Global Hunger Index

Global Hunger Index
The Challenge of
Hunger 2008
Global Hunger Index
The Challenge of Hunger 2008

By Klaus von Grebmer, H eidi Fritschel,
Bella Nestorova, Tolulope Olofinbiyi,
Rajul Pandya-Lorch, and Yisehac Yohannes
Bonn, Washington D.C., Dublin

October 2008
“The right to adequate food
is realized when every man,
woman and child ... has
physical and economic access
at all times to adequate food
or means for its procurement.”
General Comment 12 of UN Economic and Social Council
Hunger: Major Threat
in 33 Countries
The 2008 Global Hunger Index (GHI) report comes at a time of dramatic changes in
world food markets, with high food prices threatening the food security of millions of vulner-
able households. Hunger and malnutrition are back in the headlines.
This is the third year that the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has cal-
culated this multidimensional measure of global hunger. The 2006 and 2007 GHI reports re-
ceived a great deal of public attention and were the subject of extensive debate. By stimulating
discussion, the GHI reports have served as an important tool to highlight the countries and re-
gions where action is most needed. They are important ways of recording the state of hunger
worldwide and country by country and of supporting lobby work and advocacy on both na-
tional and international platforms.
It is important to remember that this report offers a picture of the past, not the present. The
calculation of the GHI is limited by the collection of data by various governments and international
agencies. The 2008 GHI incorporates data only until 2006 — the most recent available. This GHI
report therefore does not reflect recent increases in food and energy prices.
The report does, however, highlight the countries and regions facing the greatest risk in the
current context of high food prices. 33 countries have levels of hunger that are alarming or
extremely alarming. The index shows that South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa continue to suf-
fer from high levels of hunger, and whereas South Asia has made rapid progress in combating
hunger, Sub-Saharan Africa has made only marginal progress. For hungry and malnourished
people in these regions, rising food prices pose serious threats. People who already had too lit-
tle food for a healthy life are now finding that they can afford even less.
Hunger is one of the most important problems the world faces, and rapid progress in over-
coming it is long overdue. IFPRI is working to produce analysis of the status of hunger and
policy options to combat it. Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and Concern offer direct support to un-
dernourished people in hunger crisis zones and work with partners on short- and long-term
solutions to chronic malnutrition. We hope that this report stimulates much-needed discussion
among other actors over precisely what actions should be taken to overcome hunger world-
wide, and who should take them, so that all people can live free of hunger and malnutrition.
Photo: Marta Ramoneda/Polaris/laif
Dr. Hans-Joachim Preuss, Prof. Joachim von Braun, Tom Arnold,

Secretary General of Director General of the Chief Executive of
Welthungerhilfe International Food Policy Concern Worldwide
Research Institute
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Summary�� 5
1 the Concept of the Global Hunger Index�� 7
2 Global and Regional Trends�� 11
3 The vicious circle of hunger and poverty�� 19
4 Rising Food Prices intensify the hunger crisis�� 23
5 Children suffer most from malnutrition�� 27
6 Action plans Against hunger�� 29
Appendix�� 34
A Data Sources and Calculation of the Global Hunger Index�� 34
B Bibliography�� 35
C Data underlying the calculation of the Global Hunger Index�� 36
4 2008 Global Hunger Index

Summary
Summary
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 coun-
tries. 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 head-
way 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 overwhelm-
ingly low- or low-middle-income countries. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the re-
gions 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 out-
number 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 par-
ticularly 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.
Combating the food crisis will require more food aid for poor people; much greater
investments in agriculture, especially the small farm sector; more investment in social protection
programs and social sectors like education and health; reforms to create a fair world trading
system; changes to biofuel policies; measures to calm global food markets; better data collec-
tion and improved monitoring of the food and nutrition situation; and more support for non-
governmental organizations that work on behalf of poor people in developing countries.
2008 Global Hunger index 5

Chapter 1
923 million people in the

world go hungry every day
907 million of these live

in developing countries
(FAO)

Chapter 1
The Concept of the

Global Hunger Index
T
he Global Hunger Index (GHI)1 — a tool for regu- are converging to raise prices for agricultural commodities
larly tracking the state of global hunger and mal- to their highest levels in decades, and farmers find them-
nutrition developed by IFPRI — shows that the selves operating in a context of high oil prices and increas-
world is making slow progress in reducing food in- ingly extreme weather. Food prices appear likely to remain
security. Given that the Millennium Development Goals are high in the near term, leading to food and nutrition insecu-
benchmarked against the year 1990, the GHI also tracks rity for poor people around the globe (von Braun et al.
change since then. In the nearly two decades since 1990, 2008).
some regions – South and Southeast Asia, the Near East and Particularly worrisome is the potential effect of the food
North Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean — have price crisis on poor children. Rising food prices may prevent
made significant headway in improving food security. Nev- even more poor households from providing pregnant moth-
ertheless, the GHI remains high in South Asia. The GHI is at ers and infants and young children with adequate nutrition,
a similarly high level in Sub-Saharan Africa, where progress an outcome that can have irreversible long-term conse-
has been marginal since 1990. quences for children’s future health and productivity.
Overcoming these challenges to food security and nutri-
tion will require actions to address emergency food needs as
Food Price crisis hits children well as steps to improve longer-term agricultural productiv-
This year’s index reflects data until 2006 — the most recent ity and strengthen safety nets. In this risky and changing en-
available global data — and thus does not yet take account vironment, the GHI can be useful in highlighting key trends
of the latest changes in the world food system (see page 8 and the geographic areas of greatest vulnerability.
for information on how the GHI is calculated). This lag in
the availability of data highlights the importance of food 1
For background information on the concept, see Wiesmann (2004).
information systems. More complete and up-to-date moni-
Photo: Warrick Page/Corbis
toring of developments in developments related to agricul-

ture, food, and nutrition at global, regional, and national
levels would facilitate better responses. This need is espe-
cially great in a situation like the one the world is now fac-
ing; from 2006 to 2008 the global food and agricultural en-
vironment has been changing rapidly. A number of factors

Chapter 1
What is the Global Hunger Index?
The GHI is a multidimensional approach to measuring hunger and 40

malnutrition. It combines three equally-weighted indicators:
1. the proportion of undernourished as a percentage of the popula- Global
tion (reflecting the share of the population with insufficient di- Hunger
etary energy intake); Index
2. the prevalence of underweight in children under the age of five
(indicating the proportion of children suffering from weight loss 35
and/or reduced growth); and
3. the mortality rate of children under the age of five (partially re-
flecting the fatal synergy between inadequate dietary intake and ≥ 30.0
unhealthy environments). extremely alarming
This multidimensional approach to calculating the GHI offers sev-

eral advantages. It captures various aspects of hunger and under
30
nutrition in one index number, thereby presenting a quick overview
of a complex issue. It takes account of the nutrition situation not
only of the population as a whole, but also of a physiologically vul-
nerable group – children – for whom a lack of nutrients creates a
high risk of illness and death. In addition, by combining indepen-
dently measured indicators, it reduces the effects of random mea-
20.0–29.9
surement errors. 25
alarming
The index ranks countries on a 100-point scale, with 0 being the
best score (no hunger) and 100 being the worst, though neither of
these extremes is achieved in practice. Values less than 4.9 reflect
low hunger, values between 5 and 9.9 reflect moderate hunger, val-
ues between 10 and 19.9 indicate a serious problem, values be-
tween 20 and 29.9 are alarming, and values exceeding 30 are ex- 20
tremely alarming.
The prevalence of underweight component in the 2008 GHI is based
on the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards
used for the calculation of child malnutrition, which were revised in
2006 (for more information, see WHO 2006). The prevalence of un-
derweight for the 1990 GHI has also been recalculated to reflect the 10.0–19.9
15
serious
newly introduced WHO reference standards. Consequently, coun-
tries’ 2008 GHI values and revised 1990 values are not directly
comparable to previously calculated GHI values (for more informa-
tion on previous GHI calculations, see Wiesmann 2006a, b).
Data for the 2008 GHI are from 2001 to 2006. Specifically, the da-
ta on the proportion of undernourished are for 2002–2004 (FAO
10
2006b); data on child mortality are for 2006 (UNICEF 2008); and
data on child malnutrition are for the latest year of the period 2001–
2006 for which data are available (WHO 2008). Data for the 1990 5.0–9.9
GHI are for 1988–1992. Specifically, the data on the proportion of moderate
undernourished are for 1990–1992 (FAO 2006a); data on child
mortality are for 1990 (UNICEF 2006); and data on child malnutri-
tion are for 1988-1992 (WHO 2008). See appendix table for back- 5
ground data on 1990 GHI and 2008.

The 2008 GHI is calculated for 120 countries for which data on the
≤ 4.9
three components are available and measuring hunger is considered low hunger
most relevant (some higher-income countries are excluded from the
GHI calculation because hunger has been largely overcome).
0

Photo: Lynsey Addario/Corbis
Darfur has experienced civil war for years. About three million people are currently refugees. Because they cannot work on their fields
anymore, they have to be supplied with food in refugee camps.
Photo: Chico Batata/epa/Corbis
In addition to food price increases, climate change – while not adressed in this report – is yet another factor that will exacerbate
global poverty and further impede endeavours to overcome it.

