Suchergebnisse

This paper analyzes an ongoing effort by national, regional, and international partners to raise awareness, promote dialogue, and catalyze consensus-building mechanisms among stakeholder groups on the role of biotechnology in agricultural development and food security in southern Africa. Stakeholders include public bodies, the private sector, and civil society. The paper argues that while responsible adoption of agricultural biotechnology promises significant gains to the countries of southern Africa, governments must clarify its specific role, improve policies for its application, and assess the place of biotechnology in broader development strategies. The issues that surround the introduction, creation, and application of agricultural biotechnology in southern Africa are complex, and the passions behind them are strong. The best chance of building consensus lies in bringing different views to the table for deliberation and information sharing, thus starting a process of collaborative planning, implementation, and evaluation of various activities. Deepening the dialogue and involving more parties has many challenges. Strong conflicts among members are to be expected, and there is a risk of dissolution of the dialogue process as a result of these conflicts and other factors such as lack of interest and shortage of resources. If stakeholders focus on the process, these obstacles can be overcome. Building trust and commitment among the members, maintaining communication, exchanging knowledge, and being open to revision of old views will help the dialogue continue and will ultimately make it more productive. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; Theme 9; Subtheme 9.2; Country and regional food, nutrition, and agricultural strategies; Science and Technology ; ISNAR; COM

How does information about a suspected outbreak of avian influenza on the farm level reach the respective authorities? How and through which actors is the response to a confirmed outbreak implemented on the ground? These were the guiding questions for representatives of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, poultry producers and traders and the research sector, to map out the information and response networks concerning Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Ethiopia. This report shows the resulting network maps drawn, indicating the actors involved, their different kinds of linkages and the influence that these actors have on making sure that the information about suspected outbreaks on the farm or market level reaches the national authorities and that appropriate and timely response is implemented. While Ethiopia has not experienced a confirmed outbreak of HPAI yet, the participants drew from the experience of two past outbreaks of the Gumboro disease that were mistaken for HPAI and thus the HPAI response was set into action. These cases occurred in a government run multiplication centre, thus the network map drawn is a combination from this experience and an extrapolation to the possibilities of an outbreak on the respective farm levels. While participants generally saw the response as effective and efficient they also highlighted that outbreaks on commercial farms or backyard farms might pose different challenges, e.g. in terms of enforcement. The participants pointed out a number of challenges that either call for more research (knowledge gaps) or changes in institutional set-ups and the actual way that things are done on the ground: * Overly complex co-ordination structure for the response. There is a number of co-ordinating bodies, with different reach and bureaucratic requirements, which might delay the necessary action. * Logistical problems: Shortage of all materials (disinfectants, rubber gloves etc.) needed for action due to economic situation and market restriction, laboratories fill the gap with their supplies, however, this would not be sufficient in case of a more severe, bigger scale outbreak. * Whether or not the information about an outbreak in the rural areas reaches the national level in a timely manner, depends on who the farmer chooses to contact first, as some rural actors (traditional and modern animal healers) do not tend to report problems to officials * The wet market (where life animals are sold) is not as integrated into the information and response system as the different kinds of farms are. An outbreak on the wet market would rarely get reported, as traders have little information and little incentives (no compensation) to do so. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI2; GRP40 ; COM; EPTD

