2023
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEXTHE POWER OF YOUTH IN SHAPING FOOD SYSTEMS2023
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEXTHE POWER OF YOUTH IN SHAPING FOOD SYSTEMS

Klaus von Grebmer, Jill Bernstein, Miriam Wiemers, Laura Reiner, Marilena Bachmeier, Asja Hanano, Réiseal Ní
Chéilleachair, Connell Foley, Tim Sheehan, Seth Gitter, Grace Larocque, and Heidi Fritschel

Guest Authors
Wendy Geza and Mendy Ndlovu (Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth,and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa)

Bonn / Dublin
October 2023

To learn more, visit
www.globalhungerindex.org#GHI2023
A Peer-Reviewed Publication

Improving young people’s access to knowledge and education
is key to strengthening their capacities to act as agents of change
in food systems transformation. Here, Amok Deng Piol carries her
school meal at Yith Aluk Primary School in Aweil, South Sudan.
School feeding is an important tool to improve young people’s school
attendance and nutrition and enable them to focus on learning.

FOREWORDAs the year 2030 looms and just seven years remain to achieve

Although youth are underrepresented in policy- and decision-­

the Sustainable Development Goals, nearly three-quarters ofmaking related to food systems, they have a legitimate interest ina billion people are unable to exercise their right to adequate

shaping their future, and their voices must be heard. Youth are

food. Hunger is not new, and neither are its drivers. What is new isequal holders of the right to food, and good nutrition is essentialthat we now live in a time of what has been termed “polycrisis”: thefor personal growth and development during this critical life stage.

compounding impacts of climate change, conflicts, economic shocks,

Furthermore, young people constitute an important and growing

the global pandemic, and the Russia-Ukraine war have exacerbateddemographic cohort, particularly in food-insecure countries. Forty-social and economic inequalities and slowed or reversed previous

two percent of the world’s people are under 25 years of age, and theprogress in reducing hunger in many countries.
The 2023 Global Hunger Index (GHI) shows that, after many

global population of adolescents and young adults, at 1.2 billion, isthe largest in history.

years of advancement up to 2015, progress against hunger world-This report spotlights the experiences of youth and highlights thewide remains largely at a standstill. As the effects of crises multiply

need for young people in their diversity to play a central role in shaping

and intensify, more and more people are experiencing severe hunger,

the systems of today for a sustainable, equitable, and resilient future.

with the situation expected to worsen throughout the year.

Together, Welthungerhilfe (WHH) and Concern call for increased rep-

Large demographic groups such as women and youth are carry-

resentation of youth in policy- and decision-making related to fooding the burden of these crises. This year’s GHI report considers thesystems. To break down the barriers to their full participation in foodways in which current food systems are failing young people. In theirsystems, young people’s capacities must be strengthened and agri-

essay for this report, Wendy Geza and Mendy Ndlovu, two scholars

culture and food systems must be promoted as viable and attractivefrom South Africa, write from the perspective of the current gen-livelihoods. Meaningfully engaging youth as leaders can unlock theireration of youth. They note that today’s youth are poised to inherit

potential as innovative agents of change and harness their energy

food systems that are unsustainable, inequitable, non-inclusive, andand dynamism to transform food systems.

increasingly vulnerable to the dangerous effects of climate change.

The forces of climate change and inequality are changing the

The actions we take now—and those we fail to take—will determine

world. It is vital that governments do much more to end hunger by

future food system outcomes, but it is today’s young people who will2030 and work beyond that to transform food systems. An excep-

live with these outcomes for decades to come.

tional effort is needed to ensure that the right to adequate food is

In many parts of the world, young people face a set of stark real-respected, protected, and fulfilled, not only for the millions of people

ities. They are more likely than adults to be affected by extreme

who currently go to bed hungry each night but also for the billions

poverty and food insecurity, with young women particularly affected,

who will shoulder the burden of crises not of their making—the wors-

despite the importance of their health and nutrition status for futureening impacts of conflict and climate change—far into the future.

generations. Young people are three times more likely to be unemployed. They often lack access to the resources, land, skills, andopportunities that would enable them to productively engage in foodsystems. These barriers—as well as the challenges of climate change,
land degradation, exposure to risks, difficult or precarious working

Mathias Mogge

David Regan

conditions, and low social recognition—have turned many young

Secretary General / CEO

Chief Executive Officer

people away from agricultural and rural livelihoods.

Welthungerhilfe (WHH)

Concern Worldwide

2023 Global Hunger Index | Foreword3

CONTENTS

Chapter 01

CHAPTER 02

CHAPTER 03

APPENDIXESSUMMARY 

5

CHAPTERS
01

Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger 

602

Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty 

22

03

Policy Recommendations 

34

APPENDIXESA

Methodology BData Underlying the Calculation of the 2000, 2008, 2015, and 2023 Global Hunger Index Scores 

37
41

C

2000, 2008, 2015, and 2023 Global Hunger Index Scores, and Changes since 2015 

44

DCountries’ 2023 GHI Scores by Region 

45

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

49

RESOURCES FOR UNDERSTANDING HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION 

54PARTNERS 

56

4

Contents | 2023 Global Hunger Index

SUMMARY

Progress on Hunger Has Largely Stalled

climate disasters around the world, have pushed some countries into
food crises, while other countries have been more resilient. Low- andThis year’s Global Hunger Index (GHI) shows that, though somemiddle-income countries, which tend to be more vulnerable to crises,countries have made significant headway, little progress has been

have been particularly hard hit relative to high-income countries. The

made in reducing hunger on a global scale since 2015. The 2023

extent to which countries are able to recover from shocks depends

GHI score for the world is 18.3, considered moderate—less thanlargely on underlying factors, such as state fragility, inequality, poor

one point below the world’s 2015 GHI score of 19.1. Furthermore,governance, and chronic poverty. Given that the world is expected

since 2017 the prevalence of undernourishment, one of the indica-

to be subject to increased shocks in future years, particularly as ators used in the calculation of GHI scores, has been on the rise, andresult of climate change, the effectiveness of disaster preparedness

the number of undernourished people has climbed from 572 million

and response is likely to become increasingly central to the outlook

to about 735 million. South Asia and Africa South of the Sahara areon food security.

the world regions with the highest hunger levels, with GHI scoresof 27.0 each, indicating serious hunger. For the past two decades,
these two regions have consistently had the highest levels of hunger.
While both regions achieved considerable progress between 2000

Youth Must Play a Central Role in Transforming
Food Systems

and 2015, progress since 2015 has nearly halted, mirroring the trend

Young people are emerging into adulthood in a context of unequal

seen for the world as a whole.

and unsustainable food systems that fail to deliver food and nutrition
security and are highly vulnerable to climate change and environmen-

Hunger Remains Serious or Alarming in 43 Countries

tal degradation. Yet youth participation in making decisions that will

According to the 2023 GHI scores and provisional designations,right of people to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced

9 countries have alarming levels of hunger: Burundi, Central African

through ecologically sound and sustainable methods—presents anaffect their futures is limited. The pursuit of food sovereignty—the

Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar,

opportunity to engage youth in transforming failing food systems.

Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. In a further 34 countries,

Young people can apply their energy and innovation to help food sys-hunger is considered serious. Many countries have seen hunger worsen

tems become more sustainable, more just, and better able to meetin recent years: since 2015, hunger has increased in 18 countries

the needs of all the world’s people, especially the most vulnerable.

with moderate, serious, or alarming 2023 GHI scores. An additional
14 countries with moderate, serious, or alarming 2023 GHI scores
experienced a decline of less than 5 percent between their 2015 andSolutions Must Look beyond 2030

2023 GHI scores, indicating negligible progress during that period.

Current food systems policies and investments are failing to address

At the current pace, 58 countries will not achieve low hunger by

the intergenerational cycle of hunger in many parts of the world.

2030. Nonetheless, there are also examples of progress. Seven coun-

Solutions must embrace a long-term perspective beyond 2030 andtries whose 2000 GHI scores indicated extremely alarming hunger

reflect young people’s livelihoods, options, and choices. The right tolevels—Angola, Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, andfood must be central to food systems policies, programs, and gov-

Zambia—have all made progress since then. Also, seven countries

ernance processes, and people must be able to realize their right tohave achieved reductions of five points or more between their 2015

food in ways that are socially, culturally, and ecologically appropriate

and 2023 GHI scores: Bangladesh, Chad, Djibouti, Lao People’s

for their own local context. It is critical to invest in young people’s

Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Nepal, and Timor-Leste. These

capacities to become leaders in food systems transformation. This

reductions in hunger are particularly impressive given the challenges

means investing in their education and skills development, as wellfacing the world and the stagnation in hunger levels at the global

as their health and nutrition. Governments must also improve equita-

level in recent years.

ble access to resources and economic and social programs for young
people of all genders. Furthermore, governments must ensure that

The Fight against Hunger Is Impeded by
Overlapping Crises

food systems offer viable and attractive livelihoods to young people

Overlapping crises, including the fallout from the COVID-19 pan-conditions and fair wages.

by investing in diversified, locally appropriate agricultural production and well-functioning markets and by supporting better working

demic, the Russia-Ukraine war, and multiple violent conflicts and2023 Global Hunger Index | Summary5

01

After learning about the importance of good health and nutrition for
the well-being of both mothers and their children, this young mother from
Nepal is preparing vegetables together with her toddler. However, young
women often carry the burden of unpaid care work, which keeps themfrom pursuing education and income-generating activities.

GLOBAL, REGIONAL, AND
NATIONAL TRENDS IN HUNGER
Note: The results within this 2023 Global Hunger Index report supersede all previous GHI results. The 2000, 2008, and 2015 scoresand indicator data contained within this report are currently the only data that can be used for valid comparisons of the GHI over time.

Key Messages> Global hunger remains too high, and progress on reducing hunger

The World: In the Face of Crises,
Global Progress on Hunger Has Stalled

has largely stalled. The 2023 global GHI score is 18.3—consid-

The 2023 Global Hunger Index shows that since 2015 little progress

ered moderate—down less than one point from the 2015 global

has been made in reducing hunger. The 2023 GHI score for the worldscore of 19.1. The right to adequate food is being violated foris 18.3, considered moderate. This is less than one point below thenearly three-quarters of a billion people every day.

world’s 2015 GHI score of 19.1, indicating that progress on reducing
hunger has largely stalled. In contrast, between 2000, 2008, and> This stagnation relative to 2015 largely reflects the combined

2015, the world made significant headway against hunger. There has

effects of several crises. These include the COVID-19 pandemic,

been an increase in the prevalence of undernourishment, one of thethe Russia-Ukraine war, economic stagnation, the impacts of cli-

indicators used in the calculation of GHI scores, rising from a low ofmate change, and the intractable conflicts facing many countries

7.5 percent in 2017 to 9.2 percent in 2022 (Figure 1.1). The numberof the world. Their compounding effects have led to a cost-of-­of undernourished people in the world increased from 572 million toliving crisis and exhausted the coping capacity of many coun-

735 million in this period (FAO et al. 2023a). The 2023 GHI scores

tries, especially those where hunger was already high before theare based on data from 2018–2022, including the latest data avail-crises hit due to power imbalances and structural obstacles toable in this period for each of the four GHI indicators (see Appendix

food and nutrition security.

A). Because the vast majority of these data are from 2020 or later,
they can more fully capture the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic> The crises have aggravated inequalities between regions, coun-than the data in previous GHI reports.

tries, and groups. While some countries have weathered them
relatively well, others have experienced deepening hunger andnutrition problems.
> The global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine

war, and higher food prices may be easing somewhat in 2023, butclimate conditions are worsening and for many people the priceof food is still unaffordable in many areas. Less resilient regions,countries, and communities around the world are expected toexperience lasting hunger and nutrition setbacks and stand lessprepared for future crises.

FIGURE 1.1 WORLD GHI SCORES AND PREVALENCE OF
UNDERNOURISHMENT IN RECENT DECADES
30

28.0

25

GHI scores (serious)
GHI scores (moderate)
23.6
19.1

20

18.3

15
Undernourishment (%)> According to GHI projections, at the current pace, 58 countries

will not achieve low hunger by 2030. Projections suggest thatnone of the GHI indicators will meet the 2030 targets set by

10
5

the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): the prevalence of> Many youth in low- and middle-income countries are particularly

vulnerable to food security and nutrition crises. This vulnerability is worrisome given the importance of young people’s healthand nutrition status for the well-being of generations to come.

2023

2 015

2008

tality are all off track.

0
2000

undernourishment, child stunting, child wasting, and child mor-

Note: GHI scores are calculated based on four indicators of hunger. Undernourishment—one of
the four indicators—shows the share of people whose caloric intake is insufficient. GHI scoresfor the year 2000 include data from 1998–2002; 2008 GHI scores include data from 2006–
2010; 2015 GHI scores include data from 2013–2017; and 2023 GHI scores include datafrom 2018–2022. Data on undernourishment are from FAO (2023). The undernourishment
values are for the world as a whole, including countries both included in and excluded from the
GHI. For a complete list of data sources for the calculation of GHI scores, see Appendix A.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger7

Low: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

BOX 1.1 ABOUT THE GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORESThe Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool for comprehensively measuring and tracking hunger at global, regional, and national levels.
GHI scores are based on the values of four component indicators:1
Undernourishment: the share of the population withChild wasting: the share of children under age fiveinsufficient caloric intake.

who have low weight for their height, reflecting
acute undernutrition.

Child stunting: the share of children under age fiveChild mortality: the share of children who die before

who have low height for their age, reflecting chronic

their fifth birthday, partly reflecting the fatal mix ofundernutrition.

inadequate nutrition and unhealthy environments.

These four indicators are aggregated as follows:

GHI Severity of
Hunger Scale
Extremely
alarming
GHI ≥ 50.0
1/3+
Undernourishment

1/6Child stunting+

1/6
Child wasting+

1/3
Child mortality

=

GHI
SCORE

Alarming
GHI 35.0–49.9
Serious
GHI 20.0–34.9

Latest published data available from internationally recognized sources:

UN Food andAgriculture
Organization (FAO)

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank,
Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program

UN Inter-agency
Group for Child­Mortality Estimation(UN IGME)

Moderate
GHI 10.0–19.9
Low
GHI ≤ 9.9100-point scale

Based on the values of the four indicators, a GHI score is calculated on a 100-point scale reflecting the severity of hunger, where 0 is thebest possible score (no hunger) and 100 is the worst.2 Each country’s GHI score is classified by severity, from low to extremely alarming.
1	Each of the indicators is standardized; see Appendix A for details.

28	GHI scores are comparable only within each year’s report, not between different years’ reports. To allow for tracking of a country’s or region’s GHI performance over time, thisreport provides GHI scores for 2000, 2008, and 2015, which can be compared with 2023 GHI scores. For a detailed explanation of the concept of the GHI, the date ranges andcalculation of the scores, and the interpretation of results, see Appendix A.

Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger | Chapter 01 | 2023 Global Hunger IndexLow: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

“One thing relates to the other.
When the routes are blocked becauseof the armed gangs, women vendors
can’t go through, and therefore thefood goes to waste and then the ones
who have food sell it more expensively.
When the reserves run out, we
can’t get more nutritious food.”

The 2023 GHI score for the world reflects a dangerous array ofoverlapping global and local crises, including the fallout of the COVID19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, and multiple violent conflicts
and climate disasters around the world. These events have pushedsome countries into food crises, while other countries have respondedwith relative resilience (IFPRI 2023). Low- and middle-income countries have been particularly hard hit relative to high-income countries(FAO et al. 2023a). The extent to which countries are able to recoverfrom situations like these depends largely on underlying factors suchas state fragility, inequality, poor governance, and chronic poverty.
Given that the world is expected to be subject to further shocks in—Alexis Lourdrona (age 21), Haiti

future years, particularly as a result of climate change, food security
will increasingly depend on the effectiveness of disaster prepared-“People were already struggling with
the impact of COVID-19, then camethe Russia-Ukraine war, which
affected the price of food—that has
made the situation worse. In thesetimes of crisis, it’s difficult to eat
three meals a day. People arestruggling to eat one meal or maybe
two at best. It is different from normal
times without conflict.”

ness and responses (IFPRI 2023).
Many countries are experiencing severe hunger in 2023, withthe situation expected to worsen throughout the year. Though circumstances in 2023 are not yet captured by the data in this year’s
GHI scores (see Appendix A), early warning resources indicate thatmany areas of the world are in crisis. The countries at the highest
level of concern for 2023 are Afghanistan, Haiti, Nigeria, Somalia,
South Sudan, Sudan, and Yemen, as well as Burkina Faso and Maliin the Sahel region. While conflict and climate change are key drivers of these crises, economic downturns are an even more pervasive
factor (WFP and FAO 2023).

—Mohamed Ali Mohamed (age 20), Somalia

The Russia-Ukraine war contributed to global food price spikesin 2022 and continues to pose a threat to food security. Because of
the large quantities of grain and fertilizer produced by Ukraine andToday’s youth not only are affected by the current food crises but

Russia, disruptions to supply chains in the region can have significant

also will shoulder the burden of the looming disasters if concerted

ripple effects throughout the world, as evident in February 2022,

action is not taken. According to GHI projections, at the current pace,when food prices spiked, mostly in anticipation of future grain and

58 countries will not achieve low hunger by 2030.4 Projections sug-

supply shortages. The Black Sea Grain Initiative, signed by Russia

gest that none of the GHI indicators will meet the 2030 targets set

and Ukraine in July 2022, allowed for the export of agricultural prod-by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): the prevalence ofucts out of Ukraine and calmed international markets (Glauber etundernourishment, child stunting, child wasting, and child mortality

al. 2023). However, the agreement’s expiration in 2023 without a

are all off track (FAO et al. 2023a; UNICEF et al. 2023b; UN IGME

guarantee of its renewal, and other events such as the destruction

2023b). Failure to meet the nutritional needs of children and youngof the Nova Kakhovka dam in Ukraine, have highlighted the vulner-

people today diminishes their capacity to fully engage in the societ-

ability that arises from the world’s dependence on exports from thisies and economies of the future, and results in lost opportunities tovolatile region (Glauber et al. 2023; Reuters 2023).

realize their full potential.

3

4

3

On July 17, 2023, Russia announced the suspension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which
remained suspended at the time the GHI report went to press (Bonnell 2023).

The projections for 2030 are linear projections based on the existing 2000, 2008, 2015,
and 2023 GHI scores for each country, and only countries with sufficient data for the calculation of these scores are included in the analysis. These projections are not comparable toprojections from previous GHI reports owing to changes in data availability and revisions ofexisting data.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger9

FIGURE 1.2 HUNGER SINCE 2000: A STORY OF PROGRESS AND STAGNATION
The World Has Made Progress in Reducing Hunger since 2000,
but Hunger Is Still Serious or Alarming in 43 Countries
The 2023 GHI showsthat in 2000 …

7

countries were in theextremely alarming category= low= serious= alarming= extremely alarming

Since 2000 …
2 countries
moved fromextremely
alarming toalarming

5 countries
moved fromextremely
alarming toserious2023 GHI designations
show that …
2
4

9countries are in thealarming category5

21 countries
moved fromalarming toserious31= moderate

1 country
moved fromserious toalarming

Levels of inequity
and poverty

21

countries were in thealarming category

29

Hunger Levels
Are Affectedby Structural
Conditions …

Quality of
governance19 countries
moved fromserious tomoderate

6 countries
moved fromalarming tomoderatecountries were in theserious category

1 country
moved frommoderate toserious534

countries are in theserious category

6
Demographic
conditions

19…As Well As
Shocks andCrises11

36
19

countries were in themoderate category

24 countries
moved frommoderate
to low

4 countries
moved fromserious tolow

37

countries are in themoderate category

4

Economic
downturns

24

Climateextremes

countries were in the
low category

19

Note: Four countries have provisional 2023 GHI
designations but do not have 2000 GHI scores or provisional
designations. An additional four countries did not exist in their presentborders in 2000. These countries are included in the counts for 2023 GHI
designations but are not represented in the flow since 2000.

50

countries are in the
low category

Conflict

Since 2015, Progress Against Hunger Has Stagnated
The 2023 GHI score for the world is 18.3, considered moderate—less than one point
below the world’s 2015 GHI score of 19.1.

14In
countries withmoderate, serious, or alarming
2023 GHI scores, progresshas largely stalled—their2023 GHI scores declined
by less than 5 percent fromtheir 2015 GHI scores.

18

In
countries
with moderate, serious,or alarming 2023 GHI
scores, hunger has
increased since 2015.

The world pledged to achieve zero hunger
by 2030, but with the current trajectory,

58

countries
will not reach low
hunger—much lesszero hunger—by 2030.

Where Progress
Has Been Notable
Despite the challenges facing theworld and the stagnation in hunger
levels at the global level in recent
years, some countries—including
Bangladesh, Chad, Djibouti,
Lao PDR, Mozambique, Nepal,
and Timor-Leste—have shown
remarkable progresssince 2015.

Note: Details on the GHI scores and categories for individual countries, as well as their changes over time, appear in Table 1.1 and Appendix C.

10Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger | Chapter 01 | 2023 Global Hunger IndexLow: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

The Regions: Cause for Concern in All World Regions

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

are more likely to deliver babies with low birth weight than womenwith higher socioeconomic status (Sathi et al. 2022). There is alsoSouth Asia and Africa South of the Sahara are the world regions witha high prevalence of simultaneous child wasting and child stunting

the highest hunger levels, with GHI scores of 27.0 each, indicatingin South Asia (Torlesse and Tram Le 2020), and its child stunt-

serious hunger in both regions. For the past two decades, these two

ing rate of 31.4 percent is nearly identical to that of Africa Southregions have consistently had the highest levels of hunger, which wereof the Sahara, at 31.5 percent (UNICEF et al. 2023b). Meanwhile,

considered alarming in 2000 and serious according to the 2008 and

the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to rising undernourishment in2015 GHI scores. While both South Asia and Africa South of thethe region, which reached 15.9 percent in 2020–2022, compared

Sahara achieved considerable progress between 2000 and 2015, awith 13.5 percent in 2014–2016 (FAO 2023; Schipper et al. 2022).

comparison of the 2015 and 2023 scores shows that progress has
Africa South of the Sahara has the highest level of undernourish-

nearly halted, reflecting the trend seen for the world as a whole.

ment of any world region, at 21.7 percent—a sizable increase comSouth Asia’s GHI score and indicator values reflect worrisomely

pared with 16.8 percent in 2010–2012 (FAO 2023).5 Africa Southhigh rates of child undernutrition as well as a substantial level ofof the Sahara also has the highest child mortality rate of any region

undernourishment facing the population as a whole. The 2022 childin the world, at 7.4 percent (UN IGME 2023b). As mentioned, Africa

wasting rate of South Asia is 14.8 percent, the highest of any world

South of the Sahara’s child stunting rate of 31.5 percent is nearly

region and more than twice the child wasting rate of Africa South ofidentical to South Asia’s rate of 31.4 percent (UNICEF et al. 2023b).

the Sahara of 6.0 percent (UNICEF et al. 2023b). Child wasting in

Climate change—along with other factors, including the COVID-19

South Asia is characterized by a high prevalence of wasting at birth

pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war—has increased food insecu-

and in infancy and prolonged periods of wasting in the first two years

rity in Africa South of the Sahara. Adverse climate events such asof life. This pattern suggests that one important explanation for the

droughts, which have negative impacts on agriculture and food secu-

region’s high child wasting rate is poor maternal nutrition (Banerjeerity, occur disproportionately in Africa South of the Sahara and can

et al. 2022; Torlesse and Tram Le 2020). Women in the region havefurther compound already high levels of poverty and hunger (Kemoe

higher rates of short stature and thinness than do those in Africa
South of the Sahara, and poorer, less educated women in South Asia

5This figure includes Sudan, which FAO groups with Northern Africa for some calculations.

Alarming
SeriousModerate
Low

0

18.6

6.7

6.1

13.5
8.9

8.3

9.6

13.4

13.7
8.6

8.0

10

10.5

11.9

13.2

16.2

20

14.1

27.0

28.6

34.1

37.7
27.9

30

27.0

GHI score

40

33.6

50

41.8

FIGURE 1.3 REGIONAL 2000, 2008, 2015, AND 2023 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES‘00 ‘08 ‘15 ‘23‘00 ‘08 ‘15 ‘23‘00 ‘08 ‘15 ‘23‘00 ‘08 ‘15 ‘23‘00 ‘08 ‘15 ‘23‘00 ‘08 ‘15 ‘23

Africa Southof the Sahara

South Asia

West Asia &North Africa

Latin America &Caribbean

East &Southeast Asia

Europe &Central Asia

Source: Authors.
Note: See Appendix A for data sources. The regional and global GHI scores are calculated using regional and global aggregates for each indicator and the formula described in Appendix A. The regionaland global aggregates for each indicator are calculated as population-weighted averages, using the indicator values reported in Appendix B. For countries lacking undernourishment data, provisional
estimates provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) were used to calculate aggregates only but are not reported in Appendix B. Appendix D shows which countries
are included in each region.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger11Low: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

et al. 2022). Africa is the one region of the world projected to expe-

increased prices and lower availability and access to this key staple

rience a significant increase in the number of undernourished peo-grain in the near future (Mamun and Glauber 2023).

ple, from 282 million in 2022 to an expected 298 million in 2030
The region with the lowest 2023 GHI score is Europe and Central(FAO et al. 2023a).

