2013

–
–
–

GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX

THE CHALLENGE OF HUNGER: BUILDING RESILIENCE
TO ACHIEVE FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2013
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX
THE CHALLENGE OF HUNGER: BUILDING RESILIENCE
TO ACHIEVE FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY

International Food Policy Research Institute:

Klaus von Grebmer, Derek Headey, Tolulope Olofinbiyi,
Doris Wiesmann, Heidi Fritschel, Sandra Yin,
Yisehac Yohannes

Concern Worldwide:
Connell Foley

Welthungerhilfe:
Constanze von Oppeln, Bettina Iseli

Institute of Development Studies:

Christophe Béné, Lawrence Haddad

Bonn / Washington, DC / Dublin
October 2013
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Resilient livelihoods are critical for the world’s most vulnerable people to
achieve freedom from hunger – one of the most basic human rights.
–
–
–
–
2 Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
FOREWORD

A crisis is an opportunity riding the dangerous wind. for measuring resilience in relation to food and nutrition security. Chap-
—Chinese proverb ter 04 spotlights lessons learned from several programs carried out by
Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe that were designed to build
In 2012 Tropical Storm Isaac and Hurricane Sandy battered Haiti, dam- resilience in communities.
aging harvests, swelling rivers, flooding roads, and blocking access to This is the eighth year that the International Food Policy
communities. As food prices rose and debts mounted, poor Haitians Research Institute has calculated the Global Hunger Index (GHI) and
took extreme measures. Some migrated. Others made ends meet by analyzed this multidimensional measure of global hunger. This series
eating fewer meals per day and selling off their land or livestock. Every of reports records the state of hunger worldwide, by region and by coun-
summer, Haitians fear nature’s wrath. try, spotlighting the countries and regions where action is most ­needed.
Whether it’s storms like these, or a drought, like the one in It should be noted that this report paints a picture of the recent
2012 that left 18 million people in the Sahel hungry, other extreme past, not the present. The 2013 GHI reflects the most recent data avail-
weather, surging food prices, or prolonged political unrest, crises or able from governments and international agencies. Because of time
shocks continue to buffet the poor and most vulnerable. All too often, lags and the dearth of up-to-the-minute data on global hunger, it does
those who are unable to cope find themselves more deeply entrenched not, however, reflect the impact of the latest events. We hope that gov-
in poverty, facing malnutrition and hunger. ernments and international institutions will collaborate to gather more
It has become clear that it is not enough to help the poor and timely and comprehensive data on hunger in the near future.
vulnerable survive short-term shocks. Because they are among those The world has made some progress in reducing hunger since
hit hardest by shocks and least able to cope, the constant exposure to the early 1990s. If the recent slowdown can be reversed, the Millenni-
manmade or natural shocks means they find it hard to improve their um Development Goal target of halving the share of hungry people in
lot. Poor and vulnerable populations need more resilience, and a vital the world between 1990 and 2015 may be within reach. But we are
part of building resilience involves boosting food and nutrition securi- not on track to meet the 1996 World Food Summit’s more ambitious
ty. Given that access to enough healthy food is a basic human right, it goal of halving the number of hungry people in the same time period.
is critical that governments and nongovernmental and international In 1990–1992, 1 billion went hungry. Today, about 870 million, or 1
organizations take steps to build resilience in a way that increases their in 8 people worldwide, still suffer from hunger. This is no time for com-
food and nutrition security. placency. In 2012 during the Rio+20 conference, to build upon the
Resilience is the central theme of the 2013 Global Hunger work started by Millennium Development Goal 1, United Nations Sec-
Index report, published jointly by the International Food Policy retary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed a more ambitious goal, the glob-
Research Institute (IFPRI), Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe. al “Zero Hunger Challenge” to end ­hunger in our lifetime. As long as
Given that world hunger remains “serious,” according to the index, people go hungry, the fight against hunger must continue.
with 19 countries suffering from levels of hunger that are either Many of the shocks and stresses to which poor and hungry peo-
“alarming” or “extremely alarming,” resilience-building efforts are ple are exposed are caused by the actions of more affluent regions and
much needed to boost food and nutrition security. countries. We hope that this report will serve as a reminder to all of
Chapter 03 describes a framework for resilience that could us—in industrialized countries, as well as in emerging economies and
change how the development and humanitarian sectors design and developing countries—to assume responsibility and to act together to
implement interventions. It also offers examples of resilience-building reduce risk and build resilience to food and nutrition insecurity at the
programs that combine relief and development and explores indicators community, national, and international levels.

Dr. Wolfgang Jamann Dr. Shenggen Fan Dominic MacSorley

Secretary General and ­Director General Chief Executive
Chairperson International Food Policy Concern Worldwide
Welthungerhilfe Research Institute

2013 Global Hunger Index | Foreword3

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 01 CHAPTER 02 CHAPTER 03 CHAPTER 04 CHAPTER 05

SUMMARY 5

CHAPTER
01 The Concept of the Global Hunger Index 6
02 Global, Regional, and National Trends 10
03 Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security 18
04 Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition: Learning from the Past to Inform the Future 32
05 Policy Recommendations 46

APPENDIXES
A Data Sources and Calculation of the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 Global Hunger Index Scores 50
B Data Underlying the Calculation of the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 Global Hunger Index Scores 51
C Country Trends for the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 Global Hunger Index Scores 53

BIBLIOGRAPHY 57
PARTNERS 61

4 Contents | 2013 Global Hunger Index

SUMMARY

The 2013 Global Hunger Index (GHI), which reflects data from the Poor people have long been vulnerable to “hunger seasons,” droughts, and
period 2008–2012, shows that global hunger has improved since other natural and manmade disasters. In recent years, this vulnerability
1990, falling by one-third. Despite the progress made, the level of has been exacerbated by food and financial crises and large-scale human-
hunger in the world remains “serious,” with 870 million people going itarian crises such as the recurring droughts in the Sahel and the Horn of
hungry, according to estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organiza- Africa. These short-term shocks have long-term consequences.
tion of the United Nations. Policymakers and practitioners across the development and relief
Across regions and countries, GHI scores vary considerably. communities now recognize the need to build the resilience of vulnera-
South Asia and Africa south of the Sahara are home to the highest GHI ble populations. More resilience will help them climb out of poverty,
scores. South Asia significantly lowered its GHI score between 1990 and remain out of poverty, or avoid slipping into it in the first place. Concep-
1995, mainly thanks to a large decline in underweight in children, but tually, resilience has been expanded to include the capacity not only to
was not able to maintain its fast progress. Social inequality and the low absorb mild shocks, but also to learn from and adapt to moderate shocks
nutritional, educational, and social status of women continue to contrib- and to transform economic, social, and ecological structures in response
ute to the high prevalence of underweight in children under five. to severe shocks.
Africa south of the Sahara did not advance as much as South This framework for understanding resilience could help expand
Asia in the 1990s. Since the turn of the millennium, however, Africa the dialogue between the relief and development sectors, which have
south of the Sahara has shown real progress, and its GHI score is now traditionally operated in separate silos. Linking interrelated short-term
lower than South Asia’s. More political stability in countries earlier affect- shocks and long-term systemic change provides a more complete view
ed by civil wars in the 1990s and 2000s meant economic growth could of the factors that lead people to drift into poverty or food and nutrition
resume. Advances in the fight against HIV and AIDS, a decrease in the insecurity. The resilience framework also focuses more attention on
prevalence of malaria, and higher immunization rates contributed to a understanding the welfare and behavioral dynamics of vulnerable popu-
reduction in child mortality. lations. It reaffirms the importance of identifying and strengthening local
Since 1990, 23 countries made significant progress, reducing structures and organizations and supporting them to perform their roles
their GHI scores by 50 percent or more. Twenty-seven countries moved effectively and to work together.
out of the “extremely alarming” and “alarming” categories. In terms of Yet, while the underlying rationale for focusing on resilience
absolute progress, the top ten countries in terms of improvements in building is strong, adopting a resilience framework is challenging. Experts
GHI scores since 1990 were Angola, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, in development and humanitarian circles have yet to agree on a common
Ghana, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Thailand, and Vietnam. definition of resilience. And resilience, vulnerability, and coping behav-
Levels of hunger are still “alarming” or “extremely alarming” in iors are difficult phenomena to measure. Shocks are by definition often
19 countries. Those that fell into the “extremely alarming” category— short-term unpredictable events, they often occur in remote places and
Burundi, Comoros, and Eritrea—are all in Africa south of the Sahara. populations, and resilience to shocks involves complex coping or adap-
Increased hunger since 1990 in Burundi and Comoros can be attribut- tive behaviors.
ed to prolonged conflict and political instability. The Democratic Repub- According to Concern and Welthungerhilfe, resilience-building
lic of Congo was listed as “extremely alarming” in the 2011 Global Hun- efforts at the community level can deliver results. They describe lessons
ger Index report, but since then, not enough data have been available to learned from their own programs fighting undernutrition in mostly rural
calculate its GHI score. Current and reliable data are urgently needed to communities. Despite continuing shocks and stresses and a system that
assess the country’s situation and to calculate the GHI scores of other is set up to favor large-scale farmers and not smallholders, households
likely hunger hot spots, such as Afghanistan and Somalia. in Haiti’s North-West region managed to improve their food security by
It is not surprising that many of the countries with “alarming” or continuously addressing the underlying structural causes of vulnerabili-
“extremely alarming” scores have not been among the most stable. High- ty and using flexible, accurately targeted emergency funding to address
er GHI scores tend to be typical of countries that experience social or capacity gaps. Lessons from the Sahel and the Horn of Africa point to
political unrest or are perennially exposed to shocks such as floods and some of the necessary preconditions for building resilience at the com-
droughts. Natural and manmade disasters can directly affect the food munity level and helping people escape extreme poverty and hunger.
and nutrition security of people and communities that are particularly vul- The policy recommendations in this report offer a path forward
nerable or lacking resilience. By extension, a critical part of building resil- for the international development, humanitarian, and donor communi-
ience is ensuring food and nutrition security; and conversely, efforts to ties; for country-level policymakers in food-insecure countries; and for
build food and nutrition security must be designed with a resilience lens. development and humanitarian practitioners.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Summary5

01
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Addressing the root causes of recurrent crises is not only better than only
responding to the consequences of crises, it is also much cheaper.
–
–
European Commission, 2012

–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
6 Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
THE CONCEPT OF THE GLOBAL
HUNGER INDEX

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively 2. Child underweight: the proportion of children younger than age five
measure and track hunger globally and by region and country. Calcu- 1
who are underweight (that is, have low weight for their age, reflect-
lated each year by the International Food Policy Research Institute ing wasting, stunted growth, or both), which is one indicator of child
(IFPRI), the GHI highlights successes and failures in hunger reduction undernutrition
and provides insights into the drivers of hunger, and food and nutri- 3. Child mortality: the mortality rate of children younger than age five
tion insecurity. By raising awareness and understanding of regional (partially reflecting the fatal synergy of inadequate food intake and
and country differences, the GHI, it is hoped, will trigger actions to unhealthy environments).2
reduce hunger.
A number of different indicators can be used to measure hun- This multidimensional approach to measuring hunger offers several
ger (Box 1.1). To reflect the multidimensional nature of hunger, the GHI advantages. It reflects the nutrition situation not only of the population
combines three equally weighted indicators into one index: as a whole, but also of a physiologically vulnerable group—children—
for whom a lack of nutrients leads to a high risk of illness, poor phys-
1. Undernourishment: the proportion of undernourished people as a ical and cognitive development, or death. In addition, combining inde-
percentage of the population (reflecting the share of the population pendently measured indicators reduces the effects of random
with insufficient caloric intake) measurement errors.3
The 2013 GHI has been calculated for 120 countries for which
data on the three component indicators are available and for which
measuring hunger is considered most relevant. The GHI calculation
BOX 1.1  CONCEPTS OF HUNGER excludes some higher-income countries because the prevalence of
hunger there is very low.
The terminology used to refer to different concepts of hunger The GHI is only as current as the data for its three component
can be confusing. “Hunger” is usually understood to refer to indicators. This year’s GHI reflects the most recent available country-
the discomfort associated with lack of food. FAO defines food level data for the three component indicators spanning the period 2008
deprivation, or “undernourishment,” as the consumption of few- to 2012. It is thus a snapshot not of the present, but of the recent past.
er than about 1,800 kilocalories a day—the minimum that most For some countries, such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of
people require to live a healthy and productive life.* Congo, Iraq, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, and Somalia, lack of data
“Undernutrition” goes beyond calories and signifies deficien- on undernourishment prevents the calculation of GHI scores.4
cies in any or all of the following: energy, protein, or essential
vitamins and minerals. Undernutrition is the result of inade- 1
For background information on the concept, see Wiesmann (2004) and Wiesmann, von Braun,
and Feldbrügge (2000).
quate intake of food—in terms of either quantity or quality— 2
According to recent estimates, undernutrition is responsible for 45 percent of deaths of children
poor utilization of nutrients due to infections or other illness- younger than five years (Black et al. 2013).
3
For a multidimensional measure of poverty, see the index developed by the Oxford Poverty and
es, or a combination of these factors; these in turn are caused Human Development Initiative for the United Nations Development Programme (Alkire and San-
tos 2010).
by household food insecurity; inadequate maternal health or 4
FAO stopped publishing country-level estimates of undernourishment for the Democratic Repub-
child care practices; or inadequate access to health services, lic of Congo and Myanmar in 2011 (FAO 2011). According to past GHI reports, the GHI score of
the Democratic Republic of Congo was in the “extremely alarming” category with the highest lev-
safe water, and sanitation. els of hunger. For South Sudan, which became independent in 2011, and Sudan, separate under-
“Malnutrition” refers more broadly to both undernutrition (prob- nourishment estimates are not yet available from FAO (FAO 2013a). Therefore GHI scores calcu-
lated for former Sudan refer to the population of both countries.
lems of deficiencies) and overnutrition (problems of unbalanced
diets, such as consumption of too many calories in relation to
requirements with or without low intake of micronutrient-rich
foods). In this report, “hunger” refers to the index based on the
three component indicators described on this page.

* FAO considers the composition of a population by age and sex to calculate its average min-
imum energy requirement, which varies by country (from about 1,650 to more than 2,000
kilocalories per person per day for 2010–2012 according to FAO 2013a). The country’s
average minimum energy requirement is used to estimate undernourishment (FAO 2012).

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | The Concept of the Global Hunger Index 7
 BOX 1.2  HOW GHI SCORES ARE CALCULATED

A country’s GHI score is calculated by averaging the percentage of 0 10

the population that is undernourished, the percentage of children
younger than five years old who are underweight, and the percent- 5
age of children dying before the age of five. This calculation results
in a 100-point scale on which zero is the best score (no hunger) and
100 the worst, although neither of these extremes is reached in
practice. A value of 100 would be reached only if all children died
≤ 4.9 5.0 – 9.9
before their fifth birthday, the whole population was undernourished,
and all children younger than five were underweight. A value of zero
would mean that a country had no undernourished people in the
population, no children younger than five who were underweight, low moderate
and no children who died before their fifth birthday. The scale at
the right shows the severity of hunger—from “low” to “extremely
alarming”—associated with the range of possible GHI scores.

The GHI scores are based on source data that are continually revised The three component indicators used to calculate the GHI scores in
by the United Nations agencies responsible for their compilation, and this report draw upon data from the following sources:
each year’s GHI report reflects these revisions. While these revisions
result in improvements in the data, they also mean that the GHI scores 1. Undernourishment: Updated data from the Food and Agriculture
from different years’ reports are not comparable with one another. This Organization of the United Nations (FAO) were used for the 1990,
year’s report contains GHI scores for four other reference peri- 1995, 2000, and 2005, and 2013 GHI scores. Undernourishment
ods—1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005—besides the most recent GHI, data for the 2013 GHI are for 2010–2012 (FAO 2013a; authors’
and so expands the scope of the trend analyses in comparison with pre- estimates). In order to provide more timely data that integrate all rel-
vious reports. evant information, the FAO has revised its methodology for estimat-
The 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI scores present- ing undernourishment. Its estimates now consider findings from a
ed in this report reflect the latest revised data for the three component much larger number of household surveys that have become avail-
indicators of the GHI.6 Where original source data were not available, able in recent years and, for the first time, estimates of food losses
estimates for the GHI component indicators were used that are based at the retail level (FAO 2012).
on the most recent data available. (See Appendix A for more detailed
background information on the data sources for and calculations of the 2. Child underweight: The “child underweight” component indicator of
1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI scores.) the GHI scores in this report includes the latest additions to the
World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Database on Child Growth
For previous GHI calculations, see von Grebmer et al. (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008);
6
and Malnutrition, and additional data from the joint database by the
IFPRI/Welthungerhilfe/Concern (2007); Wiesmann (2006a, b); and Wiesmann, Weingärtner,
and Schöninger (2006).
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), WHO, and the World
Bank; the most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey reports; and statistical tables from
UNICEF. For the 2013 GHI, data on child underweight are for the
latest year for which data are available in the period 2008–2012
(WHO 2013; UNICEF/WHO/World Bank 2012; UNICEF 2013a, b;
MEASURE DHS 2013; authors’ estimates).

8 The Concept of the Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 20 30 40

15 25 35

10.0 – 19.9 20.0 – 29.9 ≥ 30.0

serious alarming extremely alarming

3. Child mortality: Updated data from the UN Inter-agency Group for

Child Mortality Estimation were used for the 1990, 1995, 2000,
and 2005, and 2013 GHI scores. For the 2013 GHI, data on child
mortality are for 2011 (IGME 2012).

Despite the existence of abundant technological tools to collect and

assess data almost instantaneously, time lags and data gaps persist in
reporting vital statistics on hunger and undernutrition. While there have
been some recent improvements, more up-to-date, reliable, and exten-
sive country data continue to be urgently needed. Further improvements
in collecting high-quality data on hunger will allow for a more complete
and current assessment of the state of global hunger and, in turn, more
effective steps to reduce hunger..

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | The Concept of the Global Hunger Index 9
02
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
The situation in the Sahel remains fragile in 2013 despite a good harvest.
Recurrent crises in recent years have eroded the coping capacity of already
vulnerable groups and weakened their resilience to shocks.
–
–
–
–
10 Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 GLOBAL, REGIONAL, AND NATIONAL
TRENDS

The number of the hungry in the world has remained unacceptably These global averages mask dramatic differences among regions and
high: In 2010–2012, about 870 million people were chronically countries. Compared with the 1990 score, the 2013 GHI score is 23
undernourished (FAO 2012). This sobering statistic is in no way percent lower in Africa south of the Sahara, 34 percent lower in South
diminished by FAO’s improved undernourishment estimates released Asia, and 28 percent lower in the Near East and North Africa (Figure
in 2012, which suggest that progress in reducing undernourishment 2.1). Progress in East and Southeast Asia and Latin America and the
was more marked than previously believed.1 The GHI corroborates Caribbean was even more remarkable, with the GHI scores falling by
the positive trend of declining hunger: The 2013 world GHI fell by 2
52 percent and 50 percent respectively (although the 1990 score was
close to 34 percent from the 19903 world GHI, from a score of 20.8 already relatively low in the latter region). In Eastern Europe and the
to 13.8 (Figure 2.1). Commonwealth of Independent States, the 2013 GHI score is 48 per-
The three indicators contributed differently to the decline of cent lower than the 1995 score.4
7.0 points in the world GHI score since 1990. A decline in child
1
The reason for greater progress in reducing undernourishment (one of the three component indi-
underweight lowered the world GHI score by 3.0 points, whereas cators of the GHI) is that FAO’s new methodology produces larger 1990–1992 baseline estimates
changes in the share of undernourished people in the population than its old methodology, and against this new baseline, progress appears greater (FAO 2012). In
addition, some of the decline in the proportion of undernourished reflects the growth in world
and the child mortality rate contributed reductions of 2.7 and 1.3 population, against which a stagnant absolute number of undernourished people since 2006–
points, respectively. 2008 makes up a decreasing share (FAO 2013a).
2
The “world” includes all developing countries for which the GHI has been calculated. It also
includes Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, and
Somalia. Country GHI scores were not calculated for these countries because much of the data
Large Regional and National Differences
for them is estimated or provisional. They were incorporated into the 2013 world GHI and region-
The world GHI declined most rapidly—by 2 points—between 1990 al GHI scores because data on child underweight and child mortality are available or could be
estimated and because provisional estimates of undernourishment were provided by FAO only for
and 1995. Although progress slowed after 1995, it picked up again regional and global aggregation. As noted earlier, data for some other countries are not available,
after 2005. Undernourishment and underweight in children improved and most high-income countries are excluded from the GHI calculation.
3
The year 1990 was chosen for comparison because it is the reference point for achieving the
most between 19903 and 1995, whereas progress in reducing child ­targets under the Millennium Development Goals.
4
For Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, the 1995 GHI score was used
mortality has accelerated since 1995. The 2013 world GHI, howev-
for comparison because most countries in this region became independent after 1990 and no
er, remains “serious.” 1990 GHI scores were calculated.

