food insecurity: when people must live with hunger and ...... · designation of 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. The international development environment in which IAWG-FIVIMS

The State of Food Insecurity in the World

2002

food insecurity:when people must live with hunger

and fear starvation

Published in 2002 by theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsViale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy

The designations employed and the presentation of the materialin this publication do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,territory, city or area or of its boundaries, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of materialin this information product for education or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior writtenpermission from the copyright holders provided the source isfully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this informationproduct for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout written permission of the copyright holders.

Applications for such permission should be addressed to theChief, Publishing and Multimedia Service, Information Division,FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected].

© FAO 2002

ISBN ?????????????????

Printed in Italy (TO BE CONFIRMED)

PhotographsAs cover (left to right): T. Burarakskiet/UNEP/Still Pictures; S. Mittal/UNEP/Still Pictures; L. Olesen/UNEP/Still Pictures

AcknowledgementsThis fourth edition of The State of FoodInsecurity in the World was prepared as acollaborative effort within FAO led by theEconomic and Social Department (ES).

Overall leadership was provided byHartwig de Haen, Assistant Director-General, ES, assisted by Prakash Shetty, Chief of the Nutrition Planning,Assessment and Evaluation Service(ESNA), who served as the chair of the core technical team. Invaluableconceptual and editorial assistance was provided by Andrew Marx ofKnowledgeView Ltd.

Other members of the core technicalteam were: William Meyers, BarbaraHuddleston and Kostas Stamoulis,Agriculture and Economic DevelopmentAnalysis Division; Jorge Mernies,Statistics Division; David Wilcock, FIVIMSCoordinator; and Nicholas Hughes,Programme Coordinator, ES Department.

The following FAO staff provided technicalcontributions: Jelle Bruinsma and JosefSchmidhuber, Global Perspectives StudyUnit (ES); Haluk Kasnakoglu, RicardoSibrian, Cinzia Cerri and LoganadenNaiken (consultant),Statistics Division(ES); Ergin Ataman, Mario Bloise andPaola de Salvo, Research, Extension andTraining Division, and Paul Munro-Faure,David Palmer, Paolo Groppo, AdrianaHerrera and Luciana Colella-Iarussi,Rural Development Division (SustainableDevelopment Department); FreddyNachtergaele and Marina Zanetti, Landand Water Development Division, andJohn Dixon, Agricultural Support SystemsDivision (Agriculture Department); AysenTanyeri-Abur, Sumiter Broca, StefanoTrento, Luca Fe d ’Ostiani, AmdetsionGebre-Michael, Guenter Hemrich,AnnaCarla Lopez, and Manish Tiwary,Agriculture and Economic DevelopmentAnalysis Division (ES); BarbaraBurlingame, Karel Callens, Florence Egaland Gina Kennedy, Nutrition Division (ES);

Jenny Riches, FIVIMS Coordination Unit(ES); Liliana Balbi, Commodities andTrade Division (ES); Douglas McGuire andThomas Hofer, Forest Resources Division(Forestry Department).

The key estimates on food consumptionand undernourishment used in SOFI 2002were produced by the Basic Data Branchand the Statistical Analysis Service of theStatistics Division (ES), respectively.

FAO extends special thanks to the teamat Banson, Cambridge, UK, for design,layout, editorial support and preparationof graphic material.

The Editorial Group of the InformationDivision, was responsible for languageediting, editorial quality control anddesktop publishing, while translationswere provided by the Translation Group ofthe Conference, Council and ProtocolAffairs Division, (General Affairs andInformation Department).

2002The State of Food Insecurity in the World

food insecurity:when people must live with hunger

and fear starvation

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 20022

I am very pleased to associate the Inter-Agency Working Group onFIVIMS (IAWG-FIVIMS) with this fourth edition of The State of FoodInsecurity in the World. The information contained in this publicationrepresents a substantial contribution to the objectives of FIVIMS,namely, to:• increase global attention to problems of food insecurity;• improve data quality and analysis through the development of new

tools and capacity-building in developing countries;• promote effective and better directed action aimed at reducing

food insecurity and poverty;• promote donor collaboration on food security information systems

at the global and country levels;• improve access to information through networking and sharing.

As the membership list indicates, the IAWG-FIVIMS representsdiverse perspectives and interests. But we all share a commitment to reduce global food insecurity and vulnerability and to buildsustainable livelihoods for the poor. Increasingly, the sustainablelivelihood approach is seen as providing a framework for monitoringand assessing both food insecurity and vulnerability and the directionand impact of our efforts to alleviate them. Some examples ofvulnerable livelihoods and vulnerable environments are detailed inSOFI, with a particular focus on mountain people in keeping withdesignation of 2002 as the International Year of Mountains.

The international development environment in which IAWG-FIVIMSoperates has changed markedly since the 1996 World Food Summit.The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) process has assumed aprominent role in development strategies and actions. The IAWG-FIVIMS looks forward to being fully involved with the MDG initiativeand with efforts to monitor its implementation and impact at globaland national levels.

As with previous issues of SOFI, IAWG members commend the FAOSOFI team for an excellent report on the state of food insecurity in theworld.

Krishna Belbase (UNICEF)Chair, IAWG-FIVIMS

IAWG-FIVIMS membershipBilateral aid and technical agenciesAustralian Agency for International Development (AusAID)Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)European Commission (EC)German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)United States Agency for International Development (USAID)United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

United Nations and Bretton Woods agenciesFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)International Labour Organisation (ILO)United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)World Bank (WB)World Food Programme (WFP)World Health Organization (WHO)World Meteorological Organization (WMO)United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition (UNS/SCN)Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR)International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

International non-governmental organizationsHelen Keller International (HKI)Save the Children Fund (SCF)World Resources Institute (WRI)

Regional organizationsSouthern African Development Community (SADC)Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel(CILSS)

Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems

This fourth edition of The State ofFood Insecurity in the World(SOFI) provides the latest esti-mates of the number of chroni-

cally hungry people in the world andreports on global and national efforts toreach the goal set by the World FoodSummit (WFS) in 1996 – to reduce thatnumber to half the level reported at thetime of the Summit by the year 2015.

The report is divided into four mainsections. The first section, Undernourish-ment around the world, analyses thelatest data on hunger. Other articlescombine this data with other indicators tochart the fatal connection between hunger

and mortality and the strategic connectionbetween combating hunger and achievingthe Millennium Development Goals.

The second section contains a specialfeature on mountain people and mountainenvironments. This presents preliminaryresults from a multidisciplinary studycarried out as part of FAO’s contribution tothe International Year of Mountains. Thestudy used newly available georeferenceddata to estimate the number of mountainpeople vulnerable to food insecurity.

In the third section, Towards theSummit commitments, a series of articlesdiscusses approaches to fulfilling thecommitments in the WFS Plan of Action.

Finally, as in every edition of SOFI, twosets of tables provide detailed informationon the prevalence in developing countriesand countries in transition of under-nourishment and on food availability,dietary diversification, poverty, health andchild nutritional status.

SOFI draws on the ongoing work of FAOand its international partners in moni-toring the nutritional status and analysingthe vulnerability of populations worldwide.It represents part of FAO’s contribution to the interagency Food Insecurity andVulnerability Information and MappingSystems initiative.

About this report

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2002 3

Contents

4 Foreword

Towards the World Food Summit target

6 Undernourishment around the world

6 Hunger and mortality

8 Counting the hungry: latest estimates

10 Undernourishment, poverty and development

12 Hunger hotspots

14 Special feature

14 The vulnerability of mountain environments and mountain people

20 Towards the World Food Summit commitments

20 Acting to combat hunger

22 Addressing the risk factors common to conflict and food insecurity

24 Confronting the causes of malnutrition:

the hidden challenge of micronutrient deficiencies

26 Land reform and secure land tenure:

keys to food security and sustainable development

28 Financing for development:

the critical role of hunger reduction and agricultural development

30 The way ahead

Combating hunger contributes to achieving other Millennium Development Goals

31 Tables

TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, the state of foodsecurity in the world is not good. Ineach of the three previous editions

of this report, the basic message has been essentially the same. Each year, wehave reported a mixture of good news and bad news. The good news has beenthat the number of undernourishedpeople in the developing world continuesto decline. The bad news has been thatthe decline has been too slow, that ourprogress has been falling far short of the pace needed to reduce the number of hungry people by half by the year 2015 – the goal set at the World FoodSummit (WFS) in 1996 and echoed in theMillennium Development Goals.

This year we must report that pro-gress has virtually ground to a halt. Ourlatest estimates, based on data from theyears 1998–2000, put the number ofundernourished people in the world at840 million, of whom 799 million live indeveloping countries. That figure repre-sents a decrease of barely 2.5 million per year over the eight years since1990–92, the period used as the startingpoint for the drive launched at the WorldFood Summit.

If we continue at the current pace, we will reach the WFS goal more than 100years late, closer to the year 2150 than to the year 2015. Clearly, that is simplyunacceptable.

To put it another way, in order to makeup for the lagging progress to date andreach the World Food Summit goal ontime, we must now strive to reduce thenumber of hungry people by 24 millioneach year from now until 2015, almost

exactly ten times the pace achieved overthe past eight years. That is simplyimperative.

Daunting as the task may sound,achieving this accelerated rate of progressis also eminently possible. Quite frankly,the question is not whether we can affordto invest the resources, the energy, andthe political commitment required to fighthunger. Rather, we must ask whether wecan afford not to do so. The answer is thatwe cannot.

The price we pay for this lack ofprogress is heavy indeed. The hungrythemselves pay most immediately andmost painfully. But the costs are alsocrippling for their communities, theircountries and the global village that we all inhabit and share.

Articles in this report document thecrushing cost that hunger inflicts on themillions of people who experience it,measured in stunted physical and mentaldevelopment, constricted opportunities,blighted health, shortened life expectancy,premature death. To cite just one example,every year, 6 million children under theage of five die as a result of hunger andmalnutrition. That is roughly equivalent tothe entire population of children under fivein Japan, or in France and Italy combined.

Other articles in this report dem-onstrate that the reduced productivity,truncated working lives and suffocatedopportunities of 799 million hungry peoplein the developing world hamstringeconomic progress and fuel environ-mental degradation and conflict at thenational and international levels.

Clearly, the cost of inaction isprohibitive. Fortunately, the cost of pro-gress is both calculable and affordable.The currency most urgently needed is notdollars but commitment.

At a side event of the World FoodSummit: five years later in June 2002, theFAO Secretariat presented a draft out-line for an Anti-Hunger Programme, astrategic, cost-effective framework fornational and international action to reduce

hunger through agricultural and ruraldevelopment and wider access to food.

According to this proposal, publicinvestment of US$24 billion a year wouldbe enough to jump start an acceleratedcampaign against hunger that could reachthe WFS goal. Taken in perspective, theprice tag is startlingly low, dwarfed by themore than US$300 billion that the OECDnations transferred to support their ownagriculture in 2001. As the economistJeffrey Sachs has pointed out, in com-parison to a global economy measured in the trillions, US$24 billion could beconsidered a “rounding error”, rep-resenting barely five pennies for everyUS$100 of income.

And the payoff would be impressivelyhigh. FAO has estimated that achieving the WFS goal would yield at least US$120billion per year in benefits as a result oflonger, healthier and more productivelives for several hundred million peoplefreed from hunger.

The cost of the programme would bewidely shared. Of various conceivableoptions, the Anti-Hunger Programmeassumes that the costs would be sharedequally, 50-50, between the internationaldonor community and the developingcountries themselves. On average, acrossall developing regions, this would requirea 20 percent increase in developingcountries’ budgets for agricultural andrural development. For the developedcountries and international financinginstitutions, it would represent a doublingof concessional funding to agriculturaland rural development. This would restoreofficial development assistance to thelevel before a steep decline in the 1990sthat hit hardest in precisely those coun-

Foreword

Towards the World Food Summit target


The cost of inaction is prohibitive. The cost of progress is both calculable andaffordable.

“

”

We do not have theexcuse that we cannotgrow enough or that we do not know enough about how to eliminatehunger.

“

”


tries where hunger is most widespread, asdocumented in this report.

And what would this investment buy?The Anti-Hunger Programme outlines atwin-track approach to reduce thenumber of hungry people rapidly andsustainably. It would provide access tofood and deliver immediate relief to thosemost desperately in need, more than 200million hard-core hungry people. And itwould channel investment into sustain-able agriculture and rural development,elevating productivity, incomes and hopein the rural areas in the developing worldwhere more than three-quarters of theworld’s poor and hungry people live. Theproposal also suggests key elements of a policy framework that would maxi-mize the impact of these investments byinducing complementary flows of privateinvestment and enabling the poor andhungry to realize their full developmentpotential.

We do not have the excuse that we

cannot grow enough or that we do notknow enough about how to eliminatehunger. What remains to be proven is thatwe care enough, that our expressions ofconcern in international fora are morethan rhetoric, that we will no longeraccept and ignore the suffering of 840million hungry people in the world or the daily death toll of 25 000 victims ofhunger and poverty.

We already produce more than enoughfood to provide an adequate diet foreveryone. The Plan of Action of the 1996World Food Summit set out clearly whatneeds to be done. The Anti-HungerProgramme suggests practical, affordablemeasures for translating the Plan ofAction’s sound concepts and worthyprinciples into immediate, effective action.

There can be no excuse for furtherdelay. Hunger can be defeated. But only if we demonstrate our commitment bymobilizing a concerted and adequatelyfinanced campaign. Governments, the

international community, civil society andnon-governmental organizations and theprivate sector have to work together, asan international alliance against hunger,to ensure that all people enjoy the mostfundamental of human rights – the rightto food that is essential to their verysurvival and existence.

Jacques Diouf FAO Director-General

Number of undernourished in the developing world: observed and projected ranges compared with the World Food Summit target

FAO estimates of the number of undernourished people are necessarily based on imperfect information. As better data become available, the estimates are revised retrospectively. Range estimates therefore provide a more reliable illustration of the number of undernourished over time. The estimated range for past, projected and target paths is based on a range of 5 percent above and below the past, projected and target numbers considered by the World Food Summit in 1996. Within these ranges, the most recently calculated point estimates are shown. The graph refers to developing countries only because FAO does not have estimates of the undernourished in developed countries for the reference period (1990–92) and earlier years.

700 700

900 900

800 800

600

500

400

300

1 000 1 000

1965

Millions Millions

1970 19801975 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Range around the pointestimates reported at theWorld Food Summit

Range for the year of theWorld Food Summit (1996)

Range around the “businessas usual” projection in World agriculture: towards 2015/30

World FoodSummit target

Point estimatesprepared in 2002

Business as usual

On track

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, including 6million children under the age offive, die each year as a result of

hunger. Of these millions, relatively feware the victims of famines that attractheadlines, video crews and emergencyaid. Far more die unnoticed, killed by the effects of chronic hunger andmalnutrition, a "covert famine" thatstunts their development, saps theirstrength and cripples their immunesystems.

Where prevalence of hunger is high,mortality rates for infants and childrenunder five are also high, and lifeexpectancy is low (see map and graphs).In the worst affected countries, anewborn child can look forward to anaverage of barely 38 years of healthy life(compared to over 70 years of life in “fullhealth” in 24 wealthy nations). One inseven children born in the countrieswhere hunger is most common will diebefore reaching the age of five.

Not all of these shortened lives canbe attributed to the effects of hunger, of course. Many other factors combinewith hunger and malnutrition to sen-tence tens of millions of people to anearly death. The HIV/AIDS pandemic,which is ravaging many of the samecountries where hunger is mostwidespread, has reduced average lifeexpectancy across all of sub-Saharan

Africa by nearly five years for womenand 2.5 years for men.

Even after compensating for theimpact of HIV/AIDS and other factors,however, the correlation between chronichunger and higher mortality rates re-mains striking. Numerous studies sug-gest that it is far from coincidental. Sincethe early 1990s, a series of analyses haveconfirmed that between 50 and 60 per-cent of all childhood deaths in the develo-ping world are caused either directly orindirectly by hunger and malnutrition.