Asia, whose score of 6.1 is considered low. Despite the region’s low
West Asia and North Africa is the region with the third-highest

score, some populations within the region continue to experiencehunger level according to 2023 GHI scores. With a 2023 GHI scorefood insecurity. In 2020–2022, 10.5 percent of the population ofof 11.9, West Asia and North Africa’s hunger level is considered mod-Eastern Europe and 18.4 percent of the population of Central Asia

erate. Conflict-torn Yemen and Syria have the highest country-level

experienced moderate or severe food insecurity (FAO et al. 2023a).

2023 GHI scores in the region, at 39.9 and 26.1, respectively. The

A recent study by FAO found that 47 percent of the rural population

region is contending with looming threats, including growing waterin Eastern Europe and Central Asia does not receive social protec-

scarcity and the increasing effects of climate change (Belhaj andtion benefits, and only 10.1 percent of the region’s gross domestic

Soliman 2021; Wehrey and Fawal 2022). Climate change, its effects

product (GDP) is invested in social protection programs comparedon agricultural production, and rapid population growth are projectedwith 19.3 percent in the European Union (FAO 2022).6 The Russia-

to increase the region’s high level of dependence on food imports in

Ukraine war has put obvious pressure on food security in Ukraine

the coming years (Le Mouël et al. 2023). These growing resource con-itself, with the livelihoods of food producers challenged by decreased

straints are expected to exacerbate governance issues in the region

production levels and increased costs of inputs, storage, and trans-

and possibly contribute to future conflicts (Wehrey and Fawal 2022).

portation. Domestic food price inflation has reduced the affordabilityof food throughout Europe and Central Asia in recent years. Surveys

The increase in GHI scores for Latin America and the Caribbean

conducted in 2021 and 2022 found food security to be the biggest

since 2015 is particularly troubling. It is the only region whose GHI

poverty-related concern in Central Asia (Jungbluth and Zorya 2023).

scores have increased in this period. Nine countries in the region
Even in regions not covered by the GHI, such as North America

have seen an increase in hunger since 2015, including Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Haiti, Paraguay, Trinidad andand parts of Europe, food insecurity continues to pose a challenge.

Tobago, and Venezuela. The average cost of a healthy diet is higher

Inclusion in the GHI is determined based on prevalence of undernour-in Latin America and the Caribbean than in any other world region,ishment and child mortality data dating back to 2000. Only countries

and the cost of food there is rising. Latin America and the Caribbean

with values above the “very low” threshold for one or both of these

also has the highest level of income inequality of any region of theindicators since 2000 are included in the GHI (see Appendix A forworld. These factors—along with the COVID-19 pandemic, which hit

the full inclusion criteria). Based on these criteria, many countries

the region particularly hard in terms of fatalities and job cuts—havein North America and Northern, Southern, and Western Europe areexacerbated hunger in the region (FAO et al. 2023b).

not included in the index. However, 7.8 percent of the population of
Northern America7 experienced moderate or severe food insecurity inEast and Southeast Asia, dominated by populous China, has the

2020–2022, as did 5.1 percent of the population of Northern Europe,

second-lowest 2023 GHI score of any region in the report. China’s

8.5 percent of the population of Southern Europe, and 4.9 percent

population constitutes two-thirds of the region’s population (UN DESAof the population of Western Europe (FAO et al. 2023a). Northern2022), and it has the lowest 2023 GHI score in the region, with aAmerica and Europe experienced a slight increase in moderate orvalue of less than 5. However, there is substantial variation among

severe food insecurity between 2021 and 2022, and this upward

the 2023 GHI scores for other countries in the region. The scores

trend was seen in all subregions of Europe other than Southern Europeof the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Papua New Guinea,(FAO 2023; FAO et al. 2023a). High domestic food price inflation

and Timor-Leste are considered serious. Hunger in several coun-has put pressure on low- and high-income countries alike, including

tries is classified as moderate, while in China, Fiji, and Mongolia thethose in North America and Europe (World Bank 2023a).

2023 GHI scores are considered low. Diets in East and Southeast
Asia are heavily dependent on rice, which, in contrast to wheat andother grains, has been relatively unaffected by the Russia-Ukraine
war. However, flooding in Pakistan and the emergence of the El Niño
weather pattern in 2023 may decrease rice production, leading to

12

6

7

The study covered 18 countries and territories, all of which are included in the GHI regionalgrouping of Europe and Central Asia, except for Kosovo and Türkiye.
The terms North America and Northern America, which encompass slightly different regions,are both used here following the terminology used in the sources cited.

Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger | Chapter 01 | 2023 Global Hunger Index

TABLE 1.1 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES BY 2023 GHI RANK
Note: As always, rankings and index scores from this table cannot be accurately compared to rankings and index scores from previous reports (see Appendix A).

2023 GHI scores less than 5,collectively ranked 1–202

Rank1 Country

Rank1 Country

2000

2008

2015

2023

2000

2008

2015

2023

Belarus

<5

<5

<5

<5

69

Senegal

34.3

21.8

18.0

15.0

Bosnia & Herzegovina

9.4

6.5

5.3

<5

71

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

27.6

22.1

14.7

15.6

Chile

<5

<5

<5

<5

72

Libya

16.6

12.8

18.5

16.1

China

13.4

7.1

<5

<5

72

Myanmar

40.2

29.7

17.3

16.1

Croatia

<5

<5

<5

<5

74

Lao PDR

44.3

30.4

21.8

16.3

Estonia

<5

<5

<5

<5

75

Eswatini

24.7

25.0

19.3

17.3

Georgia

12.1

6.6

<5

<5

75

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

14.6

8.8

11.1

17.3

Hungary

6.7

5.6

5.0

<5

77

Indonesia

26.0

28.5

21.9

17.6

Kuwait

<5

<5

<5

<5

78

Namibia

26.4

29.2

22.2

18.0

Latvia

<5

<5

<5

<5

79

Cameroon

36.0

29.0

20.7

18.6

Lithuania

7.6

5.1

<5

<5

80

Gabon

21.0

20.2

17.3

18.7

Moldova (Republic of)

18.6

17.0

<5

<5

81

Bangladesh

33.8

30.6

26.2

19.0

Montenegro

—

5.2

<5

<5

82

Guatemala

28.6

24.0

20.6

19.1

North Macedonia

7.5

5.3

5.3

<5

83

Solomon Islands

20.2

18.2

23.4

19.6

Romania

7.9

5.8

5.1

<5

84

Gambia

29.2

24.9

24.3

19.7

Serbia

—

5.8

<5

<5

85

Botswana

27.2

26.8

22.2

19.9

Slovakia

7.2

5.7

5.7

<5

—

—

—

10–19.9** JordanTürkiye

10.1

5.7

<5

<5

86

Côte d'Ivoire

32.5

36.0

22.1

20.6

United Arab Emirates

<5

6.8

5.6

<5

87

Mauritania

30.5

18.8

22.4

21.0

Uruguay

7.6

5.3

<5

<5

88

Malawi

43.1

29.2

22.9

21.1

21

Uzbekistan

24.2

14.9

5.9

5.0

88

Togo

38.2

29.6

25.7

21.1

22

Costa Rica

6.9

<5

<5

5.1

90

Kenya

36.7

29.5

22.5

22.0

23

Bulgaria

8.6

7.7

7.3

5.4

91

Benin

33.9

26.4

23.3

22.6

24

Kazakhstan

11.3

11.0

5.7

5.5

92

Comoros

38.2

30.4

24.0

22.7

25

Armenia

19.2

11.7

6.3

5.6

93

Djibouti

44.4

33.9

29.6

23.0

26

Russian Federation

10.2

5.8

6.3

5.8

94

Tanzania (United Rep. of)

40.7

30.2

24.6

23.2

27

Tunisia

10.3

7.4

6.4

5.9

95

Uganda

35.0

29.0

27.8

25.2

28

Mexico

10.2

9.9

6.7

6.0

96

Rwanda

49.7

33.1

28.3

25.4

28

Paraguay

11.8

10.1

5.1

6.0

97

Burkina Faso

45.0

33.7

28.0

25.5

30

Albania

16.4

15.5

8.8

6.1

98

Mali

41.9

32.2

27.1

25.6

31

Argentina

6.8

5.5

5.3

6.4

99

Angola

64.9

42.9

25.7

25.9

32

Brazil

11.7

6.8

5.4

6.7

100

Syrian Arab Republic

13.9

16.2

23.9

26.1

33

Algeria

14.7

11.1

8.5

6.8

101

Ethiopia

53.3

40.5

26.5

26.2

34

Azerbaijan

24.9

15.0

9.3

6.9

102

Pakistan

36.7

31.3

28.8

26.6

35

Colombia

11.0

10.2

7.5

7.0

103

Sudan

—

—

28.5

27.0

36

Peru

20.6

14.0

7.7

7.2

104

Guinea

40.2

29.3

28.4

27.1

37

Saudi Arabia

12.3

10.6

9.1

7.3

105 Papua New Guinea

33.5

32.9

28.5

27.4

38

Jamaica

8.5

8.6

8.6

7.5

106

DPR Korea

39.5

30.4

24.8

27.8

38

Kyrgyzstan

17.5

12.9

9.1

7.5

107

Congo (Republic of)

34.6

32.4

26.2

28.0

38

Mongolia

29.9

16.7

7.4

7.5

107

Zimbabwe

35.5

30.7

27.6

28.0

41

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

13.7

8.8

7.7

7.7

109

Nigeria

39.9

31.2

27.8

28.3

42

Panama

18.6

13.0

8.7

7.9

110

Zambia

53.2

44.9

33.2

28.5

43

El Salvador

14.7

12.0

9.8

8.1

111 India

38.4

35.5

29.2

28.7

44

Ukraine

13.0

7.1

7.1

8.2

112

Timor-Leste

—

46.5

35.9

29.9

45

Oman

14.8

11.2

11.2

8.3

113

Mozambique

48.2

35.6

37.0

30.5

46

Dominican Republic

15.1

13.9

9.4

8.6

114

Afghanistan

49.6

36.5

30.4

30.6

47

Morocco

15.8

12.2

9.1

9.0

115

Haiti

40.3

40.2

30.1

31.1

48

Guyana

17.2

15.1

11.3

9.3

116

Sierra Leone

57.4

45.4

32.8

31.3

49

Fiji

9.3

8.6

10.4

9.7

117 Liberia

48.0

36.4

32.9

32.2

Lebanon———

0–9.9*

118

Guinea-Bissau

37.7

29.6

33.3

33.0
34.6

*
50

Turkmenistan

20.3

14.5

11.4

10.3

119

Chad

50.6

49.9

40.1

51

Suriname

15.1

11.0

10.6

10.4

120

Niger

53.3

39.5

35.2

35.1

51

Thailand

18.7

12.2

9.4

10.4

121

Lesotho

32.5

27.8

30.6

35.5

53

Trinidad & Tobago

11.0

10.7

10.7

10.8

122 Dem. Rep. of the Congo

46.3

40.2

36.4

35.7

54

Viet Nam

26.1

20.1

14.5

11.4

123

Yemen

41.4

37.8

42.1

39.9

55

Cabo Verde

15.7

12.4

14.6

12.4

124

Madagascar

42.4

36.6

38.9

41.0

56

Malaysia

15.4

13.7

12.0

12.5

125

Central African Republic

48.2

43.7

44.0

42.3

57

Egypt

16.4

16.9

15.2

12.8

*

Somalia

63.6

59.2

—

35–49.9*

58

Nicaragua

22.3

17.5

14.6

13.0

*

Burundi and South Sudan

—

—

—

35–49.9*58

South Africa

18.0

16.8

13.9

13.0

60

Sri Lanka

21.7

17.6

17.1

13.3

61

Mauritius

15.4

13.9

13.5

13.6

62

Ghana

28.5

22.2

15.7

13.7

62

Tajikistan

40.1

29.9

16.9

13.7

64

Iraq

23.6

20.3

16.5

13.8

65

Ecuador

19.7

18.1

11.7

14.5

66

Philippines

25.0

19.1

18.3

14.8

67

Cambodia

41.4

25.6

19.0

14.9

67

Honduras

22.0

19.2

15.0

14.9

69

Nepal

37.2

29.0

21.3

15.0

= low
= moderate= serious= alarming= extremely alarming
Note: For the 2023 GHI report, data were assessed for 136 countries. Out of these, there
were sufficient data to calculate 2023 GHI scores for and rank 125 countries (by way ofcomparison, 121 countries were ranked in the 2022 report).
1	Ranked according to 2023 GHI scores. Countries that have identical 2023 scores are given
the same ranking (for example, Mexico and Paraguay are both ranked 28th).
2	The 20 countries with 2023 GHI scores of less than 5 are not assigned individual ranks,
but rather are collectively ranked 1–20. Differences between their scores are minimal.
—	= Data are not available or not presented. Some countries did not exist in their presentborders in the given year or reference period.
* 	For 11 countries, individual scores could not be calculated and ranks could not be determined owing to lack of data. Where possible, these countries were provisionally designatedby severity: 1 as low, 1 as moderate, and 3 as alarming. For 6 countries, provisional
designations could not be established (see Table A.3 in Appendix A).

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger13

Low: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

FIGURE 1.4 2023 GHI SCORES AND PROGRESS SINCE 2000

Extremely
alarming

55

50
HigherhungerAlarming

45
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Yemen

Dem. Rep. of the Congo

Niger

35

LesothoChadGuinea-Bissau
Liberia

Afghanistan

30
ZambiaAngolaEthiopia

Burkina Faso
Rwanda25

Haiti

Mozambique

India
Nigeria
Rep. of CongoDPR Korea
Zimbabwe
Papua New Guinea
GuineaPakistan
Mali
UgandaSeriousSierra Leone

Syrian Arab Republic

GHI Severity Scale

2023 Global Hunger Index score40

Tanzania
Comoros
Togo

Malawi

20

Benin

Kenya

Côte d’Ivoire
GambiaGuatemalaMauritania
Botswana

Bangladesh
Cameroon

Lao PDR

15

Cambodia

Lower
hungerMyanmar
Nepal

Namibia
Indonesia

Senegal

Bolivia
Philippines

Ghana

Tajikistan

Eswatini
Honduras

Iraq
Nicaragua

Solomon Islands
Gabon

Sri
Lanka

Venezuela

Moderate

Djibouti

Libya

Ecuador
Egypt

Mauritius

Malaysia
Cabo
Viet Nam
Verde
ThailandTrinidad &Turkmenistan
TobagoSuriname

Low

10South Africa

5
-40

-35

-30
Higher reduction
in hunger

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

Lower reduction
in hunger

0

5

10

15

Increase inhungerAbsolute change in GHI score since 2000
Source: Authors.
Note: This figure illustrates the change in GHI scores since 2000 in absolute values. It features countries where data are available to calculate 2000 and 2023 GHI scores and where 2023 GHI
scores show moderate, serious, alarming, or extremely alarming hunger levels. Some likely poor performers may not appear due to missing data.

14

Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger | Chapter 01 | 2023 Global Hunger IndexLow: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

The Countries: Too Many Countries Still
Suffer from Hunger

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, and Niger eachhave alarming 2023 GHI scores, between 35.1 and 35.7. Niger’s
GHI score is driven up by its very high rate of child stunting, highAccording to the 2023 GHI scores and provisional designations,rate of child wasting, and very high child mortality rate—the highestnine countries have alarming levels of hunger and 34 have serious

in this year’s report, at 11.5 percent. Its prevalence of undernour-levels of hunger. There are six countries with 2023 GHI scores inishment for the population as a whole is of medium significance, atthe alarming range—Central African Republic, Madagascar, Yemen,

16.1 percent. The children of Niger have suffered in recent years

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, and Niger—and three

from conflict-driven internal displacement and an influx of refugees

additional countries that are provisionally designated as alarmingfrom neighboring countries, as well as the climate crisis and rising

despite insufficient data for the calculation of GHI scores: Burundi,food prices (ActuNiger 2023; UNICEF and MHA 2022). Lesotho’s

Somalia, and South Sudan.

alarming GHI score is driven up mainly by its very high undernourishment rate, at 46.0 percent as of 2020–2022, up from 31.9 percent

Central African Republic, with a 2023 GHI score of 42.3, hasin 2014–2016 and precipitously higher than its 2007–2009 under-

the highest score of any country in this year’s report. The country’s

nourishment rate of just 12.3 percent. One factor in this increase is2020–2022 undernourishment rate of 48.7 percent means thatthe decline in Lesotho’s agricultural productivity in recent decades

nearly half of the population is consistently unable to meet minimum

due to unpredictable weather conditions, including inconsistent rains

dietary energy needs. One in 10 children does not live until theirand persistent and recurring droughts (WFP 2023b). Democratic

fifth birthday, 40.0 percent of children are stunted, and 5.3 percent

Republic of the Congo (DRC) has high or very high values for eachof children are wasted. Central African Republic has suffered fromof the indicators, with the exception of child wasting, which is ofconflict in recent years, which, along with population displacement,

medium significance. DRC is adversely affected not only by conflict,widespread poverty, and underemployment, drives hunger (Unitedwhich has resulted in mass displacement and decreased agricultural

Nations 2022; WFP et al. 2022).

activity in recent years, but also by weather extremes, crop pests,
livestock diseases, and high food prices (FSIN and GNAFC 2023).

Madagascar has the second-highest 2023 GHI score in this year’s

The country has more than 6.2 million internally displaced people

report, which, at 41.0, is considered alarming. More than half of theas well as more than half a million refugees from neighboring coun-

population—51.0 percent—is undernourished, 39.8 percent of chil-tries (UNHCR 2023b).

dren are stunted, 7.2 percent of children suffer from wasting, andthe child mortality rate is 6.6 percent. Madagascar has been severely
affected by climate change, and its near famine in 2021/2022 wasdescribed as potentially being the first climate-change-induced­famine in history (Baker 2021; UN News 2021). Still, climate change
is not the only challenge; deep structural and governance weaknesses
also underpin Madagascar’s vulnerability (Rice 2022).
The third-highest score in the 2023 GHI is held by Yemen, at
39.9. Child undernutrition is widespread in Yemen, with 48.7 percent
of children stunted and 14.4 percent of children wasted—the second-­
highest rate in this year’s report. Meanwhile, more than one-thirdof the population is undernourished, at 34.5 percent, and the childmortality rate is 6.2 percent, up from 6.1 percent in 2015. Though
this is a small increase, it is concerning, given that just three othercountries (Fiji, Mauritius, and Venezuela) in this year’s GHI experienced an increase in child mortality rates in this period. Yemen’s
ongoing conflict, now in its ninth year, has been hugely detrimental“Most of the time, conflict is the root
cause of hunger in our community.
I am a farmer, and when conflictbreaks out, we all flee, and I have toleave my field and crops behind.
Wherever we end up, we arenewcomers. We have no fields, noreserves. This always makes us
vulnerable. We have left everything
behind in our home village.”to the economy, and the children of the country have suffered tre-

—Ruth Yumba (age 20), Democratic Republic of the Congo

mendously (UNICEF 2023c).

(name changed for security reasons)2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger15

Low: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Somalia, provisionally designated as alarming, has endured a pro-Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

FIGURE 1.5 WHERE THE INDICATORS OF HUNGER ARE HIGHEST

longed drought since late 2020, severely impacting food production.
Child stunting (%), 2018–2022

55.8
48.7

20

stock nearly impossible in Somalia (IRC 2023; UNHCR 2023a). The

10

country was estimated to have incurred approximately 43,000 excess

0
undeaths in 2022, with half of these occurring in children under age

Burfive. In addition to drought, the crisis has been driven by global pricerises, ongoing insecurity, and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic (FSIN and GNAFC 2023). A large-scale humanitarian response
has so far been able to avert famine during the ongoing drought, but
continuing and scaled-up resources are needed (UN OCHA 2023a).
Hunger in South Sudan is provisionally designated as alarming:
the country’s child mortality rate is nearly 10 percent, and roughly

20

46.7

46.0

44.7

41.8

40.2

40.0

39.8

es
te
Gu
at
em
al
Af
a
gh
an
is
De
ta
m
n
th . Re ep
Co .
Pa ng ofpu o
Gu a Nin ew
Aferic C aan ent
M Rep ral
ad .
ag
as
ca
r

below-normal rainfall have made crop production and care for live-

ig
er

30

N

rate, at 11.2 percent as of 2021. Six consecutive rainy seasons withdiCentral African Republic), and the second-highest child mortality

40

47.7

or
-L

50

Ti
m

this year’s report, at 48.7 percent as of 2020–2022 (identical to60

enSomalia has the second-highest prevalence of undernourishment inYem

Although it has insufficient data for the calculation of GHI scores,

Child wasting (%), 2018–2022

18.7
14.4

15

13.7

13.6

13.1

12.1

11.0

10.9

10.8

10

10.6

5

one in five people in the country was undernourished in 2020–2022.

11.5

11.2

11.1

—Clémence Kwizera (age 43), Burundi

16

37.9

35.3

Child mortality (%), 2021
10.7

10.5

10

10.0

9.9

9.9

9.7
8.4

8
6
4
2

n
Be

ni

i
al
M

Le
on
Af
e
ric C
an en
Re tra
p. l
Gu
in
So
ea
ut
h
Su
da
n

ad
Ch
Si

er
ra

ia

ia

er
ig
N

al

So

m

ig

er

0
N

“Our school is located in the areathat is constantly affected by foodinsecurity due to climatic changes.
This usually has a very negative
impact on children’s education,
especially school attendance.”bw
Gu

cation services, drives food insecurity in the country (WFP 2023a).
12

38.4

e

ria

ca
as

Af

M

shocks, and inadequate access to clean water and health and edu-

adagalong with factors such as rapid population growth, climate-related

Zi0highest poverty rates in the world, at more than 70 percent. This,be10

cannot afford a nutritious diet (Bella 2022). Burundi has one of theLi

20

55.8 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the country’s populationtihighest child stunting rate of any country in this year’s report, at

er
ab Sy
Re rian
p.
M
al
i
Ar

38.4

H
ai

30

N

45.0

is
sa
m
u
th . R
e ep
Co .
ng of
o

45.5

r
ric C
an en
Re tra
p l
So .
m
al
ia
Le
so
th
o
DP
R
Ko
re
a

Burundi, also provisionally designated as alarming, has the

ig

sh

s

de

iu
Ba

ng

la

rit

an

46.0

40

De

48.7

-B

48.7

ea

50

in

currency reserves (FSIN and GNAFC 2023).

Undernourishment (%), 2020–2022
51.0

ba

60

m

conflict, high food and fuel prices, severe flooding, and low foreignauSrnected factors are driving hunger in South Sudan, including ongoing

M

iL

rit

an

ka

ia

n
da
M

experiencing crisis-level or worse food insecurity. Multiple intercon-

au

Su

Ye
m

In

ter of 2022 nearly two-thirds of the population was estimated to be

en

a

0
di

According to the Global Report on Food Crises, in the second quar-

Source: Authors (see Appendix A for data sources).

Very highHigh

Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger | Chapter 01 | 2023 Global Hunger IndexLow: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Since 2015, hunger has increased in 18 countries with moderate,serious, or alarming 2023 GHI scores (Appendix C). Of these, eight

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

Food Insecurity and Malnutrition Jeopardize
the Life Chances of Youthare in Africa South of the Sahara, five are in Latin America and the
Caribbean, three are in East and Southeast Asia, and there is one

Youth are “emerging into adulthood in a context of inherently unequal

each in South Asia and in West Asia and North Africa. An additional

and unsustainable food systems that fail to deliver food and nutrition

14 countries with moderate, serious, or alarming 2023 GHI scores

security and that are highly vulnerable to climate change and envi-

experienced a decline of less than 5 percent between their 2015 andronmental degradation,” as described in chapter 2, “Beyond 2030:

2023 GHI scores, indicating negligible progress in that period. Three

Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty.” These

countries have higher 2023 GHI scores than 2000 scores: Lesotho,

shortcomings are particularly problematic given the unique food andSyrian Arab Republic, and Venezuela. This deterioration of conditions

nutrition needs of youth and the data showing these needs are notover the past two decades is particularly troubling.

being met in low- and middle-income countries.

Examination of the individual indicators used in the calculationof GHI scores reveals the extremes experienced by some countries(Figure 1.5). For example, at 55.8 percent, more than half of children in Burundi are stunted, reflecting chronic undernutrition. India
has the highest child wasting rate in the world, at 18.7 percent,reflecting acute undernutrition. More than half of the population of“Nutritious food means health andfewer costs; work means a better life;
land means prosperity.”—Hervège Clémentine (age 29), Madagascar

Madagascar is undernourished, at 51.0 percent. And 10–12 percent
of children do not live to their fifth birthdays in six countries, all inYouth—the period of adolescence and early adulthood—is a key

Africa South of the Sahara: Central African Republic, Chad, Niger,

developmental stage when a proper diet and nutrition are critical.

Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Somalia.