FIGURE 2.1  CONTRIBUTION OF COMPONENTS TO 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, AND 2013 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES, BY REGION
31.5

35 Under-five mortality rate

Prevalence of underweight in children
27.5

30 Proportion of undernourished
25.2
25.0
24.4

24.1
23.3

21.6

25
20.7
20.8

19.2
18.8
GHI score

17.0

20
15.9
15.7

13.8

13.5

15
11.3

9.5
9.6

8.2
8.1
7.6

10
7.0

6.9
6.8

6.1

5.8

5.6

5.3

5.0
4.8

3.2

2.7

’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13

World South Asia Africa South of East & South- Near East & Latin America & Eastern Europe &
the Sahara east Asia North Africa Caribbean Commonwealth ­of
Independent States

Note: For the 1990 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 1990–1992; data on child underweight are for the year closest to 1990 in the period 1988–1992 for which data are available;
and data on child mortality are for 1990. For the 1995 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 1994–1996; data on child underweight are for the year closest to 1995 in the period
1993–1997 for which data are available; and data on child mortality are for 1995. For the 2000 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 1999–2001; data on child underweight are for the
year closest to 2000 in the period 1998–2002 for which data are available; and data on child mortality are for 2000. For the 2005 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 2004–2006;
data on child underweight are for the year closest to 2005 in the period 2003–2007 for which data are available; and data on child mortality are for 2005. For the 2013 GHI, data on the proportion of
undernourished are for 2010–2012, data on child underweight are for the latest year in the period 2008–2012 for which data are available, and data on child mortality are for 2011.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends11
 Iceland

Norway
Finland

Sweden
FIGURE 2.2  COUNTRY PROGRESS IN REDUCING GHI SCORES Estonia
Russian Federation
nada Latvia
Denmark
Percentage change in 2013 GHI compared with 1990 GHI Lithuania

Ireland United Neth. Belarus

Kingdom Bel. Germany Poland
Canada
Lux. Czech Rep. Ukraine
Aust. Slova. Kazakhstan
Switz. Slov. Hung. Mold.
France Mongolia
Cro. Rom.
Bos. & Herz. Serb.
Mont. Bulg. Uzbekistan
Mace. Georgia Kyrgyz Rep.
Italy Alb. Armenia Azerb.
Portugal Spain N. Korea
United States Greece Turkey Turkmenistan Tajikistan
of America
Cyprus S. Korea Japan
Syria China
Lebanon Iran Afghanistan
Tunisia Israel Iraq
Morocco Jordan
Kuwait
Algeria Pakistan Nepal
Egypt Bahrain Bhutan
Western Sahara Libya Qatar Bangladesh
Mexico
Saudi Arabia U.A.E.
Cuba Dominican Rep. India Myanmar Lao
Jamaica Mauritania Mali PDR
Belize Niger Oman
Haiti Senegal Chad
Honduras Eritrea Yemen Thailand Philippines
Guatemala Sudan
El Salvador Nicaragua The Gambia Burkina Faso Cambodia Vietnam
Guinea-Bissau Djibouti
Panama Trinidad & Tobago Benin Nigeria
Costa Rica Guinea Côte Togo
Venezuela Guyana Central African Ethiopia
Sierra Leone d'Ivoire Ghana
French Guiana Cameroon Republic Sri Lanka Brunei
Suriname Liberia Somalia Malaysia
Colombia Uganda Papua
Equatorial Guinea Congo, New
Kenya
Ecuador Gabon Rep. Congo, Rw. Guinea
Dem. Rep. Bur.
Indonesia
Tanzania
Peru Timor-Leste
Brazil Comoros
Angola Malawi
Zambia
Bolivia
Zimbabwe Mozambique Mauritius
Namibia
Paraguay Botsw.
Chile Madagascar
Swaziland Australia

South Lesotho
Africa
Argentina Uruguay

Increase
Decrease of 0.0–24.9%
Decrease of 25.0–49.9%
Note: An increase in the GHI indicates a worsening of a country's hunger situation. Decrease of 50% or more
A decrease in the GHI indicates an improvement in a country's hunger situation. Striped countries have 1990
GHI scores were not calculated for countries with very small populations. GHI scores and the
and 2013 GHI of less than 5
rate of progress since 1990 could only be calculated for former Sudan, because separate
undernourishment estimates for 2010–2012 and earlier were not available for South Sudan, No data
which became independent in 2011, and Sudan. Industrialized country

East and Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean have earlier beset by conflict became more politically stable. Economic
experienced a fairly consistent drop in GHI scores since 1990. In the growth resumed on the continent, and advances in the fight against
Near East and North Africa, the GHI scores barely declined between HIV and AIDS contributed to a reduction in child mortality in the coun-
1995 and 2000 and after 2005, and reductions in other periods were tries most affected by the epidemic.
small. In South Asia and Africa south of the Sahara—the two regions Since 2000, mortality rates for children under age five have
with the highest GHI scores, at 20.7 and 19.2 respectively—the rates declined in Africa south of the Sahara. A key factor behind the improved
of progress have also been uneven. rates seems to be the decrease in the prevalence of malaria, which
Among the regions, South Asia has the highest 2013 GHI score, coincided with the increased use of insecticide-treated bed nets and
although it witnessed the steepest absolute decline in GHI scores since other antimalarial interventions (Demombynes and Trommlerová 2012).
1990, amounting to almost 11 points. South Asia reduced its GHI score Other factors that may have helped cut mortality rates include higher
by 4 points between 1990 and 1995—mainly through a 10-percentage- immunization rates and a greater share of births in medical centers;
point decline in underweight in children—but this rapid progress did improved antenatal care and access to clean water and sanitation facil-
not persist. In the following five-year periods and after 2005, the ities; and increasing levels of income, leading to better nutrition and
decrease in GHI scores slowed down to 1–3 points despite strong eco- access to medical care.
nomic growth. Social inequality and the low nutritional, educational, The situation in the Sahel, however, remains fragile in 2013
and social status of women are major causes of child undernutrition in despite a good harvest. Recurrent crises in recent years—a combination
this region that have impeded improvements in the GHI score. of sporadic rainfall, locust infestation, crop shortages, and high and vol-
Though Africa south of the Sahara made less progress than atile food prices—have negatively affected food and nutrition security in
South Asia in the 1990s, it has caught up since the turn of the millen- the region, eroded the coping capacity of already vulnerable groups, and
nium and surpassed it, with a 2013 GHI score that fell below that of weakened their resilience to shocks. In addition, livestock—an impor-
South Asia. However South Asia’s overall decline was greater, as Afri- tant asset for pastoralists—have become vulnerable to diseases because
ca south of the Sahara began with a lower GHI score in 1990. The lat- of inadequate feeding. The conflict in northern Mali, growing insecurity
ter’s GHI score increased marginally between 1990 and 1995, fell in northern Nigeria, and migration pressure have exacerbated the situa-
slightly until 2000, and declined more markedly thereafter, by almost tion. In Mali, thousands of people have fled their homes and at the time
5 points overall, until the period reflected in the 2013 GHI score. The of writing are living in refugee camps or with host families in Mali and in
large-scale civil wars of the 1990s and 2000s ended, and countries neighboring countries (FAO 2013b).

12 Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
Best and Worst Country-Level Results health subsidies to the poor, and successfully administered social
From the 1990 GHI to the 2013 GHI, 23 countries reduced their security programs (von Braun, Ruel, and Gulati 2008; Huong and
scores by 50 percent or more (Figure 2.2). Forty-six countries made Nga 2013).
modest progress. Their GHI scores dropped by between 25 and 49.9 Another Southeast Asian country—Thailand—has also
percent, and 21 countries decreased their GHI scores by less than reduced its 1990 GHI by almost three-quarters. In the past two
25 percent.5 In Africa south of the Sahara, only one country—Gha- decades, Thailand experienced robust economic growth and reduced
na—is among the 10 best performers in terms of improving its GHI poverty (World Bank 2013b) despite transient setbacks related to
score since 1990 (Figure 2.3). Kuwait’s progress in reducing hunger the Asian financial crisis. As early as the 1980s, the government
is due mainly to its unusually high score in 1990, when Iraq invaded showed a strong commitment to fighting child undernutrition by inte-
the country: Its GHI score fell by more than 7 points (or 59 percent) grating nutrition into its National Economic and Social Development
by 1995, by 3.4 points between 1995 and 2000, and by only 0.2 Plan and implementing successful community-driven nutrition pro-
points after 2000 (see country trends in Appendix C). grams (Tontisirin and Winichagoon 1999).
Vietnam has achieved impressive progress in reducing hun- In five countries, GHI scores have risen since 1990. The three
ger since 1990 (see country trends in Appendix C). It reduced the worst performers are located in Africa south of the Sahara. Increased
proportion of undernourished from 47 percent to only 9 percent, hunger since 1990 in Burundi and Comoros can be attributed to pro-
lowered underweight in children from more than 40 percent around longed conflict and political instability. In Comoros, the GHI score fell
1990 to 12 percent in 2011, and more than halved the under-five after peaking in 2000, but has climbed up again since 2005. Between
mortality rate. GDP per capita has more than tripled in Vietnam 1990 and 2000, Burundi’s GHI score rose by almost 6 points and
since 1990, and strong, broad-based economic growth translated remained at a very high level, close to 40 until 2005. It has dipped
into a decline in the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 only slightly since. With the transition to peace and political stability
a day from 64 percent in 1993 to 17 percent in 2008 (World Bank that started in 2003, the country began a slow recovery from decades
2013b). The country put nutrition high on its agenda, effectively of economic decline. However, its high level of undernourishment
developed and implemented a plan for preventing protein-energy
malnutrition among children, achieved high coverage of immuni- 5
The numbers in these first three sentences refer to the 88 countries for which (1) data for the
zation and other primary healthcare services, granted targeted 1990 and 2013 GHI scores are available and (2) either or both of those scores is ­greater than 5.

FIGURE 2.3  GHI WINNERS AND LOSERS FROM 1990 GHI TO 2013 GHI

Winners (Percentage decrease in GHI) Losers (Percentage increase in GHI)

China -58 Comoros +40
Nicaragua -61 Swaziland +38
Peru -66 Burundi +15
Ghana -68 Paraguay +9
Venezuela -69 Guatemala +3
Mexico -70
Cuba -73
Thailand -73
Vietnam -75
Kuwait -88

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Note: Countries with both 1990 and 2013 GHI scores of less than 5 are excluded.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends13
remains a serious issue. The proportion of undernourished people has The Democratic Republic of Congo, with a population of more than
continued to rise since 1990. The prevalence of child underweight has 60 million (UN 2013c), still appears as a grey area on the map
declined since 2000, but it remains one of the highest in Africa. because reliable data on undernourishment are lacking and the lev-
Burundi’s child mortality rate has been improving, mainly since 1995 el of hunger cannot be assessed. It remains unclear if the GHI score
(see the table with underlying data in Appendix B). in this country would be classified as “extremely alarming,” as in pre-
In Swaziland, the HIV and AIDS epidemic, along with high vious editions of this report up to 2011, because data are not avail-
income inequality, has severely undermined food security despite able. High-quality data for the Democratic Republic of Congo, as for
growth in national income. Swaziland’s adult HIV prevalence in 2011 other likely hunger hot spots such as Afghanistan and Somalia, are
was estimated at 26 percent—the highest in the world (UNAIDS 2012). badly needed.
The country’s GHI score worsened until 1995, then declined slightly In terms of the GHI components, Burundi, Comoros, and Eritrea
until 2005, but has increased again since then. Swaziland and sever- currently have the highest proportion of undernourished people—more
al other African countries have made great strides in preventing mother-­ than 60 percent of the population.6 India and Timor-Leste have the
to-child transmission of HIV, and child mortality rates have dropped highest prevalence of underweight in children under five—more than
after peaking around 2005 (UNAIDS 2010; IGME 2012). However, the 40 percent in both countries. Mali, Sierra Leone, and Somalia have the
proportion of people who are undernourished increased dramatically in highest under-five mortality rate, ranging from approximately 18 to
Swaziland after 2004–2006 (FAO 2013a). Because of drought, more about 19 percent.
than one-quarter of the population depended on emergency food aid
in 2006–2007, and the country's GDP per capita declined between Although the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia are likely to have high proportions
6

of undernourished as well, they could not be included in this comparison because of lack of
2007 and 2010 (CIA 2013; World Bank 2013b). High unemployment, reliable data.
overgrazing, soil depletion, and the risk of future droughts and floods
pose persistent challenges (CIA 2013).
Some countries achieved noteworthy absolute progress in
improving their GHI scores. Comparing the 1990 GHI and the 2013 GHI,
Angola, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Niger, Rwan-
da, Thailand, and Vietnam saw the largest improvements—with decreas-
es in their scores ranging between 15 and 23 points (Table 2.1).
Nineteen countries still have levels of hunger that are “extremely
alarming” or “alarming” (Figure 2.4). Most of the countries with alarm-
ing GHI scores are in Africa south of the Sahara. The only exceptions
are Haiti, India, Timor-Leste, and Yemen. The three countries with
extremely alarming 2013 GHI scores—Burundi, Comoros, and Eritrea—
are in Africa south of the Sahara.
Haiti’s 1990 GHI score of 33.8 placed the country in the
“extremely alarming” category. The country’s GHI score declined by 8
points up to 2000, then slightly increased again around 2005, and fell
further while Haiti recovered from the devastating earthquake that
shook the country in 2010. As a result of overall positive development,
Haiti’s 2013 GHI score of 23.3 was more than one-quarter lower than
its 1990 score, although it is still considered “alarming.” Haiti’s 2010
under-five mortality rate more than doubled from its 2009 rate because
of the earthquake and its aftermath, but it fell below pre-disaster lev-
els in 2011 (IGME 2012). FAO’s most recent estimates indicate that
45 percent of Haitians were undernourished in 2010–2012. The data
show that although undernourishment in Haiti is still high, it has fall-
en by almost one-third since 1990 (FAO 2013a). Underweight in chil-
dren also improved significantly during this period.

14 Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 TABLE 2.1  COUNTRY GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES BY RANK, 1990 GHI, 1995 GHI, 2000 GHI, 2005 GHI, AND 2013 GHI

Rank Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013 Rank Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013
1 Albania 9.2 6.0 7.8 6.1 5.2 56 Uganda 21.4 22.9 19.9 18.6 19.2
1 Mauritius 8.5 7.6 6.5 5.9 5.2 57 Pakistan 25.9 22.8 21.6 21.2 19.3
3 Uzbekistan – 8.3 9.3 6.6 5.3 58 Bangladesh 36.7 35.1 24.0 20.2 19.4
4 Panama 11.6 10.8 11.4 9.0 5.4 59 Djibouti 33.5 28.5 27.7 24.0 19.5
4 South Africa 7.2 6.5 7.4 7.7 5.4 60 Niger 36.4 34.6 30.3 25.6 20.3
6 China 13.0 10.4 8.4 6.7 5.5 61 Congo, Rep. 23.7 23.9 19.3 18.4 20.5
6 Malaysia 9.5 7.1 6.9 5.8 5.5 62 Tanzania 23.4 26.9 26.1 20.5 20.6
6 Peru 16.3 12.3 10.5 9.9 5.5 63 India 32.6 27.1 24.8 24.0 21.3
9 Thailand 21.3 17.1 10.2 6.6 5.8 64 Mozambique 36.0 32.0 28.5 25.1 21.5
10 Colombia 10.4 8.0 6.8 6.9 5.9 65 Burkina Faso 26.9 22.7 26.1 26.6 22.2
11 Guyana 14.3 10.2 8.2 8.0 6.6 66 Sierra Leone 31.3 29.5 30.0 28.4 22.8
12 Suriname 11.3 9.9 11.1 8.9 6.7 67 Central African Rep. 30.7 29.4 28.0 28.5 23.3
13 El Salvador 10.9 8.7 7.4 6.4 6.8 67 Haiti 33.8 31.7 25.7 27.0 23.3
14 Dominican Republic 14.9 11.7 9.7 8.8 7.0 69 Zambia 24.9 24.5 26.3 25.3 24.1
15 Gabon 9.7 8.0 7.8 6.9 7.2 70 Madagascar 25.5 24.6 25.9 24.4 25.2
16 Vietnam 30.9 25.1 18.1 13.7 7.7 71 Ethiopia 42.3 42.7 37.1 31.0 25.7
17 Honduras 14.2 13.6 10.8 8.5 7.9 72 Yemen, Rep. 29.8 27.7 26.9 27.9 26.5
18 Ghana 25.5 19.6 15.6 10.7 8.2 73 Chad 38.8 34.9 29.8 29.7 26.9
19 Ecuador 14.0 11.6 12.3 10.1 8.5 74 Sudan (former) 31.1 25.7 27.2 24.7 27.0
20 Moldova – 7.7 8.8 7.3 9.2 75 Timor-Leste – – – 26.0 29.6
21 Georgia – 16.6 9.2 11.3 9.3 76 Comoros 24.0 27.5 33.3 29.8 33.6
22 Nicaragua 24.1 19.9 15.4 11.5 9.5 77 Eritrea – 40.6 40.2 39.3 35.0
23 Indonesia 19.7 16.9 15.5 14.6 10.1 78 Burundi 33.8 38.1 39.5 39.5 38.8
23 Paraguay 9.3 7.5 6.5 6.3 10.1
25 Mongolia 19.7 23.6 18.5 14.1 10.8
26 Bolivia 18.8 16.9 14.2 13.8 11.2
COUNTRIES WITH 2013 GHI SCORES LESS THAN 5
27 Lesotho 13.2 14.6 14.6 14.9 12.9
28 Mauritania 22.7 16.2 17.2 14.6 13.2 Country ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13 Country ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’13

28 Philippines 19.9 17.4 17.7 14.0 13.2 Algeria 7.0 7.7 5.3 <5 <5 Latvia – <5 <5 <5 <5

30 Benin 22.5 20.5 17.3 15.2 13.3 Argentina <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Lebanon <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

31 Senegal 18.1 19.8 19.2 13.7 13.8 Armenia – 10.2 8.2 <5 <5 Libya <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

32 Botswana 16.8 17.0 17.8 16.3 13.9 Azerbaijan – 14.5 11.9 5.4 <5 Lithuania – <5 <5 <5 <5

33 Gambia, The 19.1 20.4 16.1 15.6 14.0 Belarus – <5 <5 <5 <5 Macedonia, FYR – 5.8 <5 <5 <5

34 Guinea-Bissau 21.7 20.8 20.6 17.7 14.3 Bosnia & Herzegovina – <5 <5 <5 <5 Mexico 7.4 5.8 <5 <5 <5

35 Swaziland 10.4 12.9 12.7 12.5 14.4 Brazil 8.7 7.6 6.4 <5 <5 Montenegro – – – – <5

36 Cameroon 23.7 23.8 20.3 16.3 14.5 Bulgaria <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Morocco 7.8 6.9 6.2 6.5 <5

37 Togo 23.0 19.1 20.4 18.2 14.7 Chile <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Romania <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

38 Mali 27.4 26.9 24.3 20.7 14.8 Costa Rica <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Russian Fed. – <5 <5 <5 <5

39 Nigeria 25.3 22.6 17.9 16.3 15.0 Croatia – 5.4 <5 <5 <5 Saudi Arabia 6.5 6.4 <5 <5 <5

40 Malawi 30.6 27.6 21.6 18.7 15.1 Cuba 5.5 7.4 <5 <5 <5 Serbia – – – – <5

41 Rwanda 30.8 37.3 29.0 23.6 15.3 Egypt, Arab Rep. 7.0 6.2 5.2 <5 <5 Slovak Rep. – <5 <5 <5 <5

42 Guatemala 15.0 16.1 17.0 17.0 15.5 Estonia – <5 <5 <5 <5 Syrian Arab Rep. 7.7 6.1 <5 5.1 <5

43 Sri Lanka 22.3 20.7 17.8 16.9 15.6 Fiji 5.8 5.1 <5 <5 <5 Trinidad & Tobago 8.4 8.6 6.9 7.0 <5

44 Côte d'Ivoire 16.3 16.5 17.3 16.4 16.1 Iran, Islamic Rep. 8.5 7.4 6.1 <5 <5 Tunisia <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

45 Tajikistan – 21.2 22.6 19.0 16.3 Jamaica 5.9 5.0 <5 <5 <5 Turkey <5 5.0 <5 <5 <5

46 Zimbabwe 20.0 22.0 21.7 20.5 16.5 Jordan 5.1 5.2 <5 <5 <5 Turkmenistan – 10.3 8.6 6.6 <5

47 Cambodia 32.2 30.7 27.8 20.9 16.8 Kazakhstan – <5 5.3 <5 <5 Ukraine – <5 <5 <5 <5

48 Guinea 21.4 21.2 22.4 18.2 16.9 Kuwait 12.4 5.1 <5 <5 <5 Uruguay 5.5 <5 <5 <5 <5

49 Nepal 28.0 27.3 25.3 22.3 17.3 Kyrgyz Republic – 9.3 8.8 5.3 <5 Venezuela, RB 7.8 7.7 7.2 5.2 <5

50 Liberia 23.4 28.2 24.7 20.6 17.9

Note: Ranked according to 2013 GHI scores. Countries with a 2013 GHI score of less than
51 Kenya 21.4 21.0 20.5 20.2 18.0
5 are not included in the ranking, and differences between their scores are minimal. Countries
51 North Korea 18.8 22.6 22.5 20.0 18.0 that have identical 2013 GHI scores are given the same ranking (for example, Albania and
Mauritius both rank first). The following countries could not be included because of lack of
53 Namibia 22.1 21.9 17.5 17.1 18.4
data: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bhutan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Myanmar, Oman,
54 Lao PDR 33.4 30.3 28.0 23.7 18.7 Papua New Guinea, Qatar, and Somalia.
55 Angola 39.5 38.5 31.6 22.7 19.1

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Global, Regional, and National Trends15
 Greenland

FIGURE 2.4  2013 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX BY SEVERITY

Sweden
Iceland

Norway

United Kingdom
Denmark

Canada Neth. Poland

Ireland
Germany
Bel.
Lux. Czech Rep.
Slovakia
Austria
France Switz. Slov. Hungary
Croatia
Italy
Bos. & Serb.
Herz. Mont.
Mace.
Portugal Spain Albania
United States Greece
of America

Tunisia
Morocco

Algeria
Western Sahara Libya
Mexico

Cuba Dominican Rep.

Mauritania
Mali
Belize Jamaica Haiti Niger
Honduras Senegal Chad
Guatemala The Gambia
Nicaragua
El Salvador Guinea-Bissau Burkina Faso
Panama Trinidad & Tobago Benin
Costa Rica Guinea Nigeria
Venezuela Côte Togo
Guyana Sierra Leone Central African
d'IvoireGhana
French Guiana Republic
Liberia Cameroon
Suriname
Colombia Equatorial Guinea
Congo,
Ecuador Gabon Rep.

Peru

Brazil Angola

Bolivia
Namibia
Paraguay
Chile

Argentina Uruguay

> 30.0 Extremely alarming

20.0–29.9 Alarming
10.0–19.9 Serious
5.0–9.9 Moderate
< 4.9 Low
No data
Industrialized country

16 Global, Regional, Name

and National
des Teilbereich
Trends | Chapter
| Chapter02
1 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 Finland
Russian Federation

Estonia

Latvia
Lithuania

Belarus

Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Mold.
Mongolia
Romania
Bulgaria
Georgia Kyrgyz Rep.
Uzbekistan
Armenia Azerb.
N. Korea
Turkey Turkmenistan Tajikistan
Japan
S. Korea
Cyprus Syria
China
Lebanon Afghanistan
Iran
Israel
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Pakistan Nepal
Egypt Bahrain Bhutan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia U.A.E. Bangladesh

Myanmar Lao
India
PDR
Oman
Eritrea Yemen Thailand Philippines
Sudan
Cambodia Vietnam
Djibouti

Ethiopia

Sri Lanka Brunei

Somalia Malaysia
Uganda
Kenya Papua
Rw. New Guinea
Bur.
Indonesia
Congo,
Dem. Rep. Tanzania

Timor-Leste
Comoros
Malawi
Zambia

Zimbabwe Mozambique Mauritius

Botswana
Madagascar
Swaziland Australia

Lesotho
South
Africa

Note: For the 2013 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 2010–2012, data
on child underweight are for the latest year in the period 2008–2012 for which data are avail-
able, and data on child mortality are for 2011. GHI scores were not calculated for countries
for which data were not available and for certain countries with very small populations. The
2013 GHI score could only be calculated for former Sudan, because separate undernourish-
ment estimates for 2010–2012 were not available for Sudan and South Sudan, which became
independent in 2011.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02

1 | Name
| Global,
desRegional,
Teilbereich17
and National Trends 17
03
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
A resilience framework can help bolster support for interventions,
such as safety-net programs, that bridge relief and development.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
18 Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
UNDERSTANDING RESILIENCE
FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY

Several decades ago, short-term shocks were only of peripheral con- The Concept of Resilience
cern to most development experts. Helping people survive natural Resilience has roots in the Latin word resilio, meaning “to jump back”
disasters, like floods and droughts, or manmade ones like civil unrest, (Klein, Nicholls, and Thomalla 2003). Much of the resilience literature
was considered the responsibility of humanitarian aid organizations. broadly defines the term as a return to an original state. In ecology,
Conversely, humanitarian agencies have historically focused mainly resilience has long been concerned with a system’s ability to absorb
on relief rather than on the kinds of longer-term development-orient- changes and still persist (Holling 1973). Other resilience studies have
ed interventions that might reduce exposure or vulnerability to focused on the gap between original states and less than ideal condi-
shocks. tions. In the 1940s and 1950s, for instance, psychologists studied the
Since then our understanding of the role of short-term shocks negative effects of exclusion, poverty, and traumatic stressors on vul-
has evolved substantially. Even temporary shocks and stressors can nerable individuals, especially children (Glantz and Johnson 1999). The
have long-term consequences. A poor harvest that reduces a child’s concept was later adopted in other disciplines, including physics and
food intake, even temporarily, can have serious effects on her longer- disaster risk management, with a similar focus on recovery from shocks,
term cognitive and physical development and therefore future earning or even adverse trends such as rapid population growth.
capacity. A severe drought that leads a family to sell off its most pro- In the development community, the concept of resilience has
ductive assets, such as its land or livestock, can plunge that family into been further adapted and elaborated. When applied to complex adaptive
permanent poverty. It is therefore now widely recognized that a central systems, resilience is not just about resistance to change and going back
reason why it is so difficult for poor people to escape poverty is their to how things were (Folke 2006). It can involve making adjustments to
sheer inability to avoid or cope with shocks and stressors. Yet, at the respond to new stresses or even making considerable changes to a sys-
same time, relief efforts, important though they are, do not typically tem, be it a household, community, or country. Resilience here consists
address the underlying structural vulnerabilities of a population. Rec- of three capacities that respond to different degrees of change or shocks
ognizing these realities, both the humanitarian and development com- (Berkes, Colding, and Folke 2003; Walker et al. 2004):
munities have arrived at a common conclusion: Poor and vulnerable
populations need greater resilience, and in order to achieve it, these 1. Absorptive capacity covers the coping strategies individuals, house-
communities need to work together. holds, or communities use to moderate or buffer the impacts of
A critical part of building resilience involves boosting food shocks on their livelihoods and basic needs.
and nutrition security. Poor people have always been vulnerable to
“hunger seasons,” droughts, floods, and other natural and man- 2. Adaptive capacity is the ability to learn from experience and adjust
made disasters (Box 3.1). In recent years, this perennial vulnerabil- responses to changing external conditions, yet continue operating.
ity has been exacerbated by food price and financial crises, and
large-scale humanitarian crises such as the recurring droughts and 3. Transformative capacity is the capacity to create a fundamentally
famines in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. Several recent crises new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make
have even spurred the creation of large-scale programs that explic- the existing system untenable.
itly aim to build resilience, including the Global Alliance for Action
for Drought Resilience and Growth in the Horn of Africa backed by According to this broader definition, resilience is the result of not just
USAID and the Global Alliance for Resilience in the Sahel (AGIR- one, but all three capacities. Each capacity leads to a different out-
Sahel) funded by the European Union (EU). Dozens of other inter- come: (1) absorptive capacity leads to endurance (or continuity); (2)
national development projects are being created all over the world adaptive capacity leads to incremental adjustments or changes; and
to strengthen people’s resilience to shocks and improve their food (3) transformative capacity leads to transformational, system-changing
and nutrition security. responses (Figure 3.1).
While there is no consensus on the best ingredients for resil- These three different responses can be linked to different inten-
ience or even its definition, the development and relief communities sities of shock or change in a broadly hierarchical manner. The lower
are clearly moving toward a loosely defined resilience framework that the intensity of the shock, the more likely the household, community,
offers the potential for traditionally compartmentalized sectors to or system will be able to resist it effectively, absorbing its impacts with-
design and implement more effective and more integrated interven- out changing its function, status, or state. For example, a family would
tions. Nevertheless, this emerging resilience framework presents chal- be better able to deal with a short-term food price hike—without mak-
lenges—conceptually, empirically, and practically. ing drastic changes—than a tsunami that levels its village.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security19
 BOX 3.1  THE GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX (GHI) AND EXPOSURE TO METEOROLOGICAL DISASTERS

Not only the magnitude or frequency of a shock or stress, but also than 10) and less exposed (with a disaster incidence of less than 2
social, economic, and ecological factors characterizing a house- percent). The second quadrant shows countries that are currently less
hold, a community, a region, or a country determine whether expo- vulnerable but still highly exposed to shocks, such as China.
sure to risk will turn into a disaster or whether absorption, adapta- Countries in the third quadrant have high GHI scores but relatively
tion, or transformation is possible (Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft low exposure to weather shocks (note that Haiti has been exposed
2012). Existing food and nutrition insecurity is one factor that to other kinds of shocks such as earthquakes). Such countries are
increases vulnerability to shocks and ­stresses. very vulnerable to weather shocks, but less frequently exposed to
The graph below shows selected developing countries according to them compared with countries in the fourth quadrant. Many of the
both their existing vulnerability (represented by the GHI score) and countries in the fourth quadrant are perennially vulnerable to floods
their exposure to shocks (represented by the average share of the and droughts, including those in the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, ­Ethiopia,
population affected by extreme weather events, mostly droughts Kenya), the Sahel (Chad, Niger, Sudan), Southern Africa (Malawi,
and floods, in 1990–2009). Zambia), and South Asia (Bangladesh, India). Not surprisingly, these
Countries fall into four quadrants of the graph. The first quadrant shows regions receive the bulk of the humanitarian assistance and also see
countries that are less vulnerable to shocks (with a GHI score of less most of the major international resilience-building efforts.

