Two Decades of Political Pathways: Evolving Priorities and Shifting Focus to End Hunger

Joachim von Braun, Co-Initiator of the Global Hunger Index and Vice Chair of Welthungerhilfe’s Board of Directors, former Director of the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at the University of Bonn, Germany, and Distinguished Professor of Economic and Technological Change as well as President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican and a Member of the Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Process

By the late 1990s, progress in reducing hunger was insufficient. The 1996 World Food Summit in Rome had aimed to spur action, but global responses were limited. We concluded that hunger reduction had to be tackled country by country, engaging all stakeholders—not just governments. We believed that highlighting both success and failure across countries could inspire action.

The idea of the Global Hunger Index (GHI) was born at the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at Bonn University in 1999. It was first released by the ZEF team in April 2000 as the Global Nutrition Index [Wiesmann, von Braun, and Feldbrügge 2000 a,b] and featured in a 2000 publication by Welthungerhilfe (WHH). The index was initially based on three core indicators: (1) percentage of undernourished, (2) prevalence of underweight in children, and (3) underfive mortality. After I became Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in 2002, we transferred the index there, where it was further developed and rebranded as the Global Hunger Index.

A key strength of the GHI lies in its foundation of rigorous research, its clear and multidimensional concept of hunger, its reliance on official data, its global scope, and its ability to be updated annually. Some, however, felt it did not sufficiently capture the complexities of undernutrition and malnutrition. The critics did not consider the tradeoffs between index complexity and strength in policy communication. No other such index in the field of hunger and nutrition achieved the reach of the GHI. The GHI’s most impactful feature remains its country- by-country comparison, which spurs policy responses.

The GHI serves as a diagnostic tool. To understand the drivers and changes in hunger, deeper analysis is needed—especially as those drivers evolve. Increasingly, hunger is influenced by armed conflict, climate change, refugee movements, public health crises, and economic downturns with widening inequality. And nutrition needs more attention. A complementary index focusing on nutritional well-being, including body mass and diet quality, would be a valuable addition moving forward.

Nitya Rao, Professor of Gender and Development at the University of East Anglia, Essayist in the Global Hunger Index 2024 on Gender Justice and Climate Resilience

Looking at trends in the fight against hunger and malnutrition, there has been little improvement since 2016. A range of overlapping challenges—conflict, climate change, market disruptions, economic downturns, and rising income inequality—continue to hinder progress. While we speak of the right to food, particularly the right to healthy and nutritious food, this remains largely unrealized. Still, the Global Hunger Index offers some hope: GHI scores for Cambodia, Cameroon, Nepal, and Togo, among others, moved from alarming to moderate between 2000 and 2024, showing that positive change is indeed possible.

To make sustained progress beyond 2030, we must learn from past efforts while addressing today’s emerging challenges—especially climate change. The 2024 report The Unjust Climate from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations highlights how climate impacts differ across gender and economic lines. In Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, men are increasingly migrating out of agriculture, leaving women to manage farms alone. This has led to growing work burdens and time poverty for women, who must also care for their families. Research shows that time poverty—not just food scarcity—is a major factor behind poor child nutrition outcomes such as stunting and wasting. I’ve seen this in my own research with Indigenous communities in India, where during peak farming seasons, women had little time to cook or feed their children, leading to serious health impacts.

Gender equality and justice are critical to achieving transformative change. Justice has three dimensions. First, recognition—acknowledging that different groups have different needs and that onesize- fits-all solutions do not work. Second: redistribution—as global inequality grows, resources remain unevenly distributed. Women are doing more of the farming but rarely own land. According to FAO data, only 10–15 percent of landowners globally are women. Without land, women struggle to access credit, technology, and information, reinforcing unequal power dynamics and undermining food security. Third: representation—women’s participation in political and decision-making spaces, especially in food systems governance, is essential for lasting progress.

In countries that have made strides in reducing hunger, we often see elements of a justice-based approach. Women may not have land, but they have gained access to training, technology, and knowledge. They have formed collectives to advocate for their needs. Some of these grassroots efforts have catalyzed change at the community and even state level. Yet large-scale transformation remains elusive. This is partly because efforts have focused too narrowly on households and communities, not paying adequate attention to wider systemic change. While addressing social and cultural norms is important— through education, media, and school curricula—we must also focus on reforming national policies and global markets to achieve broad and lasting progress. Data—and tools like the Global Hunger Index— can be powerful drivers of this change.