Relatively few of those deaths are theresult of starvation. Most are caused by apersistent lack of adequate food intakeand essential nutrients that leaves chil-dren weak, underweight and vulnerable.

As might be expected, the vastmajority of the 153 million underweightchildren under five in the developingworld are concentrated in countrieswhere the prevalence of undernourish-ment is high (see graph on facing page).

Even mild-to-moderate malnutritiongreatly increases the risk of childrendying from common childhood diseases.Overall, analysis shows that the risk ofdeath is 2.5 times higher for children withonly mild malnutrition than it is forchildren who are adequately nourished.And the risk increases sharply along withthe severity of malnutrition (as measuredby their weight-to-age ratio). The risk of

death is 4.6 times higher for childrensuffering from moderate malnutritionand 8.4 times higher for the severelymalnourished.

Common diseases often fatalfor malnourished children

Infectious diseases are the immediatecause of death for most of the 11 millionchildren under the age of five who dieeach year in the developing world. Butthe risk of dying from those diseases isfar greater for children who are hungryand malnourished.

The four biggest killers of children arediarrhoea, acute respiratory illness,malaria and measles. Taken together,these four diseases account for almosthalf of all deaths among children underthe age of five. Analysis of data from hos-pitals and villages shows that all four ofthese diseases are far more deadly tochildren who are stunted or underweight.

In the case of diarrhoea, numerousstudies show that the risk of death is asmuch as nine times higher for childrenwho are significantly underweight, themost common indicator of chronicundernutrition. Similarly, underweightchildren are two to three times more likelyto die of malaria and acute respiratoryinfections, including pneumonia, thanwell-nourished children.

Undernourishment around the world

Hunger and mortality


Mortality rates and life expectancy in countries grouped by prevalence of undernourishment, 2000

<2.5 2.5–4 5–19 20–34 ≥35% of population undernourished

160

120

80

40

0<2.5 2.5–4 5–19 20–34 ≥35

% of population undernourished

60

40

50

30

10

20

0<2.5 2.5–4 5–19 20–34 ≥35


100

80

60

40

20

0

Infant mortality (per 1 000 live births) Under-five mortality (per 1 000) Healthy life expectancy at birth (years)

Source: FAO/WHO/UNICEF

Lack of dietary diversity and essentialminerals and vitamins also contributesto increased child and adult mortality.Iron deficiency anaemia greatly increasesthe risk of death from malaria, andvitamin A deficiency impairs the immunesystem, increasing the annual death tollfrom measles and other diseases by an

estimated 1.3–2.5 million children (seegraph page 24).

Improving nutrition to save lives

The weight of evidence clearly arguesthat eliminating hunger and malnutritioncould save millions of lives each year.

Countries that do not fall into the above categories

Countries where more than 20% of the population are undernourished and 75 or more out of every 1 000 children die before the age of five

Countries where more than 20% of the population are undernourished and the under-five mortality rate is less than 75 per 1 000 childrenCountries where less than 20% of the population are undernourished and 75 or more out of every 1 000 children die before the age of five


0 % 40 806020 100Diarrhoea

Malaria

Pneumonia

Measles

All causes

Hunger and child mortality

Estimated contribution of undernutritionto under-five mortality worldwide, bycause, 2000

Proportion and number of underweight children, 1997–99

0 60 80705040302010


< 2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

≥35

% of childrenunderweight

Numbers of children underweight

11%

10%

15%

41%

36%

3 million

1 million

35 million

76 million

23 million

Millions

Source: FAO/UNICEF

Major causes of death among childrenunder five worldwide, 2000

Source: FAO/UNICEF

That conclusion has been confirmed by astudy that examined factors that hadhelped reduce child mortality during the 1990s. Topping the list were thedecline in the proportion of children whowere malnourished and lacking accessto adequate water, sanitation andhousing.

Correspondence between high rates of chronic hunger and childhood mortality, 2000

Other 29%

Deathsassociated withundernutrition

60%

Pneumonia 20%

Diarrhoea 12%

Malaria 8%

Measles 5%HIV/AIDS 4%

Perinatal22%

Source: EIP/WHO

have all achieved reductions of more than3 million, helping to offset an increase of96 million in 47 countries where progresshas stalled. But if China and these sixcountries are set aside, the number ofundernourished people in the rest of thedeveloping world has increased by over 80million since the WFS benchmark period.

When the number of undernourished isconsidered as a proportion of a country’stotal population, the picture is somewhatmore encouraging. In the majority ofdeveloping countries, the proportion hasactually decreased since the WFS. In

26 of the 61 developing countries thatachieved a proportional decrease inundernourishment, however, the absolutenumber of undernourished people hascontinued to rise as a result of rapidpopulation growth. One of those 26countries is India, where the ranks of the undernourished have swollen by 18million, despite the fact that the pro-portion fell from 25 to 24 percent.

Sub-Saharan Africa continues to havethe highest prevalence of under-nourishment and also has the largestincrease in the number of undernourished

FAO’S LATEST ESTIMATES of the number of undernourished people confirman alarming trend – progress in

reducing hunger in the developing worldhas slowed to a crawl and in most regionsthe number of undernourished people isactually growing.

Worldwide, the latest estimatesindicate that 840 million people wereundernourished in 1998–2000. This figureincludes 11 million in the industrializedcountries, 30 million in countries in tran-sition and 799 million in the developingworld. The latest figure of 799 million forthe developing countries represents adecrease of just 20 million since 1990–92,the benchmark period used at the WorldFood Summit (WFS). This means that the average annual decrease since theSummit has been only 2.5 million, farbelow the level required to reach the WFS goal of halving the number of under-nourished people by 2015. It also meansthat progress would now have to beaccelerated to 24 million per year, almost10 times the current pace, in order toreach that goal.

Closer examination reveals that thesituation in most of the developing worldis even bleaker than it appears at firstglance. The marginal global gains are theresult of rapid progress in a few largecountries. China alone has reduced thenumber of undernourished people by 74million since 1990–92. Indonesia, VietNam, Thailand, Nigeria, Ghana and Peru


Counting the hungry: latest estimates


80

60%

40

20

0

Tuni

sia

Liby

an A

rab

Jam

ahiri

ya

Arge

ntin

a

Kore

a, R

ep. o

f

Hong

Kon

g SA

R of

Chi

na

Mal

aysi

a

Unite

d Ar

ab E

mira

tes

Turk

ey

Leba

non

Saud

i Ara

bia

Urug

uay

Syria

n Ar

ab R

ep.

Egyp

t

Kuw

ait

Chile

Cost

a Ri

ca

Ecua

dor

Mex

ico

Mau

ritiu

s

Iran,

Isla

mic

Rep

. of

Alge

ria

Indo

nesi

a

Jord

an

Mya

nmar

Nig

eria

Mor

occo

Gabo

n

Jam

aica

Chin

a*

Nam

ibia

Braz

il

Surin

ame

Peru

Ghan

a

Swaz

iland

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Mau

ritan

ia

Beni

n

Cuba

Colo

mbi

a

El S

alva

dor

Guya

na

Para

guay

Côte

d’Iv

oire

Viet

Nam

Pana

ma

Thai

land

Nep

al

Paki

stan

<2.5% undernourished 2.5–4% undernourished 5–19% undernourished

Symposium examines methods of measuring undernourishment

The numbers, graphs and analysispresented here and in Tables 1 and 2(pages 31–36) are based on FAO’sestimates of the prevalence ofundernourishment. These estimates arebased on calculations of the amount offood available in each country (nationaldietary energy supply or DES) and ameasure of inequality in distributionderived from household income/expenditure surveys.

As a contribution to discussion of howmethods can be improved, FAO sponsoredan international scientific symposium inJune 2002. The symposium examined theFAO methodology as well as four othermethods for measuring the prevalence orimpact of hunger and malnutrition. Theother four methods are differentiated by

the source of the data that they rely upon:household expenditure surveys; individualfood intake surveys; anthropometricsurveys on children and adults; andqualitative and indicative self-assessmentsurveys (such as the US Measure of FoodInsecurity). The strengths and weaknessesof each method were actively debated andassessed in the context of producing globalassessments of undernourishment.

The most important outcome of thesymposium was the recognition that thefive methods measure different aspects of food security and could be used in acomplementary manner to improve bothinformation about food insecurity andaction to combat it. Proceedings of themeeting will be published at the end of 2002.

Proportions of undernourished in developing countries, 1990–92 and 1998–2000

undernourished people. But prospectsare troubling for Central America, theNear East and East Asia (excludingChina), where both of these elementshave increased.


* including Taiwan Province of China** Ethiopia and Eritrea were not separate entities in 1990–92

80

60%

40

20

0

Mal

i

Hond

uras

Vene

zuel

a

Ugan

da

Gam

bia

Suda

n

Togo

Phili

ppin

es

Burk

ina

Faso

Boliv

ia

Sri L

anka

Indi

a

Lao

Peop

le's

Dem

. Rep

.

Cam

eroo

n

Guat

emal

a

Sene

gal

Bots

wan

a

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Leso

tho

Iraq

Papu

a N

ew G

uine

a

Nic

arag

ua

Cong

o

Guin

ea

Chad

Mal

awi

Yem

en

Kore

a, D

em. P

eopl

e’s

Rep.

Bang

lade

sh

Nig

er

Cam

bodi

a

Zim

babw

e

Libe

ria

Rwan

da

Mad

agas

car

Mon

golia

Keny

a

Ethi

opia

**

Cent

ral A

fric

an R

ep.

Sier

ra L

eone

Tanz

ania

, Uni

ted

Rep.

of

Ango

la

Haiti

Zam

bia

Moz

ambi

que

Eritr

ea**

Buru

ndi

Afgh

anis

tan

Som

alia

Cong

o, D

em. R

ep. o

f

20–34% undernourished ≥35% undernourished

Number of countries:

Progress but too slow Sufficient progressHunger increasing

10 5 01520 52530

Asia and the PacificLatin Americanand the CaribbeanNear East andNorth AfricaSub-Saharan Africa

Not on track On track

8 3

109

4

923

7

7

5

6

5

Only 23 countries in the developing world are on pace to achieve the World Food Summit goal. In more than twice as many countries, the number ofundernourished people is actually increasing.

Change in proportion of undernourished Change in number of undernourished

ChinaSoutheast AsiaSouth America

West AfricaOceania

CaribbeanNorth Africa

North AmericaCentral AmericaSouthern AfricaOther East Asia

Other South AsiaEast AfricaNear East

IndiaCentral Africa

–70 –60 100–20 –10–30–50 –40 20–10 –5 0 5 10 15 20

Reduction (progress) Increase (setback)

Percentage points Millions

people. But the situation in Africa is notuniformly grim. Most of the increase tookplace in Central Africa, driven by thecollapse into chronic warfare of a singlecountry, the Democratic Republic of the

Congo, where the number of under-nourished people has tripled.

West Africa, with Southeast Asia andSouth America, has reduced significantlyboth the prevalence and the number of

China 119*

India 233

Other Asia andPacific 156

Latin Americaand Caribbean

55

Near East andNorth Africa 40

Sub-SaharanAfrica 196

Undernourished, 1998–2000 (millions)

* including Taiwan Province of China Source: FAO

Source: FAO

Source: FAO

Proportion of undernourished Number of undernourishedChina*

Other East AsiaSoutheast Asia

IndiaOther South AsiaNorth America

Central AmericaCaribbean

South AmericaNear East

North AfricaCentral Africa

East AfricaSouthern Africa

West Africa0 20015010050 25060 50 40 30 20 10 0

Percentage points Millions

Number and proportion of undernourished, 1998–2000



Change in undernourishment, 1990–92 to 1998–2000Towards the WFS goal at country level

Grey bars: 1990–92 Coloured bars: 1998–2000

Total: all developingregions799 million

poverty. Hunger often deprives impov-erished people of the one valuableresource they can call their own: thestrength and skill to work productively.Numerous studies have confirmed thathunger seriously impairs the ability of thepoor to develop their skills and reducesthe productivity of their labour.

Hunger in childhood impairs mentaland physical growth, crippling the cap-acity to learn and earn. Evidence fromhousehold food surveys in developingcountries shows that adults with smallerand slighter body frames caused byundernourishment earn lower wages injobs involving physical labour. Otherstudies have found that a 1 percentincrease in the Body Mass Index (BMI, ameasure of weight for a given height) isassociated with an increase of more than2 percent in wages for those toward thelower end of the BMI range.

Micronutrient deficiencies can alsoreduce work capacity (see pages 24–25).Surveys suggest that iron deficiencyanaemia reduces productivity of manuallabourers by up to 17 percent. As a result,hungry and malnourished adults earnlower wages. And they are frequentlyunable to work as many hours or years aswell-nourished people, as they fall sickmore often and have shorter life spans.

Hunger and the poverty of nations

Widespread hunger and malnutritionimpair economic performance not only ofindividuals and families, but of nations.Anaemia alone has been found to reduceGDP by 0.5–1.8 percent in severalcountries (see graph). Studies in India,Pakistan, Bangladesh and Viet Namestimated conservatively that the com-bined effect of stunting, iodine deficiencyand iron deficiency reduced GDP by 2 to 4 percent. Recent calculations by FAOsuggest that achieving the WFS goal ofreducing the number of undernourishedpeople by half by the year 2015 would yielda value of more than US$120 billion. Thatfigure reflects the economic impact oflonger, healthier, more productive livesfor several hundred million people freedfrom hunger.

Nobel Prize-winning economist RobertFogel has pointed out that hungry peoplecannot work their way out of poverty. He estimates that 20 percent of thepopulation in England and France waseffectively excluded from the labour forcearound 1790 because they were too weakand hungry to work. Improved nutrition,he calculates, accounted for about half ofthe economic growth in Britain and Francebetween 1790 and 1880. Since many

THE WORLD FOOD SUMMIT (WFS) in 1996set the goal – to reduce the numberof hungry people in the world by half

before the year 2015. Four years later,that goal was echoed in the first of theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs),which set targets of reducing by half boththe proportion of people who suffer fromhunger and the proportion living on lessthan US$1 per day.

These targets are closely related;neither can be achieved without the other,and achieving both is essential to successin reaching the rest of the MDGs.

Poverty and hunger – mutual causes,devastating effects

Measures of food deprivation, nutritionand poverty are strongly correlated (seegraphs). Countries with a high prevalenceof undernourishment also have highprevalences of stunted and underweightchildren. In these countries, a highpercentage of the population lives inconditions of extreme poverty. In coun-tries where a high proportion of thepopulation is undernourished, a com-parably high proportion struggles tosurvive on less than US$1 per day.

While poverty is undoubtedly a cause of hunger, hunger can also be a cause of


Undernourishment, poverty and development


% of population living on <US$1 per day

<5 5–19 20–34 ≥35% of population undernourished

40

30

20

10

0

% of children under five who are stunted


40

30

20

10

0

Ratio of girls attending primary school as % of ratio of boys


100

80

60

40

20

0

Source: FAO/World Bank Source: FAO/UNICEF Source FAO/UNESCO

Undernourishment, poverty and indicators for other Millennium Development Goals: 1995–2000

Undernourishment and poverty Undernourishment and stunting Undernourishment and female schooling

developing countries are as poor asBritain and France were in 1790, hisanalysis suggests reducing hunger couldhave a similar impact in developingcountries today.

A key to Millennium Development Goals

Evidence clearly shows that failure toeliminate hunger will undermine efforts toreach the other MDGs as well (see box).

Hopes for achieving universal primaryeducation and literacy, for example, willbe thwarted while millions of hungrychildren suffer from diminished learningcapacity or are forced to work instead ofattending school. Low birth weight, pro-tein energy malnutrition, iron deficiencyanaemia and iodine deficiency are alllinked to cognitive deficiencies. Hungeralso limits school attendance. In Pakistan,a relatively small improvement in heightfor age increased school enrolment ratessubstantially: 2 percent for boys, 10percent for girls. This steep increase forgirls suggests one way in which reducinghunger would also accelerate another ofthe MDGs – promoting gender equality.