Nutritional needs before birth and during infancy and early childhood
are relatively well understood and have rightfully garnered consider-

Despite the many countries and regions experiencing distress-

able international attention in recent years. In contrast, there has his-ingly high levels of hunger and undernutrition, there are also exam-

torically been insufficient emphasis on adolescent nutrition, thoughples of progress and hope. Seven countries whose 2000 GHI scoresinternational organizations and national governments are increasingly

indicated extremely alarming hunger levels—Angola, Chad, Ethiopia,

focusing on this important life stage (SPRING and Save the Children

Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Zambia—have all made progress2018). Lack of proper nutrition and poor eating habits during adoles-

since then. According to the 2023 GHI scores, five of these coun-cence can have long-term consequences, including delayed sexual

tries have made enough headway to reduce their hunger levels tomaturation, lower adult height, osteoporosis, elevated levels of lipids

serious, and Niger’s 2023 GHI score, at 35.1, is very near the s­ erious

in the blood stream, and obesity (Norris et al. 2022; Wahl 1999).

category. Somalia, however, is provisionally designated as a­ larming.
Also, seven countries have achieved reductions of five points or

Other than early childhood, adolescence is the period of most

more between their 2015 and 2023 GHI scores: Bangladesh, Chad,rapid physical growth and development. Adolescents have critical

Djibouti, Lao PDR, Mozambique, Nepal, and Timor-Leste. Thesenutritional needs, including high levels of protein and micronutri-

reductions in hunger are particularly notable given the challenges

ents. The start of menstruation creates additional iron requirements

facing the world and the stagnation in hunger levels at the global

for adolescent girls. While children aged 5–19 have an opportunity

level in recent years.

to make up for inadequate nutrition in their earlier years and even tocatch up in terms of height, they also face challenges and potential
pitfalls in this period (Kupka et al. 2020).
Food insecurity and hunger are formidable barriers facing youth
during this critical period of their lives. Relevant data are sparse
because major indicators of food insecurity and hunger are rarely
broken down by age group. However, existing data confirm thatyouth experience significant levels of food insecurity. Data from2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger17

Low: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

FIGURE 1.6 UNDERWEIGHT AND OVERWEIGHT/OBESITY AMONG YOUTH IN LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES, 1976–2016

50

50

Female40

Underweight (ages 15–19)

Underweight (ages 20–24)

1976

2016

2006

0
1996

0
1986

10

1976

10

Overweight/obesity (ages 15–19)

2016

20

2006

20

30

1996

30

1986

Prevalence (%)

Prevalence (%)

40

Male

Overweight/obesity (ages 20–24)

Source: Based on IFAD (2019, Figure 6.5).

school-based surveys in 95 countries found that 25.5 percent of students aged 11–14 had experienced food insecurity in the previous
30 days, as had 30.0 percent of students aged 15–18. For theseyoung people, food insecurity was associated with poorer outcomesin terms of nutrition, mental health, behavior, and bullying victimization (Fram et al. 2022). Nonstudents in these age groups may faceeven greater challenges. One study found that slightly more than halfof young farmers in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda were food insecure,
as measured by the Food Consumption Score, and dietary diversity
was low among this group (Adeyanju et al. 2023).
In addition to food access and availability, social factors canaffect the food choices young people make. External pressures suchas advertising of ultra-processed foods, pressure to maintain societal“Life became very difficult. We had
no market for our products becauseof the restrictions of movement set
by the government. Hence my dreamof going back to school was shatteredbecause money became scarce.
At a “Green College” I have learned
new skills. I now grow organic
vegetables and sell them. I have an
income and a perspective.”—Kabarungi Latisha (age 20), Uganda

images of ideal body types, and peer pressure are all factors that can
influence youth decisions regarding food consumption (Fleming et al.
2020). Given that the transition to adulthood is a period when lifelong
dietary habits are often formed, reaching this age group with positive
messages regarding diet and nutrition is key (Kupka et al. 2020).
The prominence of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods in modern
diets puts youth at risk of the double burden of malnutrition—namely,
overweight/obesity accompanied by micronutrient deficiencies. At
the individual level, overweight youth are found to have nutritional
deficiencies—a combination of conditions that is associated with18“My hope is that our children willgrow up healthy, less sick, and thatthe role of women can bestrengthened in all areas, thus
­ensuring a better South Sudan and amore successful next generation.”—Joyce Abalo (age 34), South Sudan

Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger | Chapter 01 | 2023 Global Hunger IndexLow: GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate: GHI 10.0–19.9

Extremely alarming: GHI ≥ 50.0

63.0

58.5

58.1

57.5
49.4

47.9

46.0

this unfortunate expectation is the acceleration of climate change,
which is likely to generate not only direct, weather-related crises
such as droughts, flooding, extreme storms, and heat but also indirect crises such as pandemics, conflict, and displacement—all ofwhich can contribute to hunger without adept responses. Given the

18.1

14.1

30

progress toward ending hunger, and the future portends a continuing
onslaught of crises for which the world is not prepared. Underpinning

31.0

27.6

40

43.0

40.9

50

41.0

60

61.2

The crises the world has faced in recent years have undermined70

vast inequality in today’s world, these burdens will be disproportionately shouldered by those who already suffer the most from hunger,

10
Mali

Nigeria

Mauritania

India

Benin

Liberia

GuineaSierra Leone

GambiaJordanCameroon

ZambiaMadagascar

Albaniapoverty, conflict, and poor governance.
0

RwandaPrevalence of anemia (%)

Alarming: GHI 35.0–49.9

Conclusion

FIGURE 1.7 PREVALENCE OF ANEMIA IN WOMEN AGED 15–24
IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

20

Serious: GHI 20.0–34.9

Source: ICF (2023).
Note: Countries shown are those with data collected since 2018 and included in ICF (2023).
Data are shown for the most recent year available.

At the global level, endless summits and ambitious declarations
have pledged to address hunger and malnutrition and their underlying
causes, but if these commitments are never translated into action,
the next generation will face increasing levels of food and nutrition
insecurity. It is more critical than ever to break this intergenerational
cycle, and it is increasingly apparent that this will require the holistic transformation of food systems and improvements to governancestructures, energy and infrastructure systems, social protection sys-

high consumption of foods low in nutritional content and low levels

tems, and more—all of which are currently inadequate to achieve Zeroof physical activity (IFAD 2019; WHO 2020). At the national level,

Hunger. The right to food is violated for millions of people each day,governments are simultaneously grappling with the health implica-

and a robust political commitment to inclusive governance of foodtions of undernutrition and overnutrition. While the prevalence ofsystems is needed to ensure this injustice is ended once and for all.

underweight is declining among youth globally, rates of overweight
and obesity are rising (Figure 1.6; IFAD 2019).
One important consideration related to the nutritional needs ofyoung women is the potential for motherhood and the implicationsof their nutrition status for both themselves and their children. Close
to one-third of women in low- and middle-income countries give birth
to their first child at age 19 years or younger (UNFPA 2022). Low
weight and height of mothers are associated with stunting and wasting in their children, and child undernutrition tends to occur in the“Our parents are farmers, ourancestors were farmers, and weunderstand the challenges a smallscale farmer faces. If we don’t
address our problems, then who will?”—Chethan Kumar B. G. (age 31), India

same regions as maternal undernutrition (UNICEF 2023b). Anemia
often occurs during pregnancy when the mother has insufficient ironintake, which can result in not only health risks for the mother but
also anemia for the infant (American Society of Hematology 2023).
The prevalence of anemia is high and persistent in many countries(Figure 1.7), and currently no region of the world is on track to meetthe 2030 target to halve the rate of anemia in adolescent girls andwomen (UNICEF 2023b).

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 01 | Global, Regional, and National Trends in Hunger19

2023 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX BY SEVERITYFIGURE 1.8

Greenland

IcelandSwedenNorwayCanadaEstonia
LatviaUnited Denmark
Lithuania
Kingdom
Belarus
Neth.
PolandIrelandGermanyBel.
UkraineLux. Czech Rep.
Slovakia
FranceAustria Hungary Rep. of
Moldova
Switz. Slov.
Croatia Romania
Italy
SerbiaBos.&
Herz. Mont. Bulgaria
Spain
N. Mace.
Albania
Portugal
Türkiye
GreeceCyprusLebanon*Tunisia
MoroccoIsrael/Palestinian
Territories

United Statesof America

Algeria
BahamasMexicoCuba

Guatemala
El Salvador

Libya

Egypt

Western Sahara

Jamaica
Haiti
BelizeHonduras

Mauritania

Dominican Rep.

Trinidad & Tobago

Panama

Niger
Mali
Sudan
SenegalChadGambiaGuinea-Bissau Guinea Burkina Faso
Benin Nigeria
Côte Ghana
CentralSouth
Sierra Leone
d'Ivoire
AfricanSudan*
Togo
Liberia
Republic
Cameroon
UgandaRep.
ofEquatorial Guinea
Congo
Gabon
Dem. Rwanda
Rep. of Burundi*
the Congo

Cabo Verde

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

FinlandVenezuela Guyana
Suriname
French Guiana
Colombia

Ecuador

Peru

BrazilAngolaMalawi
ZambiaBolivia
NamibiaParaguay

Botswana

Chile

Eswatini

UruguayArgentina
Extremely alarming ≥ 50.0
Alarming 35.0–49.9
Serious 20.0–34.9
Moderate 10.0–19.9
Low ≤ 9.9
Not included or not designated (see Appendix A for details)			
*Zimbabwe

Provisional severity designation (see Table A.3 for details)

South
AfricaLesothoRussian Federation

Mongolia

Kazakhstan

DPR Korea

Georgia
Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Turkmenistan Tajikistan
Syrian Arab
Republic
Iran

Iraq
Jordan*Afghanistan
Pakistan

KuwaitBahrain
Qatar
Saudi
U. A. E.
ArabiaNepal Bhutan
Bangladesh

India

Myanmar

Oman
Eritrea Yemen

Lao
PDR
Philippines

ThailandCambodia

Djibouti
EthiopiaJapan
Rep. of Korea

China

Viet Nam
Somalia*

Sri Lanka
Brunei Darussalam
Malaysia

Maldives
Singapore

Papua
New
GuineaIndonesia

Kenya
United Rep.
of Tanzania

Timor-Leste

Solomon Islands

Comoros
Mozambique
Vanuatu

Mauritius
Madagascar

FijiAustralia

Source: Authors.
Note: For the 2023 GHI, data on the proportion of undernourished are for 2020–2022;
data on child stunting and wasting are for the latest year in the period 2018–2022 forwhich data are available; and data on child mortality are for 2021. GHI scores were notcalculated for countries for which data were not available and for countries that did notmeet the GHI inclusion criteria; see Appendix A for details.
The boundaries, names, and designations used on the map do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of Welthungerhilfe (WHH) or Concern Worldwide
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries.
Recommended citation: von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, W. Geza, M. Ndlovu, M. Wiemers,
L. Reiner, M. Bachmeier, A. Hanano, R. Ní Chéilleachair, T. Sheehan, C. Foley, S. Gitter, ­­G. Larocque, and H. Fritschel. “Figure 1.8: 2023 Global Hunger Index by Severity.” Map
in 2023 Global Hunger Index: The Power of Youth in Shaping Food Systems.
Bonn: Welthungerhilfe (WHH); Dublin: Concern Worldwide.			
		

New Zealand02

Young women draw water from a well in Kolloma village, Tahoua, Niger.
Climate change is degrading safe access to clean water, which is criticalto food security now and for generations to come. Youth, whose advocacy
for climate change action has garnered an inadequate response, must
be meaningfully involved in decisions that affect them and their futures.

BEYOND 2030: YOUTH, FOOD SYSTEMS,
AND A FUTURE OF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY
Wendy Geza and Mendy Ndlovu
Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth,and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Key Messages> Leaders must take a long-term perspective and invest in sectorsthat can improve young people’s well-being, including health,> Young people are emerging into adulthood in a context of unequal

education, and skills development, while also engaging youth

and unsustainable food systems that fail to deliver food andin policymaking to promote inclusivity, equity, and sustainabil-nutrition security and are highly vulnerable to climate change

ity. Young people must seize opportunities to participate in foodand environmental degradation. Youth not only suffer from thesystems governance and integrate their perspectives into policy

failures of current food systems but will inherit these troubled

to enable just, sustainable food systems for all.

food systems and their looming challenges.
> Food insecurity and undernutrition are highest and most per-sistent in South Asia and Africa South of the Sahara, which arealso home to the largest share of the youth population. At thesame time, many young people perceive farming as unappealing
and unprofitable.

G

lobal food systems are outdated, unsustainable, vulnerable, and often lack inclusivity and equity (Nguyen 2018;
Mabhaudhi et al. 2019; Sampson et al. 2021; Bjornlund

et al. 2022). They fail to provide all people, particularly the marginalized in low- and middle-income countries, with adequate and> Current food systems suffer from a lack of food sovereignty—that

nutritious food in recognition of basic human rights and within safeis, the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate foodand sustainable planetary boundaries. Current discussions center

produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods,

largely on addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable

and the right to define their own food and agriculture systems.

development through 2030—just seven years from now—when the

As a result, indigenous and local farming and knowledge systems

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reach their target date. For

are under widespread threat.

global youth, this perspective is too shortsighted. Young people arelooking much further ahead in a century increasingly shaped by dys-

> Youth participation in making decisions that will affect theirfunctional food systems.

futures is limited. Although policymakers have begun to seek

The global youth population, currently estimated at 1.2 billion, isout young people’s voices and perspectives, the share of youth

the largest in history (see Box 2.1), with the great majority of thesein formal decision-making forums is negligible, and the increased

young people living in low- and middle-income countries in Southfocus on youth participation in some policy dialogues has not

Asia, East Asia, and Africa (Figure 2.1; Glover and Sumberg 2020).

necessarily translated into meaningful impact.

These youth are among those who have suffered the most from theimpacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their well-being and livelihoods> The pursuit of food sovereignty presents an opportunity to engage(HLPE 2021). At the same time, they are emerging into adulthood inyouth in transforming failing food systems to become more sus-a context of inherently unequal and unsustainable food systems thattainable, more just, and better able to supply the needs of all

fail to deliver food and nutrition security and are highly vulnerable to

the world’s people, especially the most vulnerable. Young people

climate change and environmental degradation. We, as young peo-can bring their energy and innovation to help reclaim contextu-

ple in our 20s, are keenly aware that our generation not only suffers

alized food sovereignty, improving nutrition while strengthening

from the failures of current food systems but will inherit these trou-

the resilience of local food systems under ecological and climate

bled food systems and their looming challenges. Those challenges

stress. A transformation to sustainable, resilient, and equitablethreaten the realization of our right to food as well as other humanfood systems can provide youth with employment opportunities

rights, such as health, education, decent work, and livelihoods.

that are fair, interesting, and sustainable.
Note: The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors. They do not necessarilyreflect the views of Welthungerhilfe (WHH) and Concern Worldwide.

Young people are entitled to expect a long and healthy future. As
heirs to current food systems, we deserve a stronger voice in transforming those food systems to meet our current and future needs,

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty23

FIGURE 2.1 WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE LIVE: MEDIAN AGE BY COUNTRY, 2021

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Source: Ritchie and Roser (2022), based on data from UN DESA, Population Division (2022).

primarily through a focus on food sovereignty, which will give all

BOX 2.1	
YOUTH: AN AGE OR A STAGE?
One way of defining “youth” is based on age ranges. The
United Nations defines youth as people between 15 and 24,
whereas the African Union uses an age range of 15 to 35.
More broadly, it may be more useful to think of “youth” asa transition stage from childhood to adulthood, where young
people evolve in positions of power, authority, and social
worth (Christiansen et al. 2006). Young people constructidentities, gain independence, assume responsibility, anddevelop skills and knowledge during this period. As youth
shape their lives and develop into adults, they do so within
the boundaries of their social, economic, and political contexts (Molgat 2007; Heinz 2009). Though youth can begrouped based on this life stage, they have different identities and needs influenced by, among other things, gender, education level, skills, wealth, income, and location(urban, peri-urban, or rural).

people greater power to shape their food systems in line with theircultural, socioeconomic, developmental, and environmental values.

Current Food Systems Are Largely Failing YouthThe world’s youth are in line to inherit food systems that are failingon multiple fronts. At the most basic level, current food systems are
not providing all people with sufficient nutritious food. Approximately
735 million people were affected by hunger in 2022, and more than
3.1 billion could not afford nutritionally rich diets in 2022 (FAO et
al. 2023a). While global hunger figures do not report specifically on
hunger among youth, we know food insecurity and undernutrition are
highest and most persistent in South Asia and Africa South of the
Sahara, which are also home to the largest share of the youth population (Glover and Sumberg 2020; FAO et al. 2023a).
Gender also plays a role in youth’s experiences of hunger andundernutrition. Women and girls make up about 60 percent of severely
hungry people (WFP 2023c). In many low- and middle-income countries, women, particularly in lower-income groups, are responsible
for producing and preparing food and obtaining water and firewood.

24

Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty | Chapter 02 | 2023 Global Hunger Index

Young people are entitled to expect a long and healthy future.
As heirs to current food systems, we deserve a stronger voice in transforming
those food systems to meet our current and future needs, primarily
through a focus on food sovereignty, which will give all people greater power
to shape their food systems in line with their cultural, socioeconomic,
developmental, and environmental values.
During periods of food scarcity, women and girls often eat last andleast, making them more vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity(Botreau and Cohen 2020).
In many countries, young people, especially young women, arefinding it increasingly difficult to obtain decent employment (ILO
2020). In 2020 the global youth unemployment rate was estimatedat 18.4 percent—more than three times the adult rate (Figure 2.2).
Globally, more than one in five young people are not in education,
employment, or training (ILO 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic led
to millions of job losses, significantly affecting young people, who
are particularly vulnerable to job losses and crises (HLPE 2021). In
addition, young workers are twice as likely as adult workers to live in
extreme poverty—on less than US$1.90 a day—and are far more
likely to be informally employed (ILO 2022). The burden of unpaid
care work keeps young women out of the workforce by leaving themwith limited time, energy, and opportunities to pursue income-generating activities. Unpaid care also perpetuates gender inequality andis a root cause of poverty and hunger (Action Against Hunger 2021).
For youth in low- and middle-income countries, employment in theagrifood system is more accessible than in other sectors because of
low entry requirements in terms of capital and skills (Christiaensen etal. 2021). Furthermore, projections suggest that increased demand
for food and rising food prices present opportunities for jobs and business enterprises in agrifood systems in Africa South of the Sahara(Chipfupa and Tagwi 2021). For many young people, however, farming is considered “an occupation of last resort and low productivity”(Filmer and Fox 2014). They have little interest in agricultural activities because of a lack of support, innovation, and education and aperception that agriculture does not offer opportunities for prosperityor self-realization (Chipfupa and Tagwi 2021; Girdziute et al. 2022).
Many youth who work in food systems have informal jobs with minimal job security, low income, and gender inequality (Dolislager et
al. 2020; Fox and Gandhi 2021). In some countries in Africa Southof the Sahara, the number of hours youth spend working in agriculture has declined over time, and many youth opt out of agriculture

BOX 2.2	A YOUTH PERSPECTIVE FROMKWAZULU-NATAL, SOUTH AFRICA
Zamo Zuma (age 23) is a member of the Nceboyenkosi
Youth Cooperative based in Swayimane, KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa. The young people of the cooperative farm on
communal land and have a vegetable garden at the local
high school. In an April 2023 interview, Zamo described
the challenges she faces:
I am an unemployed graduate; I am struggling tofind work. My father is a casual worker, and werely solely on his income to buy food. Because offinancial constraints, it is common for us not tohave enough money to buy certain types of food.
So we eat twice a day instead of three times per
day for approximately five days a week. We also try
to reduce food portions and use vegetables fromthe garden, such as leafy vegetables, maize, andbeans. If things get complicated, my mother relies
on neighbors for assistance, and we use bean seeds
that we stored to plant in the next season.
The Nceboyenkosi Youth Cooperative to which Zamo belongs
has received support from the uMngeni Resilience Project(URP), based in KwaZulu-Natal, which aimed to improve
the resilience of small-scale farmers in the uMgungundlovu district and reduce their vulnerability to the impactsof climate change. As part of the project, URP supported
youth agricultural cooperatives by providing farming inputs,
training, and capacity building. In response to requests
from the youth, URP organized a workshop on planting andcrop selection for different seasons under climate change.

entirely (Chipfupa and Tagwi 2021).

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty25

The challenges within food systems will increase in the future,
particularly given the increasing impacts of climate change, tosustainable methods, and their right to define their own food andagriculture systems” (Declaration of Nyéléni 2007).1

which low- and middle-income countries and their youth popula-

The loss of food sovereignty, particularly in the world’s low- andtions are disproportionately vulnerable. Without immediate action,

middle-income countries, has been hastened by several major factors,

more people in vulnerable low- and middle-income countries, which

including colonialism, poor governance, the intensive capitalizationlack adaptive capacity, will grapple with worsened food and nutri-of food systems, the widespread growth of monocultures in agricul-

tion security challenges. Although the voices of young people echoture, and some of the negative outcomes of the Green Revolution

globally, expressing the need for urgent climate change action,(Weiler et al. 2015; Shilomboleni 2017). As a result, indigenous andlocal farming and knowledge systems are under widespread threat.

progress remains stagnant.

They have been not only sidelined in research and policy but also

The Loss of Food Sovereignty Weakens Food Systems

neglected as young people’s participation in food systems along-

As youth, we see the lack of food sovereignty as one of the greatest(Gunaratne et al. 2021).

side elders, who are often left behind in rural areas, has decreased

weaknesses of current food systems. We view the pursuit of foodIn many areas, local farmers are excluded from seed systems

sovereignty as an enormous opportunity to engage youth in trans-

and have limited control over what they plant, relegating indige-

forming food systems to become more sustainable, more just, andnous crops to the status of neglected crops (Mabhaudhi et al. 2018;better able to supply the needs of all the world’s people, especially

Sidibé et al. 2020; Mudau et al. 2022). Many seed-related bills

the most vulnerable.

and laws have emerged across Africa, Asia, and South America.

The concept of food sovereignty draws attention to four criticalfactors: people and their rights, the quality of food produced, cultural aspects of food systems, and environmental well-being. A global
forum held in Nyéléni Village, Mali, in 2007 resulted in a declarationthat defined food sovereignty as “the right of peoples to healthy andculturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and1	The concept of food sovereignty was introduced at the 1996 World Food Summit by La Vía
Campesina, an international farmers’ movement. The movement articulated seven principles
of food sovereignty: food as a basic human right, the need for agrarian reform, protectionof natural resources, reorganization of food trade to support local food production, reduced
multinational concentration of power, social peace, and greater democratic control of thefood system (Sampson et al. 2021).

FIGURE 2.2 GLOBAL YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT, 2000–2022% of youth (ages 15–24) who are unemployed

19

18.4

18
17
16

15.6

15

14.3

14
13

13.6
13.0

13.8

13.6

13.7

13.2

13.4
13.0

14.3

14.4

14.7

15.0

15.9

16.0

16.4

15.9

15.6

15.1
15.2

13.2

12
11

22
20

21
20

20
20

19

18

20

20

17
20

16
20

15
20

14
20

13
20

12
20

11

10

20

20

09
20

08
20

07
20

06

05

20

20

04
20

03
20

02
20

01
20

20

00

10

Source: World Bank (2023c).

26

Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty | Chapter 02 | 2023 Global Hunger Index

CASE STUDYTraining for Future-Proof Jobs in Mali
Mali faces crises on multiple fronts—including violent conflict and climate change (UNICEF 2023d)—and its large youth
population suffers from a shortage of decent jobs and farming
opportunities. One young mother, Fatoumata Zara Nikingam,
describes her often limited access to affordable and nutritious
food options: “High food prices and a decrease in income fromsales during the rainy season, from July to August, make it difficult for us to acquire the necessary sustenance for ourselves
and our children,” she says.
Karim Yalcouye confronts similar difficulties. Karim had toleave school at the age of 14 to provide for his family. “Being
the sole provider for my family comes with its challenges,” heFatoumata Nikingam (age 29) is pictured with her production
equipment for ecofriendly charcoal in the Ségou region of Mali.

says. “Daily expenses, such as food, clothing for the children,and school-related costs, often put a strain on our financial sit-

18–35 in the Ségou region of Mali through vocational and entre-

uation. However, I face these challenges, determined to ensurepreneurial training in sectors like sustainable agriculture, digitalthat my wife, daughter, and extended family have their basic

innovation, waste recycling, and renewable energy.

needs met.”“Participating in the Skill Up! program has been a turning

Fatoumata and Karim are both participants in the Skill Up!

point in my journey,” says Karim. “The program has provided

project Promoting Green Jobs for Youth in Future-Proof Sectors.2

me with valuable skills and knowledge to improve my business

The project aims to boost employment of vulnerable youth aged

operations and expand my customer base. Through Skill Up!
I envision a future where I can better support my family and2This case study was prepared by Welthungerhilfe (WHH). The project is funded by Ms.
Bauer through the Bauer Charity gGmbH and implemented by Welthungerhilfe (WHH)and its partners: Agri’Sup, DoniLab, and Viamo.

make a positive impact in our community.”
Karim believes in young people as key agents of change.
“I believe that with the right support and opportunities, individuals like myself can create lasting change. Together, we canbuild a better future, not just for ourselves but for the generations to come.”
With entrepreneurial energy, Fatoumata engages in smallscale trading of clothing, helps her husband in their family-owned
shea butter production business, and leads Marta Briquette, acompany that manufactures ecofriendly charcoal made fromplant residues such as wild shrubs, mango skins and pits, andshea nut shells.
“Being part of Skill Up! will open new possibilities for mybusiness,” she says. “The trainings are already helping me
improve my skills and product quality.” She adds: “In the coming years, I aspire to expand my business to reach more customers and make a bigger impact in Mali. I dream of being a role

Karim Yalcouye (age 24) and his family sit amid his thriving
tree nursery in the Ségou region of Mali.

model to inspire others in my community to adopt sustainable
practices and care for the environment.”

