Building Public and Political Will for Agriculture ODA in GermanyBaseline Study under the project

2

Published byDeutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V.Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 153173 BonnTel. +49 (0)228 2288-0Fax +49 (0)228 2288-333info@welthungerhilfe.dewww.welthungerhilfe.de

Author and responsibleProf. Michael Krawinkel

EditingKatherin Longwe (Corporate Design)

ProductionCarsten Blum

StatusBonn, July 2014

Imprint

Welthungerhilfe has received numerous awards for its transparent reporting and the excellent quality of its information.

The seal of approval of the German Institute for Social Issues (DZI) certifies­­Welthungerhilfe‘s­efficient­and­responsible­handling of the funds that have been entrusted to the organisation since 1992.

3

Chapter (each with a summary at the end)

I.­ State­of­the­art­and­research­findings­of­agriculture­ for food and nutrition security .............................................................................5

II. International policy debates about agriculture for food and nutrition security ............................................................................13

III. G8-engagements on food security and the role of Germany ....................................20

Annex

Content

4

The focus of the baseline study is on smallholder farmers, although the review cannot hide the fact that the work and livelihoods of such farmers remain under-addressed by research and­under-improved­by­policies.­FAO­has­called­2014­ the­ ‘International­Year­ of­Family­Farming­ (IYFF)’:­ ‘…­with­ the­aim­ to­ raise­ the­profile­of­ family­ farming­and­smallholder­farming­­by­focusing­world­attention­on­its­significant­role­in­eradicating­hunger­and­poverty,­providing food security and nutrition, improving livelihoods, managing natural resources, protecting the environment, and achieving sustainable development, in particular in rural areas.’1 In view of this statement, the discrepancy between expressed intention on the one hand and emphasis on technological innovations on the other is remarkable.

1 International­Year­of­Family­Farming­(IYFF)­(2014)­http://www.familyfarmingcampaign.net/en/home­(last­accessed­2/14/14)

5

1Chapter

State of the art and research findings of agriculture for food and nutrition security In 2013, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimated that­12.5%­of­the­world’s­population­is­food­insecure;­about­two­billion­people­suffer­from­one­or­more­micronutrient­deficiencies;­and­1.4­billion­people­are­overweight,­of­whom­500 million are obese.2 In order to enhance the nutritional performance of agricultural production,­­ FAO­ mentions­ a­ need­ for­ progress­ in­ three­ main­ areas:­ improving­ food­­availability­and­accessibility;­­improving­food­diversity;­and­improving­its­nutritious­value.­An underlying requirement is to improve sustainabilty.2

There is a wide gap between perspectives on increasing global food production of local producers and consumers. Whilst one strongly supported line favours innovation in terms of technology, seeds, and function of global markets,3 another line favours strengthening local knowledge, less investment, and building on smallholder farming strategies that respond to various risks by obtaining resilience through diversity.4

Development­of­technologies­combined­with­local­knowledge­requires­farmers‘­participation­­in­setting­up­the­research­agenda.­Farmer’s­field­research­should­be­considered­essential­to developing technologies. Progressive measures include linking small-scale farmers to value­­chains­ through­ farmer’s­organizations,­and­ reducing­ the­ role­of­middlemen­ in­ the­trade of both agricultural inputs and products. To be effective, new technologies must build on traditional knowledge, giving consideration to new technologies derived from best practices of other countries (South-South-collaboration). Innovations are to be discussed with­ the­ smallholders­ in­a­participatory­ and­enabling­way,­ as­has­occurred­ in­Ethiopia:­mixed-cropping­­ of­maize­ and­beans­ is­ different­ from­ teff­ and­ lentils/peas,­ because­ the­latter require strip cropping, whereas beans and maize seeds are sown together.

The­ approach­ to­ technologies­ and­ market­ integration­ should­ focus­ on­ their­ benefit­ to­smallholders,­­because­more­than­85%­of­the­world’s­farms­are­small­(1-2­ha).­Whilst­they­are under pressure from large business farms many also suffer terribly from low productivity due to a loss of knowledge of sustainable agricultural practices.

The technology-centred strategy is founded on the Green Revolution of the 1940s to 1960s, when­rice­yields­were­amplified­through­the­introduction­and­extended­use­of­ irrigation,­ fertilizers, pesticides, and improved seeds. With all its great achievements, this revolution had­a­negative­human­and­social­impact­that­often­is­neglected:­It­contributed­to­the­growth­of slums around the big cities in Asia, especially on the Indian subcontinent, as the number of landless people increased. Detrimental effects on the environment get neglected often. Compared to the focus on technology-based agricultural innovation, the role of smallholder

2 FAO­(2013):­The­State­of­Food­and­Agriculture­2013:­Food­systems­for­better­nutrition.­Rome.­http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/en/­(last­accessed­12/21/13).

3 CGIAR­ (2011)­ A­ strategy­ and­ results­ framework­ for­ the­ CGIAR.­ http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle­/10947/2608/Strategy_and_Results_Framework.pdf?sequence=4­(last­accessed­Feb.­15,­2014)

4 IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at Crossroads – Global Report. Island Press, Washington D.C.

6

farmers in food production is seriously under-researched. This is not merely due to the fact that­smallholders­are­widely­restricted­to­subsistence­farming­and­their­outputs­are­difficult­to­measure­in­terms­of­market­share.­The­primary­cause­is­the­lack­of­research­budgeting:­Much less funding has been allocated to research addressing smallholder farming and local knowledge. An Indian study found competitiveness of small farms on virtually all parameters­­ of­ resource­ and­ input­ use­but­ concluded­ that­ this­ is­ in­ itself­ not­ sufficient­to break the grip of poverty. The missing elements of support, information symmetry and finance­­are­key­factors­determining­the­relationship­of­small­producers­to­the­market­(Farm­Size,­ Input­ Use­ and­ Productivity:­ Understanding­ Strength­ and­ Improving­ Livelihood­ of­Smallholders).5

For­the­purpose­of­research,­even­the­definition­of­a­smallholder­farmer­is­unclear.­Often,­farm size is used for classifying producers at scale. However, there are different dimensions of­scale:­producing­low­quantities­and­yields,­having­little­capital­or­education,­and­lacking­skills to participate in markets. Gender is an essential dimension as well, because women are­often­restricted­due­to­gender­discrimination­with­regard­to­land­rights­and­financial­­decision-making.­­ To­ improve­ smallholder’s­ productivity,­ gender­ equality­ is­ an­ essential­ requirement.

Still, smallholder farmers are regarded as the main food producers in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to FAO, smallholders are crucial to enhancing economic growth, poverty reduction, and food security in poor countries where two out of three billion rural people live in smallholder households characterized by poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition. Still, they generate 40 to 60 per cent of the total rural income through participation in farm and non-farm activities. But, farm size continues to decline while the number of small and marginal farmers is increasing. The expectation that economic growth will cause more labourers being absorbed in the secondary and tertiary sectors, resulting in fewer remaining farmers consolidating their holdings, does not pan out, e.g. in India. The reality is that the secondary and tertiary sectors are unable to absorb so many employable people. Therefore, policies are necessary to facilitate the integration of small-scale farmers in agricultural market systems. But, extensive land acquisitions – sometimes referred to as ‘direct­ ­investments’­–­ reduce­ the­area­available­ for­smallholder­ farming,­ for­pastoralists­grazing­their­herds,­and­for­fishing.6

According to FAO, policy measures must aim at integrating small-scale agriculture into markets by strengthening rural off-farm employment and including smallholders in the development process.7 Until now, little has been undertaken to link the indigenous knowledge of smallholders with modern agricultural technology. Instead, the focus is ­mostly­on­promoting­modern­technology­among­smallholders,­while­ignoring­their­specific­

5 Chand­R,­Prasanna­PAL,­Singh­A.­Farm­Size­and­Productivity:­Understanding­the­Strengths­of­Smallholder­and­Improving­Their­Livelihoods.­Economic­and­Political­Weekly,­2011;­XLVI­(26­&27)

6 Bruentrup­M­(2013)­Drivers­of­large-scale­land­acquisitions­and­investments­–­historical­trends.­In:­Future­of Food. Ed. By Albrecht S., Braun R., Heuschkel Z., Marí F., Pippig J. oekom-Pbl., Muenchen.

7 FAO­(2010):­Policies­and­institutions­to­support­smallholder­agriculture.­FAO­Committee­on­Agriculture­­­document­ COAG/2010/6.­ Twenty-second­ Session,­ Rome,­ 16–19­ June­ 2010.­ www.fao.org/docrep/meeting­/018/k7999e.pdf­(last­accessed­12/29/13).

1Chapter

7

livelihoods and production environments and aiming only at higher productivity and better market access for their products.

