Food Security and Nutrition—a Global Issue

Firefighters use a manual hose line to extinguish the fire on a burning barricade during the food crisis riots in Port-au- Prince, Haiti, 2008.

In late 2007 and early 2008, there was widespread unrest over the rising cost of staple foods. Riots were reported in 37 countries. In Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, 10,000 workers rioted.¹ Many governments called on their armies to quell violence related to food prices. In Haiti, the prime minister had to step down after ordering a ruthless crackdown on protests in Port-au-Prince.²

This is a recent event, so it’s easy to recall how quickly the food-price crisis spread around the globe and how few tools were available to respond to it. The situation seems even closer when we remember skyrocketing wheat prices in the summer of 2010—and violent outbreaks in Mozambique in reaction. When the hunger crisis of 2007-08 was unfolding, it was described as “a perfect storm”³ —a convergence of causes in just the right combination for the resulting disaster.

The problem with this metaphor is that it fails to separate preventable causes from factors that no one could control, at least in the short run. Climate change contributed to the crisis, and it may be ultimately subject to human intervention, but it was not a preventable cause during the months that global hunger was rising rapidly.

On the other hand, the decision by several governments to ban grain exports seemed expedient to them, but it didn’t work as they anticipated. Countries banned exports in an effort to conserve supplies for their own people. But not only were poor people in food-importing countries harmed by these bans, the people at home that governments were trying to protect were harmed as well. Export bans were put in place in one country after another—with the result that supplies of grain tightened in global markets, sending prices that were already unusually high soaring higher. Food was available, but poor people simply could not afford to buy it.

Another factor that drove up food prices was the current policies that encourage farmers to divert food grains to biofuel production. In fact, biofuel-related policies accounted for as much as 70 percent of the rise in grain prices during the 2008 spikes,⁴ according to Donald Mitchell of the World Bank. The United States has a set of policies that encourage the production of corn-based ethanol. In 2009, ethanol subsidies cost U.S. taxpayers $6 billion.⁵ The United States and Brazil account for the largest share of ethanol production (Brazil produces its ethanol from sugar cane), while the European Union leads the world in biodiesel production. Figure i.5 on page 20 of the Introduction compares outputs of the top ethanol producing nations.

An urgent problem like the 2008 food price crisis, where hundreds of millions of people suddenly were no longer able to afford their usual foods, illuminates very clearly the weaknesses and gaps of governance systems. What is needed for an effective global response to such a global crisis? Currently, there is no functioning mechanism to coordinate and manage the complex web of relationships created by the interactions of the global economy with food security—but that is what is needed.

In 1974, member countries of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization established the Committee on Food Security (CFS), whose role includes monitoring food security efforts. But the committee was criticized as mainly a “talk-shop.” It had no means of holding governments accountable for what they say they will do to reduce hunger in their country. It did not have the mandate, the resources, or the power to enforce coordination of food security planning or to prevent countries from taking harmful unilateral action such as imposing export bans. Finally, there was no representation of nongovernmental stakeholders on the committee. Hungry people need a stronger CFS.

In April 2008, the U.N. High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis was set up to help coordinate international agencies’ responses to the food-price crisis. The High Level Task Force includes the heads of the U.N. agencies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the World Trade Organization. The task force developed a “Comprehensive Framework for Action” to guide the food security funding and activity planning of its participating institutions.⁶ Additionally, efforts to strengthen the CFS got a further push from the G-20 countries (a group whose own existence recognizes the need for broader, more multilateral solutions to global problems).

As a result, the CFS now has a high level panel of experts from a variety of food security and nutrition-related fields⁷ to provide it with specialized scientific advice. The panel will serve in much the same way as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which advises the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s a hopeful sign because the IPCC, more than any other institution, has raised awareness of the risks associated with climate change and how to address them. There are scores of experts working independently on issues related to food security, just as with climate change.

