Food Security guide
|
| Cambodian organic rice © Oxfam America |
Over one billion people experience the hardship that hunger imposes, a figure which continues to rise even amidst the riches of the 21st century. Engulfed within a vortex of population growth, economic instability and climate change, food security has become the most intractable challenge for national and global governance. The feeble outcome of the 2009 World Summit on Food Security suggests that the richer countries have exhausted their energies and resources in rescuing the discredited banking sector.
updated November 2009
» Food Security: Country Briefings
Millennium Development Goals and Hunger
Food security is defined by access to sufficient and affordable food; it can relate to a single household or to the global population. The first Millennium Development Goal (MDG) falls short of food security aspirations in seeking only to reduce by half the proportion of the world’s population experiencing hunger.
The first of two benchmarks for measuring progress is the “minimum dietary energy requirement” for each person as stipulated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). This naturally varies by age and sex so that a weighted average is calculated for each country based on its population profile; typically this average is just below 2,000 kilocalories per day.
Despite the political commitment to reduce world hunger, the number of people lacking access to this minimum diet has risen from 824 million in the baseline year 1990 to 1,020 million in 2009. With the less demanding MDG formula, this upward trend in hunger converts in a fall, but only from 20% to 19% of the population of developing countries. Even if the impact of recent high food prices and recession proves to be temporary, few countries are expected to achieve the 2015 MDG target.
These figures are derived from national household surveys conducted in the period 2004-2006, provisionally updated with analysis by the Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture. Retrospective adjustments are possible.
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the regions most affected. There are 15 countries in Africa where the incidence of hunger exceeds 35% of the population. Almost half of all young children in India are underweight. Malnutrition impairs the ability to learn or to work and reduces resistance to disease, these problems increasing in severity with the shortfall from the minimum dietary requirement.
Children are especially sensitive, to the extent that the majority of child mortality is attributed to malnutrition. The second MDG indicator is therefore the proportion of children under five years who are underweight in relation to their age. This figure in developing countries has reduced only from 31% to 26% in the period 1990-2007. Unicef says that 58 countries are unlikely to reach this MDG target by 2015.
The Right to Food
The right to sufficient food is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in subsequent international law. A rights-based approach to food security would impose obligations on national governments to enable their people to feed themselves. However, only 22 countries have embedded the right to food in their constitutions, with undertakings of non-discriminatory and non-political strategies.
Many of the world’s food security problems stem from disregard of the fundamental right to food. For example, the aim of world trade rules is to increase absolute volumes of trade; the aim of agribusiness corporations increasingly active in poor countries is to make profit for their shareholders. Insatiable greed of the world's fishing industries has reduced 75% of the ocean's resources to the verge of collapse. These aims would become secondary to food security in a rights-based approach to hunger.
As the food crisis escalated, a series of high level meetings culminated in a World Summit on Food Security in November 2009. Countries were asked to reassert the right to food through a resolution to eradicate hunger by 2025 at a cost of $44 billion per annum. Most world leaders refused to attend and the motion had to be withdrawn.
The Summit did agree to strengthen the terms of reference of the FAO Committee on World Food Security (CFS). The intention is to coordinate national action plans on hunger within a coherent global strategy for food security. If the Committee’s work is adequately funded, a more accountable structure of governance for global food security could emerge.
Causes of Food Insecurity
Beyond the overarching lack of global and national accountability, it is difficult to offer straightforward linear explanations for hunger. There are multiple influences, often interacting confusingly as both cause and symptom. This is especially true of poverty which is a fundamental cause of hunger, when households are unable to purchase food despite its availability, but equally a consequence of hunger when livelihoods are put at risk by inability to work productively.
There are three negative direct influences on food security which have been allowed to flourish in the absence of firm governance. The first is a long decline in the scale of investment in agriculture in the developing world; the second is the exercise of inappropriate rules for trade and investment between rich and poor countries. The third is our global tolerance of extreme inequality which in this context permits the diversion of valuable food resources for production of biofuels and for feeding animals - which account for over 5% and over 33% of the world’s grain production respectively.
Outside the direct control of governance structures that might be responsible for delivery of the right to food lie factors which further aggravate hunger. These are population growth, climate change and conflict.