In­ recent­ years,­ agricultural­ research­ and­ policies­ have­ claimed­ to­ become­ ‘nutrition­--sensitive’.­­ As­ one­ slogan­ goes:­ ‚from­ producing­ tons­ to­ supplying­ nutrients’.­ But­­‘nutrition-sensitive­­agriculture’­­still­awaits­realization,­i.e.­a­focus­on­nutrition­in­agriculture­that nurtures the smallholder farmers and accepts their indigenous knowledge, not seeing them as part of a problem but as part of the solution. Such a change of paradigm should also include a valuing of improved subsistence farming, because most smallholder farmers need­to­feed­their­families­­first­and­only­then­produce­for­income-generation.­

Smallholders, agricultural productivity, and growthA­number­of­policies­and­interventions­have­been­identified­for­improving­productivity­and­livelihoods­ of­ smallholder­ farmers:­ better­ infrastructure,­ ensured­ land­ tenure,­ provision­­of and access to education, promotion of gender equality and the reduction of other inequalities.6 Still, many smallholders are neglected when it comes to support and research.

Governments can promote the development of smallholders through agricultural research by integrating their knowledge and abilities and by facilitating partnerships between production, processing, and trade. Unfortunately, governments get attracted by well funded agricultural research that usually focus on technology and classical extension. Even the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and its research program leader, the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), tend to emphasize modern technology and its implementation to the detriment of traditional or indigenous knowledge. In this perspective, the gaps in agricultural productivity and food security are seen as lack of conventional agricultural extension.8

The integration of smallholders into local and regional markets contributes to food security and nutrition in rural as well as in urban areas. It also creates linkages with the rural non-food economy through additional income of the farmers and purchase of locally produced food.2

Several estimates indicate that many countries have not been able to achieve productivity growth in agriculture. According to FUGLIE, a key driver of agricultural productivity growth is­agricultural­research­and­development­(R&D).­Hence,­agricultural­R&D­for­staple­food­productivity growth has been considered as the most effective means of reducing hunger and food insecurity.9­But­experience­proves­ that­R&D­ is­most­appropriate­and­effective­

8 FARA­(2008)­Strategic­Plan­2007-2016:­Enhancing­African­Agricultural­Innovation­Capacity,­Accra,­Ghana.­­9 FUGLIE,­K.­O.­ (2012):­Productivity­Growth­and­Technology­Capital­ in­the­Global­Agricultural­Economy.­In:­FUGLIE,­K.­O.;­WANG,­S.­L.­und­BALL,­V.­E.­ (eds.)­ (2012):­Productivity­Growth­ in­agriculture:­An­international­­Perspective.­Oxfordshire,­UK:­CAB­International,­335-368.

1Chapter

8

when it does not just try to introduce new technologies but rather when it is an interactive process­that­includes­traditional­knowledge­and­addresses­knowledge­gaps­identified­by­the­smallholders themselves. Growth­in­agriculture­has­been­shown­as­especially­beneficial­for­the­poorest­of­the­poor.­An increase in agricultural GDP reduces extreme poverty more than three times faster than growth in non-agricultural sectors.10 These effects of agricultural productivity growth on income and poverty are strongest in countries where agriculture forms a large part of the economy and employs a large share of the labour force.2 A growth in food production ­significantly­ reduces­ the­ incidence­ of­ underweight.11 Several studies have shown that sustained income growth (agriculture or other sources) can have a sizeable effect on reducing malnutrition.2 In least-developed countries, agriculture accounts for a mean of 27% of the GDP.12

Until­now,­few­studies­only­have­examined­how­economic­growth­influences­undernutrition.­One reason for the lack of studies could be the widely accepted assumption that economic growth will ultimately lead to improved nutrition through higher income and expenditures for food. However, the link between income growth and nutrition is not clear.13 At early stages of development, economic growth helps to reduce the prevalence of undernutrition and agricultural growth can play a key role. When it comes to a longer-term impact, strategic investments­ into­development­and­specific­programs­are­ required­ in­ the­complementary­sectors of health, education and social security. Economic growth can support nutrition improvements, but many countries do not follow the typical growth-nutrition pathway. The questions­remain:­How­can­growth­contribute­to­nutrition­outcomes,­and­how­can­policies­be­designed­to­better­leverage­growth­for­nutritional­improvements?14

Research should not merely address links between agricultural productivity and food ­security;­ the­effect­ of­ seasonality­ on­nutrition­outcomes­also­needs­more­attention,­be-cause­most­of­the­world’s­acute­hunger­and­undernutrition­occurs­in­periodical­‘lean’­or­

10 CHRISTIAENSEN,­ L.,­DEMERY,­ L.­ and­KUHL,­ J.­ (2011):­ The­ (evolving)­ role­ of­ agriculture­ in­ poverty­­reduction:­an­empirical­perspective.­Journal­of­Development­Economics,­96(2):­239–254.

11 HEADEY,­D.­(2011):­Turning­economic­growth­into­nutrition-sensitive­growth.­Conference­Paper­No.­6.­2020 Conference on Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and Health, 10–12 February, New ­Delhi,­India.­www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/2020anhconfpaper06.pdf­(last­accessed­12/22/13).

12 FAO,­IFAD­and­WFP­(2012):­The­State­of­Food­Insecurity­in­the­World­2012:­Economic­growth­is­necessary­­but­ not­ sufficient­ to­ accelerate­ reduction­ of­ hunger­ and­malnutrition.­ Rome.­www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e.pdf­(last­accessed­12/21/13).

13 FAN,­S.­and­BRZESKA,­J.­(2012):­The­Nexus­between­Agriculture­and­Nutrition:­Do­Growth­Patterns­and­Conditional­ Factor­Matter?­ In:­ FAN,­ S.­ and­ PANDYA-LORCH,­R.­ (eds.)­ (2012):­ Reshaping­ Agriculture­for­Nutrition­and­Health,­31-38.­www.ifpri.org/publication/reshaping-agriculture-nutrition-and-health­(last­accessed­12/28/13).

14 ECKER,­O.,­BREISINGER,­C­and­PAUW,­K.­(2012):­Growth­is­Good,­but­Is­Not­Enough­to­Improve­Nutrition.­­In:­FAN,­S.­and­PANDYA-LORCH,­R.­(eds.)­(2012):­Reshaping­Agriculture­for­Nutrition­and­Health,­47-54.­www.ifpri.org/publication/reshaping-agriculture-nutrition-and-health­(last­accessed­12/28/13).

1Chapter

9

15 VAITLA,­B.,­DEVEREUX,­S.­and­SWAN,­S.H.­(2009):­Seasonal­hunger:­a­neglected­problem­with­proven­solutions.­PLoS­Medicine,­6(6):­e1000101.

16 HAWKES,­C.,­FRIEL,­S.,­LOBSTEIN,­T.­and­LANG,­T.­(2012):­Linking­agricultural­policies­with­obesity­and­non-communicable­diseases:­a­new­perspective­for­a­globalizing­world.­Food­Policy,­37(3):343–353.

17 HarvestPlus­(2010)­Statement­on­the­Potential­Benefits­of­Biofortification­on­the­Nutritional­Status­of­Populations.­­www.harvestplus.org/sites/default/files/HarvestPlus_statement_benefits_of_biofortification_­8-17-10.pdf­ (last­accessed Feb.. 15, 2014)

hunger seasons. During these seasons, the stocks from previous harvests have dwindled, food prices are high, and jobs are scarce.15 Therefore, research on food processing and preservation is mandatory.

Improving food security and nutrition outcomes In order to improve food security, there must also be emphasis on the distribution system and – even more importantly – on improving the implementation of rural development programs. In addition to the promotion of agriculture, a number of non-agricultural interventions are necessary for improving nutrition and health outcomes. Those policies – not primarily directed towards agriculture – are investments in infrastructure, programs to improve child and maternal nutrition and health, education campaigns on child feeding practices,­ child­ growth­monitoring,­ immunization­ campaigns,­ nutrient-supplementation/fortification­programs,­and­actions­to­promote­gender­equality,­women’s­empowerment,­and­reproductive­health/family­planning.­

For­the­long­term,­programs­are­needed­that­support­dietary­diversification­by­increasing­­the­understanding­of­healthy­diets.­Measures­enhancing­people’s­direct­access­to­fruits,­ vegetables, and animal products are home gardens, small-scale animal husbandry, and aquaculture based on local conditions and opportunities. Furthermore, investments in programs that improve health and hygiene are preconditions for reducing secondary malnutrition (due to illness, infections, and diseases).12

Agricultural policy has changed the environment in which consumers make their food choices through availability, affordability, and acceptability of food. Those policies have had­both­positive­and­negative­implications­for­people’s­overall­health.­Thus,­it­is­not­only­important­that­agriculture­produces­‘healthy’­ingredients;­it­is­also­important­to­consider­how the ingredients are introduced, transformed, distributed, and marketed throughout the supply chain.16

