access to food: safety nets and hunger solutions for the most needy

Access to Food: Safety Nets and

Hunger Solutions for the Most Needy

Joachim von Braun

International Food Policy Research Institute

Strategic Meeting of WFP on “School Feeding: Feed Minds, Change Lives”

Bellagio, Italy, July16, 2009

Joachim von Braun, IFPRI, July 2009

Social safety nets

and the food and financial crises

Many governments effectively used existing

safety net programs to mitigate impacts of the

food crisis, though political constraints

sometimes limited the response

But some governments did not expand safety

nets

This is an vital period to reexamine the role of

social safety nets, particularly regarding

securing access to food


Key actions that need to be taken (Conclusions of IFPRI’ activity on “the poorest and the

hungry” 2006-2008; Beijing)

1. Promote inclusive growth with emphasis on

rural growth and –in many countries - on

agriculture

2. Enhance access to assets, infrastructure,

markets

3. Strengthen and move faster to social protection

4. Accelerate investments in health, nutrition,

education, particularly for children and women

5. Include the excluded

The mix is different for different countries and regions

(Africa, Asia, and Latin America)


Growth, poverty reduction, and hunger (1)

For poor (very poor) households, a 10% increase

in income increases caloric acquisition by 3% (5%)

“Income growth and hunger reduction are

tightly wedded”

and

of the 10 low income countries that reduced

hunger index the fastest since 1990, 8 are also

among the top 10 in agricultural growth

BUT


Growth, poverty reduction, and hunger (2)

“Income growth and pre-school malnutrition

are loosely meshed”

The direct effect of income growth on pre-school

nutrition is low, so other investments (targeted

programs aimed at pre-schoolers) are needed

- Note that given the high economic returns to

reducing pre-school malnutrition, these too

are excellent investments!


Pro-poor social protection and nutrition

interventions needed

Protective actions e.g.:

• Cash transfers

• Employment-based food security programs

Preventive actions e.g.:

• School feeding

• Early childhood nutrition programs

Focus on the most vulnerable:

children, women, excluded groups, the poorest


Problem zone “under–two”: the most risky age

Source: Shrimpton et al. 2001.

Weight for age by region

NCHS

Reference

-2

-1.75

-1.5

-1.25

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60

Age (months)

Z-s

core

(N

CH

S)

Africa Latin America and Caribbean Asia

But no reason to play the under two’s against school children:

there are important linkages


Guatemala: Early childhood nutrition impacting

adult education and productivity

Source: Hoddinott et al. 2008. Lancet (in revision).

20%

17%

8%

27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Income earned per

hour worked

(men)

Reading

comprehension

Cognitive ability

Grade attainment

(women)

Nutritional intervention

among Guatemalan

children 0-7 years old

(’69-’77)

Follow-up in adults 25-

42 years old (’02-04)

Investments in early

childhood nutrition can

be long-term drivers of

economic growth


What do we know about safety nets and

access to food? School feeding programs (1)

Household vs. individual food security

• Careful studies from the Philippines and

Bangladesh show that school-age children keep

most of the calories transferred at school meals

Quality and size of food transfers

• Larger and more nutritious food transfers were vital

to achieve impacts on learning achievement and

iron status: school meals or take-home rations

providing 1100 kcal of iron-fortified food per day

reduced anemia prevalence among adolescent girls

in Uganda by 18 percentage points

Source: Dan Gilligan, IFPRI, 2009.



access to food? School feeding programs (2)

Obtain complementarities with education objectives

• In Uganda, separate school meals and take-home rations

programs both improved scores on math achievement tests

and cognitive development tests

• Timing of meals not critical: Learning and cognitive benefits of

FFE programs were similar whether the meals were given at

school or through take-home rations. Improved access to food

was critical.

Potential nutrition benefits to young children

• In Burkina Faso, take-home rations conditional on school

attendance improved the anthropometry of pre-school siblings

of beneficiary children

• In Uganda, school feeding (but not take-home rations)

improved the anthropometry of pre-school age siblings of

beneficiary children possibly through direct spillovers of

fortified food to these siblingsSource: Dan Gilligan, IFPRI, 2009.



access to food? Conditional cash transfers

Composition of consumption

• Recent evidence from many countries in Latin America

shows that cash transfers from CCTs increased the share

of income spent on food at all income levels.

• May be because most CCTs transfer money to women or

because of complementary messages about the benefits

of good nutrition

Diet composition

• In some countries, CCT transfers led to increased diet

diversification and improved diet quality

Long-term consumption smoothing

• In Nicaragua and Mexico, CCT beneficiaries were better

able to smooth their consumption during economic shocks,

which increased future incomes and access to foodSource: Dan Gilligan, IFPRI, 2009.


Issues in designing safety nets

for food security

Cost-effectiveness

• Safety nets can be expensive to operate

and require perpetual expenditures

• In well-run programs, larger transfers do

have greater impacts

• Effective targeting is an important tool

• The growing body of evidence: the cost-

effectiveness of many programs is higher

than previously thought


Issues of safety net design

• Transactions costs of systems: administrative

capacity, information, costs

• Switching systems or adding components (CCTs,

employment guarantee)

• Political sustainability of systems: commitment,

structure of institutions

• Innovation and optimization of systems: learning

by doing; series of impact studies and experimental

designs

e.g. IFPRI studies in Mexico (PROGRESA), Brazil (BOLSA),

Turkey (CCT), Bangladesh (FFE), Ethiopia (PSN).


How much is spent on social protection?

• Health (% of GDP)

- Germany, France, Sweden: 7-8%

- India, Somalia, Georgia: < 1%

• Pensions (% of GDP)

- Austria, Greece, Poland: 11-13%

- Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mozambique: < 1%

• Social assistance (% of GDP)

- Pakistan, Peru, Colombia, Chile: < 1%

Source: Dethier 2007.


Developing countries: National income,

social spending, and infant mortality

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

GNI per capita (US$)

GO

VE

XP

pe

r ca

pita

(U

S$

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

INF

AN

T

(pe

r 10

00

live

birth

s)

Plot of GOVEXP with GNI Plot of INFANT with GNI (right scale)

Expon. (Plot of GOVEXP with GNI) Expon. (Plot of INFANT with GNI (right scale))

Source: Data from World Bank 2007 and WHO 2007.

Note: Data for health and education expenditure: 2003-04 or latest year(s) ,

(not earlier than 2000). Data for infant mortality: 2004-05.


How to scale up social protection?

• Start with existing institutions and choose

appropriate scale

• Strengthen tax base

• Improve information and incentives

• Create broad-based political and stakeholder

support

• Pursue public–private partnerships

• Draw on global lessons

• Think across institutions: markets, microfinance,

insurance, services


The two dual challenges for policy

1. Accelerate growth and its pro-poor

qualities!

2. Accelerate social spending and its

effectiveness!

access to food: safety nets and hunger solutions for the most needy

Documents

school children

food crisis

school feeding programs

schoolage children

nutritious food transfers

school attendance

separate school meals

school meals quality