This is what happens when you starve. With no food, the body’s metabolism slows down to preserve energy for vital organs. Hungry and weak, people often become fatigued, irritable and confused.

The immune system loses strength. As they starve, people—especially children—are likelier to fall sick or die from diseases they may have otherwise resisted. Cholera, respiratory infections, malaria, dengue, and diphtheria kill more people in famines than starvation itself.

For the lucky (or unlucky?) ones who escape disease but still have nothing to eat, their organs will begin to wither and then fail. Eventually, the body starts to devour its own muscles, including the heart.

Many will experience hallucinations and convulsions before, finally, the heart stops. It is a terrible, agonizing, and humiliating death. It is nearly as terrible to watch – as I know from my own experience over nearly 40 years in Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere.

When I was young, many people—including researchers and scientists—thought famine was a permanent feature of the human experience. Famines are shocking, scarring events, the most extreme form of humanitarian disaster. They involve large-scale loss of life with a slow but visible prelude, a tipping point beyond which prevention is no longer possible, and then an explosion.

As an undergraduate, I went to Nobel-prize-winner Amartya Sen’s lectures on poverty and famine, and I wrote a masters’ dissertation on the use of food grain prices as an early warning of food crises.

For many of my friends and me, the Ethiopia famine of 1984 was a lightbulb moment. In previous eras, famine was a feature of the fragility of agriculture against the ever-increasing pressure of higher populations.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, in which he predicted that by the 1980s, four billion people would have been killed by famines. His opening sentences set the scene: “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines in which hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”

Ehrlich predicted that England would cease to exist by 2000 because the country would be consumed by hunger. Historical experience gave these dark warnings a degree of credence. Researchers think that famines may have taken more lives than war over the course of human history.

More than 120 million people are believed to have died in famines in the hundred years after 1870, a larger number even than those killed in that period’s uniquely bloody wars.

The doom mongers, though, were wrong. In fact, in the past 50 years, famine has become much rarer and much less lethal. So far this century, there has just been one real famine. That was in Somalia in 2011, when a quarter of a million people died.

Ehrlich and his ilk were wrong because they failed to see how the world was changing. Three main factors have combined to produce unprecedented advances in reducing large-scale loss of life through starvation over the last 50 years.

First was an exponential increase in agricultural output and productivity. Improvements in plant breeding, protection, storage, irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and marketing have contributed to a 300 percent increase in food grain production, using only 12 percent more agricultural land around the world.

The global spread in the use of nitrogen-based artificial fertiliser and the development through the Green Revolution of improved seed varieties for major crops explain most of the improvements.

Second, a spectacular reduction in global poverty has increased people’s ability to afford food. In the 60 years after 1960, the extreme poverty rate globally dropped from more than 50 percent of the total human population to less than 10 percent. In particular, the 25 years from 1990 to 2015 saw a reduction from 35 percent to less than 10 percent, even while the global population continued to grow dramatically.

So not only was there a lot more food available, but most people now had enough income to be able to buy it. Food security has been enhanced by the entitlements created by social safety net schemes established in dozens of the poorest countries over the past 20 years, including ones I have seen myself in countries including Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malawi, Pakistan, Uganda, Yemen, and Zambia.

Third, when famine does threaten, the response is now much more effective than it was 30 years ago. My first job was on the famine in Ethiopia in the mid-1980s. Then, the overwhelming focus of the relief effort was on food, water, and shelter. Now we understand that in a famine, starvation is not the main cause of death.

The real killers are those diseases that a healthy person can generally fight off but a starving one cannot. As a result, today’s famine responses include comprehensive immunisation programmes, primary healthcare, and nutrition interventions as well as food and clean water.

The result of all this scientific, technological, and economic progress is that modern-day famines are manmade – the result either of deliberate attempts to stave a population, or of wilful negligence.

That was true to a degree in the past: Mao Zedong’s Great Famine in China in the 1960s, generally believed to be the worst famine in history in terms of the total number of lives lost, arose largely from the authorities’ policy choices.

And the famine that some people claim took three million lives in North Korea in the mid-1990s—a repetition of which remains a risk, as I saw during a visit to Pyongyang and the south of the country in 2018—could have been forestalled had the regime been willing to accept the international help on offer.

Despite all the progress famine is now back. But so far in the 21st century, ignorant policy choices have not been what generated famine threats. Deliberate, concerted attempts to prevent aid reaching the starving, as part of the military or political strategy of states or armed groups, are now the only explanation for the failure to have eradicated famine from the human experience. In every single case of famine or near famine in the last ten years – including those I dealt with at the UN from 2017-21 – the fine line between, on the one hand, acute suffering and chronic hunger and, on the other, mass death through starvation and related causes, was policed by the men with guns and bombs. Pressure on them has meant the worst has been avoided.