In recent years, one focus of agricultural research has been the enrichment of (staple) food crops with micronutrients through breeding and, in some cases, genetic engineering.17

Primarily, this approach is far away from the traditional knowledge of smallholder farmers. However,­ the­most­promising­effects­have­been­demonstrated­with­orange-fleshed­sweet­potatoes (OFSP), which are derived from a natural variety in Latin America, from which the

1Chapter

10

trait for beta-carotene has been bred into local African varieties. Its introduction into more than­24,000­households­in­Mozambique­and­Uganda­has­led­to­a­significantly­increased­ß-carotene intake.18

Although­ biofortification­ approaches­ have­ little­ to­ do­ with­ the­ realities­ of­ smallholder­­ farmers, the OFSP-example indicates that an interactive approach is possible when indigenous knowledge about local plant varieties is brought together with modern breeding concepts. Instead of such single nutrient approaches to improving human diets much more funding of research approaches that look into the agrobiodiversity available to local populations is to be postulated.­The­high-tech­approaches­are­widely­overfunded­since­the­‘improved­varieties’­­are commercial products made with the intention to stimulate trade. In the long run, it will be crucial to make such crops as public goods available when they eventually should play a role in food and nutrition security. Regarding agronomy, there are several options for increasing micronutrient content of staples through micronutrient-enriched fertilizer – or in some cases simply through lowering the soil-ph.19 Regarding rice production, plant selection, breeding local varieties for higher nutrient content and changing storage and cooking­methods­are­nutritionally­beneficial,­too.­Through­these­options,­the­zinc­content­of low-zinc rice varieties could potentially double and dietary zinc intake could increase by 64%.20 Again, this nutrition focus is to be linked to traditional farming and indigenous knowledge regarding agriculture, foods, and diets. Diversity of taste and food preferences is also to be taken into perspective.

Knowledge, practices and innovations of indigenous peoples and local communities – i.e. traditional knowledge – as mentioned in the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992,­are­in­the­limelight­in­UN­processes­right­now:­the­Nagoya­Protocol­on­Access­and­­Benefit-Sharing­­regarding­genetic­resources­and­associated­traditional­knowledge­is­coming­into its political and diplomatic own.21

18 HOTZ, C., LOECHL, C., LUBOWA, A., TUMWINE, J.K., NDEEZI, G., MASAWI, A.N., BAINGANA, R., CARRIQUIRY,­­A.,­DE­BRAUW,­A.,­MEENAKSHI,­J.V.­and­GILLIGAN,­D.O.­(2012):­Introduction­of-­carotene-rich­­orange sweet potato in rural Uganda results in increased vitamin A intakes among children and women and improved­vitamin­A­status­among­children.­Journal­of­Nutrition,­142(10):­1871-80.

19 Linehan D.J. (1978) Humic acid and iron uptake by plants. Plant and Soil 50, 663-670.20 MAYER,­A.B.,­LATHAM,­M.C.,­DUXBURY,­J.M.,­HASSAN,­N.­and­FRONGILLO,­E.A.­(2011):­A­food­systems­­

approach to increase dietary zinc intake in Bangladesh based on an analysis of diet, rice production and processing.­In:­THOMPSON,­B.­and­AMOROSO,­L.­(eds.)­(2011):­Combating­micronutrient­deficiencies:­food-based­approaches,­pp.­254–267.­Wallingford,­UK,­CAB­International,­and­Rome,­FAO.­www.fao.org/docrep/013/am027e/am027e00.htm­(last­accessed­12/29/13).

21 Nagoya­Protocol­ (2010)­Article­12.­ Traditional­Knowledge­Associated­with­Genetic­Resources.­ https://www.cbd.int/abs/text/articles/default.shtml?sec=abs-12.­(last­accessed­April­3,­2014)

1Chapter

11

The­ recently­ launched,­high-ranking­UN-Scientific­Advisory­Board­on­Sustainable­Deve-lopment­includes­in­its­deliberations­‘other­systems­of­knowledge’­as­a­reference­to­indi-genous, traditional, local or cultural knowledge. The multidisciplinary expert panel of the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) explicitly seeks collaboration with local knowledge and expertise.22

Improving agriculture for overcoming povertyAccording to Hodinott, the means of improving agricultural productivity of smallholders operate at the levels of setting, resources, production, and markets and affect health and nutrition­along­five­pathways:

1. Income generation

2. Crop varieties, farm practices, production methods, and markets

3. The use of time (spent on other income-generating activities, etc.)

4. Saving behaviour

5. Intra-household resource allocation (women earning higher income, how much is spent on food)23.

The fact that there are a billion people living in food insecurity and several billion people are­affected­by­one­or­more­micronutrient­deficiencies­amounts­to­specific­challenges­in­the­field­of­agriculture,­nutrition,­and­health.­At­the­same­time,­a­transition­towards­caloric­overnutrition is occurring worldwide. Despite much lip service given to the problem, small-holders­ in­agriculture­face­great­economic­and­social­challenges;­and­natural­resources,­especially water resources, are under stress. As the IAASTD report has shown, all previous programs and projects that focused on technology rather than on indigenous knowledge failed to become sustainable. The IAASTD presents the alternative approach by focusing on participative research and breeding in cooperation between farmers and research institutes. This group looked at income-generation via keeping parts of the value chain in rural areas and­addressing­asymmetries­in­financial­and­political­power­between­smallholder­farmers­and transnational corporations. The assessment also addresses governance and human rights issues as well as the active involvement and participation in decision-making through stakeholder consultations.4 One key problem facing smallholders is that they are numerous and rarely organized beyond local boundaries.

22 UNEP (2014) Report of the second session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science - Policy Platform­­ on­Biodiversity­ and­Ecosystem­Service.­ http://www.ipbes.net/images/IPBES-2-17%20-%20En.pdf (last accessed April 3, 2014)

23 HODDINOTT,­ J.­ (2012):­ Agriculture,­ Health,­ and­ Nutrition:­ Toward­ Conceptualizing­ the­ Linkages.­ In:­FAN,­S.­and­PANDYA-LORCH,­R.­(eds.)­(2012):­Reshaping­Agriculture­for­Nutrition­and­Health,­13-20.­Internet:­­www.ifpri.org/publication/reshapingagriculture-nutrition-and-health­(last­accessed­12/28/13).

1Chapter

12

Smallholders­have­identified­research­needs­in­the­areas­of­land­rights­and­soil­degradation,­­agro-ecological diversity, sustainability regarding environmental changes and water availability, and integration of technologies into smallholder farming.24 Through inter- and trans-disciplinary25 collaboration including indigenous as well as modern expert knowledge, solutions­can­be­developed­to­meet­these­challenges,­e.g.:­

n­ ­designing­agriculture,­nutrition,­and­solutions­to­health­programs­with­cross-sector­benefits;­

n organizing smallholders into institutions of their own which can effectively connect with the­extension,­market,­services­(credit,­insurance…)­and­engage­them­in­the­political­systems­to­have­their­voices­heard;

n linking­smallholder­food­production­and­decentralized­processing;

n promotion of South-South exchanges for farmers in order to facilitate mutual learning for increasing­productivity;­

n incorporating­nutritional­benefits­of­food­products­into­the­value­chains­of­agriculture,­horticulture, animal husbandry, aquaculture production and processing lines and thereby also­strengthening­food­sovereignty;­and

n increasing­consumers’­nutrition­ literacy­and­highlighting­ the­consequences­of­dietary­choices through consumer awareness campaigns.

SummaryThe­present­and­recognized­state­of­scientific­evidence­for­meeting­food­and­nutrition­­security challenges is derived mostly from a global instead of a local and regional perspective.­Progress­ is­widely­defined­ through­ implementation­of­ technologies­ and­industrial products, i.e. seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides.

Although smallholder farmers are considered as the major food producers in the southern hemisphere, their indigenous knowledge is widely neglected or regarded as a barrier to innovation. Taking up this knowledge and enabling smallholders to integrate themselves into food value chains is crucial to meet food and nutrition security challenges.

Linking the smallholders with functioning local and regional markets in order to make more food available and accessible to more people and generate income locally is regarded a precondition for improving food and nutrition security.

Growth of agricultural markets does not necessarily lead to improved nutrition, but such an outcome is most likely in low-income countries. With a nutrition transition occurring in most countries worldwide, diversity in terms of nutrients and food – especially fruit and vegetables – becomes increasingly important.

