Blog World Hunger

Biofuels and Grain Prices: Impacts and Policy Responses

M Allen — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:36:04 GMT

On May 7, 2008, Mark W. Rosegrant, Director of IFPRI's Environment and Production Technology Division, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the impact of biofuels on grain prices and its policy implications. Dr. Rosegrant’s analysis focused on three potential scenarios:

Recent food price evolution with and without high biofuel demand
Impact of a freeze on biofuel production from all crops at 2007 levels
Impact of a moratorium (elimination) on biofuel production after 2007.

From the conclusion: "It is therefore important to find ways to keep biofuels from worsening the food-price crisis. In the short run, removal of ethanol blending mandates and subsidies and ethanol import tariffs, and in the United States—together with removal of policies in Europe promoting biofuels—would contribute to lower food prices. But for the longer term, it is even more critical to focus on increasing agricultural productivity growth and improving developing-country policies and infrastructure related to the storage, distribution, and marketing of food. These factors will continue to drive the future health of the agricultural sector and will play the largest role in determining the food security and human well-being of the world's poorer and more vulnerable populations." Read full testimony.

Going hungry more often: Food prices and the poor

M Allen — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:39:33 GMT

© 2008, Augustine A. NdaghuDomitila Revilla Romero, 56, lives in a shantytown on the outskirts of Lima and works as a laundress to help support her three children, her nephew, and her daughter-in-law, all of whom earn increasingly precarious livings. But as food prices rise, Ms. Revilla is not only finding it harder to make ends meet, sometimes she cannot even put food on the table. It is a predicament that has left her in tears.

Ms. Revilla said that in March alone, the price of the cooking oil she buys increased 75 percent, from the equivalent of US$1.43 to US$2.50, while the price of rice rose by more than 50 percent, from US$0.64 to US$1.00. For someone who earns US$1.80 per dozen items laundered, and who already spends a disproportionate amount of her income on food, these increases mean that Ms. Revilla and her family will be going hungry far more often.

For more on how rising food prices are affecting the poorest and most vulnerable, and on emerging solutions to this crisis, see IFPRI's Food Prices page…

Interview with R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

pshelton — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:08:05 GMT

The March 2008 issue of IFPRI Forum features an interview with R. K. Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore, on what climate change will mean for poor and rural people and what the next steps should be. Excerpts from the interview are included below.

FORUM: In your Nobel lecture, you emphasized the impact of climate change on the poor. What are the most immediate climate-related problems facing the rural poor?

Pachauri: The rural poor are facing a range of climate-related problems. First, changes in precipitation patterns and increases in the intensity and frequency of floods and droughts have major implications for agriculture, water availability, and human health. For instance, whenever a flood occurs, health officials face a major challenge in preventing and minimizing the outbreak of diseases. The impacts of climate change on agricultural yield also directly affect the livelihoods of the poor. In a study carried out by my institute, TERI, we carefully studied the effects of two sets of influences on agriculture. The first relates to globalization and international trade in agricultural produce, and the second assesses the impacts of climate change on agriculture. Poor farmers are often not able to compete against subsidized food coming from developed countries and are therefore suffering the unfavorable effects of globalization on their livelihoods. Climate change only exacerbates some of these stresses. In fact, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, several African farmers demonstrated against agricultural subsidies in the developed countries because they found themselves unable to compete with prices of imports as a result. The relevant issue to be considered in this context is the fact that the rural poor are already subjected to several stresses for a variety of reasons. Climate change would only add to these stresses.

The poor are also unable to adapt to the impacts of climate change because often they do not have the technical or financial capacity to be able to take essential measures—for instance, creating infrastructure for storage of water.

FORUM: You mentioned that climate change can lead to inequality, conflict, and a realignment of power among nations. In what ways?

Pachauri: By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was essentially taking into account the link between unmitigated climate change and the consequent threat to peace and security. Since the impacts of climate change are unequal across the globe, as is the extent of vulnerability of different societies, it is possible that those who are poor and vulnerable would not only fail to improve their lot, but would actually see a decline in their economic and social well-being as a result of climate change. This then can create larger inequality across the globe.

The potential for conflict can arise in several ways, such as conflict over scarce resources, as in the case of water in some parts of the world. But conflict could occur on a much larger scale if large populations move from those areas that are actually stressed to those that are relatively well off. It could, of course, also occur on account of impacts of extreme events. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has identified the Asian megadeltas, which include cities like Dhaka, Kolkata, and Shanghai, as particularly vulnerable. Clearly, any damage on account of coastal flooding of these megadeltas and surrounding areas could result in a threat to peace. Indeed, when Hurricane Katrina hit the city of New Orleans, the aftereffects included widespread disorder, leading to crime and the breakdown of law and order.

FORUM: To mitigate the impacts of climate change on agriculture, what are some of the most significant actions that can be taken globally, nationally, locally, and individually? And how should agriculture itself contribute to mitigation?

Pachauri: The first step required for adaptation to the impacts of climate change is to understand the specific options that exist in the particular region being considered. In some cases cropping patterns may need to be changed. In addition, there may be a need to change agricultural practices, particularly involving the use of water. To that extent, technologies for efficient use of water, such as drip irrigation, would need to be promoted, if necessary, through incentives and regulations. In the longer term, there is a need for research and development to produce species and strains of plants that would be able to withstand droughts, higher salinity, and other adverse conditions that may occur as a result of climate change. When it comes to research and development, efforts need to be undertaken globally. Other actions may be taken at the national and local levels, but all of them would require substantial dissemination of information and knowledge.

As far as mitigation of emissions from agriculture is concerned, considerable research and development would be required to come up with practices and techniques that would reduce emissions without in any way compromising productivity. Overall, therefore, there is a substantial need for undertaking a program of research and development at the global and local levels by which new practices and techniques can be developed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

FORUM: In addition to mitigation, there is also the question of adaptation. What should be done to help poor people, especially farmers and the rural poor, adapt to the effects of climate change?

Pachauri: Adaptation to the impacts of climate change has taken place historically, and several communities and societies across the world have developed coping strategies that helped them withstand variations of climate and weather. What is projected to take place in the future, however, if mitigation measures are not adopted, is a level of climate change that would exceed what several communities could adapt to. Institutional responses would therefore be required to help farmers and the rural poor by providing credit during periods of prolonged drought and other climate-related difficulties and by creating infrastructure, for instance, for improved watershed management and efficient storage of water. But most important, agricultural extension services would need to be revamped to bring credit, seeds, and improved know-how to the doorstep of farmers and the rural poor.

FORUM: Now that the Bali conference on climate change has concluded, what do you see as the most important elements of a post-Kyoto international climate change mitigation regime?