SELECTED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES’ VULNERABILITY AND EXPOSURE TO SHOCKS

40
40
Burundi
Source: Authors, based
on 2013 GHI scores and
35
35 Eritrea EM-DAT (2013).
Comoros Note: “Population affected”
refers to people who needed
emergency assistance or
30
30
Timor-Leste were displaced. Graph does
not include countries with
Sudan (former)
Yemen Chad GHI scores of 5 or less.
Madagascar Ethiopia
25
25
Central African R. Zambia
Haiti
2013 GHI score

Sierra Leone Burkina Faso Mozambique

India
Congo, Rep. Tanzania Niger
20
20
Uganda
Pakistan
Bangladesh Djibouti
Angola Lao PDR Namibia
Côte d’lvoire Nepal Liberia Kenya
Guinea Cambodia
Tajikistan
Nigeria Togo Mali Guinea- Guatemala Sri Lanka
15
15 Cameroon Bissau Rwanda Malawi
Swaziland
Botswana
Senegal Benin Mauritania
Gambia Lesotho
Philippines
Indonesia Bolivia Mongolia
Paraguay
10
10 Moldova Nicaragua
Georgia Honduras
Ecuador
Dominican R. Ghana
El Salvador Vietnam Guyana
Colombia Peru Thailand China
Suriname Albania
5
5 South Africa
Panama
Uzbekistan
Malaysia
Mauritius
0
00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 10
10
Average share of population affected by weather shocks, 1990–2009 (%)

Quadrant 1: Less vulnerable and less exposed to shocks Quadrant 2: Less vulnerable but exposed to shocks
Quadrant 3: Vulnerable but less exposed to shocks Quadrant 4: Highly vulnerable and highly exposed to shocks

20 Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security | Chapter 03 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 R ESILIENCE AS THE RESULT OF ABSORPTIVE,
FIGURE 3.1  Strengths of a Resilience Framework
ADAPTIVE, AND TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITIES Adopting resilience as an analytical framework could help in the fight
against food and nutrition insecurity for several reasons. Resilience
Resilience
helps frame problems coherently and holistically. Linking interrelated
short-term shocks and long-term systemic change gives us a more com-
Change Transformative plete view of the factors that lead people to drift into poverty, food and
capacity nutrition insecurity, or both. By giving greater weight to the significance
(transformational responses)
Intensity of responses

of negative shocks than earlier development frameworks did, this con-

cept of resilience highlights how an inability to cope with shocks makes
it hard for the poor to escape poverty and explains why others fall into
it in the first place (McKay 2009; World Bank 2006).1
Adaptive capacity A resilience framework has practical implications, as well. It
Flexibility (incremental adjustment) may serve as a “mobilizing metaphor” (Béné et al. 2012) to integrate
traditionally disparate sectors—particularly the relief and development
sectors­— and encourage them to work together (USAID 2012). It may
also help bolster support for interventions, such as safety-net programs,
that bridge relief and development. More integrated multisectoral pro-
Absorptive
coping capacity grams and collaborations could adopt a more systemic and holistic
(persistence) approach to fighting both chronic and transient poverty compared with
Stability
many of today’s piecemeal approaches. Another practical advantage of
Mild Moderate Severe
using a resilience framework is that it has focused more attention on
Intensity of shock/stressor impact
understanding the welfare and behavioral dynamics of vulnerable pop-
Source: Authors.
ulations, including better measurement of transient poverty as well as
food and nutrition insecurity.
When the shock or stressor exceeds this absorptive capacity, however, The analysis and understanding of local dynamics are key to
individuals and communities will then exercise their adaptive resilience, identifying existing and potential self-help competencies and capaci-
which involves making incremental changes to keep functioning with- ties. It is essentially those competencies and capacities that must be
out major qualitative changes in function or structure. These adjust- built up to increase individuals’, households’, local communities’, and
ments can take many forms. Examples include adopting new farming states’ ability to absorb, to adapt, and to transform. The “resilience
techniques, diversifying one’s livelihood, taking out loans, and connect- lens” thus reaffirms the importance of identifying and strengthening
ing to new social networks. These adaptations can be individual or col- local structures and supporting them in performing their roles effec-
lective, and they can take place at multiple levels, such as among or tively and working together. These structures include organizations as
between households, individuals, or communities. diverse as central or decentralized administrations, health centers,
If, however, those incremental changes associated with adap- disaster risk management committees, and associations of small-scale
tive capacity are not enough to prevent a household, community, or producers.
system from avoiding dire circumstances, a more substantial transfor-
mation must take place. These changes permanently alter the system Challenges of Applying a Resilience Framework
or structure in question. For example, droughts in the Horn of Africa While the resilience framework seems to offer many benefits in theo-
may push people out of pastoralism and into sedentary agriculture or ry, it faces many challenges in practice. First and foremost, experts in
urban occupations, because they can no longer rebuild their herds (Lyb- development and humanitarian circles have yet to agree on a common
bert et al. 2004; Box 3.2). Importantly, these changes may not always definition of resilience. Too often the definitions adopted tend to
be positive in the long run, even if they prevent people from falling into emphasize a return to initial states, which hardly seems consistent with
acute poverty that puts their access to basic necessities such as food promoting transformation and development.
and shelter at risk. In the example described in Box 3.2, those who
transition out of pastoralism may fare worse than active pastoralists, 1
Inequality also shapes vulnerability and makes it harder for poor people to escape and manage
since sedentary agriculture is highly risky in arid conditions. risk, thus undermining their resilience capacities (Oxfam 2013).

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security21
 BOX 3.2  RESILIENCE IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: A STORY OF THREE COMMUNITIES

Barrett and Constas (2012) define resilience as a situation in which, mative capacity. At the end of the drought, Community A actu-
over time, a person, household, or community is nonpoor and food ally has gained a greater ability to withstand future shocks.
secure in the face of various stressors and shocks. Only if that likeli-
hood is high and remains so can that person, household, or commu- > Community B is on a path to increasing vulnerability, although
nity be considered resilient. What might this mean in practice? some indicators might suggest otherwise. It has lost the ability to
Here we take an example of three hypothetical communities from absorb drought impacts through the traditional strategy of moving
the real-world setting of African pastoralism at three points in time: cattle and rebuilding the herd. As a result, at the peak of the
before drought, the peak of the drought, and after drought. drought it decides to resort to violence to appropriate the herds,
grazing land, and water resources of other groups. Like Commu-
>C
 ommunity A is relatively resilient. It has three assets that make nity A, Community B has largely maintained its current well-being,
it so. First, it has a large cattle herd. This means that, even but at the cost of other groups’ welfare. Moreover, its cattle-rus-
though a drought will kill much of its herd, the community still tling strategy incurs the risks of punishment and further violence,
has enough cattle after drought to rebuild the herd and maintain thereby reducing the community’s future capabilities.
pastoralism as a viable livelihood. In other words, it has absorp-
tive capacity. Second, Community A has the ability to graze and > Community C becomes even poorer and more vulnerable. This com-

water its animals over a large and diverse geographical area. This munity’s herd is much smaller, and its grazing and watering mobil-
herd mobility allows the community to move its animals from the ity have been substantially reduced by a mix of land enclosures,
most drought-affected to the least drought-affected areas and to tribal conflict, and irrigation developments. When drought strikes,
change its migration strategy when needed. It thus has adaptive the herd is badly hit, and the community is left with too few cattle
capacity. Finally, in the wake of previous droughts, some com- to rebuild the herd to a viable size. Community C becomes depen-
munity members left to work in the capital city, where droughts dent on emergency relief, and its members switch to a new liveli-
have little or no effect on wages and the remittances sent home. hood that is more diversified but also less remunerative: a mix of
In fact, the community uses these remittances as a form of insur- sedentary mixed crop-livestock farming and casual labor. Without
ance and to build up assets. So it also has built up its transfor- external assistance, it will likely remain in this poverty trap.

Community C Community B Community A

Higher (Increasingly poor and vulnerable) (Increasingly vulnerable) (Resilient)
Future capacity to withstand shocks

After
drought
Drought Before
Before
peaks drought
drought

After drought Drought peaks

Before
Drought drought
peaks

After
drought
Lower
Lower Higher
Current welfare
Source: Authors.

22 Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security | Chapter 03 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
Some critics have also suggested that resilience is a concept that does resilience since improved coordination and prioritization could be suf-
not translate well from ecological settings to social settings. They argue ficient in themselves. However, one might also expect a resilience
that the resilience model does not pay enough attention to social focus to encourage adoption of programs or policies that inno­vatively
dynamics in general, and to issues of agency and power in particular. 2
bridge the relief and development sectors (as opposed to specializing
However, NGOs and other practitioners increasingly challenge this view. in one sector or the other).
They emphasize the resilience-enhancing role played by social process- This raises a question: What types of interventions might build
es, such as community cohesion, good leadership, and individual sup- this bridge between relief and development? An obvious example would
port of collective action (Twigg 2007; Boyd et al. 2008; Schwarz et al. be safety-net programs, which meet the criteria for providing social pro-
2011; VFL 2011). A rigorous assessment of the literature shows, how- tection, or “relief,” and contributing to development, or “longer-term
ever, that the number of these analyses is still low and the evidence resilience building.” Social protection typically takes the form of food,
thin (Béné et al. 2012). cash, or voucher transfers, but the development component is more
Others fear that the resilience agenda may be pushed too far, varied. Transfers that are conditional often incorporate explicit devel-
threatening or diluting the impact of more traditional relief activities. opment objectives, such as raising school attendance, expanding voca-
If the relief sector’s performance is benchmarked against its contribu- tional training or adult schooling, increasing nutritional knowledge, and,
tion to resilience building, many worthwhile but more narrowly focused quite commonly, building infrastructure through public works programs.
relief efforts could lose resources. Enthusiasm for resilience building A very relevant example is the Productive Safety Net Program in
therefore needs to be tempered by an appreciation for the need for core ­Ethiopia (Box 3.3). This program was an innovative solution to two
relief activities and the benefits of specialization. major problems: (1) the ad hoc, uneven, and unpredictable nature of
Finally, while resilience usually has positive connotations and traditional transfer programs and (2) the widely held view that exces-
is the goal of many programs and projects, the large majority do not sive focus on relief was inhibiting sustainable rural development. By
consider its possible downsides. Some coping strategies, such as pros- combining social protection with public asset building, the Productive
titution or begging, may strengthen resilience, but to the detriment of Safety Net Program clearly contributes to both relief and longer-term
well-being and self-esteem. Other coping activities, such as crime, may development. In that sense, it is a resilience-oriented program.
increase the resilience of one group to the detriment of another per- Related programs in Ethiopia and elsewhere (such as BRAC’s
son’s well-being.3 Moreover, when defined as the rapid return to an ini- graduation model in Bangladesh) also focus on helping individuals
tial state, resilience may be counterproductive in the long run. Resil- and households build up business and financial skills as well as con-
ience as “stickiness,” “stubbornness,” or “resistance to change” is fidence and a sense of empowerment. These programs are based on
clearly not a desirable quality in many circumstances. the assumption that providing temporary safety from shocks is a key
These concerns are by no means academic. Populations high- step toward building up assets that provide a more permanent resil-
ly exposed to climate change, such as African pastoralists, are the sub- ience to shocks.
ject of substantial debate over whether herd recovery or diversification The Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative is a quite different exam-
out of pastoralism is the best long-term objective. Similarly, the argu- ple of a relief-and-development intervention from Ethiopia (Box 3.3).
ment that safety-net programs impede out-migration from drought- While productive safety-net programs are well suited to sedentary crop
prone rural areas is relevant. In such a case, resilience without trans- or crop-livestock systems, pastoralists face unique challenges. Like
formation, in response to a stressor as significant as climate change, crops, livestock are highly vulnerable to drought. But unlike annual
could be an undesirable quality in the long run. crops, they are a perennial asset, like land.4 This makes the death of
livestock during droughts potentially very costly. In extreme situations,
Resilience-Enhancing Interventions a household may drop out of pastoralism, simply because it cannot
As implied, a significant challenge for a resilience framework is to rebuild its herd after a drought.
define exactly what value it adds to the current way of doing things.
In principle, a resilience framework could add value in two ways. At 2
As examples, see Leach (2008); Hornborg (2009); Davidson (2010); Duit, Galaz, and Eckerberg
(2010).
a strategic level, a resilience framework could encourage governments 3
Some of these livelihood strategies may be short-term “negative” coping strategies; others clear-
and development partners to mainstream resilience as a policy and ly involve longer-term maladaptations that cannot be considered simply survival coping behaviors.
“Negative” forms of resilience are thus possible and often empirically observed (Sapountzaki
programmatic objective, and to coordinate difference agencies and 2007).
4
Moreover, the mobility of pastoralist populations makes the range of fixed public works projects,
sectors to achieve that objective. In this strategic sense, it is not obvi-
such as the construction of roads and crop infrastructure, more limited, though they are still pos-
ous that new policy or program instruments are needed to achieve sible, particularly in more sedentary agro-pastoralist settings.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security23
 The Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative is a tightly focused resilience-
building program that switches between relief and development, rath-
er than trying to address both at the same time, as the Productive Safe-
ty Net Program does. It offers one clear practical way to address the

Bosco Ogwang
disconnect between relief and development activities. But while safe-
ty-net programs have been widely researched all over the world, more
Lira District, Uganda experimentation, learning, and evaluation are required for these kinds
of switching programs.
“If children cannot eat enough food, it can be stressful
to attend daily classes, study, and concentrate. The Measuring Resilience
current food scarcity in the region will affect children’s With mounting interest in resilience as a conceptual framework comes
concentration in school and could, if it continues, lead increased demand for empirical knowledge of resilience. Govern-
to a higher dropout rate from school.” ments, nongovernmental organizations, international donors, and oth-
ers are interested in using the best available indicators and survey
instruments to identify differences across space and time and to diag-
nose sources of vulnerability and design programs to address weak-
nesses. To diagnose the problems and develop the best responses, it
is important to measure resilience by gauging the impacts of both
shocks and the mitigating influences on these shocks, such as cop-
ing behaviors and outside interventions (Frankenberger and Nelson
2013). In short, good measurement should drive diagnosis and
response (Barrett 2010).
A better understanding of resilience will require collecting
data on the causes and consequences of a wide range of negative
shocks. However, resilience, vulnerability, and coping behaviors are
difficult phenomena to measure, because (1) shocks, by definition,
are often short-term unpredictable events, implying the need for

Maïga Mahamane
­frequent data (for example, bi-monthly); (2) negative shocks often
occur in remote places and populations, such as pastoralists in the
Employee of Welthungerhilfe, Mali Sahel or the Horn of Africa; and (3) resilience to shocks involves com-
plex coping or adaptive behaviors, which are diverse and may involve
“In 2012 we were beset by several crises: a nutrition thresholds and qualitative shifts.
­security crisis, a politics and security crisis, and at the As such, the unpredictable nature of shocks and responses
same time a humanitarian crisis. It was the first time to them makes measuring vulnerability and resilience much more dif-
we in Mali had to endure such a time of instability. ficult than measuring chronic welfare measures like poverty, child
­Civil servants abandoned their offices, and the people malnutrition, or infant mortality. For chronic measures, occasional
in occupied areas had no one to turn to for help....” snapshots from household surveys usually suffice to paint a general
picture of poverty across regions and countries and to determine
“To prepare for the future, one has to consider that basic trends. These standard household surveys are not frequent
Mali is located in the Sahel, which is affected enough, however, to assess the consequences of shocks except by
by ­climate change. The majority of the population coincidence, and large panel surveys in developing countries are still
­depends on the wet season to ensure their food relatively rare. While many standard economic or health and nutri-
­security. To improve their situation, they must tion surveys might measure important aspects of vulnerability and
­pursue long-term activities to improve their pro­ resilience, they are unlikely to measure all relevant behavioral
duction systems, to equip them with the necessary responses. This suggests that measuring vulnerability and resilience
information, and to diversify their diet.” requires a different approach.

24 Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security | Chapter 03 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 BOX 3.3  TWO EXAMPLES OF RELIEF-AND-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FROM ETHIOPIA

Ethiopia is notoriously vulnerable to large-scale droughts, in both to combining relief and development activities in a pastoralist set-
the sedentary mixed crop-livestock areas of the highlands and the ting. Severe drought is a fact of life in the arid lowlands of the Horn
mostly pastoralist lowlands. In the 1980s and 1990s, droughts left of Africa and has always led to cyclical booms and busts in herd
Ethiopia constantly scrambling for unpredictable humanitarian sizes. Yet there is evidence of a long-term decline in herd sizes
relief, particularly food aid. By the 2000s, experts agreed that this because pastoralists are unable to rebuild herds after droughts.
inefficient approach could leave the Ethiopian poor even worse off. While some debate the reasons for this trend, mounting evidence
It became clear that the cycle of crisis and relief was not helping suggests that it is far more cost-effective to limit herd deaths in
the poor escape chronic poverty. They needed more help to spur the first place or to ensure that pastoralists slaughter or sell their
the country’s longer-term economic development. Over the next animals for cash rather than see them die of starvation or disease.
decade, Ethiopia’s government and many international development Nongovernmental organizations working in pastoralist areas echoed
partners experimented with new programs that mixed both relief the same complaints that spurred the development of the Produc-
and development elements. Two such programs were the Produc- tive Safety Net Program. Emergency funding and resources were
tive Safety Net Program and the Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative. too slow to mobilize at the onset of drought, leading to inefficient
relief activities. The Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative implemented
THE PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET PROGRAM. In 2005, the Productive two innovative approaches to resilience building. First, it focused
Safety Net Program set out to achieve multiple objectives. On the on development activities in normal years (largely for livestock
relief side, it aimed to improve the targeting of benefits to the most activities to grow herds). Second, it built in a “crisis modifier”
vulnerable and increase the consistency and predictability of food approach that allowed implementing agencies to quickly reallocate
and cash transfers. On the development end, it focused on build- resources to relief activities if a drought set in.
ing community assets through a public works program for all but How does this work? The Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative features
the most labor-constrained households. A linked Household Asset built-in triggers to switch between relief and development. In the
Building Program focuses on building assets at the household lev- first phase of the initiative, agencies could set aside and access 10
el. Both internationally and in Ethiopia, many consider the Produc- percent of their allocated funds if drought triggered the crisis mod-
tive Safety Net Program successful. Its key strengths are its cov- ifier. In the second phase, the main implementing agency (USAID/
erage of 7–9 million recipients, or about 13 percent of the rural Ethiopia) developed an agreement with USAID’s relief agency to
population; its unique inter-institutional coordination; its strong allow implementing agencies to quickly and seamlessly get more
monitoring and evaluation and capacity to improve itself through funds when the crisis modifier was triggered.
feedback loops; and its clear impact on food and nutrition securi- The Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative’s “relief” strategy went
ty indicators. Despite these benefits, questions about resilience- beyond the normal approach to relief by protecting livelihoods—
related aspects of the Productive Safety Net Program persist. Is not just lives. The relief included emergency destocking and
the program climate-proofed? Should it cover urban areas? Does it slaughter, provision of feed and water (including improved feeds
inhibit migration out of unsustainably low-potential regions? And to support animal milk production and child nutrition during
are the Productive Safety Net Program and Household Asset Build- drought), and emergency veterinary care. Like the Productive
ing Program really graduating people out of chronic poverty? Safety Net Program, the Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative also con-
tained a strong focus on evaluation and adjustment. Evaluations
THE PASTORALIST LIVELIHOODS INITIATIVE. Though recently extend- revealed that some interventions were far more cost-effective and
ed to the pastoralist lowlands, “conventional” safety net programs sustainable than others.
such as the Productive Safety Net Program are difficult to apply to
pastoralist settings because of the dominance of livestock-based Sources: Personal interviews with John Graham, USAID, and Matthew Hobson, World Bank.
For academic discussions of these issues, see Gilligan, Hoddinott, and Taffesse (2009) and
livelihoods, and the greater dispersion and mobility of pastoralist Berhane et al. (2011) for impact evaluations of the Productive Safety Net Program and House-
hold Asset Building Program. See Lybbert et al. (2004) for a discussion of pastoralist herd
populations. On a smaller scale than the Productive Safety Net Pro-
dynamics, as well as Headey, Taffesse, and You (2012, forthcoming) for a review of pastoral-
gram, the Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative adopts a unique approach ist livelihood issues in the Horn of Africa.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security25
 TABLE 3.1  PROPOSED METRICS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE TO FOOD AND NUTRITION INSECURITY

Sample metrics Resilience measurement principles

Initial basic conditions

>F
 ood and nutrition security >H
 igh or appropriate frequency
>H
 ealth index >S
 ensitive to short-term variation and critical thresholds
>A
 ssets index >M
 easuredat many levels, including household,
>S
 ocial capital index community, village, district
>A
 ccess to services index
> I nfrastructure

>E
 cological index

Shocks and stressors

Covariate shocks and stressors >H

 igh frequency
>D
 rought/flood > I ntertemporal

>H
 ealth shocks >D
 ynamic

>P
 olitical crises >M
 easured at multiple levels, from household,
>P
 rice volatility community, village, and district up to country-level
>T
 rade/policy
macroeconomic indicators
shocks

Idiosyncratic shocks and stressors

> I llness/death

>L
 oss of income
>F
 ailed crops
>L
 ivestock loss

Responses

>M
 itigation strategies >M
 easured at multiple levels, across the systems that affect
>C
 oping strategies food and nutrition security
>A
 daptation strategies

Subsequent basic conditions

>F
 ood and nutrition security >H
 igh or appropriate frequency
>H
 ealth index >S
 ensitive to intertemporal variation and critical thresholds
>A
 ssets index > M
 easured
at many levels, including household,
>S
 ocial capital index community, village, district
>A
 ccess to services index
> I nfrastructure

>E
 cological index

Source: Adapted from Constas and Barrett (2013).