The improved CFS has a broad charter that includes coordinating global action on agriculture, food, and nutrition and holding governments to account. A wide set of stakeholders are involved, not just governments. One of the central pillars is to provide civil society groups with an international forum to communicate their concerns. Meaningful engagement with civil society will help the CFS be more accountable. The hope is to make the CFS the broadest and most inclusive global platform on food security.

National Alliances Against Hunger and Malnutrition

The Guatemalan Alliance to End Hunger works with the Ministry of Public Health to distribute a fortified drink mix to families at risk of malnutrition.

The Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Aid Effectiveness⁸ both emphasize heavily the principle of country ownership of development, which they define as a process in which governments engage local citizens’ groups, the private sector, and other stakeholders in the design and implementation of the country’s development agenda. Through the principle of country ownership, civil society is empowered to hold government accountable for following through on its promises.

A vibrant and engaged civil society is essential in fighting hunger. The CFS could be the vehicle through which a broad array of citizens’ groups in each country are energized, empowered, and equipped to play this critical role. The reformed CFS could be a transformative institution.

There are now dozens of national alliances against hunger and malnutrition in the developing world. National alliances provide a structure for various groups of citizens—women, faith-based, farmer groups—to work together against hunger and malnutrition. Some alliances function as an advisory group to their governments. The alliances could become partners with the CFS and facilitate its contacts with citizens’ groups.

The CFS should also work with the International Alliance Against Hunger, supported by the FAO in Rome, to build the capacity of national alliances. “Twin” or “sister” relationships between alliances in the global North and alliances in the global South would be one way to do this. South-South cooperation would also be effective; a West African sub-regional alliance that includes national alliances from Mali, Burkina Faso, and Benin has already formed. The CFS can support the efforts of civil society groups to work together to ensure that governments honor their commitments to reduce hunger and malnutrition.

Much of this report focuses on Feed the Future, a new U.S. bilateral assistance program. But other donors, multilateral institutions, developing country governments, and civil society must also take complementary steps. The CFS, with its new charter and a high level task force to provide technical guidance, can help coordinate the effort. The United States will also be a key player.

Building Global Momentum to Scale Up Nutrition

Mother and Baby

Earlier in this report we referred to the ground-breaking series of articles in The Lancet on maternal and child nutrition. Its findings and recommendations as well as its timing helped shape the global response to the rise in hunger and poverty over the last three years. The surge in global food prices and rise in hunger created an opening to raise awareness that nutrition as a sector of development programming has suffered from lack of leadership and coordination.

Following release of the Lancet articles, a multi-stakeholder effort took place to develop a plan for scaling up evidence-based nutrition interventions, focusing on pregnant women, new mothers and children under the age of two. Out of that process came the policy brief, Scaling Up Nutrition: A Framework for Action (SUN Framework), endorsed by nearly 100 organizations including development agencies, UN organizations, civil society organizations, foundations and academic institutions.

In April 2010, the SUN framework was released at a high level event co-hosted by the governments of Canada and Japan, USAID, and the World Bank. It laid out the key principles and priorities for increased investments in nutrition, including support for country-owned and led nutrition strategies, the need for a multi-sector approach that strengthens nutrition outcomes in agriculture, health and other development activities, and the importance of additional resources, both domestic and external.

A Roadmap for Scaling Up Nutrition, launched in September 2010, outlined a detailed plan for countries to scale up nutrition interventions. A launch event took place at the U.N. Summit on the Millennium Development Goals, underscoring how crucial nutrition is to achieving all of the goals, and was hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Micheál Martin.

Along with the Roadmap, a campaign was launched to draw attention to the first 1,000 days, from conception to age 2, when nutrition makes the most difference in determining a person’s chances for a healthy and productive life. The 1,000 Days: Change a Life, Change the Future campaign aims to give a boost to scaling up nutrition. Many additional steps are needed, including an effective mechanism at the global level to coordinate and monitor action.

Issues