1,721,434 research outputs found
2022 Global food report on food crises: Joint analysis for better decisions: Mid-year update
No full textAccording to the GRFC 2022 Mid-Year Update, the number of people in Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) or equivalent – that is the number of people requiring urgent humanitarian assistance – is forecast to reach up to 205.1 million in 45 of the 53 countries/territories included in the GRFC 2022, published in May 2022. This number includes 14 new or updated 2022 peak estimates that were released since the publication of the annual report. For the majority of these estimates, the number of people facing Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) or equivalent has been revised upwards since 2021. For these 45 countries/territories, the data included in this GRFC 2022 Mid-Year Update represents an increase of up to 29.5 million people between 2021 and 2022 despite many populations in food crisis receiving humanitarian and development assistance, suggesting that needs continue to surpass current support and capacities. This increase must be interpreted with care, given that it can be attributed to both a worsening acute food insecurity situation and an expansion in the population analysed (12 percent) between 2021 and 2022. However, even when considering the share of the analysed population in Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) or equivalent, the proportion of the population in these phases has increased in 2022 compared to 2021. In order to capture the total number of people facing acute food insecurity globally, this Mid-Year Update emphasises the need to continue expanding reliable analyses in a broader set of countries. Of the 53 GRFC 2022 countries/territories with comparable and consensual estimates for 2021, this report provides estimates for 45. This is due to lack of data availability for 2022. Estimates for 2022 were not available for eight countries/territories, including the Syrian Arab Republic, Bangladesh (Cox’s Bazar) and Palestine. If the 2021 figures for these eight were added to the 2022 aggregate estimate, an additional 17.3 million people would be in Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) or equivalent in 2022. Additionally, due to the timing of some 2022 analyses, many peak estimates do not capture the compounding impacts of the war in Ukraine. Of the 77 countries/territories identified for inclusion in the GRFC 2022 as potential food crises, 24 were not covered due to lack of consensual and comparable data. For example, acute food insecurity estimates covering countries of concern previously identified in the GRFC 2022, including the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, are not included in the aggregate figure of 205.1 million for 2022. This underscores both the need to improve data collection and build consensus on existing analyses so as to build a truly global picture of acute food insecurity. The figures do suggest that the drivers of food crises severely affect food systems at global, regional, national and household levels, leading to increasing numbers of people facing acute food insecurity, particularly poor and vulnerable people. The main drivers of food crises – conflict and insecurity, global and national economic shocks and weather extremes – are continuous and relentless, and compounded by long-term pressures on food systems. The rapid-fire succession of shocks aggravates the severity and magnitude of acute food insecurity. Households in food-crisis contexts cannot recover from one episode before another strikes. Our spotlight on global and domestic food prices (see page 14) shows how the cost of food has been rising steadily since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. International food commodity prices were at a ten-year high before the economic shocks of the war in Ukraine. Although prices in international markets for staple foods, such as wheat, maize and vegetable oils have returned to preinvasion levels, consumer food prices remain high and therefore purchasing power is not expected to improve significantly. While many of the analyses on which this Mid-Year Update is based were carried out too early to capture the ripple effects of the war in Ukraine on the global economy, all GRFC partners flagged that the rising costs of energy, inputs, production and trade are likely to have a major impact on coming agricultural seasons: farmers may plant less, produce less, export less and earn less. Risks of civil unrest due to high food prices combined with macroeconomic challenges, such as high unemployment rates, and the rising cost of living have also increased (UN, June 2022). Our spotlight on drought in the Horn of Africa draws attention to at least 18.8 million people in Crisis or worse (IPC Phase 3 or above) or equivalent in drought-affected areas of Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia in mid-2022, a result of successive poor rainy seasons affecting pastoral and agricultural livelihoods. An estimated 6.1 million children under 5 years are projected to suffer from wasting at some point during the course of 2022 in these three countries, including 1.8 million with severe wasting (FSNWG, July 2022). In mid-2022, the magnitude and severity of acute food insecurity in countries with available data is truly alarming. The countries included in this GRFC 2022 Mid-Year Update require greater humanitarian assistance in 2022 than 2021, as well as medium and long-term resilience building, livelihood protection and disaster risk reduction support. Never has there been a greater need to act together to tackle the root global causes of food crises. The majority of the acute food insecurity estimates included in the GRFC 2022 Mid-Year Update are current analyses or projections from IPC/CH, which identify the highest number of people in Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) or equivalent based on available data and the most likely scenarios during a projected period. In countries where an IPC/CH estimate is unavailable, an IPC-compatible estimated range of the number of people in Crisis or worse (IPC Phase 3 or above) is provided by FEWS NET, based on a most-likely scenario in the absence of humanitarian food assistance. Other acute food insecurity data sources employed in this report include WFP estimates, based on the CARI methodology, as well as Humanitarian Need Overviews (HNOs) and Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs). The