Pachauri: The Bali Conference of the Parties dealt with several issues that it is hoped will find their way into the post-2012 climate change agreement. One important element that should be part of the agreement is adequate global financing of adaptation measures. In several instances, this is a matter of ethics and attention to equity issues. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world have hardly any historical responsibility for emissions of greenhouse gases, and yet they may perhaps become the worst sufferers. It is critical that the world realizes the importance of help for such vulnerable sections of society in adapting to climate change.

To stabilize the earth's climate system, it is necessary to translate the desire for "deep cuts" in greenhouse gas emissions into specific measures that would achieve this objective. Given that technology is a crucial part of solutions to the problem of global climate change, access to improved technologies must be an important part of the agreement. Any multilateral agreement must also keep in mind the actions that it could trigger at the national and local levels. While it may be difficult to come up with benchmarks and standards for specific sectors in a global agreement, its provisions should be able to provide a direction for national policies that would collectively lead to a global outcome in keeping with the objectives of the agreement. Given the assessment of different stabilization scenarios by the IPCC, if the negotiating community is serious about tackling the problem of climate change, it will have to ensure that the agreement reached in Copenhagen leads to early reduction of global emissions, or else in future decades the task will become more difficult and intractable, leading to impacts of climate change that could have several negative consequences.

Rising Food Prices: What Should Be Done?

pshelton — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:16:50 GMT

by Joachim von Braun
IFPRI Policy Brief • April 2008

The sharp increase in food prices over the past couple of years has raised serious concerns about the food and nutrition situation of poor people in developing countries, about inflation, and—in some countries—about civil unrest. Real prices are still below their mid-1970s peak, but they have reached their highest point since that time. Both developing- and developed-country governments have roles to play in bringing prices under control and in helping poor people cope with higher food bills.

In 2007 the food price index calculated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) rose by nearly 40 percent, compared with 9 percent the year before, and in the first months of 2008 prices again increased drastically. Nearly every agricultural commodity is part of this rising price trend. Since 2000—a year of low prices—the wheat price in the international market has more than tripled and maize prices have more than doubled. The price of rice jumped to unprecedented levels in March 2008. Dairy products, meat, poultry, palm oil, and cassava have also experienced price hikes. When adjusted for inflation and the dollar’s decline (by reporting in euros, for example), food price increases are smaller but still dramatic, with often serious consequences for the purchasing power of the poor.

National governments and international actors are taking various steps to try to minimize the effects of higher international prices for domestic prices and to mitigate impacts on particular groups. Some of these actions are likely to help stabilize and reduce food prices, whereas others may help certain groups at the expense of others or actually make food prices more volatile in the long run and seriously distort trade. What is needed is more effective and coherent action to help the most vulnerable populations cope with the drastic and immediate hikes in their food bills and to help farmers meet the rising demand for agricultural products.

The Sources of Current Price Increases

The combination of new and ongoing forces is driving the world food situation and, in turn, the prices of food commodities. One emerging factor behind rising food prices is the high price of energy. Energy and agricultural prices have become increasingly intertwined (see figure). With oil prices at an all-time high of more than US$100 a barrel and the U.S. government subsidizing farmers to grow crops for energy, U.S. farmers have massively shifted their cultivation toward biofuel feedstocks, especially maize, often at the expense of soybean and wheat cultivation. About 30 percent of U.S. maize production will go into ethanol in 2008 rather than into world food and feed markets. High energy prices have also made agricultural production more expensive by raising the cost of mechanical cultivation, inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, and transportation of inputs and outputs.

At the same time, the growing world population is demanding more and different kinds of food. Rapid economic growth in many developing countries has pushed up consumers’ purchasing power, generated rising demand for food, and shifted food demand away from traditional staples and toward higher-value foods like meat and milk. This dietary shift is leading to increased demand for grains used to feed livestock. Poor weather and speculative capital have also played a role in the rise of food prices. Severe drought in Australia, one of the world’s largest wheat producers, has cut into global wheat production.

The Impacts of High Food Prices

Higher food prices have radically different effects across countries and population groups. At the country level, countries that are net food exporters will benefit from improved terms of trade, although some of them are missing out on this opportunity by banning exports to protect consumers. Net food importers, however, will struggle to meet domestic food demand. Given that almost all countries in Africa are net importers of cereals, they will be hard hit by rising prices. At the household level, surging and volatile food prices hit those who can afford it the least—the poor and food insecure. The few poor households that are net sellers of food will benefit from higher prices, but households that are net buyers of food—which represent the large majority of the world’s poor—will be harmed. Adjustments in the rural economy, which can create new income opportunities, will take time to reach the poor.

The nutrition of the poor is also at risk when they are not shielded from the price rises. Higher food prices lead poor people to limit their food consumption and shift to even less-balanced diets, with harmful effects on health in the short and long run. At the household level, the poor spend about 50 to 60 percent of their overall budget on food. For a five-person household living on US$1 per person per day, a 50 percent increase in food prices removes up to US$1.50 from their US$5 budget, and growing energy costs also add to their adjustment burden.

Policy Responses So Far

Many countries are taking steps to try to minimize the effects of higher prices on their populations. Argentina, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Vietnam are among those that have taken the easy option of restricting food exports, setting limits on food prices, or both. For example, China has banned rice and maize exports; India has banned milk powder exports; Bolivia has banned the export of soy oil to Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela; and Ethiopia has banned exports of major cereals. Other countries are reducing restrictions on imports: Morocco, for instance, cut tariffs on wheat imports from 130 percent to 2.5 percent; Nigeria cut its rice import tax from 100 percent to just 2.7 percent.

How effective are these responses likely to be? Price controls and changes in import and export policies may begin to address the problems of poor consumers who find that they can no longer afford an adequate diet for a healthy life. But some of these policies are likely to backfire by making the international market smaller and more volatile. Price controls reduce the price that farmers receive for their agricultural products and thus reduce farmers’ incentives to produce more food. Any long-term strategy to stabilize food prices will need to include increased agricultural production, but price controls fail to send farmers a message that encourages them to produce more. In addition, by benefiting all consumers, even those who can afford higher food prices, price controls divert resources toward helping people who do not really need it. Export restrictions and import subsidies have harmful effects on trading partners dependent on imports and also give incorrect incentives to farmers by reducing their potential market size. These national agricultural trade policies undermine the benefits of global integration, as the rich countries’ longstanding trade distortions with regard to developing countries are joined by developing countries’ interventions against each other.

Sound Policy Actions for the Short and Long Term

The increases in food prices have a dominant role in increasing inflation in many countries now. It would be misguided to address these specific inflation causes with general macroeconomic instruments. Mainly, specific policies are needed to deal with the causes and consequences of high food prices. Although the current situation poses policy challenges on several fronts, there are effective and coherent actions that can be taken to help the most vulnerable people in the short term while working to stabilize food prices by increasing agricultural production in the long term.

