the state of food insecurity in the world 2003

The State of Food Insecurity in the World

2003

monitoring progress towards the World Food Summit and

Millennium Development Goals

Published in 2003 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 information product do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations concerning the legal ordevelopment status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.

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 Management Service, Information Division,FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected].

© FAO 2003

ISBN 92-5-104986-6

Printed in Italy

PhotographsAs cover (left to right): PS Deora/UNEP/B; UNEP/MA Walters/Topham; Romy Hitosis/UNEP/B.

AcknowledgementsThis fifth edition of The State of FoodInsecurity in the World (SOFI) wasprepared as a collaborative effort withinFAO led by the Economic and SocialDepartment (ES).

Overall leadership was provided byHartwig de Haen, Assistant Director-General, ES, assisted by Ali ArslanGurkan, Chief of the Basic FoodstuffsService (ESCB), who served as the chairof the core technical team. Valuableconceptual and editorial assistance wasprovided by Andrew Marx ofKnowledgeView Ltd.

Other members of the core technical team in the ES Department were: JelleBruinsma, Global Perspectives Study Unit; Randy Stringer, Agricultural andDevelopment Economics Division; Prakash Shetty, Nutrition Division;Jorge Mernies, Statistics Division; andNicholas Hughes, ES DepartmentProgramme Coordinator.

The following FAO staff providedtechnical contributions: JosefSchmidhuber, Global Perspectives StudyUnit (ES); Haluk Kasnakoglu, EdwardGillin, Ricardo Sibrian, LoganadenNaiken (consultant), SeevalingumRamasawmy, Cinzia Cerri, MariannaCampeanu and Vincent Ngendakumana,Statistics Division (ES); Jean-MarcFaurès and Karen Frenken, Land andWater Development Division (AG);Sumiter Broca, Benjamin Davis, AnneliesDeuss, Amdetsion Gebre-Michael,Guenter Hemrich, Anna Carla Lopez,Prabhu Pingali, Jakob Skoet and KostasStamoulis, Agricultural and DevelopmentEconomics Division (ES); William Clay,Irela Mazar and Guy Nantel, NutritionDivision (ES); Maarten Immink and JennyRiches, FIVIMS Coordination Unit (ES);Shukri Ahmed, Michael Cherlet, MerrittCluff, Cheng Fang, Henri Josserand,Suffyan Koroma, Mwita Rukandema,Harmon Thomas and Yanyun Li,Commodities and Trade Division (ES);Ergin Ataman, Research, Extension and

Training Division (SD); Marcela Villarreal,Gender and Population Division (SD);Andrew MacMillan, Field OperationsDivision (TC); Naoki Minamiguchi,Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

The key statistics on food consumptionand the estimates and analysis onundernourishment used in SOFI 2003were produced by the Basic Data Branchand the Statistical Analysis Service of theFAO Statistics Division respectively.

FAO extends special thanks to the team of Banson, Cambridge, UK, for design,layout, editorial support and preparation of graphic material.

The Editorial Production and DesignGroup of the Information Division, GI, was responsible for language editingservices, editorial quality control anddesktop publishing. Translations wereprovided by the Translation Group of theConference, Council and Protocol AffairsDivision, GI.

The State of Food Insecurity in the World

2003

monitoring progress towards the World Food Summit and

Millennium Development Goals

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 20032

IAWG-FIVIMS membershipBilateral aid and technical agenciesAustralian Agency for International Development (AusAID)Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)EuropeAid Co-operation Office (EuropeAid)German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID)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 Organization (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 (SCN)

International agricultural research organizationsConsultative 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 organizationsCAREHelen Keller International (HKI)The Rockefeller FoundationSave the Children Fund UK (SCFUK)World Resources Institute (WRI)

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

On behalf of the Inter-Agency Working Group on FIVIMS(IAWG-FIVIMS), I commend FAO on the 2003 edition of TheState of Food Insecurity in the World. This report hasjustifiably become a flagship report in the food security arena.Each year it clearly lays out how far we have come in achievingglobal food security and how far we still have to travel.

Since FIVIMS was created in 1997 we have seen theemergence of the Millennium Development Goals process,the country Poverty Reduction Strategy papers and a newemphasis on the progressive realization of the right to food,coupled with an increasingly shared vision of the causes of food insecurity and vulnerability within a livelihoodframework. Recognizing these changes, the FIVIMS Initiativeis currently examining what it has achieved and its strategicpriorities for going forward. The inter-agency nature ofFIVIMS represents one of our greatest strengths – the abilityto coordinate information activities and to share relevantexperiences, approaches and methodologies. Building on acollaborative assessment of our past activities, andconsultations with many stakeholders, we will formulate anew, forward-looking strategic plan. I look forward to sharingthe results of the assessment and strategic planning in the2004 issue of SOFI.

I encourage all readers of SOFI to translate informationinto action. Use this report to shine a spotlight on foodinsecurity and hunger; mobilize resources and political will inyour constituency – global, national, and local – to meet thechallenge. We must all play our part, and on behalf of FIVIMSwe commit ourselves to work in partnership with you to elimi-nate the scourge of hunger from our planet once and for all.

Lynn R Brown (World Bank)Chair, IAWG-FIVIMS

This fifth 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 Food

Summit (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 main sections. The first, Undernourish-ment around the world, analyses thelatest data on hunger. The second

contains a special feature on internationaltrade. The third, Towards the Summitcommitments, discusses approaches tofulfilling the commitments in the WFSPlan of Action. Finally, tables providedetailed indicators for developing coun-tries and countries in transition.

About this report

Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2003 3

Contents

4 Foreword

Towards the World Food Summit target

6 Undernourishment around the world

6 Counting the hungry: latest estimates

8 Counting the hungry: recent trends in developing countries

and countries in transition

10 Food insecurity and HIV/AIDS: when short-term emergencies

intersect a long-wave crisis

12 Water and food security

14 Hunger hotspots

16 Special feature – International trade and food security

16 Trade and food security: the importance of agriculture and

agricultural trade in developing countries

18 Trade and food security: does trade openness harm food security?

20 Trade and food security: issues of the Doha Round and beyond

22 Towards the World Food Summit commitments

22 Acting to combat hunger

24 Beyond irrigation: the multiple uses of water for improving both

diets and incomes

26 Mapping poverty and hunger to help wipe them off the map

28 Identifying the keys to sustainable nutrition programmes

30 The way ahead: mobilizing commitment and action to combat hunger

31 Tables

FIRST SOME GOOD NEWS. FAO’slatest estimates show that anumber of countries have reduced

hunger steadily since the World FoodSummit (WFS) baseline period of1990–1992. In 19 countries, the numberof chronically hungry people declined byover 80 million between 1990–1992 and1999–2001.

The list of successful countries spansall developing regions, with one countryin the Near East, five in Asia and thePacific, six in Latin America and theCaribbean and seven in Sub-SaharanAfrica. It includes both large and rela-tively prosperous countries like Braziland China, where levels of under-nourishment were moderate at theoutset, and smaller countries wherehunger was more widespread, such asChad, Guinea, Namibia and Sri Lanka.

Now the bad news. Unfortunately, thisis not the situation in most othercountries. Across the developing worldas a whole, an estimated 798 millionpeople were undernourished in 1999–2001, only 19 million fewer than duringthe WFS baseline period. Worse yet, itappears that the number of under-nourished people in the developingworld is no longer falling but climbing.During the first half of the 1990s, thenumber of chronically hungry peopledecreased by 37 million. Since 1995–1997, however, the number has in-creased by over 18 million.

We must ask ourselves why this hashappened. Preliminary analysis doesnot permit any definitive answers to thatquestion. But closer examination doesidentify several factors that differentiatethe successful countries from those thatsuffered setbacks.

In general, countries that succeededin reducing hunger were characterizedby more rapid economic growth and

specifically by more rapid growth in theiragricultural sectors. They also exhibitedslower population growth, lower levelsof HIV infection and higher ranking in theUNDP’s Human Development Index.

These findings are consistent withprevious analyses that helped shape the WFS Plan of Action and the anti-hunger initiative put forward by FAO at the time of the World Food Summit:five years later. They highlight theimportance of a few key building blocksin the foundation for improving foodsecurity – rapid economic growth, betterthan average growth in the agriculturalsector and effective social safety nets toensure that those who cannot produceor buy adequate food still get enough to eat.

If the latest data tend to confirm ourunderstanding of factors that contributeto food security, they also confront uswith another difficult question: if wealready know the basic parameters ofwhat needs to be done, why have weallowed hundreds of millions of peopleto go hungry in a world that producesmore than enough food for everywoman, man and child?

Bluntly stated, the problem is not somuch a lack of food as a lack of politicalwill. The vast majority of the world’shungry people live in rural areas of thedeveloping world, far from the levers ofpolitical power and beyond the range of vision of the media and the public indeveloped countries. Except when waror a natural calamity briefly focusesglobal attention and compassion, little issaid and less is done to put an end to thesuffering of a “continent of the hungry”whose 798 million people outnumberthe population of either Latin America orsub-Saharan Africa.

Too often, eliminating hunger hasbeen relegated to a shopping list of

development goals. All of these goalsare interconnected through the fatalnexus of poverty and social exclusion.Every one of them deserves anddemands our support. But we must also have the vision and the courage toset priorities, recognizing that lack ofadequate food threatens people’s veryexistence and cripples their ability both to benefit from opportunities foreducation, employment and politicalparticipation and to contribute to eco-nomic and social development.

This brings us back to the need forpolitical will. And it also brings us tomore of the good news in this year’sreport. For if we must report setbacks in reducing hunger, we can also reportthat we have seen many encouragingsigns of growing commitment to thefight against hunger.

In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lulada Silva has pledged to eradicate hungerby the end of his four-year term. And hehas backed up the pledge by launchingthe comprehensive Fome Zero (ZeroHunger) Project.

Over the past year, more than 20other countries have asked FAO to helpthem design and carry out anti-hungerprogrammes. Many of these countriesare relying entirely on their own re-sources and initiative to achieve the WFSgoal within their own borders. Somehave committed themselves to moreambitious goals. The government ofSierra Leone, for example, has set a boldtarget of eliminating hunger by the year2007. At their recent summit in Maputo,Mozambique, the heads of state of theAfrican Union unanimously pledged toincrease agriculture’s share of publicexpenditures to at least 10 percentwithin the next five years.

The fact that these countries havemade eradicating hunger a top priority

Foreword

Towards the World Food Summit target



is encouraging. The way they are goingabout it is even more so.

The strategy adopted by Brazil’s Fome Zero incorporates many of theelements in the anti-hunger initiative.Most importantly, it emphasizes a two-pronged attack on hunger that combinesemergency interventions to give hungrypeople access to food with developmentinitiatives to increase employment, in-comes and food production in impover-ished communities. Fome Zero has alsoforged a broad and committed nationalalliance against hunger, engaging the

active support and participations ofunions, popular associations, non-governmental organizations, schools,universities, churches and companies.

A growing number of countries areshowing the way, mustering the politicalwill and the resources to attack theproblem of hunger head on. Now it istime for the international community tofollow through on the commitmentsmade at the World Food Summit.

The task ahead of us is to create aninternational Alliance against Hungerthat will mobilize national and global

commitment, based not on a plea forcharity but on a demand for justice andan appeal to the self-interest of almosteveryone, recognizing that the sufferingof 800 million hungry people representsnot only an unconscionable tragedy but a threat to economic growth andpolitical stability on a global scale.

Hunger cannot wait.

Jacques DioufFAO Director-General

1 000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

1 000

900

800

On track

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Range around the pointestimates reported at the World Food Summit

Range for the year of the World Food Summit (1996)

Range around the “business asusual” projection in Worldagriculture: towards 2015/2030

World Food Summit target

Point estimates prepared in 2003

FAO estimates of the number of undernourished people in the world are necessarily based on imperfect information. As better databecome available, the estimates are revisedretrospectively. Range estimates thereforeprovide a more reliable illustration of the number ofundernourished over time. The estimated range forpast, projected and target paths is based on a range of 5 percent above and below the past, projected and targetnumbers considered by the World Food Summit in 1996. Withinthese ranges, the most recently calculated point estimates are shown.The graph refers to developing countries only, because FAO does nothave estimates of the undernourished in developed countries for thereference period (1990–1992) and earlier years.

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

Millions Millions

Businessas usual

These numbers and trends are domi-nated by progress and setbacks in a fewlarge countries. China alone has reducedthe number of hungry people by 58 millionsince the World Food Summit baselineperiod. But progress in China has slowed as the prevalence of undernourishment

has been reduced. At the same time, Indiahas shifted into reverse. After seeing adecline of 20 million in the number ofundernourished between 1990–1992 and1995–1997, the number of hungry people inIndia increased by 19 million over thefollowing four years.

FAO’S LATEST ESTIMATES signal asetback in the war against hunger. The number of chronically hungry

people in developing countries declined by only 19 million between the World FoodSummit (WFS) baseline period of 1990–1992 and 1999–2001. This means that theWFS goal of reducing the number ofundernourished people by half by the year2015 can now be reached only if annualreductions can be accelerated to 26 millionper year, more than 12 times the pace of 2.1 million per year achieved to date.

Analysis of more recent trends makesthe prospects look even bleaker. From 1995–1997 to 1999–2001 the number ofundernourished actually increased by 18million (see page 8 for details and analysis).

Worldwide, FAO estimates that 842million people were undernourished in1999–2001. This includes 10 million in theindustrialized countries, 34 million in countries in transition and 798 million indeveloping countries. At the regional level,the numbers of undernourished werereduced in Asia and the Pacific and in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. In contrast,the numbers continue to rise in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Near East andNorth Africa.

Undernourishment around the world

Counting the hungry: latest estimates


Mau

ritiu

sM

exic

oIr

an, I

slam

ic R

ep. o

f A

lger

iaC

osta

Ric

aJo

rdan

Indo

nesi

aM

yanm

arG

abon

Mor

occo

Nam

ibia

Nig

eria

Bra

zil

Jam

aica

Mau

rita

nia

Chi

na*

Suri

nam

eC

uba

Per

uSw

azila

ndG

hana

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Col

ombi

aP

arag

uay

El S

alva

dor

Guy

ana

Côt

e d'

Ivoi

reB

enin

Nep

alB

urki

na F

aso

Vene

zuel

aP

akis

tan

Thai

land

Uga

nda

Viet

Nam

Tuni

sia

Liby

an A

rab

Jam

ahir

iya

Arg

entin

aU

nite

d A

rab

Emir

ates

Rep

. of K

orea

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

of C

hina

Mal

aysi

a

Turk

eyLe

bano

nSa

udi A

rabi

aEg

ypt

Uru

guay

Syri

an A

rab

Rep

.K

uwai

tC

hile

Ecua

dor

80

60

40

20

0%

2.5–4% undernourished 5–19% undernourished

Proportions of undernourished in developing countries, 1990–1992 and 1999–2001

* includes Taiwan Province of China** estimates of the proportion of undernourished for 1999–2001 are not available; estimates for

1998–2000 published in SOFI 2002 were used instead

In estimating the prevalence of under-nourishment FAO takes into account theamount of food available per personnationally and the extent of inequality inaccess to food.