The importance of population is often exaggerated. Current global food production is more than sufficient to meet the FAO’s minimum dietary requirement for all – it is the eating habits of the existing population and the resolve to distribute resources fairly that will dictate future food security. The FAO has expressed “cautious optimism”, despite projections that global food production must rise by 70% by 2050 to meet the needs of the projected 40% growth in world population from today’s 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion.
Neglect of Agriculture
The FAO estimates that there are 640 million smallholders and 190 million pastoralists in developing countries. This micro-profile of agriculture does not readily attract investment. State intervention in food marketing or subsidies has been discouraged by the international financial institutions that advise poor countries.
Despite a World Bank estimate that growth of rural economies accelerates poverty reduction four times faster than other sectors, the proportion of foreign aid allocated to agriculture has fallen from 18% in 1979 to less than 5% in 2007. African governments have likewise fallen far short of their 2003 Maputo Declaration commitment which called for 10% of national budgets to be dedicated to agriculture by 2008.
The consequence of this prolonged lack of investment is an inadequate infrastructure to support local distribution and marketing. Poor roads, irrigation and storage facilities impede efficiencies. Insecure tenure, and exclusion from affordable credit, limit the aspirations of small farmers. Despite the generally poor soil quality of the continent, only 7% of cultivable land in Africa is supported by irrigation. In such environments, planting for a mix of household subsistence and surplus for market is a model chronically vulnerable to fluctuating prices and unfavourable weather.
Ideological Solutions
The 2009 G8 summit in Italy signalled a new emphasis in development thinking by promising $20 billion spread over three years for agriculture. To the extent that investment can resolve hunger, the big debate is how to resolve disagreement between two opposing ideologies.
The neo-liberal model advocates that food should be subject to the same market forces as manufactured goods with minimum state involvement. Small farms should be consolidated and alternative livelihoods found for surplus labour. Larger farms can then raise capital for the expensive products of modern biotechnology and compete in export markets.
The alternative philosophy of “food sovereignty” restores priority for the individual right to food. This model favours local ownership and control of the full chain of resources. It accepts small farms for what they are, encouraging their sustainability through subsidised inputs and credit.
Advocates point to research showing that small farms are capable of gearing up productivity through intense husbandry and family motivation. Supporting them could deliver the added value of reducing the contribution of agriculture to climate change. Low input ecological or organic farming avoids fuel-dependent inputs in favour of soil carbon sequestration and sustainable water management.
The agency ActionAid has published its HungerFREE Scorecard which lists Brazil, China and Ghana as the three countries most successful at reducing hunger. Each has exercised strong state control over policy, land reform and farm subsidies. Leaders have enforced food security as a priority, backed by safety net schemes such as cash transfers, food-for-work and school feeding.
The dogmatic stance adopted by advocates of the opposing models is possibly unhelpful. Optimum solutions for agriculture may involve active engagement of both state and market, adapting to the distinctive challenge in each country.
World Trade Rules
The majority of developing countries have food deficits, exposing them to the vagaries of global markets. Ironically, the shortcomings of trade in agriculture have their roots in the desire to support the pattern of small family farms which were dominant in Europe and US in the aftermath of the Second World War. Determined to achieve food security, the European Common Agricultural Policy and the US Farm Bill combined subsidies and tariffs to support the sector. These policies proved successful, generating colossal internal food surpluses.
Not surprisingly, the poorer countries of the modern world are keen to copy this approach. Such ambitions remain unfulfilled largely because in 1995 the richer countries were successful in their efforts to include agriculture in the system of open market rules governed by the World Trade Organisation. At the same time, they refused to unravel their own protectionist model.
This hypocrisy remains a fundamental barrier to development and food security. Developing countries find their domestic markets undercut by cheap food imports dumped by rich countries. Exporters encounter trade barriers erected in Europe and US. capable of gearing up productivity through intense husbandry and family motivation. Supporting them could deliver the added value of reducing the contribution of agriculture to climate change. Low input ecological or organic farming avoids fuel-dependent inputs in favour of soil carbon sequestration and sustainable water management.
The agency ActionAid has published its HungerFREE Scorecard which lists Brazil, China and Ghana as the three countries most successful at reducing hunger. Each has exercised strong state control over policy, land reform and farm subsidies. Leaders have enforced food security as a priority, backed by safety net schemes such as cash transfers, food-for-work and school feeding.