First, in the short run, developing-country governments should expand social protection programs (that is, safety net programs like food or income transfers and nutrition programs focused on early childhood) for the poorest people—both urban and rural. Some of the poorest people in developing countries are not well connected to markets and thus will feel few effects from rising food prices, but the much higher international prices could mean serious hardship for millions of poor urban consumers and poor rural residents who are net food buyers, when they actually are exposed to them. These people need direct assistance. Some countries, such as India and South Africa, already have social protection programs in place that they can expand to meet new and emerging needs. Countries that do not have such programs in place will not be able to create them rapidly enough to make a difference in the current food price situation. They may feel forced to rely on cruder measures like export bans and import subsidies. Aid donors should expand food-related development aid, including social protection, child nutrition programs, and food aid, where needed.

Second, developed countries should eliminate domestic biofuel subsidies and open their markets to biofuel exporters like Brazil. Biofuel subsidies in the United States and ethanol and biodiesel subsidies in Europe have proven to be misguided policies that have distorted world food markets. Subsidies on biofuel crops also act as an implicit tax on staple foods, on which the poor depend the most. Developed-country farmers should make decisions about what to cultivate based not on subsidies, but on world market prices for various commodities.

Third, the developed countries should also take this opportunity to eliminate agricultural trade barriers. Although some progress has been made in reducing agricultural subsidies and other trade-distorting policies in developed countries, many remain, and poor countries cannot match them. This issue has been politically difficult for developed-country policymakers to address, but the political risks may now be lower than in the past. A level playing field for developing-country farmers will make it more profitable for them to ramp up production in response to higher prices.

Fourth, to achieve long-term agricultural growth, developing-country governments should increase their medium- and long-term investments in agricultural research and extension, rural infrastructure, and market access for small farmers. Rural investments have been sorely neglected in recent decades, and now is the time to reverse this trend. Farmers in many developing countries are operating in an environment of inadequate infrastructure like roads, electricity, and communications; poor soils; lack of storage and processing capacity; and little or no access to agricultural technologies that could increase their profits and improve their livelihoods. Recent unrest over food prices in a number of countries may tempt policymakers to put the interests of urban consumers over those of rural people, including farmers, but this approach would be shortsighted and counterproductive. Given the scale of investment needed, aid donors should also expand development assistance to agriculture, rural services, and science and technology.

Conclusion

World agriculture is facing new challenges that, along with existing forces, pose risks for poor people’s livelihoods and food security. This new situation calls for policy actions in three areas:

comprehensive social protection and food and nutrition initiatives to meet the short- and medium-term needs of the poor;
investment in agriculture, particularly in agricultural science and technology and in market access, at a national and global scale to address the long-term problem of boosting supply; and
trade policy reforms, in which developed countries would revise their biofuel and agricultural trade policies and developing countries would stop the new trade-distorting policies with which they are hurting each other.

In the face of rising food prices, both developing and developed countries have a role to play in creating a world where all people have enough food for a healthy and productive life.

Toward a New Global Governance System for Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition

M Allen — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:59:28 GMT

Commentary

Toward a New Global Governance System for Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition
What Are the Options?

Joachim von Braun and Nurul Islam

The current world food and agricultural policy system is in disarray. For some time, we have observed the symptoms of this disarray with concern. These symptoms include incoherent or inadequate responses to exploding food prices; the slowdown in agricultural productivity growth; looming water problems; a disorderly response to higher energy prices; rapid concentration in multinational agribusiness corporations without the necessary institutional innovation to guide them; lack of progress in addressing scarcity; adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture; widespread nutrition problems, including hunger, obesity, and chronic diseases; and agriculture-related health risks, such as avian influenza. Governments and international institutions have notoriously underinvested in public goods related to agriculture, food, and nutrition, such as rural infrastructure, agricultural research, and rural institutions, which have international spillover effects and global impact.

National policies are central, but the increasing globalization of the agrifood system calls for collaboration across country borders to adequately address new opportunities and challenges. The world food system that has evolved over recent decades has not effectively achieved food safety, good health, and sound nutrition for the poor and hungry. Improved institutional architecture and governance is needed to ensure that the following functions in the agriculture, food, and nutrition system operate effectively and efficiently at the global level:

research, innovation, and intellectual property rights (IPRs);
trade and standards;
food safety and health;
private investment and competition policy;
climate change, adaptation, and mitigation;
cross-boundary water management; and
natural resource use related to, for instance, soils and biodiversity.

For most of these functions, some institutions, conventions, declarations, and organizations already exist, but we believe that there is ample room for scaling them up, efficiently coordinating them, or increasing their effectiveness. Current global investments in these areas—so vital for the international community—are clearly suboptimal. Too little research and development (R&D) is taking place on the crops and technologies of most interest to poor farmers. Trade policies and standards are in some cases harming poor countries' capacity to develop their own agricultural systems. Food safety standards are not sufficiently harmonized. The absence of appropriate international institutions to guide competition has resulted in noncompetitive markets and trade behaviors—private and public—at the global level. The world is investing far too little in mitigating and adapting to climate change in agriculture. Cross-boundary disputes over water are almost certain to become worse in the future as resources come under increasing pressure. And patterns of natural resource use too often pose threats to the global commons, such as biodiversity.

The roles and structures of the global organizations addressing agriculture, food, and related health issues—the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)—have evolved over the past six decades. Individually, they all serve important functions, but collectively they may now require rethinking and adjustment to meet new and emerging challenges related to agriculture, food, and nutrition in a comprehensive fashion in the coming decades.

Our comments here are designed to stimulate a dialogue on what the future global institutional architecture and governance of agriculture, food, and nutrition might look like and how it might be achieved. A focused discussion at the global level seems overdue. The questions are:

If we were to design a global governance system for agriculture, food, and nutrition, what would it look like?
How should the governance system be designed so that it can adapt well to the changing needs for global public goods in the future?
What type of structure should the international governance system have?
How should the current governance system be reformed?
What are the roles of the different actors, including new actors such as the private sector and civil society, in a future global governance system for agriculture, food, and nutrition?
How would the system of existing international organizations, including their structure and interrelationships, be changed?
What role should the United Nations (UN), the Group of 8, and various groups of developing countries play in such a reform process?

Here are some initial thoughts on the broad outlines of options for change in global governance and coordination of the agricultural system. There are three options—not mutually exclusive—for change.

The first option is to maintain the current institutions and make marginal improvements. This option could involve, for example, strengthening the UN and CGIAR systems for agriculture, food, and nutrition in terms of their effectiveness, their governance, and their resources, as they are clearly underfunded.

