During my presentation I showcased where the SADC countries landed in
the 2013 Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index (HANCI). Immediately 2 of the countries queried why
they were so low in the rankings when they were Nutrition4Growth
signatories and members of Scaling UpNutrition movement. I pointed out that the 2015 Global Nutrition Report
showed that these countries’ budget allocations to nutrition—something HANCI
keys into—were low. Commitments are only
words on a piece of paper until they are backed up by resources. That’s the beauty of HANCI--it starts
conversations about why the country is where it is. The MPs from those two countries go back to
their legislatures armed with information that will help them make the case for
nutrition.
This week we see the production of a new set of rankings and scores for
45 countries based on data from 2014. As usual, the 2014 HANCI is based on a set
of publicly available data which are fashioned into 20 or so indicators in
three buckets—policies, legislation and spending. The HANCI can also be broken out into a
hunger component (HRCI) and a nutrition one (NCI). So what do the new rankings
tell us?
From Tables 3.2 and 3.3 we can see that:
* Peru is now number 1 in the HANCI rankings, followed by Guatemala,
Malawi, Madagascar and Brazil. What is interesting is that only Peru, Malawi
and Brazil do well on the nutrition component, the Nutrition Commitment Index
(NCI). Madagascar is 16th in
nutrition rank but 3rd in hunger reduction rank. India is 7th in hunger but only 30th
in nutrition. As I have said many times before, a commitment to reduce hunger
is not the same as the commitment to reduce malnutrition.
* Gambia is number 1 in nutrition, followed by Peru, Nepal, Brazil and
Malawi
*Guatemala is 1 in hunger reduction, followed by China, Madagascar,
Malawi and Rwanda
* The countries at the bottom of the ranking are from fragile and
conflict affected contexts and countries where governance is weak: Myanmar 41,
Yemen 42, Angola 43, Sudan 44 and Guinea Bissau 45. Nigeria, a country with
abundant resources, is 40.
* What about the movers? Who is
up and who is down? For nutrition the biggest jumps are for Mali (up 22 places
on the NCI) and South Africa (up 20 places on the NCI). For hunger reduction
the biggest jumpers are Benin and DRC (up 10 places on the HRCI) and Cameroon
(up 9 places on the HRCI). For nutrition the biggest declines come for
Pakistan, Mozambique, Burundi and Cambodia (all 8 places down on NCI). For
hunger reduction the biggest declines are Mali, Tanzania and Zambia (all 10
places down on HRCI) and South Africa, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Lesotho (all 9
places down)
Are there any surprises for me?
Well Ethiopia does well on the HANCI (the combined score) but that is
driven by good performance on hunger reduction.
The nutrition ranking is only 31 out of 45, which given nutrition
leadership in Ethiopia, is surprising. This is something the Ethiopian
policymakers may want to reflect on.
The main potential for the impact of HANCI is country level briefings
with government policymakers. If the HANCI data are out of date then this is a
good opportunity to get the fresh data into the public domain. If it is not out
of date then responses can be formulated. Either way, as with the Global Nutrition
Report, dialogue is promoted, accountability strengthened and more resources
are allocated to hunger reduction and nutrition. At least that is the theory—this needs to be
tested via an evaluation in the next year or two.
1 comment:
hello Lawrence, great blog. One more thing: for greater accountability, we need better data on all forms of malnutrition: covering outcomes AND stakeholder efforts.
Post a Comment