Chapter 2
PLUS: Since 1990 Peru

and Kuwait have reduced the
GHI by more than 70%
MINUS: Congo has in

creased GHI by more than 67%

Chapter 2
Global and
Regional Trends
A
t a global level, the 2008 GHI shows some im- whole remains serious. These global averages hide dramatic
provement over the 1990 GHI, falling from 18.7 to differences among regions and countries. In Sub-Saharan
15.2 or by almost one fifth. The improvement was Africa the GHI decreased by less than 11 percent between
driven to a large extent by progress in children’s 1990 and 2008, whereas the GHI decreased by about 25 per-
nutrition. The proportion of underweight children declined cent in South Asia and about 30 percent in Southeast Asia,
the most – by 5.9 points – while the under-five mortality rate the Near East and North Africa. Progress in Latin America
and the proportion of undernourished also showed some im- was even greater, with the GHI decreasing by almost 40 per-
provement. Nevertheless, the GHI level in the world as a cent, albeit from an already low level.
Contribution of the three indicators to the 1990 GHI and 2008 GHI
35 Under-five mortality rate

Prevalence of underweight in children
Proportion of undernourished
30
25
20
15
10
5
Photo: Phil Schermeister/CORBIS
0
GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI GHI
1990 2008 1990 2008 1990 2008 1990 2008 1990 2008 1990 2008
World Sub-Saharan South Asia Southeast Asia Near East & Latin
Africa North Africa America
Note: For the 1990 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 1990–1992; data on the prevalence of underweight in c hildren under five are for 1988–1992;
and data on child mortality are for 1990. For the 2008 GHI, data on the proportion of u
ndernourished are for 2002–2004, data on child mortality are for 2006,
and data on child malnutrition are for the latest year in the period 2001–2006 for which data are available.

Chapter 2
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia share the highest region ers in improving the GHI since 1990. Kuwait’s seemingly re-
al GHI scores (23.3 and 23.0 respectively), but food insecurity markable progress in reducing hunger is mainly due to its
in the two regions stems from different sources. In South unusually high level in 1990, when Iraq invaded the country.
Asia, the major problem is a high prevalence of underweight Strong agricultural growth and the lowering of inflation
in children under five, which stems from the lower nutri have contributed to the rapid progress of the second-best
tional and educational status of women. In contrast, the high performer — Peru.
GHI in Sub-Saharan Africa is due to high child mortality and While it is laudable that some countries were able to cut
a high proportion of people who cannot meet their calorie their GHI by more than half, the absolute progress in moving
requirements. Low government effectiveness, conflict, and toward such a goal is also noteworthy. Between 1990 and
political instability, as well as high rates of HIV/AIDS, have 2008, Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Malawi, Mozambique,
driven these two indicators. Peru, and Vietnam saw the largest decreases — by more than
10 points — in their GHI scores. In 11 countries (all in Sub-
Saharan Africa, except for North Korea), the GHI increased.
Conflict exacerbates hunger Conflict and political instability in Burundi, Comoros, the
From the 1990 GHI to the 2008 GHI only a handful of coun- Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, and Liberia
tries made significant progress by reducing their GHI scores have widened hunger. In Botswana and Swaziland, the high
by half or more. At the same time, about one third of the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, coupled with high inequality, have
countries made modest progress by reducing their GHI scores severely undermined food security despite greater national
between 25 and 50 percent. Ghana was the only country in wealth. Negative trends in economic growth and food pro-
Sub-Saharan Africa that cut its GHI by more than 40 percent duction in North Korea have led to higher rates of under-
and no country in the region is among the 10 best perform- nourishment and underweight in children.
Country Progress in Reducing the Global Hunger Index between 1990 and 2008*
Increase by more than 0.0 %

Decrease by 0.0–24.9 %
Note: Increase by more than 0.0 % indicates a worsening in
Decrease by 25.0–49.9 % the GHI. Other categories indicate improvements in the GHI
Decrease by more than 50 % by 0.00–24.9 %, 25.0–49.9 %, or by more than 50.0 %.
No data
*percentage decrease in 2008 GHI compared with 1990 GHI
Industrialised country

Photo: Christian Kaiser/Welthungerhilfe
Lack of access to food in Congo is having catastrophic consequences. The main reason for this are armed conflicts over its many
natural resources. The result of the “curse of resources” is that the security situation in many parts of the country is very poor.
GHI-Winners and Losers from 1990 to 2008

10 Best-Performing Countries (percentage change in GHI) 10 Worst-Performing Countries (percentage change in GHI)
Kuwait -72.4 Congo, Dem. Rep. +67.6

Peru -71.1 North Korea +42.8
Syrian Arab Republic -51.7 Swaziland +32.3
Turkey -51.0 Guinea-Bissau +19.3
Mexico -50.8 Zimbabwe +18.0
Egypt -50.1 Burundi +17.4
Vietnam -47.2 Liberia +16.6
Thailand -45.9 Comoros +9.9
Brazil -45.6 Botswana +7.3
Iran -43.9 Zambia +0.3
Note: Includes countries with 1990 GHI greater than 5.

Chapter 2
2008 Global Hunger index*
≥ 30.0 Extremely alarming

20.0–29.9 Alarming
10.0–19.9 Serious
5.0–9.9 Moderate
≤ 4.9 Low
No data
Industrialised country

Note: For the 2008 GHI, data on the proportion of u ndernourished are for 2002–2004,
data on child mortality are for 2006, and data on child m
alnutrition are for the latest
year in the period 2001–2006 for which data are available.
* by severity

Chapter 2
Photo: Gideon Mendel/Corbis

The spread of HIV/AIDS results in chronic illness and death for numerous young people – few of whom have access to treatment or
specialised drugs. This loss has dire consequences for overall development and particularly for food production in the agricaltural sector.
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, Bu-
rundi, Niger, and Sierra Leone at the bottom of the list. War
and violent conflict have been major causes of widespread
poverty and food insecurity in most of the countries with
high GHI scores. Another common pattern is the lack of gen
eral freedom in terms of political rights and civil liberties. All
15 countries with the highest GHI scores have been con-
sistently rated by the Freedom House Index as non-free or
partially free in the period 2006–2008 (Freedom House 2008).
Eritrea and the Democratic Republic of Congo currently have
by far the highest proportion of undernourished — 75 and 74
percent of the population, respectively. India, Yemen, and Ti-
mor-Leste have the highest prevalence of underweight in
children under five — more than 40 percent in all three coun-
tries. Sierra Leone and Angola have the highest under-five
mortality rates — 27 and 26 percent, respectively.

All countries in comparison
The Global Hunger Index by county, 1990 and 2008
Global Hunger Index
Rank Country 1990 2008 Rank Country 1990 2008
1 Mauritius 6.1 5 59 Djibouti – 20.9
2 Jamaica 8 5.1 59 Guinea 29.3 20.9
3 Moldova – 5.4 61 Pakistan 25.3 21.7
4 Cuba 7.3 5.5 62 Malawi 32.2 21.8
5 Peru 19.5 5.6 63 Rwanda 28.3 22.3
6 Trinidad and Tobago 8 5.9 64 Cambodia 32.4 23.2
7 Algeria 7.4 6 65 Burkina Faso 25.1 23.5
8 Albania 10.5 6.3 66 India 32.5 23.7
9 Turkmenistan – 6.4 67 Zimbabwe 20.2 23.8
10 El Salvador 9.7 6.5 68 Tanzania 26.1 24.2
10 Malaysia 9.5 6.5 69 Haiti 35.9 24.3
10 Morocco 7.7 6.5 70 Bangladesh 32.3 25.2
13 Colombia 9.6 6.7 71 Tajikistan – 25.9
14 South Africa 7.4 6.9 72 Mozambique 40.9 26.3
15 China 11.6 7.1 73 Mali 29.6 26.9
16 Fiji 12.7 7.3 74 Guinea-Bissau 23 27.5
17 Suriname 10.7 7.5 75 Central African Republic 32 28
18 Gabon 11.3 7.6 76 Madagascar 29.1 28.8
19 Venezuela 8.3 7.7 77 Comoros 26.4 29.1
20 Paraguay 8.3 7.9 78 Zambia 29.1 29.2
21 Guyana 14.6 8.6 79 Angola 39.8 29.5
22 Panama 10.1 8.9 80 Yemen, Rep. 30.7 29.8
23 Thailand 18.4 9.9 81 Chad 37.5 29.9
24 Armenia – 10.2 82 Ethiopia 44 31
25 Azerbaijan – 10.4 83 Liberia 27.3 31.8
26 Uzbekistan – 11.2 84 Sierra Leone 32.4 32.2
27 Indonesia 16 11.3 85 Niger 38 32.4
28 Honduras 16.1 11.4 86 Burundi 32.6 38.3
29 Bolivia 16.5 11.7 87 Eritrea – 39
30 Dominican Republic 14 12 88 Congo, Dem. Rep. 25.5 42.7
31 Mongolia 18.9 12.1
32 Vietnam 23.9 12.6
33 Nicaragua 16.4 12.8 Global Hunger Index
34 Ghana 24.4 13.9
Country 1990 2008 Country 1990 2008
35 Philippines 18.9 14
36 Lesotho 14.2 14.3 Argentina <5 <5 Latvia – <5
36 Namibia 21.4 14.3 Belarus – <5 Lebanon 5.1 <5
38 Guatemala 16.1 14.6 Bosnia and Libya* – <5
– <5
39 Myanmar* 18.7 15 Herzegovina Lithuania – <5
39 Sri Lanka 19.1 15 Brazil 7.8 <5 Macedonia – <5
41 Benin 22.8 15.1 Bulgaria – <5 Mexico 8.1 <5
42 Côte d'Ivoire 19.4 15.3 Chile <5 <5 Romania <5 <5
43 Senegal 22.1 15.4 Costa Rica <5 <5 Russian
– <5
44 Uganda 19.9 17.1 Croatia – <5 Federation
45 Gambia, The 18.4 17.3 Ecuador 6.8 <5 Saudi Arabia 6.9 <5
46 Mauritania – 17.6 Egypt, Arab Rep. 8.6 <5 Serbia and
– <5
47 Swaziland 13.4 17.7 Estonia – <5 Montenegro
48 Botswana 16.7 17.9 Iran, Islamic Slovak Republic – <5
8.3 <5 Syrian Arab
49 Togo 23 18.2 Rep.* 9.6 <5
Jordan <5 <5 Republic
50 Nigeria 23.7 18.4
Kazakhstan – <5 Tunisia <5 <5
50 Timor-Leste – 18.4
Kuwait 12.6 <5 Turkey 6.2 <5
52 Cameroon 22 18.7
Kyrgyz Republic – <5 Ukraine – <5
53 North Korea* 13.1 18.8
Uruguay 5.2 <5
54 Congo, Rep. 26.2 19.1
55 Kenya 23.5 19.9
Note: Countries with GHI of less than 5 are not included in the ranking. Differences in
56 Sudan* 24.5 20.5
the GHI of these countries are minimal, and for some countries marked with an asterisk
57 Lao PDR 28.1 20.6 the underlying data are unreliable.
Countries with identical 2008 GHI are ranked equally.
57 Nepal 27.6 20.6