24 As reported from the POWA kick-off workshop (Addis Abeba, February 11, 2014).25 Interdisciplinary:­ between­ different­ scientific­ disciplines;­ transdisciplinary:­ between­ scientific­ and­ lay/traditional/indigenous­‘disciplines’

1Chapter

13

International policy debates on agri-culture for food and nutrition security The global population is expected to reach approximately nine billion people by 2050. Given­­ the­ current­ food­ demand­ from­ the­ increasingly­ affluent­ world­ population,­ the­pressure on farmers worldwide to increase production is at an all-time high. The increase in population is often used as an argument for abandoning smallholder farming and focusing on increasing productivity of agroindustry farming. But, the capacity of smallholders has been underestimated, as the present low productivity could be enormously increased by appropriate support. Second, the global agricultural output already is capable of feeding a world’s­population­of­this­size.­

The often quoted Malthusian Assumption26 was rejected long ago, when Karl Marx noted that the economic and social limits of food production and population growth are much more narrow that the physical boundaries. These socioeconomic boundaries limit population growth and prevent the full exploitation of the physical carrying capacity of the earth.27

Still, millions of people were cast into food insecurity as a result of the 2008 world food price crisis, that resulted in drastic food price increases in local markets.28,29 The growing concern over food price volatility and the lack of association between poverty reduction and nutrition improvement have paved the way for a broad debate over the usefulness of conventional policy instruments. Since then, many governments have placed greater emphasis on the promotion of agriculture for food and nutrition security.

The­world’s­estimated­500­million­smallholder­farms­account­for­60%­of­global­agriculture­and­produce­80%­of­the­food­in­developing­nations;­they­manage­up­to­80%­of­farmland­in­Sub-Saharan­Africa­and­Asia;­and­they­account­for­the­largest­number­of­undernourished­people in the world.30

26 Malthus­TR­(1798)­An­Essay­on­the­Principle­of­Population:­Library­of­Economics.­http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPop.html­(last­accessed­April­5,­2014)

27 Gimenez­ME­(1973)­The­population­issue:­Marx­vs.­Malthus­.­“Neo-Malthusian­emphasis­on­birth­control­­and family planning programs aimed at underdeveloped countries today repeat the same error that Malthus committed almost two hundred years ago. There is obviously (i.e., empirically available to common sense perception)­a­problem­of­‘overpopulation’­in­the­Third­World­if­by­that­it­is­meant­that­a­large­proportion­of their population is hungry, jobless, sickly, and dies very young. It also appears obvious that, given the situation of economic stagnation of those countries, lowering the birth rate might improve a little their situation. However, such arguments assumes that both private and public sources of investments whether national or foreign are actually spending too much in services for the excessive dependent population (i.e., housing hospitals, schools, etc.) and that such funds would be automatically diverted towards productive­­enterprises­if­population­size­or,­more­specifically,­if­the­dependency­ration­were­to­decline.­Such­assumption­­is­not­only­naive­but­reveals­lack­of­scientific­rigor­in­the­analysis­of­population­within­underdeveloped countries.” J Inst Dev Res, Copenhagen, Denmark.

28 Brinkman, H.-J., de Pee S., Sanogo I., Subran L. and Bloem M.W. (2010) High Food Prices and the Global Financial Crisis Have Reduced Access to Nutritious Food and Worsened Nutritional Status and Health. Journal­of­Nutrition­140(1):­153-161.

29 FAO­ (2009)­The­State­of­Food­ Insecurity­ in­ the­World­2009:­Economic­crises­–­ Impacts­and­Lessons­Learned.­Rome:­Food­and­Agriculture­Organization­of­the­United­Nations,­Rome.

30 IFAD­(2012a).­Adaption­for­Smallholder­Agriculture­Programme­(„ASAP“).­Rome:­International­Fund­for­Agricultural Development.

2Chapter

14

In recent years, smallholder farmers were recognized by the EU as possessing the greatest potential for increasing agricultural production whilst preserving the environment in low-income countries.31 Still, for investments into family-based agriculture, the institutional costs­must­be­reduced­and­access­to­production­factors­simplified.

One approach to improving food and nutrition security is to establish the legal right to adequate food, which has been approved by the governments through the World Food Summit. Voluntary guidelines have been developed and successfully negotiated for its implementation. This rights-based approach to nutrition also supports food sovereignty as a right of producers and consumers.32

In recent years, international policy debates about agriculture for food and nutrition focused on a number of issues, such as

n hunger,­food­insecurity,­and­poverty;

n global­environmental­change,­incl.­climate­change,­desertification,­and­greenhouse­gas­emissions;

n use­of­agricultural­products­for­bioenergy;­

n the­effect­of­financial­markets­on­food­prices­and­(free)­trade­policies;­and

n large­scale­acquisitions­of­and­investments­in­arable­land­(‘land­grabbing’).

Each of these topics gained public attention during the food price crisis, to varying degrees. Sometimes­ civil­ society­ organizations­ were­ able­ to­ mount­ a­ ‘public­ voice’;­ ­sometimes­scientists and experts called for political attention. One major and prominent attempt to integrate most of the issues and the related challenges has been the International Assessment of Agricultural Science for Technology and Development (IAASTD).4 This document has been widely debated, as it put forward not only the challenge of sustainability but also focused its recommendation on low-input smallholder agriculture rather than high-input agroindustry.

Besides expert arguments, those of lobbying groups of agrochemical and seed companies can be found. The interests of those companies are evident through the opening of new markets for­their­products.­The­policy­interests­are­more­diverse:­in­countries­where­the­agricultural­­sector contributes a large share of the GNP, governments rely on taxing agricultural products and­on­consumer’s­ability­to­meet­their­nutritional­needs­and­preferences.­­Governments­of­countries with vast infertile and non-arable land are eager to run agro-industrial farms in other countries, e.g. China and Saudi Arabia.33 This development creates an environmental reality for smallholder agriculture that differs from the many smallholder-friendly policy statements made by governments and intergovernmental organizations.

31 ECC (2010) European Commission Communication on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges, Bruxelles, 31.03.2010.

32 De Schutter O (2009) Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil political, economic, social and cultural rights,­including­the­right­to­development.­http://www.wunrn.com/news/2009/02_09/02_23_09/022309_special_files/SR%20Food%20Report%20to%20UN%202009.pdf­(last­accessed­April­3,­2014)

33 Von­Braun­J­and­Meinzen­R.­(2009)­“lean­season”­by­Foreign­Investors­in­Developing­Countries:­Risks­and­Opportunities.­IFPRI­Policy­Brief­13,­Washington,­D.C.­www.ifpri.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/bp013-Table01.pdf (last accessed Feb. 15, 2014)

2Chapter

15

34 IPCC (2007) Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

35 UNEP­ (United­ Nations­ Environment­ Program).­ (2012).­ Avoiding­ future­ famines:­ Strengthening­ the­ecological­­foundation­of­food­security­through­sustainable­food­systems.­Nairobi:­UNEP.

36 Besides its effects on agriculture GEC also impacts on the health environment (e.g. the spread of diseases due to water scarcity) and the caring capacity of the families when the workload in farming and gardening increases and less time is available for feeding infants, sick and old people.

37 Neely, C. and Fynn, A. (2011). Critical choices for crop and livestock production systems that enhance productivity­and­build­ecosystem­resilience.­SOLAW­Background­Thematic­Report­TR11.­Rome:­Food­and­Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

38 World­ Bank.­ (2007).­ World­ Development­ Report­ 2008:­ Agriculture­ for­ development.­ World­ Bank:­Washington, DC.

Global environmental change (GEC)One overarching challenge for agriculture is the global environmental change as it affects countries­ and­ populations­ worldwide.­ Its­ impact­ depends­ upon­ the­ setting.­ Affluent­industrialized countries have greater potential to protect their populations from alterations in food production. In low-income countries, GEC affects populations much more directly and with much greater impact on food and nutrition security, sometimes jeopardizing the main source of income.

We use the term GEC to describe the process involving terrestrial and non-terrestrial, man-made and natural changes affecting climate, air, soils, water, as well as interactions of these four dimensions. The challenge created by GEC has a particularly negative impact on smallholder farmers, who are forced to carry heavy costs resulting from changing physical and­socio-economic­landscapes­as­patterns­of­droughts,­floods­and­tropical­storms­have­become increasingly unpredictable. Effects of land degradation and loss of biodiversity have­a­negative­impact­on­the­rural­population‘s­income­sources.34

GEC affects inhabitants of the most vulnerable and marginal landscapes (e.g. deserts, hillsides,­and­floodplains),­who­are­often­smallholder­farmers,­female­heads­of­household­and/or­indigenous­people.­To­earn­a­living,­they­rely­completely­on­scarce­resources,­while­the more fertile areas that are less affected by GEC get increasingly assigned to commercial farming, bioenergy, and monoculture production. Therefore, smallholder farmers are affected most severely by GEC because they lack secure tenure and resource rights. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Report35 illustrates how the global ecosystem is threatened by the loss of biodiversity and overexploitation of natural resources – thereby creating greater food insecurity.36

Exploitation of resources through agriculture occurs in forms of excessive use, over- extraction and inappropriate management (of water, soil, and biodiversity). Unseen dimensions of groundwater contamination, pollution of surface water and greenhouse gas ­emissions­ ­hinder­ the­ ecosystem’s­ capacity­ to­ generate­ sustainable­ yields­ and­ to­ resist­shocks and climate pressures37. Contrary to common assumptions, smallholder farmers cannot be blamed for these negative impacts of agriculture (causing erosion on their hillside fields,­destroying­old­grown­tropical­forests,­etc.).­Developed­countries‘­trade­policies,­along­with­fossil­fuel­and­other­subsidies,­have­induced­­overproduction in rich countries and depressed world prices.38 This overproduction is not oriented toward sustainability but toward quick and high returns of investments. When

2Chapter

16

surplus products are exported from industrialized to developing countries, they are more likely to destroy local markets than to help to feed those in greatest need because low prices remove all economic incentives and income from farmers who are producing at real and unsubsidized cost.

