United States in a matter of days or even hours. Nobody in New York or London or Paris should presume that what happens in Dhaka and Dakar has no implications at home. Nor should we presume that the greenhouse gases produced in the United States have no consequences for farmers in sub-Saharan Africa.

Since 2000, when the MDGs were formally adopted, leaders from across the globe have come together on several occasions to explore how to build and sustain meaningful global partnerships. World leaders have acknowledged that meeting the MDGs will require better coordination of aid programs within and among donor agencies. Coordination must not be limited to aid, but must include policies in such areas as trade, migration, technology and the environment.In the language of the MDGs, developing and developed countries must form a “global partnership for development.”

The MDGs are not immune to criticism. One concern is that they do not address the core problems that make people poor in the first place. Armed conflict, weak government institutions, poor governance, economic inequality, and lack of respect for human rights are all causes of poverty—yet are not explicitly addressed in the MDGs. Other critics have argued that the targets are inappropriate for regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, where difficult starting conditions make reaching the MDGs unlikely. These criticisms, rather than undermining the credibility of the MDGs, enrich the debate about what is really needed to support people’s efforts to lift themselves out of poverty and protect themselves from hunger and disease.

There may well be some hand-wringing when 2015 comes along and outcomes are tallied and the countries that had the farthest to come may not have come far enough. But the point of the MDGs is not that in 2015 we read the scores, declare winners and losers, and proceed with the next global campaign. The MDGs will be no less relevant in 2016 than they were in 2015. Taken together, the goals represent a comprehensive vision of human development, timeless and urgently relevant until the last human being is lifted out of poverty and freed from hunger, disease, and illiteracy.

Raising Up the “Bottom Billion”

In spite of the many advances achieved in the last half century, we cannot gloss over the fact that 1.4 billion people are living in extreme poverty.⁵ They are sometimes called the “bottom billion,”⁶ an expression coined by economist Paul Collier, whose 2007 book The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It actually made several bestseller lists. At the time the book was published, the number of people believed to be living in poverty was closer to a billion, but in 2008 new data using more precise measuring tools led to an adjustment upwards by another fifty percent.

Most poor people reside in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, in the poorest countries of the world, where it is not uncommon for a third or more of the population to be living in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty, $1.25-per-day-or-less poverty, is almost always accompanied by hunger, illiteracy, poor health, and early death.

With a global hunger crisis threatening to undo much of the progress achieved since 2000, now is the time for countries to recommit to the MDGs and make their promise come true. The steep rise in food prices in recent years is proving to be a setback for scores of developing countries. Prices have come down slightly since the summer of 2008, but that is small consolation for those struggling to survive. It is an especially serious challenge in the poorest countries, those least able to provide assistance to their populations. Under ordinary conditions, poor people spend more than half of their income on food. The rise in prices creates still greater hardship, forcing people to cut back on food or change their diets to eat less nutritious foods, or cut back on other expenses such as health care and education.

The problems of development are interlinked, and so must be the solutions. Consider the role of agriculture in reducing poverty and furthering development. One way to reduce hunger is to increase agricultural productivity, particularly for smallholder farmers, because up to 75 percent of poor people live in rural areas and the vast majority of them rely directly or indirectly on farming for their livelihoods.⁷ Better harvests provide families with cash to pay for basic goods and services. Poor families in countries with school fees need the extra money in their pockets to provide their children with an education. For girls, the longer they stay in school, the later they marry and have children, and that can positively affect maternal health, family size, and household income. More than 70 million primary school-aged children do not go to school, and 55 percent of them are girls. Female literacy is considerably lower where poverty rates are high. In the Sitamarhi District of India, almost two-thirds of the population is living below the poverty line. About 25 per cent of female residents are literate, far below the state and national levels. The literacy rate for men in the district is double that for women.⁸

Facing Down Challenges to Development

It’s clear that developing countries face a variety of challenges to reducing poverty and achieving the MDGs, some unique and country-specific, others broadly shared. The following sections cover some of the most difficult challenges that are common to many countries.

Poor Starting Conditions:

Countries with the lowest levels of human development, fewest economic opportunities to sustain livelihoods, and fewest government resources are at the greatest disadvantage in trying to promote growth and development.