969 million people live
on less than US$1 a day
17% of those live on

less than US$0.50 a day
Chapter 3
The Vicious Circle

of Hunger and Poverty
P
overty leads to undernutrition and food insecurity so, how well increasing incomes translate into improved nu-
by limiting poor people’s access to food. At the trition depends on investments in basic health and education
same time, because undernourished people are less services, sanitation, and safe water supply.
productive and child malnutrition has severe, per- Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are not only the re-
manent consequences for physical and intellectual develop- gions with the highest GHI scores, but also the ones with the
ment, hunger can lead to or help entrench poverty. Thus pov- highest poverty rates. The share of the total population living
erty and hunger can become entwined in a vicious cycle, and on less than US$1 a day in 2004 was 41 percent in Sub-
levels and trends in these indicators can be expected to be Saharan Africa and 31 percent in South Asia (Ahmed et al.
similar. Indeed, the table on page 20 shows that countries 2007), yet the GHI scores for the two regions are nearly equal.
with high levels of hunger are overwhelmingly low- or low- The trends in poverty and hunger reduction in the two re-
middle-income countries. All countries with extremely gions, however, are different in magnitude. South Asia’s GHI
alarming levels of hunger are low-income countries. The on- and poverty rate reflect rapid progress since 1990 from very
ly low-income country with a low level of hunger is the Kyr- high levels, whereas in Sub-Saharan Africa the GHI has de-
gyz Republic, and the only upper-middle-income country creased much more slowly and poverty has been persistent.
with a serious level of hunger is Botswana. Why are hunger and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa so
entrenched? It turns out that not all poverty is the same.
IFPRI researchers have divided the population living on less
Poverty is highest in Africa than $1 a day into three categories according to the depth of
Increases in the incomes of the poor may not, however, have their poverty: (1) the subjacent poor are those living on be-
immediate effects on all three GHI indicators. Incomes may tween $0.75 and $1 a day; (2) the medial poor are those liv-
have a more immediate impact on the proportion of people ing on between $0.50 and $0.75 a day; and (3) the ultra poor
who are food-energy deficient, but the effects on child mal- are those living on less than $0.50 a day.
nutrition and child mortality may take longer to unfold. Al-
Photo: Achim Pohl/Das Fotoarchiv
Poverty: Living with less than one dollar a day
Subjacent poor $0.75 – $1 485 million people

Medial poor $0.50 – $0.75 323 million people
Ultra poor less than $0.50 162 million people
Source: Ahmed et al. 2007

Chapter 3
Countries by income 1 and Global Hunger Index severity

≤ 4.9 5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 29.9 ≥ 30.0
GHI
(low) (moderate) (serious) (alarming) (extremely alarming)
Kyrgyz Republic Benin Bangladesh Burundi
Côte d'Ivoire Burkina Faso Congo, Dem. Rep.
Gambia Cambodia Eritrea
Ghana Central African Republic Ethiopia
Kenya Chad Liberia
Mauritania Comoros Niger
Mongolia Guinea Sierra Leone
Low income
Myanmar* Guinea-Bissau
Nigeria Haiti
North Korea* India
Senegal Lao PDR
Timor-Leste Madagascar
Togo Malawi
Uganda Mali
Uzbekistan Mozambique
Vietnam Nepal
Pakistan
Rwanda
Belarus* Albania Armenia
Sudan*
Bosnia and Herzegovina Algeria Azerbaijan
Tajikistan
Ecuador China Bolivia
Tanzania
Egypt, Arab Rep. Colombia Cameroon
Low-middle income
Yemen, Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.* Cuba Congo, Rep.
Zambia
Jordan El Salvador Dominican Republic
Zimbabwe
Macedonia Fiji Guatemala
Syrian Arab R epublic Guyana Honduras
Tunisia Jamaica Indonesia Angola
Ukraine Moldova Lesotho Djibouti
Morocco Namibia
Paraguay Nicaragua
Peru Philippines
Suriname Sri Lanka
Argentina
Thailand Swaziland
Brazil
Turkmenistan
Bulgaria
Chile
Costa Rica
Gabon Botswana
Croatia
Malaysia
Kazakhstan
Mauritius
Upper-middle income
Latvia
Panama
Lebanon
South Africa
Libya*
Venezuela, RB
Lithuania
Mexico
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia and Montenegro
Slovak Republic
Turkey
Uruguay
Estonia Trinidad and Tobago

Kuwait
High income
Note: For this 2008 GHI report, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 2002–2004,
Saudi Arabia data on child mortality are for 2006, and data on child malnutrition are for the latest year in the
period 2001–2006 for which data are available.
For countries marked with an asterisk, the underlying data are unreliable.
1
World Bank categorization

Photo: FranS Lanting/Corbis
The poorest of the poor often live in rural areas. They neither have access to education, agricultural extension services or urgently
needed health care. During bad weather many villages can only be reached with difficulty because there are no streets.
Of the 969 million poor people in the developing world in

Subjacent, Medial, and Ultra Poverty
2004, 162 million were ultra poor, 323 million were medial
poor, and 485 million were subjacent poor. The ultra poor
by Region, 1990 and 2004
are overwhelmingly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa,
which is the only region in the world in which there are 600 Middle East & North Africa
more ultra poor than medial or subjacent poor. In contrast, Latin America & the Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
most of Asia’s poor live just below the dollar-a-day line;
South Asia
only a small minority of people are ultra poor. Between 500
East Asia & Pacific
1990 and 2004, the number of subjacent poor in South Asia
actually increased, but at the same time, there was a signif-
400
icant decrease in the number of medial and ultra poor. Sub-
Saharan Africa, in contrast, experienced increases in the
Millions
number of poor people in each category, particularly in ul- 300

tra poverty. The ultra poor often live in remote rural areas;
are more likely to be ethnic minorities; and have less edu-
cation, fewer assets, and less access to markets than better- 200
off people. Their extreme poverty makes it next to impos-
sible for them to climb out of poverty: they find themselves
100
unable to invest in assets and in educating their children;
they have little access to credit; and hunger and malnutri-
tion reduce their productivity. Extreme poverty thus be- 0
comes a trap in which poverty begets poverty and hunger 1990 2004 1990 2004 1990 2004
begets hunger. Sub-Saharan Africa has large numbers of Subjacent Poor Medial Poor Ultra Poor
people in this situation.
Source: Ahmed et al. 2007

four-fold: increase
in the price of rice since 2003
three-Fold:
increase in the price of corn
since 2003
Chapter 4
Rising Food Prices

Intensify the Hunger Crisis
U
ntil recently, efforts to reduce hunger and malnu- tries. Biofuel mandates and generous subsidies in Europe and
trition took place in an environment of gradually the United States have raised demand for maize and soy-
falling food prices. Between 1974 and 2005, real beans and distorted the comparative advantage of other
food prices declined by about 75 percent, accord- countries on world markets. Rising oil prices have increased
ing to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Since 2005, the cost of cultivating, fertilizing, and transporting crops.
however, real food prices have been on the rise. The Food Severe weather in major grain-producing countries like Aus-
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) tralia and Ukraine has cut into harvests. Insufficient increas-
food price index rose by 9 percent in 2006, 23 percent in es in agricultural production have also been due to under in-
800
2007, and more than 50 percent between May 2007 and May vestment in agricultural innovation and to land and water
700
2008. Virtually every food commodity has been affected by constraints. Some countries, including Argentina, Bolivia,
600
rising prices. Prices of wheat and poultry have doubled since China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, and Pakistan, have implement-
2003, and prices of maize and butter have tripled, and the ed export restrictions that have constricted supplies on world
500
price of rice has more than quadrupled. markets and exacerbated the upward pressure on prices. And
400 By now, the causes of the price increases are familiar to speculation on stock markets has played a role in rising food
300
many people: Economic growth and rising incomes in some prices, although the extent of that role is not clear. There has
developing countries have changed people’s diets, pushed up been an enormous influx of speculative capital into food
200
demand for food, and depleted grain stocks in some coun- commodity markets that may not reflect actual supply and
100
0
Development of World Grain Prices*
800
Rice
*US$/ton; January 2000–June 2008 Wheat
Maize
600
Photo: Orlando Barria/epa/Corbis
400
200
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: FAO 2008a.

