Recovery with a Human Face
  • E-Discussion 2010-
  • About this e-discussion
  • Books
  • Recent Articles
  • Contact

Recovery with a Human Face

A discussion on alternatives for a socially-responsive crisis recovery
 

June 01st, 2015

6/1/2015

 
Dear Jomo and all,

Please let us also remember that the modest progress against chronic undernourishment in the last 25 years is due entirely to the FAO's abrupt change of methodology announced in its 2012 State of Food Insecurity (SOFI) report. Here are the official FAO numbers of chronically undernourished -- in millions -- according to the old and new methodologies side by side:
                          OLD              NEW

1990                 843               1010

1996                 788                 931

2001                 833                 922

2006                 848                 884

2008                 963                 867

2009               1023                 867

2010                 925                 868

2014                                         795

 
Comments.

1. It is very bad practice to make so dramatic a change in methodology, with hindsight, in year 22 of a 25-year measurement exercise.

2. It is entirely incredible that undernourishment should have remained constant while food prices near-doubled from 2005 toward twin peaks in 2008 and 2011.

3. The new definition of undernourishment (see p. 50 of the 2012 SOFI) is absurd. A person is counted as undernourished only if her/his

(a) “food energy availability [no other nutrient deficiencies count]

(b) is inadequate to cover even minimum needs for a sedentary lifestyle”

(c) for “over a year.”

This fails to count all the people who are seriously short of vitamins (e.g. A), minerals (e.g. iron), proteins or any other crucial nutrients. It fails to count all those who must do hard physical labor for a living and thus need more than the 1800 kcal allocated for a sedentary lifestyle. And it fails to count all those who are hungry for months but not over a year. According to this definition, there cannot ever exist an undernourished rickshaw driver because, if such a person were to fall below the calorie intake needed for a sedentary lifestyle, he would be dead long before the year is up. (A rickshaw driver needs 3000-4000 kcals per day.)

The FAO's new methodology vastly understates the number of chronically undernourished, and this huge undercount then also produces a much-too-rosy trend picture. (Note that there were various important changes in definitions and methods during the Millennium Development Goal period and, after every change, the trend figures improved. Surely no coincidence!)

 

The 2015 SOFI (p. 52) explicitly defends the new methodology against two criticisms made by myself and others:

1.     "At the moment, few surveys accurately capture habitual food consumption at the individual level and collect sufficient information on the anthropometric characteristics and activity levels of each surveyed individual; in other words, very few surveys would allow for an estimation of the relevant energy requirement threshold at the individual level." -- My response: So do some surveys instead of repeating your flawed exercise. Even just a random sample of a few thousand people would give you a sense of the quality (or lack thereof) of your estimates for some country or province. It is a scandal that world hunger is estimated in the primitive way that it is, that we don't even know, roughly, how many chronically undernourished people there are.

2.     "Within the population, there is a range of values for energy requirements that are compatible with healthy status, given that body weight, metabolic efficiency and physical activity levels vary. It  follows [!] that only values below the minimum of such a range can be associated with undernourishment, in a probabilistic sense. Hence, for the PoU [prevalence of undernourishment] to indicate that  a randomly selected individual in a population is undernourished, the appropriate threshold is the lower end of the range of energy requirements." -- My response: this is gibberish. What really follows is that one has to use the minimum of the range if one wants to be 100% certain of never counting as undernourished anyone who is not. But this certainty -- given the FAO method -- comes at the cost of not counting hundreds of millions of people who have enough calories for a sedentary lifestyle with low body weight and high metabolic efficiency but do not have enough calories for their actual life style, actual body weight and actual metabolism. This comes on top of ignoring (not counting) all those who are short of nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) other than energy. Think of all the millions suffering from iron-deficiency anemia, are they not undernourished and chronically so?

 

I know that the new methodology was brought in before you, Jomo, joined the FAO. In any case, I am convinced that most of  the colleagues at the FAO have the best of intentions. Like with other UN agencies, the top officers of the FAO serve at the pleasure of politicians and get FAO's funding from politicians; and, in order to get more support toward pursuing the noble goals of the FAO, they may have to help politicians defend their policies and in particular their grand globalization project. If I were an FAO official, perhaps I would give politicians nicer-looking numbers and trend figures in exchange for greater support for FAO's work. But someone, somewhere, also needs to speak the truth, needs to say that the poor have been dramatically betrayed, that undernourishment is vastly more common and persistent than the FAO statistics claim, that there ought to be an independent group of academic experts producing sound alternative estimates. It is our responsibility as world citizens to relieve the FAO's dreadful conflict of interest and our responsibility as academics to develop reliable estimates even if governments obstruct any such effort. We here on this list can do this job, and we should join forces to do so! 

Cheers,
Thomas


Thomas Pogge
Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs
Yale University, PO Box 208306, New Haven, CT 06520-8306
pantheon.yale.edu/~tp4     www.ted.com/speakers/thomas_pogge.html

Comments are closed.

    This e-discussion is ongoing by email Apologies if late updates on this website...


    Moderator
    

    Isabel Ortiz
    Director Social Protection ILO

    Picture
    Follow on Twitter 
    To join this e-discussion, send an email to: sympa@socpro.list.ilo.org
    with SUBSCRIBE recoveryhumanface in the subject 

    Archives

    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013

    Categories

    All


    This e-discussion is intended to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and to
    stimulate discussion; 
    the interpretations and p
    ositions expressed by contributors do not reflect the policies of ILO. 

    “We, the Peoples” are the first words of the UN Charter. The UN was founded in 1945 and
    mandated to respond to the needs and rights of all persons, in every country of the world. In this spirit of social justice, a real world recovery means a recovery for all
    persons, not simply the recovery of a few economic indicators and
    companies.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.