Data and analysis confirm thatreducing hunger and malnutrition couldhave a decisive impact on reducing childmortality (see pages 6–7), improvingmaternal health (see pages 24–25), and oncombating HIV/AIDS, malaria and otherdiseases (see pages 24–25).


Maternal deaths per 100 000 births


700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Adult literacy rate (%)


100

80

60

40

20

0

% of population with access to improved water


100

80

60

40

20

0

1980 1985 1990 1995 1998

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

% in extreme

% undernourished

poverty

% of GDP lost as a result of anaemia throughimpaired cognition and productivity, 2001

0 2.01.51.00.5Bangladesh

IndiaOman

MaliSouth Africa

PakistanTanzania

NicaraguaBolivia

EgyptHonduras

Undernourishment and povertyEstimated cost of anaemia

Hunger impacts other Millennium Development Goals

Goal Selected indicators Impact of hunger

Achieve universal • net enrolment ratio • reduces school attendanceprimary education • literacy rate • impairs cognitive capacity

Promote gender • ratio of girls to boys in • may reduce schoolequality primary education attendance more for girls

Reduce child • under-five mortality rate • associated with 60 percentmortality of child deaths

Improve maternal • maternal mortality rate • greatly increases risk ofhealth maternal death

Combat HIV/AIDS, • HIV prevalence among • spurs migratory labourmalaria and other pregnant women that increases spread of HIVdiseases • death rates associated • multiplies child death rates

with malaria from two- to three-fold

Ensure environmental • proportion of land area • leads to unsustainable usesustainability covered by forest of forest lands and resources

Source: FAO/WHO Source: FAO/WHO Source FAO/UNDP

Source: World Bank Source: FAO/World Bank

Undernourishment and maternal mortality Undernourishment and literacy Undernourishment and improved water

locations of many of them. As in previousyears, drought and conflict were the mostcommon causes and Africa the mostaffected region.

Worldwide, drought and other unfavour-able weather conditions triggered foodshortages in 21 of the 32 countries facingemergencies. War, civil strife and thelingering effects of past conflicts sparkedcrises in 15 countries, including severalalso plagued by bad weather. Generaleconomic problems severely underminedfood security in eight countries, frequentlyin combination with adverse weather.

Dry weather and excessive rains duringthe growing season devastated food cropsin several countries in southern Africa forthe second consecutive year (see story,next page). In addition, the effects ofongoing and past civil conflicts threaten

the food security of over 14 million peoplein 11 African countries.

Asia received the most World FoodProgramme emergency food aid in 2001,mainly because of continuing crisis in theDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea.Eight other Asian countries faced foodshortages resulting from droughts andsevere winter weather, compounded byeconomic decline in many countries of theCommonwealth of Independent States.

In Afghanistan, decades of civil strifeand a series of droughts have exposedmillions of people to extreme hardship(see story, next page).

In Central America, a severe droughtthat devastated crops in 2001, combinedwith a collapse in world coffee prices, leftfamilies in rural areas in several countriesof the region dependent on food aid.

MOST OF THE WIDESPREAD HUNGER in a world of plenty results fromgrinding, deeply rooted poverty.

In any given year, however, between 5 and 10 percent of the total can be traced tospecific events: droughts or floods, armedconflict, political, social and economicdisruptions. Frequently these shocksstrike countries already suffering fromendemic poverty and struggling to recoverfrom earlier natural and man-madedisasters. The past year was no exception.

As this report was being completed inJune 2002, 32 countries faced exceptionalfood emergencies, with an estimated 67million people requiring emergency foodaid as a result. Both the number ofcountries and the number of peopleaffected remained almost identical to a year earlier, as did the causes and



Hunger hotspots

No food emergencies

Economic problems

Natural disasters

Past conflict

Conflict

Locations facing humanitarian emergencies, 2001–02


Zimbabwe Zambia Malawi

Production Imports Estimated import requirements

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

2 500metrictonnes

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

Maize requirements in southern Africa, 2000/01 to 2002/03

Even before the events of 11 September2001, Afghanistan was gripped by aserious food crisis. After a third year ofdrought, cereal output in 2001 fell tobarely half the production in 1998.Livestock herds, which are critical to the country’s economy and food security,had been reduced by an estimated 40 percent.

Requirements for food imports for2001–02 reached a record level of 2.2million tonnes, but commercial importsdropped sharply when warfare erupted.Food aid increased but not enough to meetthe needs of almost 10 million people,entirely dependent on food assistance.

Hunger and malnutrition have increasedsharply in a country where stunting ofchildren was reported to be as high as 52percent in 1998, even before drought set in and food production plummeted.

Cereal production has reboundedsignificantly in 2002, buoyed by increasedrainfall and better access to agriculturalinputs. Output is expected to surpass the poor levels of the past three years,although still falling short of the 1998harvest.

Despite this recovery, millions ofpeople remain in need of food assistance.After years of conflict and drought, manyfamilies have exhausted their assets, havesuffered deaths and disabilities or havebeen driven from their homes. Many of the country's irrigation systems lie inruins and about half of the irrigated area has gone out of use. Large-scaleinvestment is urgently needed to repairrural infrastructure and restore crop and livestock production.

Million metric tonnes30 21 54

1975–79

1980–84

1985–89

1990–94

1995–99

1998

1999

2000

2001

Ann

ual a

vera

ges

Afghanistan cereal production

Afghan drought and conflict 13 million people face food emergency in southern Africa

Source: FAO Source: FAO

Southern Africa faces its worst food crisissince the devastating drought of 1992.Nearly 13 million people in the subregionrequire emergency food aid, after acombination of droughts, floods andeconomic dislocations reduced harvests in several countries to half their normallevels or lower.

Worst affected has been Zimbabwe,where an estimated 6 million people needemergency food aid. Until recently,Zimbabwe has been an exporter of maize.But over the past two years, bad weather,political conflict and economic problemshave combined to cripple production andimpede imports. Ongoing disputes over landredistribution have led to severely reducedplantings in the commercial sector. Maizeoutput has plummeted to less than one-quarter of the level achieved just two years earlier. The country faces anunprecedented deficit of more than 70percent of its cereal requirements, at a time when it has little foreign exchange to import food.

Maize production has also fallen sharply in several other countries of theregion. After the first year of bad harvestsin 2001, average prices spiked higher by150 percent in Zambia, 300 percent inZimbabwe and almost 400 percent inMalawi, seriously undermining access tofood for large sections of the population.

Total maize import requirements in nine countries in southern Africa have been estimated at about 3.4 million tonnes. Of those, some 1.2 million tonnesare needed as emergency food aid for themost vulnerable groups. Many families have already exhausted their coping

mechanisms after the poor harvest of 2001. In some areas, farmers did not gather any crop at all in 2002 and wereeating tree stems and wild food at harvest time.

A major international effort has beenlaunched to provide both relief food andseeds and other agricultural inputs for thenext main planting season. The effort hasbeen slow to get under way, however. Asthis report goes to press (end August 2002), only 25.5 percent of the jointWFP/FAO emergency appeal of US$503.7million has been pledged, and some already donated food (maize) has beenrejected by one recipient country for beinggenetically modified.

Maize-growing area

Drought-affected area: rainfall < 70%normal, January–March 2002

Source: FAO

THIRTEEN PERCENT of the nearly 5 bil-lion people in the developing worldand Commonwealth of Independent

States (CIS) live in mountain areas, manyof which are isolated and environmentallyfragile. Overcrowding has increased pres-sure on resources, leading to migration to cities and lowlands, erosion of tradi-tional livelihood systems and greater foodinsecurity among those who remain.

A multidisciplinary FAO study, under-taken as a contribution to the InternationalYear of Mountains, used newly availablegeoreferenced data and maps to producedetailed information on the numbers,location, livelihoods and vulnerability ofmountain people.

Mountain environments

The World Conservation MonitoringCentre (UNEP-WCMC) has defined sixclasses of mountains, together coveringabout 22 percent of the Earth’s surface.Areas with an altitude of 2 500 metres or higher are always classified asmountains. Between 300 and 2 500metres, areas are considered moun-tainous if they exhibit steep slopes orhave a wide range of elevation in a smallarea (local elevation range or LER) orboth. Many highland valleys and plateausbelow 2 500 metres that lack slope

and/or local elevation range are notclassified as mountains.

Because temperatures decrease asaltitude increases, mountain regionsexhibit a wide variety of climate conditionsand vegetation. Mountain ecosystems also vary depending on the nature of theterrain, the degree of exposure to sun andwind and the latitude at which they arelocated in temperate, sub-tropical ortropical regions.

Despite their rich biodiversity, moun-tain ecosystems are generally fragile. Athigh altitudes, many are battered by highwinds and torrential rains, while othersreceive almost no precipitation. Other haz-ards include exposure to intense solarradiation and natural disasters such asavalanches, landslides, earthquakes andflash floods. The cooler temperatures ofmany mountain areas contribute to slowsoil formation and vegetation growth,while the slopes facilitate erosion. Poorsoil quality is typical of such environments.

Where mountain people live

FAO estimated the total number ofmountain people at 718 million in 2000. Of these, 625 million live in developingcountries and the CIS.

Sixty percent of the total mountain areain these countries is located at altitudes

below 1 500 metres, and 70 percent of the mountain population lives there. Bycontrast, only 15 percent of the mountainarea is situated above 3 500 metres, andonly 2.5 percent of the population inhabitsthese heights.

Although urbanization and the growthof mountain cities is important in someregions, more than three-quarters ofmountain people in developing countriesand the CIS are still rural. Traditionally,they have obtained their livelihoods from a combination of agriculture, forestry,herding, hunting, fishing and collectingwild plants. Commodities particularlysuited to commercial development inmountain ecosystems include indigenousgrains, tree crops such as tea and apples, medicinal herbs and other forestproducts, and freshwater fish.

FAO estimates that about 40 percent ofthe mountain area in developing countriesand the CIS produces less than 100 kg ofcereals per person per year. Another 30percent is covered by closed forests ornature preserves. Rural people living insuch locations have difficulty obtaining an adequate livelihood from agriculture.FAO has used estimates of their numbertogether with other qualitative informationto arrive at a preliminary estimate of thenumber of mountain people who are vul-nerable to food insecurity.

Special feature

The vulnerability of mountain environments and mountain people


Mountain areas by region

* including Afghanistan** excluding Afghanistan and Turkey Source: FAO

Mountain population by subregion

* including Afghanistan ** excluding Afghanistan and Turkey *** LER = local elevation range Source: FAO

East andSoutheast Asia7 243 km2

Near East andNorth Africa**

1 759 km2

Latin Americaand the Caribbean4 136 km2

South Asia*1 427 km2

CIS4 966 km2

Sub-Saharan Africa2 125 km2

Ruralpopulation

Urbanpopulation

Population (millions)

49%

92%

84%

78%

56%

51%

8%

16%

22%

44%

0 200 25015010050 300

East andSoutheast Asia

Latin Americaand the Caribbean

Sub-SaharanAfrica


South Asiaand CIS*

Below 1 500 metres with slope and LER***

1 500 – 3 500 metres with LER below 2 500 metres

Above 3 500 metres


VVuullnneerraabbiilliittyy ooff mmoouunnttaaiinn ppeeooppllee

Based on information currently available,FAO estimates that more than half of themountain population in developing andCIS countries (in the range of 250–370million people) are vulnerable to foodinsecurity. (This estimate of vulnerabilityis not be confused with FAO’s estimates ofthe undernourished population. Typicallyabout half of those identified as vulnerableare actually undernourished.)

As noted above, mountain environ-ments differ according to altitude, latitudeand terrain. These differences influenceboth livelihood opportunities and sourcesof vulnerability for mountain people. Manyother factors also play an important role,including the difficulty of access andrelative isolation of many areas, thedegree to which they are integrated intonational societies, links between moun-tain regions and the national economy,and overall economic performance.

Cultural traditions in mountain regionsare often strong and resilient. Yet lack ofcrop diversity and limited access to cur-rent information and knowledge aboutgood nutrition and health care practicesexpose mountain people to high rates of

malnutrition and disease. Traditional atti-tudes and beliefs may also lead people tomaintain land use practices that are nolonger suitable to evolving conditions inmountain environments.

In many places traditional livelihoodstrategies are no longer sustainablebecause of mounting demographic

pressure, rapid deforestation, erosionand loss of soil quality. Where this is so,conflict over control of increasingly scarceresources has become frequent.

Mountain cities offer economic oppor-tunities but bring with them pollution,increased need for cash and weakening ofindigenous highland institutions.

Vulnerable mountain people, by region

Resources and opportunities for vulnerable mountain people

Vulnerability class and estimatedproportion of mountain people

who are vulnerable

Estimated number of mountain people who are vulnerableto food insecurity (millions)

Relativelylow

(20–40%)

Veryhigh

(60–80%)

Quitehigh

(40–60%)

Quitehigh

(40–60%)

Quitehigh

(40–60%)

0 200 25015010050 300

East andSoutheast Asia

Latin Americaand the Caribbean

Sub-SaharanAfrica


South Asiaand CIS*

Total mountain population

Vulnerable mountain population

Range of vulnerability estimate

* including Afghanistan** excluding Afghanistan and Turkey

Water – Water is an important naturalresource found at high elevations. Mountainsprings and snowmelt are the two mainsources. Capturing the value of thisresource is an important issue for mountain people, since much of thedemand originates from people living in the surrounding lowlands. Use of mountain water for generating electricity,for irrigating crops, for sale as bottledwater, and for other industrial uses iscommon. However, conflict over waterrights between downstream users andmountain peoples living at points of origin are increasingly frequent, and public policy is not adequate to deal withthe issue.

Agriculture – Even though mountain wateris plentiful, mountain land at higherelevations may be arid. In many areas,mountain farmers have developed quitesophisticated water management and

small-scale irrigation techniques. Wheresoil quality has been maintained or can beeconomically restored, crop agricultureremains a viable option. Livestock andaquaculture offer opportunities to diversifyincome and contribute high quality, proteinproducts to mountain food systems.

Conservation and tourism – The naturalbeauty and biodiversity of many mountainenvironments offers good possibilities for the development of eco- and ethno-tourism, as well as for providingemployment to caretakers in protectedareas. Capital investment in infrastructureand training programmes to support thetourist industry will be required to realizethese possibilities.

Forestry and pasturelands – The potentialfor forestry development in many mountainareas is high. Exploitation of this potentialhas been hampered, however, by the

pressing need of mountain people to usetrees as a source of immediate cash income(for sale as firewood and lumber, or forgrazing of livestock). Introduction of forestmanagement practices that allow people tomanage herds and maintain cash flowwithout cutting trees at an unsustainablerate is a prerequisite for success.

Mountain industry – Growth of urbancentres is occurring naturally in somemountain areas and could be encouraged inothers. Cities provide diverse employmentopportunities to mountain people and canhelp to maintain the equilibrium betweenthe mountain population and the carryingcapacity of the natural resource base.Investing in the development of transportinfrastructure and in industries that addvalue to local resources and reduce bulkprior to shipment to markets in non-mountain areas can contribute to healthyurbanization in mountain areas.

Source: FAO

Vulnerability and sustainability ofmountain livelihood systems

FAO’s study has focused on 18 mountainranges that are home to almost 90percent of mountain people in developingcountries and the CIS. The analysis looksat a number of factors that determine the vulnerability and sustainability ofmountain livelihoods. These factors in-clude elevation, population density,degree of urbanization, land-use patterns,agricultural productivity and culturaltraditions.

Maps on these pages depict themountain areas by mountain class, thepopulation density and the land coverpatterns and rainfed cereal productionper person. Texts summarize the sourcesof vulnerability specific to each majormountain range and highlight actions thatcould help reduce vulnerability.