An International Scientific Symposiumon Measurement of Food Deprivation and Undernutrition held in 2002concluded that the method used by FAOis the only way currently available toarrive at global and regional estimatesof the prevalence of undernourishment.The Symposium also called for efforts to improve both the data and theanalytical approach used to derive theseestimates.

In response to the Symposium’s re-commendations, FAO’s Statistics Division

has reinforced its activities in severalareas, including:• expanding use of the FAO methodology

to measure the extent of food depri-vation at subnational levels, such asurban and rural areas;

• reconciling estimates of national foodconsumption from food balance sheetsand household surveys;

• analysing trends in the inequality ofaccess to food;

• reviewing the minimum energy require-ments used to define food deprivation in light of new recommendations froman FAO/WHO/UNU Expert consultation;and

• integrating analysis of trends in fooddeprivation and nutritional status.

Improving the FAO estimate of prevalence of undernourishment

2.5% undernourished


Source: FAO

Undernourished 1999–2001 (millions) Number and proportion of undernourished, 1999–2001

Source: FAO

Countries intransition 34

Near East andNorth Africa 41

Latin Americaand Caribbean

53

Sub-SaharanAfrica 198

Industrializedcountries 10

India214

China*135

Asia and thePacific** 156

All developingcountries Developing countries

excl. China*

Developing countries excl. India

Developing countries excl. China* and India

* includes Taiwan Province of China** excl. China and India

* includes Taiwan Province of China

* includes TaiwanProvince of China

* includes TaiwanProvince of China

800

600

4001990–1992 1995–1997 1999–2001

Number of undernourished (millions)

Proportion of undernourished (%)

1990–1992 to 1995–1997 (millions) 1995–1997 to 1999–2001 (millions)


China*Other East AsiaSoutheast Asia

IndiaOther South AsiaNorth America

Central AmericaCaribbean

South AmericaNear East

North AfricaCentral Africa

East AfricaSouthern Africa

West Africa

China*India

Southeast AsiaSouth America

West AfricaNorth Africa

North AmericaCentral America

CaribbeanSouthern AfricaOther East Asia

Other South AsiaNear EastEast Africa

Central Africa

Mad

agas

car

Ken

yaC

ambo

dia

Mon

golia

Zim

babw

eR

wan

daLi

beri

aEt

hiop

ia**

*Ta

nzan

ia, U

nite

d R

ep. o

fC

entr

al A

fric

an R

ep.

Ang

ola

Hai

tiZa

mbi

aSi

erra

Leo

neM

ozam

biqu

eEr

itrea

***

Afg

hani

stan

**B

urun

diSo

mal

ia**

Con

go, D

em. R

ep. o

f

Hon

dura

sIn

dia

Mal

iB

oliv

iaLa

o P

eopl

e’s

Dem

. Rep

.P

hilip

pine

sB

otsw

ana

Sene

gal

Sri L

anka

Suda

nD

omin

ican

Rep

.To

goLe

soth

oG

uate

mal

aP

anam

aIr

aq**

Gam

bia

Cam

eroo

nP

apua

New

Gui

nea

Gui

nea

Nic

arag

uaC

ongo

Ban

glad

esh

Mal

awi

Yem

enD

em. P

eopl

e's

Rep

. of K

orea

Cha

dN

iger

Sour

ce: F

AO

Source: FAOSo

urce

: FAO

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250

–50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20

Reduction(progress)

Increase(setback)

–20 –10 0 10 20

Impact of China and India on trends Changes in numbers of undernourished in developing subregions

80

60

40

20

0%

20–34% undernourished 35% undernourished

Grey bars: 1990–1992 Coloured bars: 1999–2001 Countries grouped by prevalence of undernourishment in 1999–2001

*** Ethiopia and Eritrea were not separate entities in 1990–1992

number of hungry people in thesecountries increased by almost 60 million.

Preliminary analysis (see box) sug-gests a number of factors that may have

contributed to success in some coun-tries and setbacks in others. Notsurprisingly, the countries that suc-ceeded in reducing hunger in both sub-

W ITH THE SLOW PACE ofprogress achieved since 1990–1992, prospects for reaching

the World Food Summit goal of halvingthe number of hungry people by 2015appear increasingly remote. Closeranalysis reveals that these numbersmask an even more alarming trend. Ifthe nine-year period is divided in half,figures for the developing countries as a whole indicate that the number ofundernourished people has actuallyincreased by 4.5 million per year duringthe most recent subperiod from 1995–1997 to 1999–2001.

Data from individual countries showthat only 19 countries succeeded inreducing the number of under-nourished during both subperiods. Inthese successful countries, the totalnumber of hungry people fell by over 80million over the full nine-year period(see graph below).

At the other end of the scale are 26countries where the number of under-nourished increased in both subperiods.In most of these countries, the preva-lence of undernourishment was alreadyhigh (greater than 20 percent) in1990–1992. Over the next nine years, the


Counting the hungry: recent trends in developingcountries and countries in transition


In attempting to analyse the factors thatfuel progress in reducing hunger, acombination of six indicators proved mostsuccessful at differentiating amongcountries grouped according to theirperformance between 1990–1992 and1999–2001. These indicators includepopulation growth, GDP growth perperson, health expenditure as a pro-portion of GDP, the proportion of adultsinfected with HIV, the number of foodemergencies and the UNDP’s HumanDevelopment Index (itself a composite ofmany economic and social indicators).

In the countries that succeeded inreducing hunger throughout the nine-year period, GDP per capita grew at anannual rate of 2.6 percent – more than fivetimes higher than the rate in countrieswhere undernourishment increased inboth subperiods (0.5 percent). The most

successful countries also exhibited morerapid agricultural growth (3.3 percent peryear compared to only 1.4 percent for the countries where hunger increasedthroughout the decade), lower rates ofHIV infection, slower population growthand far fewer food emergencies.

Analysing the keys to progress and reversals in reducing hunger

Source: FAO


17 countries experienced a decrease in thenumber of undernourished, followed by anincrease

Including India, Pakistan, Sudan, Colombia,Indonesia, Nigeria

Including China, Viet Nam, Thailand, SriLanka, Peru, Brazil, Ghana, Namibia

Including Afghanistan, Dem. Rep. of Congo,Yemen, Philippines, Liberia, Kenya, Iraq

Including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti,Nicaragua, Mozambique, Uganda

22 countries experienced an increase followedby a decrease

26 countries experienced an increase over theentire period

19 countries experienced a decrease over theentire period

300

250

200

150

100

01990–1992 1995–1997 1999–2001

Trends in undernourishment andGDP, by country grouping

Average annual growthin GDP per capita (%)

0 1 2 3

Undernourishment:Decreased in both

subperiodsIncreased then

decreasedDecreased then

increasedIncreased in both

subperiods

Recent trends in undernourishment, by country groupings

Source: FAO

periods also exhibited significantlyhigher economic growth. Countrieswhere the number of hungry peopleincreased, on the other hand, expe-rienced more food emergencies andhigher rates of HIV infection.

Not all of the news that emergesfrom this analysis is bad. Twenty-twocountries, including Bangladesh, Haitiand Mozambique, succeeded in turn-ing the tide against hunger, at leasttemporarily. In these countries, thenumber of undernourished declinedduring the second half of the decadeafter rising through the first five years.

In 17 other countries, however, thetrend shifted in the opposite directionand the number of undernourishedpeople, which had been falling, began to rise. This group includes a number of countries with large populations,among them India, Indonesia, Nigeria,Pakistan and Sudan.

At the same time, progress hasslowed in many of the countries that hadscored dramatic gains during the firstfive-year subperiod, including China.Having reduced the prevalence ofundernourishment to moderate levels(below 20 percent), these countries canno longer be expected to propel pro-gress for the developing world.

With reversals in many large coun-tries and progress slowing in others, thepattern of change in the developingcountries as a whole shifted from adeclining to a rising trend. Between1995–1997 and 1999–2001, the numberof hungry people in the developingcountries increased by 18 million,wiping out almost half the decrease of37 million achieved during the previousfive years. Unless significant gains aremade in large countries where progresshas stalled, it will be difficult to reversethis negative trend.

Undernourishment rising in manycountries in transition

FAO’s first analysis of the changes thathave occurred since the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia showsthat hunger is increasing in many of the countries in transition. Overall, thenumber of undernourished people inthe countries in transition grew from 25to 34 million between 1993–1995 and1999–2001. These estimates must beregarded as provisional, as implemen-tation of household sample surveys toreplace the data obtained from admini-strative records in the centrally plannedsystem is still at an early stage.

Nearly all of the increases inundernourishment took place in theCommonwealth of Independent States(CIS), where the number of hungrypeople rose from 20.6 to 28.8 millionand the proportion increased from 7 to10 percent. Economic transition hasbeen accompanied by far-reachingpolitical and administrative changesthat have disrupted trade and exchangerelations and led to severe foreignexchange shortages. In addition, agri-

cultural production and marketingsystems have broken down.

The Baltic States and East Europeancountries have largely avoided theseproblems. In most of these countries,the prevalence of undernourishmenthas decreased or remained stable. Thishas not been the case, however, inBosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,Latvia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia andMontenegro, where the prevalence ofundernourishment either rose or wasstill significant in 1999–2001.


Source: FAO

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30Proportion (%) Number (millions)

All countries in transition

CIS

Baltic States

EasternEurope

Hun

gary

Pola

ndR

oman

iaLi

thua

nia

Slov

enia

Cze

ch R

ep.

Bel

arus

Ukr

aine

Rus

sian

Fed

.Al

bani

aEs

toni

a

Slov

akia

Latv

iaTu

rkm

enis

tan

Kyrg

yzst

anB

osni

a an

d H

erze

govi

naSe

rbia

and

Mon

tene

gro

TFYR

Mac

edon

iaC

roat

iaR

ep. o

f Mol

dova

Bul

gari

a

Azer

baija

nK

azak

hsta

nU

zbek

ista

nG

eorg

ia

Arm

enia

Tajik

ista

n

Source: FAO

Number and proportion ofundernourished

80

60

40

20

0

Proportions of undernourished in countries in transition

2.5% 2.5–4% 5–19% 20–34% 35%

1993–1995 1999–2001

Proportion of population undernourished

Grey bars: 1993–1995Coloured bars: 1999–2001

droughts, failed economic policies andcivil strife. Its impact was compoundedby the devastating AIDS epidemic thathad already shattered millions offamilies, undermined the food sector andweakened the capacity of governmentsto respond. In 2001 alone, the year beforethe crisis hit, nearly half a million peoplein the affected countries died of AIDS,orphaning an estimated 2.5 millionchildren.

Governments and internationalorganizations responded quickly todeploy emergency food aid. But reportsfrom the field warned that they werefacing a new kind of emergency, in which severe short-term food short-ages overlap an unprecedented collapseof health, agricultural production andfood security that will endure fordecades. The AIDS epidemic is driven by a slow-acting virus, with an epidemiccurve that stretches well into the century(see graph).

AIDS erodes food security

HIV/AIDS causes and exacerbates foodinsecurity in many ways. Most of itsvictims are young adults who fall ill anddie during what should be their peakproductive years. They leave behind apopulation overbalanced with the elderlyand young, many of them orphans (seegraph). The impact on farm productionand food security is often devastating.

By the year 2020, the epidemic willhave claimed one-fifth or more of theagricultural labour force in mostsouthern African countries (see graph).Already, in several affected countries, 60to 70 percent of farms have sufferedlabour losses as a result of HIV/AIDS. Insome severely affected areas, studieshave found that more than half of allhouseholds are headed by women (30percent, mostly widows), grandparents(nearly 20 percent) and orphaned chil-dren (almost 5 percent). Lacking thelabour, resources and know-how to grow staple and commercial crops, manyhouseholds have shifted to cultivating

SINCE THE HIV/AIDS EPIDEMICbegan, 25 million people have diedof the disease. Another 42 million

are now infected with HIV. During thisdecade, AIDS is expected to claim morelives than all the wars and disasters ofthe past 50 years.

The food crisis that threatened morethan 14 million people in southern Africain 2002–2003 brought into sharp focusthe interactions between HIV/AIDS andfood security. It demonstrated thathunger cannot be combated effectivelyin regions ravaged by AIDS, unless inter-ventions address the particular needs of AIDS-affected households and incor-porate measures both to prevent and tomitigate the spread of HIV/AIDS.

HIV/AIDS and food crises: a chronicdouble emergency?

The southern African food crisis wastriggered by a combination of recurring


Food insecurity and HIV/AIDS: when short-termemergencies intersect a long-wave crisis


Source: US Census BureauSource: Dorrington and Johnson

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Annual AIDS deathsNew infectionsAnnual non-AIDS deaths

Millions

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Age in years

males females

140 100 60 20 20 60 100 140Population (thousands)

Projected populationDeficits due to HIV/AIDS

HIV infections, AIDS deaths andnon-AIDS deaths, South Africa

Projected population with andwithout AIDS, Botswana, 2020

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Source: FAO

Botswana

Malawi

Mozambique

Namibia

South Africa

Tanzania, United Rep. of

Zimbabwe

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Projected agricultural labour forcelosses as a result of HIV/AIDS (%)

1985–2000 2000–2020

Projected labour losses due toHIV/AIDS, southern Africa

11

For people who have already beeninfected with HIV, hunger and malnu-trition increase susceptibility to oppor-tunistic infections, leading to an earlieronset of full-blown AIDS. Once thedisease takes hold, nutrient absorptionis reduced, appetite and metabolism aredisrupted and muscles, organs andother tissues waste away. People livingwith HIV/AIDS need to eat considerablymore food to fight the illness, counteractweight loss and extend a productive life.

Food security helps prevent AIDS

As the crisis in southern Africa hasshown, food security interventions mustbe planned with an “HIV/AIDS lens”.Traditional food aid safety nets are notsufficient and may prove ineffective.

Families that have lost key productivemembers may not be able to participatein “food for work” projects, commonlyused as a way to provide emergency foodin exchange for labour on public worksprojects. To recover and achieve a degreeof self-sufficiency, they need both foodassistance and agricultural developmentprogrammes that address their needs by emphasizing nutritious crops thatrequire less labour, diversification thatspreads labour requirements and har-vests more evenly throughout the year,and education and training for orphanedchildren and adolescents.