Due to land degradation, approximately 5-12 million ha have been lost in developing countries annually.39 SSA is the most affected region because its per capita food production continues­to­decline,­leaving­more­than­a­third­of­the­region’s­population­food­insecure.40 Lack of appropriate policy measures for supplementary use of soil amendments and conservation practices have led to this declining per capita food production and a further increase of food insecurity. A narrow focus on farm output and income has contributed to this development as microeconomic gain taken priority over resilience through diversity, composting, agroforestry, and agroecology – all of which are part of traditional farming by smallholders in Africa.4

In 2013, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) released the report ‚Smallholders,­food­security,­and­the­environment‘,41 attempting to bridge the gap between policy makers and smallholder farmers. It includes a number of practical solutions for sustainable agriculture with smallholders as major stakeholders. Their involvement is cru-cial for sustainable agriculture.

Farm- and community-based mechanisms are required for building a sustainable landscape approach for development. Policy barriers to sustainable agriculture must be amended in order to attract smallholders to invest in sustainability. Market-based mechanisms with appropriate incentives for smallholders are required, such as removal of subsidies on unsustainable fertilizers and the introduction of subsidies in favour of soil and water conservation.­­Green­certification­schemes­will­give­smallholders­a­competitive­advantage­in­new niche markets at local, regional, and international levels.25

Another vital aspect – aside from the organization of mutual learning processes that tap into traditional knowledge – is the establishment of productive exchange between science-based insights and the knowledge of smallholders with little formal education. The aim of this communication process is not just distribution of expert knowledge but enabling smallholders to make informed choices about technologies and their application within the local environment. This goal is not merely to increase productivity in the short term, but also to target sustainable use of resources and food production.

39 IFPRI­(International­Food­Policy­Research­Institute).­(1999).­Soil­Degradation:­A­Threat­to­Developing-Country­Food­Security­by­2020?,­Food,­Agriculture­and­the­Environment­Discussion­Paper.­Washington,­D.C.:­International­Food­Policy­Research­Institute.

40 Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A.G. and Kaltenborn, B.P., eds.­(2009).­The­environmental­food­crisis:­The­environment’s­role­in­averting­future­food­crises.­A­UNEP­Rapid­Response­Assessment.­Arendal,­Norway:­GRID-Arendal,­UNEP.

41 IFAD.­(2013).­Smallholders,­food­security,­and­the­environment.­Rome:­International­Fund­for­Agricultural­Development.

2Chapter

17

Farmer­field­schools42, rural radios, and mobile telecommunication devices43,44 have been developed­as­means­to­ increase­the­efficacy­of­agricultural­extension­services.­However,­­ participatory approaches should take precedence over the unidirectional top-down approach. Participatory education requires a different attitude towards the indigenous knowledge of smallholders, with the aim of empowering them to integrate modern technologies into traditional approaches.

The role of women in managing biodiversity for improved food and nutrition security cannot be­ overemphasized:­ In­ Rwanda­ –­ as­ one­ example­ –­ bean­ varieties­ selected­ by­ female­ farmers were 64-89% more productive than varieties selected by scientists.45

Improved­land­management­for­grazing­and/or­pasture­increases­soil­carbon­content­and­leads to greater productivity. In case of restricted land availability, grazing can be minimized by­rotational­field­use­and/or­its­combination­with­stall-feeding­based­on­­fodder­crops.­This­also enhances livestock productivity. With 40% of global land utilized as rangelands, herders and pastoralists have a huge impact on soil carbon sequestration.22 There are between 100 and 200 million pastoral farmers around the world covering 5,000 million hectares of rangelands, which amounts to 30% of stored world carbon stocks.46 Expertise of women is a­widely­underused­resource­for­promoting­food­and­nutrition­­security:­­Women­­traditionally­have the role of livestock keepers, income generators, natural resource stewards, and ser-vice providers.47

The broadest assessment of sustainable agricultural approaches in developing countries to date is based on a study of 286 initiatives in 57 poor countries, covering 12.6 million farms on 37 million hectares. According to this study, virtually all these initiatives have increased productivity, while improving the supply of critical environmental services.48

Healthy and diverse farmlands maintain good soil quality, increase biodiversity and foster greater climate resilience for smallholders. Mixing traditional farming methods with new technologies has great advantages an d should be widely adopted. Addressing policies that suppress­the­livelihoods­of­smallholders­will­accelerate­the­application­of­multi-beneficial­approaches.

42 FAO.­(2008).­Farmer­field­schools­on­land­and­water­management­in­Africa.­Proceedings­of­an­international­­workshop­in­Jinja,­Uganda,­24-29­April­2006.­Rome:­Food­and­Agriculture­Organization­of­the­United­Nations.

43 Bhavnani, A., Chiu, R.W.W., Janakiram, S., Silarszky, P. and Bhatia, D. (2008). The role of mobile phones in­ sustainable­ rural­ poverty­ reduction.­ Washington,­ DC:­ ICT­ Policy­ Division,­ Global­ Information­ and­Communications Department (GICT), World Bank.

44 Munyua,­H.­(2000).­Information­and­communication­technologies­for­rural­development­and­food­security:­­Lessons­ from­ field­ experiences­ in­ developing­ countries.­ Rome:­ Sustainable­ Development,­ Food­ and­Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

45 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2006). Food security and agricultural development in Sub-Sahara Africa — building a case for more public support. Rome, FAO, p. 122.

46 IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). (2010). Thematic paper on Livestock and Climate Change.­Rome:­International­Fund­for­Agricultural­Development.

47 Flintan,­F.­(2008).­Women’s­Empowerment­in­Pastoral­Societies­II.­International­Union­for­Conservation­of Nature, World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism, Global Environment Facility and United Nations Development Programme.

48 Pretty, J., A. D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R.E. Hine, F.W.T. Penning de Vries, and J.I.L. Morison. (2006). Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environment Science and ­Technology,­40(4):1114-1119.

2Chapter

18

Ineffective land management policies and the lack of access to secure and varied markets for poor rural farmers have a negative impact on climate resilient agriculture. The contributions of smallholders toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and increased water availability (in upper watersheds or aquifers in plains) are often ignored.22­With­deficient­land­access­and­tenure­rights,­there‘s­no­incentive­for­smallholders­to­invest­in­long-term­land usage.

The second challenge linking industrialized and developing countries is that of limited fossil fuel reserves. These fuels are prerequisite for industrialized agriculture, and become more expensive with increasing oil prices. This made the use of agriculture for energy production attractive to industrialized countries, and in developing countries, too, as their energy needs and high biofuel production increased.

Biofuel production The emerging interest in biofuel production as an investment creates serious concerns ­regarding­food­and­nutrition­security,­as­the­income­thus­generated­may­not­be­sufficient­to­make families food secure. In addition, smallholder farmers with insecure land tenure are extremely vulnerable to land grabs by wealthy biofuel producers49.

Political assumptions that biofuel plants grown on marginal lands would make effective use of idle resources overlook the fact that smallholder farmers use marginal lands for herding or crop rotation. Smallholders using the land on a permanent basis are also at risk as they may get driven to sell under pressure. Often, land owned by the government is allocated to biofuel investors.50­When­biofuel­production­becomes­more­profitable,­there­is­a­huge­threat of conversion of fertile land to biofuel crop production.51 Many African countries have no clear policies on land tenure and responsible investment. For example, in Tanzania biofuel production has increased the demand for arable land and­water,­whilst­there­is­neither­a­sufficient­law­protecting­farmers­against­land­grabbing­­for­biofuel­production­nor­is­there­sufficient­compensation­offered­to­those­affected.­The­World­Bank­already­forecasts­conflicts­over­water­resources­in­the­drier­regions­of­Africa.52 Following decreased food production, food prices will rise, causing further food insecurity to the poor.53 Current biofuel policies in the OECD-countries have contributed to the tightening of food supplies and rising food prices and will undoubtedly have a large impact on world food availability.54

49 Cotula,­L.,­Dyer,­N.,­&­Vermeulen,­S.­(2008).­Fuelling­Exclusion?:­The­Biofuels­Boom­and­Poor­People‘s­Access to Land. IIED, FAO.

