Abstract
Examining linkages among multiple sustainable development outcomes is key for understanding sustainability transitions. Yet rigorous evidence on social and environmental outcomes of sustainable development policies remains scarce. We conduct a national-level analysis of Brazil’s flagship social protection program, Zero Hunger (ZH), which aims to reduce food insecurity and poverty. Using data from rural municipalities across Brazil and quasi-experimental causal inference techniques, we assess relationships between social protection investment and outcomes related to sustainable development goals (SDGs): "no poverty" (SDG 1), "zero hunger" (SDG 2), and "health and well being" (SDG 3). We also assess potential perverse outcomes arising from agricultural development impacting "climate action" (SDG 13) and "life on land" (SDG 15) via clearance of natural vegetation. Despite increasing daily per capita protein and kilocalorie production, summed ZH investment did not alleviate child malnutrition or infant mortality and negligibly influenced multidimensional poverty. Higher investment increased natural vegetation cover in some biomes but increased losses in the Cerrado and especially the Pampa. Effects varied substantially across subprograms. Conditional cash transfer (Bolsa Familia [BF]) was mainly associated with nonbeneficial impacts but increased protein production and improved educational participation in some states. The National Program to Strengthen Family Farming (PRONAF) was typically associated with increased food production (protein and calories), multidimensional poverty alleviation, and changes in natural vegetation. Our results inform policy development by highlighting successful elements of Brazil’s ZH program, variable outcomes across divergent food security dimensions, and synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals, including environmental protection.
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference78 articles.
1. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”
2. Trade-offs between environment and livelihoods: Bridging the global land use and food security discussions;Meyfroidt;Glob. Food Secur.,2018
3. United Nations , “The 17 goals.” https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Accessed 18 September 2019.
4. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO , The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security, (FAO, Rome, 2017).
5. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change;Ingram;Food Secur.,2011
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献