Incorporating HIV prevention, nutri-tional care for people living with HIV/AIDS and AIDS mitigation measures intofood security and nutrition programmescan help reduce the spread and impactof HIV/AIDS. Indeed, when short-termfood emergencies intersect the long-wave HIV/AIDS crisis, household foodsecurity is likely to be the single mostimportant HIV prevention strategy andAIDS mitigation response.

survival foods. Others have abandonedtheir fields entirely. A study of communalagriculture in Zimbabwe found thatmaize production fell by 61 percent inhouseholds that suffered an AIDS-related death (see graph).

And the impact will continue to be feltfor generations to come. AIDS dimin-ishes investment in agriculture. It stripshouseholds of assets as they are forcedto sell off what little they have to pay formedical and funeral expenses, or simplyto survive. It forces children, particularlygirls, to withdraw from school to work orcare for ill parents, and it cuts off thetransfer of essential skills and know-ledge from one generation to the next. In two districts in Kenya affected by AIDS, a study found that only 7 percent of orphans heading farm households had adequate agricultural knowledge.

UNAIDS projects that between 2000and 2020, 55 million Africans will dieearlier than they would have in theabsence of AIDS – a total equivalent tothe entire population of Italy. Thisunprecedented human catastrophe will

seriously hamper economic and socialdevelopment. Recent estimates indicatethat the pandemic has already reducednational economic growth rates acrossAfrica by 2 to 4 percent a year. Data alsosuggest that undernourishment hascontinued to climb in countries whereHIV/AIDS was already widespread in1991, while declining elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa (see graph).

Hunger fuels AIDS epidemic

While HIV/AIDS has become a majorcause of hunger, the reverse is also true.Hunger accelerates both the spread ofthe virus and the course of the disease.Hungry people are driven to adopt riskystrategies to survive. Frequently they areforced to migrate, often to urban slumswhere HIV infection rates are high. Indesperation, women and children bartersex for money and food, exposing them-selves to the risk of infection.


Source: Kwaramba in Stover et al

% of pre-AIDS production100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Decline in productionRemaining production

Maize

Cotton

Vegetables

Groundnuts

Cattle

Production decrease in householdswith an AIDS death, Zimbabwe

Source: WHO; FAO

Undernourishment and HIV/AIDS, sub-Saharan Africa

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa with HIV prevalence 5% in 1991

All countries in sub-Saharan Africa

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa with HIV prevalence 5% in 1991

% of population undernourished40

35

30

251979–1981 1990–1992 1999–2001

Average prevalence of undernourishment

drought was listed as a cause in 60 per-cent of food emergencies (see graph).

Africa is both the driest continent(other than Oceania) and the regionwhere hunger is most prevalent. WithinAfrica, undernourishment and periodicfamines have afflicted semi-arid anddrought-prone areas (see map).

Even where overall water availabilityis adequate, erratic rainfall and access towater can cause both short-term foodshortages and long-term food insecurity.Floods are another major cause of foodemergencies. Sharp seasonal differ-ences in water availability can alsoincrease food insecurity. In India, forexample, more than 70 percent of annualrainfall occurs during the three monthsof the monsoon, when most of it floodsout to sea. Farmers who lack irrigationfacilities must contend with waterscarcity through much of the year andwith the threat of crop failures when themonsoons fail.

Irrigation increases yields whilereducing hunger and poverty

By ensuring an adequate and reliablesupply of water, irrigation increasesyields of most crops by 100 to 400percent (see graph). Although only 17percent of global cropland is irrigated,that 17 percent produces 40 percent ofthe world’s food.

Along with higher yields, irrigationincreases incomes and reduces hungerand poverty. Data show that whereirrigation is widely available, under-nourishment and poverty are lessprevalent (see graph).

Ongoing studies in Asian countriesprovide evidence that irrigation alleviatesboth permanent and temporary poverty.In India, for example, a World Bank studyfound that 69 percent of people in non-irrigated districts are poor, but only 26percent in irrigated districts.

Farmers benefit directly from irri-

WATER AND FOOD SECURITYare closely related. Agricultureis by far the biggest user of

water, accounting for about 69 percent of all withdrawals worldwide and over 80percent in developing countries. Reliableaccess to adequate water increasesagricultural yields, providing more foodand higher incomes in the rural areasthat are home to three-quarters of theworld’s hungry people. Not surprisingly,countries with better access to wateralso tend to have lower levels of under-nourishment (see graph).

If water is a key ingredient in foodsecurity, lack of it can be a major causeof famine and undernourishment, par-ticularly in food-insecure rural areaswhere people depend on local agricul-ture for both food and income. Droughtranks as the single most common causeof severe food shortages in developingcountries. For the three most recentyears for which data are available,


Water and food security


Source: FAO, CEH Wallingford

100

80

60

40

2030 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

* A composite indicator that incorporates measures of water resources(from rainfall, river flows and aquifer recharge), access, environmentalissues (water quality) and pressure on resources.

Water index*

% of people with access to food

Access to water and food security (developing countries and countries in transition)

Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Main areas affected byfamine, 1971–2001

Drought has been themost common cause offood emergencies andhas contributed toseveral famines inAfrica over the past 30 years.

10 5 1 0.1 0.1

Millions of people affected bydrought, 1971–2001

Drought and famine in Africa, 1971–2001

5

10

Ethiopia57


270 million hectares of irrigated landhave been degraded by the accumulationof salts. In many areas, water is beingpumped out of the ground for irrigationfar faster than it can be replenished byrainwater percolating through the soil. In China, where more than half of theirrigated lands rely on tubewells, watertables have fallen by up to 50 metresover the past 30 years.

Where water is scarce and the environ-ment fragile, achieving food security maydepend on what has been called “virtualwater” – foods imported from countrieswith an abundance of water. It takes 1 cubic metre of water to produce 1 kilogram of wheat. Extrapolating fromthose numbers, FAO calculated that togrow the amount of food imported byNear Eastern countries in 1994 wouldhave required as much water as the totalannual flow of the Nile at Aswan. In suchconditions, it may make sense to importfood and use limited water resources forother purposes, including growing high-value crops for export.

gation through increased and morestable incomes and the higher value ofirrigated land. Even landless labourersand small farmers who lack theresources to employ irrigation them-selves often benefit through higherwages, lower food prices and a morevaried diet. Studies in Bangladesh andIndia have shown that every job createdin irrigated agriculture yields another job in agricultural services and theprocessing industry. Irrigation has thegreatest impact on reducing hungerwhen it is labour-intensive, employsaffordable, small-scale techniques and iscombined with access to credit, market-ing and agricultural extension services.

Looking to the future

Over the next 30 years, the world’spopulation is expected to grow by 2 billion people. Feeding this growingpopulation and reducing hunger will onlybe possible if agricultural yields can beincreased significantly and sustainably.

That, in turn, will depend on increaseduse of irrigation and improved watermanagement, even as a growing numberof countries face water shortages.

FAO expects the irrigated area indeveloping countries as a whole toexpand by almost 20 percent by the year 2030. By using irrigation water more efficiently and taking advantage of opportunities to grow several crops a year on irrigated land, FAO estimatesthat the effective irrigated area can beincreased by 34 percent while using only14 percent more water. The largestincrease (44 percent) is expected in sub-Saharan Africa, where only 4 percent ofarable land is irrigated today.

Large-scale irrigation is not always a viable or desirable option. In someareas, including much of Africa, rainfallpatterns and the geology of river basinspreclude cost-effective irrigation. Inothers, poorly managed irrigation andoverextraction of groundwater threatensustainability and food security. Anestimated 7 to 10 percent of the world’s

South Asia

East andSoutheast Asia

Near East andNorth Africa

Latin Americaand Caribbean

Sub-SaharanAfrica

Source: FAO

2000 2001 2002

Flood

Drought

Conflict

Refugees**

Economic problems

Other

* Total exceeds 100% because of multiplecauses and cited for many emergencies

** Includes internally displaced people

% of food emergencies*

Causes of food emergencies indeveloping countries

Yields and water requirements ofirrigated and rainfed agriculture

% of cultivated area irrigated

% of total population undernourishedSource: FAO

Irrigation and prevalence ofundernourishment, 1998–2000

80

60

40

20

0

1 000 3 000 5 000 7 000

0 10 20 30 40

Irrigated crops, high yield varieties,high inputsIrrigated crops, low inputs

Rainfed crops, high inputs

Rainfed crops, low inputs

8

6

4

2

0

Cereal production (‘000 kg/ha)

Water used (m3/ha)

Source: FAO

lems were cited as the main cause ofmore than 35 percent of food emer-gencies during 1992–2003 (see graph).

The recurrence and persistence ofemergencies highlights a number ofcountries that could be considered as“food emergency hotspots”. Thirty-threecountries experienced food emergencies

during more than half the years of the17-year period between 1986 and 2003.Many conflict-induced complex emer-gencies are persistent and turn intolong-term crises. Eight countries suf-fered emergencies during 15 or moreyears during 1986–2003. War or civilstrife was a major factor in all eight.

AS OF JULY 2003, 36 countriesaround the world faced seriousfood emergencies requiring in-

ternational food assistance. The causesof these food shortages are varied andcomplex. The locations, as indicated onthe map, are painfully familiar. All thecountries affected in 2003 had experi-enced food emergencies for at least two consecutive years. Many had beenplagued by severe food shortages for adecade or longer.

In southern Africa, food productionhas started to recover from the severedrought that reduced harvests by asmuch as 50 percent in 2001/2002. Butseveral countries in the region still facesevere shortages and all must contendwith the long-term impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic (see pages 10–11).

Further to the north, pre-famine con-ditions have been reported in Eritrea and parts of Ethiopia, where crops havewithered, livestock are dying from lack of water and grazing, and millions ofpeople need emergency food aid.

Several Asian countries have alsobeen facing the effects of harsh weather, including drought and unusu-ally cold, snowy winters in Mongolia.

Although drought and other naturaldisasters remain the most commoncauses of food emergencies, an in-creasing proportion are now human-induced. In several countries in Centraland West Africa, civil strife has dis-rupted both food production and accessto food.

Even developments in internationalcommodity markets can trigger foodcrises in countries that depend heavilyon agricultural exports or food imports.The collapse of coffee prices has been amajor cause of increased food insecurityin Central America.

Overall, conflict and economic prob-


Hunger hotspots


Source: FAO

Main causes of food emergencies,1986–1991 and 1992–2003

Source: FAO

Frequency of food emergencies in affected countries, 1986–2003

Countries facing food emergencies in 2003

No food emergencies 2–4 years 5–8 years

9–11 years12–14 years

15 years Source: FAO

Location and duration of current food emergencies(consecutive years including 2003)

0 20 40 60 800 10 20 30 40

Human-induced(mainly conflict)

Natural(mainly drought)

Mixed

1986–19911992–2003

1–3 years

4–6 years

7–10 years

10 years

Number of countries

Number of years with emergency

Percent


of its harshest environments. They alsohighlight the need for emergency pre-vention and rehabilitation programmesto respond to the particular needs oflivestock owners.

Early warning systems have haddifficulties detecting the impact ofdrought on pastoralists and providing the information needed to help themcope and recover. Pastoral communitiestypically need different kinds of aid overlonger periods than farmers who relymainly on crops. When rains return aftera drought, for example, farmers mayrequire little more than seeds, fertilizerand one successful cropping season toget back on their feet. But pastoralistsmay need several years of assistance to weather the crisis, replenish theirbreeding stock and rebuild the herdsthat represent both their livelihoods and their life savings. In the long term,alternatives must be found for thosewhose livelihoods can no longer be sus-tained by nomadic herding.

Droughts take heavy toll on livestockherding communities

Two consecutive years of severe droughthave decimated both crop and livestockproduction in Mauritania, triggering afood emergency. In a country where lessthan 1 percent of the land can sustaincrops, livestock accounts for 70 percentof agricultural production and 15 percentof national GDP. But lack of water hasforced herders to sell or slaughter manyof their animals. Distress sales sentprices plummeting by more than 50percent in one year.

On the other side of the globe, severalyears of drought and harsh winters have devastated livestock production inMongolia. Unusually heavy snowfall in2003 killed up to 2.5 million animals,undermining the livelihood of nearly aquarter of the country’s population. Anestimated 80 percent of Mongolians,many of them nomadic herders, raiselivestock, accounting for almost 90 per-cent of agricultural output.

The food crises in Mauritania andMongolia highlight the vulnerability oftraditional pastoral production systems,particularly nomadic systems that arethe main source of food and income in semi-arid rangelands ill suited togrowing crops.

Globally, an estimated 675 millionrural poor people depend on livestock forsome or all of their subsistence. Otherestimates suggest that as many as 70percent of the rural poor are livestockowners. That figure includes nearly 200million pastoralists and more than 100million landless livestock keepers inmixed farming regions who dependalmost exclusively on livestock.

Their animals and livelihoods arehighly vulnerable to droughts and floods,resource degradation and outbreaks of

disease. And they are coming underincreasing pressure as human popula-tions increase and grazing areas shrink.

In Afghanistan, three consecutiveyears of severe drought (1999–2001) ledto massive distress sales and deaths ofanimals that reduced the livestock popu-lation by nearly 60 percent. Most noma-dic Kuchis lost almost their entire herds.

In Eritrea, the worst drought in dec-ades caused livestock losses as high as10 to 20 percent in some areas in 2002.

The same drought also struck neigh-bouring Ethiopia, which has one of thelargest livestock populations in Africa.The eastern pastoral areas of Afar andSomali were hardest hit. Acute short-ages of water and fodder caused lossesof up to 40 percent for cattle and 10 to 15percent for goats and sheep. Livestockprices fell by up to 50 percent.

These emergencies underline the factthat traditional livestock productionsystems sustain some of the world’smost vulnerable communities in some

Arid/semi-aridHumid/subhumidTemperate, tropical highland Source: ILRI

Pastoral farming systems, in which people’s livelihoods depend almost entirely onlivestock, extend across rangelands in all developing regions.

Where the pastoralists are: livestock-only, rangeland farming areas

factors in determining economic per-formance. Such factors include naturalresource endowments and the size,skills and training of the workforce, aswell as policies and institutions.

Indeed, while there is broad agree-ment that openness to internationaltrade is a fundamental component of apolicy mix that can foster economicgrowth, it is also recognized that, on its own, openness to trade is unlikely to lead to major improvements in acountry’s economic performance. Norcan it be a substitute for developmentpolicies specifically aimed at reducingpoverty and hunger.

The critical role of agriculture

Agriculture and agricultural trade play a particularly important role in both the national economies and the foodsecurity of developing countries.

Throughout the developing world,agriculture accounts for around 9percent of GDP and more than half oftotal employment. But its relativeimportance is far greater in those

countries where hunger is mostwidespread. In countries where morethan 34 percent of the population areundernourished, agriculture represents30 percent of GDP, and nearly 70 per-cent of the people rely on agriculture fortheir livelihoods (see graphs).