Climate Change
Although a warming climate may improve food production in temperate zones, its negative effect will be most severe in tropical regions because of the higher degree of climate sensitivity. Unfortunately these regions have the lowest capacity to adapt due to the concentration of poverty, especially in rural and fishing communities.
Formal scientific reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 draw particular attention to Africa where “for even small temperature increases of 1-2 degrees….. yields for rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020”. They also predict an increase in the intensity and frequency of drought and floods, already a serious short term cause of food insecurity. In South and East Asia, the retreat of Himalayan glaciers and disruption to the stable monsoon pattern threaten the critical water cycle around which rice production in particular has evolved.
Despite this warning, climate negotiators were soon presenting a 2 degree temperature rise as an acceptable threshold, leaving poorer countries to adapt as best they can. National Adaptation Programmes of Actions (NAPAs) prepared by the 50 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) focus on modest community-level initiatives, including the use of alternative seed varieties, improved soil management, maintenance of water management systems and reforestation.
Most estimates place a total cost of around $7 billion per annum for adaptation in agriculture and fisheries. Developing countries are unlikely to agree to a new international climate change treaty unless it contains provision for these costs, amongst many others.
Biofuels
Petrol additives such as ethanol and biodiesel are manufactured from plant crops as a means of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and potentially cutting carbon dioxide emissions. By 2008 one third of the US maize crop was diverted to biofuel production. The industry is encouraged by multi-billion dollar subsidies and tariffs blocking imports of the more efficient Brazilian ethanol manufactured from sugarcane.
Anti-poverty campaigners object to the conversion of land and food for rich motorists at a time of global food insecurity. The net saving in carbon dioxide emissions from maize-based ethanol has been exposed as less than 20%. Experts are researching the potential of “second generation” biofuels. These are produced from plants such as jatropha which can be grown on land unsuitable for food crops.
World Food Prices
When the FAO Cereal Price Index doubled in the year to April 2008, food security became a global crisis. As the world’s poorest households spend 60%-100% of their incomes on food, they have no mechanism to cope with rising prices other than to reduce the volume or nutritional quality of their consumption. The crisis reintroduced hunger to borderline rural households, created a new class of urban poor and led to food riots in 30 countries.
Food prices have inherent sensitivity; the amount of food available for export is small in relation to total production and there is no strategy for holding reserves at international level. Prices are also very sensitive to the volatile price of oil, due to the contribution of chemicals, fertiliser and transport to production costs, as well as the competing demand for biofuels. This volatility is exploited by speculative market traders, further exaggerating price movements.
Despite a subsequent global market correction and near-record food production in 2008 and 2009, the prices of many staple foods in developing countries remain significantly above their 2007 levels. Furthermore, the failure of world leaders to address the various factors which caused the food price crisis creates justifiable concern of a recurrence.
Foreign Investment
The panic of 2008 saw national interests dominating the response to a crisis which required coordinated global action. Many countries resorted to stockpiling food and blocking exports in order to keep down domestic prices.
As a result, some major food importers, such as the Gulf States and South Korea, have lost confidence in the market and are negotiating the purchase of extensive farmland in developing countries in order to secure food supplies. This disconcerting trend has been condemned as “neo-colonialism”.
Foreign investment in land is not a new phenomenon and can result in much-needed transfers of skills and technology, as well as improved productivity. This potential needs to be balanced with fears that non-transparent deals between big business and government will compromise local land rights and livelihoods, and ultimately national food security. The UN is preparing a non-binding code of conduct which seeks to reconcile the interests of the various parties.
Food Aid
Rising prices create a pincer movement on food aid programmes by increasing the numbers in need whilst reducing the amount of food that can be purchased with fixed budgets. Although food aid alone is not a sustainable solution to hunger, it has a vital humanitarian role to play in the most critical circumstances.
Monitoring the balance of food supply and demand throughout the world is the core mandate of the FAO, delivered by its Global Information and Early Warning System. Based on this information the World Food Programme (WFP) prioritises regions where the depth of hunger is most serious, typically delivering food aid for school children, expectant mothers, work-for-food programmes and refugee camps.
The agency aimed to support 100 million people in over 30 countries in in 2009, requiring a budget of $6.7 billion. About the same number is assisted by international aid agencies, leaving over 750 million beneath the hunger threshold dependent on highly variable or non-existent domestic safety net arrangements.