Chapter 4
demand but may instead be contributing to a cycle of specu- from improved terms of trade, whereas net importers, like
lative expectations and consequent price increases. Angola, Chad, Burundi, and Ethiopia, struggle to meet do-
At the moment, food prices do not appear likely to fall to mestic food demand. The table below shows that net cereal
their 2000–03 levels, and price fluctuations may become importers in the sample are substantially more than export-
even greater. Future price changes will depend, however, on ers (97 net importers and 15 net exporters), implying that
decisions about biofuels, responses to climate change, and many more countries still combating hunger are likely to
agricultural investment decisions. For instance, IFPRI re- suffer from higher prices than benefit from them. In fact,
search has shown that increased demand for biofuels be- higher food prices will probably hit countries with the high-
tween 2000 and 2007 accounted for 39 percent of the in- est rates of hunger hardest, given that none of the countries
crease in the price of maize and 30 percent of the rise in the with extremely alarming GHI — Burundi, Democratic Repub-
price of grains. lic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Liberia, Niger, and Sierra Leone —
Higher food prices have uneven effects across countries, are net cereal exporters.
depending on a range of factors. One such factor is whether The rise in food prices also undermines political security,
countries are net importers or exporters of cereals, an indica- which has a strong two-way link with food security. The table
tor that reveals their vulnerability to rising cereal prices. Net on page 25 shows the relationship between the severity of
exporters, like Argentina and Kazakhstan, tend to benefit the 2008 GHI and violent and nonviolent food protests.
GHI by severity and net cereal exporters-importers 1

< 4.9 5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 29.9 ≥ 30.0
Net importers Net importers Net importers Net importers Net importers
Belarus* Albania Armenia Angola Burundi
Bosnia and H erzegovina Algeria Azerbaijan, Bangladesh Congo, Dem. Rep.
Brazil China Republic of Cambodia Ethiopia
Chile Colombia Benin Central African Republic Liberia
Costa Rica Cuba Bolivia Chad Niger
Croatia El Salvador Botswana Comoros Sierra Leone
Ecuador Fiji Islands Cameroon Djibouti
Egypt Gabon Congo, Rep. Guinea
Estonia Guyana Côte d'Ivoire Haiti
Iran, Islamic Rep.* Jamaica Dominican Republic Madagascar
Jordan Malaysia Gambia Malawi
Kuwait Mauritius Ghana Mozambique
Kyrgyzstan Morocco Guatemala Nepal
Lebanon Panama Honduras Pakistan
Libya* Peru Indonesia Rwanda
Macedonia South Africa Kenya Sudan*
Mexico Suriname Mongolia Tanzania
Romania Thailand Namibia Yemen
Saudi Arabia Trinidad and Tobago Nicaragua Zambia
Syrian Arab Republic Turkmenistan Nigeria Zimbabwe
Tunisia Venezuela, RB North Korea*
Turkey Philippines Net exporters
Uruguay Net exporters Senegal
Burkina Faso
Sri Lanka
Moldova, Republic of India
Net exporters Swaziland
Paraguay
Togo Note: For the 2008 GHI, data
Argentina on the proportion of under-
Uganda
Bulgaria nourished are for 2002–2004,
Viet Nam data on child mortality are for
Kazakhstan
2006, and data on child
Latvia malnutrition are for the latest
Net exporters year in the period 2001–2006
Lithuania
for which data are available.
Russian Federation Myanmar* For countries marked with an
Serbia and Montenegro Uzbekistan asterisk, the underlying data
are unreliable.
Slovakia
Ukraine cereal exports/imports mea-
1
sured as 2003–2005 average

Photo: John Van Hasselt/Corbis
One of the reasons for the rise in food prices is the emergence of bio-fuel production which competes with food production.
This trajectory has to be adjusted: Climate protection cannot be achieved at the cost of food production and hunger relief.
A food protest is a strike, protest, or riot over food- or agri- co, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, and South Africa. Food pro-
culture-related issues. A violent food protest is a food protest tests have affected countries with both high and low GHI
involving the use of physical force or resulting in casualties. scores. Interestingly, however, none of the countries with an
It is important to remember that the 2008 GHI reflects data extremely alarming GHI had experienced violent protests.
from 2001 to 2006 and not the actual hunger situation in With increased food price inflation, urban dwellers are
2008. Nonetheless, countries are unlikely to have achieved usually the group that responds with strikes, protests, or ri-
drastic improvements in their hunger situation between 2006 ots. The rural poor, however, usually suffer silently for a
and 2008. From January 2007 to June 2008, one third of all while, and a lack of protests may not correctly depict the se-
countries for which 2008 GHI was calculated had a violent or verity of impact on the poorest of the poor. The political in-
non-violent protest, with multiple occurrences in Bangladesh, stability reflected in protests over food prices can, however,
Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Mexico, Moroc- have a dampening effect on economic growth.
GHI by severity and food protests, January 2007–June 2008

< 4.9 5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 29.9 ≥ 30.0
Non-violent Non-violent Non-violent Non-violent Non-violent
Argentina China Bolivia Bangladesh Ethiopia
Brazil El Salvador Guatemala India Niger
Jordan Peru Nicaragua Madagascar
Lebanon South Africa North Korea* Nepal
Mexico Trinidad and Tobago Philippines
Uzbekistan Violent
Violent Burkina Faso
Egypt, Arab Rep. Violent Guinea Note: For the 2008 GHI, data
on the proportion of under-
Malaysia Cameroon Haiti nourished are for 2002–2004,
Morocco Côte d'Ivoire Mozambique data on child mortality are for
2006, and data on child
Russia Honduras Pakistan malnutrition are for the latest
Thailand Indonesia Yemen, Rep. year in the period 2001–2006
for which data are available.
Tunisia Kenya
For countries marked with an
Mauritania asterisk, the underlying data
Senegal are unreliable.

Chapter 5
better Childhood Nutrition improves Adult Productivity
A recent IFPRI-led study found that Guatemalan boys who effect on hourly wages, implying young children have spe-
received a high-energy, high-protein supplement in the first cific nutritional needs that must be met at specific times.
two years of life earned on average 46 percent higher wages The results also suggest that by leading to increased pro-
as adults, and boys who received the supplement in their ductivity in adulthood, improving the nutrition of very young
first three years earned 37 percent higher wages on aver- children can help break the intergenerational cycle of pov-
age, compared with boys who did not receive the supple- erty and hunger.
ment. After age three, the nutritional supplement had no Source: Hoddinott et al. 2008.

Chapter 5
Children Suffer Most

from Malnutrition
C
ertain countries and regions, particularly in Sub- food aid flows threaten people who are in crisis or disaster
Saharan Africa, appear to be particularly vulnera- and depend on food aid for their survival. Largely because of
ble to the effects of high food prices owing to their rising food prices, food aid flows from the World Food Pro-
already precarious food security (as reflected in the gramme (WFP) declined by 15 percent in 2007, reaching their
GHI) and their low level of income. How then are higher food lowest level since 1961 (WFP 2008). Reduced food aid flows
prices likely to affect people’s food and nutrition security? force food aid providers to make difficult choices about
Even though the GHI has been falling slowly since 1990, which countries, communities, and even households will re-
at least 800 million people were food insecure before the ceive aid.
food price crisis hit. In other words, 800 million people could
not afford an adequate diet even in the context of declining
food prices. Some poor people in developing countries spend Childhood shapes the future
as much as 70 percent of their incomes on food. People who The greatest long-term damage from higher food prices may
were already food insecure have little or no scope for achiev- come from impacts on poor infants and children. Children
ing nutritious diets in the face of rising food prices. Most of have specific nutritional needs for macro- and micronutri-
the world’s poor people are net buyers of food, even in rural ents to ensure optimal physical and cognitive development,
areas, where millions of people do not own land or do not especially from conception to age two. Failure to meet these
produce enough food to feed their families. These net food needs — for instance, if food price increases lead to dimin-
buyers are likely to see the greatest impacts on their nutri- ished food quantity or quality (such as its vitamin A, iron, or
tional status, and news reports show that they are already zinc content) — may have permanent consequences that in-
spending more on food, cutting back on their consumption, clude stunting, reduced cognition, and increased susceptibil-
and sometimes reducing the quality of the food they eat. ity to infectious disease and mortality. Recent research by IF-
Farmers who are net food producers could benefit from PRI, Cornell University, and other collaborators shows that
the higher prices for their food commodities, but these farm- nutritional deficits in young children often could not be
ers are often not the poorest. Well-off farmers in China and made up later. Child stunting, underweight, and wasting (in-
Kenya, for example, are moving into higher-value products dicators of malnutrition) were 4, 6, and 4 percentage points
Photo: Eva Haeberle/Welthungerhilfe
to take advantage of rising prices. Still, according to the In- higher, respectively, among poor communities that partici-
ternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), in pated in recuperative maternal and child health and nutrition
many countries consumer prices have risen more than pro- programs than among those that participated in preventive
ducer prices. With producer price increases lagging behind programs (Ruel et al. 2008). Thus if households are forced to
consumer price increases, even net food producers may come limit the nutrition of infants, even temporarily, or if food aid
out behind. does not meet the nutritional needs of infants and children,
High prices also reduce the amount of food aid that as- the negative impacts could be enduring, even affecting fu-
sistance agencies can buy with fixed budgets, and reduced ture productivity.