Today, 75 percent of poor people livein rural areas, and increases in urbanpoverty tend to be fuelled by peoplemigrating to the cities to escape ruraldeprivation. No sustainable reduction in poverty is possible without improvinglivelihoods in rural areas.

Economic growth originating inagriculture can have a particularlystrong impact in reducing poverty andhunger. Increasing employment andincomes in agriculture stimulatesdemand for non-agricultural goods and services, providing a boost to non-farm rural incomes as well. A recentstudy in five countries in sub-SaharanAfrica showed that adding US$1.00 to farm incomes potentially increasestotal income – beyond the initialUS$1.00 – by between US$0.96 andUS$1.88.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE can have amajor impact on reducing hungerand poverty in developing countries.

Participation in trade allows access to larger markets and opens upopportunities for specialization inproduction and economies of scale. This can be of special importance fordeveloping countries, particularly forsmaller ones where the limited size ofdomestic markets discourages full useof production potential.

At the same time, trade providesaccess to better and cheaper supplies(including food imports) and maystimulate flows of technology andinvestment. To the extent that inter-national trade spurs broad-basedeconomic growth, expanded partici-pation in world markets can contributeto improvements in household foodsecurity.

But increased openness to inter-national trade has its costs. It maygradually redistribute world productionaccording to countries’ comparativeadvantage. Inevitably this means that insome countries certain industries mayshrink, either absolutely or relative toothers, as cheaper imports becomeavailable. The resulting changes in theproduction structure and reallocation of resources may have a negativeimpact on food security, at least in theshort term. Unemployment may rise,some productive sectors in agriculturemay decline, and the food system maybecome increasingly concentrated,shutting out small-scale farmers andfirms.

Overall, countries that are moreinvolved in trade tend to enjoy higherrates of economic growth. But growthrates diverge widely for countries withcomparable levels of trade activity,highlighting the importance of other

Special feature

Trade and food security: the importance of agricultureand agricultural trade in developing countries


2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

35

% of population undernourished

Agricultural employment as a shareof total employment (%)

Source: FAO

Agricultural employment andundernourishment, 1996–2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Agricultural GDP andundernourishment, 1996–2000

% of population undernourished

2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Agricultural GDP as a share of

total GDP (%)

Source: FAO

The role of agricultural trade

Agriculture accounts for much of thetrading activity of developing countries,particularly those that are most food-insecure. For the developing countriesas a whole, agricultural products repre-sent around 8 percent of both exportsand total merchandise trade. But for the countries where hunger is mostprevalent, the share rises to over 20percent (see graph).

Furthermore, while dependence onagricultural trade has been decliningthroughout the developing world, it has remained high and relatively stablein the most food-insecure countries. In 1996–2000 the share of agriculture in total exports in countries where more than 34 percent of the populationare undernourished amounted to 22percent (see graph), only slightly belowthe 24–25 percent recorded in 1981–1985.

The fact that agricultural traderepresents such a large share of thetrading activity of countries wherehunger is widespread does not implythat agricultural trade contributes tofood insecurity. These countries tradeheavily in agricultural products becauseagriculture is the mainstay of theireconomies and they need to importfood. But it is in the countries with theleast hunger that agricultural tradelooms largest in relation to the scale of their agricultural economies (seegraph).

This reflects the fact that agriculturein these countries is more productive,more competitive and better integratedinto world markets. And it suggests thatmore robust agricultural growth cancontribute both to reduced hunger andto increased integration in inter-national trade.

Many developing countries rely on ex-ports of a small number of agriculturalcommodities for a large share of theirexport revenues. In many cases, they evendepend on one single commodity.

As many as 43 developing countriesrely on a single agricultural commodityfor more than 20 percent of their totalexport revenues and more than half theirrevenue from agricultural exports. Mostof these countries are in sub-SaharanAfrica or Latin America and theCaribbean, and depend on exports ofcoffee, bananas, cotton lint or cocoabeans. High dependence on one, or a few,export commodities leaves these coun-tries extremely vulnerable to changingmarket conditions.

Over the past 20 years, real prices forthese commodities have been highlyvolatile and have fallen significantlyoverall. Declines and fluctuations inexport earnings have taken a toll onincome, investment, employment andgrowth. The export performance of the

43 commodity-dependent countries hasbeen significantly poorer than that of therest of the developing countries, both foragricultural commodities and for totalmerchandise trade.


Importance of agricultural exportsand undernourishment, 1996–2000

0 5 10 15 20 25

Source: FAO

Source: FAO

Integration in agricultural tradeand undernourishment, 1996–2000

Source: FAO

The curse of overspecialization – commodity dependence

2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

35

2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

35

Agricultural exports as a share oftotal exports (%)

Agricultural imports and exports asa share of agricultural GDP (%)

1980–1989

1990–1999

1980–1989

1990–1999

1980–1989

1990–1999

0 10 20 30

Average annual growth in total exports (%)

Average annual growth in agricultural exports (%)

Share of world agricultural exports (%)

% of population undernourished % of population undernourished

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Trends in exports of commodity-dependent countries

43 commodity-dependent countriesOther developing countries

poverty and limited trading activitiesconstrict both their export earnings andtheir ability to buy more food on inter-national markets.

As a result, despite spending morethan 25 percent of their export earningson food imports, food-insecure countriesdepend far more heavily on homegrownfood. Countries where more than 15percent of the population goes hungryimport less than 10 percent of their food,compared to more than 25 percent inmore food-secure countries. Their rela-tive isolation from international tradeappears to be more a measure ofvulnerability than of self-sufficiency.

Analysis also shows, however, thatlevels of hunger and poverty differ widelyamong countries with very similar levelsof agricultural trade. This suggests thatthe impact of agricultural trade on foodsecurity is mediated by a range of otherfactors, including markets, institutionsand policies to combat hunger.

The critical role of markets,infrastructure and policies

If key markets are missing or do notfunction properly, shifts in relative priceswill not lead to a shift of production, jobsand investment into their most efficientuses, as the theory of comparative ad-vantage assumes. Similarly, lack of goodroads, ports, telecommunications andmarketing infrastructure can hamper acountry’s ability to participate in andbenefit from international trade (seegraph).

Recent experience in Viet Nam offersevidence that increasing agriculturalexports and integration into inter-national markets can contribute both to economic growth and to reducinghunger, especially when combined withinvestments in infrastructure and poli-

cies that encourage agricultural andrural development (see box).

Where trade liberalization has notbeen accompanied by policy reforms andinvestments, on the other hand, theimpact on food security has often beenambiguous or detrimental.

To cite one example, in the early 1990sMozambique removed a ban on rawcashew exports that had been imposedto stem a fall in exports of processednuts. About a million cashew farmersreceived higher prices for their products.But at least half the higher pricesreceived for exports went not to farmersbut to traders, and there was no revival in production in response to the higherprices. At the same time, Mozambican

INCREASING INTEGRATION of inter-national markets has stirred wide-spread concern that agricultural trade

may jeopardize food security in deve-loping countries. Although far fromconclusive, analysis of available datasuggests that, in general, engaging inagricultural trade is associated with lesshunger, not more.

At a national level, the proportions ofundernourished people and under-weight children tend to be lower incountries where agricultural trade islarge in proportion to agriculturalproduction.

Further analysis suggests that pooraccess and integration with internationalmarkets limits the ability of countrieswhere hunger is widespread to importenough food to compensate for short-falls in domestic production. Countrieswhere more than 15 percent of thepopulation goes hungry spend morethan twice as much of their exportearnings to import food as more food-secure countries (see graph). But their

Special feature

Trade and food security: does trade openness harm food security?


Food imports as % of total exports

Food imports as % of total imports

Food imports as % of total foodconsumption

Food-insecure countries15% undernourished)

More food-secure countries ( 15% undernourished)

Source: FAO

Food trade and food security,1990–2000

0 50 100 150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Conditions for market integration,1999

Sour

ce: W

orld

Ban

k da

ta a

nd G

allu

p et

al

Sub-Saharan AfricaLatin AmericaHigh-income countries

Landlocked population (%)

Population within 100 km of road or river (%)

Ocean freight rates for cereals (US$/tonne)

Telephones per 100 people

Electric power capacity (kW/100 people)


higher prices for land, water, fertilizer,seeds and other inputs.

Expanding the circle of winners andmitigating the impact on losers willrequire both domestic policies andinternational support, including appro-priate flexibility under WTO rules, to spurnew economic opportunities and invest-ments in rural areas.

processing plants lost their assuredaccess to raw cashews and closed down,putting 7 000 people out of work.

It is likely that cashew productionfailed to revive because, at the time,Mozambique, like many other Africancountries, liberalized prices alone with-out initiating other complementarypolicy reforms and investments. A pricereform can be easily reversed. By con-trast, investing in rural infrastructure,improving rural financial markets, andregulating the activities of traders aremuch harder to do and much harder to reverse.

The key to improving food security forpoor farmers lies in ensuring that pricereforms are accompanied by policies toensure that market opportunities areboth accessible and credible.

Identifying likely winners and losers

Dismantling trade restrictions is expec-ted to provide long-term benefits asinvestment and jobs shift into sectors inwhich countries enjoy a comparativeadvantage. But the adjustment processmay take time and many nations andhouseholds may suffer heavy costs.

The countries most likely to benefitfrom trade liberalization are those whoseeconomies are already more advancedand better integrated into internationalmarkets. But other countries andregions will have difficulty overcomingphysical and infrastructural handicaps,such as inadequate rainfall, long dis-tances from the sea and poorly deve-loped transportation and communicationnetworks. They run the risk of beingbypassed and finding themselves trap-ped in a vicious circle of disadvantage.

Within countries, agricultural tradepolicy reform may affect households verydifferently. Commercial farmers with the

resources to respond to market oppor-tunities should benefit as a result ofhigher commodity prices. For landlesshouseholds, increased demand for rurallabour, goods and services may increaseincomes enough to offset the impact ofhigher food prices. Subsistence farmers,on the other hand, may be largely un-affected, but could face pressure from

Viet Nam offers a striking example of therole agricultural trade can play in re-ducing poverty and food insecurity whencarried out in tandem with policy reformsand investments in rural infrastructureand development. Between 1991 and2001, Viet Nam’s economy grew at a rapidannual rate of 7 percent and the pro-portion of undernourished people wasreduced from 27 percent to 19 percent.Over the same period agricultural outputgrew by 6 percent per year andagricultural exports grew even faster.After seeing agricultural exports andimports roughly in balance through thelate 1980s, Viet Nam generated a largeagricultural trade surplus in the 1990s.

The foundations for Viet Nam’s rapidagricultural growth were laid in 1986.An economic reform programme gavefarmers control over land, allowedthem to increase sales to the marketand reduced agricultural taxation. VietNam’s exports also benefited fromenhanced market access. On the otherhand, Viet Nam was slower in removingits own domestic subsidies and borderprotection against imports.

An aggressive poverty eradicationcampaign that targeted investments inrural infrastructure also contributed toboosting agricultural production andreducing hunger (see page 22).

Million US$2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

01980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Source: FAO

1971–1980

1981–1990

1991–2000

Agricultural and food production,Viet Nam

Agricultural trade, Viet Nam

Total agricultural productionPer capita food production

exports

imports

Viet Nam: agricultural trade fuels economic growth and food security

0 2 4 6 8

countries. Improved access to markets in the industrialized countries andreduced trade distortion should boostrural incomes and employment andstimulate production and supply fromlocal agriculture, particularly of food fordomestic markets.

Overall, however, the lion’s share ofbenefits from trade liberalization isexpected to go to the developed countriesthemselves (see graph). That is becausedeveloped countries have applied tariffsand subsidies mainly to protect thetemperate-zone commodities that theyproduce themselves. Developing coun-tries that export “competing” commo-dities, such as rice, sugar and cotton,should benefit if those protections arereduced. But the least developedcountries, very few of whom exporttemperate-zone or competing products,would generally be worse off. Developingcountries are expected to benefit morefrom increased trade with each otherthan they do from improved access tomarkets in developed countries.

Tariffs and subsidies in developedcountries

To date, both adherence to the AoA andits impact on food security have provenhard to measure. Agricultural tariffsremain high and complex for manyproducts that developing countriesexport, including horticultural products,sugar, cereals, cotton, dairy productsand meat. There is also a significantdegree of tariff escalation (see box) onproducts processed from commoditiesfor which many developing countriesenjoy a comparative advantage, such ascoffee, cocoa and oilseeds.

The AoA also included provisions toreduce price supports and subsidies thatlead to overproduction in developed

countries and depressed prices on worldmarkets. But transfers to agriculture indeveloped countries have diminishedslowly, if at all (see graph). In 2002, directsupport to farmers added up to US$235billion, almost 30 times the amountprovided as aid for agricultural develop-ment in developing countries. Much ofthat sum subsidized the production ofsurpluses in commodities that manydeveloping countries depend upon.

The United States, for example,handed out US$3.9 billion in subsidies to 25 000 cotton farmers in 2001–2002,an amount higher than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso, where more than 2 mil-lion people depend on cotton for theirlivelihood. Farmers in Burkina Faso andother West African countries can pro-duce cotton at US$0.47 per kg, far belowthe US$1.61 it costs to produce a kilo-

MUCH OF THE DEBATE aboutglobalization has been centredaround the World Trade Organi-

zation and the impact of internationaltrade agreements negotiated under itsauspices. And much of the concernabout food security has focused on theAgreement on Agriculture (AoA) nego-tiated as part of the Uruguay Roundagreements signed in 1994. The AoAsays little explicitly about developingcountries’ concerns with food security.But its proclaimed goal of establishing “a fair and market-oriented agriculturaltrading system” by reducing tariffs and subsidies could have a significantimpact on food production and security.

Liberalization of agricultural trade isexpected to drive up prices for most agri-cultural commodities. This could have anegative impact on food security in somedeveloping countries, as most are netimporters of food. Prices are expected torise more steeply for the food productsthat developing countries import than forthe commodities they export.

Many developing countries are ex-pected to benefit, however, from reduc-tions in tariffs and subsidies in developed

Special feature

Trade and food security: issues of theDoha Round and beyond


Canada EU Japan

High-income countries

Low-income countries

All countries

With liberalization of:

Gains for high-income countriesGains for low-income countries

Source: Anderson et al Source: FAO

Potential annual welfare gainsfrom agricultural tradeliberalization

0 60 120 180US$ billion

The term “tariff escalation” refers toimposing higher tariffs on the moreprocessed products. This can result invery significant protection for pro-cessed products, making it difficult fordeveloping countries to escape thecycle of producing and exporting pri-mary products.