26 Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security | Chapter 03 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
What, then, are the key issues that arise when one tries to measure
resilience in the context of food and nutrition insecurity? A distinguish-
ing feature of resilience and vulnerability is the potential for complex
dynamics. In vulnerable socioeconomic environments, individuals,

Guillermo Pacotaype
households, and communities are likely to experience dynamic fluctu-
ations in well-being, including a mix of long-term trends, cyclical and
seasonal shocks, and major covariate shocks. Moreover, the transitions Chuschi District, Peru
from one state, such as chronic poverty, into either better or worse
states are likely to be characterized by a range of threshold effects or “I started with a project to rehabilitate the springs and
tipping points, such as when a drought reduces herd sizes below a creeks by setting stones around them to protect them
threshold of recovery (Box 3.2; Lybbert et al. 2004). from animal excrement and the drying sun, and by plant-
Finally, resilience requires a multilevel or systemic measure- ing putaqa [Peruvian plant], which is a species that
ment approach. This includes measurement at different levels—indi- catches water well. At the community level, we have im-
vidual, household, community, (eco)system—and among different plemented the legal guidelines to protect our water
socioeconomic and ethnic groups. This also requires an understanding sources. For example, we prohibit the drawing of water
of how these different identities and factors interact. Beyond the house- with dirty utensils or the use of soap in the water hole.”
hold level, systemic factors, such as health conditions, social and polit-
ical relationships, culture, agroecological factors, and macroeconomic
conditions, may affect resilience.
These basic principles have important implications for mea-
surement in practice. Table 3.1 provides a general list of proposed indi-
cators that could be used to measure resilience for food and nutrition
security. Perhaps the most important prerequisite for resilience mea-
surement is higher-frequency surveys (Barrett 2010; Headey and Eck-
er 2013). Though still surprisingly rare, high-frequency measurement
is a necessary condition for understanding vulnerability and resilience,
because it helps identify (1) “dynamic initial states,” such as season-
ality, cyclicality, and exposure to idiosyncratic shocks; (2) differences

Villagers of Dukum
between pre-shock and post-shock states; (3) the complex dynamics
of coping and adaptation mechanisms; and (4) the key thresholds that
may arise in the transitions between initial and subsequent states (Bar- Rayagada District, India
rett and Constas 2012). The more standard program evaluation based
on two to three rounds of a survey (typically conducted several years “We have been living in forests for generations, but our
apart) will rarely if ever suffice to make sense of the complexities of rights to the land have yet to be registered. The fact
highly vulnerable people's lives. that we do not have legal ownership over much of the
The most pertinent examples of high-frequency resilience sur- land on which we have been living and depend on for
veys are the nutritional surveillance system surveys conducted by Hel- our food and livelihood makes us feel insecure. The
en Keller International (HKI) in Bangladesh and Indonesia.5 The World lack of proper demarcation of the plots of land allocat-
Food Programme (WFP) also uses the nutritional surveillance system ed to us … is leading to the shrinking of our land un-
approach in some of its high-priority countries, such as South Sudan. der cultivation in the forest....”
These surveys are typically conducted every two months—more often
than standard household surveys—in order to pick up the effects of
both seasonal shocks and “one-time” natural disasters. Moreover, while

See Bloem, Moench-Pfanner, and Panagides (2003) and Shoham, Watson, and Dolan (2001)
5

for an introduction to the approach.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security27
the nutritional surveillance system surveys focus heavily on nutrition
indicators, they also look at a wide range of household characteristics BOX 3.4 HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL’S NUTRITIONAL SURVEIL-
and coping behaviors (Box 3.4). LANCE PROJECTS IN BANGLADESH AND INDONESIA
Beyond the need to use higher-frequency surveys, resilience
measurement faces additional challenges in terms of the breadth of Helen Keller International (HKI) set up nutritional surveillance
the resilience concept. Resilience is a highly multidimensional concept ­systems in Bangladesh and Indonesia to document the effects of
with numerous causes and manifestations. Moreover, some factors may crises on the well-being of the poor. In Bangladesh, the system mon-
be considered not only causes or sources of resilience, but also indi- itored the effect of disasters such as floods. In Indonesia, it was
cators of resilience. For example, a non-exhaustive list of factors that designed to monitor the effect of the Asian economic crisis of the
are simultaneously considered as “contributors” to and “results” of late 1990s on nutrition and health. Over the years, these nutrition-
resilience includes: technological capacity, appropriate skills and edu- al surveillance systems evolved into comprehensive, yet flexible,
cation, gender empowerment, sustainable natural resource manage- information systems providing timely, accurate, and important data
ment, adequate livelihood assets, good governance, and access to infra- for policy and program planning, nationally and internationally.
structure (Alinovi et al. 2010; USAID 2012; Tulane and UEH 2012; The indicators in HKI’s surveillance systems are based on
Vaitla et al. 2012). This clouding of the distinction between cause and ­UNICEF’s conceptual framework of the causes of malnutrition and
effect limits our ability to compare or refute specific hypotheses (Fran- cover areas such as the nutrition and health status of mothers
kenberger and Nelson 2013). and children, socioeconomic status, food production and con-
In addition, this diverse and extensive list of factors poses sumption, and health service use. In Bangladesh, the nutritional
some serious challenges to both measurement and scientific analy- surveillance project originally collected data in disaster-prone sub-
sis. Some of these factors are inherently difficult to measure, such districts, but in 1998 the sampling procedure was revised to be
as governance, natural resource management, and gender empower- nationally and divisionally representative. Data collection takes
ment. Many must be measured qualitatively rather than quantitative- place every two months to capture seasonal changes in nutrition
ly. Some indicators must be measured at the individual or household and health, which allows the impact of disasters to be distin-
level, but others need to be measured at the community level or even guished from seasonal effects. For example, as the top chart
higher. Finally, some factors—as well as the definition of resilience shows, the share of households that borrowed to cope with the
itself—are likely to be context- and shock-specific, thereby limiting 1998 floods in Bangladesh spiked to more than 50 percent from
comparability across survey sites. Some factors fall under one disci- less than 10 percent over a 5-month period.
pline, such as economics, while others fall under very different dis- In 1998, Bangladesh experienced one of the worst episodes of
ciplines (ecology, political science, sociology). As already emphasized, flooding on record. The nutritional surveillance project was
most—if not all—of these factors ought to be measured in high-fre- instrumental in drawing attention to the plight of flood-affected
quency surveys. Thus the practical challenges to effectively monitor- areas and in helping target public responses to populations in
ing and measuring resilience are considerable. Yet collecting such an need. The surveillance data also showed that child wasting more
extensive set of data to measure resilience could help shape more than doubled from the surplus season to the lean season. Reduc-
informed responses to a wide range of crises. ing such harmful effects of seasonality is an important part of
building resilience.
Looking Back
The complexity of the concept of resilience and the challenges of
measuring and promoting it may paint a somewhat daunting picture
for policymakers and development practitioners. Indeed, some vul-
nerable countries and regions have found themselves mired for
decades in poverty and food and nutrition insecurity in the face of
shocks. Other highly vulnerable countries, though, have seemingly
become more resilient. Much can be learned from the varied experi-
ences of these groups of countries.

28 Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security | Chapter 03 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 HOUSEHOLD BORROWING TO COPE WITH THE 1998 FLOODS IN BANGLADESH

Flood

60
% of households that borrowed money to

50
cope with a shock

40

30

20

10

0
Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct

1998 1999 2000

Source: Adapted from Bloem, Moench-Pfanner, and Panagides (2003).

Note: Data are for households located in subdistricts that were severely affected by the 1998 flood.

SEASONALITY IN CHILD WASTING, 1998–2000

Prolonged hungry season Regular but intense hunger seasons: April–August

after July–August flooding

20
% of children suffering from wasting

15

10

0
Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct

1998 1999 2000

Source: Adapted from Bloem, Moench-Pfanner, and Panagides (2003).

Note: Data are for households located in subdistricts that were severely affected by the 1998 flood. Data on wasting are for children ages 6–59 months.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security29
 FIGURE 3.2  TRENDS IN FOOD AID RECEIPTS, 1988–2011

40
1988 – 1991
1992 – 1995
35 1996 – 1999
2000 – 2003
 2004 – 2007
30 2008 – 2011
Food aid (kg) per capita in rural areas

25

20

15

10

Horn of Africa Sahel Malawi Zambia Bangladesh

Source: Authors’ calculations, based on WFP (2013).

Notes: Per capita estimates = food aid receipts/total rural population, from World Bank (2013b), assuming the vast majority of food aid recipients are rural. Data are averaged over four-year periods to
reduce the volatility in the series. Data are measured in kilograms of grain equivalent. As a proxy for national-level resilience, food aid receipts come with caveats. One obvious problem with food aid
receipts as an indicator of resilience is that the amount of food aid may reflect the donors’ or recipients’ influence or political clout, and not just need. Another problem is that the indicator
is volatile by its very nature, though we partly control for this here by taking four-year averages of the data.

Figure 3.2 shows three countries and two subregions that score high
on the 2013 Global Hunger Index and are exposed to weather
shocks, along with their food aid receipts as a proxy for resilience
over time. The food aid data reflect the standard narrative of “per-
manent crisis” in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, where food aid
Sindhu Kumbruka receipts were roughly as large in 2008–2011 as they were about
Rayagada District, India 20 years ago. In contrast, Malawi and Zambia (two countries where
controversial fertilizer subsidy programs have greatly expanded
“We have been asserting our rights to the forest and maize production) have seen improvements in recent years, though
filing for recognition of our community and individual questions remain about whether these efforts can be sustained. And
­forest rights. We have begun regenerating more than finally, Bangladesh has achieved a remarkable reduction in food aid
4,000 h­ ectares of degraded forest.” dependency. Its 85 percent drop in food aid receipts from the ear-
ly 1990s to 2008–2011 is consistent with the country’s dramatic
economic and social achievements (Economist 2012), including rap-
id agricultural growth (through new crop varieties and other modern
inputs), sharp reductions in fertility rates, dramatic expansion in
education (especially for females), a microfinance revolution, and
sustained job creation outside of agriculture.

30 Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security | Chapter 03 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
There is more to learn about why some vulnerable regions have made
so little progress, while some shock-prone countries seem to have
turned themselves around. Success stories like Bangladesh, Malawi,
and Zambia, however, show that building individual, community, and
national resilience within a generation is a real possibility.

Looking Ahead
The importance of considering the building blocks of resilience is
becoming more apparent to the development and relief communities,
both of which have long struggled to understand why some people
fare better than others when confronting stresses or shocks. Resil-
ience is a challenging concept that has evolved across an unusually
wide range of disciplines. Its increasing adoption in development cir-
cles is understandable given the mounting evidence of the close inter-
actions between short-term shocks and longer-term development.
But while the underlying rationale for focusing on resilience
building is strong, adopting a resilience framework faces many chal-
lenges. Conceptually, consensus is needed on what resilience is and
what it is not; on whether resilience is desirable by definition, or
whether it might include detrimental behaviors; on whether it only
means bouncing back, or whether it also includes adaptive and trans-
formative behaviors.
Empirically, measuring and monitoring resilience and its
causes is not easy. Far more than chronic poverty, resilience is a
dynamic concept requiring high-frequency surveys, at the very least
in those countries and regions perennially exposed to severe shocks
and stressors. No less challenging is the multidimensional nature of
resilience and what that implies for the detailed work of survey design
and scientific collaboration.
Finally on the policy and programmatic front, the resilience
paradigm needs to demonstrate that it offers something substantial-
ly new, both in terms of an expanded dialogue between the tradition-
ally disconnected relief and development sectors and in terms of inno-
vative new programs that address both humanitarian and development
objectives.
In summary, to achieve food and nutrition security, more effort
is needed to protect and improve poor and vulnerable people’s abili-
ty to respond to changes and shocks. Much work needs to be done
before we know whether a resilience framework is the most useful
tool for building this resilience. What is sure however is that there is
a growing consensus on the need to break down barriers between
actors, sectors, and disciplines and that this consensus must now be
converted into effective policies and practices that strengthen the
resilience of the poorest and most vulnerable people.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Understanding Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security31
04
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Building skills and capacity alone is not enough. We have to
fight inequality and injustice that make poor women and men
more vulnerable in the first place.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
BUILDING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
TO UNDERNUTRITION
Learning from the Past to Inform the Future

One of the biggest challenges facing the development community is

how to win the war on hunger. Over the years, it has become clear that
the traditional approach of temporary infusions of aid has not always
succeeded in protecting the poor and vulnerable from food and nutri-
tion insecurity. Far too many people still live on the edge—just one
Don Santiago Lewis
drought, one flood, or one crop failure away from starvation. For oth- Community of Pihni Auhya,
ers, manmade conflicts may also limit their access to food. Nicaragua
With about 100 years of combined experience tackling hunger and
poverty around the world, Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe have “To get through hard times, we began to practice what
long known that in chronically food-insecure regions or areas of protracted our ancestors practiced: unifying the community to
crisis, the poor and vulnerable cannot cope with all the stressors they face. produce food and deal with social problems. We try
It is not possible to do effective long-term development work that allevi- to deal with the problem of pests by using organic
ates hunger and poverty without planning for and managing the risks asso- ­pesticides. With training, we realized that chemical
ciated with disasters—especially in a world increasingly affected by envi- ­insecticides and pesticides change the ecosystem,
ronmental degradation and urbanization alongside climate change, lead to the appearance of new pests, and take years
economic pressures such as food price volatility, and population growth. to decompose.”
That means resilience-boosting efforts must be a part of any programming
that aims to help the poor and vulnerable become food and nutrition secure.
To explore the concept of community resilience to undernutri-
tion in mostly rural settings, this chapter offers lessons learned from
resilience programming in several different contexts where Concern
and Welthungerhilfe work: Haiti, the Sahel, and the Horn of Africa.
Haiti is characterized by limitations in food availability and access,
while in the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa, extreme and persis-
tent levels of child undernutrition point to a serious resilience deficit. María Marcela Peje
Casimiro
The “resilience paradigm” is now part of the development discourse in
Africa south of the Sahara, but it has only recently been introduced in
Haiti. Lessons from Welthungerhilfe’s long-term programming experi- Carhuaz Province, Peru
ence linking relief, rehabilitation, and development in Haiti (Box 4.1)
and from Concern’s programs in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Niger, which have “We have already had two big landslides that flooded
informed the design of a new program in Chad, demonstrate the add- our farms, fields, and homes and destroyed the road,
ed value of resilience-oriented programming. putting our access to food at risk. After the floods, it
In this chapter, “community resilience” in the context of chron- was difficult because we did not have access to food,
ic food crises is defined as the ability of a community to anticipate, and the donations that reached us were not very
respond to, cope with, and recover from the effects of shocks and stress- ­useful. They brought us food that we were not used
es that drive or exacerbate undernutrition, in a timely and effective man- to eating, strange food....”
ner without compromising the poor’s well-being or their long-term pros-
pects of moving out of poverty and hunger. Resilience therefore is the “We started to build queshus [storehouses], which be-
ability to bounce back from a shock. It involves being able to adapt to a long to the community,... up the hill, where we keep
changing and increasingly unpredictable environment by expanding live- our potato crop, corn, and other food. This allows us
lihood options through learning and innovation. The latter is a key ingre- to eat in times of flooding or other times when we
dient for any radical change or transformation of livelihoods that might need it. We need to increase the number of queshus
be required should a situation become untenable. to be sure, because now we face floods and also un-
known diseases in our fields.... Thus we can prevent
Note: This chapter by Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide reflects the views of these orga-
our children and the entire population of our commu-
nizations. It is intended not to present research findings, but rather to show examples from their
practical work and experiences in the field. nity from going hungry in times of flooding.”

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition33

Fostering Community Resilience to Sources of Haiti’s Resilience Deficit

Food and Nutrition Crises in Haiti WIDESPREAD POVERTY AND CONTINUOUS FOOD INSECURITY. Haiti has
suffered from widespread poverty and chronic food and nutrition inse-
After the devastating earthquake of 2010, the international community curity for decades. Between 1990 and 2000, its GHI improved only
rallied around Haiti. In 2013, three and a half years later, international a little, falling from a value of 33.8 to 25.7. Despite recent improve-
donors have begun to phase out earthquake-related assistance, ments, Haiti remains in the group of countries categorized in the GHI
despite the country’s extreme vulnerability to food and nutrition inse- as “alarming” (2013 GHI score of 23.3), mainly because of wide-
curity. Although the latest data show a positive trend,1 as recently as spread poverty that severely limits households’ access to sufficient
2012 droughts and storms led once more to increased food and nutri- nutritious food. More than half of Haiti’s households are trapped in
tion insecurity. In an environment that is not only highly exposed to absolute poverty and live on less than a dollar a day (Glaeser, Horjus,
natural hazards, but also vulnerable to recurrent economic and socio- and Strother 2011).
political shocks and stresses, analyzing long-term programming using
a “resilience lens” adds value. NATURAL SHOCKS AND SOCIOPOLITICAL STRESSES. In 2012, Haiti was
ranked the country most at risk from climate change (Maplecroft Glob-
al Risk Analytics 2011). By 2011, Haiti had experienced 34 major
shocks in just one decade (Glaeser, Horjus, and Strother 2011). In addi-
tion to these larger-scale events, localized droughts, floods, landslides,
and other smaller shocks also regularly undermine community and
household resilience. More than half of all households affected by the
Northwest
2010 earthquake were already in debt, with 95 percent of this debt
North and Northeast related to food purchases (Haiti 2010). Haiti’s present risks are as much
political as environmental. Weak governance can be observed across
the four criteria commonly used for identifying fragile states: security,
DOMINICAN welfare, constitutional laws, and promotion of economic development
HAITI
REPUBLIC (Radtke 2010).

PORT-AU-PRINCE
AN EMERGENCY ECONOMY. The international community has arguably
West and
Southwest missed opportunities to contribute to a more robust public sector that
could play a more prominent role in creating a resilience-enhancing
policy framework. While evidence from Haiti and other countries, along
with aid effectiveness and human rights principles, suggests that aid
is most effective at strengthening public institutions when it is chan-
neled through them, only 1 percent of post-earthquake relief aid and
12 percent of recovery aid went directly to the government using nation-
al systems (United Nations 2013a). Given the availability of substan-
tial funding after each disaster and the seeming absence of a Haitian
alternative, international NGOs and development consultants continue
to be willing to take over public service delivery and job creation.
WELTHUNGERHILFE’S Instead of strengthening the government and Haitian civil society, they
PROGRAM AREAS IN HAITI have contributed to undermining their legitimacy and locked the coun-
try into a “humanitarian approach” and a dependency on aid (Haiti
Capital and Regional Office Grassroots Watch 2010).
Program Areas
Findings from the 2012 Haiti Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) were not considered in Hai-
1

Area of 2000–2011 Impact Analysis ti's 2013 GHI score, because the report became available after data compilation for the GHI end-
ed. Compared to the 2005–2006 Haiti DHS, the 2012 Haiti DHS indicates tangible improvements
in child malnutrition (Cayemittes et al. 2007, 2013). FAO's data on undernourishment and dietary
Source: Welthungerhilfe based on official maps. energy supply per capita also show a positive trend for recent years (FAO 2013a).

34 Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition | Chapter 04 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 multiple heirs share an interest in their land, which leads to continu-
BOX 4.1  WELTHUNGERHILFE IN HAITI ing fragmentation of land holdings and weak land tenure. These con-
ditions have made it easy for large-scale farmers as well as industrial
For almost 40 years, Welthungerhilfe has been active in Haiti, sup- and mining companies to acquire fertile lands (Cadre de Liaison Inter-
porting partners and projects in the areas of agroforestry and water- ONG Haiti 2013).
shed management, improvement of rural infrastructure (irrigation Given the poor quality of their holdings and the constant
and roads), disaster preparedness, and strengthening civil society. exposure to environmental and climatic hazards, most peasants
In 2011, the organization commissioned an external impact anal- focus on reducing risk rather than maximizing production as a strat-
ysis of 10 years’ programming in Haiti’s North-West Department, egy for survival and food security. To manage risk and spread out
one of the most food-insecure regions in the country. harvest cycles, they actively diversify land portfolios and cropping
patterns. At the same time, demographic pressure and poverty force
the rural population to engage in activities, such as deforestation,
which increase its vulnerability to risk. The deforestation leads to
Agriculture’s Role in Community Resilience environmental degradation, soil erosion, and water shortage. Fur-
Most of the poor and food insecure live in rural areas. Smallholder thermore, because of land shortages, farmers increasingly farm on
farmers face difficult structural limitations, and still need to buy most steep slopes with particularly fragile soils—a practice that leads to
of their food (Glaeser, Horjus, and Strother 2011).2 Thus, agricultur- further erosion and land degradation.
al policies must play a key role in strengthening community resilience Besides the declining size of land holdings and the high lev-
to hunger. el of risk they are exposed to, small-scale producers are also con-
strained by a lack of investment leading to low levels of agricultural
LOW PRODUCTIVITY, FRAGMENTED LAND HOLDINGS, UNSUSTAINABLE technology and inadequate infrastructure, strong migration out of
PRACTICES. Despite Haiti’s favorable growing climate, average cereal rural areas, difficulties in accessing appropriate markets, and weak
yields are much lower in Haiti than in its Caribbean neighbors Cuba representation in policy debates.
and the Dominican Republic (Table 4.1).
What explains Haitian farmers’ relatively low cereal yields? Most 2
Out of 100 people who cannot meet their basic needs, 77 are in rural areas, 9 are in the greater Port-
au-Prince metropolitan area, and 14 are in other urban areas. A 2007 Comprehensive Food Security
farmers in Haiti are mountain peasants with small farms comprising
and Vulnerability Assessment found that rural households bought 68 percent of their food. These pur-
several dispersed plots of land. Under Haiti´s land inheritance laws, chases equal 59 percent of their total expenditures (Glaeser, Horjus, and Strother 2011).

TABLE 4.1  AVERAGE CEREAL YIELDS IN CUBA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, AND HAITI, 1993–2011

Average cereal yields (kilograms / hectare)

Country 1993­–1997 1998–2002 2003–2007 2008–2011

Cuba 1,859 2,632 2,874 2,325

Dominican Republic 3,832 4,073 4,052 3,299

Haiti 947 912 947 941

Source: World Bank (2013a).

Notes: Cereal yield, measured as kilograms per hectare of harvested land, includes wheat, rice, maize, barley, oats, rye, millet, sorghum, buckwheat, and mixed grains. Production data on ­cereals
relate to crops harvested for dry grain only. Cereal crops harvested for hay or harvested green for food, feed, or silage and those used for grazing are excluded. The FAO allocates production data
to the calendar year in which the bulk of the harvest took place.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition35

 UNFAVORABLE POLICY ENVIRONMENT FOR SMALL-SCALE PRODUCERS. In the
aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the Haitian government reaf-
firmed a commitment to agrarian reform and announced plans to increase
Haiti’s capacity to meet 60–70 percent of its food security needs by

Alozio Businge
2017 (AlterPresse 2012; Joseph 2013). But so far, support for large-
scale agribusiness development dominates, while little investment goes
Kabarole District, Uganda into restoring Haiti’s environment and into sustainable agriculture that
benefits small farmers and helps feed local communities.
“I used to work as a watchman with Health, Water and Some observers contend that donors, especially the Internation-
Sanitation (HEWASA), a nongovernmental organization. al Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the United States, still actively pro-
In 2002, I had a car accident on my way to work. I was mote a vision of export-oriented agribusiness-led development (Kennard
bedridden for one year and obviously lost my job. I am 2012) that began in the 1980s with the structural adjustment programs
disabled and inactive. I cannot provide for my family recommended by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
as I used to. Life is very hard for me....” These programs did not lead to broad-based growth in Haiti’s agricultur-
al sector. Instead, they favored an elite few and fostered dependency on
“The government and NGOs should adjust their rigid imports. This dependency was further increased by large-scale food dis-
attitudes toward formal employment and begin to tribution programs that channeled more food into the Haitian market
­appreciate self-employment as the way to go. The without considering local production and self-help capacities. Harmful
­government needs to take stringent measures to policies, such as low import tariffs for rice,3 have made it difficult for
­control population (for example, at most three local farmers to compete with cheap imports. Reliance on imports makes
­children per family). Otherwise the situation will Haitians particularly sensitive to food price fluctuations on the world mar-
soon be uncontrollable.” ket and increases the food insecurity of the poorest.
Another challenge is the lack of a cross-sectoral approach to food
and nutrition security. While the Ministry of Agriculture is in charge of
ensuring food security, the Ministry of Health is responsible for nutrition.
Thus far, it is unclear whether Haiti’s decision to join the international
Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) initiative in June 2012 is backed by suffi-
cient political commitment to tackle malnutrition across sectors.