How does information about a suspected outbreak of avian influenza on the farm level reach the respective authorities? How and through which actors is the response to a confirmed outbreak implemented on the ground? These were the guiding questions for representatives of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, poultry producers and traders and the research sector, to map out the information and response networks concerning Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Ghana. This report shows the resulting network maps drawn, indicating the actors involved, their different kinds of linkages and the influence that these actors have on making sure that the information about suspected outbreaks on the farm or market level reaches the national authorities and that appropriate and timely response is implemented. While the participants agreed that in the past experience (outbreaks of HPAI on three commercial farms), government agencies and their partners showed an impressive ability to do the right thing at the right time, they also pointed out some bottlenecks that would need further attention – either because there is still a knowledge need that calls for more research or because structures and procedures need to be improved: * Lack of incentives for traders to report suspicious bird deaths, because there is no compensation scheme for traders. Thus traders are likely to sell sick birds off and contribute to the spreading of the disease. * Reluctance of farmers to disclose their sources of birds, which makes it difficult to track down where the infection originated / entered the country. * Double edged role of the media, being both the motor of the bird flu scare (and resulting collapse of poultry market) and the distributor of valuable information. Government representatives agreed on the need to deal more proactively and in partnership with the media. * Crucial role but low coverage (1 per 5000 farms) of animal health technicians linking rural farms to the rest of the agricultural system, when if comes to disease reporting. Can the coverage be increased or can other district level actors be empowered and trained to support them? * Compensation procedures and rules were not clear to everyone. Especially informing farmers who are not members of associations remains a challenge. * Knowledge gap: What is the impact of different length of re-stocking ban and different timing for compensation payment? Early payment lifts immediate stress but might be used for consumption or alternative livelihood activities, if the re-stocking ban is still in place. Compensation payment after the end of re-stocking ban might make it easier for farmers to use money on poultry farming, but how do they meet their immediate survival needs in the meantime? * So far, experience only with outbreaks on big commercial farms in the South of Ghana. The future may show how the system can react to outbreaks in more remote areas and less commercialised settings. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI2; GRP40 ; COM; EPTD

Biotechnology disputes fall into the ever-expanding category of policy disputes characterized by multidimensionality and complexity. By their very nature, these disputes are centered around politically charged issues of allocation of rights to resources, as well as distribution of the benefits and costs of technological change. They typically involve a high degree of scientific uncertainty, long time horizons, and decisionmaking at multiple jurisdictional levels. Such disputes are therefore likely to pose exacting challenges. They involve a wide range of political, economic, social, and scientific considerations. Their satisfactory resolution therefore requires multistakeholder participation in a process of finding and maintaining a dynamic balance between political and technical priorities. In this process civil society can provide much of the expertise and creative thinking that is required to identify needs, generate innovative policy options, and implement agreements while governments retain their preeminent functions of ultimate decisionmaking. ; PR ; IFPRI2; Science and Technology; PBS ; DSGD; COM

The developing world has made progress in reducing hunger since 2000. The 2015 Global Hunger Index (GHI) shows that the level of hunger in developing countries as a group has fallen by 27 percent. Yet the state of hunger in the world remains serious. This marks the tenth year that IFPRI has assessed global hunger using this multidimensional measure. This report's GHI scores are based on a new, improved formula that replaces the child underweight indicator of previous years with child stunting and child wasting. This change reflects the latest thinking on the most suitable indicators for child undernutrition, one of three dimensions of hunger reflected in the GHI formula. Across regions and countries, GHI scores vary considerably. Regionally, the highest GHI scores, and therefore the highest hunger levels, are still found in Africa south of the Sahara and South Asia. Despite achieving the largest absolute improvements since 2000, these two regions still suffer from serious levels of hunger. Levels of hunger are alarming or serious in 52 countries. Most of the eight countries with alarming GHI scores are in Africa south of the Sahara. While no countries are classified in the extremely alarming category this year, this high level of hunger could still exist. Due to insufficient data, 2015 GHI scores could not be calculated for places that recently suffered from high levels of hunger, including Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. ; PR ; IFPRI2 ; CKM; DGO; PHND