Tariff escalation in food products

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First-stage processingSemi-processedFully processed

Average tariffs (%)


While reaffirming their commitmentto liberalizing trade, some WTO mem-bers have emphasized that food security,rural development and the environmentcannot be addressed without maintain-ing and supporting domestic agriculturalproduction. For that to happen, theyargue, multilateral rules need to takeinto account each country’s specificconditions and ensure the continuedexistence of various types of agriculture,not only the most productive farms inhigh-potential areas.

gram of cotton in the United States. Butguaranteed subsidies have encouragedUS cotton farmers to increase pro-duction, even as the price of cotton hascollapsed, threatening the very existenceof African farmers who survive by grow-ing cotton for export. Similarly, theEuropean Union (EU) subsidized sugarproduction by US$2.3 billion in 2002. TheEU has become the world’s secondlargest sugar exporter, even though itsproduction costs are more than doublethose in many developing countries.

In addition to subsidies for production,export subsidies remain high for manyproducts, including meat, dairy productsand cereals. Export subsidies distortcompetition on world markets anddestabilize world prices and incomes.Depressed world prices create seriousproblems for poor farmers in developingcountries who must compete in globaland domestic markets with these low-priced commodities and lack safeguardsagainst import surges (see box). Over thelonger term, depressed commodity pricesdiscourage investment in agriculture indeveloping countries. While consumersmay benefit from low prices, rural

livelihoods and the long-run sustain-ability of production are jeopardized.

Food security in the Doha Round

Non-trade issues like food security andrural development, which did not receivemuch attention in the Uruguay RoundAgreement, have gained much moreprominence in the ongoing Doha Round.At Doha, WTO members committedthemselves both to reducing export sub-sidies and domestic support and toenabling “the developing countries toeffectively take account of their develop-ment needs, including food security andrural development”.

How these commitments will trans-late into formal agreements remainshotly disputed. Many developing coun-tries argue that the problems confrontingtheir agricultural sectors bear littleresemblance to the excessive subsidiesand rising production surpluses of thedeveloped countries. Rather, the vastmajority of developing countries faceproblems of inadequate production andof support that falls short of what wouldbe needed to raise agricultural produc-tivity to levels that would meet their foodneeds and agricultural potential.

Draft proposals tabled in the currentDoha Round include several measuresintended to address the concerns ofdeveloping countries. On market access,one provision would allow developingcountries to identify “special products”for which domestic production is criti-cally important to food security and ruraldevelopment. These products would besubject to lower tariff cuts. Anotherprovision would establish a SpecialSafeguard Mechanism allowing develop-ing countries to impose additional importduties under certain circumstances,such as to contain import surges.

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) Source: FAO

OECD subsidies to agriculture*US$ billion

470

395

320

240

170

95

20

14 990

11 990

8 990

5 990

2 990

-101980 1985 1990 1995 1999

Falling prices can lead to import surgesthat displace domestic production.Kenya, for example, had more thandoubled production of processed milkbetween 1980 and 1990. But then im-ports of milk powder soared, increasingfrom 48 tonnes in 1990 to 2 500 tonnesin 1998. At the same time, domesticproduction of processed milk plum-meted almost 70 percent. Kenya’sability to diversify into processing wasundermined and small producers borethe brunt of the decline in demand forfresh local milk.

Import surges disrupt production

Processed milk production and drymilk imports, Kenya

1986–19882000–2002

Dry milk product import

(tonnes)

Processed milk production (‘000 tonnes)

* Producer Support Estimate (PSE): the annual value oftransfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricul-tural producers, part of an estimated US$315 billionin total transfers to agriculture in OECD countries.

EU

USA

Japan

OECD

0 50 100 150 200 250

the plates of the hungry with initiativesto increase employability, reduce pov-erty and stimulate food production.

To provide immediate relief to themost needy families, Fome Zero issueselectronic cash cards to meet foodpurchase needs. Hungry Brazilians willalso benefit from programmes to providefree or low-cost meals through schools,workplaces and “people’s restaurants”.To avoid fostering dependency, eligibilityfor food assistance is tied to participationin literacy and skills training.

The long-term strategy of Fome Zerois to attack the root causes of hunger:poverty, unemployment and land-lessness. The project includes mea-sures to increase the minimum wage,speed up agrarian reform and provide a

minimum income to needy householdswith school-aged children.

Fome Zero aims to reduce ruralpoverty and hunger by using theincreased demand created by foodsafety nets to stimulate expanded pro-duction by small and medium-sizedfarms. The project includes initiatives toimprove access to credit, insurance andextension services for family farmers.

Fome Zero has got off to a fast start.By the end of May, tens of thousands offamilies in 181 drought-affected muni-cipalities were receiving monthly allo-cations to buy food. More than 10 000water tanks had been built to minimizethe impact of drought.

Fome Zero is overseen by a NationalFood Security Council, which bringstogether representatives from govern-ment and civil society organizations. TheProject enjoys immense public support,with much of the momentum comingfrom non-governmental organizations,the private sector and individuals whowant to help rid Brazil of hunger.

Viet Nam makes rapid progress

A hunger eradication programmelaunched at the provincial level in 1992and extended nationwide in 1996 hashelped Viet Nam make rapid progresstowards its declared goal of ensuringhousehold food security.

Spurred by rapid economic growthand investments in agriculture and ruraldevelopment, Viet Nam succeeded insharply reducing the proportion of thepopulation who were undernourishedduring the 1990s (see graph). Theinterdisciplinary Hunger Eradication andPoverty Reduction Programme played a major part in achieving this progress and ensuring that poor and isolatedcommunities are not left behind.

Brazil aims for “zero hunger”

The government of Brazil has declaredthat the fight against hunger is itshighest priority. President Luiz InácioLula da Silva’s government took office in January with a pledge to eradicatehunger by the end of his four-year term.

Brazil is a major exporter of cropsand meat, but over 40 million of its 170million people live on less than US$1per day. Hunger is greatest in ruralareas of northeastern Brazil, but itsincidence is rising rapidly in the cities.

To reduce hunger quickly and per-manently, the government has adopted a two-pronged strategy. Projeto FomeZero (Zero Hunger Project) combinesemergency interventions to put food on

Towards the Summit commitments

Acting to combat hunger


Source: Projeto Fome Zero

Income improvement • income and employment

generation policies• agrarian reform

Emergency actions • cash for food purchases

• free food in schools• food banks

• food security stocks

Access to affordable food • people’s restaurants

• expanded workers’ mealprogrammes

• agreements with supermarkets and farmers’ markets

Increase basic food supply • support for family farms• incentives for production

for family consumption• investments in rural

infrastructure

FOODSECURITY

Key elements of Brazil’s Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) Project

income-generating projects and createdover 17 000 jobs.

Inspired by the success of Tunisia’sNSF, the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in Johannesburg unani-mously endorsed the creation of a globalfund to reinforce the fight againstpoverty. In December 2002, the UnitedNations General Assembly adopted aresolution calling for effective andimmediate implementation of the WorldSolidarity Fund. The Fund acceptsvoluntary contributions from public andprivate organizations and individuals and is managed by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP).

Right to Food guidelines advance

An Intergovernmental Working Group(IGWG), established by the FAO Counciland charged with developing voluntaryguidelines for the progressive reali-zation of the right to adequate food, held its first session in March 2003. FAOprovides the secretariat for the IGWG,working closely with the United NationsHigh Commission for Human Rights.Representatives of 87 countries parti-cipated in the session. Most membersconfirmed their country’s interest inhaving guidelines that would serve as a practical tool for implementing theright to food. Representatives of civilsociety and international organizationsalso stressed the urgent need for suchguidelines.

A first draft of the VoluntaryGuidelines has been prepared by theseven-member IGWG Bureau for sub-mission to the Second Session of theWorking Group in September 2003. TheIGWG has been mandated to completethe task of elaborating guidelines be-fore the October 2004 meeting of theCommittee on Food Security (CFS).

Overall, hunger and poverty havedecreased dramatically in rural areas,while agricultural production has soared.But poverty rates remain almost twice as high in the countryside (11.2 percent)as in cities (6 percent). In some moun-tainous areas and communities of ethnicminorities, more than half the populationstill live in poverty.

The Hunger Eradication Programmetargets the poorest communes for arange of services, including access tocredit, extension and training, employ-ment and nutrition education. In addition,it has invested an average of US$60 000 a year in each of more than 2 000 com-munes, hiring local people to improveroads, bridges, irrigation facilities,schools and other infrastructure. TheProgramme aims to eliminate chronichunger by 2005 and reduce poverty tobelow 5 percent by 2010.

Tunisia sets model for solidarity

In 1992, Tunisian President Zine ElAbidine Ben Ali visited remote areas of

the country and saw first-hand that poorcommunities lacked roads, electricity,water and other basic infrastructure.Within less than a year, Tunisia enactedlaws to establish a National SolidarityFund (NSF). A decade later, the fund has distributed almost US$450 million to 1 327 poor and isolated communities and has become a model for inter-national efforts to eradicate poverty.

The NSF gathers funds from manysources, including individuals, busi-nesses, the government and nationaland international organizations. Thesefunds are used exclusively for projects inareas that lack resources to ensure eventhe minimum conditions for a decent life. Residents of the communities helpset priorities, plan projects and selectbeneficiaries.

Through its first eight years, the fund helped bring electricity to 72 000households, supplied drinking water for81 000 households and helped buildmore than 30 000 homes and 122 healthcare centres. Solidarity Fund projectsalso helped launch nearly 60 000 small


Tunisia invests in solidarity

1979–1981

1990–1992

1999–2001

1979–1981

1990–1992

1999–2001

Number of people undernourished (millions)

0 5 10 15 20

% of people undernourished 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Source: FAO Source: National Solidarity Fund

US$17 million

US$113 million

US$82 million

US$152 million

US$87 million

ElectrificationDrinking waterRural roadsHousingOther (health centres, schoolrooms,sanitation, anti-desertification)

Viet Nam reduces hunger

The multiple benefits of small-scaleirrigation and water management

A recent FAO study of three projects inAfrica found that introducing small-scaleirrigation not only improved crop yieldsbut also led directly to gains in nutritionand health.

In Mali, farmers used water from asmall dam both to increase food pro-duction and to introduce new crops,including vegetables that are rich inmicronutrients. In Burkina Faso, families

invested some of their increased farmincome in health care. Visits to localclinics shot up by 50 percent. And inTanzania, women who no longer had tospend hours fetching water used thetime to start market gardens, improvingboth their incomes and their diets.

In all three countries, irrigationincreased food production and incomesby enough to provide one additional mealeach day, even during the “hungryseason” before the harvest, when manyfamilies previously ate only once a day.

IN RURAL AREAS across the deve-loping world, water is often the keyingredient for efforts to reduce hunger.

Projects and research in a number ofcountries have highlighted the impactreliable access to water can have onimproving food production, rural in-comes and nutritional status.

Where it is possible, irrigation is thebest option for increasing agriculturalproduction (see page 12). In Africa,where only 4 percent of cropland isirrigated, small-scale irrigation andrainwater harvesting projects haveshown great potential for increasingyields and reducing vulnerability toerratic rainfall (see graph).

Crop production is by no means theonly source of food and income thatdepends on water. Many poor house-holds engage in home-based industriesfor which water is essential. And growingnumbers of farmers, particularly in Asia,are finding that they can both increaserice yields and add a valuable source ofprotein and income by using the water intheir rice paddies to raise fish.


Beyond irrigation: the multiple uses of water forimproving both diets and incomes


60

50

40

30

20

10

0Irrigation Water Valley bottom

harvesting management

Source: FAO Source: FAO

Water management potential inAfrica

DroughtShort rainy season

Erratic rainsHigh evaporation

flood irrigation

spate irrigation, stream flow diversion,groundwater recharge,

runoff spreadingsystems,

road runoff

medium risk reductionlow investment

periodic crop water deficits

high runoff

in situ waterconservation

eyebrow terraces,contour strips, furrows,

contour bunds, trash lines, terraces,

pits, ridges,conservation tillage

low risk reductionlow investment

dry spells at critical times

storage for supplementary

irrigation

subsurface dams,surface dams,

spring development,tanks

high risk reductionhigh investment

Water management techniques to reduce risks and improve rainfed production

ActualPotential

Area (millions of hectares)


Rice-fish farming improves diets andincomes

Raising fish in rice fields can increaserice yields while providing a valuablesource of protein and extra income.Farmers in many Asian countries haveshown that a 1-hectare rice field canyield 50 to 300 kg of fish each year. Farmfamilies usually consume most of thefish from their fields but can sell surplusto supplement their incomes.

Fish have also been found to increaserice yields by as much as 15 percent.Fish eat weeds and pests, such asinsects and snails, and recycle nutrientsby depositing faeces in the soil. Bydevouring pests, fish contribute to integ-rated pest management (IPM) practicesthat minimize the economic and environ-mental costs of pesticides. Studies inIndonesia have shown that use of IPMcan reduce the average number of timespesticides are applied to rice fields from4.5 to 0.5 per year, substantially cuttingboth costs and levels of toxic chemicalsthat can make fish farming impossible.

Farmers can also use a variety ofsimple, affordable water managementtechniques to increase yields and reducevulnerability to drought (see chart).Rainwater harvesting involves collectingwhatever rain does fall and delivering it when and where it is needed most.Techniques include capturing water froma wider catchment area and directing it into the field in which crops are grown.Studies in several African countries have shown that rain harvested from onearea can triple or quadruple productionon another area of comparable size.

Alternative forms of tillage – such asturning the soil only along plant lines ordeep ploughing to break up soil crusts –can also lead to much more efficient useof limited rainfall. Studies have shownthat rainwater harvesting and alternativetillage can increase yields two to threetimes as compared with conventionaldryland farming (see graph). And rain-water harvesting provides other benefitsas well. In addition to providing morewater for crops, it also helps rechargegroundwater and reduce soil erosion.

Allocating water for home-basedproductive activities

Recent studies have highlighted theimportance of water to many otheractivities that are vital to the livelihoodsof vulnerable households in rural areas.

In the Bushbuckridge area in SouthAfrica, for example, researchers foundthat many households relied on domes-tic water supplies for a wide variety ofsmall-scale industrial and agriculturalactivities, including brewing, building,tending goats and cattle, and cultivatinghome gardens and orchards (see graph).Surveys confirmed that these activitiestend to be particularly important for the poorest and most vulnerable mem-bers of the community, including manyfemale-headed households.

As countries institute reforms inten-ded to allocate water to different stake-holders based on assessment of theirminimum needs, it is essential to in-crease awareness of the key role thatdomestic water plays in the livelihoods of poor rural households.

Domestic water use for productiveactivities, South Africa

With Without With Withoutfertilizer fertilizer fertilizer fertilizer

Drought Good rains

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Source: FAO Source: FAO

Goats

Cattle

Brewing

Building

Trees

Gardens

Growth of rice-fish farming, China

Source: FAO

Effects of subsoiling to break upsoil crusts, Tanzania

Grain yield (tonnes per hectare) Hectares (‘000) Tonnes (‘000)

Water consumption per business(litres per person per day)

1 400

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

01980 1985 1990 1995

SubsoilControl

Rice-fish area(left axis)

Fish yield(right axis)

TO COMBAT HUNGER and povertyeffectively, it is important to knowwhere hungry and impoverished

people are concentrated. Nationalestimates of the number of under-nourished people or the proportion ofthe population living on less than US$1

per day provide useful indications ofnational progress over time. But theycannot be used to target specificvillages and the conditions that inflictpoverty and hunger on their inhabitants.

