Our colleagues at the World Bank (WB) are once again calling for nutrition to be mainstreamed in development work (World Bank 2006). While I could, once again, not disagree more with that, I consider myself a nutrition activist. As such, I try to have practical experiences influence theory, as well as use theoretical considerations in my practice. The idea I pursue is one in which progressive engagement on the right to food and nutrition should lead to an activism in which profession, compassion and political solidarity become one and the same. If there are no bearings, we just go in circles. As the WB document says, we need to build up our capacity as activists to motivate others.
Apathy encourages stagnation in our work. It is necessary to transform apathy into activism and to consolidate gains and negotiate hard for better social conditions for those we purport to work for. It is visionaries who communicate their visions to others – the true, hands-on practitioners.
Can we shift our attention from merely ‘reaching’ the poor with nutrition interventions towards a deeper understanding of the issues of poverty and inequality and their underlying dynamics? What ultimately counts is our social and political accountability and our nutrition work in true partnership with the poor.
Part of it is explicitly recognizing that political processes and issues of power determine the content, direction and implementation of food and nutrition policies and programmes. Together with the marginalized and poor, as nutrition activists and from our respective professions, we can be strong political players instead of implicitly protecting narrow group interests through our work under the wings of governments, industry and international agencies that are often unmindful of the real interests of the poor-despite their public statements to the contrary.
It is ultimately our networked power that will achieve higher levels of emancipation towards eventually reversing violations of the right to food and nutrition in all domains. Does the WB document also mean/intend this?
Keep in mind that processes are occurring every day that make people poor. So, it is legitimate to ask: Where is the end of ‘survival’ and where the beginning of ‘living’? Poverty changes people’s incentives and the constraints under which they operate; it results in a chronic sense of helplessness. The poor are excluded from a share of their nation’s resources. That is why, to end protein-energy malnutrition the distribution of wealth is as important, if not more, as its creation (a fact I am not sure the WB fully backs).
People experience poverty and the violation of their right to food and nutrition differently according to their gender, age, caste, class and ethnicity. For us in nutrition work, poverty is to be seen as multi-dimensional, related to powerlessness, to exclusion, to exploitation, victimization and violence. It is also related to migration, forced displacement, rising urbanization and loss of livelihoods. Does this coincide with how the WB document sees it?
Let’s face it: much of our work, especially in micronutrients, has become a ‘nutrition repair industry’ of the damage done by poverty. A sustainable approach to poverty reduction is complex and requires three types of measures to ensure: a) that the ‘improving poor’ continue to improve; b) that the ‘coping poor’ graduate out of their precarious state; and c) that the ‘declining poor’ have an opportunity to reverse their condition. How much of this do we really do in our nutrition work?
Poverty which is forced on individuals and families who have no other choice is unequivocally linked to injustice – and potentially to rebellion. It represents a denial of human rights on a massive scale. Should this fact not make a difference in our day-to-day work?
And, Does the new World Bank document calling for nutrition to be placed more at the centre of development see it anywhere near the same way?
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
schuftan@gmail.com