The 2008 Global Hunger Index (GHI) shows that the world has made slow progress in reducing food insecurity since 1990, with dramatic differences among regions and countries. In the nearly two decades since 1990, some regions - South and Southeast Asia, the Near East and North Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean - have made significant headway in improving food security. Nevertheless, the GHI remains high in South Asia. The GHI is similarly high in Sub-Saharan Africa, where progress has been marginal since 1990. The GHI level in the world as a whole remains serious. The countries with the most worrisome hunger status and the highest 2008 GHI scores are predominantly in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Burundi, Niger, and Sierra Leone at the bottom of the list. Several dozen countries in various regions have GHI scores categorized as low. Hunger is closely tied to poverty, and countries with high levels of hunger are overwhelmingly low- or low-middle-income countries. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the regions with the highest GHI scores and the highest poverty rates. The recent advent of higher food prices has uneven effects across countries, depending on a range of factors, including whether countries are net importers or exporters of food. Among the countries for which the GHI is calculated, net cereal importers, for example, greatly outnumber exporters, implying that many more countries combating hunger are likely to suffer from higher prices than benefit from them. Higher food prices have also caused violent and nonviolent protests in dozens of countries. In this context of higher food prices, prospects for improving food and nutrition security do not appear favorable, given that at least 800 million people were food insecure even before the food price crisis hit. Higher food prices cut into poor households' food budgets, with particularly serious risks for undernourished infants and children. High prices also reduce the amount of food aid that donors can supply with a given amount of funds. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI2; GRP24; Enhanced food and diet quality ; FCND; COM; DGO

Die Ergebnisse des Welthunger-Indexes (WHI) zeigen deutlich, dass weiterhin nur geringe Fortschritte bei der globalen Hungerbekämpfung erzielt werden. Die WHI-Werte 2009 sind im Vergleich mit denen des WHI 1990 gerade einmal um ein Viertel gefallen. Südostasien, der Nahe Osten und Nordafrika sowie Lateinamerika und die karibischen Staaten haben den Hunger maßgeblich bekämpfen können. In Südasien konnten zwar seit 1990 Fortschritte gemacht werden, nach wie vor bewegt sich der WHI jedoch auf erschreckend hohem Niveau. Gleiches gilt für Afrika südlich der Sahara, das nur minimale Erfolge bei der Hungerbekämpfung vorweisen kann. Einige Staaten haben bemerkenswerte Fortschritte bei der Bekämpfung des Hungers erzielt: Zwischen 1990 und 2009 erzielten Kuwait, Tunesien, Fidschi, Malaysia und die Türkei die größten prozentualen Verbesserungen. Angola, Äthiopien, Ghana, Nicaragua und Vietnam konnten ihre absoluten Werte im Welthunger-Index deutlich verbessern. Aber immer noch gibt es 29 Staaten, deren Hungerstatus als alarmierend beziehungsweise extrem alarmierend bezeichnet werden muss. Die Länder mit den höchsten WHI-Werten sind Äthiopien, Burundi, die Demokratische Republik Kongo, Eritrea, Sierra Leone und der Tschad. In den meisten Ländern mit hohen WHI-Werten sind es Kriege und gewaltsame Konflikte, die zu einem weiteren Anstieg von Armut und Ernährungsunsicherheit geführt haben. Nahezu alle Staaten, deren WHI-Bewertung sich nach 1990 verschlechtert hat, liegen in Afrika südlich der Sahara. Die Mechanismen der aktuellen Krisen – der Nahrungsmittelpreiskrise und der Finanzkrise – sind eng miteinander verbunden; jede dieser Krisen hat wiederum für sich einen maßgeblichen Einfluss auf Ernährungssicherheit und auf finanzielle und wirtschaftliche sowie politische Stabilität. Die Auswirkungen der Krisen werden vor allem für diejenigen spürbar werden, die ohnehin schon arm sind und an Hunger leiden, und die Staaten mit den höchsten Hungerquoten werden besonders von den Folgen des globalen Abschwungs betroffen sein. Obwohl Arme und Hungernde insgesamt besonders schwer von der Nahrungsmittelpreiskrise und der Finanzkrise betroffen sind, wirken sich die Krisen auf Haushaltsebene sehr unterschiedlich aus. Politische Antworten auf die aktuellen Krisen müssen diese Unterschiede berücksichtigen. Soziale Sicherungsmaßnahmen sollten folglich so gestaltet sein, dass sie tatsächlich diejenigen erreichen, die am härtesten getroffen werden; gleichzeitig müssen sie den Grundstein für eine nachhaltige Verbesserung legen und negativen Folgen in der Zukunft vorbeugen. Bereits bestehende, erfolgreiche Programme, wie Schulspeisungsinitiativen und Aufklärungskampagnen zur Ernährung von Müttern und Kindern, sollten unterstützt und weltweit umgesetzt werden. Ein zentraler Aspekt beim Kampf gegen den Hunger ist die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau. Der vorliegende Bericht korreliert den WHI 2009 mit dem Global Gender Gap Index von 2008, der sich aus vier Subindizes zusammensetzt: Wirtschaftliche Teilhabe, Bildung, Politische Teilhabe und Gesundheit. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass dort, wo der Hunger groß ist, die Alphabetisierungsrate unter Frauen niedrig ist und Frauen im Vergleich zu Männern einen schlechten Zugang zu Bildung haben. Daneben sind hohe Hungerquoten auch mit ungleichen Bedingungen in Bezug auf Gesundheit assoziiert. Mehr Geschlechtergerechtigkeit in einigen Bereichen, insbesondere bei Bildung und Gesundheit, ist daher ein Schlüssel, um den Hunger zu besiegen. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI2; GRP24; Enhanced food and diet quality ; FCND; COM; DGO