Welthungerhilfe’s Program and Its Impacts

Haiti’s North-West Department is one of the regions most affected by
structural food insecurity. More than 90 percent of the inhabitants
depend on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods. Since 1993, Welt-
hungerhilfe has been working in the region, focusing on integrated food
security and, since 2003, on the sustainable use of water resources to
ensure food security and to improve living conditions. Given the regional

Guillermo Pacotaype
context, Welthungerhilfe’s program of work in the area concentrated on
improving food availability and access and gave less attention to nutrition-
Chuschi District, Peru al issues. In total, 21 projects financed by a variety of donors were imple-
mented between 2000 and 2011 and reached 37,000 households.
“In order to assure my harvest and prevent possible Although the program was not specifically designed to strength-
damage caused by the weather, the project ­ECOCLIMA en community resilience to undernutrition, it offers important lessons.
taught me about risk management. I started to
­cultivate my plants in separate plots within different 3
In the mid-1990s, US President Bill Clinton supported dramatic cuts to Haiti’s tariffs on import-
ecological zones, and if I lose the harvest at one farm, ed US rice. On March 10, 2010, however, he told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

I still have the other farms to harvest.”

“It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mis-
take” (Democracy Now 2011).

36 Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition | Chapter 04 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
FIGURE 4.1  IMPACT CHAIN OF 10 YEARS OF PROGRAMMING IN HAITI’S NORTH-WEST DEPARTMENT

Impact Food and nutrition security

Stabilization of environment
Income Health
Disaster risk reduction

Outcomes

Commercialization Water for domestic

Food production
Access to markets and agricultural use

Protection of water-
Rural roads
Flexible emergency sheds and lowlands
(through CFW and
interventions (through CFW and
FFW projects)
FFW programs)

Outputs
and > Storage facilities > I rrigation systems >W
 ater pipelines
activities > Food processing >R  eservoirs >R
 ainwater collection

Strengthening community-based committees

Collaborating with local government and national ministries

Source: Adapted from Kundermann, Excéus, and Almqvist (2012).

Note: CFW = cash for work. FFW = food for work. These programs also contributed to temporary income. The arrow color indicates the intensity of proven impact.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition37

 The program helped strengthen community resilience to food and
n­utrition insecurity by consistently addressing the structural root causes
of food and nutrition insecurity and simultaneously making thoughtful
use of emergency instruments, such as food- and cash-for-work. Look-

Nunu Desalegn
ing at the program through a resilience lens allows us to identify key
resilience factors for future programming.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia The program in the North-West Department integrated several
components in order to holistically protect a distinct watershed, to ensure
“Life is very difficult due to inflation. Teff [Ethiopian access to remote areas, and to provide irrigation and water supply sys-
grain] is very expensive. I used to buy 100 kilograms tems to the households involved. Flexible funding mechanisms for emer-
for 300 birr; now the price is 2,000 birr.... Previously gency interventions were included from the outset in order to offer an
we consumed lentils, vegetables, and meat, and now opportunity to react to acute needs when natural disasters struck (Kun-
due to inflation we cannot afford to eat all these.... dermann, Excéus, and Almqvist 2012). Figure 4.1 illustrates the outputs
Now, we can afford to eat meat only for holidays and impacts achieved by the program and shows how the different types
like Easter. I have no savings. I don’t know what will of interventions and programming levels are interrelated.
­happen in an emergency.” The external program analysis found the following direct and
indirect impacts between 2000 and 2011:
>D
 espite recurring shocks and stresses in this period, 4,800 house-
holds sustainably improved their food security, mostly by acquiring
access to irrigation and water supply systems and benefiting from
protected crop areas with high yield potential.
>H
 ousehold incomes grew thanks to agricultural yields that rose by
50–200 percent. Factors that contributed to these improved yields
included irrigation systems, soil protection measures, better water
supply systems, and better access to markets via newly constructed
rural roads.

Maria Naok
>F
 or many households, not only food availability and access, but also
the quality of the food consumed improved. Vegetable consumption
Karamoja District, Uganda increased as a result of irrigated agriculture and diversification, and
access to safe drinking water improved health (reducing the inci-
“When my husband was still alive, we had some ani- dence of diarrhea by 20 percent) and nutrition.
mals, cattle, and goats. We lost them all due to raids. > Food deficits during acute crises were reduced by an estimated
The last chicken I had died from poultry cholera. 30–50 percent, mostly because of the introduction of flexible and
That’s why I have no more animals at all.... Last well-targeted food-for-work and cash-for-work programs during acute
year, I cultivated the land and sowed, but there was emergency phases. As a result, households were better able to avoid
no ­harvest at all. The rain was strong, the field was harmful coping strategies such as the sale of animals, loss of assets,
­flooded, and all the plants died....” or charcoal production leading to further deforestation.

“As I harvested nothing last year and have no Ingredients of Resilience

animals, I have to count on other sources to survive An analysis of programming through a resilience lens revealed that
till the harvest comes. I cut firewood and produce many factors are important for strengthening community resilience to
­charcoal, which I sell on the market. From the income, undernutrition.
I buy some sorghum and make local beer from it, >B
 y addressing several underlying, structural causes of vulnerabil-
which I sell. I am actually preparing a garden and am ity (such as inadequate infrastructure, inappropriate technologies,
planting some vegetable seedlings, grown in a nursery and difficult-to-access markets), the program contributed to
from seeds that we got from Welthungerhilfe.” ­positive long-term prospects of moving people out of hunger and

38 Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition | Chapter 04 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 poverty. To further strengthen nutrition security, a specific and
detailed vulnerability analysis must be conducted on a local level.
>T
 hough sustainable food and nutrition security were their main goals,

interventions were also designed to mitigate disaster risks and to

Daw Kae Phyo

anticipate, respond to, and cope with shocks and stresses such as
landslides, flooding, or earthquakes. The long time horizon and con-
tinuity of the program, notably in strategies and staffing, permitted Yangon Division, Myanmar
a development-oriented response to acute crises. One key to success
was an in-depth analysis of local self-help capacities after each “In 2007, Cyclone Nargis destroyed my house as well
emergency and support to fill gaps in capacity. Flexible, accurately as the harvest from a field for which I had saved up
targeted emergency funding to address these gaps supported the money to rent for one paddy season—to try and get
community in pursuing long-term development goals. Given the like- out of debt. As I could not pay the landowner the final
lihood that natural hazards in Haiti’s North-West Department will land rental fee, I was arrested and stayed in jail until
increase further the importance of well-targeted humanitarian aid, I could borrow money from a local moneylender at
the issue of social protection and insurance for risks must be 15 percent interest per month.”
addressed at a higher level by governmental institutions, civil soci-
ety, and major donors. Otherwise, emergency interventions, if not
properly conducted, risk continuing to undermine self-help capaci-
ties and locking Haiti further into a humanitarian approach.
>T
 he program fostered the emergence of local committees, such as
water management committees, which can, in the medium to long
term, become the nucleus of an organized rural civil society that is
better equipped to collectively mitigate risks. So far, the committees
remain fragile. Continuous cooperation with the government to
ensure institutional support for these committees after the program
ends is important also for the future.
>T
 he program was aligned with national policies guiding agriculture
and rural development, drinking water and hygiene, food security, Daw Hnin Aye
environmental protection, and disaster risk reduction interventions. Yangon Division, Myanmar
Through close cooperation with state structures and community
administrations, their capacity for contingency planning and effec- “We don’t need to worry about urgent household expen-
tive action is strengthened. ditures as before, as we can access money from the
savings group on short notice and at an interest rate
This combination of factors has helped strengthen community resilience that we can manage to repay. In former days, we
to undernutrition in the North-West of Haiti. Given Welthungerhilfe’s inten- would live in constant worry that we would need to
sive and long-term engagement, opportunities to foster resilience-enhanc- seek financial help from outside the community if our
ing policy change and to monitor implementation of such policies should children fell sick, or if we had a bad month of work, or
be used to strengthen governmental accountability and leadership. This a bad harvest. Now we can manage ourselves and cov-
can be done in partnership with other NGOs and by supporting Haitian er our own needs and unexpected financial expenses.
civil society organizations. The Welthungerhilfe conference “Haiti beyond Also, if we have another storm, such as Nargis, we can
Emergencies: Haitians as Actors for Their Own Development” in Port-au- help each other to recover.”
Prince in December 2012 opened a space for dialogue between Haitian
civil society and government. It was a positive step in moving Haiti toward
having a greater say in its future development. It underscored the impor-
tance of Haitian society as the main driver in its own sustainable devel-
opment and in building a resilient environment.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition39

Community Resilience in the Sahel Between April 2010 and September 2012, Concern responded to

and the Horn of Africa several nutrition crises in this region while conducting three research
projects over the course of three hunger seasons: April–December 2010
Extremely poor people, Concern believes, have few assets or achieve (Aker et al. 2011), May–December 2011 (Aker and Nene 2012), and
little return on the assets they own. They cannot escape extreme pov- July–September 2012 (Bliss 2012). These interventions and research
erty because of structural inequalities and because of risks and vulner- studies focused on the impact of cash transfers on both nutritional and
abilities. Inverting these problems or obstacles allows us to envision wider poverty outcomes. A deeper inquiry into the link between cash
desired outcomes: asset building and maintenance, equality, and resil- transfers and nutritional outcomes led to these insights from Niger:
ience–which is a necessary precondition for helping people exit extreme
poverty and hunger. 1. Cash transfers seem to improve nutritional outcomes in the short term
because they lead to more frequent meals for children and more legume
Learning from Tahoua Region, Niger consumption. A large portion of cash transfers are spent on household
In Niger, where Concern has been working for over a decade, more than food. Clearly, food expenditures depend on the availability of food.
300,000 children are treated for malnutrition and between 1 million Therefore, whether food or cash is needed depends on local conditions.
and 3 million people suffer from food insecurity on average each year.
The livelihoods of the poorest are under enormous pressure from con- 2. If the goal of a program is to improve or maintain nutritional status,
stant environmental degradation, advanced desertification, regular pest cash transfers should be integrated with other interventions that
invasions and inadequate response to shorter recurrent drought cycles. address the causes of malnutrition and food insecurity.
Repetitive shocks have impoverished rural households. Chronic malnu-
trition is endemic and has increased over the last 20 years. One in 3. Nutrition and food security indicators such as the number of hun-
three harvests is generally poor. Farmers and agro-pastoralists are the ger days, dietary diversity scores, or the global acute malnutrition
most affected as they often cannot meet their food needs for the five- rate should be developed and monitored to track cash transfers’
month hunger period between May and September. many uses and to measure the success of the program.

MAURITANIA
MALI
NIGER
CHAD SUDAN
Tahoua Region ERITREA
NIAMEY
SENEGAL DJIBOUTI
BURKINA N’DJAMENA Dar Sila
South Wollo Zone
FASO
NIGERIA ADDIS ABABA
SOUTH ETHIOPIA
SUDAN Wolayta Zone
CONCERN’S PROGRAM AREAS
Moyale
IN NIGER, CHAD, ETHIOPIA, AND KENYA SOMALIA
KENYA
Sahel Nyanza
Highlands NAIROBI
Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
Concern’s Country Offices
Concern’s Program Areas

Source: Concern Worldwide based on official maps.

40 Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition | Chapter 04 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
These insights in turn led to the realization that both cash transfers > Promote resilient livelihoods by addressing the environmental driv-
and nutrition treatment programs that focused on seasonal hunger ers of risk and using disaster risk reduction technologies and prac-
needs were not enough to create resilience to periodic hunger cri- tices for sustainable food production.
ses and that longer-term development interventions focused on > Address gender issues that are critical to achieving resilience. Take
building absorptive and adaptive coping strategies would be required. into account women’s greater vulnerability to disasters (Neumeyer
This learning continues to inform our programming and practice in and Plümper 2007), as well as their different roles in fostering a cul-
Niger and beyond. ture of disaster resilience.
> Put a contingency plan in place and define surge capacity to help
Learning from Wollo and Wolayta, Ethiopia respond to small-scale disasters or provide an initial response to
In the Dessie Zuria woreda, or district, South Wollo Zone, Amhara large-scale disasters. Support local governments with early warning
Region, the stunting rate is 54 percent, higher than the national aver- systems, and communicate during even small disasters to ensure
age of 44 percent. The woreda is chronically food insecure, with approx- that food security is not threatened by the cumulative effects of less-
imately 40 percent of the population dependent on social safety nets. er shocks or stressors.
Between 2000 and 2010, annual surveys show the prevalence of glob-
al acute malnutrition dropped only once to less than 10 percent. The above learning from the programs in South Wollo and Wolayta will
Rural livelihoods, especially of the extreme poor, are often vul- help to ensure even better outcomes for the people and communities
nerable to risks and shocks. Climate variability, human and livestock with whom Concern works in Ethiopia in partnership with the govern-
diseases, pests, flooding and landslides present risks and limit liveli- ment and other stakeholders.
hoods. In 2011, 86,359 rural households in Wolayta Zone, Southern
Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR), faced critical
food shortages for more than six months, and many depended on the
government’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). These vulnera-
ble communities’ major coping mechanisms included PSNP, begging,
eating unpalatable wild fruits, and daily labor.
Concern has managed interventions across the relief-devel-
opment spectrum for many years in Ethiopia, ranging from emergen-

Toribio Hualla Quispee

cy response to health-system strengthening projects. Over time,
Concern staff in Ethiopia have come to understand the need to cre-
ate resilient communities through multisectoral interventions that Colquepata District, Peru
align with the Ethiopian government’s strategies. This integrated
approach has helped strengthen vulnerable communities’ adaptive “I remember that in 2010 we suffered a lot. First we
capacity to manage both short-term shocks and stresses that lead had heavy rainfall and hailstorms. It rained almost
to short-term food and nutrition insecurity and long-term trends and every day, causing our potato crops to become infected
changes, such as environmental degradation that result in chronic with many diseases. In July and August we faced a
hunger and malnutrition. tough frost season, which affected the wheat and
barley and ultimately led to the loss of our crops. We
Many important lessons have emerged from our work in Ethiopia: had no food to eat, and you could see the sadness in
>U
 se a multisectoral approach to maximize linkages between nutri- peoples’ faces.”
tion and other sectors such as agriculture, health, gender, and water
and sanitation. “It is necessary for the young people to return to the
>U
 se existing institutional coordination and administrative arrange- wisdom and practices of our ancestors. We need to
ments to help promote sustainability and a sense of ownership among change our attitude, stop wasting water and burning
all key stakeholders. the prairies, and recover and grow our native varieties
>M
 ap resilience outcomes in real time to create evidence for new and because they better resist pests and diseases. Our
better programming, and develop research and innovations that can authorities must be prepared to help us immediately
be shared and used to influence policy change. when disasters happen.”

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition41

Learning from Moyale, Kenya thresholds, strategies, and protocols for scale up and scale down;
Concern has implemented an integrated set of initiatives designed to and monitoring for signs of scale-up triggers.
enhance resilience among the pastoralist communities in Moyale Dis-
trict in northern Kenya since 2006. Past droughts, including those in 3. Early scaling up of high-impact nutrition interventions when warn-
2006 and 2009, eroded household assets such as livestock and health ings were triggered.
and left the pastoralist residents of Moyale with fewer coping options.
However, the evaluation of Concern's program revealed that Moyale’s 4. Coordinating among Concern, the local Kenyan government services,
severe acute malnutrition rates fell by 50 percent in early 2011, when the World Food Programme, and World Vision (which provided an
those in neighboring areas rose more than threefold (Table 4.2) (Eras- important protective ration of food targeted at malnourished children).
mus, Mpoke, and Yishak 2012). In addition, its global acute malnutri-
tion rate increased by a far smaller amount than nearby districts’. Designing for Community Resilience in Chad
Several factors helped reduce Moyale District’s rate of severe There is much interest in creating systems to build resilience at the
acute malnutrition between 2010 and 2011: community level. Unfortunately rigorous data on the best intervention
packages is scarce. To address the evidence gap, Concern is partner-
1. The strengthening of resilience at the community level over time ing with the Feinstein International Center at Tufts University to rigor-
through contextually appropriate, multisectoral interventions. ously evaluate its Community Resilience to Acute Malnutrition program
These included introduction of dryland farming (alongside pasto- in eastern Chad and generate evidence to contribute to international
ralism) to grow kale, onions, tomatoes, and fruits; improved irri- discussions on the concept of resilience.
gation systems; diversification of livestock; rangeland manage- Based on knowledge gained from other programs, in early
ment; mitigation of conflict over pasture access; and improved 2012, Concern designed a three-year program involving water, nutri-
access to water. tion, disaster risk reduction, livelihoods, and inequality interventions.
The program was developed to improve the overall health, nutrition,
2. T
 he strengthening of government capacity to respond to nutrition- and livelihood security of the rural population of Dar Sila in eastern
al crises. This included technical training for the District Health Chad while improving their resilience to shocks.
Management Team staff; the creation of technical protocols and Between 2005 and 2010, many people in the Dar Sila region were
quality-of-care oversight systems; adoption of interventions with displaced due to conflict on both sides of the Chad-Sudan border. While
the highest impact on mortality; improved budgeting; adoption of insecurity has decreased, the region remains vulnerable to food ­insecurity

TABLE 4.2  CHANGES IN CHILD MALNUTRITION RATES IN THREE DISTRICTS OF KENYA, 2010–2011

Global acute malnutrition Severe acute malnutrition

District 2010 rate (%) 2011 rate (%) % change 2010 rate (%) 2011 rate (%) % change

Marsabit 13.4 27.1 102 1.3 5.0 285

Wajir North 19.8 27.9 41 1.4 6.8 386

Moyale 12.3 13.7 11 3.0 1.5 -50

Source: Erasmus, Mpoke, and Yishak (2012).

Notes: Global acute malnutrition (GAM) is the proportion of children ages 6–59 months who are severely or moderately wasted according to a standardized weight-to-height ratio and/or have
nutritional edema. A GAM prevalence of 15 percent or more among children ages 6–59 months has traditionally been considered a “critical” situation, according to the World Health Organiza-
tion. Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is the proportion of children ages 6–59 months who are severely wasted. The 2010 and 2011 nutrition surveys were conducted between April and June.

42 Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition | Chapter 04 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
for many reasons, including unpredictable rainfall patterns, market price practices, encouraging better hand-washing techniques, and changing
hikes, limited community and household assets, and limited alternative how farmers plant their crops using conservation agriculture techniques.
livelihood options. The population is susceptible to shocks, having expe-
rienced poor harvests in 2009, pockets of flooding in 2010, and signifi- The second part of the program includes a comprehensive communi-
cantly below-average harvests again in 2011, due in part to pest attacks ty-based early warning system that identifies thresholds for key indica-
and erratic rainfall. These events have depleted stocks and led to food tors that signal the need for an emergency response. In the first
shortages, leaving households vulnerable to future disasters. instance, the community will activate its own disaster management
Taking an integrated approach, Concern aims to deliver a range of plans. After that, the program will initiate a response, strengthening
projects addressing multiple needs, coordinating across sectors to achieve capacities for conducting market analysis and nutrition surveys, get-
common goals. Success will be measured in terms of household wealth ting systems in place to scale up cash aid, creating a system for imme-
via proxies such as livestock ownership and household assets. In turn, diate distribution of emergency supplies, creating village maps that
greater wealth is expected to lead to increased dietary diversity, less reli- identify the most vulnerable to shock, and formulating a strategy to
ance on negative coping strategies, and increased food security. Improve- scale up staff capacity. The early warning system links primary data
ments in health and nutrition will be measured through improved practic-
es related to child health and behavior, while improvements in water and
sanitation will be measured through increased access to potable water FIGURE 4.2 LINKING HUMANITARIAN AND DEVELOPMENT
and latrines. The impact of the program will be reflected in improvements PROGRAMMING IN AN INTEGRATED MANNER
in the nutritional status of children and maternal health.
The first part of the program aims to provide an integrated pack-
age to build long-term community resilience. It focuses on four key Package to build community resilience
intervention areas (Figure 4.2) with social and behavior change as a Interventions, including social and behavior change,
critical ingredient of all four. Resilience-building components of the to achieve the following:
program include the following: >>Improved agricultural production and diversification of
­livelihoods for the extreme poor
1. Improving agricultural production and diversifying livelihoods and >>Access to safe and sustainable water services and sanita-
assets (promoting conservation agriculture and homestead gardening, tion facilties/improved hygiene practices
improving soil fertility, supporting extension and community animal >>Access to and use of high-quality health and nutrition services
health workers, and promoting links between farmers and markets). >>Strengthened community organizations and the increased
participation of women
2. Improving access to health services through community health out-
reach, community case management and care groups, effective
In all years
management of moderate acute malnutrition, and stronger manage-
ment of the formal health system.
Early warning system
3. Increasing access to safe water and promoting improved sanitation
and sanitary practices at the community level.
In years when indicators pass the
threshold triggering an emergency
4. Working with community groups at all levels, including establishing response
In normal years
overall apex bodies such as Village Development Committees for bet-
with no shocks
ter governance, to enhance their capacities and to ensure that wom-
en participate fully. This will involve working closely with communi- Emergency
response
ty leaders and trying to change their attitudes and behaviors. One
output will be a disaster management plan.
Improved health, nutrition, and livelihood security for rural
­population, and improved resilience to shocks
5. Promoting social and behavior change among those Concern works with,
across all parts of the program. This includes changing child feeding Source: Concern Worldwide.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition43

 from the household level and local and regional markets with rainfall When early warning indicator values, which include rainfall and vegeta-
and vegetation data from the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, tion measures, exceed a threshold level, an emergency response is trig-
a provider of information on food security. Data will include the Rain- gered. The goal of Concern’s resilience-building package is to minimize
fall Estimation and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (FEWS NET the impact of the shock by reducing the number of hunger days, reduc-
2013), which is updated every 10 days. Existing health facility data, ing the number of people with global acute malnutrition, and speeding
such as case incidence and admission rates, will also be used. up recovery time. The provision of an integrated package should have
Primary data will be collected on key food crop prices from a a positive impact on child and maternal nutrition in a “normal” year but
selection of markets and from a Coping Strategies Index that will be also in those years when the region experiences comprehensive weath-
calculated on the basis of a sample of households. This will be based er-related shocks. This happens about once every three years.
on four kinds of locally relevant coping strategies (Maxwell and Caldwell Figure 4.3 shows the expected impact of this program. The red
2008): (1) dietary change; (2) short-term measures to increase house- line represents the values for one of Concern’s early warning indicators
hold food availability; (3) short-term measures, such as fostering in a normal year. This indicator fluctuates on a seasonal basis and may
arrangements or sending children to relatives, to decrease the number come close to the intervention threshold, represented by the dashed
of people a household must feed; and (4) rationing, or managing the line. Once this threshold is exceeded (probably about once every three
shortfall. years), an emergency intervention is considered. The value of the indi-
This program will be implemented in 53 of the 88 villages of cator may spike in the control area (orange line), but Concern’s resil-
Kimiti. Thirty-five of these will receive the same package of services and ience-building package should reduce the magnitude and duration of
will be rigorously monitored to test the success of the program. Eighteen the spike in the treatment area (green line).
will receive various elements of the program, in some instances as part
of a pilot for new interventions. The remaining 35 villages will receive Collaborative Resilience Programming
the benefits of the strengthened government health system in the area When designing programs to build community resilience to undernu-
and will be included in the early warning system. They will also be sur- trition, context is everything. It is important to use a framework or a
veyed to demonstrate that the intervention has worked. If these villages set of principles that can be applied to each context that ensures
pass the emergency response threshold, Concern will intervene. that interventions are responsive to environmental idiosyncrasies as

FIGURE 4.3  CONCERN WORLDWIDE’S APPROACH TO IMPROVING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE

Response threshold
Control area
Selected early warning Indicator

Normal year
Treatment area

1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

Week
Source: Authors.
Note: The selected early warning indicator could be, for example, the Coping Strategies Index or the price of a key staple crop.