The rapid progress of India and China shows that the problems of underdevelopment are not insurmountable. But few countries have the capacity to invest on the scale needed to make development work without external assistance from donor countries. Hence many countries get caught in cycles of poverty.

A recent study conducted by the Millennium Task Force, a group of technical experts charged with creating a roadmap for meeting the MDGs, puts the financial needs of the least developed countries in perspective. Using Ghana as the model for an “MDG needs assessment,” the Millennium Task Force reported in 2005 that an investment of approximately $100 per person per year would be needed annually for the country to meet the MDGs.⁹ From 2000-2006, the average annual per capita spending by all bilateral and multilateral donors came to just $42.71.¹⁰

Weak Governance and Institutions:

Sustainable development requires a well-functioning government, and this requires political will, know-how, and resources.

“Good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development,” said then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 1998.¹⁵ Without an effective government dedicated to protecting human rights and furthering development, no amount of aid will lift a country’s people out of poverty. Participation, fairness, accountability, transparency, and efficiency are key guiding principles in the interaction between governments and people.

Laws and institutions define the relationship between a government and its people. Good governments respect human rights and empower people to participate in choosing their elected leaders and express their opinions and concerns, especially through an active and free press. When poor people have no way to express their needs and hold leaders accountable, they cannot advocate for the reforms and investments needed to help them move out of poverty.

Governments are also responsible for setting the direction of a country’s social and economic priorities. A stable macroeconomic environment (exchange rates, inflation levels) and openness to entrepreneurship promote sustainable economic growth. By simplifying rules, lowering bureaucratic hurdles, and controlling corruption, governments can spur business development and create more jobs. A diverse economic base means more government tax revenues that can be used to fund basic services and infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, roads, water, and sanitation. These, in turn, are essential for a healthy, educated population and a stronger economy.

Environmental Degradation:

Deforestation, overfishing, droughts, and floods are longstanding problems in the developing world. The most recent problem is global climate change, which could prove to be the greatest development challenge of all.

Human population growth, industrial production, mining and oil extraction, logging, intensive farming and fishing, and a host of other activities are putting significant pressures on the earth’s environment. Poor countries, as they struggle to overcome hunger and poverty, must also ensure environmental sustainability. Environmental degradation jeopardizes development, and continued poverty jeopardizes the environment. “Balancing nature and development so that social welfare does not decline over time is at the core of environmental sustainability,” explains a 2008 report on the relationship between the MDGs and the environment.25

Around the world, protecting natural resources has proven to be especially challenging as poverty exacerbates pressures on the environment. And while some countries are making progress in this area, rapid global ecological changes beyond the ability of any single country to control are threatening to overtake the efforts of many. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change details, the uncontrolled emission of greenhouse gases is projected to lead to rising temperatures, higher sea levels, and rapidly changing weather patterns characterized by more frequent and more intense storms.26 In resource-depleted areas, there will be increased vulnerability to natural disasters. For example, trees help to anchor hillsides, and coastal marshes and mangrove forests protect against coastal flooding. In their absence, devastating mudslides and storm surges take lives and destroy the few assets that poor people have.

Conflict and Instability:

Conflict not only stops development but reverses it. It is critical for countries emerging from conflict to get onto a development track quickly; otherwise, they are likely to fall back into conflict.

Weak states preoccupied with quelling violence or staving off coups cannot focus on important development goals. Nearly three-quarters of the world’s very poorest countries, many of them in sub-Saharan Africa, have a recent history of conflict. Unfortunately for many of these countries, escaping conflict and building a sustained path to development is not easy.

The reality is that poverty is both a cause and an outcome of conflict. Livelihoods are abandoned and economic development reversed. Displaced populations are more vulnerable to hunger and disease. Violence can quickly destroy the physical and financial environment needed to ensure sustainable development. Bombs and bullets scar the natural environment; unexploded landmines can make land permanently unusable.