From the 1990 GHI to the 2011 GHI, 15 countries were able to reduce their scores by 50 percent or more. Nineteen countries moved out of the bottom two categories – "extremely alarming" and "alarming." In terms of absolute progress, Angola, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, and Vietnam saw the largest improvements between the 1990 GHI and the 2011 GHI. Twenty-six countries still have levels of hunger that are extremely alarming or alarming. The countries with extremely alarming 2011 GHI scores – Burundi, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Eritrea – are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the countries with alarming GHI scores are in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Among the six countries in which the hunger situation worsened, the Democratic Republic of Congo stands out. Its GHI score rose by about 63 percent owing to conflict and political instability. (Because of time lags in the availability of data, the 2011 GHI does not reflect the impacts of the 2010–11 food price crisis or the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa.) ; PR ; GRP24; IFPRI1 ; MTID; COM; DGO

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) shows that worldwide progress in reducing hunger remains slow. The 2009 global GHI has fallen by only one quarter from the 1990 GHI. Southeast Asia, the Near East and North Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean have reduced hunger significantly since 1990, but the GHI remains distressingly high in South Asia, which has made progress since 1990, and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where progress has been marginal. Some countries achieved noteworthy progress in improving their GHI. Between the 1990 GHI and the 2009 GHI, Kuwait, Tunisia, Fiji, Malaysia, and Turkey had the largest percentage improvements. Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nicaragua, and Vietnam saw the largest absolute improvements in their scores. Nonetheless, 29 countries have levels of hunger that are alarming or extremely alarming. The countries with the highest 2009 GHI scores are Burundi, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. In most of the countries with high GHI scores, war and violent conflict have given rise to widespread poverty and food insecurity. Nearly all of the countries in which the GHI rose since 1990 are in Sub-Saharan Africa. The current food and financial crises, linked in complex ways, will both have implications for food security, financial and economic stability, and political security. The impacts will be greatest on the poor and hungry, and the countries with the highest levels of hunger are also among the most vulnerable to the global downturn. Although the poor and the hungry are in general hurt the most by the food and financial crises, the exact impacts at the household level differ widely. Policy responses to the food and financial crises must take these different impacts into account. Social protection strategies should be designed to mitigate the current shock for the most vulnerable, lay the foundation for sustainable recovery, and prevent negative impacts in the future. Nutrition interventions, such as school feeding programs and programs for early childhood and maternal nutrition, should be strengthened and expanded to ensure universal coverage. An important part of the solution to global hunger is reducing gender inequality. This report compares the 2009 GHI with the 2008 Global Gender Gap Index, which is made up of four subindices: economic participation, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival. The evidence shows that higher levels of hunger are associated with lower literacy rates and access to education for women. High rates of hunger are also linked to health and survival inequalities between men and women. Reducing gender disparities in key areas, particularly in education and health, is thus essential to reduce levels of hunger. ; PR ; IFPRI2; GRP24; Enhanced food and diet quality ; PHND; COM; DGO