The US remains the largest food donor but is the only country which insists that aid should be disbursed as surplus grain from its own stocks - and that the chain of delivery must be handled largely by US contractors. Development agencies prefer donors to purchase food direct from surplus areas within the beneficiary country.
Biotechnology and GM Crops
The great advances in crop yields since the 1970s, described as the “green revolution”, have to be weighed against their ecological consequences. The FAO says that 75% of food biodiversity was lost in the 20th century whilst 80% of the world’s dietary energy is now supplied by just 12 industrial crops. The green revolution has also been responsible for significant soil erosion, salinity and depletion of water resources.
Genetically-modified (GM) crops, in which a gene of desired characteristic is transposed from one plant to another, are the most extreme and controversial output of the biotechnology companies. Claiming higher yields, lower chemical inputs and higher nutritional value, GM crops sound like the answer to the challenge of population growth and adaptation to climate change.
However, GM technology is better suited to capital intensive farming and therefore at odds with the values of food sovereignty. In developing countries, there are further reservations over the capacity to establish regulatory frameworks needed to manage inevitable conflicts of interests between the local stakeholders (farmers, consumers, and governments) and global shareholders who control the intellectual property rights. Despite the enthusiasm of Brazil, South Africa, China and India, only three countries in Africa have adopted GM crops - which have so far concentrated on overcoming weeds and pests rather than the impact of climate change.
|
| Girls waiting for food in Burundi © International Committee of the Red Cross |
The first of two benchmarks for measuring progress is the “minimum dietary energy requirement” for each person as stipulated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). This naturally varies by age and sex so that a weighted average is calculated for each country based on its population profile; typically this average is just below 2,000 kilocalories per day.
Despite the political commitment to reduce world hunger, the number of people lacking access to this minimum diet has risen from 824 million in the baseline year 1990 to 1,020 million in 2009. With the less demanding MDG formula, this upward trend in hunger converts in a fall, but only from 20% to 19% of the population of developing countries. Even if the impact of recent high food prices and recession proves to be temporary, few countries are expected to achieve the 2015 MDG target.
These figures are derived from national household surveys conducted in the period 2004-2006, provisionally updated with analysis by the Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture. Retrospective adjustments are possible.
|
| Red Cross volunteer weighs a young girl to check for malnutrition © John Haskew / International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies |
Children are especially sensitive, to the extent that the majority of child mortality is attributed to malnutrition. The second MDG indicator is therefore the proportion of children under five years who are underweight in relation to their age. This figure in developing countries has reduced only from 31% to 26% in the period 1990-2007. Unicef says that 58 countries are unlikely to reach this MDG target by 2015.
The Right to Food
The right to sufficient food is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in subsequent international law. A rights-based approach to food security would impose obligations on national governments to enable their people to feed themselves. However, only 22 countries have embedded the right to food in their constitutions, with undertakings of non-discriminatory and non-political strategies.
|
| ActionAid's HungerFree campaign |
As the food crisis escalated, a series of high level meetings culminated in a World Summit on Food Security in November 2009. Countries were asked to reassert the right to food through a resolution to eradicate hunger by 2025 at a cost of $44 billion per annum. Most world leaders refused to attend and the motion had to be withdrawn.
The Summit did agree to strengthen the terms of reference of the FAO Committee on World Food Security (CFS). The intention is to coordinate national action plans on hunger within a coherent global strategy for food security. If the Committee’s work is adequately funded, a more accountable structure of governance for global food security could emerge.
Causes of Food Insecurity
|
| UNICEF feeding centre, Bakol Region, Somalia © Derk Segaar/IRIN |
There are three negative direct influences on food security which have been allowed to flourish in the absence of firm governance. The first is a long decline in the scale of investment in agriculture in the developing world; the second is the exercise of inappropriate rules for trade and investment between rich and poor countries. The third is our global tolerance of extreme inequality which in this context permits the diversion of valuable food resources for production of biofuels and for feeding animals - which account for over 5% and over 33% of the world’s grain production respectively.
Outside the direct control of governance structures that might be responsible for delivery of the right to food lie factors which further aggravate hunger. These are population growth, climate change and conflict.