NOW: Relief for those
currently hungry
LONG-TERM:
Investment in resiliance of
food system
Chapter 6
Action Plans
against Hunger
I
n a context of slow progress against hunger in many worsening the situation for all net cereal importers.
countries, and worsening hunger in some, higher food 3. U
ndertake fast-impact food production programs in key
prices pose dire risks for millions of people. By reducing areas. Short-term action is needed to provide small farm-
people’s purchasing power, high prices force the poor to ers with access to seeds, fertilizers, and credit.
make difficult choices that are likely to cut into their food 4. C
hange bio-fuel policies. Bio-fuels made from food crops
and nutrition security. Households make decisions to eat should be halted or at least reduced, and more support
fewer meals and cheaper foods of lower nutritional value, should go toward developing bio-energy technologies
decisions that can have particularly severe consequences for that do not compete with food.
infants and children.
What can be done to ensure people’s food and nutrition The resilience package of actions to phase in now, but whose
security in this rapidly changing environment? The following impact will take longer to be felt, consists of the following:
section presents perspectives from different partners – Welt- 5. Calm markets with the use of market-oriented regulation
hungerhilfe, IFPRI and Concern – that derive from different of speculation, shared public grain stocks, strengthened
experiences and contexts but which are broadly complemen- food-import financing, and reliable food aid. It is infea-
tary: The most immediate task is to increase assistance to the sible to accumulate a global stock of grain immediately,
poorest people, through food aid and income support. In the but countries should make coordinated pledges for a
longer term, countries need to invest in raising agricultural physical grain reserve to meet humanitarian needs and a
productivity to help meet the burgeoning demand for food “virtual” global food commodity exchange that could re-
and thereby reduce the pressure on food prices. spond in situations of excessively high grain prices (von
Braun and Torero 2008).
6. Invest in social protection. Countries need to adopt com-
Ifpri’s Perspective on the Food Crisis prehensive social protection programs that will both
IFPRI has proposed two sets of policy actions — an emergen- mitigate short-term risks for the poor and prevent harm-
cy package and a resilience package (von Braun et al. 2008). ful long-term consequences.
The emergency package of actions to take immediately con- 7. S cale up investments for sustained agricultural growth.
Photo: Andreas Herzau/Welthungerhilfe
sists of the following: Such investments would include expanded public spend-
1. E
xpand emergency responses and humanitarian assis- ing for rural infrastructure, services, agricultural re-
tance to food-insecure people. National emergency agen- search, science, and technology.
cies need to invest more in preparedness and mobilize 8. Complete the Doha Round of World Trade Organization
their capacities to monitor and assist vulnerable popula- (WTO) negotiations. Even in the light of recent break-
tions, even in slow-onset emergencies like the current downs in negotiations, the fact remains that rule-based
food price crisis. trade needs to be strengthened. Although it may take
2. E
liminate agricultural export bans and export restrictions. some time, it should be easier for countries to agree to
These restrictions have exacerbated food price increases, lower agricultural tariffs when market prices are high.

Chapter 6
This is a period of great risk for the nutrition and health of cific responsibilities for implementation to specific actors,
millions of poor people, and policymakers need to act care- and this omission needs to be corrected so that governments
fully. The world food crisis has already garnered serious at- and international institutions can be held accountable for
tention from donor-country policymakers and international their actions.
institutions, as illustrated by the World Bank’s 10-Point Plan Governments and nongovernmental organizations must
for the Food Crisis (World Bank 2008), the FAO’s June 2008 of course address the urgent and immediate needs for food
summit on the food crisis (FAO 2008b), the statement on the among poor people, but if they ignore long-term solutions,
crisis from the leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) (G8 2008), such as boosting agricultural production, strengthening so-
and the United Nations’ comprehensive framework for action cial protection, and reforming trade rules and biofuel poli-
in response to the crisis (United Nations 2008). cies, they risk ensuring that hunger and malnutrition will
recur. By highlighting the weaknesses of the current world
food system, the food price crisis could serve as a catalyst
A new policy needed for building a more effective and resilient food system that
It is crucial that responses to the crisis, go beyond good in- meets the food and nutrition needs of all people. The Glob-
tentions and lofty declarations to include actions, even in al Hunger Indexes of the next several years — and decades –
politically challenging policy areas like trade and biofuels. will reveal whether the world’s decisionmakers have seized
Much discussion of the crisis so far has failed to assign spe- this opportunity.
Welthungerhilfe’s perspective on the Food Price Crisis
A 10-Point Plan for Action fective ways to fight hunger; the higher the level of edu-
cation, the better the nutritional status.
1. Food aid has to be linked to development measures en- 6. Fair trade is a must for developing countries. The EU
suring food security. Short-term food aid measures and the industrialised countries must cancel their im-
must lead to sustainable self-sufficiency according to port restrictions and abolish agricultural export subsi-
the principle of help toward self-help. dies.
2. Rural development has to become a focal point of de- 7. Social security systems have to be established to pro-
velopment co-operation once again, more money has to tect the needy in times of crisis. Crises or crop failures
be provided for agriculture. The focus of development in developing countries generally mean poverty and
measures has been directed towards city inhabitants in hunger. The traditional security system based mainly on
recent years and has to be diverted back to the rural family solidarity is not sufficient. Preventive measures
population, which accounts for two out of three people like micro-insurance or basic social care systems are
suffering from hunger. needed.
3. The increase in food prices has to be used as an oppor- 8. Bio-fuel production in the industrialized countries
tunity to boost the local production of crops and their based on imports from developing countries should be
marketing in the developing countries, to make rural ar- deferred and reconsidered. Energy plants should not
eas profitable again and thus more attractive. Govern- compete with food plants in view of empty grain stores
ments of developing countries need to invest in their and rising food prices. Climate protection goals must be
rural infrastructure, promote farmers’ organizations, al- achieved through energy conservation, efficiency im-
low access to land and agricultural inputs (fertilizer, provements, and innovative energy generation technol-
seed, credits), improve processing, and promote trans- ogies.
portation and store keeping. 9. Consumers in industrialized countries have to get used
4. More emphasis must be put on rural research and techni to higher food prices. Farming has to pay for itself with-
cal advice in order to increase the worldwide production out subsidies. That is the only way to diminish market
and productivity and to replenish the reserves of food- distortions and to strengthen agriculture in the develop-
stuffs. Researchers have to develop solutions for in- ing countries.
creasing crop yields adapted to local areas and consis- 10. Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have to be
tent with the criteria of sustainability and the principle strengthened. NGOs help organize farmers, highlight
of help toward self-help. rural people’s concerns to governments, and even some-
5. Investment in education and health is necessary. Im- times take over the tasks of government institutions in
proving educational opportunities is one of the most ef- rural areas.

Photo: Jens Grossmann/Welthungerhilfe
Female farmers in Burkina Faso till their fields with hoes. The yield is low in the Sahel. In order to increase productivity around
3,000 people in Kongoussi region are provided with agricultural extension services.
Welthungerhilfe: Rural Develop- sistence agriculture, the yield is hardly enough for their own
needs. Many staple foods have to be imported. A rise in the
ment is Key to Eliminate Causes
cost of living has dramatic consequences, because by now
Three in four hungry people live in a rural environment: many Burkinabés can only afford one meal per day.
That’s why Welthungerhilfe is committed to fighting hunger In cooperation with the Burkina Faso farmers’ organiza-
sustainably and have supported smallholders worldwide tion Zood Noma, Welthungerhilfe counsels smallholders in
since its foundation. Wherever possible, experts work hand the Koungoussi region. People are taught cultivation tech-
in hand with local partner organisations in the field of rural niques, stone embankments prevent erosion and composting
development. devices preserve soil fertility. By closely working together
In Burkina Faso – one of the poorest countries in the with bank cooperatives, they are granted access to micro
world – large-scale protests took place from February to credits – for income-generating activities and the food supply
April of 2008 because of the rise in food prices by 50 percent during the dry season. Literacy courses and further education
at the beginning of the year. Despite governmental price in the agricultural sector enhance the farmers’ know-how
controls, a large proportion of the population can hardly af- and self-esteem.
ford staple foods. Crucial natural resources are threatened by In perspective, the long-term support through develop-
climate change, floods make the situation worse. ment cooperation plays a key role in eliminating the causes
This is where Welthungerhilfe enters with measures taken of hunger: rural development – and not only particular com-
to empower people to help themselves. The agricultural sector ponents of agriculture – requires not only more funding, it
is among the least productive in Africa. The causes: malad- must become a fundamental focus of development coopera-
justed cropping methods, low soil fertility and a poor infra- tion again.
structure. Nearly 90 percent of the farmers pursue a sub

Chapter 6
Photo: Cordula Kropke/Welthungerhilfe

Schools are one aspect of the urgently needed development of infrastructure in rural areas.
Concern’s Perspective on the Food Price Crisis
Call for Immediate Action out of reach of the poorest farmers. Additional support,
such as available and low costs inputs, or credit through
While Concern Worldwide recognizes that the root causes of a variety of channels, is required.
the current food price crisis will take time to address, there 5. In the short term, the United States, the European
are immediate actions which can be taken which will miti- Union, and many governments should urgently review
gate its impacts on the poorest people in the world. their biofuel policies, which have had an impact on the
1. In the short term, Concern believes that the poor need world price of food. Such a review should look at the im-
access to emergency supplies of food or, in certain cir- pact of inappropriate targets for biofuel production. It
cumstances, cash with which to buy food. To achieve should also balance the displacement of food crops by
this, the World Food Programme (WFP) must receive in- biofuel crops and any negative impact on food prices
creased funding to provide essential food aid to those in with the energy and environmental goals necessary for a
need of it. sustainable planet. In developing countries in particular,
2. Support should be provided to governments of develop- there is a need to ensure that essential staple crops are
ing countries so they can provide cash-based social pro- not displaced by biofuel crops to the extent that afford-
tection systems to ensure that the very poorest in these able food becomes unavailable to the poorest locally.
countries can access their basic needs in a budgetary 6. In the longer term, governments in the poorest coun-
predictable and reliable way. tries, with the support of key donors and institutions of
3. Nutritional surveillance in developing countries by Min- the international community, must undertake a serious
istries of Health and other institutions needs to be sup- reinvestment in agriculture, and in particular in the food
ported and scaled up to achieve the necessary coverage security of the most vulnerable populations and the pro-
and quality so that policy-makers and others can iden- ductivity of marginal farmers.
tify the impacts of the crisis at a more local level, given
geographical variations in food availability, access and While this food crisis seems to have deeper roots and longer-
quality. This is being done as part of the strengthening term implications than previous food crises, Concern re-
of health systems but will require prioritisation in par- mains focused on the hunger of close to a billion of the
ticular countries. world’s population and on addressing this shameful situa-
4. Many of the world’s poorest are small or marginal farm- tion. The food price crisis has served to bring the problem
ers who need access to seeds, tools, fertilizers, and that the poorest face on a daily basis to the attention of the
credit to grow food for the coming year. Higher transpor- wider world and we need to harness the political will to
tation costs and increased demand for such inputs in- address the food price crisis to actions to rid the world of
crease their costs and put their availability increasingly hunger.