The developing world has made substantial progress in reducing hunger since 2000. The 2016 Global Hunger Index (GHI) shows that the level of hunger in developing countries as a group has fallen by 29 percent. Yet this progress has been uneven, and great disparities in hunger continue to exist at the regional, national, and subnational levels. To achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG2) of getting to Zero Hunger while leaving no one behind, it is essential to identify the regions, countries, and populations that are most vulnerable to hunger and undernutrition so progress can be accelerated there. Across regions and countries, GHI scores vary considerably. Regionally, the highest GHI scores, and therefore the highest hunger levels, are still found in Africa south of the Sahara and South Asia. Although GHI scores for these two regions have declined over time, the current levels are still on the upper end of the serious category, closer to the alarming category than to the moderate. Further, although Africa south of the Sahara has achieved the largest absolute improvement since 2000 and South Asia has also seen a sizable reduction, the decline in hunger must accelerate in these regions if the world is to achieve Zero Hunger by 2030. ; PR ; IFPRI2; B Promoting healthy food systems; compact2025 ; DGO; CKM; PHND

The 2016 Global Hunger Index Africa Edition is produced by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe in conjunction with NEPAD. The GHI Africa Edition is based on data taken from the 2016 Global Hunger Index. IFPRI has calculated the Global Hunger Index, a multidimensional measure of global hunger, for the past eleven years. The series tracks the state of hunger across the globe and spotlights those regions and countries where action to address hunger is most urgently needed. The GHI Africa Edition shows that although progress between countries varies, the level of hunger in all countries across the continent of Africa, for which GHI scores could be calculated, has declined since 2000. Despite this progress, the level of hunger in many countries remains unacceptably high. Of the 42 countries in Africa for which GHI scores could be calculated in this report, only three countries have scores that fall into the "low" hunger category, while 28 fall into the "serious" category and five countries have 2016 scores in the "alarming" category. It is clear that governments must now follow through on their promises with political will and commitment to action that is both strong and sustained. The root causes of hunger are complex and require multi-sectoral and multilevel collaboration. The role of national governments in achieving these goals by significantly enhancing the quality of implementation is also clear. Yet Zero Hunger can only be achieved when governments measure progress and are accountable to citizens, which requires capacities to collect and analyze data, combined with open and comprehensive review and dialogue processes. The biennial review process established under Malabo and the support to inclusive Joint Sector Review (JSR) processes under CAADP are critical building blocks in this regard. ; PR ; IFPRI2; B Promoting healthy food systems; compact2025; ReSAKSS ; DGO; CKM; PHND

The 2016 Global Hunger Index Africa Edition is produced by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe in conjunction with NEPAD. The GHI Africa Edition is based on data taken from the 2016 Global Hunger Index. IFPRI has calculated the Global Hunger Index, a multidimensional measure of global hunger, for the past eleven years. The series tracks the state of hunger across the globe and spotlights those regions and countries where action to address hunger is most urgently needed. The GHI Africa Edition shows that although progress between countries varies, the level of hunger in all countries across the continent of Africa, for which GHI scores could be calculated, has declined since 2000. Despite this progress, the level of hunger in many countries remains unacceptably high. Of the 42 countries in Africa for which GHI scores could be calculated in this report, only three countries have scores that fall into the "low" hunger category, while 28 fall into the "serious" category and five countries have 2016 scores in the "alarming" category. It is clear that governments must now follow through on their promises with political will and commitment to action that is both strong and sustained. The root causes of hunger are complex and require multi-sectoral and multilevel collaboration. The role of national governments in achieving these goals by significantly enhancing the quality of implementation is also clear. Yet Zero Hunger can only be achieved when governments measure progress and are accountable to citizens, which requires capacities to collect and analyze data, combined with open and comprehensive review and dialogue processes. The biennial review process established under Malabo and the support to inclusive Joint Sector Review (JSR) processes under CAADP are critical building blocks in this regard. ; PR ; IFPRI2; B Promoting healthy food systems; compact2025; ReSAKSS ; DGO; CKM; PHND