report prioritizes the use of IPC and CH as data sources for Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) levels of acute food insecurity. When recent IPC/CH data are not available, alternative sources are considered such as FEWS NET or the WFP CARI scale. FEWS NET and IPC use the same scale although FEWS NET figures may differ as it uses a different approach. CARI is an approximation of IPC/CH Phase 3 or above. As a general rule, based on consensus between partners in the framework of the GRFC, populations that are classified as ‘moderately food insecure’ and ‘severely food insecure’ as per WFP CARI methodology are reported as broadly equivalent to populations facing IPC/CH Phase 3 or above. The objective of this report is to update GRFC 2022 acute food insecurity figures. The number and analyses generated for 2022 are based on: • Available 2022 peak estimates that were reported in the GRFC 2022, as well as 14 new or revised peak estimates released between April and August 2022. Between these two sources, 2022 data are available for 45 of the 53 GRFC 2022 food-crisis countries/territories; • Estimates of acute food insecurity within populations and geographical areas covered by IPC/CH, FEWS NET, WFP CARI, HNOs/HRPs, which do not necessarily provide 100 percent population and geographical coverage (see Annex 1); • Population in IPC/CH Phase 3 or above or equivalent – i.e. those in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. All partners agree on the severity and magnitude of acute food insecurity for the countries/territories included in this GRFC 2022 Mid-Year Update. However, for 2022 estimates covering Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Haiti, Nigeria, the Niger, the Sudan and Yemen, FEWS NET produced estimates that were lower than those provided by the IPC Technical Working Groups, the CH and the 2022 Ethiopia Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) (see Technical Notes). FEWS NET also provided disclaimers for additional countries with 2021 data included in the GRFC 2022 (see Technical Notes). These differences contribute to FEWS NET obtaining a different trend in estimating global needs between 2021 and 2022.PRIFPRI2; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; Food Security PortalMTI
2021 global report on food crises: September 2021 update
No full textFounded by the European Union, FAO and WFP at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, the Global Network Against Food Crises is an alliance of humanitarian and development actors working together to prevent, prepare for, and respond to food crises and support the Sustainable Development Goal to End Hunger (SDG 2). It seeks to reduce vulnerabilities associated with acute hunger; achieve food security and improved nutrition; and promote sustainable agriculture and food systems, using a ‘3x3 approach.’ This involves working at the global, regional and national levels to support partnerships within existing structures and to improve advocacy, decision-making, policy and programming along the following three dimensions: Dimension 1 | Understanding food crises The work within this dimension aims to build greater consensus and promote evidencebased food security and nutrition analyses and reporting in order to strengthen the collection, quality and coverage of the food security and nutrition data and analysis, and inform decision-making and action. This will be achieved through the contribution to the Global Report on Food Crises, a unique ‘global public good’ under the coordination and leadership of the Food Security Information Network (FSIN), as well as the coordination, synthesis, and publication of technical analyses, including forward-looking analyses of food crises. Dimension 2 | Leveraging strategic investments in food security, nutrition and agriculture The work within this dimension aims to advocate for ‘fit for purpose’ financing that draws on the full range of resource flows (public and private, international and domestic) to better prepare for, prevent and respond to food crises. It seeks to improve coherence between humanitarian, development and peace actions (the HDP ‘nexus’) to build resilience to shocks and promote longer-term self-reliance. Activities include a strong focus on supporting capacity strengthening of country-level actors and institutions, as well as strengthening coordination at the regional level to ensure that investments are focused on the right place, at the right time. Dimension 3 | Going beyond food The work within this dimension aims to foster political uptake and coordination across clusters/sectors to address the underlying multi-dimensional drivers of food crises including environmental, political, economic, societal and security risk factors. It seeks to improve understanding and promote linkages between the different dimensions of fragility through knowledge sharing, advocacy and integrated policy responses.PRIFPRI2; DCA; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; Food Security PortalMTI
2021 Global report on food crises: Joint analysis for better decisions
No full textFounded by the European Union, FAO and WFP at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, the Global Network Against Food Crises is an alliance of humanitarian and development actors working together to prevent, prepare for, and respond to food crises and support the Sustainable Development Goal to End Hunger (SDG 2). It seeks to reduce vulnerabilities associated with acute hunger; achieve food security and improved nutrition; and promote sustainable agriculture and food systems, using a ‘3x3 approach.’ This involves working at the global, regional and national levels to support partnerships within existing structures and to improve advocacy, decision-making, policy and programming along the following three dimensions:
Dimension 1 | Understanding food crises
The work within this dimension aims to build greater consensus and promote evidencebased food security and nutrition analyses and reporting in order to strengthen the collection, quality and coverage of the food security and nutrition data and analysis, and inform decision-making and action. This will be achieved through the contribution to the Global Report on Food Crises, a unique ‘global public good’ under the coordination and leadership of the Food Security Information Network (FSIN), as well as the coordination, synthesis, and publication of technical analyses, including forward-looking analyses of food crises.