Taking advantage of recentlydeveloped techniques that generate

estimates of local poverty, a number of countries have used geographicinformation system (GIS) technology to construct detailed poverty maps.These maps can be combined with othergeo-referenced data to highlight areaswhere hunger and poverty overlap withother social, economic and environ-mental problems. Maps can be made, for example, to show semi-arid agri-cultural areas with poor access to roadsand high levels of goitre and femaleilliteracy. This information can then beused to design programmes that addressspecific local problems.

How poverty maps are constructed

Poverty maps are often constructedusing a technique known as “small areaestimation”. This approach combinescensus data with information obtainedfrom surveys such as the LivingStandards Measurement Survey.

Taken separately, each data set offersdistinct advantages and limitations. Datafrom population and agricultural cen-suses cover every household, allowingprecise mapping at local levels. Butcensuses are conducted infrequently andrarely include the full set of indicatorspolicy makers need. Household surveys,on the other hand, are carried out morefrequently and often gather all therelevant indicators, such as householdincome and consumption expenditures.But they are based on small samplesthat are adequate to construct statis-tically valid national profiles but not formapping at the village level.

The small area estimation methodprojects patterns visible in survey dataonto demographically and socially simi-lar groups of households that can beidentified in the more comprehensivecensus data. These projections can then


Mapping poverty and hunger to help wipe them off the map

Source: Benson et al

With support from the International FoodPolicy Research Institute (IFPRI), Malawihas produced an Atlas of social statistics.Poverty maps included in the atlas havebeen used by the World Food Programmeand the Malawi Social Action Fund totarget public works projects that provideemployment and improve infrastructurein impoverished communities. Maps in the atlas are also expected to be used

to assist distribution of free fertilizers and seeds in Malawi’s “starter pack”programme.

Combining poverty maps with maps ofother socio-economic and environmentalindicators may reveal factors that con-tribute to hunger and suggest avenues for action. Many areas in southern andcentral Malawi exhibit both high rates ofpoverty and low maize yields.

Poverty headcount

Maize yields

5050 – 6060 – 64.3*64.3 – 7070 – 80

80

1 0001 000 – 1 2501 250 – 1 375*1 375 – 1 5001 500 – 1 750

1 750

Population below thepoverty line (%)

Average yield (kg per hectare)

*national rate

Malawi poverty maps help target public works projects


be used to “predict” average povertylevels for a village or group of villageswith as few as 500 households.

Using maps to fight hunger

A growing number of countries areusing poverty maps to target food aidand public works projects to areaswhere the poorest people live (seeboxes). Because this poverty mappingapproach depends on census andsurvey data, the maps may not reflectseasonal food shortages and hardships.But they provide a valuable baseline forplanning and monitoring. Experience in several countries suggests that themaps also contribute to increasedawareness and participation becausepeople find them easy to understand.

Application of the small area esti-mation technique for poverty mappingin developing countries is relatively new. Much of the basic work has beendone by a team in the World BankResearch Department. Other pilot ap-plications have been funded by theInternational Food Policy ResearchInstitute, the Rockefeller Foundation,the British Department for InternationalDevelopment, Norwegian Aid and theFIVIMS Secretariat.

More recently, the ConsultativeGroup on International AgriculturalResearch, UNEP/GRID-Arendal andFAO have launched a project toincorporate spatial analysis tools intopoverty mapping. These tools will helpanalyse the linkages between povertyand the environment. Depicting howconcentrations of poverty overlap dif-ferent agroecological zones, majorfoodcrop production systems or fragileareas vulnerable to degradation canhelp shape effective, sustainable actionto combat hunger.

Panama has applied poverty mapping to help target US$150 million in expen-ditures by its Social Investment Fund(SIF). A school lunch programme fundedby SIF used the maps to reach 120 000

extremely poor children in 1 500 schools.A division of the Health Ministry is com-bining poverty maps with communitysurveys to monitor and assess nutritionprogrammes.

Cambodia has launched major povertyand food insecurity mapping initiatives.The World Food Programme used acommune-level poverty map to helpallocate US$50 million in food aid. “Food

for work” jobs building roads, schoolsand health centres and rehabilitatingirrigation facilities were targeted to thepoorest communes. An interministerialFIVIMS committee is coordinating effortsto produce more detailed food insecuritymaps, with participation and supportfrom a FIVIMS network that includesmajor donor agencies and United Nationsand non-governmental organizations.These maps will be used to plan andtarget a wide range of programmes toreduce hunger and poverty.

Maps help Panama deliver school lunches to poorest children

Poverty levels in San MiguelitoDistrict

Poverty level (%)

Poor communes

1997, 1998, 1999, 20001997, 1998, 20002000

Source: Panama Ministry of Economics and Finance

312721

MalnourishedIn extreme povertyIn poverty

0 10 20 30 40 50

2015

Analysis of poor communes, 1997–2000

% of population

Urban

All rural

Rural non-indigenous

Poverty and malnutrition by geographic area

Indigenous

“Food for work” reaches Cambodia’s poorest communes

Source: WFP; Henninger and Snel


malnourished children has made a sig-nificant contribution to that success.

The project started in 1991 with arelatively narrow focus – to reducevitamin A deficiency among children infour communes. To accomplish that, itprovided training, technology and verysmall grants to help families establishhome gardens where they could grownutrient-rich fruits and vegetables. Atthe same time, parents were taughtabout the importance of the “colouredbowl”, a concept used in Viet Nam toillustrate a balanced meal. The white riceor rice soup can be coloured brown byadding meat or fish, green by addingvegetables and yellow by adding eggs.

A follow-up survey conducted threeyears after the project was launchedshowed that participating communeswere growing and eating more than twiceas many vegetables and fruits and morethan 20 times as much fish as they hadpreviously (see graph). Daily vitamin Aintake among participating children wastwice that of children in a controlcommune. The broader nutritional im-pact could be measured with a ruler. The

proportion of children who were stuntedhad been reduced by almost 20 percent.

Based on this success, a far largerproject combining home gardening andnutrition education was extended to eightprovinces, beginning in 1997. An eva-luation after two years found thatmalnutrition had been reduced by 12.8percent in participating communities.

Panama: schools cultivate nutrition

In Panama, a project that began byteaching schoolchildren in 13 poor com-munities how to plant, grow and eatnutritious foods has taken root.

The project aimed to improve chil-dren’s food security and nutritionalstatus by providing the tools and trainingto cultivate school gardens, includingvitamin-rich vegetables and poultry. Andit achieved impressive results. A follow-up survey conducted three years afterthe project was launched found that theproportion of children who were under-weight had been reduced by almost half,from 19.9 to 10.6 percent. Indigenouscommunities participating in the project


IN RECENT YEARS, many countrieshave implemented community-basedfood and nutrition programmes. The

scope and objectives of these pro-grammes vary, ranging from broadlydefined efforts to improve householdfood security to narrowly targeted cam-paigns to reduce deficiencies of a singlemicronutrient.

An effective nutrition programmenecessarily means improved nutritionalstatus that can be measured, forexample, in lower rates of underweightchildren or micronutrient deficiencies.But to qualify as a success, it must alsobe able to sustain and extend theseachievements over time.

In order to shape initiatives that willhave significant and lasting impact, it is essential to understand the factorsthat allow some programmes to succeedwhere others fail. FAO recently con-ducted an in-depth analysis of selectedprogrammes that have functioned for atleast five years and achieved significantimprovement in nutritional status. Theresults of that analysis highlighted anumber of common factors that dis-tinguish these successful and sus-tainable programmes. These factorsinclude: strong political support, effec-tive multisectoral collaboration, com-munity participation and empowerment,and use of existing community struc-tures and cultural traditions.

Viet Nam: vitamins in the garden

Over the past 20 years, Viet Nam hasachieved remarkable success in re-ducing hunger. Between 1979–1981 and1999–2001, the proportion of under-nourished people in Viet Nam fell from32 to 19 percent. A community nutritionproject that combines home gardeningwith nutrition education for families with


Identifying the keys to sustainable nutritionprogrammes

Viet Nam: communities improve diet diversity and reduce stunting

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Baseline Follow-up Baseline Follow-up

Project Control

Proportion stunted (%)

200

150

100

50

0Vegetables Fruit Meat Fish

Daily consumption (g per person per day)

Project communitiesBaselineFollow-up

Control communitiesBaselineFollow-up

Sour

ce: F

AO


showed even more dramatic improve-ment, with undernutrition falling by 85percent in one case (see graph).

The training and the impact reachedfar beyond the students themselves toinclude their parents, teachers, localfarm leaders and technical experts fromboth government ministries and non-governmental organizations. And itbenefited from a multidisciplinary ap-proach that relied on local resources and low-cost, environmentally friendlytechnologies. Along with seeds, tools and lessons in growing crops, the projectemphasized community participation,small animal keeping, nutrition edu-cation, food processing and preservation,and agroforestry.

In most communities, the foodproduction activities developed in theschools were adopted by the students’families and other households. In somecases, groups of households formed

voluntary associations to cultivate nutri-tious crops and knowledge together, astheir children had in the school gardens.

Kenya: from relief to development

Kenya’s Applied Nutrition Project waslaunched in 1986 on the heels of severedrought and famine in the arid MakueniDistrict. Over more than 15 years, theproject has successfully engaged localcommunities in all stages of its evolutionfrom emergency relief to development.

Community meetings identified fourkey nutrition-related problems: malnu-trition among young children, poor foodsecurity at the household level, lack ofincome-generating activities and ina-dequate safe water. Villagers’ under-standing of the complex interactionsbetween poverty, malnutrition andhealth closely matched that of projectstaff (see chart below). This shared

understanding helped define a variety ofinterventions, from nutrition educationto promotion of drought-resistant cropsand income-generating activities thatwould reduce women’s workload.

The project has employed traditionalwomen’s groups, village councils andcommunity decision-making bodies asentry points. Another key to its successand durability has been effective supportfrom all levels of government.

Makueni District remains one of thepoorest areas in Kenya, suffering fromrecurring drought and food shortages,as well as high levels of HIV infection.Despite these threats, the AppliedNutrition Project has helped partici-pating communities put a halt to thedeterioration of nutritional status andregister some modest gains. Between1994 and 1997, the proportion of stuntedchildren was reduced by more than 13percent.

Reduced underweight in Panama

50

40

30

20

10

0

Source: FAO

Proportion underweight (%)

Average for Isla Paja de El12 project Tigre Sombrero Palomo

communities Indigenous communities

Source: Kibwezi community and AMREF

Lack of incomegeneration and cash cropping

Poor foodproduction

Poor infantfeeding

practices

Poor health practices;lack of immunization,

child spacing andhygiene

Poorenvironmental

sanitation; waterand pit latrines

Low food resources

Low level of nutrient intake

Infection

Low nutrient availability at the cellular level

Malnutrition

Poor socio-economic status, poverty, illiteracy, big families with short birth intervals;

poor food production and storage practices

Kenya: communities map connections between poverty and malnutrition

BaselineFollow-up

rather than an important cause ofeconomic growth. One consequence hasbeen a tendency to rely on the normalprocesses of economic development, theworkings of the market and the stimulusof liberalized trade to bring about theelimination of hunger.

But widespread hunger impairs theeconomic performance not only ofindividuals and families but also ofnations. As the link between more rapidagricultural growth and success inreducing hunger suggests, to ensurethat development and trade lead tosustainable reductions in hunger theymust be accompanied by policies andinvestments that provide access to foodfor the hungry and promote growth in therural areas where three-quarters of theworld's hungry people live.

Anti-Hunger Programme outlines twin-track campaign against hunger

The Anti-Hunger Programme unveiled byFAO at the time of the WFS: five yearslater outlines just such a twin-trackapproach. It advocates measures toincrease the productivity and improve thelivelihoods of small-scale farmers andlandless labourers. At the same time, itproposes immediate action to give hungrypeople access to the food they need.

The Anti-Hunger Programme papersets out priorities and budgets for actionin five areas:■ improving agricultural productivity in

poor rural communities■ developing and conserving natural

resources■ expanding rural infrastructure and

market access■ strengthening capacity for knowledge

generation and dissemination■ ensuring access to food for the most

needy.

The FAO paper also proposes how theestimated extra public investment ofUS$19 billion per year to enhanceagricultural growth and productivitycould be financed. Costs would bedivided equally between the govern-ments of countries where hunger is aproblem and international donors. Thiswould represent a doubling of conces-sional funding for agriculture fromdeveloped countries and an averageincrease of about 20 percent in totalexpenditures for agriculture by develop-ing countries.

Ultimately the success of anti-hungerprogrammes will depend on winningsupport and commitment at both thenational and international levels. To thatend, FAO has endorsed proposals toforge an international Alliance againstHunger that would unite national gov-ernments, the international community,civil society organizations, the privatesector and concerned individuals tomobilize the political will, technicalexpertise and financial resources neededto reduce the number of hungry by atleast half by 2015.

THE DATA AND ANALYSES pre-sented in this edition of The Stateof Food Insecurity in the World

generally paint a grim picture. The num-ber of undernourished people in thedeveloping world decreased by less than20 million since the 1990–1992 periodused as the baseline at the World FoodSummit (WFS). Worse yet, over the mostrecent four years for which data areavailable, the number of chronicallyhungry people actually increased at arate of almost 5 million a year.

Only a handful of countries havesucceeded in reducing hunger steadilythroughout the years since the WFSbaseline period. Analysing the ingre-dients of their success sheds some lighton steps that can be taken in othercountries to stimulate progress.

As might be expected, the countriesthat have succeeded in reducing hungerhave enjoyed faster economic growththan those where progress has stalled or hunger has increased. Significantly,they have also registered more rapidagricultural growth (see graph). They arealso characterized by slower populationgrowth, lower rates of HIV infection andfar fewer food emergencies.

Articles elsewhere in this reportelaborate on the connections betweenmany of these factors and food security.In every instance, they offer compellingevidence that the cause and effectrelationship runs in both directions.Analysis reveals, for example, both thatHIV/AIDS has become a major cause ofhunger and that hunger accelerates both the spread and the lethal impact of the disease (see page 10). Similarly,reducing hunger is both a consequenceand an essential precondition for morerapid economic development.