Concern: Injecting cash at follow-up program in 2006/2007 called ”Dowa Emergency
Cash Transfers” project (DECT). This program also went fur-
grassroots-level
ther in terms of how the transfers were delivered.
For four decades Concern Worldwide has been responding to A unique feature of the “Dowa Emergency Cash Trans-
severe food crises and long term food insecurity in the devel- fers” (DECT) project was the use of smart-cards that were
oping world. The organisation is committed to improving provided to each beneficiary household. The card was acti-
livelihood and food security in rural communities and has vated by fingerprint to prevent theft and corruption. In order
been at the forefront of implementing innovative programs to reach the 10,000+ beneficiary population at minimum in-
in these areas. In 2005/6 and 2006/7, Concern Worldwide in convenience to them, Concern mapped out pay-points using
Malawi designed and delivered two emergency social trans- criteria of convergence and convenience throughout the
fer programs that have been evaluated as innovative and ef- project area. These points were then used to disburse cash
fective. Each has advanced thinking on best practice and once a month for the five month duration of the interven-
what is feasible, both in emergency contexts and in the de- tion. A specially designed four-wheel drive vehicle served as
livery of predictable protection. a mobile bank. Altogether, 88 pay-days took place, and a to-
Under the “Food and Cash Transfer” (FACT) project, a tal of MK 66,883,330 (Euro 338,000) was disbursed over the
package was delivered to recipients half in cash and half in five-month period of the project.
kind, the food package being provided in case supply short- Previous social transfer programs run by Concern have
ages in local markets made food inaccessible to cash transfer shown that the beneficiaries generally prefer cash rather than
recipients. The cash transferred was adjusted in line with food as it empowers them to make choices on how to manage
movements in local food prices, to maintain constant food their lives and livelihoods. Concern also found that injecting
purchasing power throughout the hungry season. Adjust- cash at the grassroots level can generate a significant “mul-
ments were also made depending on household size. Lessons tiplier” effect that benefits the whole community and the lo-
from this program were taken on board in the design of a cal economy.
Photo: Concern
After a drought in 2006 many peasants in Dowa District in Malawi lost their entire harvest. 10,000 families were on financial s upport
for an interim period. Mobile banks made sure that they could provide food for themselves.

Appendix A
Appendix
Data Sources and Calculation of the Global Hunger Index
All three index components are expressed in percentages

The Global Hunger Index is and weighted equally. Higher GHI values indicate more
calculated as follows hunger. The index varies between a minimum of 0 and a
(1) GHI = (PUN + CUW + CM)/3 maximum of 100. However, the maximum value of 100
with GHI: Global Hunger Index would only be reached if all children died before their fifth
PUN: proportion of the population that is birthday, the whole population were undernourished, and
undernourished (in %) all children under five were underweight.
CUW: prevalence of underweight in children Likewise, the minimum value of zero does not occur in
under five (in %) practice, because this would mean there were no under-
CM: proportion of children dying before nourished in the population, no children under five who
the age of five (in %) were underweight, and no children who died before their
fifth birthday.
Number of Index components

countries
GHI with GHI Indicators Reference years Data sources
1990 95 Percentage of undernourished in 1990-1992 2
FAO 2006 and
the population1 authors’ estimates
Prevalence of u
nderweight in 1988-19923 WHO 20064 and a uthors’ estimates
children under five
Under-five mortality 1990 UNICEF 2006
2008 120 Percentage of undernourished in 2002-20042 FAO 2006 and
the population1 authors’ estimates
Prevalence of u
nderweight in 2001-20065 WHO 20064 and
children under five authors’ estimates
Under-five mortality 2006 UNICEF 2006
Notes: 1 Proportion of the population with calorie deficiency.

2 Average over a three year period.
3 Data collected from the year closest to 1990; where data for 1988 and 1992, or 1989 and 1991, was available, an average was used. The authors’ estimates are for 1990.
4 Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards, which were revised in 2006 (for more information, see WHO 2006).
5 The latest data gathered in this period by authors.
The calculation of GHI scores is restricted to developing The first column indicates the reference year of the GHI and
countries and countries in transition for which measuring the second column specifies the respective number of coun-
hunger is considered most relevant. The table above provides tries for which the Index can be calculated.
an overview of the data sources for the Global Hunger Index.

Appendix B
Bibliography
Ahmed, A. U., R. V. Hill, L. C. Smith, D. M. Wiesmann, and T. von Braun, J., and M. Torero. 2008. Physical and virtual global
Frankenberger. 2007. The world’s most deprived: Characteristics food reserves to protect the poor and prevent market failure. Policy
and causes of extreme poverty and hunger. 2020 Vision Discussion Brief No. 004. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Re-
Paper 43. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research search Institute.
Institute.
von Braun, J., A. Ahmed, K. Asenso-Okyere, S. Fan, A. Gulati,
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na- J. Hoddinott, R. Pandya-Lorch, M. W. Rosegrant, M. Ruel, M.
tions). 2006a. The state of food insecurity in the world 2006. Torero, T. van Rheenen, and K. von Grebmer. 2008. High food
Rome. prices: The what, who, and how of proposed policy actions. Policy
– 2006b. Food security statistics: Food deprivation – Prevalence of Brief No. 002. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Re-
undernourishment in total population. Available at search Institute.
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/Files/
PrevalenceUndernourishment_en.xls. WFP (World Food Programme). 2008. 2007 Food aid flows.
– 2008a. International commodity prices database. Available at Rome.
http://www.fao.org/es/esc/prices/PricesServlet.jsp?lang=en.
– 2008b. Declaration of the high-level conference on world food WHO (World Health Organization). 2006. WHO child growth
security: The challenges of climate change and bioenergy. Rome, standards: Backgrounder 1. Geneva. Available at http://www.
June 5. who.int/entity/nutrition/media_page/backgrounders_1_en.
pdf.
Freedom House. 2008. Freedom in the World 2008. Washington – 2008. Global database on child growth and malnutrition. Geneva.
DC. Available at http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/en/.
G8 (Group of Eight). G8 leaders statement on global food security. Wiesmann, D. 2004. An international nutrition index: Concept and
Available at http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080709_ analyses of food insecurity and undernutrition at country levels. De-
04_en.html. velopment Economics and Policy Series 39. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Hoddinott, J., J. A. Maluccio, J. R Behrman, R. Flores, and R. – 2006a. 2006 Global hunger index: A basis for cross-country com-
Martorell. 2008. Effect of a nutrition intervention during early child- parisons. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
hood on economic productivity in Guatemalan adults. Lancet 371: Institute.
411–16. – 2006b. A global hunger index: Measurement concept, ranking of
countries, and trends. FCND Discussion Paper 212. Washington,
Ruel, M. T., P. Menon, J.-P. Habicht, C. Loechl, G. Bergeron, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
G. Pelto, M. Arimond, J. Maluccio, L. Michaud, and B. Han-
kebo. 2008. Age-based preventive targeting of food assistance and World Bank. 2008. Overcoming the crisis: 10 point plan. Available
behaviour change and communication for reduction of childhood at http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/foodprices/.
undernutrition in Haiti: A cluster randomised trial. Lancet 371:
588–95.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2006. The state of the

world’s children 2006: Excluded and invisible. New York.
– 2008. The state of the world’s children 2008: Child survival. New
York.
United Nations. 2008. Comprehensive framework for action. High-

level task force on the global food crisis. July.