44 Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition | Chapter 04 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
FIGURE 4.4  CONTINUUM OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMING

Sectoral Multisectoral Intersectoral Trans-sectoral

(Line functioning) (Cooperation) (Collaboration) (Integration)
This involves one sector work- This involves two or more This involves two or more This involves pulling together
ing alone to address a spe- sectors bringing their sep- sectors trying to understand resources, personnel, strat-
cific problem or need. arate sectoral expertise to each other’s methods and egy, and planning.
address an issue. approaches in addressing an
issue through joint planning
and some resource sharing.

Source: Adapted from Harris and Drimie (2012).

well as cultural issues. Concern has recognized that program man- chronic food crises in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa remains frag-
agers tend to focus on the practical and tangible issues, while not mented, dysfunctional, and ineffective. In countries like Haiti, shat-
paying enough attention to the deeper and more difficult-to-resolve tered by regular natural disasters, the framework is only just becoming
issues of process, power, inequality, and to a large extent, the trans- part of the conversation. To date, such crises have not been analyzed
formation of institutions. sufficiently with a resilience lens.
Resilience cannot be built in a bubble. It requires multidis- By encouraging systems-based thinking, the concept of resil-
ciplinary thinking and multisectoral approaches. It also has to work ience may radically transform the compartmentalized ways in which
at multiple levels, linking community institutions and governance humanitarian and development actors work. Building resilience
with district governance and service delivery and national-level pol- requires an integrated approach across issues, sectors, and disci-
icies and strategies. plines. Such a collaborative multisectoral approach, and the creation
It is important to be clear about what integration means. In of environments that promote such thinking and practices, are impor-
Zambia, Concern’s efforts to support collaboration across various tant steps toward improving our collective impact on undernutrition
ministries to reduce stunting faced significant institutional inertia. in the most difficult contexts.
Clarifying how community resilience links with sectoral plans is crit-
ical here, if some entity is to take ownership of nutritional outcomes.
Helping sectoral ministries understand and agree on their form of
collaboration (Figure 4.4) is a key part of this. Nutritional outcomes, BOX 4.2 SOME PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGNING ­R ESILIENCE
defined in a country’s national nutrition plan, and aligned with the ­P ROGRAMS
Scaling Up Nutrition guidelines, should be a major driver of collab-
orative work (SUN 2013). These guiding principles may help make resilience program
design more practical:
Conclusion >U
 ndertake systematic risk analysis including analysis and
Community resilience is an outcome. It is about a community’s ability planning for future uncertainty and worst-case scenarios.
or capacity to anticipate, respond to, cope with, and recover from the >R
 educe the causes of vulnerability by building assets and
effects of shocks and stresses without resorting to behaviors that supporting sustainable livelihoods.
­negatively affect well-being or compromise its long-term prospects of >A
 ddress drivers of inequality.
moving out of poverty and hunger. Preventing local food and nutrition >B
 uild up communities’ absorptive and adaptive capacities,
crises requires communities to analyze the crises’ underlying causes including better access to safety nets and social protection.
and to be involved in the design and implementation of initiatives to >S
 upport enhanced capacity for effective and timely emer-
address those problems (Box 4.2). gency responses.
Recognizing more recent initiatives across both regions, includ- >B
 uild institutions for governance, and instill a culture of inno-

ing Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (SHARE) and the Glob- vation and learning.
al Alliance for Resilience Initiative (AGIR), the current approach to

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition45

05
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Building resilience and reducing inequalities need to become national
priorities and be embedded in national development plans
– Oxfam, 2013
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
46 Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2013 Global Hunger Index
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations are addressed to players with direct influence > Invest in real time, high-frequency data collection at different lev-

on policies and programs related to resilience. Civil society and media els (individual, household, community, environment) and among
should monitor and evaluate the use of the resilience lens in the actions different socioeconomic and ethnic groups.
of these key players and collect evidence on outcomes. >E
 stablish sentinel sites in the countries that are most shock-
prone, poor, and dependent on humanitarian assistance, where
Recommendations for the International Development, Humanitarian, data on nutrition, food security, and coping behaviors could be
and Donor Communities collected every one to three months.
Resilience is not a panacea. Its definition and application will
involve choices. While most such choices should work for the poor- 6. Review the effectiveness of early warning systems in order to iden-
est and most vulnerable, some may not. The international develop- tify and address the key institutional, especially political, obstacles
ment and donor communities need to be clear about definitions, to early action. Put in place policy responses to the lessons learned
try to find a consensus with others, and spell out why a resilience from such a review or reviews.
approach will allow them to advance their respective development
and humanitarian goals. Once they have agreed upon a joint vision 7. Donors should direct more development funding to disaster risk reduc-
for resilient policy and programming in a specific context, donors tion and resilience-building interventions, including better-targeted
should align with it. productive safety nets, with either clear percentage targets or other
funding weighting criteria applied.1 Capacity-building interventions and
1. A resilience lens shines a bright light on the missed opportunities costs in fragile and conflict-affected states need to be factored in.
and the sometimes counterproductive separation of the worlds of
1
This recommendation is also promoted by the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-
development and humanitarian assistance. The institutional, finan- 2015 Development Agenda in their report A New Global Partnership (United Nations 2013b).
cial, and conceptual walls separating the worlds of development and
humanitarian assistance within donor and UN agencies need to be
broken down to achieve greater synergies in strategies and imple-
mentation plans.

2. Broader policy coherence for development is also a key requirement

for efforts to strengthen resilience. Policies that undermine resil-

Rose Akech
ience must be revised. To foster resilience to undernutrition, poli-
cies should be designed with the intention of improving nutrition
outcomes and realizing the right to adequate food. Lira District, Uganda

3. To support a pro-poor resilience approach, create multiannual, flex- “I and my family were affected by drought in the first
ible mechanisms and funding that facilitate multisectoral approach- rainy season of 2013.... The negative effect of drought
es to tackling chronic food and nutrition crises and addressing the on my family was huge, especially on my children....
structural causes of food and nutrition insecurity at the regional and It is becoming increasingly difficult to provide for food
country level. and pay school fees. I have struggled to pay school
fees for the first and second term of 2013, and I fore-
4. Communicate to key stakeholders and to the wider public the poten- see the challenge of higher school fees in the future....”
tial cost-effectiveness of building resilience and improving food and
nutrition security, particularly in fragile contexts. “I think that all households should adopt the practice
of planting drought-resistant crops such as cassava,
5. Support a coordinated approach to monitoring resilience-building sorghum, and peas to minimize droughts’ effects in the
measures in different contexts and building an evidence base on the short to medium term. And I think that the government
impact and effectiveness of such measures. As part of this effort, and NGOs should provide simple and affordable rain-
indicators of resilience need to capture adequate information at harvesting and irrigation technologies to farmers, as
appropriate times and frequencies. this would help ­farmers to respond to such hazards.”

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 05 | Policy Recommendations47

 Recommendations for Country-Level Policymakers in
Food-Insecure Countries
8. Develop national approaches to food and nutrition security that
are resilient to shocks and other stresses. Ensure that external

Adrona Kyalimpa
and international actors buy into those approaches and support
them. External actors should work with national actors to devel-
Kabarole District, Uganda op context-specific tools for analyzing, measuring, and assess-
ing resilience.
“After the death of my husband, my in-laws divided the
land among themselves, and I was given a very small 9. Encourage and facilitate a multisectoral approach to resilience
piece—yet I had eight children to look after.... My (as the Scaling Up Nutrition movement encourages a multisec-
sisters-in-law sold off their shares and returned to their toral approach to nutrition, for example), coordinating plans and
homes for they were married. The last two seasons programs across line ministries. Evaluate national sectoral strat-
were not good. My crops were destroyed by the dry sea- egies and action plans using disaster-proofing and resilience-
son, and the banana plantation was badly affected by building lenses.
the heavy storm....”
10. Put in place policies that strengthen resilience to undernutrition,
“The government should have zero tolerance for corrup- such as tenure security for smallholder farmers, and adjust poli-
tion. Grants have never been distributed fairly. Items cies and strategies that undermine the resilience of poor and vul-
like goats and cows are given to those who are rich and nerable groups, such as the low import tariffs or the structural
known to those distributing them, especially politicians. neglect of smallholder agriculture in Haiti.
That is very annoying to people like me who deserve
such items.” 11. Ensure that policies and programs draw on a wide range of exper-
tise such as collaborative, multiagency, and multisectoral problem
analysis. National governments should support the emergence of
multistakeholder platforms and make active use of such forums.
In particular, people suffering from a lack of resilience to shocks
and stresses that affect their food and nutrition security should
be consulted. It is essential that wherever possible, efforts to
strengthen resilience should build on the empowering mechanisms
and institutions they suggest.

Recommendations for Development and Humanitarian Practitioners

12. A resilience perspective can encourage development program-

Jonathan Nturo ming that factors in uncertainty and volatility and humanitarian
programming that works toward sustainable development. Some
Employee of Welthungerhilfe, programs can incorporate both objectives by (1) first providing
Rwanda relief, and then seeking to gradually build individual, household,
and community assets or by (2) building assets in normal times
“Before the implementation of the rice policy, the price but incorporating financial and operational flexibility into pro-
was high at 300 Rwandan francs (RWF) per kilo, but grams to allow them to switch quickly to relief operations when
now the price has been fixed by the Ministry of Com- shocks hit.
merce at 255 RWF per kilo. In addition, training in
planning and budgeting, as well as in creating business
plans, in all supported cooperatives is important to in-
crease yield per hectare and handle the market price.”

48 Policy Recommendations | Chapter 05 | 2013 Global Hunger Index

 13. Development programs aiming to enhance resilience should build
local capacities and strengthen local structures. It is those struc-
tures that have the potential to provide the most effective and time-
ly support when shocks and stresses strike. Emergency programs

Ernestina Amwon
should not work in parallel with these structures, but rather work
with and build on them to avoid locking communities and coun-
tries into a humanitarian approach. Lira District, Uganda

14. Support positive coping mechanisms that people already use. For “I suggest that the government put emphasis on con-
example, strengthen community-level saving networks or banks trolling population growth since it has a direct effect
that play a large role in promoting development and providing relief on how much land can be cultivated and the amount
from shocks. of food available during a food crisis. Households with
4–5 members are more manageable during a food
15. Nongovernmental organizations and their national partners should ­crisis than those with 8–15 members.”
use their long-term experience in development programming more
proactively to lobby for resilience-enhancing policy change.

16. Poor nutrition in early childhood (especially during the 1,000 days
from conception through age two) reduces resilience because it

Raimati Kadraka
can have long-term and irreversible effects on the cognitive and
physical development of children and their future earning capaci-
ty as adults. The humanitarian and development communities Rayagada District, India
should thus focus on improving maternal and child nutrition in
developing regions, with both nutrition-specific interventions to “Our crop diversity increased from 14 to 42 due to the
address the immediate causes of undernutrition and nutrition-sen- revival of millet-based mixed cropping. It strengthens
sitive interventions to address the underlying causes. Nutrition our resilience to climate change. We rejected non­
indicators as specified by the World Health Assembly targets renewable hybrid seeds and synthetic chemical inputs,
should be used to assess nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive provided for free by the government … and NGOs.
programs and funding schemes.2 We reduced our dependence on external agricultural
inputs.... We are watching our debts go down and the
These recommendations follow from the findings presented in a special issue of The Lancet on
2
net yield of our farm increase.”
maternal and child nutrition (June 2013).

Muhammad Amin
Old Mankial Swat Village, Pakistan

“For my children to have a better future, we need to raise

their awareness and educate them on disaster mitigation
and management. I believe that community conflicts over
forests, agricultural land, and misuse of natural resourc-
es led to disasters like floods. I want to resolve them and
show a commitment to controlling deforestation.”

2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 05 | Policy Recommendations49

A APPENDIXES

Data Sources and Calculation of the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and
2013 Global Hunger Index Scores THE GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:
All three index components are expressed in percentages and weighted
equally. Higher GHI scores indicate more hunger. The index varies between GHI = (PUN + CUW + CM)/3
a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 100, but these extremes do not occur with GHI: Global Hunger Index
in practice. The maximum value of 100 would be reached only if all chil- PUN: proportion of the population that is
dren died before their fifth birthday, the whole population was undernour- undernourished (in %)
ished, and all children under five were underweight. The minimum value CUW: prevalence of underweight in children
of zero would mean that a country had no undernourished people in the younger than five (in %)
population, no children under five who were underweight, and no children CM: proportion of children dying before the
who died before their fifth birthday. The table below provides an overview age of five (in %)
of the data sources for the Global Hunger Index.

GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX COMPONENTS, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, AND 2013 GHI SCORES

GHI Number of Indicators Reference years Data sources

­countries
with GHI

1990 97 Percentage of undernourished in the population a 1990–1992b FAO 2013a and authors’ estimates
Prevalence of underweight in children under five 1988–1992 c
WHO 2013 and authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality 1990 IGME 2012
1995 117 Percentage of undernourished in the population a
1994–1996 b
FAO 2013a and authors’ estimates
Prevalence of underweight in children under five 1993–1997d WHO 2013; UNICEF/WHO/World Bank
2012;e and authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality 1995 IGME 2012
2000 117 Percentage of undernourished in the population a
1999–2001 b
FAO 2013a and authors’ estimates
Prevalence of underweight in children under five 1998–2002f WHO 2013 and authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality 2000 IGME 2012
2005 118 Percentage of undernourished in the population a
2004–2006b FAO 2013a and authors’ estimates
Prevalence of underweight in children under five 2003–2007 g
WHO 2013; UNICEF 2013b; UNICEF
2009;e and authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality 2005 IGME 2012
2013 120 Percentage of undernourished in the population a
2010–2012 b
FAO 2013a and authors’ estimates
Prevalence of underweight in children under five 2008–2012 h
WHO 2013; UNICEF 2013a, b; MEA-
SURE DHS 2013; UNICEF/WHO/World
Bank 2012;e and authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality 2011 IGME 2012

a
Proportion of the population with calorie deficiency.
b
Average over a three-year period.
c
Data collected from the year closest to 1990; where data for 1988 and 1992, or 1989 and 1991, were available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 1990.
d
Data collected from the year closest to 1995; where data for 1993 and 1997, or 1994 and 1996, were available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 1995.
e
WHO 2013 data are the primary data source, and UNICEF/WHO/World Bank 2012; UNICEF 2013a, b; UNICEF 2009; and MEASURE DHS 2013 are secondary data sources.
f
Data collected from the year closest to 2000; where data for 1998 and 2002, or 1999 and 2001, were available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 2000.
g
Data collected from the year closest to 2005; where data for 2003 and 2007, or 2004 and 2006, were available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 2005.
h
The latest data gathered in this period.

50 Data Sources and Calculation of the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI Scores | Appendix A | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 DATA UNDERLYING THE CALCULATION OF THE 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, AND 2013 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES B
Country Proportion of undernourished in the Prevalence of underweight in Under-five mortality GHI
population (%) children under five years (%) rate (%)
’90–’92 ’94–’96 ’99–’01 ’04–’06 ’10–’12 ’88–’92 ’93–’97 ’98–’02 ’03–’07 ’08–’12 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013
with data from
1988–92 1993–97 1998–02 2003–07 2008–12

Afghanistan – – – – – – 44.9 31.3 * 32.8 25.0 19.2 15.8 13.6 11.9 10.1 – – – – –
Albania 9.0 * 2.4 * 3.8 * 9.7 * 7.8 * 14.5 * 12.1 * 17.0 6.6 6.3 4.1 3.5 2.6 2.0 1.4 9.2 6.0 7.8 6.1 5.2
Algeria 5.2 6.4 5.8 5.0 * 3.7 * 9.2 11.3 5.4 3.7 5.7 * 6.6 5.5 4.6 3.8 3.0 7.0 7.7 5.3 <5 <5
Angola 63.9 56.4 47.5 35.1 27.4 30.4 * 37.0 27.5 15.1 14.1 * 24.3 22.2 19.9 17.9 15.8 39.5 38.5 31.6 22.7 19.1
Argentina 2.1 * 1.2 * 0.9 * 1.9 * 4.0 * 3.5 * 3.2 2.3 * 2.3 1.8 * 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.4 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Armenia – 21.3 19.0 5.4 3.0 * – 5.4 * 2.6 4.2 5.3 – 3.8 3.0 2.3 1.8 – 10.2 8.2 <5 <5
Azerbaijan – 26.3 14.7 2.2 * 1.5 * – 8.8 14.0 8.4 3.3 * – 8.4 6.9 5.7 4.5 – 14.5 11.9 5.4 <5
Bahrain – – – – – 6.3 7.6 5.6 * 6.3 * 6.6 * 2.1 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.0 – – – – –
Bangladesh 34.6 36.3 18.4 15.1 16.8 61.5 58.0 45.3 39.2 36.8 13.9 11.1 8.4 6.4 4.6 36.7 35.1 24.0 20.2 19.4
Belarus – 1.1 * 2.3 * 2.8 * 0.4 * – 1.5 * 1.0 * 1.3 0.9 * – 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.6 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Benin 22.4 18.7 16.4 13.1 8.1 27.3 * 26.8 21.5 20.2 21.2 * 17.7 15.9 14.0 12.3 10.6 22.5 20.5 17.3 15.2 13.3
Bhutan – – – – – 34.0 26.1 * 14.1 14.6 * 12.8 13.8 11.2 8.9 7.1 5.4 – – – – –
Bolivia 34.6 30.7 28.7 29.1 24.1 9.7 10.0 5.9 5.9 4.5 12.0 10.0 8.1 6.5 5.1 18.8 16.9 14.2 13.8 11.2
Bosnia & Herzegovina – 6.4 * 6.3 * 2.1 * 2.8 * – 4.1 * 4.2 1.6 1.6 – 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Botswana 27.4 29.3 34.5 32.9 27.9 17.8 * 15.1 10.7 11.4 * 11.2 5.3 6.5 8.1 4.6 2.6 16.8 17.0 17.8 16.3 13.9
Brazil 14.9 13.5 12.1 8.7 6.9 5.3 4.5 3.6 * 3.0 3.0 * 5.8 4.8 3.6 2.5 1.6 8.7 7.6 6.4 <5 <5
Bulgaria 3.5 * 7.8 * 7.0 * 7.9 * 6.9 * 2.1 * 2.6 * 2.3 * 2.2 1.6 * 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.2 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Burkina Faso 22.9 18.6 26.4 25.8 25.9 36.9 * 29.6 33.7 37.6 26.2 20.8 19.9 18.2 16.5 14.6 26.9 22.7 26.1 26.6 22.2
Burundi 49.0 58.4 63.0 67.9 73.4 34.2 * 38.3 * 38.9 35.2 29.1 18.3 17.7 16.5 15.3 13.9 33.8 38.1 39.5 39.5 38.8
Cambodia 39.9 37.7 33.8 27.4 17.1 44.9 * 42.6 39.5 28.4 29.0 11.7 11.9 10.2 6.9 4.3 32.2 30.7 27.8 20.9 16.8
Cameroon 38.7 37.3 29.1 19.5 15.7 18.0 20.0 * 17.8 15.9 15.1 14.5 14.1 14.0 13.6 12.7 23.7 23.8 20.3 16.3 14.5
Central African Rep. 49.5 50.6 45.1 40.6 30.0 25.7 * 20.4 21.8 28.0 23.5 16.9 17.3 17.2 17.0 16.4 30.7 29.4 28.0 28.5 23.3
Chad 61.1 50.5 41.0 37.3 33.4 34.6 * 34.3 29.4 33.9 30.3 20.8 19.8 18.9 18.0 16.9 38.8 34.9 29.8 29.7 26.9
Chile 8.1 5.6 4.4 * 3.2 * 3.7 * 1.0 * 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
China 21.4 15.9 14.4 13.1 11.5 12.6 10.7 7.4 4.5 3.4 4.9 4.6 3.5 2.4 1.5 13.0 10.4 8.4 6.7 5.5
Colombia 19.1 14.7 13.0 13.6 12.6 8.8 6.3 4.9 5.1 3.4 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 10.4 8.0 6.8 6.9 5.9
Comoros 43.5 49.1 64.8 58.1 70.0 16.2 22.3 25.0 22.1 22.8 * 12.2 11.0 10.0 9.1 7.9 24.0 27.5 33.3 29.8 33.6
Congo, Dem. Rep. – – – – – 21.4 * 30.7 33.6 28.2 24.2 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 16.8 – – – – –
Congo, Rep. 42.8 44.7 30.1 32.9 37.4 16.4 * 15.8 * 17.0 * 11.8 14.1 * 11.9 11.3 10.9 10.4 9.9 23.7 23.9 19.3 18.4 20.5
Costa Rica 4.0 * 5.0 4.4 * 5.0 * 6.5 2.5 3.2 1.6 * 1.3 * 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Croatia – 14.6 * 11.6 * 2.1 * 1.5 * – 0.5 0.5 * 0.3 * 0.3 * – 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 – 5.4 <5 <5 <5
Cuba 11.5 16.1 2.8 * 1.1 * 0.6 * 3.6 * 5.0 * 3.4 3.5 3.3 * 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 5.5 7.4 <5 <5 <5
Côte d'Ivoire 13.7 14.0 19.9 19.6 21.4 20.0 * 20.9 18.2 16.7 15.4 15.1 14.6 13.9 12.8 11.5 16.3 16.5 17.3 16.4 16.1
Djibouti 68.0 58.1 47.1 32.6 19.8 20.2 16.0 25.4 29.6 29.8 12.2 11.3 10.6 9.8 9.0 33.5 28.5 27.7 24.0 19.5
Dominican Republic 30.4 25.7 21.6 18.6 15.4 8.4 4.7 3.5 4.6 3.1 * 5.8 4.7 3.9 3.2 2.5 14.9 11.7 9.7 8.8 7.0
Ecuador 24.5 18.5 20.9 21.4 18.3 12.2 * 12.0 * 12.5 6.2 5.0 * 5.2 4.2 3.4 2.8 2.3 14.0 11.6 12.3 10.1 8.5
Egypt, Arab Rep. 2.0 * 1.6 * 1.5 * 2.2 * 1.6 * 10.5 10.8 9.8 5.4 6.8 8.6 6.2 4.4 3.2 2.1 7.0 6.2 5.2 <5 <5
El Salvador 15.6 14.2 9.2 10.6 12.3 11.1 7.2 9.6 6.1 6.6 6.0 4.7 3.4 2.4 1.5 10.9 8.7 7.4 6.4 6.8
Eritrea – 71.8 76.2 74.8 65.4 – 38.3 34.5 34.8 * 32.8 * – 11.6 9.8 8.3 6.8 – 40.6 40.2 39.3 35.0
Estonia – 6.4 * 4.3 * 4.3 * 3.2 * – 1.0 * 1.0 * 0.9 * 2.3 * – 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Ethiopia 68.0 67.2 55.3 47.7 40.2 39.2 43.9 * 42.0 34.6 29.2 19.8 17.0 13.9 10.7 7.7 42.3 42.7 37.1 31.0 25.7
Fiji 6.2 5.7 4.8 * 2.9 * 3.8 * 8.1 * 6.9 5.6 * 4.0 * 5.8 * 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.6 5.8 5.1 <5 <5 <5
Gabon 10.1 7.5 6.3 5.8 6.5 9.7 * 7.8 * 8.8 7.2 * 8.6 * 9.4 8.7 8.2 7.7 6.6 9.7 8.0 7.8 6.9 7.2
Gambia, The 19.5 23.2 19.8 19.3 14.4 21.3 * 23.2 15.4 15.8 17.4 16.5 14.7 13.0 11.6 10.1 19.1 20.4 16.1 15.6 14.0
Georgia – 42.3 21.5 28.9 24.7 – 3.5 * 2.7 2.3 1.1 – 4.0 3.3 2.6 2.1 – 16.6 9.2 11.3 9.3
Ghana 40.5 22.7 16.6 9.5 3.4 * 24.0 25.1 20.3 13.9 13.4 12.1 10.9 9.9 8.8 7.8 25.5 19.6 15.6 10.7 8.2
Guatemala 16.2 20.5 26.5 29.9 30.4 21.1 * 21.7 19.6 17.3 * 13.0 7.8 6.0 4.8 3.9 3.0 15.0 16.1 17.0 17.0 15.5
Guinea 18.4 22.1 20.6 17.0 17.3 23.0 * 21.2 29.1 22.5 20.8 22.8 20.2 17.5 15.0 12.6 21.4 21.2 22.4 18.2 16.9
Guinea-Bissau 22.0 23.1 21.4 18.5 8.7 22.0 * 19.4 * 21.9 17.4 18.1 21.0 19.9 18.6 17.3 16.1 21.7 20.8 20.6 17.7 14.3
Guyana 19.7 11.9 7.9 9.0 5.1 17.0 * 13.2 11.9 10.8 11.1 6.3 5.6 4.9 4.3 3.6 14.3 10.2 8.2 8.0 6.6
Haiti 63.5 59.1 53.0 53.5 44.5 23.7 24.0 13.9 18.9 18.4 * 14.3 12.1 10.2 8.6 7.0 33.8 31.7 25.7 27.0 23.3
Honduras 21.4 18.6 16.3 14.2 9.6 15.8 17.7 12.5 8.6 12.1 * 5.5 4.4 3.5 2.8 2.1 14.2 13.6 10.8 8.5 7.9
India 26.9 25.2 21.3 20.9 17.5 59.5 45.9 44.4 43.5 40.2 * 11.4 10.1 8.8 7.5 6.1 32.6 27.1 24.8 24.0 21.3
Indonesia 19.9 15.2 17.8 15.1 8.6 31.0 28.9 23.3 24.4 18.6 8.2 6.5 5.3 4.2 3.2 19.7 16.9 15.5 14.6 10.1
Iran, Islamic Rep. 3.4 * 3.5 * 4.3 * 5.8 5.0 * 16.0 * 13.8 9.5 4.6 4.1 * 6.1 4.9 4.4 3.4 2.5 8.5 7.4 6.1 <5 <5
Iraq – – – – – 10.4 – 12.9 7.6 8.5 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.8 – – – – –
Jamaica 9.0 8.1 6.9 7.0 8.7 5.2 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.2 1.8 5.9 5.0 <5 <5 <5
Jordan 6.7 8.6 6.1 2.9 * 3.7 * 4.8 3.8 3.6 1.9 * 1.9 3.7 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.1 5.1 5.2 <5 <5 <5
Kazakhstan – 0.8 * 8.0 1.0 * 0.5 * – 6.7 3.8 4.9 3.7 – 5.1 4.2 3.5 2.8 – <5 5.3 <5 <5
Kenya 35.6 31.9 32.8 32.9 30.4 18.7 * 19.8 17.5 18.4 16.4 9.8 11.2 11.3 9.4 7.3 21.4 21.0 20.5 20.2 18.0
Kuwait 28.7 4.8 * 1.6 * 0.9 * 1.6 * 6.7 * 9.2 2.2 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 12.4 5.1 <5 <5 <5
Kyrgyz Republic – 13.8 15.8 9.4 6.4 – 8.2 5.8 * 2.7 3.5 * – 5.8 4.7 3.9 3.1 – 9.3 8.8 5.3 <5
Lao PDR 44.6 44.1 39.5 33.4 27.8 40.9 * 35.9 36.4 31.6 24.2 * 14.8 11.0 8.1 6.0 4.2 33.4 30.3 28.0 23.7 18.7
Latvia – 2.0 * 5.6 * 3.2 * 4.1 * – 0.7 * 1.2 * 1.0 * 2.6 * – 2.3 1.7 1.3 0.8 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Lebanon 3.5 * 4.0 * 3.5 * 3.3 * 3.1 * 5.9 * 3.5 4.0 * 4.2 2.8 * 3.3 2.6 1.9 1.4 0.9 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