Too often, the eradication of hungerhas been looked upon as a by-product

The way ahead

Mobilizing commitment and action to combat hunger


Trends in undernourishment andGDP, 1990–1992 to 1995–1997and 1995–1997 to 1999–2001

Countries where the number ofundernourished people:

Decreased in bothsubperiods

Increased thendecreased

Decreased thenincreased

Increased in bothsubperiods

Source: FAO

0 1 2 3Average annual growth in

agricultural GDP (%)

DEVELOPING WORLD 4 050.0 4 418.6 4 712.2 816.6 779.7 797.9 20 18 17

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC 2 812.1 3 033.0 3 204.8 566.8 496.4 505.2 20 16 16 EAST ASIA 1 241.1 1 306.7 1 353.4 198.3 153.3 144.5 16 12 11 China* [3] 1 169.5 1 231.0 1 275.0 193.0 144.6 135.3 17 12 11 Dem. People's Rep. of Korea [4] 20.3 21.6 22.3 3.7 6.9 7.5 18 32 34 Hong Kong SAR of China [1] 5.8 6.3 6.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 — — —Mongolia [5] 2.3 2.4 2.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 34 42 38 Rep. of Korea [1] 43.3 45.3 46.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 — — —OCEANIA 3.9 4.4 4.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 25 27 27 Papua New Guinea [4] 3.9 4.4 4.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 25 27 27 SOUTHEAST ASIA 444.8 486.0 517.0 76.4 65.4 66.3 17 13 13 Cambodia [5] 10.0 11.7 13.1 4.3 5.2 5.0 43 45 38 Indonesia [3] 185.6 200.6 212.1 16.6 11.4 12.6 9 6 6 Lao People's Dem. Rep. [4] 4.2 4.8 5.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 29 28 22 Malaysia [1] 18.3 20.5 22.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 3 — —Myanmar [3] 41.3 45.1 47.7 4.0 3.3 3.2 10 7 7 Philippines [4] 62.5 69.8 75.7 16.1 16.1 16.8 26 23 22 Thailand [3] 55.5 59.5 62.8 15.6 12.3 11.9 28 21 19 Viet Nam [3] 67.5 74.0 78.1 18.1 15.3 15.1 27 21 19 SOUTH ASIA 1 122.4 1 236.0 1 329.6 291.1 276.5 293.1 26 22 22 Bangladesh [4] 112.7 126.3 137.5 39.2 47.9 44.1 35 38 32 India [4] 861.3 943.5 1 008.9 214.5 194.7 213.7 25 21 21 Nepal [3] 18.6 20.9 23.0 3.4 5.0 3.8 18 24 17 Pakistan [3] 112.5 126.9 141.3 29.0 24.1 26.8 26 19 19 Sri Lanka [4] 17.2 18.2 18.9 5.0 5.0 4.6 29 27 25

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN 442.2 481.2 512.0 59.0 55.3 53.4 13 11 10 NORTH AMERICA 84.8 92.7 98.9 4.6 5.1 5.2 5 5 5 Mexico [3] 84.8 92.7 98.9 4.6 5.1 5.2 5 5 5 CENTRAL AMERICA 28.7 32.7 36.0 5.0 6.5 7.5 17 20 21 Costa Rica [3] 3.1 3.7 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 7 6 6 El Salvador [3] 5.2 5.8 6.3 0.6 0.8 0.8 12 14 14 Guatemala [4] 9.0 10.2 11.4 1.4 2.2 2.9 16 21 25 Honduras [4] 5.0 5.8 6.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 23 20 20 Nicaragua [4] 3.9 4.6 5.1 1.2 1.5 1.5 30 33 29 Panama [4] 2.4 2.7 2.9 0.5 0.6 0.7 20 22 26 THE CARIBBEAN 28.5 30.3 31.6 7.9 9.8 7.8 28 32 25 Cuba [3] 10.7 11.0 11.2 0.9 2.7 1.3 8 24 11 Dominican Rep. [4] 7.2 7.8 8.4 1.9 2.1 2.1 27 26 25 Haiti [5] 7.0 7.6 8.1 4.6 4.6 4.0 65 60 49 Jamaica [3] 2.4 2.5 2.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 14 11 9 Trinidad and Tobago [3] 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 13 14 12 SOUTH AMERICA 300.1 325.5 345.6 41.5 34.0 32.9 14 10 10 Argentina [1] 33.0 35.2 37.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 — — —Bolivia [4] 6.7 7.6 8.3 1.8 1.9 1.8 26 25 22 Brazil [3] 150.3 161.7 170.4 18.6 16.7 15.6 12 10 9 Chile [2] 13.3 14.4 15.2 1.1 0.7 0.6 8 5 4 Colombia [3] 35.7 39.3 42.1 6.1 5.0 5.7 17 13 13 Ecuador [2] 10.5 11.7 12.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 8 5 4 Guyana [3] 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 21 12 14 Paraguay [3] 4.3 5.0 5.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 18 13 13 Peru [3] 22.0 23.9 25.7 8.9 4.2 2.9 40 18 11 Suriname [3] 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 13 11 11 Uruguay [2] 3.1 3.2 3.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 6 4 3 Venezuela [3] 20.0 22.3 24.2 2.3 3.5 4.4 11 16 18


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] 1990–1992 1995–1997 1999–2001 1990–1992 1995–1997 1999–2001 1990–1992 1995–1997 1999–2001

millions millions %

Tables

NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 321.3 361.3 392.4 25.3 35.2 40.9 8 10 10 NEAR EAST 200.6 228.3 249.6 19.6 29.4 34.8 10 13 14 Afghanistan [5]** 14.6 19.7 21.8 8.4 12.7 15.3 58 65 70 Iran, Islamic Rep. of [3] 59.9 65.8 70.3 2.8 3.0 3.8 5 5 5 Iraq [4]** 17.8 20.6 23.0 1.2 5.1 6.2 7 25 27 Jordan [3] 3.4 4.4 4.9 0.1 0.3 0.3 4 7 6 Kuwait [2] 2.1 1.7 1.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 22 4 4 Lebanon [2] 2.8 3.2 3.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 3 3 Saudi Arabia [2] 15.8 17.6 20.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 4 3 3 Syrian Arab Rep. [2] 12.8 14.6 16.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 5 4 4 Turkey [2] 57.2 62.6 66.7 1.0 1.5 1.8 — — 3 United Arab Emirates [1] 2.1 2.4 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 4 — —Yemen [4] 12.2 15.6 18.4 4.2 5.4 6.1 35 35 33 NORTH AFRICA 120.7 133.0 142.8 5.7 5.8 6.1 5 4 4 Algeria [3] 25.4 28.2 30.3 1.3 1.6 1.7 5 6 6 Egypt [2] 57.4 63.2 67.9 2.7 2.3 2.3 5 4 3 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya [1] 4.4 4.9 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 — — —Morocco [3] 25.1 27.7 29.9 1.5 1.9 2.1 6 7 7 Tunisia [1] 8.3 9.1 9.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — —

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 474.5 543.1 603.0 165.5 192.7 198.4 35 35 33 CENTRAL AFRICA 62.8 73.8 81.7 22.0 39.5 47.6 35 53 58 Cameroon [4] 11.9 13.6 14.9 3.9 4.5 4.0 33 33 27 Central African Rep. [5] 3.0 3.4 3.7 1.5 1.7 1.6 50 51 44 Chad [4] 6.0 7.0 7.9 3.5 3.4 2.7 58 49 34 Congo [4] 2.3 2.7 3.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 37 42 30 Dem. Rep. of the Congo [5] 38.5 46.1 51.0 12.1 28.7 38.3 31 62 75 Gabon [3] 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 11 9 7 EAST AFRICA 166.1 188.2 209.5 73.2 84.8 81.3 44 45 39 Burundi [5] 5.7 6.1 6.4 2.8 3.9 4.5 49 64 70 Eritrea [5] na 3.2 3.7 na 2.0 2.2 na 63 61 Ethiopia [5] na 56.9 62.9 na 32.2 26.4 na 57 42 Kenya [5] 24.3 28.0 30.7 10.6 11.1 11.5 44 40 37 Rwanda [5] 6.4 5.3 7.5 2.8 2.7 3.1 43 50 41 Somalia [5]** 7.2 7.6 8.8 4.9 5.5 6.2 68 73 71 Sudan [4] 25.4 28.6 31.1 7.9 6.3 7.7 31 22 25 Uganda [3] 17.8 20.7 23.3 4.1 5.3 4.5 23 25 19 United Rep. of Tanzania [5] 27.0 31.8 35.1 9.5 15.7 15.2 35 49 43 SOUTHERN AFRICA 71.0 81.0 89.2 34.2 37.1 36.8 48 46 41 Angola [5] 9.9 11.7 13.1 6.1 6.4 6.4 61 54 49 Botswana [4] 1.3 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 18 22 24 Lesotho [4] 1.7 1.9 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 27 26 25 Madagascar [5] 12.3 14.2 16.0 4.3 5.6 5.7 35 40 36 Malawi [4] 9.6 10.2 11.3 4.7 4.0 3.7 49 39 33 Mauritius [3] 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 6 6 5 Mozambique [5] 14.1 16.8 18.3 9.7 10.3 9.7 69 62 53 Namibia [3] 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 20 12 7 Swaziland [3] 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 10 16 12 Zambia [5] 8.3 9.5 10.4 3.7 4.4 5.2 45 47 50 Zimbabwe [5] 10.5 11.7 12.6 4.5 5.1 4.9 43 44 39 WEST AFRICA 174.7 200.1 222.6 36.2 31.3 32.7 21 16 15 Benin [3] 4.8 5.6 6.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 20 17 16 Burkina Faso [3] 9.3 10.5 11.5 2.0 1.9 1.9 22 18 17 Côte d'Ivoire [3] 13.0 14.7 16.0 2.4 2.3 2.4 18 16 15 Gambia [4] 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 22 32 27 Ghana [3] 15.6 17.7 19.3 5.5 2.9 2.4 35 17 12


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


millions millions %

Tables

Guinea [4] 6.4 7.5 8.1 2.5 2.4 2.3 40 31 28 Liberia [5] 2.1 2.2 2.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 33 38 42 Mali [4] 9.0 10.2 11.4 2.2 2.7 2.4 25 27 21 Mauritania [3] 2.0 2.3 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 14 11 10 Niger [4] 8.0 9.4 10.8 3.3 4.0 3.7 42 43 34 Nigeria [3] 88.5 102.1 113.9 11.2 7.8 9.1 13 8 8 Senegal [4] 7.5 8.5 9.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 23 25 24 Sierra Leone [5] 4.1 4.1 4.4 1.9 1.7 2.2 46 42 50 Togo [4] 3.5 4.0 4.5 1.2 1.0 1.1 33 25 25

COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION Total population Number of people undernourished Proportion of undernourished Region/subregion/country in total population[undernourishment category] 1993–1995 1999–2001 1993–1995 1999–2001 1993–1995 1999–2001

millions millions %

COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION 414.1 411.8 25.2 33.6 6 8 COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES 284.8 283.4 20.6 28.8 7 10 Armenia [5] 3.7 3.8 2.0 1.9 55 51 Azerbaijan [4] 7.6 8.0 2.8 1.7 37 21 Belarus [2] 10.3 10.2 0.1 0.3 — 3 Georgia [4] 5.4 5.3 2.4 1.4 45 26 Kazakhstan [4] 16.7 16.2 0.2 3.5 — 22 Kyrgyzstan [3] 4.5 4.9 1.3 0.4 28 7 Rep. of Moldova [3] 4.3 4.3 0.2 0.5 5 12 Russian Fed. [2] 148.4 145.5 6.4 6.2 4 4 Tajikistan [5] 5.7 6.1 1.2 4.3 22 71 Turkmenistan [3] 4.1 4.7 0.6 0.3 15 7 Ukraine [2] 51.7 49.6 1.2 2.0 — 4 Uzbekistan [4] 22.3 24.9 2.1 6.4 10 26 BALTIC STATES 7.8 7.5 0.4 0.3 5 3 Estonia [2] 1.5 1.4 0.2 0.1 10 4 Latvia [3] 2.6 2.4 0.1 0.2 3 6 Lithuania [1] 3.7 3.7 0.2 0.0 4 —EASTERN EUROPE 121.5 121.0 4.1 4.5 3 4 Albania [2] 3.2 3.1 0.2 0.1 5 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina [3] 3.6 4.0 0.5 0.3 13 8 Bulgaria [3] 8.5 8.0 0.7 1.3 8 16 Croatia [3] 4.6 4.7 0.8 0.5 18 12 Czech Rep. [1] 10.3 10.3 0.2 0.2 — —Hungary [1] 10.2 10.0 0.1 0.0 — —TFYR Macedonia [3] 2.0 2.0 0.3 0.2 15 10 Poland [1] 38.5 38.6 0.3 0.3 — —Romania [1] 22.8 22.4 0.4 0.2 — —Serbia and Montenegro [3] 10.5 10.6 0.5 0.9 5 9 Slovakia [3] 5.3 5.4 0.2 0.2 4 5 Slovenia [1] 2.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 3 —


NOTES

Figures following country name refer to the prevalence categories (proportion ofthe population undernourished in 1999–2001):[1] 2.5% undernourished[2] 2.5–4% undernourished[3] 5–19% undernourished[4] 20–34% undernourished[5] 35% undernourishedTable does not include countries for which there were insufficient data

* includes Taiwan Province of China** estimates of the proportion of undernourished for 1999–2001 are not

available; estimates for 1998–2000 published in SOFI 2002 were used instead. — proportion less than 2.5% undernourishedna not available0.0 zero or less than half the unit shownSOURCES

Total population : UN Population Prospects, 2000 revisionUndernourishment: FAO estimates

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


millions millions %


Table 2. FOOD AVAILABILITY, DIET DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY, CHILD MORTALITY, CHILD NUTRITIONALSTATUS AND RESOURCES DIRECTED TO AGRICULTURE in developing countries and countries in transition,classified by category of prevalence of undernourishment

CATEGORY OF PREVALENCE Food availability Poverty Child Child nutritional Resources directedOF UNDERNOURISHMENT and diet diversification mortality status to agriculturein total population 1999–2001 Dietary Share of non- Population below Under-five Underweight ExternalRegion and country energy supply starchy food the poverty line mortality children under assistance

(DES) in total DES 1990–2000 rate five years of age 1998–20001999–2001 (last survey) 2001 1995–2001 Constant

kcal/day rural urban per 1 000 (last survey) 1995 US$ perper person % % births % agricultural worker

LESS THAN 2.5% UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Hong Kong SAR of China 3 100 70 na na na na 0 Malaysia 2 920 54 na na 8 20 23 Rep. of Korea 3 070 50 na na 5 na 0 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Argentina 3 180 65 na 30 19 5 70 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 3 320 53 na na 19 5 98 Tunisia 3 340 48 14 4 27 4 212 United Arab Emirates 3 330 63 na na 9 7 1 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION

Czech Rep. 3 080 69 na na 5 1* 3 Hungary 3 500 70 na na 9 na 1 Lithuania 3 260 51 na na 9 na 1 Poland 3 390 58 na na 9 na 14 Romania 3 340 47 28 20 21 6* 15 Slovenia 3 060 60 na na 5 na 42 2.5 TO 4% UNDERNOURISHEDLATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Chile 2 850 57 na na 12 1 6 Ecuador 2 740 64 47 25 30 14 58 Uruguay 2 840 61 na na 16 4* 120 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

Egypt 3 370 35 23 23 41 4 47 Kuwait 3 150 61 na na 10 2 0 Lebanon 3 170 62 na na 32 3 738 Saudi Arabia 2 840 51 na na 28 14 1 Syrian Arab Rep. 3 040 52 na na 28 7 28 Turkey 3 360 47 na na 43 8 0 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION

Albania 2 940 51 na na 25 14 49 Belarus 2 960 53 na na 20 na 0 Estonia 3 020 57 15 7 12 na 3 Russian Fed. 2 940 53 na na 21 3 15 Ukraine 2 900 50 na na 20 3 17 5 TO 19% UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFIC

China** 2 970 41 5 2 39 10 3 Indonesia 2 900 30 na na 45 25 13 Myanmar 2 810 26 na na 109 28 0 Nepal 2 440 23 44 23 91 48 15 Pakistan 2 460 49 36 24 109 38 8 Thailand 2 470 48 16 10 28 18 14 Viet Nam 2 500 26 57 26 38 34 16 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Brazil 3 000 66 33 13 36 6 34 Colombia 2 570 59 31 8 23 7 26 Costa Rica 2 760 62 26 19 11 5 82 Cuba 2 610 60 na na 9 4 7 El Salvador 2 460 47 56 43 39 12 35 Guyana 2 540 48 na na 72 12 67 Jamaica 2 690 59 25 na 20 4 98

na Data not available 0 Zero or less than half the unit shown* Data refer to years prior to 1995** includes Taiwan Province of China for food availability and diet

diversification; additionally includes Hong Kong SAR of China for externalassistance to agriculture

*** estimates of food availability and diet diversification for 1999–2001 are notavailable; estimates for 1998–2000 published in SOFI 2002 were used instead.