The second option is to form an innovative government network—that is, to strengthen government-to-government systems for decisionmaking in the areas of agriculture, food, and nutrition through a set of agreements and conventions. More structured networks could be created between institutions within governments. Such steps are beginning to be taken in some fields, such as public health, but not much in the areas of agriculture, food, and nutrition.

A third option is to expand the current system to explicitly engage the new players in the global food system—the private sector and civil society, including large private foundations—together with national governments in new or significantly reorganized international organizations and agreements. Given that the global food system is in reality no longer governed only by governments, this inclusive approach seems worthwhile now.

The three options are listed in order from quite realistic to rather utopian. Moving forward may require a combination of these three options. One approach to implementation might be to establish a superstructure (for example, a panel appointed by the UN leadership) to guide changes in the global governance of agriculture, food, and nutrition across the existing specialized institutions and organizations. Coming to a meaningful synthesis of the three options will require leadership on the part of the governments of the world. Countries with leading roles in the global agricultural system now go beyond just European nations and the United States to include Brazil, China, India, and others. Leadership could well come from the developing countries, and not only the largest ones.

It is clearly time to re-examine the global architecture and system for governing agriculture, food, and nutrition—all of which fall between the cracks of much of the current global governance structure—to determine how best to address the challenges the world now faces. Small adjustments will not achieve the needed changes. The ultimate goal must be to quickly come closer to a world that sustainably provides each person with enough food to live a healthy and productive life as envisioned in the Millennium Development Goals. The current system does not live up to this task. The leading global organizations involved with agriculture, food, and nutrition themselves should explore these issues further and invite a global dialogue for change.

Joachim von Braun is director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Nurul Islam is an emeritus senior research fellow at IFPRI.

This is a slightly revised version of the commentary of the same title that appears in the March issue of IFPRI Forum.

What Goes Down Must Come Up: Global Food Prices Reach New Heights

M Allen — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:15:40 GMT

Prices are surging for food commodities worldwide, posing a tough policy challenge for developing countries—can they protect poor consumers without squelching new opportunities for farmers?

Poor consumers across the globe are up in arms about their rising food bills. In December 2007, Mexicans rioted in response to an enormous jump in tortilla prices, which quadrupled in some parts of the country. The following month Indonesians took to the streets to protest high soybean prices. In February 2008, protesters in three major towns in Burkina Faso, angry about the rising cost of food and other basics, attacked government offices and shops. Unrest linked to food markets has recently occurred in Guinea, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

The new "agflation" that has riled poor consumers marks a sharp break with the past, which was generally characterized by years of slowly falling food prices. The Economist reports that during the three decades between 1974 and 2005, real food prices declined by 75 percent. In the three years since 2005, however, they have risen by 75 percent, and the price hikes affect nearly every food commodity. Prices of wheat, butter, and milk have tripled since 2000, and prices of maize, rice, and poultry have nearly doubled. Meat, palm oil, and cassava prices have all gone up, too. Overall, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) food price index rose by nearly 40 percent in 2007, compared with a 9 percent increase in 2006, and prices in 2008 are higher than they have been in decades.

The years of falling food prices were good for consumers, but not so good for farmers. Now, while consumers in urban areas cannot be expected to welcome soaring food prices that eat into their wallets, the higher prices should theoretically reward farmers with greater profits and better livelihoods. "Many media are reporting that high prices are good for farmers, which is true for much of the sector, but it's more complex than that," says Daniel Gustafson, director of the FAO Liaison Office for North America, at a recent IFPRI seminar. "Many poor farmers in developing countries are net food buyers."

The task for governments is to help farmers take advantage of higher prices to increase productivity—and thereby production and incomes—to improve their living standards and ensure that poor consumers who are already living on the edge are not pushed into destitution. This balancing act will not be easy.

Full article on IFPRI website

Call for concept notes

M Allen — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:05:02 GMT

Agriculture and Health Research Platform

Bound by complex two-way linkages, agriculture and health are essential for reducing poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. In April 2006, the Alliance Executive of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) endorsed the Agriculture and Health Research Platform (AHRP) as a basis for further research, capacity strengthening, and communications within and beyond the CGIAR. The Platform has since established a long-term collaboration with the health sector following an October 2006 meeting in Geneva with representatives of the World Health Organization (WHO). This was further advanced at a multistakeholder workshop, co-hosted by WHO, in June 2007 in Geneva where research priorities were identified, opportunities for collaborative research explored, and a consensus established on the governance of the platform. A health advisory group of global public health experts advises the Platform, along with a core research group comprising representatives of the CGIAR centers, WHO, FAO and several NGOs and academic institutions. IFPRI coordinates the work of the Platform on behalf of the CGIAR.

Further details can be found here: http://www.ifpri.org/themes/aghealth/aghealth.asp

The emerging research agenda of the Platform takes account of the broader concerns of stakeholders and policymakers in the agricultural, nutrition, and health communities. The Platform has identified several research priorities that would benefit from greater intersectoral collaboration. Research is intended to focus on mitigating negative effects on agricultural activities while maximizing opportunities for agriculture to benefit health, and better health to benefit agriculture. The ultimate goal is to undertake cutting-edge research at the intersections of agriculture and health that seeks to maximize impact on the rural poor.

Eligibility criteria

Concept notes that address one or more of these key themes (as described further below) are encouraged. Proposed research should also focus on issues:

that are of concern to both agriculture and health sectors;
that are better addressed jointly by health and agricultural researchers working together (and not by either sector acting alone);
that lend themselves to participatory and trandisciplinary methods and approaches;
that proactively address cross-cutting issues including gender and equity;
for which a clear magnitude of need has been established;
for which results have potential for large-scale impact;
where opportunities for undertaking the work are clearly evident;
where the probability of success is high.

Research is also encouraged that draws on innovations within the Ecohealth approach as pioneered by IDRC (www.idrc.ca/en/ev-3314-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html)

Multi-country/multi-site regional or international studies are encouraged.

It is not necessary to only focus on one of the three thematic priorities – research that addresses interactions between these themes is encouraged.

This initiative is not region-neutral. A special emphasis will be placed on work in Africa and Asia. As a very rough guide, it is intended that approximately 55% Platform activities in toto will engage with African stakeholders, 30% with Asian stakeholders.and 10%, Latin American.

Finally, the budgets of proposed research studies need not be limited to the funding ceiling of this call ($230,000) – indeed cofunding by other development partners and donors is encouraged. Such cofunding will need to be indicated in the budget section. Research studies may be of 1-3 years duration.