Macdonald Metzger, Deputy Chief of Staff for the Administration Office of the Vice President, Republic of Liberia

The Government of Liberia has adopted a range of policies to combat food and nutrition insecurity, from homegrown school feeding programs to multisectoral strategies that address both acute and chronic malnutrition. These efforts are aligned with the National Food and Nutrition Security Strategy and reflect our commitment to a comprehensive, inclusive approach. A central priority is building strong partnerships with local governments, traditional authorities, and community structures to ensure that interventions are grounded in local realities and fully embraced by the people they serve.

Public awareness and community engagement lie at the heart of the government’s strategy: we work closely with respected individuals known locally as community mobilizers, town chiefs, and traditional communicators—trusted figures embedded in Liberian communities who act as cultural brokers. These intermediaries play a vital role in translating national policy messages into culturally relevant language, values, and practices. They also serve as bridges between communities and local and national authorities, helping to build trust and ensure programs are context-sensitive and people-centered.

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been instrumental in shaping policy dialogue and catalyzing action to reduce hunger and malnutrition in Liberia. Reliable data are essential—without this, policy decisions become speculative. The GHI fills these critical data gaps, enabling us to allocate resources efficiently, prevent duplication, and maximize impact.

We take care to translate GHI findings into formats that resonate with local audiences: infographics, simplified guides in Liberian languages, songs, and community-based storytelling. By using creative, culturally grounded tools, we make data accessible and actionable for citizens at every level. This inclusive approach reinforces accountability, builds ownership, and deepens the impact of our food and nutrition security efforts across Liberia.

Bimala Rai Paudyal, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Member of Nepal’s National Planning Commission

Nepal has made good progress in reducing hunger over the past decade. But we still have 22 million people suffering from hunger and malnutrition—around 14 percent of our population. So, there is still much to do, and we are actively working on it.

Nepal is one of the very few countries with a dedicated Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act. The Right to Food is also enshrined in our constitution, which means people have legally recognized rights they can claim. This has led to the development of various social protection programs and strategies to combat hunger and malnutrition. However, we have yet to fully implement all the elements of the act.

The progress we’ve made so far can be attributed to several key factors. One is the Safe Motherhood and Child Program, which is integrated into our food and nutrition strategy. Community health workers conduct door-to-door visits to identify pregnant women and lactating mothers. They provide food support and raise awareness about how to prepare nutritious meals using locally available ingredients. This has had a strong impact, even in rural areas.

Another factor is increasing women’s access to income. For many women, their priority is to feed their families and children. Over the last decade, we’ve seen a significant rise in remittances. Men migrate for work—particularly to the Middle East and Gulf countries—and send money home. This has given women more control over household income, which they often spend on food for their families.

A third factor is our multistakeholder nutrition program. Nutrition is a cross-cutting issue, and we’ve built strong cooperation across ministries—education, health, agriculture, and technology—all working together to improve food and nutrition security.

However, one concern is that our focus has been primarily on remote areas. We’ve made good progress by empowering women and integrating nutrition and food security into programs. But we also need to focus on urban areas, where poverty is a growing challenge.

The urban poor are struggling with rising food prices and increasing income insecurity, compounded by a lack of employment opportunities. While our earlier efforts targeted mostly rural areas, large segments of the urban population have been left behind. This gap urgently needs to be addressed.

Another challenge is the shift in food habits, particularly among young people, who increasingly choose packaged, low-nutrition foods over homemade, nutritious meals. We need to acknowledge that food and nutrition issues are no longer linked solely to poverty. That is why our strategy to reduce food and nutrition insecurity must also include targeted interventions in schools and community awareness campaigns to address food behavior. Access to adequate and safe food must be understood as a collective effort that affects everyone.

Sisay Sinamo Boltena, Senior Programme Manager, Seqota Declaration, and SUN Focal Person at Ethiopia's Ministry of Health

One of Ethiopia’s most successful initiatives in the fight against malnutrition is the Seqota Declaration—a high-level commitment by the government of Ethiopia to ending stunting among children under two years old by 2030. The Declaration follows a learning-by-doing approach, and we have seen significant progress since its launch in 2015.