The importance of population is often exaggerated. Current global food production is more than sufficient to meet the FAO’s minimum dietary requirement for all – it is the eating habits of the existing population and the resolve to distribute resources fairly that will dictate future food security. The FAO has expressed “cautious optimism”, despite projections that global food production must rise by 70% by 2050 to meet the needs of the projected 40% growth in world population from today’s 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion.
Neglect of Agriculture
|
| The 21st century search for food © ActionAid UK |
Despite a World Bank estimate that growth of rural economies accelerates poverty reduction four times faster than other sectors, the proportion of foreign aid allocated to agriculture has fallen from 18% in 1979 to less than 5% in 2007. African governments have likewise fallen far short of their 2003 Maputo Declaration commitment which called for 10% of national budgets to be dedicated to agriculture by 2008.
The consequence of this prolonged lack of investment is an inadequate infrastructure to support local distribution and marketing. Poor roads, irrigation and storage facilities impede efficiencies. Insecure tenure, and exclusion from affordable credit, limit the aspirations of small farmers. Despite the generally poor soil quality of the continent, only 7% of cultivable land in Africa is supported by irrigation. In such environments, planting for a mix of household subsistence and surplus for market is a model chronically vulnerable to fluctuating prices and unfavourable weather.
Ideological Solutions
|
| grains of hope? © Greenpeace UK |
The neo-liberal model advocates that food should be subject to the same market forces as manufactured goods with minimum state involvement. Small farms should be consolidated and alternative livelihoods found for surplus labour. Larger farms can then raise capital for the expensive products of modern biotechnology and compete in export markets.
The alternative philosophy of “food sovereignty” restores priority for the individual right to food. This model favours local ownership and control of the full chain of resources. It accepts small farms for what they are, encouraging their sustainability through subsidised inputs and credit.
Advocates point to research showing that small farms are capable of gearing up productivity through intense husbandry and family motivation. Supporting them could deliver the added value of reducing the contribution of agriculture to climate change. Low input ecological or organic farming avoids fuel-dependent inputs in favour of soil carbon sequestration and sustainable water management.
The agency ActionAid has published its HungerFREE Scorecard which lists Brazil, China and Ghana as the three countries most successful at reducing hunger. Each has exercised strong state control over policy, land reform and farm subsidies. Leaders have enforced food security as a priority, backed by safety net schemes such as cash transfers, food-for-work and school feeding.
The dogmatic stance adopted by advocates of the opposing models is possibly unhelpful. Optimum solutions for agriculture may involve active engagement of both state and market, adapting to the distinctive challenge in each country.
World Trade Rules
|
| The trade trap © Television Trust for the Environment |
Not surprisingly, the poorer countries of the modern world are keen to copy this approach. Such ambitions remain unfulfilled largely because in 1995 the richer countries were successful in their efforts to include agriculture in the system of open market rules governed by the World Trade Organisation. At the same time, they refused to unravel their own protectionist model.
This hypocrisy remains a fundamental barrier to development and food security. Developing countries find their domestic markets undercut by cheap food imports dumped by rich countries. Exporters encounter trade barriers erected in Europe and US. capable of gearing up productivity through intense husbandry and family motivation. Supporting them could deliver the added value of reducing the contribution of agriculture to climate change. Low input ecological or organic farming avoids fuel-dependent inputs in favour of soil carbon sequestration and sustainable water management.
The agency ActionAid has published its HungerFREE Scorecard which lists Brazil, China and Ghana as the three countries most successful at reducing hunger. Each has exercised strong state control over policy, land reform and farm subsidies. Leaders have enforced food security as a priority, backed by safety net schemes such as cash transfers, food-for-work and school feeding.
Climate Change
Although a warming climate may improve food production in temperate zones, its negative effect will be most severe in tropical regions because of the higher degree of climate sensitivity. Unfortunately these regions have the lowest capacity to adapt due to the concentration of poverty, especially in rural and fishing communities.
|
| Oxfam relief workers distribute food in Ethiopia © Crispin Hughes / Oxfam Great Britain |
Despite this warning, climate negotiators were soon presenting a 2 degree temperature rise as an acceptable threshold, leaving poorer countries to adapt as best they can. National Adaptation Programmes of Actions (NAPAs) prepared by the 50 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) focus on modest community-level initiatives, including the use of alternative seed varieties, improved soil management, maintenance of water management systems and reforestation.
