I have described the Global Nutrition Report as an evidence based Treasure Trove for influencing.
You will have your own favourite stats, but here are some of mine:
1. Malnutrition affects nearly every country: 120
out of 122 countries with data cross a nutrition “redline” in one of the
following areas: under 5 stunting, anaemia in women of reproductive age, and
adult overweight. Only China and South
Korea do not cross any of these 3 redlines, but China is very close
to the anaemia cut-off of 20%.
2. Multiple burdens are becoming the new normal: 45%
of all countries with data have undernutrition and overweight problems.
3. Many countries are on track for some of the
global targets: 69 out of 100 countries are on track for one or more of the WHA
global targets. 31 are not on track for
any. Colombia is the only country that
is on track for all 4 of the targets we can currently assess.
4. Anaemia is a widespread problem on which little
progress is being made, (although the data are modelled): Only 5 out of 185
countries are on track for anaemia reduction in women of reproductive age.
5. Nutrition is only mentioned in one of 169 SDG
targets. Only 2 of the 6 WHA indicators
are mentioned in the SDGs.
6. Investments in nutrition outperform the stock
market. For every dollar invested in nutrition specific scale up to 90%, 16
dollars are returned over the life course.
16 is the median value for 40 country estimates—the estimates range from
4 to 56. Getting a 16:1 return over 30
years is equivalent to a 10% compound rate of interest. Over 1930-2010 the Dow Jones Industrial Index
gave a 9% compound rate of interest.
7. Will India be the new China? The state of
Maharashtra’s rate of stunting decline between 2005 and 2012 (7% Annual Average
Rate of Reduction) has been bettered only by China’s 8% sustained over a longer
period. If Maharashtra were a country it
would have the world’s 12th largest population (114m), just behind Mexico and ahead of the Philippines and Ethiopia.
8. We need a data revolution in nutrition: 49% of
all 193 UN member countries do not have the right data to be able to track
their progress against 4 WHA global targets. The latest under 5 anthropometric survey for
40% of countries is 5 or more years old.
9. Nutrition for Growth (N4G) commitments are on
track, but need sharpening. Of the 168 N4G commitments, 43% are on
course, 9% are off course, in 37% of cases it is not clear whether commitments
are on or off course, and 11% of commitments were not reported on.
10. Government
nutrition budget data are sorely lacking, making this basic component of
accountability very weak: only 3 countries can share budget allocation data on
nutrition spending.
11. Donor
spending on nutrition is increasing, but is still a small share of ODA. Major donor disbursements on nutrition specific and
nutrition sensitive programmes have increased by 30% and 19% respectively
between 2010 and 2012. Total donor
disbursements in these 2 categories are just over 1% of official development
assistance (ODA) in 2012.
12. The
scope for an expansion of nutrition sensitive programmes is enormous: for example, in Africa, a combined total of
35% of government budgets are allocated to health, education, agriculture and
social protection.
3 comments:
What's ODA?
ODA is overseas development assistance, i.e. aid.
From what I recall, donor reporting on disbursements to OECD/DAC on nutrition was a nightmare -- all for lack of appropriate codes. Has this improved? As part of the data revolution and with nutrition high up on both the global political and development agendas, why isn't there a concerted effort to change this coding once and for all?.
Post a Comment