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty27

CASE STUDYStrengthening Farming and Nutrition Knowledge ­in Bangladesh
Hosenare Aktar is a participant in the Collective Responsibility,
Action and Accountability for Improved Nutrition (CRAAIN) program in Bagerhat District, Bangladesh.3 The program, whichaims to assist 500,000 people, works to improve participants’nutrition through activities involving government, civil society,the private sector, and community groups.
As part of the program, Hosenare received training on
nutrition, climate-smart agriculture techniques, water use, andsanitation and was provided with a goat and four ducks. Her participation helped her build up her small farm while enabling her
family to withstand the negative consequences of climate shocks
such as typhoons and flooding. “Before the CRAAIN project,”
she says, “there was nothing here. Since receiving the training and different types of counseling, I have created my farm.”
Hosenare has been able to produce a surplus for sale. “Forthe last three months the vegetables I grew went to my family to eat, and I lent some to my neighbor. I also sold [produce
worth] around 1,000 taka [€8.30], which I will keep and use
for my child’s education.” She continues: “I feel empowered
and have a dream of increasing my small farm. I received just
1 goat, and now I have 3. I dream of having 10 or more to help
me earn more and preserve my farm.”
Hosenare also transfers her new knowledge to others in her
community: “All of my neighbors have increased their interestin learning from me. I am counseling them on how to cultivateand how to do better.”3

Hosenare Aktar (age 28) is pictured with her two-year-old son
Rakib at their home in Bagerhat District, Bangladesh.

This case study was prepared by Concern Worldwide. CRAAIN is implemented by aconsortium consisting of Concern Worldwide, WaterAid, and two local nongovernmentalorganizations, Rupantar and Jagrata Juba Shangha (JJS).

Section 326 of Kenya’s Seeds and Plant Varieties Act of 2012, forthe human rights of all—especially those in marginalized settings

example, criminalizes the exchange of seeds for all “unregisteredand youth, as they stand to suffer the consequences of these actions

crop varieties”—often traditional crop varieties—restricting farmers’

for years to come.

choices regarding food production and agricultural and food systems

The consequent lack of food sovereignty has contributed to mul-

(GRAIN and La Via Campesina 2015; Dena 2022). By robbing peo-tiple challenges, including widespread food and nutrition insecurity

ple of their livelihoods, food and nutrition security, and food sover-

and adverse health outcomes (Gunaratne et al. 2021; Sampson et

eignty, these monopolized and restrictive legal frameworks threaten

al. 2021; Bjornlund et al. 2022). Although food-security-specific28

Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty | Chapter 02 | 2023 Global Hunger Index

Young people worldwide are forming their own organizations and initiatives,
reshaping perceptions of global challenges while driving social innovation anddemonstrating a willingness to be part of the solution.
interventions, such as the promotion of major, high-yielding food

improving nutrition while strengthening the resilience of local foodcrops, pushed down global hunger between 1990 and 2017, both

systems under ecological and climate stress.

the share and the number of undernourished people have stagnated

There is a long way to go to ensure the meaningful participation

or risen since 2017 (FAO et al. 2023a). This reversal underscoresof young people in policy processes that can influence food sys-

the urgent need for a new direction in food systems transformation.

tems and promote food sovereignty. At a formal, governmental level,

Although little policy action has taken place to reinstate foodthe share of youth in decision-making forums is negligible. In mostsovereignty since the 1996 World Food Summit, there is a growing

regions, the average age of members of parliament is at least 50

global conversation and an increased focus on social justice and the(Stockemer and Sundström 2022). The representation of youth aged

need to realize and protect people’s right to food (La Via Campesina

30 or under in parliaments is low in all regions (Table 2.1) and even2021; Sampson et al. 2021; Bjornlund et al. 2022; GFFA 2023).

lower for women under the age of 30, especially in Asia, the Pacific,

Greater food sovereignty will likely involve reinstating indigenous andthe Middle East and North Africa, Africa South of the Sahara, andneglected crops and mixed crop-and-livestock farming systems toWestern Europe. Because youth do not fully participate in legisla-diversify and localize current globalized food systems, making themtive decision-making, their specific priorities and needs are often not

more accessible, sustainable, and inclusive and increasing their resil-

considered (Stockemer and Sundström 2022).

4

ience to climate stresses (Mabhaudhi et al. 2018, 2019; Akinola et al.

As they confront global challenges, policymakers have begun

2020; Wijerathna-Yapa and Pathirana 2022). This will require a more

to seek out young people’s voices and perspectives by encouraging

inclusive and integrated seed system framework to support solutions

youth participation in workshops, conferences, and working groups.

that seek to reduce the vulnerability of food systems (Mabhaudhi et

Additionally, young people worldwide are forming their own organi-al. 2018; Wijerathna-Yapa and Pathirana 2022).

zations and initiatives, reshaping perceptions of global challenges

Locally resilient, diverse, innovative, and less input-intensive

while driving social innovation and demonstrating a willingness tosmallholder farming systems—if they are supported, promoted, andbe part of the solution. Examples include Act4Food Act4Change,

extended—may constitute a sustainable solution to current foodthe Asian Indigenous Youth Platform, the Global Youth Innovationand nutrition challenges and a path out of poverty and hunger for

Network (GYIN), Innovative Food Systems Solutions (IFSS), Nutrition

vulnerable populations (Mabhaudhi et al. 2018; Mudau et al. 2022;

Connect, the Slow Food Youth Network, the Youth Working Group

Wijerathna-Yapa and Pathirana 2022). Such an approach also supports human rights for marginalized groups, which are currently being
sidelined by the design of food and seed systems. Innovations areneeded to achieve inclusive, sustainable food systems and food sovereignty for all within planetary boundaries. Youth, as the inheritors

TABLE 2.1

GLOBAL AND REGIONAL PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS OFPARLIAMENT (MPs) AGED 30 AND UNDER

RegionTotal number of MPs

Share of MPs aged 30
and under

Americas

4,604

3.5%

Asia

6,494

1.5%

Europe11,975

4.1%

holders from national, local, and community-based institutions andMiddle East and North Africa

3,415

1.8%

knowledge holders, such as local elders. This inclusive interaction

Pacific

660

1.7%

Sub-Saharan Africa

5,059

2.2%

World

32,3072.9%

of injustice, have the potential to drive these innovations.

Youth Have Little Voice in Policy Processes
In practice, food sovereignty involves interaction between stake-could create opportunities for young people to bring their energy
and innovation to help reclaim contextualized food sovereignty, thus4	“Neglected crops were traditionally cultivated for subsistence, but during the 20th century
were gradually displaced by crops better suited to commercial farming” (Lefebvre et al. 2023).

Source: IPU Parline (2023).

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty29

of the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty, andBOX 2.3	“THERE IS NO POINT IN OUR
BEING INVOLVED IN SPACES
THAT HAVE NO ACTION PLAN
THAT INCLUDES YOUTH”
Sophie Healy-Thow (age 23) of Ireland is a co-founder of
Act4Food Act4Change. She is also a global youth campaigns coordinator for the Global Alliance for Improved
Nutrition (GAIN), a Lead Group member of the Scaling
Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, and a board member of
ActionAid UK. She has served as co-chair of the United
Nations Food Systems Summit Youth Liaison group. In a
May 2023 interview, she gave her perspective on the vital
importance of engaging young people:
Investing in young people is essential; youth
engagement and inclusion should be moremeaningful and sustainable. It should not be seen
as a fad. Youth engagement opportunities are often
just a box-ticking exercise, and nothing tangible
happens post-engagement gatherings, such asconferences, seminars, and workshops. We need tochange this narrative.
Young people should be not only spoken to but
spoken with. Young people should be board
directors in the NGO space and the business world
because we bring a different perspective, andexpectations do not bind us. Youth should also be
involved as policy co-creators to encourage thedevelopment of responsive and sustainable
policies. Making decisions about our future without
including us in decision-making makes absolutely
no sense.

Young Leaders for Nutrition. These youth-led organizations currently
advocate for food systems transformation by raising awareness aboutfood issues, food sovereignty, sustainable food production, nutrition, and environmental protection, including pledges to encourage
policy action.
This increased focus on youth participation in policy dialogues
has not necessarily translated into meaningful impact. Youth participation in decision-making appears superficial and limited (seeBox 2.3). Despite, for instance, young people’s advocacy for climatechange action and food systems transformation, progress is still too
slow. The opinions and ideas expressed by youth have only minimal
tangible outcomes, and their perspectives are not integrated into thedesign or implementation of policy interventions (Yunita et al. 2018;
Macauley et al. 2022; Orsini and Kang 2023).

Empowering Youth by Driving toward
Food Sovereignty
Leaders at all levels have a moral and economic imperative to tap
into young people’s energy, creativity, and dynamism to transformfood systems. Engaging young people in conversations on and governance of food systems transformation is a strategic way to adapt
and adopt innovations for improved nutrition and food security outcomes, especially in the context of a move toward food sovereignty(Figure 2.3 on page 32). The right to food is increasingly recognized,
and a shift toward food sovereignty will allow people to realize thatright in a socially, culturally, and ecologically conscious way (Blue Bird
Jernigan et al. 2021; Sampson et al. 2021). Youth can help advancethe progressive realization of the right to food in several ways. They
can innovate to transform food systems to align with their local context and deliver improved nutrition and food security. They can help
reinstate diverse indigenous and traditional cropping systems currently under threat, and cultivate indigenous and neglected crops tocreate more resilient, context-specific food systems.
Leaders must pursue, and youth must demand, investments inGovernments should invest in youth development
in all aspects, such as in-school nutrition programs
to ensure food and nutrition security from earlychildhood to the university level. This will improveeducation outcomes and opportunities for young
people to contribute to society.

sectors that can improve young people’s well-being, including health,education, skills development, and social connectivity. High-quality
education and training not only enable youth to become more productive and employable but serve as foundations for personal development and well-being, help fight poverty and unemployment, promoteequality, and positively influence individuals’ lives while benefiting
society (Idris et al. 2012). Rigorous evaluations of agricultural skills
training programs for youth are needed to provide evidence on employment outcomes, which could encourage governments and donors toscale up such programs (Maïga et al. 2020).

30

Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty | Chapter 02 | 2023 Global Hunger Index

Josef Quetal (age 27) operates a food stall in the Ti Ayiti market, Cité Soleil, Haiti.

CASE STUDYSupporting Local Food Vendors in Haiti
The people of Haiti are experiencing a period of exceptional

The program’s nutrition awareness activities are designed to

instability and heightened violence, with deepening levels of

improve people’s nutrition habits in the long term, and its capacity-­

poverty, displacement, and hunger, particularly in the capital,

strengthening activities are aimed at sustainably strengthening

Port-au-Prince. The epicenter of this turmoil is the densely pop-

vendors’ livelihoods and income sources while also helping themulated commune of Cité Soleil, where gang warfare has reachedprovide high-quality food items to their communities.

unprecedented ferocity. On one day alone, July 8, 2022, gang

Josef Quetal, a food vendor who is married with two chil-members murdered 95 people in the area, including six chil-dren, lives in the neighborhood of Ti Ayiti in Cité Soleil. He

dren (UN OHCHR 2023).

reports significant benefits from the Manje pi Byen program:

As violence has intensified and people’s movement within“I have been a participant in the program for two years. Manje

Cité Soleil has become increasingly restricted, residents havepi Byen has helped me improve my business and the nutrition

become more reliant on local vendors, who find their suppliesof my customers, but it has also helped my family to live andconstrained by the challenging environment. Available food is

eat better. I can afford school fees.”

low in quality, and the population’s nutrition is worsening.

He adds: “Before participating in the Mange Pi Byen pro-

The Manje pi Byen (“Eat Better”) program, implemented

gram, there wasn’t enough food for the community here. Thereby Concern and local partners5 and supported by the U.S.

wasn’t enough money for supplies. Before the project I was sell-

Agency for International Development, aims to improve theing to about 10 people, but now I sell to over 50, maybe 60 peo-

resilience of extremely vulnerable people in Cité Soleil andple, in the community. I sell fruits, vegetables, beans, pulses,

help them move out of extreme poverty. The program has four

eggs, vegetable oil, and meat. I hope the program will continue

core components:

in the future because I would like to grow my business even moreand expand to selling construction materials, as well as food.”1.

nutrition and food security assistance;2.

economic recovery and market systems;

3. protection from gender-based violence, and4.

water, sanitation, and hygiene.

5

This case study was prepared by Concern Worldwide. Two Haitian partners work withConcern Worldwide on the protection sector of the Mange pi Byen program. IDEO supports psychosocial activities, especially individual support, while Nègès Mawon leads
gender-based violence (GBV) survivor case management and provides peer-to-peer
support for GBV survivors.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty31

Empowering youth as agents of change in transforming food systems should
recognize the diversity, intersectionality, and context specificity of youth needs,
challenges, and aspirations.
A transformation to sustainable, resilient, and equitable foodmaking investments downstream in the value chain. These efforts

systems can provide fair, interesting, and sustainable employment

could be facilitated by including youth in the implementation ofopportunities for the current population of young people and future

existing global policies to address food system challenges—such as

generations (Nguyen 2018; Mabhaudhi et al. 2019). Such food sys-

the SDGs and the Paris Agreement on climate change—through fur-tems can enable freedom of choice and innovation in agrifood sys-

ther collaboration with international youth organizations and forums

tems, encouraging creativity and allowing young people to tap intoalready involved in this work.

niche production opportunities. Realizing this vision requires boosting

To develop youth-inclusive and youth-specific policies, policy-

young people’s access to green jobs, land, youth-sensitive credit andmakers need timely, reliable data on current youth roles in food

financial services, productive resources and equipment, and markets.

systems activities and policy processes (HLPE 2021). In addition,

Aspirational career paths should provide opportunities and remove

the conditions, capacities, and opportunities faced by youth varybarriers for youth seeking to work in agricultural value chains. For

widely based on their context, so empowering youth as agents ofyoung people not inclined to work on farms, including those withoutchange in transforming food systems should recognize the diver-access to land or productive resources, governments and the privatesity, intersectionality, and context specificity of youth needs, chal-

sector could help position them in nonfarm activities that drive agri-

lenges, and aspirations.

cultural transformation, such as improving rural markets and promoting environmental sustainability (Geza et al. 2021). Improving ruralmarkets would entail investing in infrastructure for transportation,water, electricity, and postharvest handling and storage, as well as

Conclusion
As youth, we see that current food systems are unsustainable, inequitable, non-inclusive, and vulnerable to external shocks and risks.
Our generation, which will inherit these food systems and live with

FIGURE 2.3 ACHIEVING JUST AND SUSTAINABLE
FOOD SYSTEMS FOR ALL

them for decades to come, has a huge stake in ensuring that the
food systems of the 21st century are inclusive, equitable, sustainable, resilient, and localized. A shift toward sustainable food systems is necessary for planetary health and human well-being. Suchsystems will promote broader economic, social, and environmental

Meaningful and dynamic
youth inclusion

sustainability and contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions
and more effective adaptation to and mitigation of climate change.
Most young people involved directly or indirectly in food systems

Partnership andcollaboration

Innovation andtransformation

Food andnutrition
security

participation in food systems requires a holistic approach broadly
focused on improving rural economies, social well-being, and service

Just andsustainable
food systems
for all

Inclusive
food systems
transformation

livelihoods are located in rural areas. Therefore, addressing youth

delivery. Efforts must be made to create a supportive environment
for youth to pursue careers and interests in food systems. Increasing

Food sovereignty
and contextualized
food systems

agricultural productivity and promoting and investing in innovations
such as mechanization, farm advisories, and irrigation to make farming more profitable and less laborious could attract youth into agriculture by unlocking diverse employment opportunities.
To build such food systems and engage youth for generations tocome, leaders at all levels should ensure that the direction and tar-

Source: Authors.

32

gets of policy go further than 2030 to look toward 2050 and beyond.

Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty | Chapter 02 | 2023 Global Hunger Index

As they embark on this long-term pathway, they must do more thanin food systems governance, advocate for social justice, promote gen-simply pursue dialogue with young people. They must engage youth

der equity, protect every human’s right to food and food sovereignty,

in policymaking to promote inclusivity, equity, and sustainability. At

spur climate change action, and integrate their perspectives into pol-the same time, young people must seize opportunities to participate

icy to enable just, sustainable food systems for all.

Nazaire Namkomana (age 29) has completed his training in poultry farming and is now steadily increasing his own flock.

CASE STUDYYouth Entrepreneurship for Resilience in the Central African Republic
Successive crises in the Central African Republic have weak-

Nazaire Namkomana is a graduate of the agricultural voca-

ened public and private institutions, led to the destruction oftional training center for poultry farming, which he entered insocial and educational infrastructure, and worsened people’s

2019. With his new skills, he can generate income and ensure hisliving standards. Young people are particularly affected, as theyfamily’s food security. “Before the training I had to worry about

often have not yet developed basic skills and, if not integrated

providing for my family; sometimes we didn’t have enough to eat,”

into social life, easily become targets for recruitment by armed

he says. “Now my children’s schooling is assured. I had no knowl-

militias (UN OCHA 2023b).

edge of poultry farming or any possibility of practicing it, although

Against this background, the project Agricultural Vocational

I had a passion for the field. After the training, I started toTraining for Unemployed and Internally Displaced Youth aims to

run a flock of 50, then 100, then 150 chicks, and I have now

help make the lives of young people between the ages of 18 andordered 200 chicks.”

35 in the Bangui region more socially and economically stable

After his training, Nazaire shared his skills with other young

and reduce migration and crime. The project trains participants

people: “My aim is to turn my unit into a large production com-in several agricultural sectors and—supplemented by anotherpany so that I can not only look after my family and send myproject—helps them start their own businesses so they can sus-children to top schools but also reduce poverty among young

tainably integrate into community economic and food systems.

people in my community.”

6

6This case study was prepared by Welthungerhilfe (WHH). The supplementary project is called Creating Employment Opportunities for Women and Young Adults. Bothprojects are funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (BMZ) and implemented by WHH.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 02 | Beyond 2030: Youth, Food Systems, and a Future of Food Sovereignty33

03

Agriculture and food systems must be transformed to offer viable
livelihoods for youth. Skills development in sustainable value chains,
like local cacao farming in Ecuador, can offer young people inrural areas, like Ramón Palacios, a new opportunity to manage theirown livelihoods and combat poverty.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The world is confronting overlapping crises that are exacerbating social> Governments must improve young people’s access to produc-and economic inequalities and reversing progress against hunger.

tive resources. Reforms to land and property rights are needed

Large demographic groups such as women and youth are carrying

to enable young people to profitably and sustainably engage inthe burden of these crises but are underrepresented in policy dis-farming. Context-appropriate, youth-sensitive credit and financial

cussions and decisions on food systems that affect them.

services should be introduced to provide youth with opportuni-

These recommendations highlight the interest of youth in shaping

ties to save and borrow. Policies and programs should also seek

their future as well as their right to do so. Generational and gender jus-

to boost young people’s access to agricultural inputs for partici-

tice must underpin equitable, sustainable, and resilient food systems

pation in the food system.

that fulfill the right to adequate food for current and future generations.
> Social and economic programs should incorporate gender equity

1

Put the right to food for all at the heart of food s­ystems ­to remove barriers to education and employment for young womentransformation.

and to help reduce their burden of unpaid care work.

> The right to food must be central to food systems policies, pro-grams, and governance processes. It should be enshrined in3

Invest in sustainable, equitable, and resilient food systems tonational law and supported by accountability mechanisms. People

ensure they offer viable and attractive livelihoods to young people.

need to be able to define their own food systems so they can> Governments must support and diversify agricultural production

realize their right to food in ways that are socially, culturally, andthat integrates indigenous and traditional knowledge as well as

ecologically appropriate for their own local context.

modern technology, mechanization, and irrigation to make farming
more profitable and less laborious. This may include enhancing> Youth must play a central role in making decisions that affectthem. Policy- and decision-making on all governance levels need

equitable access to digital tools, such as weather forecasts andfinancial, advisory, and market services.

to meaningfully reflect diverse youth voices.
> Governments and donors should invest in diversified rural econ> Young people’s participation in designing, implementing, andomies to improve social well-being, strengthen service delivery,

monitoring food systems policies and programs should be

and promote youth inclusion. Enterprise policies should enable

expanded to reflect the size of their demographic cohort, tosocial innovations and encourage investments in the creation ofincorporate their long-term perspective, and to tap into their cre-non-agricultural jobs within food systems. By investing in local

ativity and dynamism.

and regional markets as well as pre- and postharvest activities

Invest in young people’s capacities to be leaders in foodments can help localize and transform food systems at all levels.

such as processing, storage, marketing, and transport, govern2­systems transformation.
> To engage in food systems, youth need greater access to education> Governments must improve employment conditions and ensure

and training, skills development, and tailored capacity building

fair wages within food systems so that young people will see agri-

related to agriculture and other food system activities. Therefore,

culture and food systems as sectors where they can profitably

additional resources should be invested in the relevant curricula,earn their livelihoods and build their careers.

teachers, and training institutions.
> Current food systems policies and investments are failing to> Investments in the health and nutrition status of youth, especiallyaddress the intergenerational cycle of hunger in many parts ofyoung women, are critical to the well-being of the future popu-

the world. Solutions should embrace a long-term perspective thatlation. These investments, both financial and political, should

extends beyond 2030 and reflects young people’s aspirations forinclude support for affordable locally sourced, healthy foods.

a just, sustainable, and food- and nutrition-secure future.

Governments need to provide young people with nutrition education and employ tax and regulatory policies to support healthy
diets and discourage the consumption of ultra-processed food.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 03 | Policy Recommendations 35

A

APPENDIXES

Youth are an important but often overlooked cohort that
suffers disproportionately from crises and food and nutrition
insecurity. In the wake of the February 2023 earthquake in
Türkiye, a woman prepares fresh meals for displaced people.
Thousands of people live in temporary shelters with nopossibility to cook for themselves and no access to education.

METHODOLOGY

B
A

Note: The results within this 2023 Global Hunger Index report supersede all previous GHI results. The 2000, 2008, and 2015 scoresand indicator data contained within this report are currently the only data that can be used for valid comparisons of the GHI over time.

T

he Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger at global, regional, andnational levels, reflecting multiple dimensions of hunger over

BOX A.1 WHAT IS MEANT BY “HUNGER”?

time.1 The GHI is intended to raise awareness and understanding of

The problem of hunger is complex, and different terms are

the struggle against hunger, provide a way to compare levels of hun-used to describe its various forms.

ger between countries and regions, and call attention to those areas

Hunger is usually understood to refer to the distressof the world where hunger levels are highest and where the need for

associated with a lack of sufficient calories. The Food

additional efforts to eliminate hunger is greatest.

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
defines food deprivation, or undernourishment, as the habit-

How the GHI Is Calculated

ual consumption of too few calories to provide the minimum

Each country’s GHI score is calculated based on a formula that com-

productive life, given that person’s sex, age, stature, andbines four indicators that together capture the multidimensional

physical activity level.3

dietary energy an individual requires to live a healthy andnature of hunger:

Undernutrition goes beyond calories and signifies deficiencies in any or all of the following: energy, protein, and/Undernourishment: the share of the population whoseor essential vitamins and minerals. Undernutrition is thecaloric intake is insufficient;result of inadequate intake of food in terms of either quantity or quality, poor utilization of nutrients in the body due
to infections or other illnesses, or a combination of theseChild stunting: the share of children under the age of five

immediate causes. These, in turn, result from a range of

who have low height for their age, reflecting

underlying factors, including household food insecurity;

chronic undernutrition;

inadequate maternal health or childcare practices; or inadequate access to health services, safe water, and sanitation.

Child wasting: the share of children under the age of fiveMalnutrition refers more broadly to both undernutrition

who have low weight for their height, reflecting acute(problems caused by deficiencies) and overnutrition (prob-

undernutrition; andlems caused by unbalanced diets that involve consuming
too many calories in relation to requirements, with or with-Child mortality: the share of children who die before theirout low intake of micronutrient-rich foods). Overnutrition—

fifth birthday, reflecting in part the fatal mix of inade-resulting in overweight, obesity, and noncommunicablequate nutrition and unhealthy environments.2

diseases—is increasingly common throughout the world,with implications for human health, government expendi-

Using this combination of indicators to measure hunger offers

tures, and food systems development. While overnutrition

several advantages (see Table A.1). The indicators included in theis an important concern, the GHI focuses specifically on

GHI formula reflect caloric deficiencies as well as poor nutrition.

issues relating to undernutrition.