The world now faces its most serious food crisis for many decades. It arises from the cumulative effects of a decade of spreading conflict, the repeated undermining by climate change of livelihoods based on increasingly volatile rainfall, and the economic crunch on the most vulnerable countries from the COVID pandemic.

And then on top of all that has come Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, disrupting global grain markets and taking the food exports of Russia and Ukraine – enough food for 400 million people – largely off the table this year.

The new global food crisis affects us all. Everyone going to a supermarket for weekly shopping is aware of prices rising. For most of us, the impact is manageable. Buying food is not the biggest call on our incomes. We can tighten our belts and adjust.

But for about 10% of the world’s population, mostly in the poorer countries of the Middle East (like Syria and Yemen) and sub-Saharan Africa, it’s different. Tens of millions of them are falling back into extreme poverty, where they barely have enough calories and nutrients to nourish their bodies properly and their children suffer stunting and life-long cognitive impairments.

However, it is the roughly 1% of the world’s population who faced acute hunger even before the Ukraine crisis, those who cannot survive at all without help from aid agencies, who will be the victims if today’s food crisis is allowed to deteriorate into multiple simultaneous famines.

They are mostly concentrated in relatively few countries, including in particular Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen and parts of the Sahel. Millions may starve to death. That is what policy makers should be really focused on.

So, what can be done? Simultaneous actions are needed in four areas.

First, a real effort needs to be made to get more grain onto the market in the very short term. There is plenty of food to feed everyone this year. Diplomatic efforts, which have become increasingly visible over the last month, to find a way to access the grain silos in the Black Sea ports and export the 20 million tonnes of wheat they contain should be intensified.

They may not work; if they don’t, those holding large stocks of grain for strategic reserves should be prevailed upon to release a modest proportion of them. That would ease the market and take the edge off price increases.

Second, because it seems unlikely that the underlying causes of this year’s crisis will be solved quickly, reducing medium term reliance on Russia and Ukraine is now a practical necessity.

Farmers around the world need greater help and encouragement to plant more wheat, maize, sunflower and other food crops, as well as better access to inputs, above all seeds and fertiliser. Diversification in the fertiliser market, in which Russia and its allies are dominant, is a particular priority.

Third, many low-income countries which do not produce enough food for their populations but do have the administrative capacity and institutions to run effective safety net programmes are constrained from importing food by fiscal problems and indebtedness.

Macroeconomic management matters, but some accommodation from the shareholders of international financial institutions led by the World Bank and IMF is necessary in the current circumstances.

And fourth, and most important of all in the next weeks and months, a substantial increase in emergency humanitarian aid to populations in clear and present danger of mass starvation is essential.

The Biden administration and US Congress package agreed a package of $5 billion for this in May. That shows the way. Others, especially the UK and the EU, should follow suit. The G7 summit in Bavaria this month would be a good time to do that.

Footnote: This article is adapted in part from Relief Chief: A Manifesto for Saving Lives in Dire Times, out now from the Center for Global Development.(CGD).

Mark Lowcock was appointed UN Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator in May 2017 and served in that role until June 2021. He was previously Permanent Secretary of the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development. As one of the most distinguished international public servants, Lowcock has spent more than 35 years leading and managing responses to humanitarian crises across the globe.

He has authored opinion articles for The Washington Post, Financial Times, The Guardian, The Times, Le Monde, CNN, and others. He was twice awarded medals by Queen Elizabeth II for services to international development and public service, including Knighthood in 2017. He is a Visiting Professor of Practice in the Department of International Development at the London School of Economics, and a Distinguished Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Global Development.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A mother caresses the head of her sleeping malnourished baby, at the mother and child centre in the town of Diffa, Niger. Credit: UNICEF/Tremeau

By Mark Lowcock
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 13 2018 (IPS)

I am increasingly concerned by the situation in the Sahel. In Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal, nearly 6 million people are struggling to meet their daily food needs. Severe malnutrition threatens the lives of 1.6 million children. These are levels unseen since the crisis of 2012, and the most critical months are still ahead.

Governments in the region were successful in beating back the crisis six years ago. I am encouraged by the efforts of regional partners to scale up their operations following early warning signs. But the rapid deterioration over recent months reveals an urgent need for more donor support.

The crisis was triggered by scarce and erratic rainfall in 2017, resulting in water, crop and pasture shortages and livestock losses. Pastoralists had to undertake the earliest seasonal movement of livestock in 30 years – four months earlier and much further than usual. This has also increased the likelihood of conflict with farmer communities over scarce resources, water and land.

Food security across the region has deteriorated. Food stocks have already run out for millions of people. Families are cutting down on meals, withdrawing children from school and going without essential health treatment to save money for food.

Severe acute malnutrition rates in the six countries have increased by 50 per cent since last year. One child in six under the age of five now needs urgent life-saving treatment to survive.

