tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post5942523284676307519..comments2024-02-29T13:07:00.519+00:00Comments on Development Horizons by Lawrence Haddad: The High Level Panel's After 2015 Report: Solid--and that is OKLawrence Haddadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17265061444076801962noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-60477407627952987332013-06-04T09:24:48.078+01:002013-06-04T09:24:48.078+01:00The main message of the document is that we cannot...The main message of the document is that we cannot get satisfied with a half-way reduction of poverty for the next generation, as we previously agreed upon in 2000. But what about hunger and malnutrition? The Zero Hunger Goal that has drawn so much support within the UN System (Ban Ki Moon’s Zero Hunger Challenge and the running Latin America Hunger Free Initiative) is not properly addressed in the HLP document. This Zero Hunger aspirational goal that has played a leading political role in Brazil or Guatemala, and it has even been praised by such a neoliberal platform as the Brookings Institution, is not given the same driving power as the Zero Extreme Poverty Goal.<br />Having a close look at the proposed goals, we can compare the precise wording used in goal 1 “Bring the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day to zero before 2030” (what seems to work as an absolute global and national goal at the same time) and “reduce by x% the share of people living below their country’s 2015 national poverty line” as a nationally-owned supplementary indicator, with the indicator used for hunger “End hunger and protect the right of everyone to have access to sufficient, safe, affordable, and nutritious food” and the additional “Reduce stunting by x%, wasting by y%, and anemia by z% for all children under five” (no references to national hunger-related measurements). The first hunger goal is very blurry, with no deadline or technical specification. When is it expected to be achieved? Which type of hunger measurements are they referring to: undernourishment as measured by FAO, chronic malnutrition (stunting) as measured by WHO or acute malnutrition (wasting) as measured by WHO and UNICEF? Will it be global or national? <br />To date, only 38 countries have already reached the MDG 1 dealing with hunger, and no more than 50 are expected to do it by 2015. As not an equal progress on hunger reduction has been achieved so far, it seems evident that HLP drafters do not believe in the Zero Hunger Goal as much as they do it in extreme poverty eradication. Why is that? <br /><br />Perhaps, because reality has proven that eradicating hunger is much more difficult than rising the extreme poverty threshold? Perhaps, because achieving food security for all would require questioning the whole food production system and achieving the zero extreme poverty does not? Perhaps because hunger reduction is closely link to agro-ecological and more sustainable practices, community-owned and managed resources, agrarian reform, open knowledge and patent free research, staple food for national markets instead of cash crops for export and similar evidence-based recommendations that attack the very pillars of the corporate neoliberal global order?<br />If we were to achieve a food secure world where every human being had enough food to live a healthy life, the very foundations of the industrial oil-based food system should be contested, the very nature of food as a pure private good should be questioned and the balance of power should shift from agri-business oligopolies to polycentric nodes of governance (Elinor Ostrom’s contribution to natural resource governance), more similar to Community-based Agriculture in the US or Incredible Edible in Todmorden, UK. We cannot keep on saying that the hunger problem is merely a “lack of access”, because it reinforces the commodity dimension of food, overshadowing or neglecting the other dimensions of food as vital human need, food as a binding human right and food as a cultural element (by cultivating and eating). <br />As a final suggestion, I would opt by rewording the Goal 5 on hunger as follows: “Bring the number of chronically malnourished under five children to zero before 2030 and ending the hunger-related deaths before 2025 by, amongst others, eliminating acute wasting in under five children”. Our children are the next generation who must finish the task of ending extreme poverty. Let them be adequately fed for that. Otherwise, they will be mentally and physically handicapped for their entire lives. Primum vivere, deinde philosophare.<br />Jose Luis Viverohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06952644905876389709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-13394701452212464472013-06-04T08:23:42.905+01:002013-06-04T08:23:42.905+01:00I agree that it's solid, good to see the progr...I agree that it's solid, good to see the progress on the MDGs and good to see the nutrition indicators in there that we've been looking for...I guess I was hoping that the report would be stronger on nutrition. We've got some achievements on including zero gaols ... end poverty... end preventable deaths ... why can't we work toward ending anaemia, ending malnutrition. Surely if we can aim to end poverty, we could aim to end malnutrition.<br /><br />I am concerned that the most vulnerable among us, those that are marginalized and discriminated against will again not see the potential positive impact for nutrition... it seems that's what has happened in the past where the easy to reach populations have benefitted, but those that are more difficult to reach didn't experience the progress on the same level (or at all). <br /><br />So, I guess we now have the next two years to discuss – not sure that I can do much, but I’ll do what I can to see if we can’t get a stronger commitment on nutrition.Miriamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14027294007138274606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6335146197342151188.post-3993407755441716082013-06-02T13:23:43.600+01:002013-06-02T13:23:43.600+01:00The High Level Panel report authors and Lawrence ...The High Level Panel report authors and Lawrence have provided a simply written accessible short report and a comment, with suggested, and quite appropriately not prescribed, universal (?) potential targets. Their<br />strengths are that they build on the MDGs rather than casting them away, and deservedly give credit for progress on MDGs achieved to date, largely through strong growth in developing countries.<br /><br />Where it is wanting is on the issues of (1) governance, (2) capacity, (3) the necessary human, physical and institutional infrastructure, and (4) frequently its absence at all levels, to meet the challenges of tomorrow. This means the absence of a critical look at what effective partnerships would have to entail ranging from the global (financial or environmental) architecture for international cooperation, to the local capacities at the level of communities which are the most afflicted by poverty, and numerous interacting insecurities.<br /><br />The Report is also short on the absence of the necessary political will among leaders where poverty is most endemic, to tackle complex, long term issues, unless and until emergencies strike.<br /><br />And yet this is a strong start for deliberations over the next two years.Uma Lelenoreply@blogger.com