50 Raswant,­V.,­Hart,­N.,­&­Romano,­M.­(2008).­Biofuel­expansion:­challenges,­risks­and­opportunities­for­rural­poor­people.­How­the­poor­can­benefit­from­this­emerging­opportunity.

51 Fargione,­J.,­Hill,­J.,­Tilman,­D.,­Polasky,­S.,­&­Hawthorne,­P.­(2008).­Land­clearing­and­the­biofuel­carbon­debt. Science, 319 (5867), 1235-1238.

52 Cushion,­E.,­Whiteman,­A.,­and­Dieterle,­G.­2009.­Bioenergy­development:­issues­and­impacts­for­poverty­and­natural­resource­management­Report.­World­Bank:­Washington,­DC.

53 Lian­Pin­Koh­and­Jaboury­Ghazoul.­(2008).­Biofuels,­biodiversity,­and­people:­understanding­the­conflicts­and­finding­opportunities.­Biological­Conservation,­141,­(10),­2450–60.

54 De­Gorter,­H.,­Drabik,­D.,­&­Just,­D.­R.­2013.­Biofuel­Policies­and­Food­Grain­Commodity­Prices­2006-2012:­All­Boom­and­No­Bust?.­AgBioForum:­16­(1):­1-13.

2Chapter

19

Still, there are positive experiences, such as in Brazil, where – aside from agroindustrial biofuel­production­–­‘self-determined­and­decentralized­small-scale­production­of­biomass­is­an­important­part­of­energy­sovereignty­for­family­farms.’55

Agro-food-Transnational Corporations (AF-TNC)One­major­change­in­the­field­of­agricultural­policy­and­markets­is­the­rise­of­Agro-Food-Transnational Corporations, which aim at owning or controlling as much as possible of the value chain for food products. These chains encompass agroindustrial production, transport, processing, and trade. They have been observed as working in a similar manner as the textile­­ industry:­ reducing­ production­ costs­ and­maximizing­ profits­ for­ the­ ­companies.56 Although such companies claim to support smallholders, they choose smallholders as ­partners­­because­they­become­easily­dependent­on­this­type­of­trade­and­enter­the­field­of commercial farming with all risks of unpredictable climate and productivity and no safeguards. In­general,­those­companies­create­further­pressure­on­smallholder’s­food­production­whilst­responsible policies must become oriented toward a moral imperative for global food and nutrition security.

SummaryPolicy debates on agriculture for food and nutrition security have had different focuses­­ in­recent­years:­Topics­included­hunger,­food­insecurity,­and­poverty,­global­environmental­­change,­including­climate­change,­desertification,­and­greenhouse­gas­emissions, use of agricultural products for bioenergy production, dependence of food prices­on­financial­market­ interventions,­ free­ trade­policies,­and­overtrading­as­well­as appropriation of arable land by large enterprises and foreign governments. There is a lack of coherence between policies for food and nutrition security on one side and unregulated­trade­as­well­as­financial­speculation.

Smallholder farmers in particular – of whom the majority are women – often are referred to in programs and policy statements but are usually left out when it comes to implementation and funding of programs for reducing workload and increasing productivity. Instead,­it­is­the­‘big­players’­–­the­agrochemical­industries­and­the­established­crop-bound­­agricultural research institutes (CGIAR) – that are generously funded. This approach is based­on­the­expectation­that­new­technologies­can­be­commercialized­for­the­benefit­of­‘donor’­economies.­

For advocacy, the focus on food and nutrition security, on global environmental change, and on biofuel issues is especially relevant as the latter two topics affect public and political debates in low-income as well as in rich countries. The same holds true for gender issues.

55 Schönardie­PA­(2013)­Family­farming­in­the­context­of­energy­production­from­biomass­in­Brazil:­stalemate­­or­potential­for­sustainable­energy­and­food­sovereignty?­In:­Future­of­Food.­Ed.­By­Albrecht­S.,­Braun­R.,­Heuschkel Z., Agro-food, Marí F, Pippig J.. oekom-Pbl., Muenchen.

56 McCullough E.B., Pingali, P.I., Stanoulis KG (Ed.) (2008) The transformation of Agri-Food-Systems. Globalization, Supply Chains, and Smallholder Farmers. Earthscan Pbl., London.

2Chapter

20

G8-engagements on food security and the role of GermanyGerman government policy on global food security has bilateral and multilateral elements. Whilst bilateral cooperation is assigned to the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), multilateral cooperation, especially with FAO, is handled by the Federal Ministry of Nutrition and Agriculture (BMEL). BMZ has a clear focus on rural development and agriculture, including support for the CGIAR. BMEL is more oriented towards agriculture, food, and nutrition, including food safety. The cooperation between the­ministries­in­the­field­of­food­security­and­nutrition­is­a­challenge,­as­representatives­of­different political parties have led the two ministries in the last decade. The present study first­focuses­on­available­program­and­report­information­and­then­reflects­the­impact­on­smallholder farmers and their organizations.

Timeline of conferences and high-level government meetings concerning Global Food Security

April 2008: High Level Task Force (HLTF) on Global Food Security was established

June 2008: High Level Conference on World Food Security, FAO, Rome (“Declaration­­on­World­Food­Security”)

July 2008: ­ ­G8­Hokkaido­Toyako­Summit,­Japan­(“Leaders­Statement­on­Global­Food Security”)

January 2009: High Level Meeting on Food Security for All, Madrid

June 2009:­­ G8­L’Aquila­Summit,­Italy­(“L’Aquila­Food­Security­Initiative”)­

November 2009:­­ World­Summit­on­Food­Security,­FAO,­Rome­(“Rome­Principles”)

June 2010: G8 Muskoka Summit, Canada

June 2011: G8 Deauville Summit, France

November 2011:­­ ­G20­Cannes­Summit,­France­(“Action­Plan­on­Food­Price­Volatility­and Agriculture”)

May 2012: ­ ­38th­Session­of­the­Committee­on­World­Food­Security­(“The­Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security”)

June 2012:­­ ­G8­Camp­David­Summit,­United­States­(“New­Alliance­for­Food Security and Nutrition”)

October 2012:­­ ­39th­Session­of­the­CFS­(“Global­Strategic­Framework­for­Food Security and Nutrition”)

June 2013:­ ­High-Level­Meeting­on­Global­Nutrition­and­Growth,­London­(“Global­Nutrition for Growth Compact”)

June 2013: G8 Lough Erne Summit, United Kingdom

3Chapter

21

In April 200857, under the leadership of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the High Level Task Force (HLTF) on the Global Food Security Crisis was established. Its intention has been to ensure coherent, coordinated and effective work on Global Food Security among UN agencies58. In July 2008 the HTLF produced a cross-sectoral Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA), focusing on a global response to the global food crisis and investment in agriculture in a coordinated and consistent manner. The Updated CFA (UCFA) was published in September 2010, including principles on human rights, gender, ecological sustainability and nutrition.

In June 2008, a High-Level Conference took place in Rome, chaired by the FAO, in which the delegates­adopted­a­“Declaration­on­World­Food­Security”.­At­that­time,­Official­­Development­­Assistance (ODA) and investment in agriculture had continuously declined, and G8 leaders pledged to spare no effort to ensure global food security through promoting sustainable agriculture. The members agreed to establish short, medium, and long-term actions to erase hunger and ensure food for all. That same year, food prices peaked. A G8 Experts Group on Global Food Security was given the tasks of supervising the implementation of G8 commitments, supporting the HLTF, cooperating with other interested parties, forming a “Global­Partnership­for­Agriculture­and­Food­Security”59 (GPAFS) and reporting its progress at­the­G8­Summit­in­L’Aquila.­

Since 2009 the G20 also has addressed Global Food Security. Food Price Volatility was one of the main topics at the 2011 G20 summit in Cannes. The G20 agriculture ministers drafted­the­“Action­Plan­on­Food­Price­Volatility­and­Agriculture”.­At­the­G8­summit­in­L’Aquila­(Italy),­26­nations­and­14­international­organisations­initiated­the­“L’Aquila­Food­Security Initiative” (AFSI). They agreed on a comprehensive and coordinated approach to supporting partner countries in food security measures, rural development, and agricultural interventions.­Donors­made­financial­commitments­in­the­amount­of­$22.2­billion­over­a­period­of­three­years­(2010-2012),­including­$6.8­billion,­beyond­their­previously­planned­disbursements.­ To­ prevent­ critique­ on­ the­ deployment­ of­ financial­means,­ transparency­and accountability were given great attention throughout AFSI. An overview of targets and achievements­shows:­

57 For the timing of the various conferences and plans see timeline in the annex. 58 The­HLTF’s­goal­is­“to­ensure­that­all­people,­at­all­times,­have­physical,­social­and­economic­access­to­sufficient,­safe­and­nutritious­food­which­meets­their­dietary­needs­and­food­preferences­for­an­active­and­healthy life.”