Appendix C
Data underlying the calculation of the Global Hunger Index

Proportion of undernourished Prevalence of underweight in
in the population (%) children under 5 years (%) Under 5 mortality rate (%) GHI
Country 1990–92 2002–04 1988–92 2001–06 1990 2006 1990 2008
Afghanistan – – – 28.1 26.0 25.7 – –
Albania 12.9 6.0 14.0 *** 11.3 *** 4.5 1.7 10.5 6.3
Algeria 5.0 4.0 10.4 *** 10.2 6.9 3.8 7.4 6.0
Angola 58.0 35.0 35.4 *** 27.5 26.0 26.0 39.8 29.5
Argentina 2.0 3.0 4.6 *** 3.3 2.9 1.6 <5 <5
Armenia – 24.0 4.8 *** 4.2 5.6 2.4 – 10.2
Azerbaijan – 7.0 14.1 *** 15.4 *** 10.5 8.8 – 10.4
Bahrain – – 17.7 *** 13.6 1.9 1.0 – –
Bangladesh 35.0 30.0 47.0 *** 38.8 14.9 6.9 32.3 25.2
Belarus* – 4.0 14.4 *** 1.3 2.4 1.3 – <5
Benin 20.0 12.0 29.8 *** 18.4 18.5 14.8 22.8 15.1
Bhutan – – – - 16.6 7.0 – –
Bolivia 28.0 23.0 8.9 6.1 12.5 6.1 16.5 11.7
Bosnia and Herzegovina – 9.0 6.8 *** 1.6 2.2 1.5 – <5
Botswana 23.0 32.0 21.3 *** 9.3 *** 5.8 12.4 16.7 17.9
Brazil 12.0 7.0 5.7 *** 3.7 5.7 2.0 7.8 <5
Bulgaria – 8.0 6.6 *** 2.5 1.8 1.4 – <5
Burkina Faso 21.0 15.0 33.6 *** 35.2 20.6 20.4 25.1 23.5
Burundi 48.0 66.0 30.7 *** 30.7 *** 19.0 18.1 32.6 38.3
Cambodia 43.0 33.0 42.6 *** 28.4 11.6 8.2 32.4 23.2
Cameroon 33.0 26.0 19.0 *** 15.1 13.9 14.9 22.0 18.7
Central African Republic 50.0 44.0 28.8 *** 22.6 *** 17.3 17.5 32.0 28.0
Chad 58.0 35.0 34.4 *** 33.9 20.1 20.9 37.5 29.9
Chile 8.0 4.0 0.9 *** 1.0 *** 2.1 0.9 <5 <5
China 16.0 12.0 14.3 *** 6.8 4.5 2.4 11.6 7.1
Colombia 17.0 13.0 8.4 *** 5.1 3.5 2.1 9.6 6.7
Comoros 47.0 60.0 20.4 *** 20.4 *** 12.0 6.8 26.4 29.1
Congo, Dem. Rep. 31.0 74.0 24.9 *** 33.6 20.5 20.5 25.5 42.7
Congo, Rep. 54.0 33.0 14.2 *** 11.8 10.3 12.6 26.2 19.1
Costa Rica 6.0 5.0 2.7 *** 0.5 *** 1.8 1.2 <5 <5
Côte d'Ivoire 18.0 13.0 24.9 *** 20.2 15.3 12.7 19.4 15.3
Croatia – 7.0 1.3 *** 0.9 *** 1.2 0.6 – <5
Cuba 8.0 1.0 12.6 *** 14.7 1.3 0.7 7.3 5.5
Djibouti 53.0 24.0 – 25.6 17.5 13.0 – 20.9
Dominican Republic 27.0 29.0 8.4 4.2 6.5 2.9 14.0 12.0
Ecuador 8.0 6.0 6.6 *** 6.2 5.7 2.4 6.8 <5
Egypt, Arab Rep. 4.0 4.0 12.8 *** 5.4 9.1 3.5 8.6 <5
El Salvador 12.0 11.0 11.1 6.1 6.0 2.5 9.7 6.5
Eritrea – 75.0 – 34.5 14.7 7.4 – 39.0
Estonia – 3.0 3.5 *** 2.8 *** 1.6 0.7 – <5
Ethiopia 73.7 *** 46.0 38.0 *** 34.6 20.4 12.3 44.0 31.0
Fiji 10.0 5.0 25.8 *** 15.1 *** 2.2 1.8 12.7 7.3
Gabon 10.0 5.0 14.7 *** 8.8 9.2 9.1 11.3 7.6
Gambia, The 22.0 29.0 18.0 *** 11.5 *** 15.3 11.3 18.4 17.3
Georgia – 9.0 – – 4.6 3.2 – –
Ghana 37.0 11.0 24.1 18.8 12.0 12.0 24.4 13.9
Guatemala 16.0 22.0 24.1 *** 17.7 8.2 4.1 16.1 14.6
Guinea 39.0 24.0 25.3 *** 22.5 23.5 16.1 29.3 20.9
Guinea-Bissau 24.0 39.0 21.1 *** 23.4 *** 24.0 20.0 23.0 27.5
Guyana 21.0 8.0 14.0 *** 11.5 8.8 6.2 14.6 8.6
Haiti 65.0 46.0 27.4 *** 18.9 15.2 8.0 35.9 24.3
Honduras 23.0 23.0 19.5 *** 8.6 5.8 2.7 16.1 11.4
India 25.0 20.0 60.9 *** 43.5 11.5 7.6 32.5 23.7
Indonesia 9.0 6.0 29.8 24.4 9.1 3.4 16.0 11.3
Iran, Islamic Rep.* 4.0 4.0 13.6 *** 6.5 *** 7.2 3.4 8.3 <5
Iraq - – – 7.1 5.3 4.6 – –
Jamaica 14.0 9.0 6.7 *** 3.1 3.3 3.1 8.0 5.1
Jordan 4.0 6.0 4.8 3.6 4.0 2.5 <5 <5
Kazakhstan – 6.0 5.0 *** 3.5 6.0 2.9 – <5
Kenya 39.0 31.0 21.8 *** 16.5 9.7 12.1 23.5 19.9
Kuwait 24.0 5.0 12.2 *** 4.3 *** 1.6 1.1 12.6 <5
Kyrgyz Republic – 4.0 3.7 *** 2.7 7.5 4.1 – <5
Lao PDR 29.0 19.0 39.0 *** 35.4 *** 16.3 7.5 28.1 20.6
Latvia – 3.0 2.8 *** 5.1 *** 1.8 0.9 – <5
Lebanon 2.0 3.0 9.6 *** 3.4 3.7 3.0 5.1 <5
Note: *** indicates author’s estimates. For countries marked with an *, data underlying the GHI are unreliable.

Proportion of undernourished Prevalence of underweight in
in the population (%) children under 5 years (%) Under 5 mortality rate (%) GHI
Country 1990–92 2002–04 1988–92 2001–06 1990 2006 1990 2008
Lesotho 17.0 13.0 15.6 *** 16.6 10.1 13.2 14.2 14.3
Liberia 34.0 50.0 24.3 *** 21.9 *** 23.5 23.5 27.3 31.8
Libya* – 1.0 6.2 *** 0.3 4.1 1.8 – <5
Lithuania – 1.0 8.8 *** 2.7 1.3 0.8 – <5
Macedonia – 5.0 6.0 *** 2.6 *** 3.8 1.7 – <5
Madagascar 35.0 38.0 35.5 36.8 16.8 11.5 29.1 28.8
Malawi 50.0 35.0 24.4 18.4 22.1 12.0 32.2 21.8
Malaysia 3.0 3.0 23.4 *** 15.2 *** 2.2 1.2 9.5 6.5
Mali 29.0 29.0 34.9 *** 30.1 25.0 21.7 29.6 26.9
Mauritania 15.0 10.0 – 30.4 13.3 12.5 – 17.6
Mauritius 6.0 5.0 9.9 *** 8.5 *** 2.3 1.4 6.1 5.0
Mexico 5.0 5.0 13.9 3.4 5.3 3.5 8.1 <5
Moldova – 11.0 4.7 *** 3.2 3.7 1.9 – 5.4
Mongolia 34.0 27.0 11.8 *** 4.9 10.9 4.3 18.9 12.1
Morocco 6.0 6.0 8.1 9.9 8.9 3.7 7.7 6.5
Mozambique 66.0 44.0 33.2 *** 21.2 23.5 13.8 40.9 26.3
Myanmar* 10.0 5.0 33.0 *** 29.6 13.0 10.4 18.7 15.0
Namibia 34.0 24.0 21.5 12.9 *** 8.6 6.1 21.4 14.3
Nepal 20.0 17.0 48.7 *** 38.8 14.2 5.9 27.6 20.6
Nicaragua 30.0 27.0 12.3 *** 7.8 6.8 3.6 16.4 12.8
Niger 41.0 32.0 41.0 39.9 32.0 25.3 38.0 32.4
Nigeria 13.0 9.0 35.1 27.2 23.0 19.1 23.7 18.4
North Korea* 18.0 33.0 15.9 *** 17.8 5.5 5.5 13.1 18.8
Oman – – 15.9 *** 5.8 *** 3.2 1.2 – -
Pakistan 24.0 24.0 39.0 31.3 13.0 9.7 25.3 21.7
Panama 21.0 23.0 5.9 *** 1.4 *** 3.4 2.3 10.1 8.9
Papua New Guinea – – 24.1 *** 23.8 *** 9.4 7.3 – -
Paraguay 18.0 15.0 2.9 6.5 *** 4.1 2.2 8.3 7.9
Peru 42.0 12.0 8.8 2.4 7.8 2.5 19.5 5.6
Philippines 26.0 18.0 24.5 *** 20.7 6.2 3.2 18.9 14.0
Qatar – – 17.3 *** 18.1 2.6 2.1 – -
Romania 3.1 1.8 7.4 *** 3.5 *** 3.1 1.8 <5 <5
Russian Federation – 3.0 7.0 *** 1.4 *** 2.7 1.6 – <5
Rwanda 43.0 33.0 24.3 18.0 17.6 16.0 28.3 22.3
Saudi Arabia 4.0 4.0 12.3 *** 6.1 *** 4.4 2.5 6.9 <5
Senegal 23.0 20.0 28.3 14.5 14.9 11.6 22.1 15.4
Serbia and Montenegro – 9.0 – 1.8 2.8 0.8 – <5
Sierra Leone 46.0 51.0 22.3 *** 18.6 *** 29.0 27.0 32.4 32.2
Slovak Republic – 7.0 1.4 *** 1.7 *** 1.4 0.8 – <5
Somalia – – – 32.8 20.3 14.5 – -
South Africa 5.8 *** 4.4 10.3 *** 9.4 *** 6.0 6.9 7.4 6.9
Sri Lanka 28.0 22.0 26.2 *** 21.8 *** 3.2 1.3 19.1 15.0
Sudan* 31.0 26.0 30.4 *** 26.7 *** 12.0 8.9 24.5 20.5
Suriname 13.0 8.0 14.2 *** 10.5 *** 4.8 3.9 10.7 7.5
Swaziland 14.0 22.0 15.1 *** 14.7 *** 11.0 16.4 13.4 17.7
Syrian Arab Republic 5.0 4.0 20.0 *** 8.5 3.8 1.4 9.6 <5
Tajikistan – 56.0 10.3 *** 14.9 *** 11.5 6.8 – 25.9
Tanzania 37.0 44.0 25.1 16.7 16.1 11.8 26.1 24.2
Thailand 30.0 22.0 22.0 *** 7.0 3.1 0.8 18.4 9.9
Timor-Leste 11.0 9.0 – 40.6 17.7 5.5 – 18.4
Togo 33.0 24.0 21.2 19.7 *** 14.9 10.8 23.0 18.2
Trinidad and Tobago 13.0 10.0 7.5 *** 4.1 *** 3.4 3.8 8.0 5.9
Tunisia 1.0 1.0 8.5 1.6 *** 5.2 2.3 <5 <5
Turkey 2.0 3.0 8.4 *** 3.5 8.2 2.6 6.2 <5
Turkmenistan – 7.0 5.9 *** 7.1 *** 9.9 5.1 – 6.4
Uganda 24.0 19.0 19.7 19.0 16.0 13.4 19.9 17.1
Ukraine – 3.0 2.8 *** 1.0 2.2 2.4 – <5
United Arab Emirates 4.0 – – – 1.5 0.8 – -
Uruguay 7.0 2.0 6.3 *** 6.0 2.3 1.2 5.2 <5
Uzbekistan – 25.0 9.6 *** 4.4 7.4 4.3 – 11.2
Venezuela, RB 11.0 18.0 10.7 *** 3.1 *** 3.3 2.1 8.3 7.7
Vietnam 31.0 16.0 35.5 *** 20.2 5.3 1.7 23.9 12.6
Yemen, Rep. 34.0 38.0 44.1 *** 41.3 13.9 10.0 30.7 29.8
Zambia 48.0 46.0 21.2 23.3 18.0 18.2 29.1 29.2
Zimbabwe 45.0 47.0 8.0 14.0 7.6 10.5 20.2 23.8
Note: *** indicates author’s estimates. For countries marked with an *, data underlying the GHI are unreliable.