Latin America: Sierra Madre and Andes

In general, the 112 million mountainpeople of Latin America and theCaribbean are the most urbanized and

least vulnerable in the developing world.The proximity of economically dynamicmountain cities opens up more income-generating options, but pockets of peopleat high elevations in the Andes remainisolated and extremely vulnerable. Ruralmountain people in Central America and Mexico are also quite vulnerable.Agricultural land has been very unevenlydistributed, restricting many farmers totiny plots of land and forcing them to selltheir labour to survive.

In the northern Andes, two-thirds of themountain population live in or near largecities. Most rural mountain people prac-tice intensive, commercial agriculture atmoderate altitudes. On the lower slopesand valleys, coffee and horticultural cropsare grown for local sale and export. In the higher valleys, maize, other temperatecrops and pigs predominate. Vulnerabilityto food insecurity is relatively low.

Urbanization is also significant in thehigh Andes. Around half the mountainpopulation lives in or near cities or onlower-elevation slopes where access tojobs and markets helps keep vulnera-bility relatively low. But the other half

consists of extremely poor indigenousfarming families, who grow traditionalgrains (quinoa) and potatoes and raisesheep and llamas in the steep valleys and vast, treeless tableland above 3 500metres. Isolation, population pressureand soil erosion have seriously under-mined their traditional livelihood sys-tems and vulnerability is very high.Specialized markets exist for llama andalpaca wool, woven goods, quinoa andselected potato varieties. But the infor-mation and skills needed for effectiveparticipation are lacking.

In the Sierra Madre of Central Americaand Mexico, more than 40 percent ofmountain people live in urban areas,where recent surveys indicate that theincidence of vulnerability is quite low. Butmost of the rural mountain population isnot so fortunate. Farmers grow maizeand beans and migrate seasonally towork as labourers on large coffee andsugar estates. But earnings are low anddemand for migrant labour is declining.To cope, many families send members tocities and neighbouring countries to findjobs and send back remittances. And

Special feature


Latin America: Sierra Madre and Andes

Mountainclasses

Populationdensity

Productivity


entire families are migrating to newareas and clearing forests to obtain land.Overall, the incidence of vulnerability inthis subregion is quite high.

Mountain people in Latin America facea number of major challenges includinglack of access to land, unsustainable land

use practices, poor integration of indige-nous peoples into national societies andeconomies, and lack of technical skills.

Land reforms are being introduced insome countries. But they will only make a lasting impact on poverty and hunger if coupled with better agricultural exten-sion and marketing services for smallmountain farmers. The potential contri-butions of indigenous cultures to sus-tainable mountain development also need to be more widely recognized andsupported. Likewise, new migrants inmountain cities will need support.

Eastern and southern Africa: Rift Valley

More than 90 percent of the 88 millionmountain people in sub-Saharan Africalive in the ranges of the East African Rift ataltitudes that rarely exceed 2 500 metres.Although these ranges include some ofthe most densely populated mountainareas in the world, less than 15 percent ofthe mountain population lives in cities andthe incidence of vulnerability is quite high.

Almost half the mountain population inthe region lives in the densely populatedEthiopian highlands. In an area frequentlyravaged by drought, the traditional farm-ing system, based on local grains, cattle,sheep and goats, cannot reliably supportthe existing or projected population. Thenumber of landless peasants is growingand their future is very bleak. Vulnerability

to food insecurity is high. Long-termsurvival hinges on community-basedaction to strengthen non-farm activitiesand local infrastructure.

Population density is also extremelyhigh in the mountains of Burundi, Rwandaand the eastern Democratic Republic ofCongo. Deforestation and soil erosion arewidespread and conflict between settledfarmers and pastoralists can be intense.Vulnerability is quite high, but almost one-third of the mountain population livesin urban areas which provide more live-lihood options. More sustainable manage-ment of farmland and open pastures, andreclamation of marshlands, could yieldsignificant gains in food security if backedby strong efforts to improve infrastructureand extension services.

From Kenya to Zimbabwe, mountainand non-mountain people share a com-mon farming system. All grow maize,tobacco, cotton and oilseeds for cash sale.But productivity has deteriorated sincestructural adjustment brought an end tofertilizer subsidies. Droughts, livestockdiseases, scarcity of wild foods and thespread of HIV/AIDS have further destabi-lized this farming system. Although theincidence of vulnerability is now quitehigh, prospects for sustainable develop-ment are good if investments are made to improve management of soil and waterresources and provide participatoryextension and rural services.

Eastern and southern Africa: Rift Valley

Mountainclasses

Populationdensity

Productivity

Mountain classes: Elevation

300 – 1 000m and LER* > 300m1 000 – 1 500 and slope > 5 or LER > 300m1 500 – 2 500 and slope > 22 500 – 3 5003 500 – 4 500> 4 500Non-mountain area

* LER = local elevation range

Population density: People per km2

00 – 11 – 2525 – 5050 – 100100 – 300> 300Non-mountain area

Productivity: Rainfed crop production perperson / other land use

< 100 kg > 100 kgClosed forestProtected areaIrrigated area (over 35%)Non-mountain area

Key to maps, pages 16–19

Source: UNEP-WCMC

Sources: LandScan2000/FAO

Sources: FAO/UNEP-WCMC/

Univ. Kassel

Near East and North Africa: Atlas,Zagros and Caucasus

The mountain population in the Near Eastand North Africa of 60 million people isthe smallest in the developing world, andmore than half live in cities. But farmingand herding practised by rural mountainpeople from Morocco to Iran has becomeincreasingly stressed and vulnerability tofood insecurity is quite high.

Most rural mountain people in theregion plant cereal and fodder crops eachautumn. The crops – mainly rainfed wheat,barley and legumes – lie dormant throughthe cold winter months before completingtheir growth in the spring. Tree crops,fruits, olives and vineyards are grown onterraces. Herds of goats and sheep arecommon throughout the region, oftengrazed on communally managed lands.

Environmental degradation, causedmainly by poor maintenance of terracesand overgrazing, is widespread. Theresulting decline in productivity, com-bined with long distances to markets,increasing competition from subsidizedfood imports and growing incidence ofdrought, has led to increasing poverty and food insecurity. Many men are leavingmountain areas to find employmentopportunities elsewhere and a significantnumber of households are likely to shiftout of agriculture.

For those that remain, a number ofmeasures could yield important gains insustainability and food security. Improvedwatershed planning and management are needed to protect both existing levelsof productivity and downstream rural and urban water users. Introduction of

conservation tillage and better integrationof crop and livestock production sys-tems could boost both productivity andsustainability. More equitable regulationand control of common grazing resources(often officially classified as state forest)would also reduce both environmentaldamage and food insecurity. Action is alsoneeded to facilitate land consolidation,forge stronger linkages between farm and off-farm economies and promotelocal off-farm employment.

South and Central Asia: Hindu Kush,Pamirs, Himalayas, Tibetan Plateau andKunlun Mountains

Mountains dominate the landscape ofAfghanistan, Pakistan, northern India,Nepal, Bhutan, northwestern China, andthe Central Asian Republics. Although this region features the world’s highestmountains and most populous countries,the mountain population of South andCentral Asia is not much larger than thatof the East African Rift. Nearly 90 percentof the mountain people inhabit the highranges in the north. The vast majority arerural and live at elevations below 3 500metres, where they practise variouscombinations of crop agriculture andherding. The incidence of vulnerability is quite high, exacerbated, as elsewhere,by increasing population pressure andenvironmental degradation.

Deforestation poses a major threat. Aspopulations grow, remaining forests arebeing cut down at a rapid rate to open upnew agricultural land. This leads to soilerosion and depletion of soil moisture,reducing productivity and forcing women

to walk ever longer distances for fuelwoodand water.

Traditional cultures are deeply rootedand often dictate local practices governingthe use of land, water and forests. Butwith many men migrating away, socialcohesion in some areas is breaking down,making it more difficult to resolve disputesover land ownership and use of commonresources. The role of women as farmersand social leaders has become increa-singly important. Improving their accessto training and resources will be criticalfor overcoming environmental, economicand social problems.

Although higher altitudes also sufferfrom serious erosion, population density islower and people have more livelihoodoptions. Many families graze livestock onhigher slopes and supplement their farmincome with cross-border trade, tourismand mountaineering. The incidence ofvulnerability is still quite high, however.

The pastoral system predominates inmountain areas in Central Asia, as well as in non-mountainous high flatlands.Sheep and cattle are grazed on openpastures in high areas or adjacent dryzones, while cereals, fodder crops andpotatoes are cultivated for subsistence inmountain valleys. Meat and wool pro-duction are the main sources of incomefrom this system. But excessive animalpopulation and poor grazing techniqueshave caused serious erosion and degra-dation of open pastures. Wool productionhas fallen sharply and vulnerability tofood insecurity is now quite high.Restoration and sustainable manage-ment of grazing land are essential forimproving conditions.

Special feature


Near East: Zagros and Caucasus

Mountain classes Population density Productivity


East and Southeast Asia: Ningling Shanand Truong Son

Although not nearly as tall or as famousas the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush, themountains of East and Southeast Asia arevast and far more heavily populated.Nearly half of all the mountain people inthe developing countries and the CIS livein the mountains of southern China, theIndochinese Peninsula and the largerPacific islands. For the most part, theseareas are both densely populated andoverwhelmingly rural, with very fewpeople living in cities. As a result, land-holdings are extremely small, cropproduction per person is low, and farmersare increasingly moving into marginalsloping lands to survive. The number ofpeople living in forests and protectedareas is also quite large. Vulnerability to

food insecurity is very high, probablyaffecting 170 to 220 million people.

Crop and farm production intensityvaries considerably. In southern China,mountain farmers have developed sophis-ticated terracing and water managementtechniques and make effective use of cropand animal wastes to preserve soil quality.Elsewhere, intensive production technolo-gies are less developed and productivity islower. Vulnerability is more widespread.

Two distinct farming systems are foundthroughout the region. At moderate alti-tudes with gentle slopes, farmers grow awide variety of crops, with rice used as thestaple in the south and wheat in the north.Livestock are used as draught animals, for meat and as wealth. Pigs and poultryprovide an important source of cashincome. This system can be highlyproductive, as demonstrated by the

mountain farmers of southern China,whose intensive farming also benefitsfrom good links to markets where theycan buy inputs and sell produce. In otherlocations, semi-subsistence farming withlimited sales is common. These areas canalso be highly productive, if supported byinvestments in infrastructure and partici-patory extension.

On higher slopes in tropical areas,tribal groups farm extensively throughboth permanent and shifting cultivation.Typically, they supplement their crops bygrazing cattle and buffalo in the forestsand gathering other forest products forhome use. Poor soil quality, low levels ofinputs and isolation from markets con-strain progress and poverty and food inse-curity are widespread. Improved forestrymanagement and agroforestry offer thebest prospects for improving conditions.

South and Central Asia: Hindu Kush, Pamirs, Himalayas, Tibetan Plateau and Kunlun Mountains

East and Southeast Asia: Ningling Shan and Truong Son

Mountainclasses

Populationdensity Productivity

Mountainclasses

Populationdensity

Productivity

Rehabilitating degraded lands

In most developing countries, hunger isconcentrated in degraded and marginalareas. Concerted efforts to rehabilitatedegraded lands and use appropriatetechnology have yielded remarkablegains in productivity and food security in anumber of countries.

In China, the government has rehabili-tated 5 million ha of low- and medium-yielding land since 1996. Soil fertility hasbeen improved through better farmingpractices, expanded irrigation facilitiesand increased use of organic fertilizers.Crop yields in these areas increased by2 200 kg per ha on average, spurringgains in both incomes and food security.

China has also expanded animalraising and fish farming in barren hills,grasslands, and coastal areas that arebetter suited to grazing and aquaculturethan to intensive agriculture. Livestockand aquaculture production increased by almost 20 percent between 1996 and1998, significantly improving the diversityof both diets and incomes.

In India, a watershed developmentproject successfully brought nearly 1 000ha of severely degraded land back intoproduction, improving food security andsustainability in an area where 52 per-cent of all households lived below thepoverty line.

Water availability was also enhancedconsiderably, allowing farmers to expandirrigated areas from 11 percent to 79percent of the total cultivated land.Farmers were able to start growing high-yielding, high-value crops thatrequire more reliable water supplies,such as wheat, groundnuts, soybeans andvegetables. Average crop yields increasedmore than ten-fold and farmers morethan doubled the average number ofcrops grown on the available land, from0.7 to 1.7 crops per year.

The higher productivity helped boostfarmers’ incomes by over 600 percent.Employment generated by the schemehelped landless members of the com-munity increase their income from lessthan US$40 to US$360 per year – a nine-fold gain in a span of just seven years.

Increasing rice production

Rice was one of the first crops to benefitfrom Green Revolution technology. Butproductivity gains began to slow in theearly 1990s, falling below the rate ofpopulation growth.

In partnership with other international,regional and national organizations andresearch institutes, the International RiceCommission has mobilized a campaign toreverse declining trends in productivity ona sustainable basis. Key elements of thecampaign include: • technical support for the development

and use of hybrid rice outside China; • rapid transfer of improved rice tech-

nologies to farmers in West Africa; • Integrated Rice Crop Management for

sustainable rice production.Efforts to increase rice production

have scored significant gains in WestAfrica, where rice is the staple food formost of the population (see graph).

The West African Rice DevelopmentAssociation (WARDA), has succeeded incrossing hardy African rice species with

Meeting the challenge of land degradation

Land degradation threatens thesustainability of both agriculturalproduction and food security in manydeveloping countries. A recentlycompleted study of human-induced soildegradation in Asia found that almost 20 percent of all land suffers frommoderate to extreme degradation in the 17 countries that were covered.Agricultural productivity is greatly

reduced on moderately degraded land.Land where degradation is classified asstrong or extreme has been largely andirreversibly destroyed and can no longerbe reclaimed for farming.

Combating land degradation, as Chinaand India have done in the projectsdescribed here, could relieve the pressuresthat create vulnerability, reduce productivityand worsen poverty in marginal areas.

0 200 25015010050 300 350% of landdegraded Degraded land area (million hectares)

17%

28%

19%

China

India

Asia

Towards the Summit commitments

Acting to combat hunger


Extent and proportion of land classified as moderately to extremely degraded

Increasing rice yields

% increase90 63 1512

Côte d’Ivoire

Togo

Gambia

Niger

Mali

Worldaverage

Annual average, 1994-2000

Source: ISRIC/FAO/UNEP Source: FAO


higher-yielding species imported fromAsia. The offspring of this scientific break-through is New Rice for Africa (NERICA),varieties that can out-compete weeds,resist many African insect pests, andtolerate disease, drought and acid soils.

Research shows that NERICA canincrease yields in the area’s uplands andrainfed lowland areas significantly – by 25percent with low inputs and by as much as 250 percent with a minimal increase in fertilizer use. UNDP has reported thatadoption of NERICA could increase pro-duction in West Africa by 250 000–750 000tonnes per year and save the region up toUS$187 million per year on its import bill.

Diversifying income

The Co-operative Dairy DevelopmentProgramme in Bangladesh has demon-strated that a sound diversificationprogramme can improve food security by creating income and employment-generating opportunities. The programmetargeted small farmers and the landlesswith a package of technologies, trainingand infrastructure support to improve and expand milk production, collection,processing and distribution.

The cooperative started modestly with4 300 very poor, landless households. Ithas now grown into a thriving enterprise,involving 40 000 farmers organized into390 primary cooperatives. In addition tothe cooperative members themselves,the programme has improved the live-lihoods and nutritional status of anestimated 300 000 family members andnearly 2 000 people employed by thecooperatives, dairy plants and offices.

Regular earnings from milk haveincreased ten-fold in real terms toUS$0.65 a day, helping to lift householdearnings well above the poverty line.