The undernourishment indicator captures the food access situa-

In this report, “hunger” refers to the index based on thetion of the population as a whole, while the indicators specific tofour component indicators (undernourishment, child stunt-children reflect the nutrition status within a particularly vulnerable

ing, child wasting, and child mortality). Taken together, thesubset of the population for whom a lack of dietary energy, pro-component indicators reflect deficiencies in calories as welltein, and/or micronutrients (essential vitamins and minerals) leads

as in micronutrients.

to a high risk of illness, poor physical and cognitive development,
and death. The inclusion of both child wasting and child stunting
allows the GHI to document both acute and chronic undernutrition.
3
1

2

	For further background on the GHI concept, see Wiesmann, von Braun, and Feldbrügge(2000), Wiesmann (2006), and Wiesmann et al. (2015).
	According to Black et al. (2013), undernutrition is responsible for 45 percent of deaths
among children under the age of five.

	The average minimum dietary energy requirement varies by country—fromabout 1,660 to 2,040 kilocalories (commonly, albeit incorrectly, referred to as
calories) per person per day for all countries with available data for 2022 (FAO
2023).

2023 Global Hunger Index | Appendix A | Methodology37

TABLE A.1

A

HOW THE FOUR INDICATORS UNDERLYING THE GHI
CAPTURE THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE OF HUNGER

period is 76.5 percent, so the threshold for standardization is set
slightly higher, at 80 percent.5 In a given year, if a country has anundernourishment prevalence of 40 percent, its standardized undernourishment score for that year is 50. In other words, that country
is approximately halfway between having no undernourishment andUndernourishment• Measures inadequate
food access, an important
indicator of hunger• Refers to the entire
population, both children
and adults• Is used as a leadindicator for international
hunger reduction targets,
including Sustainable
Development Goal 2 (Zero
Hunger)Child stuntingChild wasting• Go beyond calorie
availability, consider
aspects of diet quality
and utilization• Reflect children’s
particular vulnerability tonutritional deficiencies• Are sensitive to uneven
distribution of food within
the household• Are used as nutritionindicators for SDG 2(Zero Hunger)

reaching the maximum observed level. Here are the formulas usedChild mortality• Reflects that deathis the most serious
consequence of hunger,
and children are the mostvulnerable

to standardize each indicator:
Prevalence of undernourishment
x 100
80

• Improves the GHI’s ability
to reflect deficiencies of
essential vitamins andminerals• Complements stunting
and wasting, which only
partially capture themortality risk of undernutrition=

standardized under­
nourishment valueChild stunting rate
70

x 100

=

s tandardized child­stunting valueChild wasting rate
30

x 100

=

standardized child­wasting valueChild mortality rate
35

x 100

=

standardized child­mortality value

Step 3: The standardized scores are aggregated to calculate the
GHI score for each country. Undernourishment and child mortality
each contribute one-third of the GHI score, while child stunting andchild wasting each contribute one-sixth of the score, as shown in

By combining multiple indicators, the index minimizes the effects

the formula (Figure A.1).

of random measurement errors. These four indicators are all part

This calculation results in GHI scores on a 100-point scale, whereof the indicator set used to measure progress toward the United

0 is the best score (no hunger) and 100 is the worst. In practice, nei-

Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

ther of these extremes is reached. A value of 100 would signify that a

GHI scores are calculated using a three-step process:mortality levels each exactly meets the thresholds set slightly above

country’s undernourishment, child wasting, child stunting, and child
Step 1: Values are determined for the four component indicators

the highest levels observed worldwide in recent decades. A value offor each country, drawing on the latest published data available from0 would mean that a country had no undernourished people in theinternationally recognized sources.

population, no children younger than five who were wasted or stunted,

Step 2: Each of the four component indicators is given a standardized score based on thresholds set slightly above the highest country-­level values observed worldwide for that indicator since 1988.4 For
example, the highest value for undernourishment estimated in this4	The thresholds for standardization are set slightly above the highest observed values to allow for the possibility that these values could be exceeded in the future.

and no children who died before their fifth birthday.
5	The threshold for undernourishment is 80, based on the observed maximum of 76.5 percent;the threshold for child wasting is 30, based on the observed maximum of 26.0 percent; thethreshold for child stunting is 70, based on the observed maximum of 68.2 percent; and thethreshold for child mortality is 35, based on the observed maximum of 32.6 percent. While
the thresholds were originally established based on the maximum values observed between
1988 and 2013, covering 25 years’ worth of available data prior to the methodological review
process, these values have not been exceeded since then.

FIGURE A.1 COMPOSITION OF GHI SCORES AND SEVERITY DESIGNATIONS

1/3
Undernourishment+

1/6Child stunting+

1/6
Child wasting+

1/3
Child mortality

=

GHI
SCORE

Note: All indicator values are standardized.

GHI Severity of Hunger Scale
Low
GHI ≤ 9.9

Moderate
GHI 10.0–19.9

Serious
GHI 20.0–34.9

Alarming
GHI 35.0–49.9

Extremely alarming
GHI ≥ 50.0

100-point scale38 Methodology | Appendix A | 2023 Global Hunger Index

Where the Indicator Data Come From

For some countries, data are missing because of violent conflict or political unrest (FAO et al. 2017; Martin-Shields and Stojetz

Data used in the calculation of GHI scores come from various UN and2019), which are strong predictors of hunger and undernutrition. The

other multilateral agencies, as shown in Table A.2. The GHI scorescountries with missing data may often be those facing the greatest

reflect the latest revised data available for the four indicators.6 Where

hunger burdens. Of the three countries provisionally designated asoriginal source data were unavailable, estimates for the GHI compo-­alarming—Burundi, Somalia, and South Sudan—it is possible thatnent indicators were made based on the most recent available data.

with complete data, one or more of them would fall into the extremely
alarming category. However, without sufficient information to confirm that this is the case, we have conservatively categorized each

How Hunger Severity Is Determined forCountries with Incomplete Dataof these countries as alarming.
In some cases even a provisional severity designation could not

In this year’s GHI report, 136 countries met the criteria for inclusion

be determined, such as if the country had never previously had ain the GHI, but 11 had insufficient data to allow for calculation ofprevalence of undernourishment value, GHI score, or GHI designa-a 2023 GHI score. To address this gap and give a preliminary pic-tion since the first GHI report was published in 2006. In the cases

ture of hunger in the countries with missing data, provisional desig-of Somalia and South Sudan, data were unavailable for two out ofnations of the severity of hunger were determined based on several

four GHI indicators. However, a review of the relevant information in
the 2021, 2022, and 2023 editions of the Global Report on Food

known factors (Table A.3):>

those GHI indicator values that are available,

Crises as well as consultations with experts on food and nutrition>

the country’s last known GHI severity designation,

insecurity in these two countries made clear that designations of>

the country’s last known prevalence of undernourishment,7

alarming were justified.

>

the prevalence of undernourishment for the subregion inwhich the country is located, and/or>

assessment of the relevant findings of the 2021, 2022, and2023 editions of the Global Report on Food Crises (FSIN and
GNAFC 2021, 2022, 2023).8

6

7

8

	For previous GHI calculations, see von Grebmer et al. (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018,2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008); IFPRI, WHH, and Concern Worldwide (2007); and Wiesmann, Weingärtner, and Schöninger (2006).
	Previously published undernourishment values, GHI scores, and GHI severity classifications
are not considered valid once superseding reports have been issued, but are used as benchmarks to consider the plausibility of a country falling into a broad range of undernourishment
values and GHI scores.
	
The Global Reports on Food Crises report on acute food insecurity, which is different fromchronic hunger as measured by the prevalence of undernourishment. However, the 2021,
2022, and 2023 GRFCs were used to confirm whether a country experienced extreme hunger
crises such as famine, threat of famine, and/or repeated hunger crises in 2020, 2021, and2022.

TABLE A.2

DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCE YEARS FOR THE GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX COMPONENT INDICATORS,
2000, 2008, 2015, AND 2023
Reference years for indicator data

Indicator

Data sources

2000
GHI scores(122 countries)

2008
GHI scores(125 countries)

2015
GHI scores(125 countries)

2023
GHI scores(125 countries)

Prevalence ofundernourishment

FAO 2023

2000–2002 a

2007–2009 a

2014–2016 a

2020–2022 a

Child stunting
and wasting

WHO 2023; UNICEF et al. 2023a;
UNICEF 2023a, 2013, and 2009;
MEASURE DHS 2023

1998–2002 b

2006–2010 c

2013–2017 d

2018–2022 e

Childmortality

UN IGME 2023a

2000

2008

2015

2021

Note: The number of countries for which sufficient data were available to calculate GHI scores for each year or time span is shown in parentheses.
aThree-year average.			
Data collected from the years closest to 2000; where data from 1998 and 2002 or 1999 and 2001 were available, an average was used. 			
c
Data collected from the years closest to 2008; where data from 2006 and 2010 or 2007 and 2009 were available, an average was used.
d
Data collected from the years closest to 2015; where data from 2013 and 2017 or 2014 and 2016 were available, an average was used.
e
The latest data gathered in this period.
b2023 Global Hunger Index | Appendix A | Methodology39

B
A

TABLE A.3

A

EXISTING DATA AND PROVISIONAL SEVERITY DESIGNATIONS FOR COUNTRIES WITH INCOMPLETE DATACountry2023 GHI
provisional severity
designation

Child stunting,2018–2022 (%)

Child wasting,2018–2022 (%)

Child mortality,
2021 (%)

Last GHI
categorization

Last prevalence ofundernourishment
value (%)

Subregional
prevalence ofundernourishment (%)

Range of prevalenceof undernourishment
values for provisional
designation (%)

Lebanon

Low

7.0

1.4

0.8

Moderate (2022)

10.9 (2022)

10.5

0.0–16.2

JordanModerate

7.4

0.6

1.5

Moderate (2022)

16.9 (2022)

10.5

15.4–39.4

BurundiAlarming

55.8

4.9

5.3

Extremely alarming(2014)

67.3 (2014)

28.4

33.3–69.3

Somalia

Alarming

—

—

11.2

Extremely alarming(2021)

48.7 (2023)

28.4

**

South Sudan

Alarming

—

—

9.9

—

21.4 (2023)

28.4

**

Not designated

3.1*

1.8*

0.7

—

—

10.5

N/A

Bahrain
BhutanNot designated

18.3*

2.6*

2.7

—

—

15.9

N/A

Equatorial Guinea

Not designated

25.2

3.9

7.7

—

—

28.4

N/A

Eritrea

Not designated

—

—

3.8

Extremely alarming(2014)

61.3 (2014)

28.4

N/A

Maldives

Not designated

15.3

9.3

0.6

—

—

15.9

N/A

Qatar

Not designated

1.9

1.2

0.5

—

—

10.5

N/A

Source: Authors, based on sources listed in Appendix A and previous GHI publications included in the bibliography.
Note: Years in parentheses show when the relevant information was published in the GHI report. 			
*Authors’ estimate. **Designation based on FSIN and GNAFC (2021, 2022, 2023) and expert consultation.				
N/A = not applicable; — = not available.				

Understanding and Using the Global Hunger Index:
FAQs
Which countries are included in the GHI?

or more of these countries would have a higher GHI score than theCentral African Republic—the country with the highest 2023 GHI
score—if sufficient data were available.

Inclusion in the GHI is determined based on prevalence of under-

Why is a certain country’s GHI score so high (or so low)?

nourishment and child mortality data dating back to 2000. Countries

The key to understanding a country’s GHI score lies in that country’s

with values above the “very low” threshold for one or both of these

indicator values, especially when compared with the indicator values

indicators since 2000 are included in the GHI. Specifically, coun-for other countries in the report (see Appendix B for these values).

tries are included if the prevalence of undernourishment was at or

For some countries, high scores are driven by high rates of under-

above 5.0 percent and/or if the child mortality rate was at or above

nourishment, reflecting a lack of calories for large swathes of the

1.0 percent for any year since 2000. Data on child stunting and childpopulation. For others, high scores result from high levels of childwasting, the other indicators used in the calculation of GHI scores,

wasting, reflecting acute undernutrition; child stunting, reflecting

are not included in the inclusion criteria because their availability

chronic undernutrition; and/or child mortality, reflecting children’svaries widely from country to country, with data especially limited

hunger and nutrition levels, in addition to other extreme challenges

for higher-income countries.9 Non-independent territories are notfacing the population. Broadly speaking, then, a high GHI score can

included in the GHI, nor are countries with very small populations

be evidence of a lack of food, a poor-quality diet, inadequate child(under 500,000 inhabitants), owing to limited data availability.

caregiving practices, an unhealthy environment, or a combination

Because data for all four indicators in the GHI formula are notof these factors.

available for every country, GHI scores could not be calculated for

While it is beyond the scope of this report to provide a detailed

some. However, where possible, countries with incomplete data are

explanation of the circumstances facing each country with a GHI score,provisionally categorized according to the GHI Severity of Hunger

Chapter 1 describes the situation in select countries. Furthermore,

Scale based on existing data and complementary reports (see Table

this report offers other avenues for examining a country’s hungerA.3). Several of these countries are experiencing unrest or violent

and nutrition situation: country rankings based on 2023 GHI scores

conflict, which affects the availability of data as well as the foodappear in Table 1.1, GHI scores for selected years for each country

security and nutrition situation in the country. It is possible that one

appear in Appendix C, and regional comparisons appear in Appendix
D. (Case studies of the hunger situation in specific countries appear

9	Even though food insecurity is a serious concern for segments of the population in certain
high-income countries, nationally representative data for child stunting and child wasting
are not regularly collected in most high-income countries. In addition, although data onchild mortality are usually available for these countries, child mortality does not reflect undernutrition in high-income countries to the same extent it does in low- and middle-income
countries.

on the GHI website, www.globalhungerindex.org.)

40 Methodology | Appendix A | 2023 Global Hunger Index

Does the 2023 GHI reflect the situation in 2023?

Moreover, the methodology for calculating GHI scores has been

The GHI uses the most up-to-date data available for each of the GHI

revised in the past and may be revised again in the future. In 2015, forindicators, meaning the scores are only as current as the data. For

example, the GHI methodology was changed to include data on childthe calculation of the 2023 GHI scores, undernourishment data arestunting and wasting and to standardize the values (see Wiesmann etfrom 2020–2022; child stunting and child wasting data are fromal. 2015). This change caused a major shift in the GHI scores, and2018–2022, with the most current data from that range used for

the GHI Severity of Hunger Scale was modified to reflect this shift.

each country; and child mortality data are from 2021. Any changes

In the GHI reports published since 2015, almost all countries havethat occur in 2023 are not yet reflected in the data and scores in

had much higher GHI scores compared with their scores in reports

this year’s report.

BA

published in 2014 and earlier. This does not necessarily mean theirhunger levels rose in 2015—the higher scores merely reflect the

How can I compare GHI results over time?

revision of the methodology. The 2000, 2008, 2015, and 2023 GHI

Each report includes GHI scores and indicator data for three refer-scores shown in this year’s report are all comparable because they

ence years in addition to the focus year. In this report, the 2023

all reflect the revised methodology and the latest revisions of data.

GHI scores can be directly compared with the GHI scores given forthree reference years—2000, 2008, and 2015 (Appendix C). The

Can I compare the GHI rankings in this report to those in previous

reference years are selected to provide an assessment of progress

reports to understand how the situation in a country has changed over

over time while also ensuring there is no overlap in the range of years

time relative to other countries?

from which the data are drawn.

No—like the GHI scores and indicator values, GHI rankings cannot
be compared between GHI reports, for two main reasons. First, theCan I compare the GHI scores and indicator values in this report withdata and methodology used to calculate GHI scores have been revised

results from previous reports?

over time, as described above. Second, the ranking in each year’s

No—GHI scores are comparable within each year’s report, but notreport often includes different countries because the set of coun-

between different years’ reports. The current and historical data ontries for which sufficient data are available to calculate GHI scores

which the GHI scores are based are continually being revised andvaries from year to year. Thus, if a country’s ranking changes from

improved by the United Nations agencies that compile them, and eachone report to the next, this may be in part because it is being com-year’s GHI report reflects these changes. Comparing scores between

pared with a different group of countries.

reports may create the impression that hunger has changed positively or negatively in a specific country from year to year, whereas
in some cases the change may partly or fully reflect a data revision.

DATA UNDERLYING THE CALCULATION OF THE 2000, 2008, 2015, AND 2023 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES
Guide to the colors shown in Appendix B
The colors shown in the table represent the following categories:= Very low= Low= Medium= High= Very high

They are based on thresholds for the different indicator values, as follows:
Category

Undernourishment

Child wastingChild stuntingChild mortality

Very low

<5%

<2.5%

<2.5%

<1%

Low

5–<15%

2.5–<5%

2.5–<10%

1–<4%

Medium

15–<25%

5–<10%

10–<20%

4–<7%

High

25–<35%10–<15%20–<30%

7–<10%

Very high

≥35%

≥15%

≥30%

≥10%

Note: Threshold values for the prevalence of undernourishment are adapted from FAO (2015). Threshold values for child stunting and child wasting are from de Onis et al. (2019).
Threshold values for child mortality are adapted from those shown in UN IGME (2023b) but condensed to the five categories shown.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Appendix A | Appendix B41

B

B
A

DATA UNDERLYING THE CALCULATION OF THE 2000, 2008, 2015, AND 2023 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES
Undernourishment(% of population)

CountryChild wasting(% of children under five years old)Child stunting(% of children under five years old)Child mortality(% of children under five years old)

'00–'02'07–'09'14–'16'20–'22'98–'02'06–'10'13–'17'18–'22'98–'02'06–'10'13–'17'18–'22

2000

2008

2015

Afghanistan

46.4

25.4

21.3

30.1

10.9 *

8.4 *

9.5

3.7

50.3 *

50.8 *

40.4

44.7

12.9

9.6

7.0

2021
5.6

Albania

4.9

7.4

4.3

4.1

7.5 *

9.6

4.2 *

1.6

32.0 *

23.2

15.7 *

11.3

2.7

1.6

1.0

0.9

Algeria

8.1

5.6

2.6

<2.5

3.1

4.1

4.1

2.7

23.6

15.4

11.7

9.8

4.2

3.0

2.5

2.2

Angola

67.8

43.6

13.5

21.6

9.2 *

8.3

4.9

6.0 *

50.4 *

29.2

37.6

29.4 *

20.5

13.8

8.8

6.9

Argentina

3.1

3.4

2.7

3.2

2.1 *

1.2

1.9 *

2.7

10.4 *

8.2

8.1 *

12.3

2.0

1.5

1.2

0.7

Armenia

25.7

5.8

<2.5

<2.5

2.5

4.1

4.4

3.3 *

17.3

20.9

9.4

10.9 *

3.1

2.1

1.4

1.1

Azerbaijan

16.8

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

9.0

6.8

3.2

3.6 *

24.2

26.5

17.8

12.0 *

7.5

4.3

2.6

1.9

Bahrain

—

—

—

—

2.2 *

1.9 *

1.8 *

1.8 *

4.1 *

3.3 *

3.1 *

3.1 *

1.2

0.9

0.7

0.7

Bangladesh

15.6

12.9

14.8

11.2

12.5

17.5

15.6

11.0

51.1

43.2

32.7

23.6

8.6

5.5

3.8

2.7

Belarus

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

2.4 *

2.1 *

2.1 *

1.9 *

6.4 *

3.9 *

3.4 *

3.4 *

1.3

0.7

0.4

0.3

Benin

17.3

9.1

8.1

9.9

9.0

5.2

4.5

5.0

36.2

37.4

34.0

32.2

13.7

11.4

9.8

8.4

Bhutan

—

—

—

—

2.6

4.5

3.1 *

2.6 *

47.7

34.9

25.3 *

18.3 *

7.7

4.8

3.3

2.7

Bolivia (Plurinat. State of)

27.8

24.9

16.0

19.4

1.6

1.4

2.0

1.5 *

33.2

27.1

16.1

18.1 *

7.6

4.7

3.2

2.5

Bosnia & Herzegovina

3.4

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

7.4

4.0

3.6 *

3.4 *

12.1

11.8

8.6 *

7.5 *

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.6

Botswana

23.8

22.3

24.1

22.9

5.9

7.3

6.0 *

5.4 *

29.1

28.9

18.9 *

16.7 *

7.4

6.9

4.5

3.5

Brazil

10.7

5.1

<2.5

4.7

2.8 *

1.8

2.1 *

3.1

10.0 *

7.0

7.1 *

7.2

3.5

2.1

1.6

1.4

Bulgaria

3.9

4.4

3.7

<2.5

4.9 *

4.7

5.9

4.2 *

11.1 *

9.2

7.0

6.5 *

1.7

1.1

0.8

0.6

Burkina Faso

22.9

15.4

13.3

16.2

15.5

11.3

10.2

10.1

41.4

35.1

30.1

22.1

17.9

13.3

10.1

8.3

—

—

—

—

8.1

6.0 *

5.1

4.9

64.0

56.8 *

55.9

55.8

15.5

10.3

6.8

5.3

Cabo Verde

15.0

13.3

21.4

18.2

4.1 *

3.2 *

3.1 *

3.0 *

15.0 *

10.0 *

8.7 *

7.8 *

3.8

2.8

2.0

1.4

Cambodia

24.3

15.2

6.9

4.8

17.1

9.1

9.7

9.6

49.0

39.5

32.4

21.9

10.6

5.1

3.2

2.5

Cameroon

22.7

11.1

4.4

6.4

7.3

7.6

5.2

4.3

36.6

37.6

31.7

28.9

14.4

11.8

8.8

7.0

Central African Republic

38.5

32.6

49.1

48.7

10.4

12.1

6.2

5.3

44.4

43.6

38.0

40.0

16.6

13.7

11.6

10.0

Chad

38.6

40.2

26.2

31.4

13.9

16.3

13.3

8.3

38.9

38.7

39.8

28.0

18.4

15.6

12.9

10.7

Chile

3.5

3.6

3.1

2.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3 *

3.0

2.0

1.8

1.9 *

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.7

China

10.1

3.9

<2.5

<2.5

2.5

2.6

1.9

1.7 *

17.8

9.8

6.5

4.8 *

3.7

1.8

1.1

0.7

BurundiColombia

8.9

11.5

4.9

6.6

1.0

0.9

1.6

1.0 *

18.2

12.6

12.7

10.2 *

2.5

2.0

1.6

1.3

Comoros

25.2

20.0

12.4

13.5

13.3

9.2 *

10.6 *

9.9 *

46.9

39.9 *

30.2 *

28.6 *

9.6

7.8

6.1

5.0

Congo (Republic of)