Appendix
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was

founded in 1975. Its mission is to provide policy solutions
that reduce poverty in developing countries, achieve sustain-
able food security, improve health and nutrition, and pro-
mote environmentally friendly agricultural growth. To
achieve these goals, the Institute focuses on research as well
as capacity strengthening and policy communication. It
works closely with national agricultural research and nutri-
tion institutions and regional networks in developing coun-
tries. The Institute also engages in wide-ranging dialogue so
that the new scientific insights generated by its research re-
sults can be integrated into agricultural and food policies
and can raise public awareness regarding food security, pov-
erty, and environmental protection. IFPRI is funded by gov-
ernments, international and regional organisations, and pri-
vate foundations, many of which are members of the Consul-
tative Group on International Agricultural Research (www.
cgiar.org). This association consists of 15 international agri-
cultural research centres that work closely with national ag-
ricultural research systems, governments, NGOs, and the pri-
vate sector.

Our vision How we work
All the people of this world shall lead an independent life in •W
e provide help from one set of hands by means of rapid
dignity and justice – free from hunger and poverty. Deutsche humanitarian aid in acute crisis regions. Where hunger
Welthungerhilfe (German Agro Action) was founded in 1962 and poverty are chronic, we cooperate closely with local
as the national committee of the “Freedom from Hunger partners on long-term projects.
Campaign” set up by the United Nations’ Food and Agricul- •A
s part of this process we provide support for the landless,
ture Organisation (FAO). Today, it is one of Germany’s largest for small-scale farmers, women, children and young peo-
non-governmental organisations. Non-profit-making, non- ple; and for people who need start-up aid in order to lead
denominational and politically independent, the organisa- their lives in justice and dignity.
tion is run by a board of honorary members under the pa- •W
e fund our work from private donations and public
tronage of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. grants. We have received the “seal of approval” from Ger-
Its work is funded by private donations and public grants. many’s Central Institute for Social Issues (DZI) for the
cost-effective and transparent way we use our funds.
•L
evels of control such as internal auditing, evaluation or
What we want regular reports from projects ensure that funds are used
•W
elthungerhilfe campaigns worldwide for human rights, correctly.
sustained development, a guaranteed food supply and
conservation of the environment. We regard our work as
successful when people improve their living conditions to
such an extent that they can enjoy a secure livelihood
without outside aid.
•A
s citizens of a wealthy country, we bear a responsibility
for making sure we do not only pay lip-service to the idea
of solidarity with the poorest members of the human race.
For this reason, together with partners from the world of
politics, media and schools, we campaign for fairer co-
operation with countries in the developing world.
•W
e use the funds entrusted to us sparingly and effective-
ly. The work of our staff is characterised by commitment,
experience and competence.

Appendix
Our Identity – Who we Are

Concern Worldwide is Ireland’s largest non-governmental
organisation, dedicated to the reduction of suffering and
working towards the ultimate elimination of extreme pover-
ty. We work in 30 of the world’s poorest countries and have
over 4,000 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 support from Concern. To this end,
Concern will work with the poor themselves, and with local
and international partners who share our vision, to create
just and peaceful societies where the poor can exercise their
fundamental rights. To achieve this mission we engage in
long-term development work, respond to emergency situa-
tions, 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.

PUBLISHED BY
Welthungerhilfe
Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 1
D-53173 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 228-2288-0
Fax +49 228-2288-333
www.welthungerhilfe.de
Secretary General:
Dr. Hans-Joachim Preuß
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

2033 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA
Tel. +1 202-862-5600
Fax +1 202-467-4439
www.ifpri.org
Director General:
Prof. Joachim von Braun
Concern Worldwide
52-55 Lower Camden Street
Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland
Tel. +353 1 417 7700
Fax +353 1 475 7362
www.concern.net
Chief Executive:
Tom Arnold
Editor:
Dr. Iris Schöninger
Authors:
Dr. Klaus von Grebmer (director of communications division),
Heidi Fritschel (consultant writer), Bella Nestorova (senior re-
search assistant), Tolulope Olofinbiyi (senior research assistant),
Rajul Pandya-Lorch (chief of staff and head of 2020 initiative),
Yisehac Yohannes (research analyst) at IFPRI Washington
Layout:
muehlhaus & moers kommunikation gmbh, Köln, Germany
Mira Gatermann, Tobias Heinrich
Printing:
dfs Druck, Köln, dfs@dfs-druck.de
Ordering number:
460-5368
Cover photography:
Jehad Nga/Corbis
Kindly supported by Corbis.

Welthungerhilfe International Food Policy Research Concern Worldwide
Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 1 Institute 52-55 Lower Camden Street
53173 Bonn, Germany 2033 K Street, NW Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland
Tel. +49 228-22 88-0 Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA Tel. +353 1-417-7700
Fax +49 228-22 88-333 Tel. +1 202-862-5600 Fax +353 1-475-7362
Fax +1 202-467-4439
www.welthungerhilfe.de www.ifpri.org www.concern.net

Global Hunger Index

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Hunger Index

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Hunger Index

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Hunger Index

The Challenge of Hunger 2008

Bonn, Washington D.C., Dublin

Dr. Hans-Joachim Preuss, Prof. Joachim von Braun, Tom Arnold,

1 the Concept of the Global Hunger Index������������������������������������������ 7

2 Global and Regional Trends������������������������������������������������������������ 11

3 The vicious circle of hunger and poverty�������������������������������������� 19

4 Rising Food Prices intensify the hunger crisis����������������������������� 23

5 Children suffer most from malnutrition�������������������������������������� 27

6 Action plans Against hunger����������������������������������������������������������� 29

A Data Sources and Calculation of the Global Hunger Index������� 34

C Data underlying the calculation of the Global Hunger Index����� 36

4 2008 Global Hunger Index

2008 Global Hunger index 5

923 million people in the

907 million of these live

6 2008 Global Hunger Index

The Concept of the

toring of developments in developments related to agricul-

2008 Global Hunger index 7

What is the Global Hunger Index?

The GHI is a multidimensional approach to measuring hunger and 40

This multidimensional approach to calculating the GHI offers sev-

ground data on 1990 GHI and 2008.

8 2008 Global Hunger Index

2008 Global Hunger index 9

PLUS: Since 1990 Peru

MINUS: Congo has in­

10 2008 Global Hunger Index

35 Under-five mortality rate

2008 Global Hunger index 11

Increase by more than 0.0 %

12 2008 Global Hunger Index

GHI-Winners and Losers from 1990 to 2008

Kuwait -72.4 Congo, Dem. Rep. +67.6

Note: Includes countries with 1990 GHI greater than 5.

2008 Global Hunger index 13

2008 Global Hunger index*

≥ 30.0 Extremely alarming

14 2008 Global Hunger Index

2008 Global Hunger index 15

Photo: Gideon Mendel/Corbis

16 2008 Global Hunger Index

2008 Global Hunger index 17

17% of those live on

The Vicious Circle

Poverty: Living with less than one dollar a day

Subjacent poor $0.75 – $1 485 million people

2008 Global Hunger index 19

Countries by income 1 and Global Hunger Index severity

Estonia Trinidad and Tobago

20 2008 Global Hunger Index

Of the 969 million poor people in the developing world in

number of poor people in each category, particularly in ul- 300

2008 Global Hunger index 21

Rising Food Prices

2008 Global Hunger index 23

GHI by severity and net cereal exporters-importers 1

sured as 2003–2005 average

24 2008 Global Hunger Index

1 the Concept of the Global Hunger Index�� 7

2 Global and Regional Trends�� 11

3 The vicious circle of hunger and poverty�� 19

4 Rising Food Prices intensify the hunger crisis�� 23

5 Children suffer most from malnutrition�� 27

6 Action plans Against hunger�� 29

A Data Sources and Calculation of the Global Hunger Index�� 34

C Data underlying the calculation of the Global Hunger Index�� 36

MINUS: Congo has in

Notes: 1 Proportion of the population with calorie deficiency.