Format

Please submit concept notes of 5-8 pages that clearly state: problem statement, brief literature review, objectives, research questions, methods, expected outputs, outcomes and impact; partners and indicative budget. Funding up to a maximum of US$ 230,000 is available for selected studies. Concept notes will be reviewed by an independent panel, and several concept notes selected for development into full proposals.

Concept notes should be emailed to the AHRP Coordinator at s.gillespie@cgiar.org

Deadline: 11 May 2008

Research Themes

The following three themes are current priorities of the Platform for which proposals are encouraged in this first wave of research. (In addition to these three themes, large-scale work that relates agriculture to HIV/AIDS and to avian influenza is already underway.)

Nutrition, diet, and health. Food quantity and food quality are the primary linkages between agriculture, nutrition and health. While lack of energy is generally an issue only in highly food-insecure areas, micronutrient malnutrition is much more widespread and pervasive. As problems of insufficient and poor quality food persist, changes in the global environment are creating new emerging nutritional issues such as the “nutrition transition” – a process by which globalization, urbanization and changes in lifestyle are linked to excess energy intake, poor quality diets, and low physical activity which lead to rapid rises in obesity and chronic diseases even among the poor in developing countries. Another major long-wave issue is the challenge that climate changes poses on agriculture-nutrition-health pathways. How to adapt to this changing environment, address the double burden of under- and over-nutrition, and maintain adequate food supply while increasing the production of low cost high-quality foods to improve diet quality among the poor? How to promote and exploit the link between agricultural biodiversity and dietary diversity for better nutrition?
Water associated disease and water management. The linkages between agriculture, water, health and disease are fundamental to the disease burden on rural communities. Land and animals need water, forests are breeding sites for vectors of diseases, aquaculture depends on water, and families need water for consumption and for hygiene. There are multiple pathways by which agriculture, water and health interact, some beneficial (e.g. irrigation increases agricultural productivity) and others detrimental (e.g. irrigation water may increase malaria); and the relationships are often bi-directional (e.g. water affects agriculture and vice versa; water affects health and vice versa). Research needs in this area range from acquiring new knowledge about the interactions between agriculture, water and health, to developing joint thinking and efforts to disseminate and apply this knowledge more widely and effectively, and to carrying out specific case studies using integrated applicable solutions that can be brought to scale. How to maximize the productivity and poverty-reducing potential of irrigation while minimizing the risk of malaria and other water- and vector-borne diseases? The health aspects of wastewater use in agriculture are increasingly important as this water resource is available particularly to the peri-urban poor. The overriding influence of climate change is also a relevant concern for this theme.
Food safety and growing complexity in food supply chains. In developing countries diarrhea from foodborne and water-associated diseases kills an estimated 2 million people annually, and is predominantly linked to the lack of access to safe water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene, particularly among the rural poor. Capacity for prevention and control is limited, but options for an integrated water management approach for agricultural and domestic needs are substantial. Zoonoses represent another major food safety challenge. Effective, fair, equitable, intersectoral collaboration between agriculture and health organizations on research and action to prevent and control animal borne/food borne microbial zoonotic diseases is key. Other important research issues relate to impacts of – and developing policies to address -- changes in the global environment due to globalization, the rise in importance of supermarkets, changes in food demand, and the impacts of the Green Revolution on human and animal health.

We gratefully acknowledge the International Development Research Center (IDRC) for their support to the AHRP for 2008-10.

Cobbling a path toward independence

pshelton — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:20:15 GMT

© 2008, Augustine A. NdaghuUntil recently, being disabled in Yola, Nigeria, meant living on the streets. But a project to improve the livelihood of those who live and work in the country’s flood plains and low-lying areas (fadamas) has helped turned beggars into cobblers.

“After God, Fadama II is the next most important thing to us,” says Mallam Abubakar Hosere, chairperson of a group of 20 disabled men and women who have gone into shoemaking with help from the Fadama II project. The project—a joint collaboration between the federal government of Nigeria and the World Bank—provides loans to members of its user groups. IFPRI recently completed an evaluation of the project and found that the incomes of its beneficiaries increased by about 60 percent and the value of group-owned productive assets increased by 590 percent. It concluded that the project’s broad-based approach contributed to its significant impact.

“Before Fadama II, we were all beggars—that was all we thought cripples could do,” says Hosere. “When we heard of Fadama II project on the local radio, and that it is opened to all including the vulnerable and the physically challenged like us, we decided to take advantage. We registered and applied [for funds] to go into shoemaking, but we were asked to contribute 30 percent of the sum. Initially, we suffered to raise it, but thank God for some people who assisted us. We are now ‘big men and women’ as we earn money on daily basis; our shoes are very marketable.”

In addition to acquiring new skills and assets, the group also has a new goal. “We want to reduce the number of beggars on the street of Yola to the barest minimum,” says Hosere.

For more about the Fadama II project and IFPRI’s involvement in it, visit: http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/ifpridp00756.asp

Strength in numbers

pshelton — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:20:57 GMT

© 2007, Veronica O'Connor
A member of the Kalagala Twezimbe Association proudly displays the group’s official registration, certifying them as a community-based organization.Poor people are often at great risk of losing the few assets they have when faced with an unexpected event, such as the death of a household member.

But for the members of the Kalagala Twezimbe Association, located outside Kampala, Uganda, working together enables them to cope better when such “shocks” occur. By pooling their time and talents, and by contributing funds to the Association, all members stand to benefit in times of need. When a member dies, the Association assists the family with costly burial expenses and helps them purchase and prepare food during the bereavement period. For those without close relatives in the community, such as orphans, the Association pays for their burial expenses.

With more than 370 men and women members, working together also offers a way out of poverty. The Association has expanded its activities beyond assisting members with burial arrangements. As a registered community-based organization, it is involved in several income-generating activities, such as renting out their cooking pans, plates, tables and other catering equipment for use at weddings, birthday celebrations, and graduations. The profits earned are used to further along the Association’s work, which includes constructing fuel-saving cooking stoves, providing entrepreneurship development, raising awareness of HIV/AIDS, and offering grief counseling.

The Kalagala Twezimbe Association is just one example among many of how poor people and other disadvantaged groups throughout the developing world are banding together to build social networks that can help improve their livelihoods.

To learn more about IFPRI research on the linkages between collective action and poverty reduction, visit http://www.capri.cgiar.org/res_poverty.asp

Fisherwomen bring prosperity to their families

pshelton — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:21:54 GMT

© 2007, Lauren Pandolfelli In the poor rural communities of Bangladesh, many women are entirely dependent on their husband’s often meager incomes and frequently have very little say in how the money is spent. Widows, divorced women, and deserted women fare even worse, since most do not have the skills, education, or resources with which to support themselves and their children.