27.0

36.1

27.7

33.3

9.2 *

8.0 *

8.2

7.8 *

30.8 *

26.7 *

21.2

24.0 *

11.4

6.9

5.3

4.3

Costa Rica

4.7

3.9

4.2

3.0

1.9 *

0.7

1.1 *

1.8

10.9 *

5.6

5.2 *

9.0

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.8

Côte d'Ivoire

18.2

18.9

11.9

7.7

6.9

14.3

6.1

8.4

31.2

39.0

21.6

23.4

14.3

11.4

9.0

7.5

Croatia

6.9

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

1.3 *

1.1 *

1.1 *

1.0 *

1.3 *

0.9 *

0.9 *

0.8 *

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.5

Dem. Rep. of the Congo

27.9

28.4

30.2

35.3

15.9

10.4

8.1

6.4

44.4

45.8

42.7

41.8

16.0

12.3

9.6

7.9

Djibouti

42.1

21.3

21.3

16.8

19.4

17.0

13.9

10.6

27.1

33.0

28.0

20.9

10.1

8.1

6.6

5.4

Dominican Republic

20.6

16.2

7.4

6.3

1.5

2.3

2.4

2.2

7.7

10.1

7.1

6.7

4.0

3.6

3.5

3.3

Ecuador

21.0

21.1

9.0

13.9

2.7

2.1

1.6

3.7

27.9

25.9

23.9

23.0

3.0

2.1

1.5

1.2

Egypt

5.2

5.5

5.8

7.2

7.0

7.9

9.5

5.4 *

24.4

30.7

22.3

21.2 *

4.7

3.1

2.3

1.9

El Salvador

7.3

10.0

9.6

7.7

1.5

1.6

2.1

1.0 *

32.3

20.8

13.6

13.3 *

3.3

2.1

1.5

1.2

Equatorial Guinea

—

—

—

—

9.2

3.1 *

3.0 *

3.9 *

42.7

28.6 *

24.4 *

25.2 *

15.6

12.0

9.4

7.7

Eritrea

—

—

—

—

15.0

14.6

—

—

43.0

52.5

—

—

8.5

6.0

4.6

3.8

Estonia

3.5

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

1.5 *

1.5 *

1.5

1.3 *

1.5 *

1.1 *

1.2

1.2 *

1.1

0.5

0.3

0.2

Eswatini

10.5

11.6

14.4

11.6

1.7

1.1

2.0

1.2 *

36.5

40.4

25.5

28.2 *

11.2

10.4

6.4

5.3

Ethiopia

46.7

33.5

14.5

21.9

12.4

10.6 *

9.4

6.8

57.4

49.9 *

39.4

36.8

14.0

9.2

6.2

4.7

Fiji

4.0

3.7

9.2

6.6

7.0 *

6.2 *

5.7 *

4.6

6.7 *

5.6 *

4.7 *

7.2

2.3

2.4

2.4

2.8

Gabon

10.8

16.8

16.3

23.0

4.2

3.8 *

3.3 *

3.4

25.9

19.7 *

16.5 *

14.4

8.4

6.7

5.0

4.0

Gambia

18.0

15.4

15.9

19.6

9.1

8.5

11.0

5.1

24.1

25.5

24.6

17.5

11.4

8.1

6.0

4.8

Georgia

7.2

3.5

3.6

2.9

3.1

1.3

0.6 *

0.6

16.1

11.8

6.0 *

5.8

3.7

1.7

1.0

0.9

Ghana

14.9

8.1

8.2

4.9

9.9

8.7

4.7

6.0

30.6

28.4

18.8

17.5

10.0

7.6

5.5

4.4

Guatemala

22.7

18.2

15.7

13.3

3.7

1.0

1.3

0.8

51.0

51.5

45.0

46.0

5.2

3.8

2.8

2.3

Guinea

18.0

12.2

12.9

12.9

10.3

7.2

8.1

9.2

46.9

34.0

32.4

30.3

16.6

12.7

11.3

9.9

Guinea-Bissau

15.8

16.1

35.1

37.9

11.8

5.9

6.0

6.4

33.8

32.0

27.6

27.9

17.4

12.6

9.2

7.4

Guyana

6.4

7.6

4.5

<2.5

12.1

6.9

6.4

6.5

13.9

18.6

11.3

9.5

4.7

3.9

3.3

2.8

Haiti

49.2

47.0

38.8

45.0

5.5

10.2

3.7

3.9 *

28.8

29.6

21.9

19.1 *

10.4

8.3

7.0

5.9

Honduras

22.4

21.0

15.5

18.7

1.3

1.4

1.3 *

1.9

35.5

29.8

24.3 *

18.7

3.7

2.7

2.1

1.7

Hungary

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

4.8 *

4.5 *

4.2 *

4.0 *

9.8 *

7.6 *

6.8 *

6.4 *

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.4

India

18.3

16.2

14.0

16.6

17.8

20.0

18.0

18.7

51.0

47.8

38.3

35.5

9.2

6.5

4.4

3.1

Indonesia

19.0

17.4

7.3

5.9

5.5

14.8

13.5

10.2

42.3

40.1

36.4

30.8

5.2

3.7

2.8

2.2

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

5.0

5.8

6.3

6.1

6.1

4.3 *

4.3

4.1 *

20.4

8.0 *

4.8

7.1 *

3.6

2.2

1.6

1.3

Iraq

21.7

16.9

17.3

16.3

6.6

5.8

4.4 *

3.0

28.1

27.5

16.7 *

12.6

4.4

3.7

3.0

2.5

Jamaica

7.6

9.4

8.0

8.3

3.0

2.6

3.5

3.2

7.2

6.2

7.7

4.6

2.1

1.8

1.5

1.2

Jordan

—

—

—

—

2.5

1.6

1.6 *

0.6

11.7

8.2

7.6 *

7.4

2.7

2.1

1.8

1.5

Kazakhstan

6.3

4.2

<2.5

<2.5

2.5

4.9

3.1

3.9 *

13.2

17.5

8.0

8.5 *

4.3

2.5

1.2

1.0

Kenya

32.3

27.0

20.0

27.8

7.4

6.9

5.6

4.9

40.8

35.5

28.0

17.6

9.9

6.3

4.6

3.7

Korea (DPR)

35.7

40.3

40.5

45.5

12.2

5.2

2.5

6.1 *

51.0

32.4

19.1

16.8

6.0

3.2

2.1

1.5

Kuwait

2.8

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

2.2

2.2

3.0

2.3

4.0

5.1

5.2

6.4

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.9

Kyrgyzstan

14.6

8.5

5.8

4.8

2.6 *

1.4

2.8

2.0

22.0 *

22.6

12.9

11.8

5.0

3.4

2.2

1.7

Lao PDR

31.4

18.6

6.7

4.7

17.5

7.4

9.7

7.3 *

47.5

47.7

35.5

26.0 *

10.7

7.5

5.4

4.3

Latvia

4.6

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

1.8 *

1.6 *

1.6 *

1.6

1.3 *

0.6 *

0.6 *

0.5

1.4

0.9

0.5

0.4

Lebanon

—

—

—

—

3.4 *

3.0 *

2.9 *

1.4

13.5 *

10.7 *

9.3 *

7.0

2.0

1.2

0.9

0.8

42

Data Underlying the Calculation of Global Hunger Index Scores | Appendix B | 2023 Global Hunger Index

DATA UNDERLYING THE CALCULATION OF THE 2000, 2008, 2015, AND 2023 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES
Undernourishment(% of population)

CountryChild wasting(% of children under five years old)Child stunting(% of children under five years old)Child mortality(% of children under five years old)

'00–'02'07–'09'14–'16'20–'22'98–'02'06–'10'13–'17'18–'22'98–'02'06–'10'13–'17'18–'22

2000

2008

2015

2021

Lesotho

20.7

12.3

31.9

46.0

6.1 *

3.8

2.8

2.1

43.5 *

42.0

33.4

34.6

10.7

11.1

8.2

7.3

Liberia

36.3

29.5

35.9

38.4

7.4

7.9

4.3

3.4

45.3

39.6

30.1

29.8

18.9

10.8

8.8

7.6

Libya

3.5

5.6

6.1

8.4

8.8 *

6.5

10.2

8.1 *

32.0 *

21.0

38.1

29.8 *

2.8

1.9

1.3

1.1

Lithuania

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

6.5 *

5.2 *

5.2 *

4.8

10.1 *

5.6 *

5.1 *

4.1

1.1

0.7

0.5

0.3

Madagascar

34.1

30.7

40.4

51.0

9.6 *

8.8 *

7.5

7.2

54.2 *

49.4

48.9

39.8

10.5

7.5

6.6

6.6

Malawi

23.4

18.3

13.9

17.8

6.8

1.9

3.7

2.3

54.7

48.8

40.5

35.2

17.4

9.3

5.7

4.2

Malaysia

<2.5

3.5

6.1

2.7

15.3

13.2

8.0

9.7

20.7

17.5

17.7

21.8

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.8

Maldives

—

—

—

—

13.4

10.6

9.1

9.3 *

31.9

19.0

15.3

15.3 *

3.9

1.6

1.0

0.6

Mali

16.6

9.6

4.2

12.8

12.6

12.2

13.0

10.6

42.5

32.7

29.7

21.8

18.8

14.3

11.6

9.7

Mauritania

8.2

6.9

6.8

8.7

15.3

8.1

14.8

13.6

38.6

23.6

27.9

25.1

9.9

6.1

4.9

4.0

Mauritius

5.8

5.0

5.9

6.8

14.7 *

13.7 *

12.7 *

12.1 *

12.8 *

11.8 *

10.8 *

10.3 *

1.9

1.5

1.5

1.7

Mexico

3.2

4.4

3.9

<2.5

2.0

3.5

1.0

1.7

21.4

17.5

12.4

12.8

2.8

2.1

1.6

1.3

Moldova (Republic of)

24.4

27.7

<2.5

<2.5

4.2 *

3.3 *

3.0 *

2.7 *

13.4 *

8.1 *

6.4 *

5.2 *

3.1

1.8

1.6

1.4

Mongolia

30.5

21.9

7.6

8.0

7.1

1.7

1.2

0.9

29.8

15.4

7.3

9.4

6.4

3.1

1.9

1.5

Montenegro

—

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

—

4.2

2.8

2.2

—

7.9

9.4

7.2

—

0.8

0.4

0.2

Morocco

6.3

5.7

3.8

6.3

4.0 *

3.4 *

3.0 *

2.3

25.3 *

19.2 *

15.1 *

14.2

5.2

3.5

2.4

1.8

Mozambique

36.9

29.2

39.5

30.5

8.1

4.2

4.4

3.9

50.7

43.5

42.3

37.5

17.1

11.3

8.4

7.0

Myanmar

38.6

18.1

4.1

3.8

10.7

7.9

6.6

7.4

40.8

35.1

29.4

26.7

8.9

9.9

5.2

4.2

Namibia

15.6

30.6

20.3

17.1

10.0

7.6

7.1

5.7 *

29.3

29.2

22.7

16.6 *

7.7

5.5

4.6

3.9

Nepal

24.1

13.1

6.3

5.4

11.3

12.7

11.5

7.7

56.1

49.1

37.2

24.8

7.9

5.1

3.6

2.7

Nicaragua

27.1

20.9

19.3

17.8

2.3

1.5

1.3 *

1.2 *

25.1

23.1

16.8 *

15.5 *

3.9

2.6

1.9

1.3

Niger

23.3

17.8

12.4

16.1

16.2

13.4

13.6

10.9

53.5

45.4

46.4

47.7

22.9

14.5

12.0

11.5

Nigeria

8.8

6.7

9.3

15.9

13.1 *

9.7 *

7.3

6.5

48.9 *

40.1 *

33.0

31.5

18.2

14.2

12.6

11.1

North Macedonia

7.4

2.8

3.6

3.6

1.8

2.4 *

2.4 *

3.4

8.0

6.8 *

5.8 *

4.3

1.6

1.2

1.1

0.5

Oman

12.4

9.0

6.3

2.8

7.8

7.1

7.5

6.6 *

15.8

9.8

14.1

10.8 *

1.6

1.2

1.1

1.0

Pakistan

20.8

15.2

12.1

18.5

14.1

11.7 *

10.5

7.1

41.4

41.1 *

45.0

37.6

10.8

9.1

7.6

6.3

Panama

24.5

14.1

7.3

5.3

1.4 *

1.2

1.1 *

1.1

21.6 *

19.0

14.5 *

15.9

2.6

2.1

1.7

1.4

Papua New Guinea

26.8

27.6

22.5

23.4

7.7 *

7.9 *

7.3 *

7.1 *

47.6 *

46.8 *

42.8 *

40.2 *

7.1

6.1

5.1

4.3

Paraguay

10.4

9.5

2.6

4.2

1.6

1.4 *

1.0

1.3 *

14.0 *

11.3 *

5.6

7.7 *

3.4

2.8

2.2

1.8

Peru

21.4

11.4

5.5

7.0

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.4

31.3

28.0

14.7

11.5

3.8

2.2

1.7

1.4

Philippines

18.9

11.3

9.1

5.2

8.0

6.6

6.8

5.7

38.3

32.0

33.1

29.6

3.8

3.3

3.0

2.6

—

—

—

—

1.6 *

1.2 *

1.2 *

1.2 *

2.2 *

1.4 *

1.3 *

1.9 *

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.5

Qatar
Romania

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

4.3

3.2 *

3.3 *

3.3 *

12.8

10.8 *

9.6 *

8.7 *

2.1

1.4

0.9

0.6

Russian Federation

4.0

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

4.9

2.9 *

4.5 *

4.4 *

16.7 *

11.2 *

11.1 *

10.9 *

1.9

1.1

0.8

0.5

Rwanda

38.0

28.6

32.6

31.6

8.7

5.1

2.2

1.1

47.9

46.6

37.6

33.1

18.5

7.6

4.8

3.9

Saudi Arabia

5.4

5.8

4.6

3.8

6.6 *

5.8 *

5.5

4.4

18.1 *

15.2 *

13.7

10.8

2.2

1.4

0.9

0.7

Senegal

24.5

11.8

9.5

5.7

10.0

8.5 *

8.4

8.1

26.0

21.6 *

19.1

18.4

13.0

7.4

5.1

3.9

Serbia

—

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

—

4.0

3.9

2.6

—

7.4

6.0

5.4

—

0.8

0.6

0.5

50.4

40.1

23.7

27.8

11.6

7.5

4.6

6.3

35.5

32.7

29.1

26.3

22.6

17.6

14.1

10.5

Sierra Leone
Slovakia

6.1

4.9

5.5

2.8

1.6 *

1.4 *

1.4 *

1.3 *

11.9 *

9.1 *

8.5 *

8.6 *

1.0

0.7

0.6

0.6

Solomon Islands

12.7

12.8

21.6

19.0

6.5 *

4.3

8.5

5.6 *

35.1 *

32.8

31.7

28.6 *

3.1

2.8

2.3

1.9

Somalia

70.6

70.5

58.2

48.7

19.3

14.3

—

—

29.2

25.3

—

—

17.3

16.7

13.4

11.2

South Africa

3.8

3.6

6.5

7.9

4.5

5.1

4.6

3.2 *

30.1

24.9

21.4

19.9 *

7.1

6.8

3.7

3.3

South Sudan

—

—

—

21.4

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

9.9

9.9

16.5

10.8

9.1

5.3

15.9

13.5

15.1

13.1 *

18.3

18.7

17.3

13.1 *

1.7

1.2

0.9

0.7
5.5

Sri Lanka
Sudan

—

—

9.7

11.9

—

—

16.3

13.7 *——

38.2

38.5 *——

6.6

Suriname

11.8

8.4

9.0

9.0

7.0

5.0

5.1 *

5.5

14.1

9.7

8.9 *

8.3

3.1

2.5

2.0

1.7

Syrian Arab Republic

7.6

3.9

11.1

27.8

4.9

10.9

12.9 *

10.8 *

24.3

28.3

34.0 *

27.0 *

2.3

1.9

4.2

2.2
3.1

Tajikistan

40.4

34.4

16.3

9.3

9.4

5.6

3.5

5.0 *

42.1

34.1

19.6

17.1 *

8.4

4.6

3.7

Tanzania (United Rep. of)

32.8

25.6

20.5

23.5

5.6

2.9

4.2

3.3

48.3

43.2

34.6

30.0

13.0

8.0

5.8

4.7

Thailand

17.3

10.6

6.9

5.2

7.6 *

4.7

5.4

7.7

21.7 *

15.7

10.5

13.4

2.2

1.5

1.1

0.8

Timor-Leste

42.8

33.0

27.6

22.3

13.7

21.3

12.2

8.3

55.7

57.2

49.2

46.7

—

7.7

6.2

5.1

Togo

31.6

25.8

19.8

17.4

12.1

6.0

6.6

4.7 *

28.8

26.9

27.6

22.2 *

12.0

9.5

7.6

6.3

Trinidad & Tobago

10.0

9.7

11.3

12.2

5.2

5.3 *

5.0 *

5.1 *

5.3

5.8 *

5.3 *

5.7 *

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.6

Tunisia

4.4

3.8

2.8

3.0

2.9

3.4

2.9 *

2.1

16.8

9.0

8.6 *

8.4

3.0

1.9

1.7

1.6

Türkiye

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

3.0

1.0

1.9

1.7

18.8

12.5

10.0

6.0

3.8

2.1

1.3

0.9

Turkmenistan

6.4

3.9

5.5

5.7

8.0

7.2

4.2

4.1

27.2

18.9

11.5

7.2

7.0

4.6

4.2

4.1

Uganda

18.4

20.7

30.2

31.6

5.0

5.3

4.2

3.6

44.9

38.3

31.8

25.4

14.6

8.7

5.6

4.2

Ukraine

3.0

<2.5

<2.5

4.8

8.2

2.6 *

2.6 *

2.7 *

22.9

16.8 *

17.0 *

16.4 *

1.8

1.3

0.9

0.8

United Arab Emirates

3.1

7.4

4.8

<2.5

2.7 *

3.9 *

4.0 *

3.9 *

3.1 *

2.7 *

2.7 *

2.6 *

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.6

Uruguay

3.4

<2.5

<2.5

<2.5

1.7

1.4

1.0

1.4

15.3

11.8

7.9

6.9

1.7

1.2

0.9

0.6

Uzbekistan

18.0

11.3

<2.5

<2.5

9.0

4.4

1.8

2.4

24.9

19.6

10.8

6.5

6.1

3.3

1.9

1.4

Venezuela (Boliv. Rep. of)

14.8

2.8

10.8

17.9

3.9

4.5

3.5 *

4.8 *

17.4

14.6

11.8 *

20.7 *

2.2

1.7

1.9

2.4

Viet Nam

19.5

12.6

7.1

5.0

9.0

9.4

6.4

4.7

42.7

30.8

24.6

19.6

3.0

2.4

2.2

2.1

Yemen

26.2

25.4

38.7

34.5

15.6 *

13.8

16.4

14.4 *

53.4 *

57.0

46.4

48.7 *

9.5

6.3

6.1

6.2

Zambia

50.4

54.0

33.0

29.8

5.9

5.6

6.2

4.2

59.2

45.8

40.0

34.6

15.6

8.8

6.8

5.8

Zimbabwe

33.0

28.7

32.6

38.4

8.3

2.4

3.3

2.9

33.8

35.1

27.1

23.5

9.6

9.5

6.0

5.0

Note: The colors shown in the table represent the following categories:= very low= low= medium= high= very high. For more information, see page 41.
— = Data not available or not presented. Some countries did not exist in their present borders in the given year or reference period. *GHI estimates.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Appendix B | Data Underlying the Calculation of Global Hunger Index Scores43

B2000, 2008,
2005, 2010,2015, AND 2023
2019 GLOBALGLOBAL HUNGERHUNGER INDEXINDEX SCORES,SCORES, AND
AND CHANGE
CHANGE SINCE
SINCE 2000
2015

C
A

Country
with data from

2000
'98–'022008‘06–’102015‘13–’172023‘18–’22

Absolute% changechange since
since
2015
2015

Country
with data from

2000
'98–'022008‘06–’102015‘13–’172023‘18–’22

Absolute% changechange since
since
2015
2015

Afghanistan

49.6

36.5

30.4

30.6

0.2

0.7

Lebanon

—

—

—

—

—

—

Albania

16.4

15.5

8.8

6.1

-2.7

-30.7

Lesotho

32.5

27.8

30.6

35.5

4.9

16.0

Algeria

14.7

11.1

8.5

6.8

-1.7

-20.0

Liberia

48.0

36.4

32.9

32.2

-0.7

-2.1

Angola

64.9

42.9

25.7

25.9

0.2

0.8

Libya

16.6

12.8

18.5

16.1

-2.4

-13.0

Argentina

6.8

5.5

5.3

6.4

1.1

20.8

Lithuania

7.6

5.1

<5

<5

—

—

Armenia

19.2

11.7

6.3

5.6

-0.7

-11.1

Madagascar

42.4

36.6

38.9

41.0

2.1

5.4

Azerbaijan

24.9

15.0

9.3

6.9

-2.4

-25.8

Malawi

43.1

29.2

22.9

21.1

-1.8

-7.9

Bahrain

—

—

—

—

—

—

Malaysia

15.4

13.7

12.0

12.5

0.5

4.2

33.8

30.6

26.2

19.0

-7.2

-27.5

Maldives

—

—

—

—

—

—

Belarus

<5

<5

<5

<5

—

—

41.9

32.2

27.1

25.6

-1.5

-5.5

Benin

33.9

26.4

23.3

22.6

-0.7

-3.0

Mauritania

30.5

18.8

22.4

21.0

-1.4

-6.2

Bhutan

—

—

—

—

—

—

Mauritius

15.4

13.9

13.5

13.6

0.1

0.7

27.6

22.1

14.7

15.6

0.9

6.1

Mexico

10.2

9.9

6.7

6.0

-0.7

-10.4

Bangladesh

Bolivia (Plurinat. State of)Bosnia & Herzegovina

9.4

6.5

5.3

<5

—

—

Botswana

27.2

26.8

22.2

19.9

-2.3

-10.4

Mali

Moldova (Rep. of)

18.6

17.0

<5

<5

—

—

Mongolia

29.9

16.7

7.4

7.5

0.1

1.4

Brazil

11.7

6.8

5.4

6.7

1.3

24.1

Montenegro

Bulgaria

8.6

7.7

7.3

5.4

-1.9

-26.0

MoroccoBurkina Faso

—

5.2

<5

<5

—

—

15.8

12.2

9.1

9.0

-0.1

-1.1
-17.6

45.0

33.7

28.0

25.5

-2.5

-8.9

Mozambique

48.2

35.6

37.0

30.5

-6.5

Burundi

—

—

—

—

—

—

Myanmar

40.2

29.7

17.3

16.1

-1.2

-6.9

Cabo Verde

15.7

12.4

14.6

12.4

-2.2

-15.1

Namibia

26.4

29.2

22.2

18.0

-4.2

-18.9

Cambodia

41.4

25.6

19.0

14.9

-4.1

-21.6

Nepal

37.2

29.0

21.3

15.0

-6.3

-29.6

Cameroon

36.0

29.0

20.7

18.6

-2.1

-10.1

Nicaragua

22.3

17.5

14.6

13.0

-1.6

-11.0

Central African Republic

48.2

43.7

44.0

42.3

-1.7

-3.9

Niger

53.3

39.5

35.2

35.1

-0.1

-0.3

Chad

50.6

49.9

40.1

34.6

-5.5

-13.7

Nigeria

39.9

31.2

27.8

28.3

0.5

1.8

Chile

<5

<5

<5

<5

—

—

North Macedonia

7.5

5.3

5.3

<5

—

—

China

13.4

7.1

<5

<5

—

—

Oman

14.8

11.2

11.2

8.3

-2.9

-25.9

Colombia

11.0

10.2

7.5

7.0

-0.5

-6.7

Pakistan

36.7

31.3

28.8

26.6

-2.2

-7.6

Comoros

38.2

30.4

24.0

22.7

-1.3

-5.4

Panama

18.6

13.0

8.7

7.9

-0.8

-9.2

Congo (Republic of)

34.6

32.4

26.2

28.0

1.8

6.9

Papua New Guinea

33.5

32.9

28.5

27.4

-1.1

-3.9

Costa Rica

6.9

<5

<5

5.1

—

—

Paraguay

11.8

10.1

5.1

6.0

0.9

17.6

Côte d'Ivoire

32.5

36.0

22.1

20.6

-1.5

-6.8

<5

<5

<5

<5

—

—

Dem. Rep. of the Congo

46.3

40.2

36.4

35.7

-0.7

-1.9

Qatar

—

—

—

—

—

—

Djibouti

44.4

33.9

29.6

23.0

-6.6

-22.3

Romania

7.9

5.8

5.1

<5

—

—

Dominican Republic

15.1

13.9

9.4

8.6

-0.8

-8.5

Russian Federation

10.2

5.8

6.3

5.8

-0.5

-7.9

Ecuador

19.7

18.1

11.7

14.5

2.8

23.9

Rwanda

49.7

33.1

28.3

25.4

-2.9

-10.2

Egypt

16.4

16.9

15.2

12.8

-2.4

-15.8

Saudi Arabia

12.3

10.6

9.1

7.3

-1.8

-19.8

El Salvador

14.7

12.0

9.8

8.1

-1.7

-17.3

Senegal

34.3

21.8

18.0

15.0

-3.0

-16.7

Equatorial Guinea

—

—

—

—

—

—

SerbiaEritrea

—

—

—

—

—

—

Sierra Leone

Croatia

Peru

20.6

14.0

7.7

7.2

-0.5

-6.5

Philippines

25.0

19.1

18.3

14.8

-3.5

-19.1

—

5.8

<5

<5

—

—

57.4

45.4

32.8

31.3

-1.5

-4.6

Estonia

<5

<5

<5

<5

—

—

Eswatini

24.7

25.0

19.3

17.3

-2.0

-10.4

Ethiopia

53.3

40.5

26.5

26.2

-0.3

-1.1

Somalia

63.6

59.2

—

—

—

—

Fiji

9.3

8.6

10.4

9.7

-0.7

-6.7

South Africa

18.0

16.8

13.9

13.0

-0.9

-6.5

Gabon

21.0

20.2

17.3

18.7

1.4

8.1

Gambia

29.2

24.9

24.3

19.7

-4.6

-18.9

Georgia

12.1

6.6

<5

<5

—

—

Ghana

28.5

22.2

15.7

13.7

-2.0

-12.7

Suriname

Guatemala

28.6

24.0

20.6

19.1

-1.5

-7.3

Syrian Arab Republic

Guinea

40.2

29.3

28.4

27.1

-1.3

-4.6

Tajikistan

Guinea-Bissau

37.7

29.6

33.3

33.0

-0.3

-0.9

Tanzania (United Rep. of)

Guyana

17.2

15.1

11.3

9.3

-2.0

-17.7

Thailand

Haiti

40.3

40.2

30.1

31.1

1.0

3.3

Timor-Leste

—

46.5

35.9

29.9

-6.0

-16.7

Honduras

22.0

19.2

15.0

14.9

-0.1

-0.7

Togo

38.2

29.6

25.7

21.1

-4.6

-17.9

Trinidad & Tobago

11.0

10.7

10.7

10.8

0.1

0.9

Tunisia

10.3

7.4

6.4

5.9

-0.5

-7.8

Hungary

6.7

5.6

5.0

<5

—

—

India

38.4

35.5

29.2

28.7

-0.5

-1.7

Indonesia

26.0

28.5

21.9

17.6

-4.3

-19.6

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

13.7

8.8

7.7

7.7

0.0

0.0

Iraq

23.6

20.3

16.5

13.8

-2.7

Jamaica

8.5

8.6

8.6

7.5

-1.1

JordanSlovakia

7.2

5.7

5.7

<5

—

—

Solomon Islands

20.2

18.2

23.4

19.6

-3.8

-16.2

South Sudan
Sri Lanka
Sudan

—

—

—

—

—

—

21.7

17.6

17.1

13.3

-3.8

-22.2

—

—

28.5

27.0

-1.5

-5.3

15.1

11.0

10.6

10.4

-0.2

-1.9

13.9

16.2

23.9

26.1

2.2

9.2

40.1

29.9

16.9

13.7

-3.2

-18.9

40.7

30.2

24.6

23.2

-1.4

-5.7

18.7

12.2

9.4

10.4

1.0

10.6

Türkiye

10.1

5.7

<5

<5

—

—

Turkmenistan

20.3

14.5

11.4

10.3

-1.1

-9.6

-16.4

Uganda

35.0

29.0

27.8

25.2

-2.6

-9.4

-12.8

Ukraine

13.0

7.1

7.1

8.2

1.1

15.5

United Arab Emirates

<5

6.8

5.6

<5

—

—

Uruguay

7.6

5.3

<5

<5

—

—

Uzbekistan

24.2

14.9

5.9

5.0

-0.9

-15.3

Venezuela (Boliv. Rep. of)

14.6

8.8

11.1

17.3

6.2

55.9

26.1

20.1

14.5

11.4

-3.1

-21.4

—

—

—

—

—

—

Kazakhstan

11.3

11.0

5.7

5.5

-0.2

-3.5

Kenya

36.7

29.5

22.5

22.0

-0.5

-2.2

Korea (DPR)

39.5

30.4

24.8

27.8

3.0

12.1

<5

<5

<5

<5

—

—

Viet Nam

Kyrgyzstan

17.5

12.9

9.1

7.5

-1.6

-17.6

Yemen

41.4

37.8

42.1

39.9

-2.2

-5.2

Lao PDR

44.3

30.4

21.8

16.3

-5.5

-25.2

Zambia

53.2

44.9

33.2

28.5

-4.7

-14.2

Latvia

<5

<5

<5

<5

—

—

Zimbabwe

35.5

30.7

27.6

28.0

0.4

1.4

KuwaitNote: — = Data are not available or not presented. See Table A.3 for provisional designations of the severity of hunger for some countries with incomplete data. Some countries did not exist in
their present borders in the given year or reference period.
= low= moderate= serious= alarming= extremely alarming

44

2000, 2008, 2015, and 2023 Global Hunger Index Scores | Appendix C | 2023 Global Hunger Index

COUNTRIES’ 2023 GHI SCORES BY REGION

D
B
WEST ASIA AND NORTH AFRICA
60= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

50
39.9

30

26.1

World = 18.3

13.8

9.0

8.3

7.7

7.3

6.8

Algeria10

Saudi Arabia

12.8

Iran

16.1

Oman

20

Morocco40

West Asia and North Africa = 11.9
5.9
<5
<5
<5
United ArabEmirates

Türkiye

KuwaitTunisia

Egypt

Iraq

Libya

Syria

Yemen

0

Note: Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon, and Qatar are in the West Asia and North Africa region but are not shown, owing to insufficient data for the calculation of GHI scores. Existing data and provisional indicator values for these countries were included in the calculation of regional and global GHI scores. See Table A.3 regarding provisional designations of hunger severity for countries withincomplete data. Countries with GHI scores less than 5 are presented in alphabetical order.

