Iceland Norway Finland nada


FIGURE 2.2 COUNTRY PROGRESS IN REDUCING GHI SCORES Percentage change in 2013 GHI compared with 1990 GHI


Ireland Canada Kingdom Bel. France


United States of America


Portugal Spain United Sweden Denmark Neth. Germany Lux. Switz. Slov. Estonia


Lithuania Latvia


Poland


Czech Rep. Aust.


Bos. & Herz. Italy


M Serb.ont. Cro.


Slova. Hung.


Alb. Tunisia Morocco Algeria Mexico Cuba Belize Guatemala El Salvador Costa Rica Jamaica


Honduras Haiti Nicaragua Panama


Venezuela Colombia Ecuador Peru Bolivia Chile Paraguay Namibia Dominican Rep. Senegal


Trinidad & Tobago Guyana


Suriname French Guiana


Guinea-Bissau Guinea


The Gambia Sierra Leone Liberia d'Ivoire Ghana Togo Côte


Burkina Faso Benin


Western Sahara Mauritania Mali


Nigeria Niger


Cameroon Equatorial Guinea Gabon Libya Belarus Ukraine


Rom. Mold.


Mace. Greece Cyprus Egypt Bulg. Turkey


Lebanon Israel


Syria Jordan Iraq Kuwait Bahrain Qatar Saudi Arabia U.A.E. India Chad


Central African Republic


Uganda


Congo, Rep. Congo, Dem. Rep.


Brazil Angola Kenya Rw. Bur. Tanzania Comoros Zambia Botsw. Swaziland


South Africa


Argentina Uruguay Lesotho Madagascar Australia Malawi ZimbabweMozambique Mauritius Indonesia Timor-Leste Oman Sudan Eritrea Ethiopia Somalia Sri Lanka Brunei Malaysia


Papua New Guinea


Yemen Djibouti Iran Armenia Azerb. Georgia Kazakhstan Mongolia Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Kyrgyz Rep. Tajikistan Afghanistan Pakistan Nepal Bhutan Bangladesh Myanmar


Lao PDR


Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Philippines China


S. Korea N. Korea


Japan Russian Federation


Increase


Note: An increase in the GHI indicates a worsening of a country's hunger situation. A decrease in the GHI indicates an improvement in a country's hunger situation. GHI scores were not calculated for countries with very small populations. GHI scores and the rate of progress since 1990 could only be calculated for former Sudan, because separate undernourishment estimates for 2010–2012 and earlier were not available for South Sudan, which became independent in 2011, and Sudan.


Decrease of 0.0–24.9% Decrease of 25.0–49.9% Decrease of 50% or more Striped countries have 1990 and 2013 GHI of less than 5 No data


Industrialized country


East and Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean have experienced a fairly consistent drop in GHI scores since 1990. In the Near East and North Africa, the GHI scores barely declined between 1995 and 2000 and after 2005, and reductions in other periods were small. In South Asia and Africa south of the Sahara—the two regions with the highest GHI scores, at 20.7 and 19.2 respectively—the rates of progress have also been uneven. Among the regions, South Asia has the highest 2013 GHI score,


although it witnessed the steepest absolute decline in GHI scores since 1990, amounting to almost 11 points. South Asia reduced its GHI score by 4 points between 1990 and 1995—mainly through a 10-percentage- point decline in underweight in children—but this rapid progress did not persist. In the following five-year periods and after 2005, the decrease in GHI scores slowed down to 1–3 points despite strong eco- nomic growth. Social inequality and the low nutritional, educational, and social status of women are major causes of child undernutrition in this region that have impeded improvements in the GHI score. Though Africa south of the Sahara made less progress than


South Asia in the 1990s, it has caught up since the turn of the millen- nium and surpassed it, with a 2013 GHI score that fell below that of South Asia. However South Asia’s overall decline was greater, as Afri- ca south of the Sahara began with a lower GHI score in 1990. The lat- ter’s GHI score increased marginally between 1990 and 1995, fell slightly until 2000, and declined more markedly thereafter, by almost 5 points overall, until the period reflected in the 2013 GHI score. The large-scale civil wars of the 1990s and 2000s ended, and countries


12


earlier beset by conflict became more politically stable. Economic growth resumed on the continent, and advances in the fight against HIV and AIDS contributed to a reduction in child mortality in the coun- tries most affected by the epidemic. Since 2000, mortality rates for children under age five have


declined in Africa south of the Sahara. A key factor behind the improved rates seems to be the decrease in the prevalence of malaria, which coincided with the increased use of insecticide-treated bed nets and other antimalarial interventions (Demombynes and Trommlerová 2012). Other factors that may have helped cut mortality rates include higher immunization rates and a greater share of births in medical centers; improved antenatal care and access to clean water and sanitation facil- ities; and increasing levels of income, leading to better nutrition and access to medical care. The situation in the Sahel, however, remains fragile in 2013


despite a good harvest. Recurrent crises in recent years—a combination of sporadic rainfall, locust infestation, crop shortages, and high and vol- atile food prices—have negatively affected food and nutrition security in the region, eroded the coping capacity of already vulnerable groups, and weakened their resilience to shocks. In addition, livestock—an impor- tant asset for pastoralists—have become vulnerable to diseases because of inadequate feeding. The conflict in northern Mali, growing insecurity in northern Nigeria, and migration pressure have exacerbated the situa- tion. In Mali, thousands of people have fled their homes and at the time of writing are living in refugee camps or with host families in Mali and in neighboring countries (FAO 2013b).


Global, Regional, and National Trends | Chapter 02 | 2013 Global Hunger Index


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66