But in Jessore, a communal fish pond has given 30 women an income, a voice, and the chance to provide a better life for their children.

A local women’s NGO, Banchte Shekha (Learning to Survive), helped the women to excavate the pond and then provided training on how to raise carp and several other species of fish. The women now manage the pond on their own, though the NGO helps to monitor and supervise the project.

The women have used the money they have earned from selling the fish to buy livestock, build better homes, buy land that is in their name as well as in their husband’s, and educate their children. But the benefits aren’t purely financial—by generating their own incomes and contributing to their families’ well-being, the women have gained confidence, control over their own affairs, and the respect of others in their community.

To learn more about this project, contact:

International Food Policy Research Institute
IFPRI-info@cgiar.org

To learn more about other gender-related research at IFPRI, go to http://www.ifpri.org/themes/gender/gender.htm .

Women grain vendors bring nutritious stews home

pshelton — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:22:42 GMT

Farm women in Petaka, Mali, sell small amounts of pearl millet, drawn from their family granaries, alongside handmade items at the weekly fair. Pearl millet, a drought-resistant crop, dominates arable land along the fringes of the Sahara desert. With their earnings, these women will purchase the ingredients for the stews that accompany the stiff porridge (tô) their families consume daily. The more they earn, the more nutritious are their stews. After poor harvests in this harsh environment, these women vendors can be a trusted source of quality seed for the local varieties they know.

"If concentrated in a single nation, the world's poorest people--the ultra poor--would comprise the world’s seventh most populous country."

mpietrowski — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:32:25 GMT

Press Release, November 6, 2007
The World’s Poorest People Not Being Reached: New Study Examines Plight of Poor Living on Less than 50 Cents a Day

Washington, DC—Despite much progress reducing poverty worldwide, a substantial number of the world’s poorest people are being left behind, according to a new report by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

The report, "The World’s Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger," finds that 162 million of the world’s poorest people—the “ultra poor”—survive on less than 50 cents a day. If concentrated in a single nation, they would comprise the world’s seventh most populous country.

“About one billion people today live on less than a dollar a day,” said Akhter Ahmed, IFPRI senior research fellow and lead author of the report. “However, this number masks a multitude of people living in varying degrees of poverty—all of them poor, but as this research shows, some even more desperately poor than others.”

The report is the first to use household poverty data from 1990 to 2004 to look below the dollar-a-day poverty line and examine who the poorest people are, where they live, and how they have fared over time. Three categories of poverty in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Sub-Saharan Africa are examined in the study: subjacent poor (those living on between $0.75 and $1 a day), medial poor (those living on between $0.50 and $0.75 a day), and ultra poor (those living on less than $0.50 a day).

Released following the international conference, “Taking Action for the World’s Poor and Hungry People,” facilitated by IFPRI in Beijing, China last month, the report finds that the very poorest people have benefited the least from substantial reductions in poverty around the world during the past 15 years. If the decline had been equal in all three categories of poverty, the number of ultra poor people would have fallen by nearly 4 percent; in reality, it declined by less than 2 percent, or less than half the expected rate.

You can read the full Press Release at The World’s Poorest People Not Being Reached

Additional media materials, as well as the full report and an exectuive summary, can be found at:
The World's Most Deprived

Related conference in Beijing, China, October 17-19, 2007: Taking Action for the World's Poor and Hungry People

Innovative approaches and more effective action are needed to improve the welfare of the world's poorest and hungry.

mpietrowski — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:45:36 GMT

Taking Action for the World’s Poor and Hungry People: A Way Forward
International Food Policy Research Institute, October 18, 2007

Concerned that millions of the world's poorest and hungry people remain in poverty and hunger, we at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) facilitated a consultation process, which includes the conference “Taking Action for the World’s Poor and Hungry People” on October 17–19 in Beijing, to examine what new and different action is required to improve their welfare. This statement is a synthesis of our conclusions to stimulate debate on the way forward and action. It is understood as a “living document” subject to further debate and change in the coming months.

The following are excerpts from the "Way Forward" statement:

We have established the following facts about those who remain poor and hungry today and in 2015:

1. The poorest are becoming increasingly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa and in countries where growth has been stagnant and conflict has been present. More than three-quarters of those living on less than half a dollar a day live in Sub-Saharan Africa. And although South Asia still accounts for the highest share of those living on less than a dollar a day, Sub-Saharan Africa’s share is increasing.

2. Poverty and widespread hunger remain even in regions that have experienced rapid economic growth and substantial reductions in poverty.

3. Although the urban poor are increasing in number and the prevalence of hunger is increasing in urban areas, the poor are still predominantly rural and will remain so for the next few decades. Poverty reduction remains strongly connected to agricultural development in many countries.

4. Poverty and hunger reduction has been slower among the poorest and among excluded groups—ethnic minorities, disadvantaged people, and the disabled—causing poverty and hunger to be increasingly concentrated in these groups. In addition, poor women and children are particularly vulnerable to the long-term effects of poverty and hunger on health.

5. Although the total number of people in poverty may change little, this stability masks substantial movements in and out of poverty. Some above the poverty line are vulnerable to become poor, and some below the line may move out of poverty. Others far below the line (usually the very poorest) will be there for longer, perhaps for generations.

We propose the following areas of action to end poverty and hunger:

1. Focusing on inclusive growth—A different pattern of growth, that includes the poorest and hungry in a sustainable way, is needed. In most countries, such growth will generally involve accelerated rural and agricultural growth and require increased investments in infrastructure, technology, education, and health.

2. Improving access to assets and markets—The asset-poor need to be connected to markets. Appropriate property rights are needed to address inequality in assets. Even where redistribution of existing assets (such as through land reforms) is not feasible, a larger share of new assets created could be directed to the poor. In addition, millions of small farmers need improved access to value chains, and many poor households need access to nonfarm rural employment. Infrastructure investments are important in achieving this access, as are investments in knowledge and information for poor people so they can take advantage of opportunities to improve their livelihoods. Enabling the poorest to save and use credit is also central in allowing them to invest in assets and skill acquisition and to mitigate the effect of adverse shocks.

3. Phasing in social protection more quickly and comprehensively—Policies that encourage “pro-poor” growth need to be re-balanced with social protection policies. Social protection needs to be phased in much more comprehensively and earlier in the development process to reach those who will not benefit sufficiently from general economic growth (such as children and the elderly). Social protection helps the poor, and those at risk of becoming poor, to reduce the risk of shocks, to mitigate their impact, and to cope with the aftermath. As a result, effective social protection will also promote growth.

4. Accelerating investments in health and nutrition programs, particularly for children and women—Many of the poorest, including children and women, need special interventions that address the health and nutrition constraints that impede their improved well-being, productivity, and livelihoods over the long term.