Dimension 2 | Leveraging strategic investments in food security, nutrition and agriculture
The work within this dimension aims to advocate for ‘fit for purpose’ financing that draws on the full range of resource flows (public and private, international and domestic) to better prepare for, prevent and respond to food crises. It seeks to improve coherence between humanitarian, development and peace actions (the HDP ‘nexus’) to build resilience to shocks and promote longer-term self-reliance. Activities include a strong focus on supporting capacity strengthening of country-level actors and institutions, as well as strengthening coordination at the regional level to ensure that investments are focused on the right place, at the right time.
Dimension 3 | Going beyond food
The work within this dimension aims to foster political uptake and coordination across clusters/sectors to address the underlying multi-dimensional drivers of food crises including environmental, political, economic, societal and security risk factors. It seeks to improve understanding and promote linkages between the different dimensions of fragility through knowledge sharing, advocacy and integrated policy responses.PRIFPRI2; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; Food Security PortalMTI
Food price volatility in sub-Saharan Africa: Has it really increased?
No full textAbstractThe food price crisis of 2007–2008 and recent resurgence of food prices have focused increasing attention on the causes and consequences of food price volatility in international food markets and the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In this paper, we examine the patterns and trends in food price volatility using an unusually rich database of African staple food prices. We find that international grain prices have become more volatile in recent years (2007–2010) but no evidence that food price volatility has increased in the region. This contrasts with the widespread view that food prices have become more volatile in the region since the global food crisis of 2007–2008. In addition, the results suggest that price volatility is lower for processed and tradable food than for nontradable food, that volatility is lower in the major cities than in secondary cities, and that maize price volatility is actually higher in countries with the most active intervention to stabilize maize prices. These findings suggest that greater attention should be given to the (high) level of food prices in the region rather than volatility per se, that regional and international trade can play a useful role in reducing food price volatility, and that traditional food price stabilization efforts may be counterproductive
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
2020 Global report on food crises: Joint analysis for better decisions
No full textThe Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) 2020 is the result of a joint, consensus-based assessment of acute food insecurity situations around the world by 16 partner organizations. At 135 million, the number of people in Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) in 2019 was the highest in the four years of the GRFC's existence. This increase also reflected the inclusion of additional countries and areas within some countries. When comparing the 50 countries that were in both the 2019 and the 2020 reports, the population in Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) rose from 112 to 123 million. This reflected worsening acute food insecurity in key conflict-driven crises, notably the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan and the growing severity of drought and economic shocks as drivers in countries such as Haiti, Pakistan and Zimbabwe.
Around 183 million people in 47 countries were classified in Stressed (IPC/CH Phase 2) conditions, at risk of slipping into Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) if confronted by an additional shock or stressor. An estimated 75 million stunted children were living in the 55 food-crisis countries analysed. These children have limited access to sufficient dietary energy, nutritionally diverse diets, clean drinking water, sanitation and health care, which weakens their health and nutrition status, with dire consequences for their development and long-term productivity.Non-PRIFPRI2MTI
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