Extending micro-credit

Tunisia has combined micro-credit andsocial safety nets to help poor ruralhouseholds, elderly and disabled peo-ple and other vulnerable groups. TheNational Fund for Solidarity and theTunisian State Bank for Solidarity providemicro-credit to small producers, espe-cially women. The government has also

guaranteed access to basic socialservices, increased the minimum wage inrural areas and maintained affordableprices for basic foodstuffs. Safety netprogrammes have improved the foodsecurity and nutritional status of morethan 114 000 families.

Mexico has also improved access tocredit in rural areas. The Programme of Direct Payments to the Countryside(PROCAMPO) was designed to help far-mers during the country’s 15-year,planned transition to free trade after theNorth American Free Trade Agreement of1994. The programme covers an averageof 14 million ha of farmland each yearand reaches nearly 3 million producers.In the year 2000 alone, PROCAMPOprovided payments of over US$1 billion,with an average of US$68 per ha.

Forty-five percent of beneficiaries aresmall producers who had previously beenunable to invest adequately to improvetheir productivity and income. Overall,every peso of PROCAMPO paymentsgenerated another two pesos of income.

Realizing the right to food

At the World Food Summit: five yearslater, 182 heads of state and governmentor their representatives reaffirmed thateveryone has the right to have access

to safe and nutritious food. The finalSummit declaration invited the FAOCouncil to establish an IntergovernmentalWorking Group, with the participation ofstakeholders, charged with elaboratingvoluntary guidelines to support countriesin their efforts to “achieve the progressiverealization of the right to adequate food inthe context of national food security”.

The World Food Summit in 1996invigorated efforts to translate the rightto food from a moral imperative into a clear and enforceable right undernational and international law. At thenational level, over 20 countries haveincluded the right to food specifically in their constitutions. South Africa, forexample, has incorporated the right tofood into its Constitution as part of its Billof Rights. All economic and social rightshave been declared enforceable throughthe courts under South African law.

South Africa is one of several coun-tries that organized national seminarsduring 2002, seeking ways to implementthe right to food at the national level.Other seminars have been held or areplanned in Brazil, Uganda, Mali, Nepal,Norway and Germany. A synthesis of the lessons learned from the seminarsheld during 2002 will provide the basisfor other nations to launch similarefforts.

CFS reviews and spurs progress towards WFS goals

“We will implement, monitor and follow up this Planof Action at all levels in cooperation with theinternational community.”7

The Intergovernmental Committee on WorldFood Security (CFS) is the UN forum formonitoring progress towards the 1996 World Food Summit (WFS) goals andrecommending actions that could helpachieve them more rapidly. At its 28thSession, held at FAO Headquarters in Romefrom 6–9 June 2002, the CFS:• noted that the decline in the number of

hungry people has fallen far short of thepace needed to achieve the WFS target ofreducing the number by half no later than2015;

• encouraged countries to monitorprogress more closely as part of theprocess being established to follow all ofthe Human Development Goals endorsedat the Millennium Summit in 2000;

• backed a twin-track strategy proposedjointly by FAO, IFAD and WFP for

reducing, and eventually eliminating, foodinsecurity and poverty. The strategycombines emergency action to givemillions of hungry people access to foodwith longer-term measures to stimulateagriculture, rural development andsustainable livelihoods. The Committeecited supplying food assistanceprogrammes from local production as anexample of “maximum synergy” that canexpand market opportunities, farmoutput and employment, while providingfood to the hungry.

• prepared the ground for a call issued thefollowing week by the World FoodSummit: five years later for countries toestablish voluntary guidelines forachieving “the progressive realization ofthe right to adequate food in the contextof national food security”.

displaced people (IDPs) and an unknownnumber of people trapped in combatzones. Most of these people need tem-porary food assistance until they canreturn to their homes and fields or findnew livelihoods. More than 30 percent ofthe recipients of food aid from the WorldFood Programme in 2000 were refugees,IDPs and returnees.

Conflict is also a major cause of struc-tural food insecurity. Armed conflict mayprevent farmers from producing food and may cut off access to food by dis-rupting transport, trade and markets.According to FAO, conflict in sub-SaharanAfrica resulted in losses of almost US$52billion in agricultural output between 1970and 1997, a figure equivalent to 75 percentof all official development assistancereceived by the conflict-affected countries.Estimated losses in agricultural output for all developing countries averagedUS$4.3 billion per year – enough to haveraised the food intake of 330 million

undernourished people to minimumrequired levels.

Conflict, often combined with drought,triggered six of the seven major Africanfamines since 1980. Early warning andresponse usually prevent famine arisingfrom drought and other natural disasters.But in war zones, lack of security anddisruption of transport and social net-works impede delivery of relief aid.

Risk factors underlying both foodinsecurity and conflict

While the impact of conflict on foodsecurity can be identified and quantifiedwith some degree of certainty, the way in which food insecurity contributes toconflict is more indirect. What can bedocumented is that food insecurity andconflict tend to be prevalent in the samelocations (see graph) and that they areboth consequences of a common set ofrisk factors (see chart).

CONFLICT is one of the most commoncauses of food insecurity. The dis-placement of people and disruption

of agricultural production and food distri-bution leave tens of millions of people atrisk of hunger and famine. War and civilstrife were cited as major causes in 15 ofthe 44 countries that suffered exceptionalfood emergencies during 2001 and thefirst quarter of 2002. Conversely, foodinsecurity may lead to or exacerbateconflict, particularly when compoundedby other shocks and stresses. Theinterface between food insecurity andconflict has critical implications for foodsecurity and conflict prevention pro-grammes alike.

Conflict as a cause of food insecurity

One of the most direct effects of conflicton food security is the displacement ofpeople. In 2001, there were more than 12 million refugees, 25 million internally


Addressing the risk factors common to conflict and food insecurity


Countries ranked in the top half of the HDI

Countries ranked in the bottom half of the HDI

Not ranked in the HDI

Countries that experienced conflict between 1990 and 1999

Hunger and conflict often occur together

% of countries that experiencedconflict during the 1990s


0 20 403010 6050

<5

5–19

20–34

≥35

The vast majority of armed conflicts aredomestic. Of the 118 conflicts worldwide in the1990s, 100 were primarily or exclusively civilstrife. More than 80 percent of these armed conflicts took place in countries in the bottom half of the UN HumanDevelopment Index in 1999. And more thanhalf of the countries where undernourishmentis most prevalent experienced conflict.

Undernourishment and conflict

Source: FAO

conflict, as well as the livelihooddynamics in conflict-prone areas, canserve as a mechanism both for preventingconflict and reducing hunger.

Some analysts have argued that underdevelopment and poverty, which areclosely related to food insecurity, makecountries more prone to conflict. Asevidence, they point to the fact that morethan 80 percent of wars and civil strife inrecent years have taken place in countriesranked in the lower half of the UnitedNations Human Development Index (HDI)(see map).

Others contend that objective mea-sures of social grievance, such asinequality, lack of democracy and ethnicand religious divisions have no systematiceffect on conflict risk. One analysis of civilwars from 1965–99 concludes that conflictrisk is mainly correlated with the degreeto which rebels believe they can fare wellout of war.

Still others emphasize the rapid loss of livelihood as a key common deno-minator in many recent internal wars.Disillusioned, frustrated young men,unable to reach a status in life that earliergenerations had achieved, are easily andcheaply recruited by warlords.

Yet another important factor contri-buting to both food insecurity and conflictis environmental scarcity. Degradation ordepletion of natural resources, unequaldistribution and population pressure cantrigger competition for scarce resources,in particular arable land and water.Increasing competition for resources mayspur farmers to abandon sustainablemethods and exploit marginal lands in adesperate effort to secure their incomesand feed their families. When this processleads to deepened poverty, large-scalemigration, sharpened social cleavagesand weakened institutions, the depletedenvironment and resulting food insecuritybecome fertile ground for conflict.

Common risks require coordinatedaction

Food insecurity and conflict feed upon acommon set of risk factors, which theycan also exacerbate. If war-relatedhunger is to be reduced, development aid is not to be consumed in conflict andfood is not inadvertently to become afactor in fuelling conflict, a concerted effort is needed to make conflict pre-vention an integral part of food security

and agriculture policy and programmingin conflict-prone areas.

Assessing and addressing the riskfactors common to food insecurity and


Measures to address common risk factors

The interface between violent conflict and food insecurity

Driving factors• Loss of life

• Population displacement• Disruption of food production• Cut off from market links and

relief food• Loss of employment and income

• Loss of livelihood

Common risk factors• Poor economic conditions

• Repressive political systems• Weak institutions

• Degradation of natural resources• Competition for resources

• Unequal access to resources• Decline in productivity• Rapid fall into poverty

• Socially and culturally polarized societies

• Large-scale migration

Common risk factors

• Food scarcity• Obstacles to

access

Conflict• War

• Civil strife

• Incorporating conflict prevention andmitigation into regional food securitystrategies and policies.

• Mainstreaming conflict prevention infood security and agricultural investmentprogrammes in conflict-prone countries.

• Profiling vulnerable livelihood groups toidentify disparities among them thatmight trigger conflict.

• Implementing programmes so as tominimize rivalry for aid resources andbenefits and to foster cooperation amongrival communities or groups.

• Protecting the natural resource base and promoting equitable access toresources through effective, sustainableinstitutions.

• Integrating conflict analysis and conflictindicators into traditional food securityearly warning systems.

• Monitoring crisis potential in resource-poor areas and, in particular: the stateof key livelihood systems; the interestsand concerns of the principal social orpolitical groups; and the preparednessof communal, country-level orinternational organizations to preventhunger and conflict and provide support services to resource-poorhouseholds.

• Assessing the impact of food andagricultural programmes on the variousstakeholders in conflict contexts and onthe development of the conflict itself.

Other livelihood shocks• Drought, flood,

economic collapse, etc

“We will endeavour to prevent and be prepared fornatural disasters and man-made emergencies and tomeet transitory and emergency food requirements...” 5 “We will ensure an enabling environment designed to

create conditions for the eradication of poverty andfor durable peace...”1

OVER 2 BILLION PEOPLE worldwide sufferfrom micronutrient malnutrition,often called “hidden hunger”. Their

diets supply inadequate amounts ofvitamins and minerals such as vitamin A,iron, iodine, zinc, folate, selenium andvitamin C. Deficiencies usually occurwhen the habitual diet lacks diversity anddoes not include sufficient quantities ofthe fruits, vegetables, dairy products,meat and fish that are the best sources ofmany micronutrients.

Micronutrients are essential for humangrowth and development as well asnormal functioning. The three mostcommon forms of micronutrient malnu-trition are deficiencies of vitamin A, iodineand iron. In developing countries, defi-ciencies of micronutrients often are notpresent in isolation but exist in combi-nation (see map).

Children and women are most vul-nerable to micronutrient deficiencies –children because of the critical impor-tance of micronutrients for normal growthand development, women because oftheir higher need for iron, especiallyduring child-bearing years and pregnancy.

Between 100 and 140 million childrensuffer from vitamin A deficiency. Thatfigure includes more than 2 millionchildren each year afflicted with severevisual problems, of whom an estimated250 000 to 500 000 are permanentlyblinded.

Lack of vitamin A also impairs theimmune system, greatly increasing therisk of illness and death from commonchildhood infections such as diarrhoeaand measles (see graph).

The most devastating consequence ofiodine deficiency is reduced mentalcapacity. Some 20 million people world-wide are mentally handicapped as a resultof iodine deficiency, including 100 000born each year with irreversible braindamage because their mothers lackediodine prior to and during pregnancy.

Iron deficiency and the anaemia itcauses are the most widespread of allforms of micronutrient malnutrition.Anaemia results in fatigue, dizziness andbreathlessness following exertion.

Children with anaemia are less able to concentrate and have less energy forplay and exploratory behaviours. In

adults, anaemia diminishes work capacityand productivity by as much as 10-15percent (see graph page 11). And forpregnant women, anaemia substantiallyincreases the risk of death in childbirth,accounting for up to 20 percent ofmaternal deaths in Asia and Africa.

The three main strategies for reducingmicronutrient deficiencies are dietarydiversity and food fortification along withsupplements.

Most micronutrient deficiencies couldbe eliminated by modifying diets toinclude a greater diversity of nutrient-richfoods. Promoting home gardens, com-munity fish ponds, and livestock andpoultry production can contribute toincreasing dietary diversity, while im-proving food supplies and incomes at the same time (see box on dietarydiversification).

Another important food-based strategyis food fortification. The most successfulof these initiatives is fortification of saltwith iodine (see box). Other micro-nutrients can also be supplied to popu-lations by enriching widely consumedfoods such as milk and flour. In addition,


Confronting the causes of malnutrition:the hidden challenge of micronutrient deficiencies


Number of deaths averted (1 000s)1 2000 900300 600 1 500

Asia

Africa

NearEast

LatinAmerica

Low impact estimate

High impact estimate

Vitamin A and mortality

A World Health Organization studyconcluded that improved vitamin Anutriture could prevent 1.3 to 2.5 milliondeaths each year among children agedsix months to five years in thedeveloping world.

Source: WHO

Iron deficiency

Vitamin A and iron deficiency

Iodine, vitamin A and iron deficiency

Areas at high risk of micronutrient deficiency

Prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries

Source: USAID


recent advances in crop breeding andbiotechnology have heightened the pros-pects for “biofortification” – developingcrops with higher concentrations ofmicronutrients (see box).

Supplementation involves treating andpreventing micronutrient deficiencies byadministering capsules, tablets, syrups

or other preparations. This medical ap-proach is the method of choice when thedeficiency is severe and life-threatening orwhen access to regular intake of thedeficient micronutrient is limited. Use ofhigh-dose vitamin A supplements canreduce mortality from acute measles byup to 50 percent.

Successful campaigns to eliminatemicronutrient deficiencies often combine all of these strategies. Vitamin A intake,for example, can best be increased overthe long term by adding nutrient-richfoods to the diet and fortifying staplefoods, while providing supplements tohigh-risk groups in vulnerable areas.

Both conventional plant breedingtechniques and genetic engineering can beused to develop varieties of staple foodcrops that are enriched with essentialminerals.

“Golden rice” offered proof thatbiotechnology can produce both nutrients

and controversy. Golden rice owes itscolour and its name to beta carotene,introduced by transplanting genes fromdaffodils and bacteria. Critics have chargedthat the enriched rice will not provideenough beta carotene to satisfy vitamin Arequirements. But supporters argue that itcould provide 15 to 20 percent of dailyrequirements and significantly reduce theincidence and severity of vitamin Adeficiency, particularly if consumed inconjunction with other nutrient-rich foods.

Conventional plant breeding also holdspromise for enhancing the nutrient contentof staple foods. Varieties of crops differconsiderably in the quantities of nutrientsthat they contain (see graph). Advances inplant breeding techniques andbiotechnology may make it possible tocross varieties that are relatively rich inmicronutrients with high-yielding varietiespreferred by farmers.

% by which nutrient content of rice varietywith highest level exceeds the average

(100% indicates that the content is twice the average)

0 150 200 350250 30010050 400

Riboflavin

Thiamin

Iron

Calcium

Zinc

Niacin

Protein

Dietary diversification reduces vitamin A deficiency

Biofortification increases nutrient content of staple foods

A home gardening programme focusing onproduction and consumption of vegetablesrich in vitamin A and its precursor, betacarotene, has been successfully

demonstrated by the Medical ResearchCouncil of South Africa in a mountainous,rural village in KwaZulu-Natal.

Prior to the programme, the diet ofchildren in the village consisted mainly ofmaize porridge, bread and rice. The lack ofvariety and vitamin-rich foods resulted inhigh incidence of vitamin A deficiency. Theprogramme changed that by promotingcultivation of vegetables, such as carrots,pumpkins and spinach, that are rich in beta carotene and by teaching villagers,especially women, the importance ofincluding them regularly in their diet.

After only one year, the percentage ofchildren consuming vitamin-A richvegetables had increased significantly. And the increased diversity in their dietsled to measurable improvements in vitamin A status.

Beforeproject

Afterone year

Controlvillage

% of children consuming provitamin A-richvegetables at least once a week

0 40 806020 100

Carrots

Pumpkin/butternut

squash

Spinach

Imifino(green, leafyvegetables)

Iodine deficiency disorders

Iodine deficiency disorder (IDD) isparticularly prevalent in themountainous regions of the world. The areas with the most severedeficiencies include the Himalayas, the Andes, the European Alps and thevast mountains of China. IDD is alsocommon in frequently flooded lowlands.In both mountains and flooded areas,iodine that is naturally present in thesoil is leached away, reducing the iodinecontent in locally grown crops.

Iodization of salt has virtuallyeliminated IDD in the mountainousregions of industrialized countries inEurope and North America. Threequarters of the countries in thedeveloping world have enactedlegislation for iodizing salt, mostly overthe past 15 years. More than two-thirdsof households now get adequatelyiodized salt. But access variesconsiderably (see graph below).Increasing access to iodized salt andimproving quality control of its iodinecontent hold the key to eliminatingiodine deficiency worldwide.

% of households consumingadequately iodized salt

0 20 8040 60 100

Latin America andthe Caribbean

East Asia andthe Pacific

Western andCentral Africa

South Asia

Eastern andSouthern Africa

Near East andNorth Africa

Central andEastern Europe

and NIS

“We will implement polices aimed at ... improving ...access by all, at all times to sufficient, nutritionallyadequate and safe food ... ” 2

Varietal differences suggest high biofortification potential for rice

Home gardens boost consumption ofmicronutrient-rich food

Access to iodized salt

Source: FAO

Source: Faber, Venter and Bernade

Source: FAO


PROVIDING SECURE ACCESS to land for therural poor represents one of the keyfactors in achieving food security

and sustainable agricultural development.

Nearly three-quarters of the world’spoor and hungry live in rural areas in thedeveloping world. Not surprisingly, severepoverty and hunger are concentratedamong those who are landless or farmplots too small to provide for their needs.

More than 30 percent of the rural poorin Latin America and the Caribbean arelandless. A study in Bangladesh found thatmore than half of all landless and near-landless rural households live in extremepoverty. By contrast, only 10 percent offarmers with more than 7.5 ha of landexperienced extreme poverty (see graph).Numerous other studies have confirmedthat reduction in or loss of access to landleads directly to reduced income andaccess to food.

For the poor and hungry in rural areas,access to land resources tends to be bothinadequate and insecure. Many work astenants or sharecroppers. Impoverishedsmallholders face the constant threat thatthey may be forced to sell their land andother assets to buy food.

Lack of secure rights to land per-petuates poverty and hunger. And viceversa. Food insecurity often drives poorfarmers to make decisions that mayjeopardize their ability to retain control oftheir land. Farmers who are struggling tofeed their families are frequently forced tochoose between short-term survival andlonger-term economic and environmentalsustainability – between buying food orfertilizer, for example, or between growingsubsistence foods or potentially profitablecommercial crops. Studies in Chile,Guatemala and Paraguay found that aboom in non-traditional export crops ledto a significant loss of land by food-insecure smallholders, who were unableor unwilling to shift from subsistenceproduction to cash crops.

Secure land tenure is also essential to sustainability. Without land that couldbe used as collateral, smallholders oftencannot obtain the credit they need tomaintain and improve their land. Nor canthey be confident they would benefit from

their efforts, since they may lose rights tothe land. Failure to invest in improved soiland water management results in landdegradation and soil loss, threateningboth the livelihoods of millions of peopleand future food security.

Land reform and reduction of poverty and hunger

Numerous studies confirm that improvingaccess to land can have a major impact on reducing poverty and hunger. Anexhaustive analysis in India found “arobust link between land reform andpoverty reduction”. The study examinedthe history of land reform efforts initiatedat the state level between 1948 and 1990and compared rates of poverty reductionand overall economic growth betweenstates that had instituted meaningful landreforms and those that had not. The studyconfirmed that land reform significantlyreduced rural poverty and stimulatedgrowth in agricultural wages. Both small-holders and the landless labourers whoconstitute a major fraction of the ruralpoor benefited.

Another study of data from 20 dev-eloping countries found that concentrationof land ownership explained 69 percent ofthe variation in poverty levels.

Analysis of FAO data suggests that foodsecurity and land distribution are alsorelated. Developing countries where landwas more equally distributed in 1980 havemade more rapid progress in reducing theprevalence of hunger over the past twodecades (see graph, next page).

Land reform and higher productivity

Improving access to land and reducing the concentration of land ownership yieldbenefits that extend far beyond thefarmers themselves. Small farms in poorareas are usually more productive andefficient than large estates (see graph).Smallholders typically put far more labourinto their fields. They are far more likely to


Land reform and secure land tenure:keys to food security and sustainable rural development

Poverty profile by landholding

Landless

Nearlandless

Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

0 % 2010 5030 40 60

Landless0–0.01 hectares

Near landless0.02–0.19 ha

Marginal0.20–0.59 ha

Small0.60–0.99 ha

Medium1.00–2.99 ha

Large≥3.0 ha

Inco

me

per

hect

are

(rup

ees)

0–2 2–6 6-10 >10Farm size (hectares)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

A study in India confirmed that smallfarms produce around twice as much perhectare as large farms.

Source: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics in IFADRural Poverty Report 2001

Source: Berry and Cline, cited in Netting

Farm size and land productivity

More than 45 percent of the ruralpopulation of Bangladesh own lessthan one-quarter of a hectare of land.And more than half of these landlessand near-landless farm families live inextreme poverty

Share of rural population by farm size

Headcount index of poverty


plant more than one crop per year on theirplots. And they rarely leave land lying idle,as is often the case on larger estates.

In Brazil, for example, less than 15percent of the land on estates larger than1 000 ha is planted in crops. A study innortheast Brazil found that output perhectare was 5.6 times higher on farms of10–50 ha than on farms of more than 100ha. In other countries, small farms havecommonly been found to produce two tothree times as much per hectare as largecommercial estates.

Even poor people who remain landlessbenefit from more equal distribution ofland. Small farms generally employ morepeople per hectare. And the income gen-erated is more likely to be spent on local,non-farm products that provide employ-ment for the landless and land poor.

The impact extends to the nationallevel. A World Bank analysis of landdistribution and GDP shows that countrieswith more equal distribution of land haveachieved more rapid and sustained eco-nomic growth (see graph).

New directions and momentum

People who have rights to land are moreable to enjoy a sustainable livelihood thanthose who have only partial rights ofaccess. And those who have partial rightsare, in general, better off than those whoare landless. To promote rural develop-ment many countries are stressing theimportance of improved access to landand increased tenure security. Tenurereform has long been on the international

agenda. Rather than a traditional top-down approach, however, modern reformsemphasize participatory, decentralizedapproaches that target disadvantaged

Indigenous rights

Land distribution linked to progress in reducing hunger and to economic growth

“We will pursue participatory and sustainableagriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural developmentpolicies ... ” 3

Land distribution and hunger reduction Land distribution and growth

Initial land distribution Initial land distributionMore equal

Aver

age

redu

ctio

n in

pre

vale

nce

ofun

dern

ouri

shm

ent,

197

9–81

to 1

998–

2000

Aver

age

GD

P g

row

th, 1

960–

90

0

More equal

Costa RicaKenya

IraqVenezuela

Peru

Egypt

IndiaTogo

Senegal

ThailandMalaysia

Brazil

China

Thailand

Indonesia

Nepal

India

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Kenya

Guatemala

Venezuela

Madagascar

ParaguayBrazil

Colombia

Togo

Source: FAO Source: World Bank

Several countries in Latin America haveundertaken major initiatives to recognizeand protect the land rights of indigenouspeople. Particularly in lowlands, largeareas have been recognized asinalienable territories that are collectivelyowned and, in some countries, self-governed by the indigenous population.Secure tenure for indigenous people hasbeen recognized as an importantprecondition for effective conservationand sustainable management of tropicalforests.

Bolivia and Colombia have pioneeredformal agreements betweenenvironmental agencies and indigenousauthorities to share responsibility formanaging protected areas. In highlandareas, indigenous landholdings are highlyfragmented, making it more difficult torecognize collective ownership. But sometitling projects have proved successful.

Keys to success included baselinestudies that took indigenous tenure intoaccount, backed up by land agencies withthe political will and capacity todemarcate and title the land. Indigenouscommunities have also undertakeninnovative initiatives for sustainabledevelopment by producing their ownmaps detailing customary land use,occupancy and knowledge of naturalresource management.

groups, particularly indigenous groupsand women (see boxes) and facilitate landmarket transactions, including leasing.

In much of the developing world, womenproduce most of the food consumed bytheir families and communities. Yetwomen rarely have secure tenure to theland they work. A study in India, Nepaland Thailand, for example, found that lessthan 10 percent of women farmers ownland.

Although traditional land tenuresystems rarely granted women outrightownership of land, they frequentlyprotected their rights to work andmanage enough land to provide for theirfamilies’ needs. In many cases, thoserights are now being eroded by changingsocio-economic conditions, landshortages and titling programmes thatfail to recognize the value either ofcustomary tenure practices or of women’scontributions to agriculture.

Improving access to land for women isessential to increase both food securityand sustainable production. Withoutsecure tenure, women lack both thecollateral and the security to improve theland they work and to invest in newtechnology. Yet numerous studies confirmthat women dedicate more of their landand labour to producing staple foods andmore of their income to providing for theirfamilies.

Women’s rights

THE SUMMIT-LEVEL CONFERENCE onFinancing for Development con-vened by the United Nations in

March 2002 marked a new level ofcommitment to the goals set by theMillennium Declaration of September2000. These Millennium DevelopmentGoals restated and consolidated thecommitments made by the internationalcommunity at a series of conferences andsummits that took place in the 1990s.Reducing human misery and promotingsocial development are the heart of the commitments. And reducing bothextreme poverty and hunger by half by the year 2015 constitutes an over-arching goal.

The Conference on Financing forDevelopment proposed concrete actionsin a number of areas aimed at increasingthe level of resources mobilized fordevelopment and poverty reduction.

The three Rome-based UN agenciesconcerned with food, agriculture andrural development presented compellingarguments for giving priority to reducinghunger and supporting agricultural andrural development. FAO, the World FoodProgramme and the International Fundfor Agricultural Development documen-ted the debilitating effects of hunger onboth individual productivity and overalleconomic growth. They showed clearlythat unless hunger is dealt witheffectively, prospects for achieving othergoals, such as universal education,maternal health and environmentalsustainability, will be severely com-promised (see pages 10-11).

The Rome-based agencies alsooffered evidence that combating hungerand extreme poverty requires renewedand expanded commitment to agricultureand rural development. Overall, some 70percent of the poor in developing coun-tries live in rural areas and derive theirlivelihoods from agriculture directly orindirectly. This dependence on agri-culture is greater in those countrieswhere hunger is most prevalent (see

graph). Growth of the agricultural sector,therefore, is essential to reducing povertyand ensuring food security.

Investment in agriculture lags where hunger is most prevalent

An overview of the data on privateinvestment, public expenditures andexternal assistance to agriculture indeveloping countries shows that thesector receives less investment andsupport in the very countries wherehunger and poverty are widespread.

Most of the investment required tostimulate growth in the agriculturalsector comes from private sources,mainly farmers themselves. A look atcapital stock per agricultural worker inthe primary agriculture of developingcountries shows that it is extremely lowand stagnant in countries where pre-valence of undernourishment is high, ascompared to those that have managed toreduce hunger (see graph).

And the investment gap is growing.Good performers in hunger reductionhad strong growth in capital stock inagriculture since 1975. In all othercategories, investment has increasedlittle, if at all. And in the group ofcountries where more than one-third ofthe people are undernourished, the valueof capital stock in primary agriculturehas declined in real terms over the pastquarter century (see graph).

Public investment fails to reflect the importance of agriculture

Public investment in infrastructure,agricultural research, education andextension is essential in stimulatingprivate investment, agricultural produc-tion and resource conservation.

But actual public expenditures foragriculture and rural development in thedeveloping world do not reflect theimportance of the sector to their nationaleconomies and the livelihood of their


Financing for development: the critical role of hunger reduction and agricultural development


Capital stock in agriculture

Capital stock per agricultural worker(constant 1995 US$)

6 0000 4 0002 000 8 000

1976–80

1996–99


<2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

≥35

Dependence on agriculture

% of population who depend on agriculture for their livelihood

0 20 40 603010 7050


<2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

≥35

Undernourishment and directdependence, 2000

Source: FAO

Source: FAO


populations. In fact, government expen-ditures on agriculture come closest tomatching the economic importance ofthe sector in those countries wherehunger is least prevalent. For the groupof countries where undernourishment is most widespread, the share of govern-ment spending devoted to agriculturefalls far short of matching the sector’simportance in the economy.

The trends are also discouraging.During most of the 1990s, the agri-cultural orientation index (calculated asthe ratio of the share of agriculture intotal public expenditures to the share ofagriculture in GDP) increased in thecountries with the lowest prevalence ofundernourishment while decreasing inthe countries where the prevalence washighest.

Development assistance does not target neediest countries

Development assistance is critical forvery poor countries with limited ability to mobilize domestic private and publicsavings for investment. It is particularlycritical for agriculture, which is largelybypassed by foreign private investors.

And yet official development assistanceto agriculture declined by an alarming 48 percent between 1990 and 1999 in real terms.

It also appears that external assis-tance to agriculture (EAA) is not relatedto need. Data on EAA for 1997–99 indicatethat countries where less than 5 percentof the population was undernourishedreceived more than three times as muchassistance per agricultural worker ascountries where more than 35 percent of the population was undernourished.Moreover, although EAA per agriculturalworker declined across all categories inthe 1990s, the countries with the highestprevalence of undernourishment werethe hardest hit. In those countries, EAAdeclined by 49 percent in real terms,leaving it at less than 40 percent of thelevel per agricultural worker in countrieswith the lowest prevalence of hunger.

The message is clear. Directingsufficient resources to agriculture andrural development will increase pro-ductivity, employment opportunities andaccess to food, particularly in the ruralareas and countries where hunger ismost common. Many of these countriesare badly starved of investable resources.

International assistance to them, startingwith a lasting solution of the debtproblem, would be a tangible sign thatthe commitments to reach the WorldFood Summit goals are being honoured.

To accelerate progress in reducinghunger and reach the goals of the WorldFood Summit (WFS), FAO has estimatedthat additional public investments ofsome US$24 billion annually are neededin five priority areas. The investmentswould be focused on poor countries withlarge numbers of undernourished people.

Coupled with steps to create anenabling policy framework, theadditional resources are expected tostimulate private investment and bringabout substantial and sustainablereductions in hunger and poverty. Theproposal estimates that the benefits ofreaching the WSF goal would be at least US$120 billion per year as aresult of longer, healthier and moreproductive lives for several hundredmillion people.

The proposed package aims atincreasing productivity (includingthrough providing food assistance to

people debilitated by hunger), enhancingknowledge and protecting andsustaining the resource base. Financingfor the programme would be dividedmore or less equally between officialdevelopment assistance and recipientcountry budgets.

The priority areas and estimatedannual investments outlined in theproposal include:• to raise farm productivity in poor

rural communities – US$2.3 billionper year;

• to promote sustainable use of naturalresources – US$7.4 billion per year;

• to cover investments in ruralinfrastructure and market access –US$7 800 billion;

• to support agricultural research andextension and nutrition education –US$1.1 billion;

• to improve direct access to food forthe most needy – US$5.2 billion.

Bringing hunger reduction on track - what should it take?

“We will promote optimal allocation and use of publicand private investments to foster human resources ...and rural development.”6

Expenditure for agriculture

Agricultural orientation index*0.40.30 0.20.1 0.5

1990–92average

1996–98(or most recentperiod for whichdata are available)


<2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

≥35

(*share of agriculture in total public expenditures)share of agriculture in GDP

External assistance

External assistance to agriculture,concessional and non-concessional

(constant 1995 US$ per agricultural worker)

40300 2010 50

1990–92

1997–99


<2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

≥35

Source: FAO

Source: FAO

Secretariat in the draft proposal for anAnti-Hunger Programme.

The Anti-Hunger Programme is fullyconsistent with the WFS Plan of Action.Likewise, the halving of hunger andpoverty will make an essential con-tribution to all other MDGs. The Anti-Hunger Programme proposes priorityactions and the related resourcerequirements to accelerate the imple-mentation and amplify the impact of theSummit’s Plan of Action.

Accelerating progress

Numerous articles in this report offercompelling evidence that the WFS targetand the MDGs are interdependent andmutually reinforcing. Few of the MDGs canbe achieved without substantially reducinghunger. By the same token, progresstowards the other MDGs will accelerateprogress on reducing hunger and poverty.

To cite just one example, MDG NumberThree calls for efforts to promote genderequality and empower women. In manyimpoverished rural areas, food insecurityand poverty sharply reduce school atten-dance of girls. Similarly, hunger andpoverty frequently compel women todevote their energies to subsistenceagriculture to feed their families, whilemen often migrate to cities in search ofwork. Reducing hunger would open thedoor to new opportunities for both womenand men in rural areas.

At the same time, numerous studieshave confirmed that reducing genderinequality and empowering women wouldyield significant reductions in hunger andpoverty. One World Bank study found thatincreasing women’s primary schoolingcould boost agricultural output by 24percent. Other studies have shown thatincreasing opportunities for women has a particularly strong impact on hungerbecause women devote much more oftheir income directly to feeding theirfamilies than men do.

A similar case can be made for positive

feedback between combating hunger andreaching other MDGs (see box, page 11).The evidence is clear that hunger can leadto unsustainable use of resources and thatenvironmental degradation contributes tohunger; that hunger is a major cause ofmaternal deaths and that poor maternalnutrition and health perpetuate hunger byincreasing the number of low-birthweightchildren who suffer from impaired cog-nitive and physical development; thathunger contributes to the spread andlethal impact of HIV/AIDS, malaria andother diseases, while the AIDS pandemichas caused widespread hunger by deci-mating the agricultural workforce andleaving many rural households strugglingto survive on the labour of orphanedchildren and elderly relatives.

Entering a virtuous cycle

All of these interconnections suggest thatthe way ahead is a multi-lane highway. Toaccelerate along it, we must give urgentpriority to the fight against hunger, as anessential step toward progress on otherfronts. And we must also redouble ourefforts to achieve the other MDGs,knowing that progress will yield invaluablegains in reducing hunger and poverty.

By answering the calls for an inter-national alliance against hunger and aglobal partnership for development, wecan escape from the vicious cycle in whichhunger and poverty are perpetuated, inpart, by the crippling damage they inflicton human lives and natural resources.And we can enter a virtuous cycle, in whichevery investment in achieving one of ourdevelopment goals accelerates progresstowards reaching them all.

THE LATEST FIGURES AND ANALYSIS

presented in this report make itclear that progress in reducing

hunger over the 1990s was rapid in just afew countries, painfully slow in others,and non-existent or negative across muchof the developing world. If we continue at the present uneven and sluggish pace, thenumber of hungry people in the devel-oping world in 2015 will still total morethan 750 million, far above the goal ofaround 400 million established at the 1996World Food Summit (WFS).

But the rest of this report makes itequally clear that the lack of progressdoes not result from a lack of knowledgeabout what needs to be done. It is not thatwe have lost our way but rather that wehave not followed it. Last year’s report onThe State of Food Insecurity in the Worldsummed up the way ahead simply andpowerfully – “commitment, followed byresources and action”. That prescriptionremains just as valid today.

Slow progress, but some encouraging signs

While evidence of progress remainsscarce, the year 2002 has offered severalencouraging signs of renewed commit-ment, expanded resources and moredetermined action. We have seen evi-dence of renewed commitment in thegrowing momentum behind the Millen-nium Development Goals (MDGs) and inexpressions of support for the progressiverealization of the right to food at the WorldFood Summit: five years later. We havewitnessed pledges of increased resourcesat the Conference on Financing forDevelopment in Monterrey. And we haveseen the outlines of a practical, affordableprogramme of action take shape in thetwin-track approach to combating hungeradvanced by FAO, the World FoodProgramme and the International Fundfor Agricultural Development at theMonterrey conference. That twin-trackapproach was later elaborated by the FAO

The way ahead

Combating hunger contributes to achievingother Millennium Development Goals


DEVELOPING WORLD 3 240.2 4 050.0 4 638.9 920.0 818.5 798.8 28 20 17

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC 2 303.5 2 812.1 3 162.5 727.3 567.3 508.1 32 20 16EAST ASIA 1 060.9 1 241.1 1 342.4 307.7 198.2 128.4 29 16 10China* [3] 998.9 1 169.5 1 264.6 303.8 193.0 119.1 30 16 9Dem. People's Rep. of Korea [4] 17.2 20.3 22.1 3.0 3.7 7.5 18 18 34Hong Kong SAR of China [1] 5.0 5.8 6.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - -Mongolia [5] 1.7 2.3 2.5 0.3 0.8 1.0 16 34 42Republic of Korea [1] 38.1 43.3 46.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 - - -OCEANIA 3.0 3.9 4.7 0.7 0.9 1.3 24 25 27Papua New Guinea [4] 3.0 3.9 4.7 0.7 0.9 1.3 24 25 27SOUTH EAST ASIA 354.8 444.8 509.4 88.4 76.5 63.5 25 17 12Cambodia [5] 6.7 10.0 12.8 4.0 4.3 4.6 60 43 36Indonesia [3] 150.3 185.6 209.3 36.6 16.7 12.3 24 9 6Lao People's Dem. Rep. [4] 3.2 4.2 5.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 33 29 24Malaysia [1] 13.8 18.3 21.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 4 3 -Myanmar [3] 33.7 41.3 47.1 6.2 4.0 3.1 18 10 6Philippines [4] 48.0 62.5 74.2 12.8 16.2 16.8 27 26 23Thailand [3] 46.0 55.5 62.0 10.4 15.6 11.5 23 28 18Viet Nam [3] 53.0 67.5 77.1 16.8 18.0 13.7 32 27 18SOUTH ASIA 884.9 1 122.4 1 306.1 330.5 291.6 314.9 37 26 24Bangladesh [5] 85.5 112.7 134.6 33.8 39.2 47.0 40 35 35India [4] 689.0 861.3 992.7 261.5 215.6 233.3 38 25 24Nepal [3] 14.6 18.6 22.5 7.1 3.5 4.3 49 19 19Pakistan [3] 81.3 112.5 137.6 25.1 28.2 26.0 31 25 19Sri Lanka [4] 14.6 17.2 18.7 3.0 5.0 4.3 21 29 23

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN 355.9 442.2 504.4 45.9 58.8 54.8 13 13 11NORTH AMERICA 67.6 84.8 97.4 3.0 4.3 5.2 4 5 5Mexico [3] 67.6 84.8 97.4 3.0 4.3 5.2 4 5 5CENTRAL AMERICA 22.1 28.7 35.2 4.5 4.8 7.1 20 17 20Costa Rica [3] 2.3 3.1 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 8 6 5El Salvador [3] 4.6 5.2 6.2 0.8 0.6 0.8 17 12 14Guatemala [4] 6.8 9.0 11.1 1.2 1.2 2.8 18 14 25Honduras [4] 3.6 5.0 6.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 31 23 21Nicaragua [4] 2.9 3.9 4.9 0.8 1.2 1.5 26 30 29Panama [3] 1.9 2.4 2.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 21 19 18THE CARIBBEAN 24.1 28.5 31.3 4.7 7.4 7.9 20 26 25Cuba [3] 9.7 10.7 11.2 0.4 0.5 1.5 4 5 13Dominican Republic [4] 5.7 7.2 8.2 1.4 1.9 2.1 25 27 26Haiti [5] 5.5 7.0 8.0 2.6 4.5 4.0 48 64 50Jamaica [3] 2.1 2.4 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 10 14 9Trinidad and Tobago [3] 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 6 13 12SOUTH AMERICA 242.2 300.1 340.6 33.8 42.3 34.6 14 14 10Argentina [1] 28.1 33.0 36.6 0.3 0.7 0.4 - - -Bolivia [4] 5.4 6.7 8.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 26 26 23Brazil [3] 121.6 150.3 168.2 18.1 19.4 16.7 15 13 10Chile [2] 11.1 13.3 15.0 0.7 1.1 0.6 7 8 4Colombia [3] 28.4 35.7 41.4 6.1 6.1 5.6 22 17 13Ecuador [3] 8.0 10.5 12.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 11 8 5Guyana [3] 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 13 19 14Paraguay [3] 3.1 4.3 5.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 13 18 14Peru [3] 17.3 22.0 25.2 4.9 8.9 2.9 28 40 11Suriname [3] 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 18 12 11Uruguay [2] 2.9 3.1 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 3 6 3Venezuela [4] 15.1 20.0 23.7 0.6 2.3 4.9 4 11 21

The state of food insecurity in the world 2002 31

Table 1. PREVALENCE OF UNDERNOURISHMENT in developing countries and countries in transition

DEVELOPING WORLD Total population Number of people undernourished Proportion of undernourished Region/subregion/country in total population[undernourishment category] 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000

(millions) (millions) (%)

Tables

NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 237.0 321.3 384.5 21.5 26.0 40.0 9 8 10NEAR EAST 145.6 200.6 244.2 14.1 20.5 33.8 10 10 14Afghanistan [5] 15.0 14.6 21.2 5.6 9.2 14.9 37 63 70Iran, Islamic Rep. [3] 39.2 59.9 69.2 2.6 2.7 3.8 7 4 5Iraq [4] 13.0 17.8 22.3 0.5 1.2 5.9 4 7 27Jordan [3] 2.2 3.4 4.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 6 4 6Kuwait [2] 1.4 2.1 1.8 0.1 0.5 0.1 4 22 4Lebanon [2] 2.7 2.8 3.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 8 - 3Saudi Arabia [2] 9.6 15.8 19.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 3 4 3Syrian Arab Republic [2] 8.7 12.8 15.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 3 5 3Turkey [1] 44.7 57.2 65.7 1.2 1.0 1.6 3 - -United Arab Emirates [1] 1.0 2.1 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 - 3 -Yemen [4] 8.2 12.2 17.6 3.2 4.4 5.9 39 36 33NORTH AFRICA 91.4 120.7 140.3 7.4 5.5 6.2 8 5 4Algeria [3] 18.7 25.4 29.8 1.7 1.3 1.7 9 5 6Egypt [2] 43.8 57.4 66.7 3.6 2.6 2.5 8 5 4Libyan Arab Jamahiriya [1] 3.0 4.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - -Morocco [3] 19.4 25.1 29.3 1.9 1.5 2.0 10 6 7Tunisia [1] 6.4 8.3 9.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 3 - -

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 343.8 474.5 587.5 125.4 166.4 195.9 36 35 33CENTRAL AFRICA 44.8 62.8 79.6 15.1 22.0 45.1 34 35 57Cameroon [4] 8.7 11.9 14.6 2.0 3.8 3.6 22 32 25Central African Republic [5] 2.3 3.0 3.6 0.6 1.5 1.6 24 49 44Chad [4] 4.5 6.0 7.6 3.1 3.5 2.5 68 58 32Congo [4] 1.7 2.3 2.9 0.5 0.9 0.9 31 37 32Dem. Rep. of the Congo [5] 26.9 38.5 49.6 8.9 12.3 36.4 33 32 73Gabon [3] 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 13 11 8EAST AFRICA 120.4 166.1 204.0 42.5 73.7 83.0 35 44 41Burundi [5] 4.1 5.7 6.3 1.6 2.8 4.3 39 49 69Eritrea [5] na na 3.5 na na 2.0 na na 58Ethiopia [5] na na 61.4 na na 27.1 na na 44Kenya [5] 16.4 24.3 30.0 4.0 11.5 13.2 24 47 44Rwanda [5] 5.2 6.4 7.0 1.2 2.2 2.8 24 34 40Somalia [5] 6.4 7.2 8.4 4.3 4.8 6.0 67 67 71Sudan [4] 19.3 25.4 30.4 5.6 7.8 6.5 29 31 21Uganda [4] 12.5 17.8 22.6 4.1 4.1 4.7 33 23 21United Rep. of Tanzania [5] 18.8 27.0 34.3 5.2 9.8 16.2 28 36 47SOUTHERN AFRICA 51.9 71.0 87.1 17.0 34.0 37.1 33 48 43Angola [5] 7.1 9.9 12.8 2.6 6.0 6.3 37 61 50Botswana [4] 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 30 17 25Lesotho [4] 1.4 1.7 2.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 30 27 26Madagascar [5] 9.1 12.3 15.5 1.8 4.3 6.2 20 35 40Malawi [4] 6.2 9.6 11.0 1.6 4.8 3.7 26 49 33Mauritius [3] 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 10 6 5Mozambique [5] 11.8 14.1 17.9 6.5 9.7 9.8 55 69 55Namibia [3] 1.0 1.4 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 20 15 9Swaziland [3] 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 14 10 12Zambia [5] 5.9 8.3 10.2 1.5 3.7 5.1 26 45 50Zimbabwe [5] 7.1 10.5 12.4 1.9 4.5 4.7 26 43 38WEST AFRICA 126.7 174.7 216.7 50.7 36.7 30.7 40 21 14Benin [3] 3.5 4.8 6.1 1.3 0.9 0.8 37 19 13Burkina Faso [4] 6.9 9.3 11.3 4.5 2.2 2.6 64 23 23Côte d'Ivoire [3] 8.5 13.0 15.7 0.7 2.3 2.3 8 18 15Gambia [4] 0.6 1.0 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 58 21 21Ghana [3] 11.0 15.6 18.9 7.1 5.5 2.2 64 35 12Guinea [4] 4.7 6.4 8.0 1.5 2.5 2.6 32 40 32

The state of food insecurity in the world 200232

Table 1 cont. PREVALENCE OF UNDERNOURISHMENT in developing countries and countries in transition

DEVELOPING WORLD Total population Number of people undernourished Proportion of undernourished Region/subregion/country in total population[undernourishment category] 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000


Liberia [5] 1.9 2.1 2.7 0.4 0.7 1.0 22 33 39Mali [4] 6.8 9.0 11.0 4.1 2.2 2.3 60 25 20Mauritania [3] 1.6 2.0 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 35 14 12Niger [5] 5.6 8.0 10.5 1.9 3.3 3.8 34 42 36Nigeria [3] 64.3 88.5 110.9 25.2 11.9 7.3 39 13 7Senegal [4] 5.5 7.5 9.2 1.3 1.7 2.3 23 23 25Sierra Leone [5] 3.2 4.1 4.3 1.3 1.9 2.0 40 46 47Togo [4] 2.5 3.5 4.4 0.7 1.0 1.0 26 28 23

COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION Total population Number of people undernourished Proportion of undernourished Region/subregion/country in total population[undernourishment category] 1998-2000 1998-2000 1998-2000

(millions) (millions) (percentage)

COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION 412.6 30.2 7

COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES 284.0 25.5 9Armenia [5] 3.8 1.8 46Azerbaijan [4] 8.0 1.9 23Belarus [1] 10.2 0.2 -Georgia [3] 5.3 0.9 16Kazakhstan [3] 16.3 1.2 8Kyrgyzstan [3] 4.8 0.4 8Republic of Moldova [3] 4.3 0.4 10Russian Federation [3] 146.2 7.2 5Tajikistan [5] 6.0 3.9 64Turkmenistan [3] 4.6 0.4 8Ukraine [3] 50.0 2.6 5Uzbekistan [3] 24.5 4.7 19BALTIC STATES 7.5 0.3 3Estonia [1] 1.4 0.0 -Latvia [3] 2.4 0.1 5Lithuania [2] 3.7 0.1 3EASTERN EUROPE 121.0 4.5 4Albania [3] 3.1 0.3 8Bosnia and Herzegovina [3] 3.8 0.2 6Bulgaria [3] 8.0 1.2 15Croatia [3] 4.7 0.8 18Czech Republic [1] 10.3 0.2 -Hungary [1] 10.0 0.1 -TFYR Macedonia [2] 2.0 0.1 4Poland [1] 38.6 0.3 -Romania [1] 22.5 0.3 -Slovakia [1] 5.4 0.1 -Slovenia [1] 2.0 0.0 -Yugoslavia, Fed. Rep. of ** [3] 10.6 0.8 8


NOTES:Figures following country name refer to the prevalence categories (proportion ofthe population undernourished in 1998-2000):[1] < 2.5% undernourished[2] 2.5 – <5% undernourished[3] 5 – <20% undernourished[4] 20 – <35% undernourished[5] >35% undernourished

KEYS:na not available– proportion less than 2.5% undernourished* includes Taiwan Province of China** includesSerbia and MontenegroTable does not include countries for which there were insufficient dataSOURCES: Total population: UN Population Prospects, 2000 revision

Undernourishment: FAO estimates

Table 1 cont. PREVALENCE OF UNDERNOURISHMENT in developing countries and countries in transitionDEVELOPING WORLD Total population Number of people undernourished Proportion of undernourished Region/subregion/country in total population[undernourishment category] 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000 1979-81 1990-92 1998-2000



Table 2. FOOD AVAILABILITY, DIET DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY, HEALTH , CHILD NUTRITIONAL STATUS indeveloping countries and countries in transition, classified by category of prevalence of undernourishment.