WEST AFRICA

60= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

50

40
32.2

31.3
28.3

30

27.1

25.6

25.5
22.6

20

Africa South of the Sahara = 27.0
21.1

21.0

20.6

19.7
15.0

World = 18.3
13.7
12.4

Ghana

33.0

Senegal35.1

10

Cabo Verde

GambiaCôte d’Ivoire

Mauritania

Togo

Benin

Burkina Faso

Mali

GuineaNigeria

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Guinea-Bissau

Niger

0

2023 Global Hunger Index | Appendix D | Countries’ 2023 GHI Scores by Region45

D
A
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN AFRICA
60= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

50
42.3
35.5

34.6
Africa South of the Sahara = 27.0

25.9
19.9

20

18.7

18.6

18.0

17.3 World = 18.3
13.0

Eswatini

28.0

Namibia30

Cameroon

35.7

Gabon

40

10

South Africa

Botswana

AngolaRep. of Congo

Chad

LesothoDem. Rep.
of the CongoCentralAfrican Rep.

0

Note: Equatorial Guinea is in the Central Africa subregion but is not shown, owing to insufficient data for the calculation of GHI scores. Existing data and provisional indicator values for­Equatorial Guinea were included in the calculation of regional and global GHI scores. See Table A.3 regarding provisional designations of hunger severity for countries with incomplete data.

EAST AFRICA
60= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

23.2

Africa South of the Sahara = 27.0
22.7
22.0
21.1

50

40

41.0

30.5

30

28.5

28.0

27.0

26.2

25.4

25.2

23.0

20

World = 18.3
13.6

10

Mauritius

Malawi

Kenya

Comoros

Djibouti

United Rep. of
Tanzania

UgandaRwandaEthiopia

Sudan

Zimbabwe

ZambiaMozambique

Madagascar

0

Note: Burundi, Eritrea, Somalia, and South Sudan are in the East Africa subregion but are not shown, owing to insufficient data for the calculation of GHI scores. Existing data and provisional
indicator values for these countries were included in the calculation of regional and global GHI scores. See Table A.3 regarding provisional designations of hunger severity for countries withincomplete data.

46

Countries’ 2023 GHI Scores by Region | Appendix D | 2023 Global Hunger Index

D
B
SOUTH AMERICA
60= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

50

40

30

15.6

World = 18.3

14.5
10.8

10

10.4

9.3

7.2

7.0

6.7

6.4

Latin America andCaribbean = 8.6

6.0

<5

<5
Uruguay

17.3

Chile

20

Paraguay

Argentina

BrazilColombia

Peru

GuyanaSuriname

Trinidad &TobagoEcuador

Bolivia

Venezuela

0

Note: Countries with GHI scores less than 5 are presented in alphabetical order.

CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
60= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

50

40
31.1

19.1

World = 18.3

10

8.6

8.1

7.9

7.5

Jamaica

13.0

Panama14.9

El Salvador

20

Dominican Rep.

30

6.0

Latin America andCaribbean = 8.6
5.1

Costa Rica

MexicoNicaragua

Honduras

Guatemala

Haiti

0

2023 Global Hunger Index | Appendix D | Countries’ 2023 GHI Scores by Region47

D
A
X
SOUTH, EAST, AND SOUTHEAST ASIA
60
= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

50

40

30

30.6 29.9

28.7 27.8
27.4 26.6

South Asia = 27.0
19.6 19.0

20

17.6

16.3 16.1

15.0 14.9 14.8

World = 18.3
13.3 12.5

10

11.4 10.4

East and Southeast Asia
9.7
7.5 = 8.3
<5
China

Mongolia

Fiji

Thailand

Viet Nam

Malaysia

Sri Lanka

Philippines

Cambodia

Nepal

MyanmarLao PDR

Indonesia

Bangladesh

Solomon Islands

PakistanPapua New
GuineaDPR Korea

India

Timor-Leste

Afghanistan0

Note: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are in South Asia for the purposes of Figure 1.3, whereas the remaining countries are in East and Southeast Asia. Bhutan and Maldives are not shown, owing to insufficient data for the calculation of GHI scores. Existing data and provisional indicator values for these countries were included in thecalculation of regional and global GHI scores. See Table A.3 regarding provisional designations of hunger severity for countries with incomplete data.

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
60
= extremely alarming= alarming= serious= moderate

= low

50

40

30

20

World = 18.3

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

Europe and Central Asia = 6.1<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Croatia

Estonia

Georgia

Hungary

LatviaLithuania

Moldova

8.2 7.5
6.9 6.1 5.8
5.6 5.5 5.4 5.0

Bosnia &Herzegovina

10.3

10

Belarus

13.7

Slovakia

SerbiaRomania

North Macedonia

Montenegro

Uzbekistan

Bulgaria

Kazakhstan

Armenia

RussianFederation

Albania

Azerbaijan

Kyrgyzstan

UkraineTurkmenistan

Tajikistan0

Note: Countries with GHI scores less than 5 are presented in alphabetical order.

48

Countries’ 2023 GHI Scores by Region | Appendix D | 2023 Global Hunger Index

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A

C

Action Against Hunger. 2021. Recognizing, Reducing and Redistributing Unpaid Care Work

Chipfupa, U., and A. Tagwi. 2021. “Youth’s Participation in Agriculture: A Fallacy or Achievablethrough Universal Social Protection. Policy Brief. New York. https://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/

Possibility? Evidence from Rural South Africa.” South African Journal of Economic anden/publication/recognizing-reducing-and-redistributing-unpaid-care-work-through-universal-

Management Sciences 24 (1): 1–12.

social-protection/.
Christiaensen, L., Z. Rutledge, and J. E. Taylor. 2021. “Viewpoint: The Future of Work in AgriActuNiger. 2023. “Plaidoyer du Groupe de Travail Humanitaire (GTH-OIREN): Appel d’ur-food.” Food Policy 99: 101963. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101963.

gence pour faire face à la soudure précoce et la flambée des prix des denrées au Niger.”
June 12. https://www.actuniger.com/societe/19281-plaidoyer-du-groupe-de-travail-­­­­humanitaire-

Christiansen, C., M. Utas, and H. E. Vigh. 2006. “Introduction.” In Navigating Youth, Generatinggth- ­­­oiren-appel-d-urgence-pour-faire-face-a-la-soudure-precoce-et-la-flambee-des-prix-­des-­Adulthood: Social Becoming in an African Context, edited by C. Christiansen, M. Utas, and H.

denrees-au-niger.html.

E. Vigh. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordic Africa Institute.

Adaptation Fund. N.d. Building Resilience in the Greater uMngeni Catchment, South Africa.

Commonwealth Secretariat. 2021. Global Youth Development Index and Report 2020. London.

https://www.adaptation-fund.org/project/building-resilience-in-the-greater-umngeni-catchment/.

https://youth-development-index.thecommonwealth.org/assets/pdf/global-youth-developmentreport-2020.pdf.

Adeyanju, D., J. Mburu, W. Gituro, C. Chumo, D. Mignouna, A. Ogunniyi, J. K. Akomolafe, and J.
Nigeria, and Uganda.” Agricultural and Food Economics 11 (1): 4.

D

Akinola, R., L. M. Pereira, T. Mabhaudhi, F. M. De Bruin, and L. Rusch. 2020. “A Review of

https://nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf.

Ejima. 2023. “Assessing Food Security among Young Farmers in Africa: Evidence from Kenya,

African Indigenous Food Crops and the Implications for More Sustainable and Healthy Food
Systems.” Sustainability 12 (8): 3493.
American Society of Hematology. 2023. “Anemia and Pregnancy.” https://www.hematology.
org/education/patients/anemia/pregnancy#:~:text=When%20your%20body%20needs%20

Declaration of Nyéléni. 2007. Declaration made on February 27 in Nyéléni Village, Sélingué, Mali.

Dena, H. 2022. “Punitive Seed Laws Protect Big Corporations over Kenya’s Farmers.”
Press release, May 31. Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/press/51419/
punitive-seed-laws-protect-big-corporations-over-kenyas-farmers.

more,for%20anemia%20later%20in%20infancy.

de Onis, M., E. Borghi, M. Arimond, P. Webb, T. Croft, K. Saha, et al. 2019. “Prevalence

B

Nutrition 22 (1): 175–179.

Baker, A. 2021. “Climate, Not Conflict. Madagascar’s Famine Is the First in Modern History

Dolislager, M., T. Reardon, A. Arslan, L. Fox, S. Liverpool-Tasie, C. Sauer, and D. L. Tschirley.

to Be Solely Caused by Global Warming.” Time, July 20. https://time.com/6081919/

2020. “Youth and Adult Agrifood System Employment in Developing Regions: Rural (Peri-urban

famine-climate-change-madagascar/.

to Hinterland) vs. Urban.” Journal of Development Studies 57 (4): 571–593. https://doi.org/

Thresholds for Wasting, Overweight and Stunting in Children under 5 Years.” Public Health10.1080/00220388.2020.1808198.
Banerjee, A., S. Sen, J. Khan, M. Pal, and P. Bharati. 2022. “Decadal Change in the Association
Weight in India.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 22 (1): 147.

F

Belhaj, F., and A. Soliman. 2021. “MENA Has a Food Security Problem but There Are Ways

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4674e.pdf.

between the Status of Young Mother’s Body Mass Index and Anaemia with Child Low Birthto Address It.” World Bank, Opinion, September 25. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
opinion/2021/09/24/mena-has-a-food-security-problem-but-there-are-ways-to-address-it.
Bella, A. L. 2022. “An Innovative Step in the Fight against Malnutrition.” Press release,
October 19. UNICEF. https://reliefweb.int/report/burundi/innovative-step-fight-againstmalnutrition#:~:text=Women%20and%20children%20are%20disproportionately,exceeding%20
World%20Health%20Organization%20thresholds.
Bjornlund, V., H. Bjornlund, and A. van Rooyen. 2022. “Why Food Insecurity Persists in SubSaharan Africa: A Review of Existing Evidence.” Food Security 14 (4): 845–864.
Black, R. E., C. G. Victora, S. P. Walker, Z. A. Bhutta, P. Christian, M. de Onis, M. Ezzati, et al.
2013. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income
Countries.” Lancet 832 (9890): 427–451.
Blue Bird Jernigan, V., T. L. Maudrie, C. J. Nikolaus, T. Benally, S. Johnson, T. Teague, M. Mayes,
T. Jacob, and T. Taniguchi. 2021. “Food Sovereignty Indicators for Indigenous Community
Capacity Building and Health.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5: 704750.
Bonnell, C. 2023. “Russia Suspends Black Sea Grain Deal in Blow to Global Food Security.”
Associated Press, July 17. https://globalnews.ca/news/9836371/black-sea-grain-­deal-­­haltedrussia-ukraine/.
Botreau, H., and M. J. Cohen. 2020. “Gender Inequality and Food Insecurity: A Dozen Years
after the Food Price Crisis, Rural Women Still Bear the Brunt of Poverty and Hunger.” Advancesin Food Security and Sustainability 5: 53–117.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2015. FAO Hunger Map 2015.

FAO. 2022. Improving Social Protection for Rural Populations in Europe and Central Asia: Priorities
for FAO. Budapest. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1925en.
FAO. 2023. “Data: Suite of Food Security Indicators.” Accessed July 12, 2023. www.fao.org/
faostat/en/#data/FS.
FAO, IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), UNICEF (United Nations Children’sFund), WFP (World Food Programme), and WHO (World Health Organization). 2017. The State ofFood Security and Nutrition in the World 2017: Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security.
Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-I7695e.pdf.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2022. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in theWorld 2022: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable.
Rome: FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2023a. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in theWorld 2023: Urbanization, Agrifood Systems Transformation and Healthy Diets across the Rural–
Urban Continuum. Rome: FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3017en.
FAO, IFAD, PAHO (Pan American Health Organization), UNICEF, and WFP. 2023b. Regional
Overview of Food Security and Nutrition in Latin America and the Caribbean 2022: Towards
Improving Affordability of Healthy Diets. Santiago, Chile. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3859en.
Filmer, D., and L. Fox. 2014. Youth Employment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC:
World Bank.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography49

Fleming, C. A. K., K. Hockey, V. Schmied, A. Third, J. Diniz De Oliveira, G. Lala, and G.
Theakstone. 2020. Food and Me: How Adolescents Experience Nutrition across the World.
A Companion Report to The State of the World’s Children 2019. Sydney: Western Sydney
University and UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/media/94021/file/Food-and-me-adolescentsSOWC2019-companion-report.pdf.
Fox, L., and D. Gandhi. 2021. Youth Employment in Sub-Saharan Africa: Progress and Prospects.
Africa Growth Initiative Working Paper #28. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Fram, M. S., H. T. Nguyen, and E. A. Frongillo. 2022. “Food Insecurity among AdolescentStudents from 95 Countries Is Associated with Diet, Behavior, and Health, and Associations
Differ by Student Age and Sex.” Current Developments in Nutrition 6 (3): nzac024.
FSIN (Food Security Information Network) and GNAFC (Global Network against Food Crises).
2021. Global Report on Food Crises 2021: Joint Analysis for Better Decisions. https://www.wfp.
org/publications/global-report-food-crises-2021
FSIN and GNAFC. 2022. Global Report on Food Crises 2022: Joint Analysis for Better Decisions.
https://www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-2022.
FSIN and GNAFC. 2023. Global Report on Food Crises 2023: Joint Analysis for Better Decisions.
Rome. https://www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-2023.

G
Geza, W., M. Ngidi, T. Ojo, A. A. Adetoro, R. Slotow, and T. Mabhaudhi. 2021. “Youth
Participation in Agriculture: A Scoping Review.” Sustainability 13 (16): 9120. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13169120.
GFFA (Global Forum for Food and Agriculture). 2023. “Statement of Young Farmers at the 2023
Global Forum for Food and Agriculture.” https://gffa-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/
GFFA-Young-Farmer-Statement-2023.pdf.
Girdziute, L., E. Besuspariene, A. Nausediene, A. Novikova, J. Leppala, and M. Jakob. 2022.
“Youth’s (Un)Willingness to Work in Agriculture Sector.” Frontiers in Public Health 10.
Glauber, J., B. McNamara, and E. Olivetti. 2023. “Increased Tensions in Ukraine Again Threaten
the Black Sea Grain Initiative.” IFPRI Blog (International Food Policy Research Institute), June 13.
https://www.ifpri.org/blog/increased-tensions-ukraine-again-threaten-black-sea-grain-initiative.
Glover, D., and J. Sumberg. 2020. “Youth and Food Systems Transformation.” Frontiers in
Sustainable Food Systems 4: 101.
GRAIN and La Via Campesina. 2015. “Seed Laws That Criminalize Farmers: Resistance andFight Back.” April 8. https://grain.org/article/entries/5142-seed-laws-that-criminalise-farmersresistance-and-fightback.
Gunaratne, M. S., R. B. Radin Firdaus, and S. I. Rathnasooriya. 2021. “Climate Change
and Food Security in Sri Lanka: Towards Food Sovereignty.” Humanities and Social Sciences

I
ICF. 2023. “The DHS Program STATcompiler.” Accessed July 5, 2023. http://www.statcompiler.com.
Idris, F., Z. Hassan, A. Ya’acob, S. K. Gill, and N. A. M. Awal. 2012. “The Role of Education in
Shaping Youth’s National Identity.” Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 59: 443–450.
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2019. 2019 Rural Development
Report: Creating Opportunities for Rural Youth. Rome. https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/-/publication/2019-rural-development-report.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2023. 2023 Global Food Policy Report:
Rethinking Food Crisis Responses. Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896294417
IFPRI, WHH (Welthungerhilfe), and Concern Worldwide. 2007. The Challenge of Hunger 2007:
Global Hunger Index: Facts, Determinants, and Trends. Washington, DC, Bonn, and Dublin.
ILO (International Labour Organization). 2020. Global Employment Trends for Youth 2020:
Technology and the Future of Jobs. Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_737648.pdf.
ILO. 2022. Global Employment Trends for Youth 2022: Investing in Transforming Futures for
Young People. Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/--publ/documents/publication/wcms_853321.pdf.
IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union) Parline. 2023. “Data on Age: Global and Regional Averages”(averages as of July 2023). Accessed July 13, 2023. https://data.ipu.org/age-brackets-aggregate/.
IRC (International Rescue Committee). 2023. “In Their Own Words: Displaced by Drought inSomalia.” May 9. https://www.rescue.org/eu/article/their-own-words-displaced-drought-somalia.

J
Jungbluth, F., and S. Zorya. 2023. “Ensuring Food Security in Europe and Central Asia, Now andin the Future.” World Bank Blogs, February 3. https://blogs.worldbank.org/europeandcentralasia/
ensuring-food-security-europe-and-central-asia-now-and-future.

K
Kemoe, L., P. Mitra, C. Okou, and D. F. Unsal. 2022. “How Africa Can Escape Chronic Food
Insecurity Amid Climate Change.” IMF Blog (International Monetary Fund), September 14.
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/09/14/how-africa-can-escape-chronic-food-­
insecurity-amid-climate-change.
Kupka, R., K. Siekmans, and T. Beal. 2020. “The Diets of Children: Overview of Available Data
for Children and Adolescents.” Global Food Security 27: 100442.

L
La Via Campesina. 2021. “LVC 30 Years.” https://viacampesina.org/en/tag/lvc30years/.

Communications 8: art. 229.
Lefebvre, L., D. Laborde, and V. Piñeiro. 2023. “Bringing Back Neglected Crops: A Food andH
Heinz, W. R. 2009. “Youth Transitions in an Age of Uncertainty.” In Handbook of Youth andYoung Adulthood, edited by A. Furlong. London: Routledge.
HLPE (High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World
Food Security). 2021. Promoting Youth Engagement and Employment in Agriculture and Food
Systems. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cb5464en/cb5464en.pdf.

50

Climate Solution for Africa.” IFPRI Blog (International Food Policy Research Institute), June 5.
https://www.ifpri.org/blog/bringing-back-neglected-crops-food-and-climate-solution-africa.
Le Mouël, C., A. Forslund, P. Marty, S. Manceron, E. Marajo-Petitzon, M. A. Caillaud, P. Dumas,
and B. Schmitt. 2023. “Can the Middle East-North Africa Region Mitigate the Rise of Its Food
Import Dependency under Climate Change?” Regional Environmental Change 23 (2): 52. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-023-02045-y.

Bibliography | 2023 Global Hunger Index

MR

Mabhaudhi, T., T. P. Chibarabada, V. G. P. Chimonyo, V. G. Murugani, L. M. Pereira, N. Sobratee,

Reuters. 2023. “UN Agencies Warn of Impact If Black Sea Grain Deal Ends.” June 26. https://

L. Govender, R. Slotow, and A. T. Modi. 2018. “Mainstreaming Underutilized Indigenous andwww.reuters.com/world/europe/un-agencies-warn-impact-if-black-sea-grain-deal-ends-

Traditional Crops into Food Systems: A South African Perspective.” Sustainability 11 (1): 172.

2023-06-26/.

Mabhaudhi, T., V. G. P. Chimonyo, S. Hlahla, F. Massawe, S. Mayes, L. Nhamo, and A. T. Modi.

Rice, S. 2022. “Madagascar’s Famine Is More Than Climate Change.” Georgetown Journal of

2019. “Prospects of Orphan Crops in Climate Change.” Planta 250 (3): 695–708.

International Affairs, January 24. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2022/01/24/madagascars-famineis-more-than-climate-change/.

Macauley, T., H. B. Rolker, M. Scherer, J. Brock, N. Savona, A. Helleve, and C. Knai. 2022.
“Youth Participation in Policy-making Processes in the United Kingdom: A Scoping Review ofRitchie, H., and M. Roser. 2022. “Age Structure.” Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.

the Literature.” Journal of Community Practice 30 (2): 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10

org/age-structure.

705422.2022.2073308.
Maïga, W. H., M. Porgo, P. Zahonogo, C. J. Amegnaglo, D. A. Coulibaly, J. Flynn, et al. 2020.

S“A Systematic Review of Employment Outcomes from Youth Skills Training Programmes in

Sampson, D., M. Cely-Santos, B. Gemmill-Herren, N. Babin, A. Bernhart, R. Bezner Kerr, et al.

Agriculture in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Nature Food 1 (10): 605–619. https://doi.

2021. “Food Sovereignty and Rights-Based Approaches Strengthen Food Security and Nutritionorg/10.1038/s43016-020-00172-x.

across the Globe: A Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5: 686492.

Mamun, A., and J. Glauber. 2023. “Rice Markets in South and Southeast Asia Face Stresses

Sathi, N. J., B. Ahammed, K. Alam, R. Hashmi, K. Y. Lee, and S. A. Keramat. 2022.

from El Niño, Export Restrictions.” IFPRI Blog (International Food Policy Research Institute),“Socioeconomic Inequalities in Low Birth Weight in South Asia: A Comparative Analysis Using

May 15. https://www.ifpri.org/blog/rice-markets-south-and-southeast-asia-face-stresses-el-

Demographic and Health Surveys.” SSM–Population Health 20 (October 11): 101248.

ni%C3%B1o-export-restrictions.

Schipper, S., S. Crowley, and K. Firshan. 2022. “Millions Are Going Hungry in Post-Pandemic Asia:

Martin-Shields, C. P., and W. Stojetz. 2019. “Food Security and Conflict: Empirical Challenges

Here’s How to Respond.” Asian Development Blog (Asian Development Bank), June 29. https://and Future Opportunities for Research and Policy Making on Food Security and Conflict.” World

blogs.adb.org/blog/millions-are-going-hungry-in-post-pandemic-asia-here-s-how-to-respond.

Development 119 (July): 150–164.

Shilomboleni, H. 2017. “The African Green Revolution and the Food Sovereignty Movement:

MEASURE DHS. 2023. “Demographic and Health Surveys.” Calverton, MD, USA. Accessed

Contributions to Food Security and Sustainability: A Case Study of Mozambique.” Ph.D. thesis,

June 1, 2023. http://www.dhsprogram.com.

University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Molgat, M. 2007. “Do Transitions and Social Structures Matter? How ‘Emerging Adults’ Define

Sidibé, A., G. Meldrum, H. Coulibaly, S. Padulosi, I. Traore, G. Diawara, A. R. Sangaré, andThemselves as Adults.” Journal of Youth Studies 10 (5): 495–516.

C. Mbosso. 2020. “Revitalizing Cultivation and Strengthening the Seed Systems of Fonio andBambara Groundnut in Mali through a Community Biodiversity Management Approach.” Plant

Mudau, F. N., V. G. P. Chimonyo, A. T. Modi, and T. Mabhaudhi. 2022. “Neglected andGenetic Resources 18 (2): 31–48.

Underutilised Crops: A Systematic Review of Their Potential as Food and Herbal Medicinal
Crops in South Africa.” Frontiers in Pharmacology 12: 4054.

SPRING and Save the Children. 2018. Engaging Adolescents to Accelerate Progress on the First
1,000 Days. Arlington, VA: Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition

N

Globally (SPRING) project.

Nguyen, H. 2018. Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and Framework. Rome: Food andStockemer, D., and A. Sundström. 2022. “Introducing the Worldwide Age Representation in

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Parliaments (WARP) Data Set.” Social Science Quarterly 103 (7): 1765–1774. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13221.

Norris, S. A., E. A. Frongillo, M. M. Black, Y. Dong, C. Fall, M. Lampl, A. D. Liese, et al. 2022.
“Nutrition in Adolescent Growth and Development.” Lancet 399 (10320): 172–184.

T

O

Torlesse, H., and M. Tram Le. 2020. “South Asia and Child Wasting: Unravelling the Conundrum.”
Field Exchange 63 (October): 7. www.ennonline.net/fex/63/southasiachildwasting.

Orsini, A. J., and Y. H. Kang. 2023. “European Leadership and European Youth in the Climate
Change Regime Complex.” Politics and Governance 11 (2): 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.
v11i2.6500.

U
UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division).

P

2022. World Population Prospects 2022. https://population.un.org/wpp/.

Peng, W., and E. M. Berry. 2018. “Global Nutrition 1990–2015: A Shrinking Hungry and

UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). 2019. Youth Leadership, Participation, andExpanding Fat World.” PLOS One 13 (3): e0194821.

Accountability 2.0: Part 1: The Recommendations. Sunninghill, South Africa: UNFPA Eastand Southern Africa Regional Office. https://esaro.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/
Youth%20Leadership%20Participation%20and%20Accountability%20-%20The%20
Recommendations%201.pdf.
UNFPA. 2022. Motherhood in Childhood: The Untold Story. New York. https://www.unfpa.org/
sites/default/files/pub-pdf/MotherhoodInChildhood_report.pdf.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography51

UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency). 2023a. “As the Horn of Africa Drought Enters a Sixth Failed Rainy
Season, UNHCR Calls for Urgent Assistance.” Briefing Note, February 28. https://www.unhcr.
org/news/horn-africa-drought-enters-sixth-failed-rainy-season-unhcr-calls-urgent-assistance.
UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency). 2023b. “Democratic Republic of the Congo: Refugee
Crisis Explained.” Updated June 23, 2023. https://www.unrefugees.org/news/
democratic-republic-of-the-congo-refugee-crisis-explained/.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2009. “Childinfo: Nutritional Status.” Updated
November 2009. Accessed June 14, 2015. http://data.unicef.org/nutrition/malnutrition.
UNICEF. 2013. “Childinfo: Nutritional Status.” Updated February 2013. Accessed March 26,

V
von Grebmer, K., H. Fritschel, B. Nestorova, T. Olofinbiyi, R. Pandya-Lorch, and Y. Yohannes.
2008. Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger 2008. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.
von Grebmer, K., B. Nestorova, A. Quisumbing, R. Fertziger, H. Fritschel, R. Pandya-Lorch, andY. Yohannes. 2009. 2009 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Focus on Financial
Crisis and Gender Inequality. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.
von Grebmer, K., M. T. Ruel, P. Menon, B. Nestorova, T. Olofinbiyi, H. Fritschel, Y. Yohannes

2014. www.childinfo.org/malnutrition_nutritional_status.php.

et al. 2010. 2010 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Focus on the Crisis of Child

UNICEF. 2023a. “Childinfo: Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).” Accessed June 1,

Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

2023. https://mics.unicef.org/surveys.

Undernutrition. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington, DC: International Food Policy Researchvon Grebmer, K., M. Torero, T. Olofinbiyi, H. Fritschel, D. Wiesmann, Y. Yohannes, L. Schofield,

UNICEF. 2023b. Undernourished and Overlooked: A Global Nutrition Crisis in Adolescent Girlsand C. von Oppeln. 2011. 2011 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Taming Priceand Women. New York.

Spikes and Excessive Food Price Volatility. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

UNICEF. 2023c. “Yemen Crisis.” Updated May 22. https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/
yemen-crisis.

von Grebmer, K., C. Ringler, M. W. Rosegrant, T. Olofinbiyi, D. Wiesmann, H. Fritschel, O.
Badiane et al. 2012. 2012 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Ensuring Sustainable

UNICEF. 2023d. “Children in Mali.” https://www.unicef.org/mali/en/children-mali.

Food Security under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

UNICEF and MHA (Ministry of Humanitarian Action and Disaster Management). 2022. Child
Risk and Impact Analysis: Niger. Niamey, Niger. https://www.unicef.org/niger/media/6646/file/von Grebmer, K., D. Headey, C. Béné, L. Haddad, T. Olofinbiyi, D. Wiesmann, H. Fritschel et al.

CHILD%20RISK%20AND%20IMPACT%20ANALYSIS%20(CRIA)%20NIGER.pdf

2013. 2013 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Building Resilience to Achieve Foodand Nutrition Security. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research

UNICEF, WHO, and World Bank. 2023a. Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. Accessed April 27,

Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

2023. https://data.unicef.org/resources/dataset/malnutrition-data/.
von Grebmer, K., A. Saltzman, E. Birol, D. Wiesmann, N. Prasai, S. Yin, Y. Yohannes et al. 2014.
UNICEF, WHO, and World Bank. 2023b. Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition: UNICEF/WHO/2014 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hidden Hunger. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington,

World Bank Group Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates: Key Findings of the 2023 Edition. New York:

DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

UNICEF and WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073791.
Von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, A. de Waal, N. Prasai, S. Yin, and Y. Yohannes. 2015. 2015 Global
UN IGME (United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation). 2023a. “Child

Hunger Index: Armed Conflict and the Challenge of Hunger. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington,

Mortality Estimates Info, Under-five Mortality Estimates.” Accessed April 27, 2023. www.

DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

childmortality.org.
von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, D. Nabarro, N. Prasai, S. Amin, Y. Yohannes, A. Sonntag et al.
UN IGME. 2023b. Levels and Trends in Child Mortality: Report 2022. New York: UNICEF.

2016. 2016 Global Hunger Index: Getting to Zero Hunger. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

United Nations. 2022. “UN Needs $68.4 Million to Help Central African Republic Where
2.2 Million Are Acutely Food Insecure.” Press release, July 5. https://news.un.org/en/

von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, N. Hossain, T. Brown, N. Prasai, Y. Yohannes, F. Patterson et al.

story/2022/07/1121952.

2017. 2017 Global Hunger Index: The Inequalities of Hunger. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

UN News. 2021. “In Madagascar, Pockets of Famine As Risks Grow for Children, Warns WFP.”
November 2. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1104652.

von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, L. Hammond, F. Patterson, A. Sonntag, L. Klaus, J. Fahlbusch
et al. 2018. 2018 Global Hunger Index: Forced Migration and Hunger. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe;

UN OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). 2023a.

Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

Somalia Humanitarian Response Plan. https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somaliahumanitarian-response-plan-february-2023.

von Grebmer, K. J. Bernstein, R. Mukerji, F. Patterson, M. Wiemers, R. Ní Chéilleachair, C. Foley
et al. 2019. 2019 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger and Climate Change. Bonn:

UN OCHA. 2023b. “Central African Republic: Situation Report.” Updated July 10, 2023.

Welthungerhilfe; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

https://reports.unocha.org/en/country/car/.
von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, R. Alders, O. Dar, R. Kock, F. Rampa, M. Wiemers et al. 2020.
UN OHCHR (United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2023.

2020 Global Hunger Index: One Decade to Zero Hunger: Linking Health and Sustainable Food

“Haiti: Rise in Extreme Gang Violence Makes for ‘Living Nightmare’—Türk.” Press release,

Systems. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Dublin: Concern Worldwide.

February 10.
von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, C. Delgado, D. Smith, M. Wiemers, T. Schiffer, A. Hanano, O. Towey,
R. Ní Chéilleachair, C. Foley, S. Gitter, K. Ekstrom, and H. Fritschel. 2021. 2021 Global
Hunger Index: Hunger and Food Systems in Conflict Settings. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; Dublin:
Concern Worldwide.

52

Bibliography | 2023 Global Hunger Indexvon Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, D. Resnick, M. Wiemers, L. Reiner, M. Bachmeier, A. Hanano,World Bank. 2023b. “Global Hunger: Responding to the Present Crisis with the Future in

O. Towey, R. Ní Chéilleachair, C. Foley, S. Gitter, G. Larocque, and H. Fritschel. 2022. 2022

Mind.” Feature story, April 19. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2023/04/19/

Global Hunger Index: Food Systems Transformation and Local Governance. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe;

global-hunger-responding-to-the-present-crisis-with-the-future-in-mind.

Dublin: Concern Worldwide.
World Bank. 2023c. “Unemployment, Youth Total (% of Total Labor Force Ages 15–24) (ModeledW

ILO Estimate).” DataBank. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS.

Wahl R. 1999. “Nutrition in the Adolescent.” Pediatric Annals 28 (2): 107–111. https://pubmed.

Yncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10036686/.

Yunita, S. A. W., E. Soraya, and A. Maryudi. 2018. “We Are Just Cheerleaders”: Youth’s Views
Wehrey, F., and N. Fawal. 2022. “Cascading Climate Effects in the Middle East and North

on Their Participation in International Forest-related Decision-making Fora.” Forest Policy andAfrica: Adapting through Inclusive Governance.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

Economics 88: 52–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.012.

February 24. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/cascading-climate-effects-in-middleeast-and-north-africa-adapting-through-inclusive-governance-pub-86510.
Weiler, A. M., C. Hergesheimer, B. Brisbois, H. Wittman, A. Yassi, and J. M. Spiegel. 2015.
“Food Sovereignty, Food Security and Health Equity: A Meta-Narrative Mapping Exercise.”
Health Policy and Planning 30 (8): 1078–1092.
WFP (World Food Programme). 2023a. “Burundi.” https://www.wfp.org/countries/burundi.
WFP. 2023b. “Lesotho.” https://www.wfp.org/countries/lesotho.
WFP. 2023c. “Gender Inequality.” https://www.wfpusa.org/drivers-of-hunger/gender-inequality/.
WFP and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2023. Hunger Hotspots:
FAO WFP Early Warnings on Acute Food Insecurity, June 2023 to November 2023 Outlook. Rome.
https://doi.org/10.4060/cc6206en.
WFP, ICASEES (Institut Centrafricain des Statistiques, des Etudes Economiques et Sociales),and République Centrafricaine, Cluster Sécurité Alimentaire. 2022. Résultats Préliminaires:
ENSA 2021 (Enquête Nationale sur la Sécurité Alimentaire). https://reliefweb.int/report/
central-african-republic/r-sultats-pr-liminaires-ensa-2021-enqu-te-nationale-de-s-curit.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2020. The Double Burden of Malnutrition: Priority Actions on
Ending Childhood Obesity. New Delhi: WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia.
WHO. 2023. Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition. Accessed April 27, 2023.
https://platform.who.int/nutrition/malnutrition-database.
Wiesmann, D. 2006. A Global Hunger Index: Measurement Concept, Ranking of Countries,
and Trends. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 212. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Wiesmann, D., L. Weingärtner, and I. Schöninger. 2006. The Challenge of Hunger: Global
Hunger Index: Facts, Determinants, and Trends. Bonn and Washington, DC: Welthungerhilfe
and International Food Policy Research Institute.
Wiesmann, D., H. K. Biesalski, K. von Grebmer, and J. Bernstein. 2015. Methodological Review
and Revision of the Global Hunger Index. ZEF Working Paper Series No. 139. Bonn: Universityof Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
Wiesmann, D., J. von Braun, and T. Feldbrügge. 2000. An International Nutrition Index: Successes
and Failures in Addressing Hunger and Malnutrition. ZEF Discussion Papers on Development
Policy No. 26. Bonn: Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn.
Wijerathna-Yapa, A., and R. Pathirana. 2022. “Sustainable Agro-Food Systems for Addressing
Climate Change and Food Security.” Agriculture 12 (10): 1554.
Woodhill, J., A. Kishore, J. Njuki, K. Jones, and S. Hasnain. 2022. “Food Systems and Rural
Wellbeing: Challenges and Opportunities.” Food Security 14 (5): 1099–1121.
World Bank. 2023a. “Food Security Update: World Bank Response to Rising Food Insecurity.”
Updated July 5. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update.

2023 Global Hunger Index | Bibliography53

RESOURCES FOR UNDERSTANDING
HUNGER AND MALNUTRITIONThe Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool for assessing
hunger at global, regional, and national levels. Among its

Resources on Food Crises
and Early Warning Systems

strengths are the following:> Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET)
> Measuring and tracking long-term trends. Because of the nature

	FEWS NET, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, provides

and availability of its underlying data, the GHI is best suited forreal-time assessments and short-term projections of acute foodmeasuring hunger and tracking progress over recent years andinsecurity around the world. It issues monthly reports and maps

decades. The 2023 GHI scores are based on the most up-to-datedetailing current and projected food insecurity as well as alerts

data available for the underlying indicators for each country. Thison emerging or likely crises. FEWS NET is funded and managed

GHI report also includes GHI scores for 2000, 2008, and 2015

by the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance of the U.S. Agency

to show trends in hunger over time.

for International Development (USAID).
https://fews.net/> Reflecting both the quantity and quality of food and diets. The

four indicators underlying GHI scores—undernourishment, child> Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS)

stunting, child wasting, and child mortality—reflect deficien-	The Global Information and Early Warning System on Food andcies in calories (quantity) as well as in important micronutrients

Agriculture (GIEWS) continuously monitors food supply and(quality).

demand and other key indicators for assessing the overall foodsecurity situation in all countries of the world. An initiative of the> Complementing other reports and resources. The countries where

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), it

GHI scores are high—indicating that calories are chronicallyissues regular reports on prevailing conditions and provides early

insufficient and/or children’s growth and well-being have been

warnings of impending food crises at the country or regional level.

hampered by undernutrition—are particularly vulnerable to foodhttps://www.fao.org/giews/en/

crises and stresses, which are reported by other sources.
> Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)

Other resources offer additional important perspectives on hunger

	The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is an ini-and malnutrition. The following is a selection and brief description

tiative led by 15 international development agencies to improveof those resources.

analysis and decision-making on food security and nutrition. It
provides a common scale for classifying the severity and magnitude of food insecurity and acute malnutrition. The IPC acute foodinsecurity scale has five classifications: minimal/none, stressed,
crisis, emergency, and catastrophe/famine. There are also IPC
scales for acute malnutrition and chronic food insecurity.
https://www.ipcinfo.org/> Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC)

	This annual report produced by the Global Network against Food
Crises—an international alliance working to address the root
causes of extreme hunger—gives an overview and country-­bycountry update on acute, crisis-level food insecurity. Based on
the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) assessments, it triangulates recent available food security assessments,
even if they are partial and from different sources.
https://www.fsinplatform.org/global-report-food-crises-2023

54

Resources for Understanding Hunger and Malnutrition | 2023 Global Hunger Index

Resources on Foodand Nutrition Security

Resources on
the Right to Food

> The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI)> State of the Right to Food and Nutrition Report	This flagship annual report is jointly prepared by FAO, the	This annual report—produced by the Global Network for the Right

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United

to Food and Nutrition—provides a yearly snapshot of develop-

Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programmements concerning the right to food and nutrition at the country(WFP), and the World Health Organization (WHO). It is designed

and international levels. It is designed to complement FAO’s

to chart progress toward ending hunger, achieving food security,

State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) reportand improving nutrition and to provide an in-depth analysis ofby taking a human rights perspective and shedding light on the

key challenges for achieving this goal in the context of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://www.fao.org/publications/sofi

structural causes of hunger and malnutrition.
	https://www.righttofoodandnutrition.org/
state-right-food-and-nutrition-report-2022> Global Nutrition Report (GNR)

	The Global Nutrition Report—published annually by a multistakeholder initiative—reports on countries’ progress toward meeting
global nutrition targets, evaluates the impact of poor diets onhuman health and the planet, assesses the nutrition financing
landscape, and provides a comprehensive overview of reportingon past Nutrition for Growth (N4G) commitments.
https://globalnutritionreport.org> Voices of the Hungry Project	This project of FAO uses the Food Insecurity Experience Scale(FIES), an experience-based measure of household or individual
food security. The FIES relies on eight survey questions includedin the Gallup World Poll, which covers 90% of the world’s population. The project provides up-to-date, internationally comparable information about food insecurity that is policy-relevant andactionable. A suite of resources and research based on the FIES
is available.
	https://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/resources/
research/en/> Global Food Security Index (GFSI)	The annual Global Food Security Index (GFSI) is based on a model
constructed from 58 indicators that measure drivers of food security across 113 low-, middle-, and high-income countries. The
indicators fall into four categories: food affordability, food availability, food quality and safety, and natural resources and resilience. The index was designed and constructed by Economist
Impact, part of the Economist Group.
	https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/

2023 Global Hunger Index | Resources for Understanding Hunger and Malnutrition55

PARTNERS

Who we are

Who we are

Concern Worldwide is a nongovernmen-

Welthungerhilfe (WHH) is one of thetal, international, humanitarian organi-largest nongovernmental development

zation dedicated to the reduction ofand humanitarian aid organizations insuffering and working towards the ultimate elimination of extreme
poverty in the world’s poorest countries.

Germany. It was founded in 1962 as
the German section of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, one of
the first global initiatives to fight hunger, initiated by the Food andWhat we do

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Our mission is to help people living in extreme poverty achieve major
improvements in their lives which last and spread without ongoing

What we do

support from Concern.

We implement measures ranging from rapid emergency relief to rehabilitation to long-term development cooperation projects with national

How we work

and international partner organizations. As part of an active civil

To achieve our mission, we engage in long-term development work,

society, we advocate for the political change needed to achieve zerobuild resilience, respond to emergency situations, and seek to address

hunger. We address inequalities and foster sustainable development.

the root causes of poverty through our development education andadvocacy work.

How we work
Because our goal is to sustainably improve livelihoods in the long run,Our vision

our work focuses on capacity building. We aim to strengthen struc-We believe in a world where no one lives in poverty, fear, or oppres-tures from the bottom up and work together with local partner orga-

sion; where all have access to a decent standard of living and thenizations to ensure the long-term success of our work. In addition,

opportunities and choices essential to a long, healthy, and creative

we raise public awareness and advocate with national and interna-

life; and where everyone is treated with dignity and respect.

tional policymakers. We thereby strive to address the root causes ofhunger and poverty. In a shared mission with many other organizations, our goal is to make ourselves redundant.
Our vision
A world in which all people can exercise their right to lead a self-­
determined life in dignity and justice, free from hunger and poverty.

56

Partners | 2023 Global Hunger Index

18 YEARS OF TRACKING WORLD HUNGER
Since 2006, the Global Hunger Index has been reporting on the state ofhunger globally, by region, and by country.

The Crisis of Child
Undernutrition

Taming Price
Spikes andExcessive Food
Price Volatility

Ensuring
Sustainable Food
Security Under
Land, Water, andEnergy Stresses

2017

2018

2019

GLOBAL HUNGER INDEXGLOBAL HUNGER INDEXTHE INEQUALITIES OF HUNGER

To learn more, visit www.globalhungerindex.org.

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V.

Concern Worldwide

Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 153173 Bonn, Germany

52-55 Lower Camden Street
Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel. +353 1-417-7700
Fax +353 1-475-7362
www.concern.net
Member of Alliance2015

Tel. +49 228-2288-0
FORCED MIGRATION
AND HUNGER
Fax +49 228-2288-333
www.welthungerhilfe.deMember of Alliance2015

2019 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX

2017 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX

Financial Crisis andGender Inequality

2018 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEXThe Vicious Circle of
Hunger and Poverty

MeasuresBeing Taken to
Reduce Acute
Undernourishment
and Chronic Hunger

Case Studies in
the Post-Conflict
Countries of
Afghanistan and
Sierra Leone

GLOBAL HUNGER INDEXTHE CHALLENGE OF HUNGER AND CLIMATE CHANGE

GHI_2019_Umschlag_RZ.indd 3

Armed Conflict
and the Challengeof Hunger

Getting to Zero
Hunger

2020

2022

2023

GLOBAL HUNGER INDEXGLOBAL HUNGER INDEXGLOBAL HUNGER INDEXONE DECADE TO ZERO HUNGER
LINKING HEALTH AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS

GHI_2020_Umschlag_RZ.indd 3

One Decade to
Zero Hunger:
Linking Health andSustainable Food
Systems

FOOD SYSTEMS TRANSFORMATION AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE

2023 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEXThe Challenge of
Hidden Hunger

2022 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX

2020 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX

Building Resilienceto Achieve Food andNutrition Security

The Inequalities
of Hunger

Forced Migrationand Hunger

03.09.19 17:03

The Challengeof Hunger andClimate Change

THE POWER OF YOUTH IN SHAPING FOOD SYSTEMS

22.09.20 10:07

Hunger and Food
Systems in Conflict
Settings

Food Systems
Transformationand Local
Governance

The Power ofYouth in Shaping
Food Systems

Visit www.globalhungerindex.org to find:> more information about the2023 Global Hunger Index> interactive map> synopsis> country profiles> translations> past editions

IMPRINT

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V.
Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 153173 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 228-2288-0
Fax +49 228-2288-333
www.welthungerhilfe.de

Editor:Heidi FritschelSecretary General / CEO:Mathias Mogge

Cover photography:
Melanie (age 18) works in a plant that processes pepper and ginger in Farafangana,Madagascar. Many of the plant employees are single mothers, and this employment
provides them with a stable income to feed their children. Laura Thiesbrummel/
Welthungerhilfe, 2018.

Concern Worldwide
52-55 Lower Camden Street
Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel. +353 1-417-7700
Fax +353 1-475-7362
www.concern.net
Chief Executive Officer:
David Regan
Recommended citation: von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, W. Geza, M. Ndlovu, M.
Wiemers, L. Reiner, M. Bachmeier, A. Hanano, R. Ní Chéilleachair, T. Sheehan, C.
Foley, S. Gitter, G. Larocque, and H. Fritschel. 2023. 2023 Global Hunger Index:
The Power of Youth in Shaping Food Systems. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe (WHH);
Dublin: Concern Worldwide.
Design: muehlhausmoers corporate communications gmbh,
Cologne, Germany
Printing: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH,Bonn, Germany

Authors:
Welthungerhilfe (WHH): Miriam Wiemers (Senior Policy Advisor), Laura Reiner(Senior Policy Advisor), Marilena Bachmeier (Project Assistant), Asja Hanano (Headof Policy and External Relations); Concern Worldwide: Réiseal Ní Chéilleachair(Head of International Advocacy), Connell Foley (Director of Strategy, Advocacy,
and Learning); Tim Sheehan (Senior Research and Communications Officer);
Independent Consultants: Klaus von Grebmer, Jill Bernstein, Heidi Fritschel, Grace
Larocque; Towson University: Seth Gitter.
Guest Authors:
Wendy Geza (Assistant Researcher, Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food
Systems, University of KwaZulu-Natal), Mendy Ndlovu (PhD Candidate, Centre
for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, University of KwaZulu-Natal)

Ordering number: 460-9639
ISBN: 978-1-7396018-3-6

Other photo credits:
Page 2: Peter Caton/Welthungerhilfe, South Sudan, 2022; page 6: Simon Opladen/­
Welthungerhilfe, Nepal, 2022; page 22: Darren Vaughan/Concern Worldwide,
Niger, 2023; page 27: Fatou Kamara/Welthungerhilfe, Mali, 2023; page 28:
Gavin Douglas/Concern Worldwide, Bangladesh, 2023; page 31: Tim Sheehan/
Concern Worldwide, Haiti, 2022; page 33: Thierno Diallo/Welthungerhilfe,
Central African Republic, 2023; Ludovic Ngbika/Welthungerhilfe, Central African
Republic, 2020; page 34: Otros/Ayuda en Acción, Ecuador, 2023; page 36:
Stefanie Glinski/Welthungerhilfe, Türkiye, 2023.
Acknowledgments:
We gratefully acknowledge the Statistics Division (ESS) of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as well as the World Health Organization(WHO) for their invaluable support throughout the data compilation process. We
thank the staff of Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe (WHH) for their contributions, and especially Dennis Isaak Lux for his assistance on the GHI team. We
thank Gershon Feder for conducting a peer review of this report. We appreciate
Grant Price’s careful review of the report. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge Doris
Wiesmann for her ongoing support and guidance for the GHI.
Disclaimer:
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map(s) do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Welthungerhilfe(WHH) or Concern Worldwide concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries.

Creative Commons:This publication is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Website:www.globalhungerindex.org

To learn more, visit www.globalhungerindex.org, #GHI2023

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V.

Concern Worldwide

Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 153173 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 228-2288-0
Fax +49 228-2288-333
www.welthungerhilfe.deMember of Alliance201552-55 Lower Camden Street
Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel. +353 1-417-7700
Fax +353 1-475-7362
www.concern.net
Member of Alliance2015