It may seem like a no-brainer to
say that we need data to guide efforts to end malnutrition.
Would you run an
economy without a regular stream of credible data? You'd be flying blind if you
did, and we know what happens if you try to do that. And yet this is precisely
the situation that those trying to end malnutrition in India find themselves
in.
Until the Rapid Survey on
Children (RSOC) data from 2013-14, seven years had elapsed since the last
nationally representative nutrition survey, the third National Family Health
Survey (NFHS 3). We hear that NFHS 4, the next big government survey, is in the
field and we very much hope it will be out by 2018. If it is, that will be a
gap of five years since the RSOC.
Why is data important?
As the 2016 Global Nutrition
Report reminds us, it is important because it tells us which types of
malnutrition are being reduced and how fast that is happening. If we know this
we can adjust efforts and reallocate resources before it is too late. It is
also important for accountability: We need to know how resources have been
allocated and the effect they are having if we are to assess the performance of
key stakeholders, whether from the government, civil society, the development
agencies or businesses.
What type of data is critical?
There are at least five.
First, we need to know the extent
of malnutrition: Where it is and how fast it is (hopefully) decreasing. In
India, based on the RSOC data and the Global Nutrition Report, the speed of
decline in stunting rates has improved as has the speed of improvement in
exclusive breastfeeding rates and this is great news. But the rate of wasting
of under-five's remains high at 15.1 per cent, adult diabetes rates are
increasing and are currently 9.5 per cent and women's anaemia rates are
essentially static at 48.1 per cent, one of the world's worst (170th out of
185; China and Brazil are under 20 per cent, Sri Lanka is 26 per cent and Nepal
is 36 per cent). Data tells us where to apply the accelerator, where to try to
apply the brakes and when to turn to different priorities.
Second, we need to know whether
high-impact nutrition interventions are reaching the people they are supposed
to reach. Interventions cannot work if they do not reach families at risk of
malnutrition. India has a patchy record on coverage: Some interventions and
practices such as exclusive breastfeeding have high rates of coverage but the
coverage of infant and young child complementary feeding programmes is poor,
with these infants and young children showing very poor diet adequacy and
diversity. Coverage is where the rubber hits the road for nutrition action. We
need to know whether the roads are seeing any rubber-and whether they are the
right roads.
Third, we need to know more about
how well certain sectors are doing in supporting nutrition improvement. Public
distribution systems that use micronutrient-rich foods are more
nutrition-sensitive than ones that do not. Water and sanitation programmes that
have a child-centred focus are more nutrition-sensitive than those that do not.
Cash-transfer programmes that incorporate some behaviour change communication
work around nutrition will be more nutrition-sensitive than those that do not.
The only way to assess the nutrition-sensitivity of these sectors is to go
through the national and state and district budgets - as NITI Aayog member
Bibek Debroy recently said - line by line, and designate certain line items,
say, 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 per cent allocations to nutrition. If they are fully
nutrition-sensitive they will be given a 100 per cent weight. If they are not
nutrition-sensitive at all they will score zero per cent. The challenge is to
increase the overall percentage allocated to nutrition. To meet that challenge,
we need data.
Fourth, we need the first three
types of data at the state and sub-state levels. As the India Health Report
clearly shows, different states and different districts have different
nutrition problems, have different capacities to address them and show
different levels of political commitment and leadership. Moreover, the distance
between people and their leaders narrows as we move towards the district and
community levels, and so, accountability is easier to build. To guide action
and promote everyday accountability, we need more disaggregated data.
Fifth, we need to know what
works. If we don't know whether a nutrition programme actually works, where it
works, for whom it works, why it works and how it works, then we are, again,
flying blind, wasting resources and acting irresponsibly. More research funding
inside and outside India needs to be directed towards making Indian nutrition
interventions more effective and more easily scaled up. Innovations need to be
developed, piloted, tested and, if cost effective, scaled up. While the costs of
evaluating interventions are not trivial, as the 2014 Global Nutrition Report
showed, the benefit-cost ratios of identifying and scaling up the interventions
that work to prevent malnutrition are huge: Over 34 to 1 for India. The implementation of a national,
state or district economic strategy without reliable and regular data would not
be attempted-investors simply would not take any such strategy seriously. And
yet this is tolerated for a nutrition strategy.
The signing of the Sustainable
Development Goals by the Indian government provides the perfect opportunity for
India to develop its own dashboard of nutrition indicators-one that is linked
to specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) targets.
The hardest thing for any government to do is to put in place measures for its
people to hold it accountable. But all governments need to act confidently and
match the bravery exhibited by the mothers, fathers and families that struggle
to prevent and cope with the malnutrition that affects too many of the world's
next generation.
A government that stands up and
allows itself to be counted on nutrition is a government whose bravery will be
rewarded by an incredible legacy-the ending of malnutrition by 2030.
4 comments:
I guess the answer is pretty obvious - if the government were to increase the average salary, people would have the possibility to buy not GMO foods. When I was preparing to write my essay with WMEF I found out the majority of shoppers with low or average income usually check the price before the buy something or they usually buy foods on sale simply because besides eating, they have to think of bills, clothing, etc and not always an average salary can cover all the costs.
A couple weeks ago I conducted my own research regarding malnutrition problems that touching the whole world, not in particular India college paper writing help for students. I attached a good statistics so you may see a clear vision of the problem. Figures shock.. 2.6 million children die each year and this is a third in the family.
It is one of the best writing styles I've ever read. It is quite great to use these kinds of vocabs in students paper to make them impressive http://apexessays.com.
@ Lucy, it's easy to say but hard to implement. How can the government make salaries higher if they don't have enough funds? Higher salaries mean higher taxes which is a bad solution too.
In fact, I'm surprised that India isn't a rich contry. they are the top world outsourcers according to Deloitte Survey.
But the govenment should somehow use this idea to boost their economy. For example, Ukrainian government did it and despite wartimes they've got stable positions in IT industry.
Btw, one more way to avoid malnutrtion is to develop agriculture within the country. For example, instead of developing apps for foreigners they can create agricultural drones and software for them https://qubit-labs.com/agro-technology-software/" to grow plants and irrigate dry fields.
Post a Comment