* IFPRI estimates.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Appendix B | Data Underlying the Calculation of the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI Scores51
B DATA UNDERLYING THE CALCULATION OF THE 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, AND 2013 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES

Country Proportion of undernourished in the Prevalence of underweight in Under-five mortality GHI

population (%) children under five years (%) rate (%)
’90–’92 ’94–’96 ’99–’01 ’04–’06 ’10–’12 ’88–’92 ’93–’97 ’98–’02 ’03–’07 ’08–’12 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013
with data from
1988–92 1993–97 1998–02 2003–07 2008–12

Lesotho 16.9 18.0 17.1 16.3 16.6 13.8 16.4 15.0 16.6 13.5 8.8 9.4 11.7 11.9 8.6 13.2 14.6 14.6 14.9 12.9
Liberia 32.9 39.2 34.9 29.6 31.4 13.3 * 23.4 * 22.8 20.4 14.4 24.1 21.9 16.4 11.7 7.8 23.4 28.2 24.7 20.6 17.9
Libya 1.0 * 1.2 * 1.6 * 1.4 * 1.8 * 7.7 * 4.3 4.5 * 5.6 5.7 * 4.4 3.5 2.7 2.2 1.6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Lithuania – 4.0 * 2.3 * 1.5 * 1.1 * – 1.1 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 2.4 * – 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Macedonia, FYR – 12.3 * 6.8 * 4.5 * 4.7 * – 2.5 * 1.9 1.8 1.3 – 2.5 1.6 1.3 1.0 – 5.8 <5 <5 <5
Madagascar 24.8 30.3 32.4 28.1 33.4 35.5 30.4 35.0 * 36.8 36.0 * 16.1 13.2 10.4 8.2 6.2 25.5 24.6 25.9 24.4 25.2
Malawi 44.8 35.8 26.8 24.7 23.1 24.4 26.5 21.5 18.4 13.8 22.7 20.4 16.4 12.9 8.3 30.6 27.6 21.6 18.7 15.1
Malaysia 4.6 * 2.2 * 2.9 * 3.5 * 3.0 * 22.1 17.7 16.7 12.9 12.7 * 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 9.5 7.1 6.9 5.8 5.5
Mali 25.3 26.1 21.5 14.7 7.9 31.2 * 31.0 30.1 27.9 18.9 25.7 23.5 21.4 19.6 17.6 27.4 26.9 24.3 20.7 14.8
Mauritania 12.4 10.5 9.4 8.9 9.3 43.3 25.9 * 30.4 23.2 19.0 12.5 12.1 11.8 11.6 11.2 22.7 16.2 17.2 14.6 13.2
Mauritius 8.6 7.5 6.5 5.9 5.7 14.4 * 13.0 11.2 * 10.1 * 8.3 * 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.5 8.5 7.6 6.5 5.9 5.2
Mexico 3.3 * 3.2 * 3.1 * 0.1 * 2.1 * 13.9 10.3 6.0 3.4 2.8 4.9 3.9 2.9 2.2 1.6 7.4 5.8 <5 <5 <5
Moldova – 15.4 * 19.8 * 16.6 * 23.3 * – 4.7 * 4.3 * 3.2 2.6 * – 2.9 2.4 2.0 1.6 – 7.7 8.8 7.3 9.2
Mongolia 37.5 48.5 37.6 32.5 24.2 10.8 13.8 * 11.6 5.3 5.0 10.7 8.4 6.3 4.6 3.1 19.7 23.6 18.5 14.1 10.8
Montenegro – – – – 2.8 * – – – – 1.5 * – – – – 0.7 – – – – <5
Morocco 7.1 6.5 6.2 5.2 5.5 8.1 7.7 7.0 * 9.9 3.1 8.1 6.6 5.3 4.3 3.3 7.8 6.9 6.2 6.5 <5
Mozambique 57.1 51.7 45.3 40.3 39.2 28.3 * 23.9 23.0 21.2 14.9 22.6 20.5 17.2 13.9 10.3 36.0 32.0 28.5 25.1 21.5
Myanmar – – – – – 28.8 38.7 30.1 29.6 22.6 10.7 9.5 8.4 7.3 6.2 – – – – –
Namibia 37.5 37.2 24.9 26.8 33.9 21.5 21.6 * 20.3 17.5 17.2 * 7.3 6.8 7.4 6.9 4.2 22.1 21.9 17.5 17.1 18.4
Nepal 25.9 27.1 24.5 21.7 18.0 44.6 * 44.1 43.0 38.8 29.1 13.5 10.6 8.3 6.5 4.8 28.0 27.3 25.3 22.3 17.3
Nicaragua 55.1 44.9 34.3 26.7 20.1 10.5 * 9.6 7.8 4.3 5.8 * 6.6 5.3 4.2 3.4 2.6 24.1 19.9 15.4 11.5 9.5
Niger 36.9 36.3 25.8 20.0 12.6 41.0 40.7 * 43.6 39.9 35.7 31.4 26.7 21.6 16.9 12.5 36.4 34.6 30.3 25.6 20.3
Nigeria 19.3 11.7 10.2 6.8 8.5 35.1 35.1 24.7 26.5 24.2 21.4 21.1 18.8 15.6 12.4 25.3 22.6 17.9 16.3 15.0
North Korea 25.4 33.1 37.0 36.1 32.0 26.4 * 27.1 * 24.7 20.6 18.8 4.5 7.6 5.8 3.2 3.3 18.8 22.6 22.5 20.0 18.0
Oman – – – – – 21.4 10.0 11.3 11.6 * 8.6 4.8 3.3 2.2 1.4 0.9 – – – – –
Pakistan 26.4 23.2 24.0 22.8 19.9 39.0 34.2 31.3 32.4 * 30.9 12.2 11.0 9.5 8.4 7.2 25.9 22.8 21.6 21.2 19.3
Panama 22.8 23.3 25.7 19.7 10.2 8.8 * 6.3 5.9 * 5.1 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.0 11.6 10.8 11.4 9.0 5.4
Papua New Guinea – – – – – 19.2 * 17.8 * 17.9 * 18.0 14.5 * 8.8 7.9 7.2 6.5 5.8 – – – – –
Paraguay 19.7 15.3 13.0 12.6 25.5 2.8 2.9 * 2.9 * 3.4 2.6 * 5.3 4.3 3.5 2.9 2.2 9.3 7.5 6.5 6.3 10.1
Peru 32.6 25.7 22.5 21.4 11.2 8.8 5.7 5.2 5.4 3.4 7.5 5.5 3.9 2.8 1.8 16.3 12.3 10.5 9.9 5.5
Philippines 24.2 21.3 20.9 18.0 17.0 29.9 26.3 28.3 20.7 20.2 5.7 4.7 3.9 3.2 2.5 19.9 17.4 17.7 14.0 13.2
Qatar – – – – – – 4.8 – 0.9 * 0.7 * 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 – – – – –
Romania 2.2 * 2.1 * 1.3 * 0.4 * 0.4 * 5.0 4.6 * 3.7 3.0 * 2.0 * 3.7 3.2 2.7 2.1 1.3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Russian Federation – 5.0 * 4.7 * 2.0 * 1.7 * – 2.6 2.3 * 0.8 * 1.2 * – 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.2 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Rwanda 52.6 60.1 46.5 42.1 28.9 24.3 24.2 22.2 18.0 11.7 15.6 27.5 18.3 10.8 5.4 30.8 37.3 29.0 23.6 15.3
Saudi Arabia 3.0 * 3.4 * 1.3 * 2.0 * 2.6 * 12.3 * 12.9 8.5 * 5.3 9.3 * 4.3 3.0 2.1 1.4 0.9 6.5 6.4 <5 <5 <5
Senegal 21.7 25.7 24.2 16.9 20.5 19.0 19.6 20.3 14.5 14.4 13.6 14.2 13.0 9.7 6.5 18.1 19.8 19.2 13.7 13.8
Serbia – – – – 4.9 – – – – 1.6 – – – – 0.7 – – – – <5
Sierra Leone 41.9 36.2 41.1 35.5 28.8 25.4 26.1 * 24.7 28.3 21.1 26.7 26.2 24.1 21.4 18.5 31.3 29.5 30.0 28.4 22.8
Slovak Republic – 3.5 * 5.3 * 5.4 * 4.5 * – 1.3 * 1.1 * 1.0 * 2.1 * – 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Somalia – – – – – – – 22.8 32.8 – 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 – – – – –
South Africa 5.0 * 5.2 4.8 * 3.8 * 2.9 * 10.4 * 8.0 10.1 11.6 8.7 6.2 6.2 7.4 7.8 4.7 7.2 6.5 7.4 7.7 5.4
Sri Lanka 33.9 31.3 28.7 27.9 24.0 30.1 * 28.3 22.8 21.1 21.6 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.2 22.3 20.7 17.8 16.9 15.6
Sudan (former) 42.1 32.7 31.7 32.0 39.4 36.7 * 31.8 38.4 31.7 32.2 14.5 12.7 11.6 10.5 9.4 31.1 25.7 27.2 24.7 27.0
Suriname 17.7 15.5 17.9 15.7 11.4 10.9 * 9.8 * 11.4 7.5 5.8 5.2 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 11.3 9.9 11.1 8.9 6.7
Swaziland 16.1 22.6 17.7 18.7 27.0 6.9 * 7.1 * 9.1 6.1 5.8 8.3 9.1 11.4 12.8 10.4 10.4 12.9 12.7 12.5 14.4
Syrian Arab Republic 4.8 * 4.1 * 3.5 * 3.4 * 3.2 * 14.6 * 11.3 6.0 10.0 10.1 3.6 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 7.7 6.1 <5 5.1 <5
Tajikistan – 34.0 40.8 34.3 31.7 – 18.4 * 17.5 * 14.9 11.0 * – 11.1 9.5 7.9 6.3 – 21.2 22.6 19.0 16.3
Tanzania 29.4 38.5 40.4 35.1 38.8 25.1 26.9 25.3 16.7 16.2 15.8 15.3 12.6 9.8 6.8 23.4 26.9 26.1 20.5 20.6
Thailand 43.8 33.7 19.6 11.2 7.3 16.6 * 15.4 9.1 * 7.0 9.0 * 3.5 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.2 21.3 17.1 10.2 6.6 5.8
Timor-Leste – – – 28.5 38.2 – – 40.6 41.5 45.3 – – – 7.9 5.4 – – – 26.0 29.6
Togo 32.8 26.8 25.2 20.4 16.5 21.5 16.7 23.2 22.3 16.6 14.7 13.7 12.8 12.0 11.0 23.0 19.1 20.4 18.2 14.7
Trinidad & Tobago 13.6 14.8 13.0 13.3 9.3 7.9 * 7.6 * 4.4 4.6 * 2.6 * 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 8.4 8.6 6.9 7.0 <5
Tunisia 0.9 * 1.0 * 0.7 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 8.5 8.1 3.5 3.3 2.3 5.1 3.9 3.0 2.2 1.6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Turkey 0.5 * 0.6 * 0.9 * 1.0 * 0.9 * 6.4 * 9.0 7.0 3.5 1.7 7.2 5.3 3.5 2.4 1.5 <5 5.0 <5 <5 <5
Turkmenistan – 10.2 8.1 5.5 3.4 * – 12.4 * 10.5 8.0 5.5 * – 8.2 7.1 6.2 5.3 – 10.3 8.6 6.6 <5
Uganda 26.6 30.6 26.5 27.9 34.6 19.7 21.5 19.0 16.4 14.1 17.8 16.6 14.1 11.6 9.0 21.4 22.9 19.9 18.6 19.2
Ukraine – 3.9 * 4.2 * 1.3 * 0.9 * – 2.1 * 4.1 0.8 * 1.2 * – 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.0 – <5 <5 <5 <5
Uruguay 7.3 5.1 4.3 * 4.6 * 5.0 * 6.8 * 3.9 5.2 6.0 4.5 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.0 5.5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Uzbekistan – 2.8 * 14.7 9.8 6.1 – 15.3 7.1 4.4 5.0 * – 6.7 6.1 5.5 4.9 – 8.3 9.3 6.6 5.3
Venezuela, RB 13.5 16.4 15.5 9.7 2.7 * 6.7 4.1 3.9 4.1 2.9 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.5 7.8 7.7 7.2 5.2 <5
Vietnam 46.9 30.6 22.0 15.6 9.0 40.7 40.6 28.9 22.7 12.0 5.0 4.1 3.4 2.8 2.2 30.9 25.1 18.1 13.7 7.7
Yemen, Rep. 28.6 31.0 30.4 31.7 32.4 48.1 * 40.9 40.5 * 43.1 39.3 * 12.6 11.2 9.9 8.8 7.7 29.8 27.7 26.9 27.9 26.5
Zambia 34.3 35.5 43.9 48.3 47.4 21.2 19.6 19.6 14.9 16.7 * 19.3 18.4 15.4 12.7 8.3 24.9 24.5 26.3 25.3 24.1
Zimbabwe 44.1 44.8 43.1 38.2 32.8 8.0 11.7 11.5 14.0 10.1 7.9 9.4 10.6 9.4 6.7 20.0 22.0 21.7 20.5 16.5

* IFPRI estimates.

52 Data Underlying the Calculation of the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI Scores | Appendix B | 2013 Global Hunger Index
COUNTRY TRENDS FOR THE 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, AND 2013 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES C

NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

45

1990 GHI
40
1995 GHI
2000 GHI
35 2005 GHI
2013 GHI
30

25

20

15

10

0
Yemen

Syria

Saudi Arabia

Algeria

Morocco

Iran

Egypt

Libya

Jordan

Lebanon

Tunisia

Kuwait

Turkey
WEST AFRICA

45

1990 GHI
40
1995 GHI
2000 GHI
35 2005 GHI
2013 GHI
30

25

20

15

10

0
Liberia
Sierra Leone

Burkina Faso

Niger

Guinea

Côte d'Ivoire

Nigeria

Mali

Togo

Guinea-Bissau

The Gambia

Senegal

Benin

Mauritania

Ghana

2013 Global Hunger Index | Appendix C | Country Trends for the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI Scores53
C

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

45

1990 GHI
40
1995 GHI
2000 GHI
35 2005 GHI
2013 GHI
30

25

20

15

10

5
Chad

Central Afr. Rep.

Congo, Rep.

Angola

Namibia

Cameroon

Swaziland

Botswana

Lesotho

Gabon

South Africa
EAST AFRICA

45
1990 GHI
1995 GHI
40 2000 GHI
2005 GHI
35 2013 GHI

30

25

20

15

10

5
Sudan (former)
Burundi

Eritrea

Comoros

Ethiopia

Madagascar

Zambia

Mozambique

Tanzania

Djibouti

Uganda

Kenya

Zimbabwe

Rwanda

Malawi

Mauritius

54 Country Trends for the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI Scores | Appendix C | 2013 Global Hunger Index
 C

SOUTH AMERICA

45

1990 GHI
40
1995 GHI
2000 GHI
35 2005 GHI
2013 GHI
30

25

20

15

10

5
Bolivia

Paraguay

Ecuador

Suriname

Guyana

Colombia

Peru

Trinidad & Tobago

Brazil

Uruguay

Argentina

Venezuela

Chile
CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN

45
1990 GHI
1995 GHI
40 2000 GHI
2005 GHI
35 2013 GHI

30

25

20

15

10

5
Honduras
Haiti

Guatemala

Nicaragua

Dom. Rep.

El Salvador

Panama

Jamaica

Costa Rica

Mexico

Cuba

2013 Global Hunger Index | Appendix C | Country Trends for the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI Scores55
 C

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

56
Tajikistan Timor-Leste

Georgia
India
Moldova

Uzbekistan Bangladesh

Albania
Pakistan
SOUTH, EAST, AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

Turkmenistan

Kyrgyz Rep. Lao PDR

Armenia
North Korea
Bulgaria
Nepal
Azerbaijan

Latvia Cambodia

EASTERN EUROPE AND COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

Slovak Rep.
Sri Lanka
Serbia

Kazakhstan Philippines

Macedonia, FYR
Mongolia
Estonia
Indonesia
Bosnia & Herz.

Montenegro Vietnam

Lithuania
Thailand
Russian Federation

Romania China

Ukraine
Malaysia
Croatia

2013
2005
2000
1995
1990
2013
2005
2000
1995
1990

Belarus Fiji
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI
GHI

Country Trends for the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2013 GHI Scores| Appendix C | 2013 Global Hunger Index
BIBLIOGRAPHY

A ‘Climatizing’ Development: Examples and Policy Implications. Development 51 (3): 390–396.

Aker, J. C., R. Boumnijel, A. McClelland, and N. Tierney. 2011. Zap It to Me: The Short-Term
Impacts of a Mobile Cash Transfer Program. CGD Working Paper 268. Washington, DC: Center for Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance Development Works). 2012. World Risk Report 2012. Berlin.
Global Development.
www.worldriskreport.com/uploads/media/WRR_2012_en_online.pdf.

Aker, J. C., and M. Nene. 2012. Cash Transfers, Nutrition and Household Well-Being in Niger. An
Operations Research Report for Concern Worldwide. Dublin and Medford, MA, US: Concern World-
wide and Tufts University.
C
Cadre de Liaison Inter-ONG Haiti. 2013. Prévenir une Crise Alimentaire Imminente en Haïti: Les
Organisations Signataires Encouragent le Gouvernement et ses Partenaires à Prendre des Actions
Alinovi, L., M. D’Errico, E. Mane, and D. Romano. 2010. Livelihoods Strategies and Household
Immédiates et Durables. http://bit.ly/15PIlhC.
Resilience to Food Insecurity: An Empirical Analysis to Kenya. Paper presented at conference orga-
nized by the European Report of Development, Dakar, Senegal, June 28–30.
Cayemittes, M., M. F. Placide, S. Mariko, B. Barrère, B. Sévère, and C. Alexandre. 2007. Enquête
Mortalité, Morbidité et Utilisation des Services, Haïti, 2005–2006. Calverton, MD, US: Ministère
Alkire, S., and M. E. Santos. 2010. Multidimensional Poverty Index: 2010 Data. Oxford, UK: Oxford
de la Santé Publique et de la Population, Institut Haïtien de l’Enfance, et Macro International Inc.
Poverty and Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford. www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidi-
mensional-poverty-index/.
Cayemittes, M., M. Fatuma Busangu, J. de Dieu Bizimana, B. Barrère, B. Sévère, V. Cayemittes,
AlterPresse. 2012. Haiti-Agriculture: Martelly, de Retour du Japon, Affirme Disposer d’un Nou- and E. Charles. 2013. Enquête Mortalité, Morbidité et Utilisation des Services, Haïti, 2012. Cal-
veau Plan d’Autosuffisance Alimentaire. December 12. verton, MD, US: Ministère de la Santé Publique et de la Population, Institut Haïtien de l’Enfance,
www.alterpresse.org/spip.php?article13824#.UfZdhqx0Yrg. and ICF International.

B CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). 2013. The

www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.
World Factbook. Washington, DC.

Barrett, C. B. 2010. Measuring Food Insecurity. Science 327 (5967): 825–828.

Constas, M., and C. Barrett. 2013. Principles of Resilience Measurement for Food Insecurity: Met-
Barrett, C. B., and M. Constas. 2012. Resilience to Avoid and Escape Chronic Poverty: Theoreti-
rics, Mechanisms, and Implementation Plans. Paper presented at the Expert Consultation on Resil-
cal Foundations and Measurement Principles. Paper presented at a roundtable discussion on resil-
ience Measurement Related to Food Security sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization
ience at CARE, Washington, DC, December 11.
and World Food Programme, Rome, February 20.

Béné, C., R. Godfrey-Wood, A. Newsham, and M. Davies. 2012. Resilience: New Utopia or New
Tyranny?: Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to
Vulnerability Reduction Programmes. IDS Working Paper 405. Brighton, UK: Institute of Develop-
D
Davidson, D. J. 2010. The Applicability of the Concept of Resilience to Social Systems: Some
ment Studies.
Sources of Optimism and Nagging Doubts. Society and Natural Resources 23 (12): 1135–1149.