59 The Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security (GPAFS) is focussed on providing a response to the high food prices and more broadly towards the sustenance of food security and agriculture.

3Chapter

22

Commitment I: Reversing the decline in investmentBy the end of the AFSI period in December 2012, all G8 members had fully committed their pledged funds. Because many donors pledged their minimum, ultimately 106 per­ cent­ of­ the­ original­ $22.24­ billion­was­ committed.­ A­ total­ of­ $16.4­ billion­ (74%)­of the committed funds had been disbursed by April 2013. Hence, the major objective of­ “reversing­­ the­decline­­ of­ investment­ in­agriculture­and­ improving­ food­ security”­was­achieved. In accordance with their commitments, the G8 have also been engaged in programs for improving agricultural productivity and food security in a sustainable manner, e.g. development of infrastructure, sharing of best practices for irrigation, advancing techniques for management, and improving food storage facilities, access to market and trade opportunities.

Commitment II: Supporting country-led and regional processes According to the Lough Erne Accountability Report, this commitment was met, too. Even before AFSI was launched, G8 members had been supporting country-led and regional processes through bilateral development assistance programs such as joint-donor assistance strategies, multi-donor pooled funds, budget support, program-based and sector-wide approaches. Bilateral investments were aligned with country-owned agriculture and food security investment plans. The Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is one such major regional process supported by G8. It is an African-owned initiative with the aim of enhancing agricultural productivity across the continent. It was organised­ within­ the­ New­ Partnership­ for­ Africa’s­ Development­ (NEPAD),­ the­ African­ Union strategic framework for pan-African socio-economic development. CAADP works on boosting the productivity of African agriculture across the continent. Due to the long-term collaboration of G8 and other donors with CAADP, a harmonisation of donor support took place and led to the creation of the CAADP Multi-donor Trust Fund (MDTF), which acts as a­mechanism­for­channelling­financial­support­for­CAADP­processes­and­investments.­In­L’Aquila,­G8­leaders­also­committed­themselves­to­promoting­the­Principles­of­Responsible­Agricultural Investment (RAI), designed to facilitate sustainable private investment in food security, nutrition, agriculture, and rural development.

Commitment III: Supporting the reform of international agricultural and food security architecture and establishing a global partnershipAt­the­L’Aquila­Summit,­G8­countries­also­launched­the­Global­Partnership­on­Agriculture,­­Food Security and Nutrition (GPAFSN) in order to maintain the global focus on food security, create an expert network and administer the sharing of best practices. Another mechanism supported by G8 is the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (GDPRD), created in 2003 to improve the quality of development assistance in agriculture, rural development, and food security.

3Chapter

23

Additional addressees of G8 support are

n The Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN), the UN food and nutrition policy harmonisation forum. Its mandate is to promote cooperation among UN agencies and partner organisations in support of community, national, regional, and international efforts to end malnutrition in all of its forms in this generation.

n The Committee on World Food Security (CFS), the UN forum for reviewing policies concerning world food. It is the most inclusive international and intergovernmental platform for all relevant stakeholders to work together to ensure food security and nutrition.

n The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the global partnership that unites organisations engaged in research toward achieving a food secure future. CGIAR research is dedicated to reducing rural poverty, increasing food security, improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring more sustainable management of natural resources.

n The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), helping to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.­

In order to ensure transparency and accountability of AFSI, a Managing for Development Results (Madre) task force was established under German leadership. Since 2010, the G8 have produced annual AFSI Accountability Reports tracking the progress of each donor’s­financial­commitments.­Since­2012,­the­report­includes­funding­and­activities­by­partner-countries­­(“in-depth­tables”)­and­assesses­how­far­these­activities­also­align­with­­non-financial­­­commitments.­Civil­society­organisations­have­welcomed­this­­improvement­in­transparency and accountability. In order to assess the impact of AFSI, members agreed to “collectively­demonstrate,­by­means­of­examples­in­some­partner­countries­on­a­voluntary­­basis,­ that­ the­ provided­ resources­ are­ managed­ for­ results­ and­ that­ the­ fulfilment­­ of­­financial­and­non-financial­commitments­leads­to­actual­results­on­the­ground.”­Therefore,­­case studies were conducted in the partner countries of Bangladesh, Ghana, Rwanda and Senegal, led by Germany and IFPRI. Processes and mechanisms for using Madre were put in place, such as monitoring frameworks and sector working groups. In all case study ­countries,­the­monitoring­revealed­significant­achievements­in­several­areas,­including­­rapid­food production and progress in poverty reduction, as well as declines in child malnutrition and undernourishment. AFSI is expected to contribute to those positive trends in the future. Overall limited availability of data, time delays, and the complexity of attributing impacts­to­inputs­make­it­difficult­for­the­initiative­to­report­on­results­globally.

In­ 2013­ at­ the­ Lough­ Erne­ Summit,­ G8­ members­ concluded­ that­ the­ L’Aquila­commitments had been fully met. Nevertheless, monitoring of disbursements continues. As a­­non-governmental­­organization­noted:­‘[C]ommitments­on­agriculture­were­disappointing.­­ According to the UN, support to small farmers provides the single biggest opportunity to reduce hunger and poverty and to increase productivity. The 8 June (2013) was another missed­opportunity­to­invest­in­those­who­feed­a­third­of­the­world’s­population.’60

60 CAFOOD­ (2013)­ ‘10­ days­ of­ action­ on­ hunger:­ what‘s­ been­ achieved?’­ http://www.cafod.org.uk/News/Campaigning-news/Action-on-hunger-achievements­(last­accessed­Feb.­15,­2014)

3Chapter

24

Still,­the­L’Aquila­Food­Security­Initiative­has­somehow­helped­to­catalyse­a­global­focus­on food and nutrition security for a couple of years. The achievements of AFSI as assessed by­the­governments­themselves­are­to­be­counterchecked­with­field­reports­and­the­voices­of those in food insecure regions. Here, few independent evaluations exist because the target­populations­and­their­governments­don‘t­want­to­jeopardize­continuous­support­by­criticising­the­‘donors’.­

A positive example from Niger61

Funding:­­ $57.69­million­(2010-2012)­from­Germany­

Programs:­ ­“Programme­LUCOP”:62 Rural development, productive farming, resource management, climate change, agricultural irrigation, productivity promotion, capacity building, sector political support, regional planning, community development.

­ ­Promotion­of­food­security­project:­Provision­of­funding­for­grain­purchase,­monitoring and evaluation support, technical advice, rural infrastructure.

Objective:­ ­“Supporting­ LUCOP­ beneficiary­ groups­ to­ improve­ use­ of­ natural­agricultural resources, productive farming, capacity building, and support of community development” by 2011. Target group is small farmers in the regions of Agadez, Tahoua and Tillabéri.

Indicators: The indicators are relative to the complete and individual phases of the component­ and­ program­ aims.­ Verification­ is­ done­ through­ internal­ and­external monitoring and evaluation (e.g. baseline surveys, interviews, interim studies, surveys, etc.)

­ ­­Specific­indicators­include:­increased­household­income,­increased­­farming­production, and establishment of cereal banks.

Progress: n More than 142,000 ha of land were reclaimed for sustainable manage-ment, and several rural markets and roads were built.

n About 8,000 farmers were able to use the available production resources more effectively and thus generate higher revenues.

n Fora­and­user­agreements­have­helped­to­resolve­the­conflicts­between­farmers­and­pastoralists­and­have­contributed­to­conflict­prevention.­

n Overall, the improvement of production conditions and skills led to an increase of family income within the target group and substantial con-tributions to food security of the target group have been made.

n The impact of the measures is reviewed annually by independent consultants and results in increased satisfaction of up to 95% of surveyed target group members.

61 Copied­from­the­2012­German­In-Depth­Table,­Camp­David­Accountability­Report.­http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/GermanyInDepthTables.pdf­(last­accessed­April­14,2014)

62 „Lutte­contre­la­pauvrete“­or­“Fight­against­Poverty“

3Chapter

25

The “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition”At­ the­ Camp­ David­ Summit­ in­ 2012,­ G8­ and­ African­ leaders­ committed­ to­ the­ “New­­Alliance­ for­ Food­Security­ and­Nutrition”­ (New­Alliance).­ At­ first,­ six­ African­ countries­­contracted­a­partnership­with­G8­and­private­investors:­Tanzania,­Ghana,­Ethiopia,­Ivory­Coast, Burkina Faso, and Mozambique, all countries with a high vulnerability to hunger crises.­Donor­countries­have­committed­almost­$4­billion­for­the­period­2012­to­2015,­to support Country Investment Plans and New Alliance goals in the six countries. More than 80 African and global private companies have committed to making investments, although it must be noted that these commitments are not binding. The New Alliance aims at raising 50 million people out of poverty by 2022 through private investments in agriculture, improvement of agricultural productivity, and reduction of risks for investors.