5. Including the excluded—The above-mentioned actions all require an effective state that is responsive to the needs of the poorest and the socially excluded. Actions to empower women are also particularly important to ensure their full participation. Reaching these goals requires governance reforms that empower the poor and the excluded to exercise their voice and demand accountability and that increase service providers’ incentives to respond to their needs. And ensuring peace and stability remains a priority for sustaining improvements in welfare.

You can read the full statement at: Taking Action for the World’s Poor and Hungry People: A Way Forward

Related documents:

Statement by UN Secretary-General on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, October 17, 2007

Ending Hunger Soon and Cutting Poverty Fast, speech by Joachim von Braun, Director General of IFPRI, October 17, 2007

"None are more committed to ending poverty than the poor themselves."

mpietrowski — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:44:51 GMT

Message from Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, Beijing, 17 October 2007

I am delighted to send warm greetings to all participants in this conference on “Taking Action for the World’s Poor and Hungry People.” I commend the organizers for addressing this theme as we work to step up our efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals.

At the dawn of the Millennium, world leaders made bold pledges to the world’s poor. They pledged a world where all children complete their elementary education; a world where people have access to safe drinking water, and families are protected from deadly diseases like malaria; a world where nations work together to cut greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Above all, our leaders promised a world where people are no longer condemned to a life of extreme and egregious poverty.

This year, International Day for the Eradication of Poverty falls just after the midpoint in the race to reach those commitments --the Millennium Development Goals --by the target date of 2015. The Day provides an important opportunity to take stock of our progress, and to re-energize our efforts.

Our global scorecard is mixed. The proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day has fallen, and we remain on track to meet the MDG target of halving extreme poverty. But progress has been uneven, and some regions --particularly sub-Saharan Africa --are not on track to redeem even a single one of our grand promises.

Today, the world must refocus its attention, and its resources, on the places and people that are being left behind. As we do, we must bear in mind that none are more committed to ending poverty than the poor themselves. Often, all they lack is the guidance, the tools, and the opportunities to win this fight.

Our task is to address these failings. As suggested by the theme for this year’s observance, we have to view people living in poverty as agents of change. This requires us to encourage national ownership of development strategies. It requires citizens to actively participate in policy-making, and Governments to become more accountable to their citizens in their efforts to achieve the Millennium Goals. Above all, it requires a true partnership for development --one in which rich countries do their part in delivering resources and productive employment opportunities through market access, so as to enable the poor to take control of their lives.

Today, we join hands with the poor in a collective effort --one which brings in civil society, the private sector, and individuals around the world. Tens of millions of people are making their voices heard by standing up against poverty --at sports and cultural events, in universities and schools. They are sending messages or signing petitions that call on their leaders to keep their promises. They are calling for the actions of citizens to be matched by the actions of Governments, in developing and developed countries alike, in support of the Millennium Development Goals.

On this 20th International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, let us all stand up. Let us demonstrate the political will required to end the scourge of poverty once and for all.

Taking Action for the World's Poor and Hunger People conference website

Resources for Journalists: IFPRI media page

International Conference Convened to Take Action for the World's Poor and Hungry People

mpietrowski — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:44:06 GMT

Marks Halfway Point between Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Declaration and Deadline

BEIJING—More than 400 policymakers and experts from around the world are gathering in Beijing today for the three-day conference, "Taking Action for the World's Poor and Hungry People," to assess progress achieved in reducing global poverty and hunger and to identify new approaches for improving the welfare of the world's most deprived people.

The conference occurs at the halfway point between the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) declaration of halving the proportion of the world's poor and hungry people by 2015. While the world is on track to reach this target at the global level, many developing countries are not and millions of poor people are at risk of being left behind.

"Our global scorecard is mixed. The proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day has fallen, and we remain on track to meet the MDG target of halving extreme poverty. But progress has been uneven, and some regions -- particularly sub-Saharan Africa -- are not on track to redeem even a single one of our grand promises," said United National Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in a statement released at the conference today.

"I commend the [conference] organizers for addressing this theme as we work to step up our efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals," said Ban. Co-organized by the Chinese State Council Leading Group Office on Poverty Alleviation (LGOP) and Development and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and hosted by the International Poverty Reduction Center in China, IFPRI, and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the conference runs from October 17-19 and brings together stakeholders from government, development agencies, academia, and civil society.

Mr. Hui Liangyu, Vice Premier of China State Council, and Director of State Council Leading Group of Poverty Alleviation and Development, Mr. Fan Xiaojian, Director of LGOP, Mr. Joachim Von Braun, Director General at IFPRI, and Mr. Lennart Bage, President of International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) will attend and address the opening ceremony. There will be 31 participants at ministerial level, including 11 from China.

"Our research shows that current poverty reduction approaches are not reaching the poorest people in developing countries," said Joachim von Braun. "We need to urgently address the unique challenges they face each day, or they will fall further behind."

Although impressive progress has been made in some developing regions, one billion people worldwide still live on less than one dollar a day, the threshold defined by the international community as absolute poverty, below which survival is in question. However, this large number masks the multitude of people living in varying degrees of poverty—with large numbers of them surviving on less than fifty cents a day.

During the past two decades, poverty increased slightly in Latin America and the Caribbean and rose significantly in Sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, however, the number of poor people in Asia declined by approximately 300 million, particularly in East Asia and the Pacific.

China, in particular, has made great strides in reducing poverty and has met the MDG poverty target ahead of schedule. The country's strong economic growth in recent decades has translated into steep declines in poverty. According to official Chinese statistics, the countries' rural population without adequate food and shelter decreased from 250 million in 1978 to 21 million in 2006, and the instance of poverty dropped from 30.7 percent to 2.3 percent. However, this progress has been unequal and many pockets of poverty remain throughout the country, particularly in rural areas.

"This conference presents a unique opportunity to share China's successes and challenges for resolving the problem of poverty and hunger with other countries around the world," said Mr. Fan Xiaojian. "The theme of the conference is in line with the issues discussed this week at the Seventeenth National Congress for the Communist Party of China, which will serve to further the scientific concept of development and to center government focus on social harmony and human needs."

Among research to be presented at the conference includes new findings by IFPRI and Chinese researchers on how those who live closer to the dollar a day line have been much easier to reach than those living well below it. The incidence of poverty below half a dollar a day—the poorest of the poor—was found to be intractable in many regions of the world as poverty is frequently inherited from generation to generation, and as it is, chances for a better livelihood are diminished. Exacerbating such poverty traps is the widespread exclusion the poor face due to ethnicity, gender or disability as well as their limited access to critical basic services, such as roads, markets, schools and health care.