Berhane, G., J. Hoddinott, N. Kumar, and A. S. Taffesse. 2011. The Impact of Ethiopia’s Produc-
tive Safety Nets and Household Asset Building Programme: 2006–2010. IFPRI Discussion Paper Democracy Now. 2011. Dr. Paul Farmer on Bill Clinton’s Apology for Devastating Haitian Rice
839. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Farming: A Great Relief. Accessed July 31, 2013. www.democracynow.org/2011/7/14/
dr_paul_farmer_on_bill_clintons.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resil-
ience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Demombynes, G., and S. F. Trommlerová. 2012. What Has Driven the Decline of Infant Mortality
in Kenya? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6057. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke, ed. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems Management Practic-
es and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duit, A., V. Galaz, and K. Eckerberg. 2010. Governance, Complexity, and Resilience. Global Envi-
ronmental Change 20 (3): 363–368.
Bhutta, Z. A., J. K. Das, A. Rizmi, M. F. Gahhey, N. Walker, S. Horton, P. Webb, A. Lartey, R. E.
Black, the Lancet Nutrition Interventions Review Group, and the Maternal and Children Nutrition
Study Group. 2013. Evidence-Based Interventions for Improvement of Maternal and Child Nutri-
tion: What Can Be Done and at What Cost? The Lancet (June): 452–477.
E
Economist. 2012. Bangladesh and Development: The Path through the Fields. November 3.

Black, R. E., C. G. Victora, S. P. Walker, Z. A. Bhutta, P. Christian, M. de Onis, M. Ezzati, S.

EM-DAT (Emergency Events Database). 2013. EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database.
Grantham-McGregor, J. Katz, R. Martorell, R. Uauy, and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study
Accessed July 5. www.em-dat.net.
Group. 2013. Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-
Income Countries. The Lancet (June): 15–29.
Erasmus, W., L. Mpoke, and Y. Yishak. March 2012. Mitigating the Impact of Drought in Moyale
Bliss, J. R. 2012. The Impact of Cash Transfers on Nutrition and Dietary Practices of Children District, Northern Kenya. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine. Accessed July 18, 2013. http://www.
6–24 Months of Age in the District of Tahoua, Niger. Concern Worldwide and Cornell University, odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-53/mitigating-the-impact-of-drought-in
Division of Nutritional Sciences, Dublin and Ithaca, NY, US. Unpublished. -moyale-district-northern-kenya.

Bloem, M. W., R. Moench-Pfanner, and D. Panagides, ed. 2003. Health and Nutritional Surveil-
lance for Development. Singapore: Helen Keller Worldwide. F
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. The State of Food Insecuri-
Boyd, E., H. Osbahr, P. Ericksen, E. Tompkins, M. C. Lemos, and F. Miller. 2008. Resilience and ty in the World 2011. Rome.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography57

———. 2012. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012. Rome.
Headey, D., A. Seyoum Taffesse, and L. You. Forthcoming. Diversification and Development in
Pastoralist Ethiopia. World Development.
———. 2013a. Food Security Indicators. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/fs-data/en/.

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and
———. 2013b. Situation Update: The Sahel Crisis. July 1. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/ Systematics 4: 2–23.

user_upload/emergencies/docs/SITUATION%20UPDATE%20Sahel%201%2007%202013.pdf.
Hornborg, A. 2009. Zero-Sum World: Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displace-
ment and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World-System. International Journal of Compar-
FAO, WFP (World Food Programme), and UNICEF. 2012. Building Resilience: Rethinking Aid Strat-
ative Sociology 50 (3–4): 237–262. Accessed August 11, 2012. www.lucid.lu.se/­Hornborg
egy for Somalia: A FAO-WFP-UNICEF Joint Strategy on Building Resilience against Shocks for
__2009__zero_sum_world.pdf.
Somalia. Rome and New York. Unpublished.

Huong, L. T., and V. T. T. Nga. 2013. Nutritional Practices among Ethnic Minorities and Child Mal-
FEWS NET (Famine Early Warning Systems Network). 2013. Agro-Climatic Monitoring. www.fews nutrition in Mountainous Areas of Central Vietnam. Food and Nutrition Sciences 4 (1): 82–89.

.net/Pages/imageryhome.aspx?l=en.

I
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-ecological Systems Anal- IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute)/Welthungerhilfe/Concern. 2007. The Chal-
yses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253–267. lenge of Hunger 2007: Global Hunger Index: Facts, Determinants, and Trends. Washington, DC,
Bonn, and Dublin.

Frankenberger, T., and S. Nelson. 2013. Summary of the Expert Consultation on Resilience Mea-
IGME (Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation). 2012. CME Info Database. New York.
surement for Food Security. Paper presented at the Expert Consultation on Resilience Measure-
www.childmortality.org/index.
ment Related to Food Security sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization and World Food

Programme, Rome, February 19–21.

J
Joseph, M. V. 2013. Allocution du Secretaire d’Etat a la Relance Agricole, M. Vernet Joseph, Chef
G de la Delegation Haitienne à la 38e Session de la Conference de la FAO. Accessed July 31, 2013.
www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/Conference_2013/Statements/Haiti.pdf.
Gilligan, D., J. Hoddinott, and A. Seyoum Taffesse. 2009. The Impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safe-

ty Net Programme and Its Linkages. Journal of Development Studies 45 (10): 1684–1706.

K
Glaeser, L. M., P. Horjus, and S. Strother. 2011. Haiti Prospective Food Security Assessment. Wash- Kennard, M. 2012. Haiti and the Shock Doctrine. Open Democracy, August 14.

ington, DC: FANTA-2 Bridge (Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance)/FHI 360. http://www. www.­opendemocracy.net/matt-kennard/haiti-and-shock-doctrine.

fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/Haiti_Prospective_FoodSecurity_Assessment_Nov2011.pdf.
Klein, R. J. T., R. J. Nicholls, and F. Thomalla. 2003. Resilience to Natural Hazards: How Useful
Is This Concept? Environmental Hazards 5 (1–2): 35–45.
Glantz, M. D., and J. L. Johnson, ed. 1999. Resilience and Development. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Kundermann, B. , R. Excéus, and O. Almqvist. 2012. Etude des Effets et Impacts du Programme

H
Nord-Ouest 2000—2011 de la Welthungerhilfe en Haïti (Impact Study of the Welthungerhilfe Pro-
gram in North-Western Haiti from 2000 to 2011). Unpublished, Welthungerhilfe, Bonn.
Haiti. 2010. Haiti Earthquake PDNA (Post-Disaster Needs Assessment): Assessment of Damage,

L
Losses, General and Sectoral Needs: Annex to the Action Plan for National Recovery and Devel-

opment of Haiti. http://bit.ly/18XMPky.

Lancet. 2013. Maternal and Child Nutrition. www.thelancet.com/series/maternal-and-child-
nutrition.
Haiti Grassroots Watch. 2010. The Pitfalls of Cash for Work. Originally published in Haiti Liberté.

November 3–9. http://canadahaitiaction.ca/content/pitfalls-cash-work. Leach, M. 2008. Re-framing Resilience: A Symposium Report. STEPS Working Paper 13. Brigh-
ton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

Harris, J., and S. Drimie. 2012. Toward an Integrated Approach for Addressing Malnutrition in
Lybbert, T. J., C. B. Barrett, S. Desta, and D. L. Coppock. 2004. Stochastic Wealth Dynamics and
Zambia: A Literature Review and Institutional Analysis. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1200. Washing-
Risk Management among a Poor Population. Economic Journal 114 (498): 750–777.
ton, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Headey, D., and O. Ecker. 2013. Rethinking the Measurement of Food Security: From First Prin- M
Maplecroft Global Risk Analytics. 2011. World’s Fastest Growing Populations Increasingly Vulner-
ciples to Best Practice. Food Security 5 (3): 327–343.
able to the Impacts of Climate Change – 4th Global Atlas Reports. October 26. http://maplecroft
.com­/about/news/ccvi_2012.html.
Headey, D., A. Seyoum Taffesse, and L. You. 2012. Enhancing Resilience in the Horn of ­Africa:

An Exploration into Alternative Investment Options. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1176. ­Washington, Maxwell, D., and R. Caldwell. 2008. The Coping Strategies Index: A Tool for Rapid Measurement
DC : International Food Policy Research Institute. of Household Food Security and the Impact of Food Aid Programs in Humanitarian Emergencies.

58 Bibliography | 2013 Global Hunger Index

Field Methods Manual. 2d ed. Atlanta: CARE International. http://home.wfp.org/stellent/groups U
/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp211058.pdf. UN (United Nations) 2011. Has Aid Changed? Channelling Assistance to Haiti before and after the
Earthquake. New York: United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Haiti. http://reliefweb.int

McKay, A. 2009. Assets and Chronic Poverty: Background Paper. Working Paper 100. Manches- /sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/has_aid_changed_en.pdf.

ter, UK: Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester.

———. 2013a. Analysis Shows 56.0 Percent Disbursement Rate for Haiti Recovery among Pub-
lic Sector Donors. Press release, January 8. New York: United Nations Office of the Secretary-
MEASURE DHS. 2013. Demographic and Health Surveys. Calverton, MD, USA.
General’s Special Adviser. www.lessonsfromhaiti.org/press-and-media/press-releases/public
www.measuredhs.com.
-sector-disbursement-as-of/.

N ———. 2013b. A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through
Sustainable Development: The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-
Neumeyer, E., and T. Plümper. 2007. The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of
2015 Development Agenda. New York.
Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Associa-
tion of American Geographers 97 (3): 551–566.
———. 2013c. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. CD-ROM. New York: United
Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

O
Oxfam. 2013. No Accident: Resilience and the Inequality of Risk. Oxfam Briefing Paper. Oxford, UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS). 2010. Global Report: UNAIDS Report

UK. www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp172-no-accident-resilience-inequality-of-risk on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva.

-210513-en_1.pdf.
———. 2012. Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2012. Geneva.

R UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2009. Childinfo: Underweight: Nutritional Status Accord-
Radtke, K. 2010. Welthungerhilfe in Fragile States. Policy Paper 3. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe. ing to the NCHS/WHO/CDC Reference. Accessed May 4, 2011. www.childinfo.org/undernutrition
_underweight.php.

Ruel, M. T., H. Alderman, and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. 2013. Nutrition-Sen-
sitive Interventions and Programmes: How Can They Help to Accelerate Progress in Improving ———. 2013a. Childinfo: Nutritional Status. Accessed June 13, 2013. www.childinfo.org

Maternal and Child Nutrition? The Lancet (June): 536–551. /­malnutrition_nutritional_status.php.

———. 2013b. Childinfo: Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). Accessed June 21, 2013.
S www.childinfo.org/mics_available.html.
Sapountzaki, K. 2007. Social Resilience to Environmental Risks: A Mechanism of Vulnerability Trans-
fer? Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18 (3): 274–297. UNICEF/WHO (World Health Organization)/World Bank. 2012. Levels and Trends in Child Malnu-
trition: UNICEF-WHO-The World Bank Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. New York, Geneva, and

Schwarz, A. M., C. Béné, G. Bennett, D. Boso, Z. Hilly, C. Paul, R. Posala, S. Sibiti, and N. Andrew. Washington, DC.

2011. Vulnerability and Resilience of Rural Remote Communities to Shocks and Global Changes:
Empirical Analysis from the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change 21 (3): 1128–1140. USAID (US Agency for International Development). 2012. Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis:
USAID Policy and Program Guidance. Washington, DC.

Shoham, J., F. Watson, and C. Dolan. 2001. The Use of Nutritional Indicators in Surveillance. Lon-
don: Overseas Development Institute.
V
Vaitla, B., G. Tesfay, M. Rounseville, and D. Maxwell. 2012. Resilience and Livelihoods Change in
SUN (Scaling Up Nutrition). 2013. SUN Countries: Policies and Plans. http://scalingupnutrition.org Tigray, Ethiopia. Somerville, MA: Tufts University, Feinstein International Center.
/resources-archive/country-resources/sun-countries-policies-and-plans.

VFL (Views from the Front Line). 2011. If We Do Not Join Hands. Middlesex, UK: Global Network

T for Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction.

Tontisirin, K., and P. Winichagoon. 1999. Community-Based Programmes: Success Factors for
von Braun, J., M. Ruel, and A. Gulati. 2008. Accelerating Progress toward Reducing Malnutrition
Public Nutrition Derived from the Experience of Thailand. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 20 (3): 315–
in India: A Concept for Action. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
322.

von Grebmer, K., H. Fritschel, B. Nestorova, T. Olofinbiyi, R. Pandya-Lorch, and Y. Yohannes.

Tulane University and UEH (State University of Haiti). 2012. Haiti Humanitarian Assistance Eval- 2008. Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger 2008. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin:
uation: From a Resilience Perspective. New Orleans: Disaster Resilience Leadership Academy, Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.
Tulane University.

von Grebmer, K., B. Nestorova, A. Quisumbing, R. Fertziger, H. Fritschel, R. Pandya-Lorch, and

Twigg, J. 2007. Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note to the Y. Yohannes. 2009. 2009 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Focus on Financial Cri-
DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group. http://practicalaction.org/ sis and Gender Inequality. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin: Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, Inter-
reducing-vulnerability/docs/ia1/community-characteristics-en-lowres.pdf. national Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography59

von Grebmer, K., M. T. Ruel, P. Menon, B. Nestorova, T. Olofinbiyi, H. Fritschel, Y. Yohannes, C.
von Oppeln, O. Towey, K. Golden, and J. Thompson. 2010. 2010 Global Hunger Index: The Chal-
lenge of Hunger: Focus on the Crisis of Child Undernutrition. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin:
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.

von Grebmer, K., M. Torero, T. Olofinbiyi, H. Fritschel, D. Wiesmann, Y. Yohannes, L. Schofield,

and C. von Oppeln. 2011. 2011 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Taming Price
Spikes and Excessive Food Price Volatility. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin: Deutsche Welthun-
gerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.

von Grebmer, K., C. Ringler, M. W. Rosegrant, T. Olofinbiyi, D. Wiesmann, H. Fritschel, O. Badi-

ane, M. Torero, Y. Yohannes, J. Thompson, C. von Oppeln, and J. Rahall. 2012. 2012 Global Hun-
ger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Ensuring Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water, and
Energy Stresses. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin: Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy
Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.

W
Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, Adaptability and Trans-
formability in Social-ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2): 5.

WFP (World Food Programme). 2013. Food Aid Quantity Reporting Database. Accessed
July 5, 2013. www.wfp.org/fais/quantity-reporting.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2013. Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition.
www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/en/.

Wiesmann, D. 2004. An International Nutrition Index: Concept and Analyses of Food Insecurity
and Undernutrition at Country Levels. Development Economics and Policy Series 39. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.

———. 2006a. 2006 Global Hunger Index: A Basis for Cross-Country Comparisons. Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

———. 2006b. A Global Hunger Index: Measurement Concept, Ranking of Countries, and Trends.
Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 212. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.

Wiesmann, D., J. von Braun, and T. Feldbrügge. 2000. An International Nutrition Index: Success-
es and Failures in Addressing Hunger and Malnutrition. ZEF Discussion Papers on Development
Policy No. 26. Bonn, Germany: Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF) [Center for Development
Research].

Wiesmann, D., L. Weingärtner, and I. Schöninger. 2006. The Challenge of Hunger: Global Hunger
Index: Facts, Determinants, and Trends. Bonn and Washington, DC: Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and
International Food Policy Research Institute.

World Bank. 2006. Repositioning Nutrition as Central to Development: A Strategy for Large-Scale
Action. Washington, DC.

———. 2013a. Cereal Yield (kg per hectare). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG.

———. 2013b. World Development Indicators Online. http://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi.

60 Bibliography | 2013 Global Hunger Index

PARTNERS

About IFPRI Who we are

The International Food Policy Research Welthungerhilfe is one of Germany’s largest pri-
Institute (IFPRI), established in 1975, pro- vate aid agencies, non-denominational and
vides research-based policy solutions to politically independent. It was established in
sustainably reduce poverty and end hun- 1962 under the umbrella of the UN Food and
ger and malnutrition. The Institute conducts research, communicates Agriculture Organization (FAO). Then, it was the German section of
results, optimizes partnerships, and builds capacity to ensure sus- the “Freedom from Hunger Campaign”, one of the first global cam-
tainable food production, promote healthy food systems, improve mar- paigns to fight hunger.
kets and trade, transform agriculture, build resilience, and strength-
en institutions and governance. Gender is considered in all of the What we do
Institute’s work. IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world, We fight to end hunger globally. Our goal is to make our work super-
including development implementers, public institutions, the private fluous. We pursue a holistic, quality- and impact-oriented concept
sector, and farmers’ organizations. IFPRI is a member of the CGIAR ranging from immediate disaster aid and reconstruction to long-term
Consortium. development projects. In 2012, our 2,250 employees in 39 countries
were able to support about 19 million people.

How we work
We cooperate with partner organisations in the project countries
Our identity – who we are ensuring thereby that structures are reinforced from the bottom up
Concern Worldwide is Ireland’s largest and that successful project work can be secured in the long term.
non-governmental organisation, dedicat- With our political activities, we fight for a change of the conditions
ed to the reduction of suffering and work- that lead to hunger and poverty.
ing toward the ultimate elimination of extreme poverty. We work in
27 of the world’s poorest countries with more than 2,900 committed
and talented staff.

Our mission – what we do

Our mission is to help people living in extreme poverty achieve major
improvements in their lives which last and spread without ongoing sup-
port from Concern Worldwide. To this end, Concern Worldwide will
work with the poor themselves, and with local and international part-
ners who share our vision, to create just and peaceful societies where
the poor can exercise their fundamental rights. To achieve this mis-
sion we engage in long-term development work, respond to emergen-
cy situations, and seek to address the root causes of poverty through
our development education and advocacy work.

Our vision – for change

A world where no one lives in poverty, fear or oppression; where all
have access to a decent standard of living and the opportunities and
choices essential to a long, healthy and creative life; a world where
everyone is treated with dignity and respect.

2013 Global Hunger Index | Partners61

8 YEARS OF TRACKING WORLD HUNGER
Since 2006, the Global Hunger Index has been reporting on the state of
hunger globally, by region, and by country.

Case studies in the post- Measures being taken to The vicious circle of Financial crisis and The crisis of Taming price spikes and
conflict countries of reduce acute hunger and poverty gender inequality child undernutrition excessive food price
Afghanistan and Sierra undernourishment and volatility
Leone chronic hunger

2013
Scan this QR code to go Food Right Now is an inter-
to the 2013 GHI website national education campaign
http://www.ifpri.org/ run by Alliance2015 and
publication/2013-global- supported by the European
hunger-index Commission.

–
–
–

GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX

2013 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX

International Food Policy

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V. Research Institute Concern Worldwide

Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 1 2033 K Street, NW 52-55 Lower Camden Street

53173 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 228-22 88-0
Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA
Tel. +1 202-862-5600
Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel. +353 1-417-7700
THE CHALLENGE OF HUNGER: BUILDING RESILIENCE
Fax +49 228-22 88-333
www.welthungerhilfe.de
Fax +1 202-467-4439
www.ifpri.org
Fax +353 1-475-7362
www.concern.net TO ACHIEVE FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

Ensuring sustainable Building resilience to

food security under land, achieve food and
water, and energy nutrition security
stresses

Global Hunger Index for Mobile Devices

The report and related materials are available through a free IFPRI mobile app.
You can also download the report on Google Play, Google Books, Amazon, and iTunes.

Scan this QR code to go to the

2013 GHI website
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/
2013-global-hunger-index
IMPRINT

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V. Authors:

Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 1 International Food Policy Research Institute: Klaus von Grebmer (Research Fellow
53173 Bonn, Germany Emeritus), Derek Headey (Research Fellow), Tolulope Olofinbiyi (Research Ana-
Tel. +49 228-2288-0 lyst), Doris Wiesmann (Independent Consultant), Heidi Fritschel (Editor), Sandra
Fax +49 228-2288-333 Yin (Editor), Yisehac Yohannes (Research Analyst)
www.welthungerhilfe.de Institute of Development Studies: Christophe Béné (Research Fellow), Lawrence
Haddad (Director)
Secretary General and Chairperson:
Concern Worldwide: Connell Foley (Director of Strategy, Advocacy & Learning)
Dr. Wolfgang Jamann
Welthungerhilfe: Constanze von Oppeln (Food Security Policy), Bettina Iseli (Desk
Officer Haiti)
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
2033 K Street, NW
Ordering number:
Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA
460-9415
Tel. +1 202-862-5600
Fax +1 202-467-4439
ISBN:
www.ifpri.org
978-0-89629-951-1
Director General:
Dr. Shenggen Fan DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896299511
Concern Worldwide
52-55 Lower Camden Street Picture credits:
Dublin 2, Ireland Cover photography: Abbie Trayler-Smith/Panos, Chad, Guerra Region, a woman searches
Tel. +353 1-417-7700 for food in the dry and barren landscape near the village of Luga. With food scarce, wo-
Fax +353 1-475-7362 men have begun to break apart anthills to look for grain stored by ants, 2012; page 2:
www.concern.net Bernhard Huber/Welthungerhilfe, Mozambique, Mabote District, a girl waters a plant as
part of a school project that supports hygiene, water, and plant cultivation in Bovanane
Chief Executive: Village, 2013; page 6: Thomas Lohnes/Welthungerhilfe, Ecuador, in San Andres district,
Dominic MacSorley women of the potato platform cook a meal made of cream cheese, broad beans, corn, po-
tatoes, and roasted corn kernels before a meeting of the organization in Huapante Chico.
Editors: About 150 farmers from the region are part of the platform, a collaborative that helps far-
Constanze von Oppeln (Food Security Policy, Welthungerhilfe), mers improve the quality of their potatoes, enhance their negotiating power, and sell di-
Marius Labahn (Public Affairs and External Relations, Welthungerhilfe), rectly to bigger markets, instead of through middlemen. The women’s experience shows
Olive Towey (Head of Advocacy – Ireland & EU, Concern Worldwide), that it is possible to permanently raise a community’s living conditions by strengthening
Klaus von Grebmer (Research Fellow Emeritus, IFPRI) livelihoods, 2006. San Andres, in the central highlands of Ecuador, is one of Welthunger-
hilfe’s 15 Millennium villages; page 10: Thomas Lohnes/Welthungerhilfe, Sierra Leone,
Recommended citation: Bo District, a boy takes rice from a newly built storehouse, which protects grain from
von Grebmer, K., D. Headey, C. Béné, L. Haddad, T. Olofinbiyi, D. Wiesmann, H. pests that destroyed half of the rice before in Vengema, 2009; page 18: Matiullah Achak-
Fritschel, S. Yin, Y. Yohannes, C. Foley, C. von Oppeln, and B. Iseli. 2013. 2013 Glo- zai/EPA, Pakistan, Punjab Province, after water began to recede, workers repair a road
bal Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Building Resilience to Achieve Food and damaged by the floods in Mehmood Kot, 2010; page 32: Daniel Rosenthal, Haiti, North-
Nutrition Security. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin: Welthungerhilfe, International West, a farmer and member of the committee clears an irrigation canal of sediment in
Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide. Vieille Place. The irrigation canal system helps farmers produce an adequate harvest de-
spite little rain and grow crops like tomatoes and eggplant, 2013; page 48: Florian Kopp/
Design, Arrangement, and Production: Welthungerhilfe, Pakistan, Punjab Province, Hajran Mai in Moza Sabogat village harvests
Tobias Heinrich, Anna-Maria Süß, Anne Dittrich okra grown from seeds Welthungerhilfe distributed after a flood with support from its
(muehlhausmoers corporate communications gmbh, Cologne, partner CADI, 2011. Portraits: The portraits were taken by staff from Welthungerhilfe.
Germany)
Disclaimer:
Printing: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the maps herein do
DFS Druck, Cologne, Germany, dfs@dfs-druck.de not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI), Welthungerhilfe, or Concern Worldwide.
 Scan this QR code to go Food Right Now is an inter-
to the 2013 GHI website national education campaign
http://www.ifpri.org/ run by Alliance2015 and
publication/2013-global- supported by the European
hunger-index Commission.

International Food Policy

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V. Research Institute Concern Worldwide

Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 1 2033 K Street, NW 52-55 Lower Camden Street

53173 Bonn, Germany Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel. +49 228-22 88-0 Tel. +1 202-862-5600 Tel. +353 1-417-7700
Fax +49 228-22 88-333 Fax +1 202-467-4439 Fax +353 1-475-7362
www.welthungerhilfe.de www.ifpri.org www.concern.net