CATEGORY OF PREVALENCE FOOD AVAILABILITY POVERTY HEALTH CHILD NUTRITIONALof undernourishment AND DIET DIVERSIFICATION STATUSin total population 1998-2000; Dietary Share of People living Life expectancy Under-five Underweightregion and country energy supply non-starchy food on less than at birth mortality rate children under

(DES) in total DES US$1 per day five years of age1998-2000 1990's 2000 1990 to 2000

(last survey) (last survey)kcal/day per ' 000

per person % % years births %

LESS THAN 2.5% UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFICChina Hong Kong SAR 3 100 70 na 80 na naMalaysia 2 930 56 na 73 9 18 Republic of Korea 3 060 49 - 73 5 naLATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANArgentina 3 180 66 na 74 21 naNEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICALibyan Arab Jamahiriya 3 300 53 na 71 20 5 Tunisia 3 360 48 - 72 28 4 Turkey 3 390 47 2 70 45 8 United Arab Emirates 3 180 65 na 75 9 14 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITIONBelarus 3 050 53 - 68 20 naCzech Republic 3 170 69 - 75 5 1 Estonia 3 250 53 - 71 21 naHungary 3 420 70 - 71 9 naPoland 3 370 58 - 73 10 naRomania 3 280 47 3 70 22 6 Slovakia 3 100 65 - 73 9 naSlovenia 3 080 61 - 75 5 na2.5 TO 4% UNDERNOURISHEDLATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANChile 2 850 57 - 76 12 1 Uruguay 2 850 63 - 74 17 5 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICAEgypt 3 320 34 3 67 43 12 Kuwait 3 130 62 na 77 10 10 Lebanon 3 160 62 na 70 32 3 Saudi Arabia 2 840 51 na 73 29 14 Syrian Arab Republic 3 050 52 na 70 29 13 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITIONLithuania 3 010 47 - 73 21 naTFYR of Macedonia 2 960 58 na 73 26 6 5 TO 19% UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFICChina* 3 030 39 19 70 40 10 Indonesia 2 900 29 8 66 48 26 Myanmar 2 820 24 na 56 110 36 Nepal 2 380 21 38 59 100 47 Pakistan 2 460 47 31 63 110 38 Thailand 2 480 49 - 69 29 19 Viet Nam 2 540 26 na 69 39 33 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANBrazil 2 960 65 12 68 38 6 Colombia 2 570 60 20 72 30 7 Costa Rica 2 780 62 13 77 12 5 Cuba 2 560 60 na 76 9 4 Ecuador 2 680 62 20 70 32 15 El Salvador 2 460 46 21 70 40 12 Guyana 2 550 48 na 63 74 12

KEYS: * includes Taiwan Province of China for FAO estimates: ** includes Serbia and Montenegro: na not available: – proportion less than 2 percent.


Table 2 cont. FOOD AVAILABILITY, DIET DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY, HEALTH, CHILD NUTRITIONAL STATUSin developing countries and countries in transition, classified by category of prevalence of undernourishment.





Jamaica 2 680 59 3 75 20 4 Mexico 3 150 53 16 73 30 8 Panama 2 410 62 14 75 26 7 Paraguay 2 540 57 20 70 31 5 Peru 2 600 46 16 69 50 8 Suriname 2 630 57 na 70 33 naTrinidad and Tobago 2 720 61 12 73 20 naNEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICAAlgeria 2 960 39 - 71 65 6 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 2 910 39 na 69 44 11 Jordan 2 720 47 - 72 34 5 Morocco 3 010 36 - 67 46 9 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICABenin 2 570 26 na 53 154 29 Côte d'Ivoire 2 590 33 12 46 173 21 Gabon 2 550 55 na 53 90 naGhana 2 650 28 45 57 102 25 Mauritania 2 660 45 29 52 183 23 Mauritius 2 970 54 na 72 20 16 Namibia 2 600 27 35 47 69 26 Nigeria 2 840 35 70 47 184 27 Swaziland 2 570 52 na 46 142 naCOUNTRIES IN TRANSITIONAlbania 2 750 52 na 74 31 14 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 810 42 na 73 18 4 Bulgaria 2 640 63 - 72 16 naCroatia 2 480 62 - 73 9 1 Georgia 2 440 38 - 73 29 3 Kazakhstan 2 720 41 - 65 75 4 Kyrgyzstan 2 830 34 na 67 63 11 Latvia 2 880 58 - 70 21 naRepublic of Moldova 2 730 48 11 68 33 3 Russian Federation 2 900 52 7 65 22 3 Turkmenistan 2 720 37 12 66 70 naUkraine 2 830 49 3 68 21 3 Uzbekistan 2 370 42 3 70 67 19 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep. of ** 2 750 68 na 72 20 2 20 TO 34% UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFICDem. People's Rep. of Korea 2 170 32 na 61 30 60 India 2 430 38 44 63 96 47 Laos 2 240 21 26 54 105 40 Papua New Guinea 2 180 44 na 59 112 naPhilippines 2 360 44 na 69 40 28 Sri Lanka 2 360 44 7 73 19 33 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANBolivia 2 210 51 14 63 80 10 Dominican Republic 2 310 67 3 67 48 5 Guatemala 2 160 47 10 65 59 24 Honduras 2 390 54 24 66 40 25 Nicaragua 2 240 49 na 69 45 12

NOTES: The underweight refers to children below five years of age 0-59 months, except: 0-35 months Benin, Eritrea, India, Kyrgyzstan, Mozambique, Nigeria, Togo andUzbekistan; 0-71 months Chile, Congo, and Costa Rica; 6-59 months Dem. People's Rep. of Korea, Nepal and TFYR Macedonia; 3-35 months Bolivia and Mali; 12-71months Croatia and Honduras; 3-59 months El Salvador and Guatemala; 6-35 months Afghanistan; 0-72 months China; 0-36 months Côte d'Ivoire; 0-48 monthsGuyana; 0-47 months Uganda.

Venezuela 2 280 60 23 73 23 5 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICAIraq 2 150 34 na 61 130 16 Yemen 2 040 33 16 56 117 46 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICABotswana 2 240 50 na 39 101 13 Burkina Faso 2 320 25 61 44 198 34 Cameroon 2 270 41 33 50 154 21 Chad 2 180 40 na 48 198 28 Congo 2 170 36 na 51 108 14 Gambia 2 400 45 59 53 128 17 Guinea 2 240 41 na 46 175 23 Lesotho 2 300 19 43 44 133 16 Malawi 2 160 24 na 39 188 25 Mali 2 400 28 73 42 233 43 Senegal 2 260 40 26 52 139 18 Sudan 2 360 43 na 56 108 17 Togo 2 370 21 na 49 142 25 Uganda 2 330 56 na 42 127 26 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITIONAzerbaijan 2 330 33 - 72 105 17 35% OR MORE UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFICBangladesh 2 100 16 29 61 82 48 Cambodia 1 990 22 na 54 135 46 Mongolia 2 020 56 14 67 78 13 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANHaiti 2 040 46 na 53 125 28 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICAAfghanistan 1 630 27 na 43 257 48 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAAngola 1 890 33 na 47 295 naBurundi 1 620 51 na 42 190 45 Central African Republic 1 950 44 67 43 180 24 Dem. Rep. of the Congo 1 590 23 na 46 207 34 Eritrea 1 710 22 na 52 114 44 Ethiopia 1 880 19 31 42 174 47 Kenya 1 960 41 27 47 120 23 Liberia 2 140 38 na 47 235 naMadagascar 2 010 25 49 55 139 33 Mozambique 1 910 23 38 42 200 26 Niger 2 100 28 61 46 270 40 Rwanda 2 020 52 na 40 187 29 Sierra Leone 1 980 36 57 39 316 27 Somalia 1 600 65 na 48 225 26 United Rep. of Tanzania 1 920 30 20 44 165 29 Zambia 1 900 21 64 38 202 25 Zimbabwe 2 110 38 36 40 117 13 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITIONArmenia 2 040 36 8 74 30 3 Tajikistan 1 790 31 na 69 73 na


Table 2 cont. FOOD AVAILABILITY, DIET DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY, HEALTH, CHILD NUTRITIONAL STATUSin developing countries and countries in transition, classified by category of prevalence of undernourishment.





SOURCES: Dietary energy supply (DES) and share of non-starchy food: FAO estimates; Poverty: World Development Indicators 2002, World Bank; Life expectancy atbirth: World Development Indicators online database, World Bank, July 2002; Under five mortality and child nutritional status: UNICEF online database, Sept. 2001 .

SourcesThe State of Food Insecurity in theWorld 2002 is based mainly on data andanalysis provided by FAO’s technicaldivisions. Specific references cited forparticular articles in this editionincluded the following:

Pages 6-7Rice, A., Black, R., Hyder, A., & Sacco,L. 2000. Malnutrition as an underlyingcause of childhood deaths associatedwith infectious diseases in developingcountries. Bulletin of the WHO, 78(10):1207-1221.Rutstein, S. 2000. Factors associatedwith trends in infant and child mortalityin developing countries during the1990s. Bulletin of the WHO, 78(10):1256-1270.

Pages 14-19Dixon, J. & Gulliver, A. with Gibbon, D.2001. Farming systems and poverty:Improving farmers’ livelihoods in achanging world. Rome and Washington,DC, FAO and World Bank, 420 pp.Ellis-Jones, J. 1999. Poverty, land care,and sustainable livelihoods in hillsideand mountain regions. MountainResearch and Development, 19(3): 179-190.International Centre for IntegratedMountain Development. 1997. Issues inMountain Development, 1997(1).FAO. 2001. Household Food Insecurityand Nutrition in Mountain Areas, by A.Jenny. Rome.

Messerli, B. & Ives, J.D., eds. 1997.Mountains of the world: a global priority.New York. Parthenon.Mountain Agenda, Centre forDevelopment and Environment (CDE),University of Berne. 2000. Mountains ofthe World: Challenges for the 21stCentury – A Contribution to Chapter 13,Agenda 21.UNEP-World Conservation MonitoringCentre. 2000. Mountains of the world –2000.

Pages 22-23Cohen, M.J. & Pinstrup-Andersen, P.1999. Food security and conflict. SocialResearch, 66(1).FAO. 2000. Conflicts, agriculture andfood security. The State of Food andAgriculture 2000. Rome. 360 pp.Messer, E., Cohen, M.J. & D’Costa, J.1998. Food from peace: breaking thelinks between conflict and hunger.Washington, DC, IFPRI. 44 pp.Collier, P. 2000. Economic causes of civilconflict and their implications for policy.Washington, DC, World Bank. 23 pp.Ohlsson, L. 2000. Livelihood conflicts:linking poverty and the environment ascauses of conflict. Stockholm, SIDA.Homer-Dixon, T.F. 1999.. Environment,scarcity and violence. Princeton, NJ,USA, Princeton University Press. 272 pp.

Pages 24–25USAID. 1992. Economic rationale forinvesting in micronutrient programs, apolicy brief based on new analyses.Washington, DC.

Faber, M., Phungula, M.A.S., Venter, S.L.,Dhansay, M.A. & Benade, A.J.S. 2002.Home-gardens focussing on yellow anddark-green leafy vegetables can improveserum retinol concentration in 2–5-yearold children in South Africa. AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition (in press).

Pages 26–27Maxwell, D. & Wiebe, K. 1998. Landtenure and food security: a review ofconcepts, evidence and methods.Madison, WI, USA, Land Tenure Center,University of Wisconsin.Besley, T. & Burgess, R. 2000.. Landreform, poverty reduction and growth:evidence from India. London, LondonSchool of Economics (mimeo); IFAD.2001. Assets and the rural poor. In Therural poverty report 2001, pp 71-124.Rome, IFAD. 266 pp.El-Ghonemy, M.R. 2002. Agrarianreform policy issues never die. Keynotespeech at the Conference on AgrarianReform and Rural Development: TakingStock, organized by the Social ResearchCenter of the American University inCairo, Egypt.Netting, R.M. 1993. Smallholders,householders. Stanford, CA, USA,Stanford University Press. 389 pp.Deininger, K., van den Brink, R.,Hoogeveen, H. & Moyo, S. 2000. Howland reform can contribute to economicgrowth and poverty reduction: empiricalevidence from international andZimbabwean experience. Washington,DC, World Bank Land Policy Network(available at www.worldbank.org).

The State of Food Insecurity in the WorldThis fourth edition of The State of Food Insecurity in the World reports analarming trend, documents its devastating impact and highlights someencouraging signs that the trend can be reversed.

The alarming trend is revealed by FAO’s latest estimates of the number ofhungry people around the world. These figures indicate that the number ofundernourished people in developing countries has been reduced by just 2.5 million per year since the World Food Summit benchmark period of1990–92. If progress continues at this sluggish pace until 2015, the totalreduction will amount to less than 10 percent, far short of the 50 percenttarget set by the Summit in 1996.

The persistence of widespread hunger in a world of plenty has a devastatingimpact on human lives, national economies and global prospects forsustainable development. Articles in The State of Food Insecurity in theWorld 2002 chart the fatal connection between hunger and mortality,hunger’s crippling effect on both family productivity and national prosperity,and the strategic connection between combating hunger and achieving theMillennium Development Goals.

The news is not all grim, however. The year 2002 has offered signs ofgrowing awareness that action against hunger must be accelerated,especially by mobilizing resources for agricultural and rural development.The United Nations strategy for promoting the Millennium DevelopmentGoals has galvanized renewed commitment to combating hunger. Increasedresources were pledged for development assistance at the Conference onFinancing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico. The World Food Summit:five years later in Rome initiated a process of intergovernmentalconsultations to elaborate voluntary guidelines for the progressiverealization of the right to food in the context of national food security.Moreover, it is expected that the Anti-Hunger Programme paper, presentedby the FAO Secretariat during the World Food Summit: five years later, willstimulate consensus on and commitment of resources for a twin-trackapproach to reducing hunger – promoting sustainable agricultural and ruraldevelopment, while enhancing access to food by the most needy. And mostrecently, the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburgreignited both awareness and action for the interrelated goals of combatinghunger and poverty and promoting the sustainable use of natural resources.

Documents

food insecurity: when people must live with hunger and ...... · designation of 2002 as the International Year of Mountains. The international development environment in which IAWG-FIVIMS