Tables


Table 2 cont. FOOD AVAILABILITY, DIET DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY, CHILD MORTALITY, CHILD NUTRITIONALSTATUS AND RESOURCES DIRECTED TO AGRICULTURE in developing countries and countries in transition,classified by category of prevalence of undernourishment




Mexico 3 150 53 na na 29 8 54 Paraguay 2 560 59 29 20 30 4* 108 Peru 2 600 46 65 40 39 7 42 Suriname 2 630 56 na na 32 na 519 Trinidad and Tobago 2 710 62 20 24 20 7 108 Venezuela 2 330 59 na na 22 4 23 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

Algeria 2 970 40 30 15 49 6 41 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 2 930 39 na na 42 11 0 Jordan 2 740 48 na na 33 5 788 Morocco 3 000 36 27 12 44 10* 24 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Benin 2 480 27 na na 158 23 36 Burkina Faso 2 460 25 51 17 197 34 19 Côte d'Ivoire 2 590 34 na na 175 21 21 Gabon 2 580 54 na na 90 12 29 Ghana 2 620 29 34 27 100 25 24 Mauritania 2 730 48 61 25 183 32 83 Mauritius 2 980 54 na na 19 15 144 Namibia 2 700 34 na na 67 26* 72 Nigeria 2 770 34 36 30 183 31 2 Swaziland 2 570 52 na na 149 10 93 Uganda 2 370 56 na na 124 23 18 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION

Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 730 48 na na 18 4 182 Bulgaria 2 630 65 na na 16 na 118 Croatia 2 620 63 na na 8 1 7 Kyrgyzstan 2 860 32 70 49 61 11 175 Latvia 2 790 60 na na 21 na 44 TFYR Macedonia 2 660 62 na na 26 6 110 Rep. of Moldova 2 680 46 27 na 32 3 20 Serbia and Montenegro 2 720 68 na na 19 2 4 Slovakia 2 910 63 na na 9 na 5 Turkmenistan 2 760 37 na na 87 12 0 20 TO 34% UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Bangladesh 2 160 17 37 19 77 52 13 Dem. People's Rep. of Korea 2 180 33 na na 55 28 5 India 2 490 39 30 25 93 47 3 Lao People's Dem. Rep. 2 280 22 41 27 100 40 36 Papua New Guinea 2 180 45 41 16 94 35 10 Philippines 2 370 44 51 20 38 32 52 Sri Lanka 2 330 44 27 15 19 33 29 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Bolivia 2 240 49 82 na 77 8 82 Dominican Rep. 2 320 66 30 11 47 5 116 Guatemala 2 160 47 na na 58 24 80 Honduras 2 400 54 51 57 38 17 128 Nicaragua 2 250 49 69 31 43 10 227 Panama 2 250 62 65 15 25 8 475 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

Iraq*** 2 150 34 na na 133 16 1 Yemen 2 050 32 45 31 107 46 12 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Botswana 2 270 52 na na 110 13 24 Cameroon 2 240 42 na na 155 22 13 Chad 2 150 41 67 63 200 28 13 Congo 2 210 37 na na 108 14 2


Table 2 cont. FOOD AVAILABILITY, DIET DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY, CHILD MORTALITY, CHILD NUTRITIONALSTATUS AND RESOURCES DIRECTED TO AGRICULTURE in developing countries and countries in transition,classified by category of prevalence of undernourishment

Tables




Gambia 2 280 48 61 48 126 17 52 Guinea 2 330 40 na na 169 33 18 Lesotho 2 310 19 54 28 132 18 57 Malawi 2 170 23 67 55 183 25 14 Mali 2 370 29 na na 231 33 30 Niger 2 130 28 66 52 265 40 10 Senegal 2 280 39 40 na 138 23 37 Sudan 2 290 46 na na 107 34* 4 Togo 2 310 23 na na 141 25 7 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION

Azerbaijan 2 380 32 na na 96 17 55 Georgia 2 290 38 10 12 29 3 31 Kazakhstan 2 360 50 39 30 99 4 20 Uzbekistan 2 270 39 na na 68 19 14 35% OR MORE UNDERNOURISHEDASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Cambodia 1 970 21 40 21 138 45 25 Mongolia 2 070 57 33 39 76 13 63 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Haiti 2 040 46 66 na 123 17 13 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

Afghanistan*** 1 630 27 na na 257 49 1 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Angola 1 900 32 na na 260 31 4 Burundi 1 610 49 na na 190 45 2 Central African Rep. 1 960 43 na na 180 23 6 Dem. Rep. of the Congo 1 570 23 na na 205 34 0 Eritrea 1 670 24 na na 111 44 8 Ethiopia 1 910 19 45 37 172 47 4 Kenya 2 040 43 46 29 122 22 5 Liberia 2 080 37 na na 235 27 3 Madagascar 2 070 25 77 52 136 40 17 Mozambique 1 950 25 71 62 197 26 16 Rwanda 2 000 49 na na 183 24 12 Sierra Leone 1 930 36 na na 316 27 8 Somalia*** 1 600 65 na na 225 26 1 United Rep. of Tanzania 1 970 29 50 24 165 29 7 Zambia 1 900 23 83 56 202 24 26 Zimbabwe 2 100 42 48 8 123 13 23 COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION

Armenia 2 000 40 na na 35 3 97 Tajikistan 1 720 33 na na 116 na 36

NOTES

Non-starchy foods: all food sources for DES, except cereals and roots and tubers. Poverty, urban or rural: percentage of population living on less than the povertyline, urban or rural. These poverty lines are independent standards of living forurban or rural populations based on consumption of goods and services to meetbasic needs.Under-five mortality: probability that a newborn baby will die before reaching agefive, if subject to current age-specific mortality rates. The probability is expressedas a rate per 1 000 live births.Underweight: children below five years of age (0–4.99 years), except 0–2.99 yearsfor Cameroon, Eritrea, India, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mozambique, Myanmar,Togo and Uzbekistan; 0.5–2.99 years for Afghanistan; 0.25–4.99 years for ElSalvador, Honduras and Sri Lanka; 0.5–4.99 years for Burundi, Guinea and TFYRMacedonia; 0–5.99 years for Chile; 1.0–5.99 years for Croatia; 1.0–6.99 years forCosta Rica.

External assistance to agriculture: the concessional and non-concessionalcommitments made in monetary terms by the bilateral and multilateral donors tocountries for the development of agriculture including agro-industry, environmentalactivities related to agriculture, manufacturing of agricultural inputs, regional andriver development, research, training and extension, and rural development.

SOURCES

Food availability, diet diversification and resources directed to agriculture: FAOestimatesPoverty and mortality in childhood: World Development Indicators 2003, World BankChild nutritional status: World Health Organization Global Database on ChildGrowth and Malnutrition, 2003, except for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Congo, Rep. ofMoldova, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Trinidad andTobago from UNICEF on-line database.

SourcesThe State of Food Insecurity in the World2003 is based mainly on data andanalysis provided by FAO’s technicaldivisions. Specific references cited forparticular articles in this edition includedthe following:

Pages 10-11

Dorrington, R. & Johnson, L. 2002. InBarnett, T. & Whiteside, A. 2002. AIDSin the twenty-first century. New York,Palgrave Macmillan. 432 pp.

De Waal, A. & Tumushabe, J. 2003.HIV/AIDS and food security in Africa –a report for DFID. 22 pp. (mimeo)

Dixon, S., McDonald, S. & Roberts, J.2002. The impact of HIV/AIDS onAfrica’s economic development.British Medical Journal, 324: 232-234.

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industryand Fisheries, Uganda. 2002. Theimpact of HIV/AIDS on agriculturalproduction and mainstreaming HIV/AIDS messages into agriculturalextension in Uganda. Rome, FAO. 24 pp.

Stover, J., Bollinger, L., Kerkhoven, R.,Mutangadura, G. & Mukurazita, D.1999. The economic impact of AIDS inZimbabwe. Washington, The FuturesGroup International. 15 pp.

UNAIDS & WHO. 2002. AIDS epidemicupdate. Geneva. 40 pp.

US Census Bureau. World PopulationProfile, 2002. Washington.

Pages 12-13

CEH Wallingford. 2002. The WaterPoverty Index: Internationalcomparisons (available at

www.nwl.ac.uk/research/WPI/images/wdpaper.pdf)

FAO. 2003. Unlocking the water potentialof agriculture. Rome. 62 pp.

FAO. 2003. Preliminary review of theimpact of irrigation on poverty. Rome.48 pp.

FAO. 2002. Crops and drops: Making thebest use of water for agriculture.Rome. 22 pp.

UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2002. Environment& Poverty Times, 1(1): 12.

Pages 14-15

International Livestock ResearchInstitute. 2002. Mapping poverty andlivestock in the developing world.Nairobi. 124 pp.

Pages 16-21

Anderson, K., François, J., Hertel, T.,Hoekman, B. & Martin, W. 2000.Potential gains from trade reform inthe new millennium. Paper presentedat the Third Annual Conference onGlobal Economic Analysis, 27-30 June2000, Monash University, Melbourne,Australia.

FAO. 2003. World agriculture: towards2015/2030 – an FAO perspective.London, FAO and Earthscan. 432 pp.

FAO. 2002. World agriculture: towards2015/2030 – summary report. Rome.97 pp.

FAO. 2002. FAO papers on selected issuesrelating to the WTO negotiations onagriculture. Rome. 286 pp.

FAO. 2001. The State of Food andAgriculture 2001. Rome. 322 pp.

FAO, IFAD & WFP. 2002. Reducingpoverty and hunger: the critical role offinancing for food, agriculture andrural development. Rome. 29 pp.

Gallup, J., Sachs, J. & Mellinger, A. 1999.Geography and economic development.CID Working Paper No. 1. Cambridge,USA, Harvard University.

McMillan, M., Rodrik, D. & Welch, K.H.2002. When economic reform goeswrong: cashews in Mozambique. Tufts University and HarvardUniversity. 60 pp.

Pages 26-27

Henninger, N. & Snel, M. 2002. Whereare the poor? Experiences with thedevelopment and use of poverty maps.Washington and Arendal, Norway,World Resources Institute andUNEP/GRID-Arendal. 66 pp.

Benson, T., Kaphuka, J., Kanyana, S. &Chinula, R. 2002. Malawi – an atlas ofsocial statistics. Zomba, Malawi andWashington, National Statistics Office, Government of Malawi andIFPRI. 106 pp.

Panama Ministry of Economics andFinance. 1999. Mapas de la pobreza(available at www.mef.gob.pa/indicadores/Mapas de la pobreza.asp)

Pages 28-29

Suraiya, I., Immink, M. & Nantel, G. 2002.Community-based food and nutritionprogrammes: What makes themsuccessful? Rome, FAO. 54 pp. (mimeo)

Kibwezi community and African Medicaland Research Foundation. 1994. InFAO, Food, Nutrition and Agriculture,10 (available at www.fao.org/docrep/T2860t/t2860t06.htm).

The State of Food Insecurity in the World FAO’s latest estimates of hunger around the world offer striking evidence thatprogress toward the World Food Summit (WFS) goal is possible. They also showconclusively that without redoubled national and global commitment the goal ofreducing the number of hungry people by half by the year 2015 will not bereached.

A number of countries in all developing regions have succeeded in reducinghunger steadily and significantly since the World Food Summit baseline period of1990–1992. Unfortunately, however, these countries are more the exception thanthe rule. Across the developing world as a whole, an estimated 798 million peoplewere undernourished in 1999–2001, only 19 million less than during the WFSbaseline period. Worse yet, during the most recent four-year period for which dataare available, the estimated number of undernourished people in developingcountries did not decrease at all. In fact, it increased by 4.5 million per year.

This fifth edition of The State of Food Insecurity in the World details recent trendsin developing countries and countries in transition. It also offers an analysis offactors that have contributed to progress and setbacks in efforts to reach the WFSgoal. Other articles examine the impact on food security of factors as diverse asthe HIV/AIDS pandemic, improved management of water resources and increasingintegration of developing countries into international markets and tradeagreements.

The State of Food Insecurity in the World highlights encouraging signs that manycountries have recognized the persistence of hunger not as grounds for despair butas an urgent call to action. A number of countries have launched aggressivecampaigns to achieve the WFS goal within their own borders. Several havecommitted themselves to eradicating hunger entirely. Their strategies for achievingthat goal include key elements of a twin-track approach that combines immediateinterventions to give hungry people access to food with development initiatives toincrease employment, incomes and food production in impoverished communities.

These countries are showing the way. With comparable commitment at a worldscale, the WFS goal is still within reach.

the state of food insecurity in the world 2003

Health & Medicine