The Seqota Declaration is divided into three phases: the Innovation Phase (2016–2020), the Expansion Phase (2021–2025), and the Scale-up Phase (2026–2030). It prioritizes high-impact, low-cost nutrition interventions that are implemented through the health, agriculture, water, education, women, and social protection sectors and supported by high-level governance and financial investment.

Here is what we have learned so far about the key factors behind its success: First, the government developed a clear 15-year roadmap, guided by a strong and coherent vision of Ethiopian children free from malnutrition. Second, the multistakeholder initiative is led and owned at the highest level of government. At the federal level it is chaired by His Excellency the Deputy Prime Minister, Ato Temesgen Tiruneh, and at the regional level by Excellencies, the Regional Presidents and City Mayors. Third, the government has allocated domestic resources from its treasury, and regional governments match this funding. Technical assistance and investment to operationalize the innovations have been mobilized from development partners. This is crucial. A strong plan alone, without investment, is not enough—and it will not succeed. Fourth, we established a robust accountability framework to track progress and measure results. We use performance scorecards to monitor the work of different sectors and regions. These scorecards are regularly reviewed at multiple levels and help us make timely course corrections.

Our impact study shows that our investment has prevented about 110,000 children from being stunted, with an annual average rate of stunting reduction of around 3 percent.

We have also learned that programming must prioritize community engagement, community ownership, and women’s empowerment. The Community Lab and the First 1,000 Days Plus Public Movement innovations are the main tools we use to mobilize the stakeholders at all levels. Gender mainstreaming was one of the success factors for the Seqota Declaration Innovation Phase. Without addressing gender inequality, lasting improvements in food and nutrition security are not possible.

We are sharing these insights with other countries interested in replicating the Seqota Declaration. Our core message is this: A country must have a clear vision and multiyear roadmap for ending stunting. The initiative must be owned by the highest level of political leadership. Domestic investment is essential. And every program must be adapted to the specific national context.

Klaus von Grebmer, Economist and Co-Initiator of the Global Hunger Index, Research Fellow Emeritus and Strategic Adviser at the International Food Policy Research Institute

At the first World Food Conference in 1974, then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared that no child would go to bed hungry within 10 years. That didn’t happen. Today—50 years after that statement—millions of children still go to bed hungry every night.

I used to work in the private sector, where a well-known management guru once postulated the guiding principle: ”What is not being measured is not being done.” When I later joined the International Food Policy Research Institute and we were organizing a conference in 2001 on how to achieve sustainable food for all by 2020, that phrase came back to me. I began to ask: How can we measure hunger and determine on an empirical basis whether progress is being made? This is when we further developed and published the Global Hunger Index.

We know that authority, accountability, and responsibility are key elements of effective management. The same principles apply in the fight against hunger. Significant progress has been made where hunger eradication was treated as a top national priority and when the Prime Minister or President took a personal interest in the issue. When the highest leader regularly asks for progress reports, there is a clear obligation to deliver results. We've seen this in countries like Bangladesh, Ghana, and Thailand. In contrast, when the responsibility for fighting hunger is left solely to the agriculture or health ministry, outcomes are often very different. Agriculture and health are often the lowest-ranking ministries in the cabinet. If no one asks about progress and no one is held accountable, then there is no pressure to act—and no one answers in the event of failure.

The Global Hunger Index is a valuable tool for effective management. It raises awareness of regional and national disparities in hunger and identifies both successes and setbacks in reducing it. By tracking progress over time, it also serves as a motivator—encouraging countries to take action and improve their international standing.

Lest we not forget: the hunger of one is the shame of all.

Carolina Trivelli, Independent Expert on Food Security and former Minister of Development and Social Inclusion of Peru

Effectively combating hunger requires several key elements to come together. First, a coordinated strategy with strong governance is essential. This means that institutions across the public and private sectors, as well as civil society, must work in partnership. Second, reliable and timely data are crucial to be able to set priorities, monitor progress, and accurately design the necessary interventions. Third, there must be clear accountability. An institution, a person, or a committee must be tasked with addressing the issue of hunger. Someone needs to be responsible for both the current situation and the actions taken in response.

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has played a significant role in shaping policy discussions through two main channels. First, it provides recent data that help stakeholders revisit their agendas and commitments. Second, it serves as a powerful alarm bell, garnering attention from external actors such as the media and the academic community.