During the conference, experts from around the world will share their research and experiences with the goal of creating a better understanding of who are the very poorest and why they are being left behind, how existing actions to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger can be accelerated or scaled up, and which approaches have been successful thus far in eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Special attention will be paid to the critical role social protection policies play in helping to improve the welfare of the poorest people.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) seeks sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty. IFPRI is one of 15 centers supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, an alliance of 64 governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations.

Download a copy of this press release

English: (PDF 99K) | Chinese: (PDF 120K)

For more information, contact: Michael Rubinstein, +(86)13717952470
m.rubinstein@cgiar.org

More media materials on other IFPRI research/events

"Taking Action for the World's Poor and Hungry People" Conference website

Saving the Earth without Hurting the Poor

clakatos — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:51:41 GMT

Ever-increasing carbon emissions and their impact on the earth’s climate are at the top of the international environmental agenda. What are the optimal ways to reduce these emissions? While government officials are pursuing a variety of options, biofuels have captured the imagination of policymakers worldwide, with proponents supporting a range of fuel sources—from corn to sugarcane to algae. But as the demand for biofuels grows larger, what will be the impact on the world’s poor? IFPRI has begun research on how to both meet the growing demand for agricultural products and the subsequent increased need for energy through an environmentally sustainable, pro-poor approach. Increased demand for corn—both for ethanol and as feed for livestock—is driving up prices and threatening food security in the developing world. Additionally, land degradation and water scarcity will increase as more biofuel crops are planted. What type of approach offers the best chance for satisfying the world’s appetite for energy without depleting environmental quality or the socioeconomic conditions of the world's poor and hungry?

For more information on IFPRI’s bioenergy research, visit http://www.ifpri.org/themes/bioenergy/bioenergy.asp. For more general information on IFPRI’s work on the environment, visit http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd.htm
To find out more about what you can do to help the environment on Blog Action Day (October 15), visit http://blogactionday.org/

- Mark Rosegrant, Division Director, Environment and Production Technology, IFPRI

New Global Hunger Index Shows Most Countries Are Making Slow Progress

mpietrowski — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:16:17 GMT

Only two regions of the world—Latin America & the Caribbean and East Asia & Pacific—are on track to reach all Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets related to hunger and child mortality. As part of the MDGs, the international community set targets to cut hunger in half and under-five mortality rates by two-thirds by 2015. According to the Global Hunger Index, most countries will not reach all these targets if progress continues at current rates.

The Index is being released for the second year in a row by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in conjunction with German Agro-Action and Concern Worldwide.

New this year, the Global Hunger Index assesses whether developing countries are on track to reach MDG targets that relate to the three Index indicators—the proportion of people who are calorie deficient, child malnutrition, and child mortality.

IFPRI Press Release - October 12, 2007

IFPRI Media Materials on Global Hunger Index 2007

Impacts of a ‘Food for Education’ Program in Bangladesh

M Bayeh — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:26:29 GMT

Standing Panel on Impact Assessment: Science Council Brief Number 3

As part of the overall CGIAR 2005 annual performance measurement exercise, the Science Council received 30 individual case studies of Center impact. These were the best examples of impact assessments done by the Centers during 2003–2005. The Science Council's Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) identified six of these as being particularly meritorious in terms of quality of analysis and presentation. In recognition of these studies as good examples of emerging ‘best practice’, SPIA has, with the relevant Center's concurrence, prepared Science Council/SPIA Briefs on each. Publishing quality impact briefs responds to continued calls from donors to the CGIAR for more documented evidence of impacts to be made available in the form of such concise publications.

(PDF 143K(

Global Media and the Development Story: An Introduction

M Bayeh — Fri, 18 May 2007 17:40:20 GMT

Please read these commentaries on media and development and share your reactions on this blog. Does the media do a good job when it comes to covering issues of hunger and poverty? Where do they go wrong and what do they miss? What are the challenges faced by journalists from industrialized and developing countries? How well does the media cover these issues in your country? We would like to hear from reporters, scientists, practitioners, and anyone with an interest in development.
Michael Rubinstein
Head of Media Relations, IFPRI

Full Article on the IFPRI Website
Audio commentary by G. Pascal Zachary, 1 min 4 sec. (MP3 1.5M)

Can Local Government Work for the Poor?

M Allen — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:12:00 GMT

In 1994, when Jean-Paul Faguet, then working at the World Bank, heard about Bolivia's plan to empower local communities, he was skeptical. Although the plan was called Law of Popular Participation, it was designed by a small group at the central government level behind closed doors. "Popular participation" sounded good, of course, but Faguet doubted that it could simply be imposed from above. What will they legislate next, he and his colleagues at the Bank asked themselves—wealth and happiness for everyone?

In fact, says Faguet, now a researcher and lecturer at the London School of Economics (LSE), Bolivia made government more responsive to poor people in many communities and directed resources to the services poor people desired. "Decentralization put real power over public resources in the hands of ordinary citizens," Faguet says. "It changed the way the country is run."

Bolivia is among the most striking cases of decentralization of government power to the local level, an idea that has been discussed and implemented off and on throughout the developing world over the past several decades. With the emphasis on democracy and good governance in the development community since the early 1990s, decentralization has again become a popular goal, at least in principle. According to one review, 80 percent of developing countries have pursued decentralization, or attempted to, including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Nepal, the Philippines, South Africa, and Uganda.

"It's a popular stated goal," says Stephen Ndegwa, a senior public sector governance specialist at the World Bank. "Most constitutions and discussions in democracies state that they'd like to have a decentralized state."

Joachim von Braun, director general of IFPRI, sees this trend toward decentralization as driven not only by democracy, but also by economic globalization. "Globalization requires local decisionmaking power that will efficiently provide the infrastructure and services demanded by investors," he says. "This economic necessity drives 'glocalisation'—the combination of globalization with localization and decentralization."

When it works properly, decentralization can help to alleviate poverty and food insecurity by providing infrastructure and services that poor people require, like drinking water, roads, schooling, and health care. "The goal is to bring government closer to the people, with the hope of giving poor people a greater voice and making government more effective and more accountable," says IFPRI senior research fellow Regina Birner. Given that most poor people in developing countries live in rural areas, out of sight of the political elites in national capitals, "decentralization can be the single most important governance reform for rural areas," she says.

But making decentralization work effectively for poor people is a challenge, and it takes time. A 2004 study from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) examined the impact of decentralization on poverty in 18 developing countries and 3 states of India. Decentralization helped to reduce poverty in only one-third of the cases, and in some of the poorest countries with weak institutions and post-conflict situations decentralization worsened poverty.

So is decentralization the key to governance that focuses on the needs of poor people?