Die Ergebnisse des Welthunger-Indexes (WHI) zeigen deutlich, dass weiterhin nur geringe Fortschritte bei der globalen Hungerbekämpfung erzielt werden. Die WHI-Werte 2009 sind im Vergleich mit denen des WHI 1990 gerade einmal um ein Viertel gefallen. Südostasien, der Nahe Osten und Nordafrika sowie Lateinamerika und die karibischen Staaten haben den Hunger maßgeblich bekämpfen können. In Südasien konnten zwar seit 1990 Fortschritte gemacht werden, nach wie vor bewegt sich der WHI jedoch auf erschreckend hohem Niveau. Gleiches gilt für Afrika südlich der Sahara, das nur minimale Erfolge bei der Hungerbekämpfung vorweisen kann. Einige Staaten haben bemerkenswerte Fortschritte bei der Bekämpfung des Hungers erzielt: Zwischen 1990 und 2009 erzielten Kuwait, Tunesien, Fidschi, Malaysia und die Türkei die größten prozentualen Verbesserungen. Angola, Äthiopien, Ghana, Nicaragua und Vietnam konnten ihre absoluten Werte im Welthunger-Index deutlich verbessern. Aber immer noch gibt es 29 Staaten, deren Hungerstatus als alarmierend beziehungsweise extrem alarmierend bezeichnet werden muss. Die Länder mit den höchsten WHI-Werten sind Äthiopien, Burundi, die Demokratische Republik Kongo, Eritrea, Sierra Leone und der Tschad. In den meisten Ländern mit hohen WHI-Werten sind es Kriege und gewaltsame Konflikte, die zu einem weiteren Anstieg von Armut und Ernährungsunsicherheit geführt haben. Nahezu alle Staaten, deren WHI-Bewertung sich nach 1990 verschlechtert hat, liegen in Afrika südlich der Sahara. Die Mechanismen der aktuellen Krisen – der Nahrungsmittelpreiskrise und der Finanzkrise – sind eng miteinander verbunden; jede dieser Krisen hat wiederum für sich einen maßgeblichen Einfluss auf Ernährungssicherheit und auf finanzielle und wirtschaftliche sowie politische Stabilität. Die Auswirkungen der Krisen werden vor allem für diejenigen spürbar werden, die ohnehin schon arm sind und an Hunger leiden, und die Staaten mit den höchsten Hungerquoten werden besonders von den Folgen des globalen Abschwungs betroffen sein. Obwohl Arme und Hungernde insgesamt besonders schwer von der Nahrungsmittelpreiskrise und der Finanzkrise betroffen sind, wirken sich die Krisen auf Haushaltsebene sehr unterschiedlich aus. Politische Antworten auf die aktuellen Krisen müssen diese Unterschiede berücksichtigen. Soziale Sicherungsmaßnahmen sollten folglich so gestaltet sein, dass sie tatsächlich diejenigen erreichen, die am härtesten getroffen werden; gleichzeitig müssen sie den Grundstein für eine nachhaltige Verbesserung legen und negativen Folgen in der Zukunft vorbeugen. Bereits bestehende, erfolgreiche Programme, wie Schulspeisungsinitiativen und Aufklärungskampagnen zur Ernährung von Müttern und Kindern, sollten unterstützt und weltweit umgesetzt werden. Ein zentraler Aspekt beim Kampf gegen den Hunger ist die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau. Der vorliegende Bericht korreliert den WHI 2009 mit dem Global Gender Gap Index von 2008, der sich aus vier Subindizes zusammensetzt: Wirtschaftliche Teilhabe, Bildung, Politische Teilhabe und Gesundheit. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass dort, wo der Hunger groß ist, die Alphabetisierungsrate unter Frauen niedrig ist und Frauen im Vergleich zu Männern einen schlechten Zugang zu Bildung haben. Daneben sind hohe Hungerquoten auch mit ungleichen Bedingungen in Bezug auf Gesundheit assoziiert. Mehr Geschlechtergerechtigkeit in einigen Bereichen, insbesondere bei Bildung und Gesundheit, ist daher ein Schlüssel, um den Hunger zu besiegen ; PR ; IFPRI2; GRP24; Enhanced food and diet quality ; FCND; COM; DGO