The GHI becomes especially impactful when viewed over time. While a single year’s index offers a snapshot of the current situation, a multiyear perspective allows us to trace the origins of today’s outcomes and place them within a broader context. In this way, the GHI transforms from a picture into a movie—showing not just where we are, but where we came from.

Wendy Geza, Food Systems and Policy Researcher at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, Essayist in the Global Hunger Index 2023 on Youth-led Transformation of Food Systems

Across many countries, we already have strong policies in place to fight hunger— but the biggest challenge lies in implementation. I’m currently researching food environment policies in the Global South, using South Africa, Malaysia, Tanzania, and Ghana as case studies. I examine policy interventions aimed at improving food accessibility and affordability, particularly in urban marginalized populations. In each case, I find that while the policies are well crafted and regularly updated, they are not being properly implemented. And where implementation does occur, the main issue then becomes monitoring and accountability. Rarely is there a process to ensure that what's written is actually carried out, evaluated, and—if it didn’t work—reflected upon to draw meaningful lessons.

For me, the key success factor in fighting hunger isn’t necessarily developing new policies but ensuring that existing ones are translated into measurable actions—actions that can be monitored, evaluated, and, in successful cases, scaled up.

We need to break down global action plans into local strategies and build partnerships that enable mutual accountability. Often, we move from broad global or international frameworks to regional policies that are slightly more specific, followed by national policies and strategies that go further. But by the time policies reach the local level, they are still too vague—lacking clear direction for on-the-ground implementation. Many local government officials don’t fully understand what is expected of them or how to carry them out because the guidance is too abstract.

What’s also essential are platforms that foster partnerships and collaboration. We need spaces where stakeholders can clearly communicate roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms—where we can track changes, evaluate progress, and address gaps. When a diverse group of actors works together, it creates opportunities to hold each other accountable when actions don’t align with original intentions.

Tom Arnold, Agricultural Economist and Public Policy Advisor, former CEO of Concern Worldwide

After significant progress in reducing hunger since the 1950s, the situation has worsened over the past decade. We must acknowledge this reality and address its root causes: conflict, the COVID-19 pandemic, and, increasingly, climate change.

At the same time, two important developments have shaped the global response: the growing recognition of nutrition and the emergence of food systems as a central concept. Over the past 20 years, greater attention to nutrition has played a key role in the fight against hunger. A major turning point was the 2006 World Bank report Repositioning Nutrition As Central to Development, which highlighted the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child’s life and backed it with strong scientific evidence. When the global food crisis struck in 2007–2008, food and nutrition security were discussed at the Group of Eight for the first time, leading to increased funding. Two years later, the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement was launched. Today, 66 countries and four Indian states are part of the movement, and nutrition is firmly on the political agenda.

Since the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the conversation has evolved. People now understand that addressing hunger and undernutrition alone is not enough. We must consider malnutrition in all its forms—undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, overweight, and obesity— through an integrated lens. This requires a food systems approach. Food systems include all the elements and activities involved in the production, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal of food, as well as the social, economic, and environmental outcomes they generate. Only by looking at these interdependencies can we effectively improve food and nutrition security for all.

Dan Smith, Director of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Essayist in the Global Hunger Index 2021 on Food Systems in Conflict Settings

The relationship between violent conflict and food insecurity is a two-way road. The more obvious link is how conflict worsens food insecurity and increases hunger. Violent conflict remains the primary driver of global hunger. Rural areas often become battlegrounds, leading to widespread destruction— sometimes incidental, sometimes deliberate—of farmland, production facilities, storage sites, and transport infrastructure. War injures, kills, and displaces farmworkers like everyone else. It contaminates soil and water. As seen in many conflicts, most recently in Gaza, starvation can be weaponized, even though this violates international law.

Food insecurity can also contribute to the outbreak of violent conflict. While politics—especially the motives and opportunities of key political actors—should be at the forefront of any conflict analysis, deeper structural issues often create fertile ground for violence. These include shortages caused by climate change and other environmental stresses, compounded by deep social inequalities. If governments are unable to address or manage resulting grievances, tensions can escalate into violence. Rising food prices, particularly for staples like wheat, are strongly linked to political unrest. Because food systems are global, climate shocks in one region can trigger price spikes and unrest in another, as occurred during the onset of the Arab Spring in 2010–2011.