In a severe lean season, anticipated to last until September, the number of people who need food and livelihood support may increase to 6.5 million.

I am most concerned about Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Mauritania. In Burkina Faso, for example, the number of people facing food insecurity has already jumped nearly threefold since last year. In Mali, the number of people in ‘emergency’ conditions have increased by 120 per cent. In Mauritania, severe acute malnutrition rates are at their highest since 2008.

With support from the United Nations and partners, national authorities have developed prioritized response plans that focus on pastoral and food security needs. A scale-up in operations to reach 3.6 million people with food security interventions is already underway.

Critical nutrition interventions are being scaled up in areas where emergency thresholds have been surpassed. Ongoing technical support to governments and regional organisations is helping mitigate conflict between farmers and herders.

While increased insecurity has complicated aid delivery in parts of the region, the humanitarian presence in the Sahel and capacity to deliver services are stronger than ever before. Regional, national and local organisations stand ready to step up assistance and help meet exceptional needs.

But UN response plans across the six affected countries are only 26 per cent funded. Last week, I released US$30 million from the Central Emergency Response Fund to help scale up relief efforts in the region. I call on donors urgently to provide further funding. We can still avert the worst.

Excerpt:

'We are firmly committed to the global fight to eliminate sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment in the humanitarian sector'. Image: REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

By William Lacy Swing and Mark Lowcock
Jan 16 2018 (IOM)

Around the world, brave women have broken their silence on the sexual harassment and abuse suffered at the hands of those with power. Their courage is paving the way for others to speak out about their own experiences.

This is the case when a survivor of sexual exploitation comes forward to make a claim against a UN staff member, who was meant to be helping them or was even their fellow colleague. But it is not the survivors’ responsibility to stop harm from being carried out. It is up to all UN staff members and leaders to eradicate the sense of impunity that has existed in the international community for far too long.

We need to ensure that survivors receive the support and justice to which they are entitled.

As members of the UN system, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) have a zero-tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse by our personnel of those we are assisting; and on sexual harassment and abuse of colleagues. Although very much linked, these are distinct issues.

We are firmly committed to the global fight to eliminate sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment in the humanitarian sector by taking decisive action in our policy-making, advocacy and operations.

The relationship between our field staff and the vulnerable people they assist is built on trust. Sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian and development workers against the very people they are meant to be helping is the gravest violation of this trust. It completely contradicts our organizations’ core principles and responsibilities.

To protect those we assist from sexual exploitation and abuse, we have each established standard operating procedures for submitting and receiving complaints; reporting, investigation and disciplinary proceedings; and victim assistance programmes. We have also committed to regular mandatory training and making information available to all staff members on the prevention response to exploitation and abuse.

At OCHA and IOM, we have also reformed our human resources structures to ensure that aid beneficiaries are better protected. Focal points for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) have been established at headquarter, regional and country levels of UN offices. In field programmes, humanitarian coordinators are charged with ensuring that effective prevention and response systems are in place and that progress reports are made annually to the Emergency Relief Coordinator. Heads of UN agencies and major NGOs must propel this progress as per an agreement made through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), a key humanitarian coordination platform, chaired by OCHA. The Director-General of the IOM propels progress across the IASC, as its champion on this issue.

We still have a long way to go before we can say that sexual exploitation and abuse, and the lack of accountability that surrounds it, is a thing of the past. Progress is slowed because incidents often go unreported or under-reported. We are working hard to ensure that survivors know how to report and will benefit from justice once they do. This is a fundamental step if we are to make a real difference.

Have you read?
• How sexual harassment in Hollywood sparked a workplace revolution
• #MeToo won’t end sexual harassment – but here’s what will, experts say
• 52% of British women have been sexually harassed at work – and most of it goes unreported

But the UN’s zero tolerance policy cannot stop there. We must also protect our own staff from harm.

Sexual harassment violates a person’s rights and breaches the principles of the UN Charter. For female and LGBTQI colleagues, sexual exploitation causes emotional and physical harm and challenges their inclusion and participation at every level. To protect staff from sexual harassment, greater diversity is paramount. Having more women in all areas of work and at all levels would clearly help put an end to this harm and this is something we are working on. But this is not to say that men are not also victims of sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace.

In line with the Secretary-General’s UN-wide policy on sexual harassment in the workplace, we impose zero tolerance on sexual harassment in each of our organizations. Complaints mechanisms have been established with follow-up procedures through the head of the organization. We have made headway, but our efforts must now be matched with proactive policies to protect personnel and empower survivors.

Sexual exploitation and abuse of people in need, as well as sexual harassment and abuse in the office, have no place in the UN or anywhere else. As international leaders, we will continue to work every day to eliminate it for good.

Written by
William Lacy Swing, Director-General, International Organization for Migration (IOM)

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Excerpt: