World Report 2009

The 19th annual World Report summarizes human rights conditions in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide. It reflects extensive investigative work undertaken in 2008 by Human Rights Watch staff, usually in close partnership with human rights activists in the country in question.


Sixty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the governments demonstrating the clearest vision on international rights protections, sadly, are those seeking to undermine enforcement. In their foreign policies and in international fora, they invoke sovereignty, non-interference, and Southern solidarity to curb criticism of their human rights abuses and those of their allies and friends. Governments that champion human rights need urgently to wrest back the initiative from these human rights spoilers.

For detail see,
 
World Report 2009, Human Rights Watch.

International day of Peace - 21 September 2008

For detail click on the link below

International day of Peace

Podcast on climate change

There are complexities of issues, policies, and national-international perspective over food security, hunger and famine. On the other hand sea level rise, because of ice melting due to global warming threatening the chunk land mass of many countries. Millions of people in the coastal districts of Bangladesh are at risk in the coming time due the Sea Level Rise phenomenon.

Evolution of Rights Based Approach

There are many definitions and stand points on RBA given by number of agencies. A table is available at Annex 3. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), a human rights-based approach is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. In my opinion, the definition is precisely noted in Cohen (2004),

A rights based approach is founded on the conviction that each and every human being, by virtue of being human, is a holder of rights. A right entails an obligation on the part of government to respect, promote, protect and fulfill it. The legal and normative character of rights and the associated government obligations are based on international human rights treaties and other standards, as well as on national constitutional human rights provisions. Cohen’s focal point seems poverty and deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights. And meeting these rights could empower destitute to claim their rights. However, in the context of very poor country like Bangladesh, it is acceptable. Today’s RBA came into existence during the passage of time from 1940s to now on through the formation and grown up of UN. From the following table we can have a quick journey into the history of RBA. Table : History of rights-based approach[i]

UN charter after the Word War II was the first recognizable universal consensus of nation states that came up with the agenda of peace, human rights, and development. Through civil, political and economic, social, cultural rights from 1950s to 80s, the concept of economic, social, and people centered development became talk of the development agencies. Initially economic development was narrowly trapped within income growth and domestic product growth etc. Concept of economic growth existed for decade despite the fact that economic growth may be accompanied by inequalities[ii]. In 1986, the declaration on right to development was an attempt to emphasize development as right. Right to peace, environment, and development are known as third generation rights whereas CP rights belong to first generation and ESC rights are the second generation. Right to development is not alienable from main stream rights. The Declaration reflects the aims of “constant improvement of well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development.” According to Article 8, “equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and fair distribution of income”. This article supports the argument for “fundamental rights” that is drawn in this paper for adequate standard of life. Right to development declaration is not legally binding and failed to get attention of the western wealthy states because of strategic reasons. According to Nyamu-Musembi & Cornwall, right to development “emphasizes a collective duty of all states to eliminate barriers such as unfair trade rules and debt burden, effectively pointing an accusing finger at the industrial countries. For this reason it has been opposed by Western states (2004: 8, cited in Ahsan, 2006).” In the AOA, and trade liberalization section we have found how these trade agreements have been exploiting developing countries and creating food insecurity. The failure of “right to development” reminds us about the power and intention of rich countries and their influence within UN system. In 1993, Vienna conference affirmed the indivisibility of human rights and development. It was recognized in the conference that democracy, development, and human rights are interdependent and interlinked. In 1995, World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen came up with the mantra that the ultimate goal of social development is to improve and enhance the quality of life of all people. Social development encounters problems including poverty, unemployment, and social disintegration. The summit urges to reduce sources of distress and instability from families and societies, and social development can be achieved by enhancing well-being of people. Later on economic development thinking moved towards people centered development, which is aligned with UNDP’s latest version of “human development” that is in line with Sen’s “Development as freedom”. Human development is a process of enlarging people’s choice by expanding capabilities. According to HDR (2000), it focuses on progress of human lives and well-being. Well-being includes living with substantial freedoms. Human development enhances capabilities. According to HDR, capabilities include, the basic freedoms of being able to meet bodily requirements, such as the ability to avoid starvation and undernourishment, or to escape preventable morbidity or premature mortality. They also include the enabling opportunities given by schooling, for example, or by the liberty and the economic means to move freely and to choose one’s abode. (2000, p 19). While human rights guarantee freedom by legal protection and moral obligations, human development enhances capabilities to ensure freedom. Both has same destination but through different agenda for development. According to Theis (2004: 11) the growing popularity by UN agencies, INGOs, and some western governments to adopt RBA is because, “…together, human rights and development are more effective than either one on its own. ” RBA depends much more on international legal standards. The biggest challenge of RBA is the “realization” and “enforcement” of these standards. It is also difficult to pursue governments to ratify human rights treaties. Though the treaties are ratified; it is difficult to hold government accountable to fulfill her obligations. However, we are not digging into the issues of constraints and of difficulties to promote human rights here.

End notes:

[i] Theis (2004) has drawn this table and explains how BRA came into existence. [ii] Britt Kalla (2006) noted Arjun Sengupta’s argument, which says economic growth can be accompanied by augmented inequalities or disparities and rising concentrations of wealth and economic power as well as the ignoring of human rights standards relating to economic, social and cultural (ESC) but also civil and political (CP) rights.

Handbook of Human Conflict technology by Tina Monberg

The results of Tina Monberg’s researches in conflict management has finally produced a new handbook to deal with conflicts in working environment. Psychotherapist and mediator Tina Monberg has published "Handbook of Human Conflict Technology", an essential book for managers at every level in every industry and for anyone interested in the conflict phenomenon. The concept at the basis of the book has been implemented into a number of Danish organisations. It explains how companies can execute their own conflict strategy to ensure any disagreements arising have a positive impact on their internal settings.

Tina Monberg provides practical models that can be customised to suit the needs of any company. That’s one of the strongest points of the theory which allows everyone and every environment to shape the basic strategy in order to adapt it to any particular situations. Monberg realizes that every environment can be different and a too tight system might not be working for everyone.

Many case-studies have been examined in the book to show companies that have succeeded using this strategy and a questionnaire at the back of the book has been designed to reveal your own company’s conflict culture.

The book is easy to navigate with an introductory paragraph at the beginning of each chapter addressing exactly what issues will be raised and what questions answered. This is a practical guide written in a straight-forward style that will motivate managers to introduce their own conflict strategy.

"Tina Monberg has written an excellent book about conflict resolution. This book should be required reading for any CEO!"
- Jens Graff, Erhvervsbladet

"The book gives new ways, so that conflicts can be turned around and used for the positive. It shows practical methods of how to build a conflict concept and shows how to involve all of the organisation in working with conflicts."
- Jyllands Posten

******

Publication date: 2007, ISBN: 978-1-899820-39-9, Number of pages: 280

About Author

"Mediationcenter was established in 2000 by Tina Monberg. Tina Monberg is a lawyer and qualified psychotherapist. She was educated as a mediator by Professor Frank E. A. Sander of Harvard Law School and in win-win negotiation by Professor Robert H. Mnookin of Harvard Law School. She has previously run her own law firm and worked as a corporate lawyer, but now functions as a mediator, coach and teacher, working at mediationcenter a/s and mediationcenter ltd. Tina has specialized in preventing, handling, and solving business conflicts in an interest-based way, so that from a conflict, no one comes out as a loser. In relation to this, she has created a conflict management concept, which has been implemented into a number of Danish organisations. She has worked together with The Danish Bar Association to help implement mediation into Denmark. Tina wrote the books "Two Winners - Mediation as Positive Conflict Resolution" and "Handbook of Human Conflict Technology" and has co-written several management books.

Mediationcenter provides conflict mediation and develops strategies to bring solutions to a wide range of disagreements and disputes. The aim is to transform the conflict by bringing renewed energy and cooperation to the dialogue and create an environment, where mutual interests are recognised. It is a process, which aligns all parties for a positive outcome. mediationcenter believes that this is only possible with a complete understanding of the human elements involved, where relations can be preserved and ideally improved.

The key points of mediationcenter’s philosophy are:

• Human nature is fundamentally good.


• The best results are obtained when all interests - individual and group - are attended to.


• Conflict and cooperation are not mutually exclusive entities, but parts of the same process.


• Growth is only created in the presence of cooperation and shared interests, not through fear."

For detail,

Tina Monberg
tm@mediationcenter.dk
Book Promotion Ltd.
Manuela Mesco
Manuela.mesco@book-promotion.com
www.book-promotion.com

Human Rights Report Assails U.S.

By ALAN COWELL
Published: May 29, 2008
------------------------------------------

PARIS — Sixty years after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, governments in scores of countries still torture or mistreat their people, Amnesty International said Wednesday in a report that again urged the United States to close down the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba...

Click here for detail



Amnesty int's report at a glance

60 years of human rights failure - Governments must apologize and act now

Amnesty International today challenged world leaders to apologize for six decades of human rights failure and re-commit themselves to deliver concrete improvements.

"The human rights flashpoints in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq and Myanmar demand immediate action," said Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, launching AI Report 2008: State of the World's Human Rights.

"Injustice, inequality and impunity are the hallmarks of our world today. Governments must act now to close the yawning gap between promise and performance."

Amnesty International's Report 2008, shows that sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations, people are still tortured or ill-treated in at least 81 countries, face unfair trials in at least 54 countries and are not allowed to speak freely in at least 77 countries.

"2007 was characterised by the impotence of Western governments and the ambivalence or reluctance of emerging powers to tackle some of the world's worst human rights crises, ranging from entrenched conflicts to growing inequalities which are leaving millions of people behind," said Ms Khan.

Amnesty International cautioned that the biggest threat to the future of human rights is the absence of a shared vision and collective leadership.

"2008 presents an unprecedented opportunity for new leaders coming to power and countries emerging on the world stage to set a new direction and reject the myopic policies and practices that in recent years have made the world a more dangerous and divided place," said Ms Khan.
Amnesty International challenged governments to set a new paradigm for collective leadership based on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"The most powerful must lead by example," said Ms Khan.

China must live up to the human rights promises it made around the Olympic Games and allow free speech and freedom of the press and end "re-education through labour".
The USA must close Guantánamo detention camp and secret detention centres, prosecute the detainees under fair trial standards or release them, and unequivocally reject the use of torture and ill-treatment.

Russia must show greater tolerance for political dissent, and none for impunity on human rights abuses in Chechnya.

The EU must investigate the complicity of its member states in "renditions" of terrorist suspects and set the same bar on human rights for its own members as it does for other countries.

Ms Khan warned: "World leaders are in a state of denial but their failure to act has a high cost. As Iraq and Afghanistan show, human rights problems are not isolated tragedies, but are like viruses that can infect and spread rapidly, endangering all of us."

"Governments today must show the same degree of vision, courage and commitment that led the United Nations to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sixty years ago."
"There is a growing demand from people for justice, freedom and equality."

Some of the most striking images of 2007 were of monks in Myanmar, lawyers in Pakistan, and women activists in Iran.

"Restless and angry, people will not be silenced, and leaders ignore them at their own peril," said Ms Khan.

Amnesty int's report is available at

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Homepage

Three faces of Vulnerability

Vulnerability as an entitlement problem
Endowment bundle is individual’s own labor power plus land and other assets he/she owns. And now Entitlement mapping is about rules and processes for transforming endowment bundle into entitlements (e.g. market structure & regulations, rights to communal output e.g. food, property etc.). Entitlement set is commodity bundles including food that can be commanded given an initial endowment. Lack of access to food and other resources caused vulnerability. Lack of command over food is caused by lack of power. There is a relation between power and command over food. Sen argues that famine is caused by power of the individual to command food, or exchange entitlement. He argues that there is always enough food to feed the worlds population, but there are many factors that prevent some people from receiving an adequate share of this. According Sen, there is enough food but extreme poor does not have command over resources (ie money) to purchase food. He emphasizes on entitlement relations. It is not lack of food rather it is lack of means to command over food. However, access to food may not help because vulnerable groups can not buy food from the market. Therefore, we need to focus on assets and entitlement.

Assets (labor, human capital, and productive assets) ------------------food entitlements

Command over food is the most essential. The striking question is how vulnerable group of people can get command over food. Food entitlements and assets have to be mutually complementary to each other. According to Ford an entitlements approach is adopted whereby vulnerability of a group is explained by the availability of resources, and the entitlement of individuals and groups to call on these resources. In a broader context this relationship between entitlement and assets depend on political economy, which in a wider context related to political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements. Globalization, economic reform, and liberalization of trade could be a broader political economy that can make poor vulnerable locally.

Vulnerability as powerlessness/ political empowerment
Extreme poor and disadvantaged by other means are the powerless community. In the power relation perspective, this community is known as the rights claimers. This group of people, some time, does not have enough voice to speak out for their rights. They are illiterate, poor, and unaware about rights as well as their duty bearers are ignorant and uneducated about rights. They live within the society but outside the power structure. They are vulnerable by means of their livelihoods. Well, what makes people vulnerable and eventually powerless? According to Watts and Bohle (1993), “Vulnerability can also be politically determined, where people are powerless in their command over basic necessities and rights”.

Within the context of a developing or poor country, political factors cause powerlessness or vulnerability. Absence of good governance and lack of efficacy of institutions leads poor to live as poor or to become poorer. Powerless groups are usually found as deprived of fundamental rights, for example, right to food, adequate house, education, health, and employment etc. When fundamental rights are violated, it could be beyond their capacity to deal with civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Therefore, weak governance and deprivation of fundamental rights cause powerlessness and eventually vulnerability.

Availability of assets and ability to own that asset makes one not to be vulnerable. Moser & McIlwailne (1997) defines vulnerability as, “The more assets people have, the less vulnerable they are; the greater the erosion of assets, the greater the level of insecurity”. Vulnerability is also defined as lack of material and immaterial condition to stand against risk events (assets, entitlements). Political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements is wider context of asset entitlement relationship. Therefore, powerless people are neither politically empowered nor economically.

Political economy / social position of vulnerability
According to Ford (2002), economic and political power plays in determining vulnerability of individuals and groups. Historical and structural class-based pattern of social reproduction lies within the causes of vulnerability. So, political, economic, and social structures influence vulnerability. According to pressure and release model (PAR), vulnerability is part of risk (Blaikie et al 1994). The model says Risk = Hazards + Vulnerability. Hazards mean natural disasters. The progression of vulnerability is a series of levels of social factors e.g. i) root cause, ii) dynamic pressures, and iii) unsafe conditions. These levels focus on social, cultural, and political processes that give rise to unsafe conditions of vulnerable groups. According to Ford the model has a distinct scale element whereby root causes concerns remote influences including economic, demographic, and political processes within society and the world economy that reflect the distribution of power. The dynamic pressures include factors such as lack of local institutions, training, appropriate skills, local investments, local markets, press freedom, ethical standards in public life, and macro forces such as population growth, urbanization, arms expenditure, debt repayment, and deforestation. Unsafe conditions mean when people live in dangerous location with dangerous livelihoods, poor health, lack of building codes and regulations, and a lack of disaster preparedness. Unsafe conditions determine the vulnerable groups.

Women headed households are vulnerable because of gender inequality, social position, lack of mobility, and lower level of income. Class, caste, gender, age, ethnicity,
religion, or disability are factors for marginality and social exclusion. Hierarchical systems, structural and historical sequences of a society, and class based patterns of social reproduction continue a society to reproduce exploitation, exclusion, inequality, and consequently inequity. Under these dominant social factors poor live constantly at vulnerable state where they do not have any choice and eventually they do not achieve freedom for development.

Context of Vulnerability

Special attention to vulnerable and so as special solutions for them is missing from SLA frame. Here, by the word “vulnerable” we mean extreme poor such as land less, low waged, disables, elderly, minority, women, and children who struggle for livelihoods. Some economic factors are dominant for food security of vulnerable groups in the community such as purchasing power and market relationship that underpins the access to food that is not produced by community or household.

Vulnerability context may differ from nation to nation especially in the context of shocks and disasters. According to Ford (2002), Bangladesh and Frorida are both vulnerable in terms of sea level rise and storms. 1992 hurricane caused damage of US $ 16bn but killed fewer than 20 people. Where as a year before a similar cyclone killed 140,000 people and ruined the livelihoods of millions. Ford suggests that there is a need to focus the characteristics of a system that influences the ability of the people and communities to respond to, cope with, and adapt to stimulus. Therefore, a generalized common framework on livelihood may miss the national context of vulnerability. What is useful in Africa may not be worthy for South Asia. Regional or even more microscopically national perspective of livelihoods of vulnerable groups should be dealt with special care and focus.

Different population living under different social, cultural, economic, and political circumstance may have different levels of vulnerability. The rights-based approach recognizes that households’ ability to access assets and entitlements are influenced to a great extent by power relations, which has political, social and economic dimensions. Therefore, fulfillment of rights by households requires transforming power relationships among stakeholders and removing the exclusionary mechanisms that prevent rights-realization by the poor (Frankenberger and Cogill 2001, cited in CARE 2003). Therefore, we suggest RBA as a process to deal power relation led exploitations and eventually to fulfill rights as an end to poverty. This argument could be further elaborated in power relation section.

A generalized version of SLA frame could miss the target. It may miss the deeper structural causes of vulnerability. SLA may be termed as superficial approach to deal with the remedies and eventually prescribe weak solutions for livelihoods. Analyzing the deeper causes Watts and Bohle (1993) came up with,

• The particular distribution of entitlements and how these are reproduced
• The larger canvas of rights by which entitlements are fought over, contested (empowerment)
• Structural properties – crisis proneness for the political economy which precipitates entitlement crisis

Capability perspective

The world “capability” consists of ability and potentiality of a person. Thus, capability of person is to move, to be clothed and sheltered, to meet nutritional level, to be in good health, and to have power to participate in the social process. Access to goods and services (e.g. education, health, and transportation) may not benefit people because of lacking physical and financial capacity and social opportunity. The three major components of capability which are complementary to each other are,

1. Endowment (commodities and assets)

2. Individual capacity

3. Social opportunities

Ability helps people to escape from poverty. When person does not have adequate ability, potentiality (i.e. constitution of endowment) may prevent the person from falling into poverty. Thus, ability helps to act against poverty and potentiality works for protection towards risk. In reality both components of capability (ability and potentiality) depends on individual capacity. People may not utilize endowments and assets because of lack of information, education, awareness, illness and so on.

A true development intervention should work for uplifting vulnerable labors from capability poverty, which means improved capability of a labor can improve his or her income. Therefore, development interventions need focus towards improving adequate standard of living of a person and eventually improving capability rather raising income only. RBA intends to ensure minimum standard of living, which includes right to food, health, education, adequate housing etc., which are fundamental needs for having capable persons. According to Rodrik, focusing on poverty is also warranted from the perspective of a broader, capabilities-oriented approach to development. He notes that an exclusive focus on consumption or income levels constitutes too narrow an approach to development. Sen (1999: 19) has explained the complex relationship between income and capabilities. Low income can cause illiteracy, ill health, hunger, and lack of well being. On the contrary, better health and education may help a person to earn well. In my opinion, Income poverty leads to potentiality poverty. Potentiality poverty leads to capability poverty. The cycle may occur in reverse way too, for example, capability deprivation – potentiality poverty- income poverty. According to Sen, if we shift our focus from “income poverty” to “capability deprivation”, it would help us to understand freedom of human lives from poverty.

Capability and Distributive justice for adequate standard of living

When human well-being and capability is the objective, distributive justice could be the means for fulfilling basic needs. Living standard and quality of life is higher in affluent and wealthy state than poor nations. Similarly, wealthy and rich people have improved quality life than poor within a poor state. Thus, poor countries with limited resources and poor having no resources are deprived of quality life, which in turn deprives capability of the people. If need is based on consumption of commodities, concept of need could be changed over time. Number of consumption may increase and become necessary need for tomorrow. Thus, basic need concept of development paradigm is now becoming obsolete. On the other hand, human capability for better functioning and enjoying freedom is now on the stage[i].

Adequate standard of living need to be justified. I claim that adequate house, health, education, food, and work could be the requirements to capable a person for functioning. Fulfillment of these fundamental rights creates atmosphere and opportunities for people to function. According to Dubois & Rousseau (2003), through design of human development strategies and capabilities the process, “…leads to the improvement of access to health and education services, to adequate nutrition and safe water supply, thus improving the level of human capital. It also helps to fight against social exclusion by increasing empowerment and participation in public decisions, therefore reinforcing the level of social capital.”

Here, we are not taking in to account consumption of commodities and luxuries, which are relative in the context of wealth and culture. Television set, car, refrigerator, air conditions, oven, etc. could be essential stuff for households in rich country, where these commodities may be luxuries and may not be relevant for poor of poor countries. Therefore, adequate standard of living could be minimum human essentials to function, to earn, to take part in social life, which could be universally acceptable for living with human dignity. We do not elaborate here comparing “need” and “want” of human being. Minimum nutrition and food is a need for human survival. Want could be extended for better food, nice restaurants, and music and more. Thus, increased income and wealth lead human for consuming more luxuries. Our focus area is marginalized poor of third world countries and so as focus is on “adequate standard of living” for them.

Distributive justice means the just allocation of goods in a society. Thoughts relating wealth disparity and inequality of living standard go in line with distribution justice. Egalitarianism version means people should be treated equal in some respect.

Development cooperation and aid once dominated by 1960s and 70s basic need theories is now shifting focus towards rights, people centered, capability, and functioning. As noted in Hellsten (2003),

The capability approach then gives alternative moral criteria for global distribution and particularly for the issues of development cooperation, development aid and globalized economy in general. We should make sure that whatever resources, commodities, services we provide to the poor countries, these countries can use these benefits to realize human capital and human resources, by realizing human functionings and human capabilities.

Poor is the object of development agenda whether their capability enhancement is a development subject. According to Alexander (2004), theory of human rights helps to effectively address many contemporary issues of social justice. Human rights has provided inspiration and guide lines to governments, national courts, parliaments, nongovernmental organizations, professionals and social activists for effectively combating atrocities and unjust social practices in different parts of the world. Thus, theory of human rights also came up with an agenda for equitable society. This theory takes side to the oppressed and disadvantaged whose rights are deprived and violated.

John Rawl’s two principles are[ii],

1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)

2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

Rawl’s principle 2 (a) clearly points towards “least advantaged persons”. There are some criticisms about the contradiction of principles, which end in confusion and this paper has little scope to revisit these areas. However, distributive justice is useful at combating food insecurity and hunger.

End notes:
[i] According to Dr. Sirkku Kristiina Hellsten ,“ Meeting needs for individual freedom or social confinement: Capability ethics, basic needs and Redistribution of Justice”, approach moves from mere need satisfaction to human flourishing by defending the moral appropriateness of the concept of human well being measured in terms of human capabilities. Human capabilities provide fundamental moral categories for the evaluation of resources distribution. It concentrates on our freedom to promote objectives we have reason to value, such as participation/democracy, human rights and equality would be. In summary basic functionings and capabilities are life and health, and more advanced ones capabilities to personal integrity, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation/participation, control over one’s fate/environment.

[ii] for detail see http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm

Feed The World? We Are Fighting a Losing Battle, UN Admits

by Julian Borger
Published on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 by The Guardian/UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations warned yesterday that it no longer has enough money to keep global malnutrition at bay this year in the face of a dramatic upward surge in world commodity prices, which have created a "new face of hunger".

"We will have a problem in coming months," said Josette Sheeran, the head of the UN's World Food Programme (WFP). "We will have a significant gap if commodity prices remain this high, and we will need an extra half billion dollars just to meet existing assessed needs."

With voluntary contributions from the world's wealthy nations, the WFP feeds 73 million people in 78 countries, less than a 10th of the total number of the world's undernourished. Its agreed budget for 2008 was $2.9bn (£1.5bn). But with annual food price increases around the world of up to 40% and dramatic hikes in fuel costs, that budget is no longer enough even to maintain current food deliveries.

The shortfall is all the more worrying as it comes at a time when populations, many in urban areas, who had thought themselves secure in their food supply are now unable to afford basic foodstuffs. Afghanistan has recently added an extra 2.5 million people to the number it says are at risk of malnutrition

"This is the new face of hunger," Sheeran said. "There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before."...

For detail see <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/26/food.unitednations>