In his work studying the challenges to development, economist Paul Collier finds that low-income countries are much more prone to civil wars than wealthier countries. “Halve the starting income of a country and you double the risk of civil war,” he concludes. Moreover, he argues that the rate of economic growth is another marker for conflict: higher growth rates decrease the risk of a country going to war.31

The Challenge of Rising Food Prices

The challenges discussed so far—starting conditions, governance, environmental degradation, conflict—stem mainly from internal factors in individual countries. The rise in food prices in the last two years is something quite different. Every country is experiencing higher food prices, although poor countries are suffering more than others. More than a hundred million additional people have been added to the ranks of the world’s poor³⁹ and 75 million more are hungry,⁴⁰ the result of a confluence of factors described by World Food Program Executive Director Josette Sheeran as “a perfect storm hitting the world’s hungry.”⁴¹ Below are some of the most salient causes.

• Rising incomes in some parts of the developing world. When people leave poverty behind them, one of the first things they buy with their additional income is an improved diet, and that usually means eating protein-rich foods they could not afford previously. But grain supplies are already being outstripped by demand, and it takes roughly 7 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of meat.⁴² China and India each have more than a billion people, and while large numbers of people remain poor and do not enjoy better diets, those who are prospering in these rapidly expanding economies have added to the demand for grains to be used as animal feeds. Increasing agricultural productivity is the key to making sure all people have enough to eat
• Rising energy costs. Energy prices and food prices are intertwined in several ways. Oil prices affect the costs of transporting farm inputs and products to market, as well as moving in-kind food aid shipments from the United States or other donors to nations where people are hungry. Some developing countries—the oil exporters—may benefit from the rise in prices, but the vast majority of countries import most or all of their oil.
• Demand for biofuels. Biofuels contribute to higher food prices by diverting grain and land from food to energy production. Through mandates, tariffs and subsidies, the U.S. government has encouraged this shift. Currently, one-third of all corn grown in the United States is used to produce ethanol.⁴³When oil was selling for $120 per barrel, it was estimated that ethanol subsidies raised the price of a bushel of corn from $5.20 to $6.81.⁴⁴ In addition to raising prices, biofuel production in the United States has caused farmers to plant more corn in place of other crops, raising the price of those crops as well as decreasing their supplies.
• Export restrictions and bans. By July 2008, 14 countries had either banned or restricted rice exports, 15 countries had capped or halted wheat exports, and more than a dozen had limited corn exports.⁴⁵ As a stark reminder of how trade policies affect food prices, India, the world’s second-largest exporter of rice, announced that it was banning rice exports starting in November 2007. The Philippines and Vietnam, two other major rice producers, quickly followed suit. The price of rice on world markets jumped from just below $400 per metric ton to $1,100 in less than six months, a terrible blow to low-income rice-importing countries.⁴⁶
• Bad weather. A number of top grain-producing countries have had shortfalls in recent years due to poor weather conditions. Back-to-back droughts in Australia in 2006 and 2007 resulted in a 4 percent reduction in global grain exports.⁴⁷ Shortfalls in the European Union, Canada, and Eastern Europe have also been attributed to unfavorable weather conditions. As a result of this and the other factors listed above, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reported that by the end of 2008, grain reserves would be at a 25-year low.⁴⁸

The global hunger crisis highlights not only the importance of external factors beyond the control of poor countries, but also the deep interconnectedness of all countries and the reason development is a global issue, not one confined to individual countries. The policies of national governments can potentially reverberate internationally. The domestic policies of developed countries are outside the control of developing countries, but as we’ll see more evidence in coming chapters, these policies have also contributed to the severity of the hunger crisis.

Making Development Work

The challenges to development are real and difficult, but they are not insurmountable. Triumphing over them will require the commitment of developing countries—commitment to promote good governance and build strong institutions, preserve peace and stability, and use environmental resources wisely. To make development work on the scale envisioned in the MDGs, developed countries must partner with developing countries, providing resources and ensuring that their national policies do not harm the efforts of developing countries to help themselves.

This partnership is the key to achieving the MDGs, but developed countries have done too little so far. If they are in fact committed to these goals, they must put forth greater effort. The examples of Mali, Botswana, Liberia, and other developing countries show they are willing to do their part. What is not at all clear is whether developed countries are ready to do likewise. Business as usual will not be enough to achieve the MDGs.

* * *