Most estimates place a total cost of around $7 billion per annum for adaptation in agriculture and fisheries. Developing countries are unlikely to agree to a new international climate change treaty unless it contains provision for these costs, amongst many others.
Biofuels
|
| Corn, the raw material used to produce ethanol © Network for New Energy Choices |
Anti-poverty campaigners object to the conversion of land and food for rich motorists at a time of global food insecurity. The net saving in carbon dioxide emissions from maize-based ethanol has been exposed as less than 20%. Experts are researching the potential of “second generation” biofuels. These are produced from plants such as jatropha which can be grown on land unsuitable for food crops.
World Food Prices
|
| 2008 food price riots in Burkina Faso © Brahima Ouedraogo / IRIN News |
Food prices have inherent sensitivity; the amount of food available for export is small in relation to total production and there is no strategy for holding reserves at international level. Prices are also very sensitive to the volatile price of oil, due to the contribution of chemicals, fertiliser and transport to production costs, as well as the competing demand for biofuels. This volatility is exploited by speculative market traders, further exaggerating price movements.
Despite a subsequent global market correction and near-record food production in 2008 and 2009, the prices of many staple foods in developing countries remain significantly above their 2007 levels. Furthermore, the failure of world leaders to address the various factors which caused the food price crisis creates justifiable concern of a recurrence.
Foreign Investment
The panic of 2008 saw national interests dominating the response to a crisis which required coordinated global action. Many countries resorted to stockpiling food and blocking exports in order to keep down domestic prices.
|
| Millet © Piet van der Poel |
Foreign investment in land is not a new phenomenon and can result in much-needed transfers of skills and technology, as well as improved productivity. This potential needs to be balanced with fears that non-transparent deals between big business and government will compromise local land rights and livelihoods, and ultimately national food security. The UN is preparing a non-binding code of conduct which seeks to reconcile the interests of the various parties.
Food Aid
|
| Emergency food in Western Kenya © Peter Armstrong |
Monitoring the balance of food supply and demand throughout the world is the core mandate of the FAO, delivered by its Global Information and Early Warning System. Based on this information the World Food Programme (WFP) prioritises regions where the depth of hunger is most serious, typically delivering food aid for school children, expectant mothers, work-for-food programmes and refugee camps.
The agency aimed to support 100 million people in over 30 countries in in 2009, requiring a budget of $6.7 billion. About the same number is assisted by international aid agencies, leaving over 750 million beneath the hunger threshold dependent on highly variable or non-existent domestic safety net arrangements.
The US remains the largest food donor but is the only country which insists that aid should be disbursed as surplus grain from its own stocks - and that the chain of delivery must be handled largely by US contractors. Development agencies prefer donors to purchase food direct from surplus areas within the beneficiary country.
Biotechnology and GM Crops
|
| Genetically modified soya bean? © Centre for Science and Environment |
Genetically-modified (GM) crops, in which a gene of desired characteristic is transposed from one plant to another, are the most extreme and controversial output of the biotechnology companies. Claiming higher yields, lower chemical inputs and higher nutritional value, GM crops sound like the answer to the challenge of population growth and adaptation to climate change.
However, GM technology is better suited to capital intensive farming and therefore at odds with the values of food sovereignty. In developing countries, there are further reservations over the capacity to establish regulatory frameworks needed to manage inevitable conflicts of interests between the local stakeholders (farmers, consumers, and governments) and global shareholders who control the intellectual property rights. Despite the enthusiasm of Brazil, South Africa, China and India, only three countries in Africa have adopted GM crops - which have so far concentrated on overcoming weeds and pests rather than the impact of climate change.
»
Your right of reply
Does this OneWorld Guide contain any inaccuracies?
Has something important been omitted?
Your views are welcome
»
Please write to the Guides Editor Has something important been omitted?
Your views are welcome
Help us to complete OneWorld Guides
Many important development issues are missing from our range of Guides. OneWorld wants to fill these gaps as part of our efforts to improve understanding of the issues faced by developing countries. We receive no funding for the production of our educational resources. Every small contribution helps!
Many important development issues are missing from our range of Guides. OneWorld wants to fill these gaps as part of our efforts to improve understanding of the issues faced by developing countries. We receive no funding for the production of our educational resources. Every small contribution helps!
|
Printable version
top of the page