The good news is that it is possible to begin breaking the vicious cycle between conflict and hunger, even in the midst of ongoing violence. There are numerous local examples where this has worked. Research by SIPRI’s Food, Peace and Security Programme has identified cases in Colombia, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, and South Sudan. These involve externally funded projects supporting food production and local businesses, with strong community engagement. In some cases, international funders had explicit peacebuilding goals; in others, they did not. All suggest the value of applying a peace/conflict lens to food systems interventions—and the need to scale them up.

There are also national initiatives following the same logic. In response to the 2007–2008 global food crisis, Egypt and Morocco launched strategies to boost food security through agricultural development. Egypt’s “Strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Development to 2030” and Morocco’s “Green Morocco Plan” aimed to modernize production and introduce climate-resilient wheat varieties. By 2021 Morocco was producing three times more wheat than during the drought-stricken year of 2020, with yields 58 percent above the 2016–2020 average. Such initiatives remain promising pathways toward long-term, sustainable food security.

The limitation of all such efforts—local or national—is that they cannot override politics. Even the most effective, peace-oriented food systems development can be derailed by irresponsible or cynical political leadership. Yet such initiatives may help to reduce the likelihood that such leaders gain or maintain power.

Kaosar Afsana, Professor at the BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, Member of Welthungerhilfe’s Board of Directors

Fighting hunger requires a systems approach that goes beyond the food system alone. Fair wages, affordable health care, quality education, and strong social protection in addition to the enforcement of existing nutrition-sensitive policies are all essential to ensure that people can access safe, nutritious, and affordable food and build resilience.

Let me give two examples: the ready-made garments industry and child marriage. In my home country, Bangladesh, the ready-made garments sector plays a major economic role—we export garments to Europe, the United States, and other regions and countries. Yet the returns do not reflect the true cost of production, and workers’ wages remain far too low. As a result, many workers, especially females, cannot afford healthy diets. This highlights the urgent need to reform our economic and trade systems to make them more just and sustainable.

Early marriage is another deeply rooted issue. Although child marriage below the age of 18 years is illegal in Bangladesh, far too many girls are still married off before reaching adulthood and thus are often forced to leave school early. While the government ensures free secondary education for girls, social and cultural barriers—such as early marriage—prevent many girls from completing it. Early marriage leads to adolescent pregnancy, worsening undernutrition and contributing to subsequent morbidities and the mortality of mothers and children. Education is thus a key factor in breaking the cycle of hunger and poverty.

True systems thinking must tackle these structural barriers and many others. Only then can we make meaningful progress in the fight against hunger.

Mendy Ndlovu, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, Essayist in the Global Hunger Index 2023 on Youth-led Transformation of Food Systems

By the late 1990s, progress in reducing hunger was insufficient. The 1996 World Food Summit in Rome had aimed to spur action, but global responses were limited. We concluded that hunger reduction had to be tackled country by country, engaging all stakeholders—not just governments. We believed that highlighting both success and failure across countries could inspire action.

The idea of the Global Hunger Index (GHI) was born at the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at Bonn University in 1999. It was first released by the ZEF team in April 2000 as the Global Nutrition Index [Wiesmann, von Braun, and Feldbrügge 2000 a,b] and featured in a 2000 publication by Welthungerhilfe (WHH). The index was initially based on three core indicators: (1) percentage of undernourished, (2) prevalence of underweight in children, and (3) underfive mortality. After I became Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in 2002, we transferred the index there, where it was further developed and rebranded as the Global Hunger Index.

A key strength of the GHI lies in its foundation of rigorous research, its clear and multidimensional concept of hunger, its reliance on official data, its global scope, and its ability to be updated annually. Some, however, felt it did not sufficiently capture the complexities of undernutrition and malnutrition. The critics did not consider the tradeoffs between index complexity and strength in policy communication. No other such index in the field of hunger and nutrition achieved the reach of the GHI. The GHI’s most impactful feature remains its country- by-country comparison, which spurs policy responses.

The GHI serves as a diagnostic tool. To understand the drivers and changes in hunger, deeper analysis is needed—especially as those drivers evolve. Increasingly, hunger is influenced by armed conflict, climate change, refugee movements, public health crises, and economic downturns with widening inequality. And nutrition needs more attention. A complementary index focusing on nutritional well-being, including body mass and diet quality, would be a valuable addition moving forward.