Considering the Millennium Development Goals, the question arises as to why such targets have­not­been­met­much­earlier.­Now,­in­2013/14,­instead­of­trying­to­figure­out­why­these­goals will not be achieved in Subsahara Africa, new goals are being set.63 Whilst the MDGs had­a­definitive­impact­on­the­political­debate­and­paved­the­way­for­progress­towards­food­security in some countries, ignorance about smallholder farmers and their organizations, especially in Africa, must be considered as a reason for failure.

The­website­of­ the­“New­Alliance­ for­Food­Security­and­Nutrition”­ fails­ to­ fully­explain­­whether­­the­aims­include­“reduction­of­risks­for­investors”­and­“help[ing]­facilitate­global­­trade by opening up new markets for U.S. goods and services”.64 The question as to whether countries are bound to an investment agreement that makes their new rulings and­ legislations­­ subject­ to­ investor/state­ arbitration­procedures­ remains­unanswered,­ as­well.­As­other­trade­agreements­indicate,­this­conflict­resolution­mechanism­occurs­outside­national jurisdiction and hinders national parliaments from passing new (and unexpected by investors) legislation on, for instance, human rights and environmental safeguards.

Commitments of the New Alliance“We­commit­to­ launch­a­New­Alliance­for­Food­Security­and­Nutrition­to­accelerate­the­flow­ of­ private­ capital­ to­ African­ agriculture,­ take­ to­ scale­ new­ technologies­ and­ other­innovations that can increase sustainable agricultural productivity, and reduce the risk borne by vulnerable economies and communities. This New Alliance aims at lifting 50 million people out of poverty over the next decade. It is guided by a collective commitment to invest in credible, comprehensive, and country-owned plans, develop new tools to mobilize private capital, spur and scale innovation, manage risk, and engage and leverage the capacity of private sector partners – from women and smallholder farmers, entrepreneurs to domestic and international companies”.65

63 UNECA/AUC­(2013)­Report­on­progress­in­achieving­the­Millennium­Development­Goals­in­Africa.­http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/document_files/report-on-progress-in-achieving-the-mdgs-in-africa.pdf­(Last accessed April 5, 2014)

64 Feed­the­Future­–­Partnering­for­Impact.­http://www.feedthefuture.gov/partnership#/partnering-for-impact­(last accessed April 5, 2014).

65 New­Alliance­Project.­http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/18/fact-sheet-g-8-action-food-security-and-nutrition (last accessed Feb. 15, 2014)

3Chapter

26

In June 2013, at the Lough Erne Summit, the New Alliance was extended by partnerships concluded with Malawi, Nigeria and Benin. A recent Cooperation Framework was signed with Senegal in December 2013. One and a half years after the launching, some progress in the promotion of responsible private sector investment in African agriculture has been reported,­­ in­ addition­ to­ existing­ efforts­ supporting­ CAADP’s­ agricultural­ transformation­­agenda.­Related­­to­its­specific­tasks,­the­New­Alliance­contributes­to­each­country’s­CAADP-facilitated dialogue between its government, the private sector, development partners, and civil society with the aim to identify and to remove key constraints to responsible investment in agriculture and has developed Cooperation Frameworks for each of the 10 New Alliance partner countries. These Cooperation Frameworks include a couple of policy commitments to­ be­ implemented­ by­ specific­ deadlines­ in­ 2012­ and­2013.­ At­ the­ country­ level,­ the­implementation of multi-stakeholder dialogues and the establishment of clear leaderships have been time-consuming. Progress has been demonstrated in capacity, priorities, and events across partner countries.

In 2012, more than 80 companies committed themselves to make investments in the original six partner countries. A progress review undertaken by Grow Africa66 in March-April 2013­reveals­the­following­progress­in­company­investment­plans:­

n All are underway with internal approvals and 94% are proceeding with external prepa-rations­(market­research,­field­visits,­partnership­negotiations,­stakeholder­consultations)­

n 61%­are­in­the­pilot­phase,­initial­on-the-ground­progress­awaiting­scale-up;­and­40%­are­in­the­investment­phase;­operational­activity­moving­to­scale.­Investments­include­­a­ multiplicity­ of­ business­ models:­ joint­ ventures­ between­ multinational­ and­ local­companies;­­ public-private­ partnerships;­ and­ partnerships­ between­ private­ companies­and NGOs. New models involving smallholder farmers are being generated.

Impact on smallholder farmersThough it is too soon to evaluate the impact of investments of the New Alliance in 2012, early­results­reported­to­‘Grow­Africa’­appear­promising­for­smallholder­farmers:

n More­ than­ $60­million­ were­ invested­ in­ activities­ that­ incorporate­ smallholders­ into­commercial, market-based activities.

n About 270,000 metric tonnes of commodities coming from partner countries – the vast majority­from­smallholder­farmers­–­and­the­equivalent­of­around­$300­million­in­sales­from these farmers were fed into the market system.

n Nearly­800,000­smallholders­benefited­from­a­mix­of­ training,­service­provision,­and­market access.67

66 Grow­Africa­is­the­Africa­Agriculture­Growth­and­Investment­Taskforce’s­partnership­platform,­established­by NEPAD. It aims to accelerate investments and transformative change in African agriculture, based on national priorities and supporting CAADP.

67 See­page­26:­The­African­Cashew­Initiative

3Chapter

27

From the perspective of the New Alliance, the picture appears much more satisfying than from the perspective of smallholder farmers and their organizations in food insecure regions. As the funded interventions are driven by technology promotion rather than by support for existing local knowledge, there is a gap in the perception of achievements and successes.

The smallholder’s organization La Via Campesina illustrates this gap:68

We demand public policies to support sustainable peasant and family farm agriculture:

n Implement­genuine­agrarian­reform,­put­an­end­to­“land­grabbing”,­and­respect­our­land and territories.

n Reorient agricultural research and extension systems to support farmer-to-farmer agroecological innovation and sharing managed by farmer organizations as the keystone to up-scaling agroecology.

n Change the way agronomists are trained. Agroecology and social science must play a central role in curricula, which should emphasize respect for farmer knowledge and the importance of farmer organizations.

n Broad implementation of Food Sovereignty policies like the protection of national markets from dumping, hoarding and speculation by corporations, and systems to guarantee fair prices for peasant food production.

n Support peasant seed systems and repeal anti-peasant seed laws.

n Reorient public sector food procurement to give priority to ecological peasant production and fair prices.

n Support­ farm-to-city­ direct­ marketing­ of­ ecological­ production­ through­ farmers’­markets, linking rural and urban cooperatives, etc.

n End subsidies for agrochemicals, and ban toxic pesticides and GMOs.

n Break-up and prohibit national and global corporate agrifood monopolies and oligopolies­­that­capture­and­distort­policies­to­their­own­profit-taking­ends,­at­the­expense of farmers and consumers alike.

The role of Germany Since 2009, after the AFSI was launched, food security and rural development have been experiencing­a­certain­revival­in­German­ODA.­This­is­reflected­by­the­increase­of­annual­financial­support­to­€700­million­and­the­presence­of­the­theme­in­international­agendas.­Nevertheless, the evaluation of programmes rather focuses on the input side, while little is known about the impact on the smallholder farmers targeted.

68 La Via Campesina (2010) Sustainable Peasant and Family Farm Agriculture Can Feed the World. Jakarta. http://viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/en/paper6-EN-FINAL.pdf­(last­accessed­Feb.­15,­2014)

3Chapter

28

At­ the­ 2009­ G8­ Summit­ in­ L’Aquila,­ the­ German­ government­ pledged­ to­ contribute­­ $3­­billion­for­food­security,­rural­development,­and­sustainable­agriculture­within­the­AFSI­period­(2010­to­2012).­The­German­government­met­its­financial­commitment­in­full­and­became one of the biggest AFSI donors. The amount pledged to AFSI represented roughly 11%­of­the­total­BMZ­budget.­About­45%­of­the­financial­resources­for­rural­development­­went to African countries. Documentation of the degree to which smallholder farmers benefited­­from­this­support­is­not­available.­

By the time the Lough Erne Accountability Report was released in 2013, Germany had made commitments towards 22 partner countries. Furthermore, Germany took over the leadership for a working group on Managing for Development Results and contributed to capacity building and training of the NEPAD Secretariat. Despite those engagements, Germany’s­ODA­in­2012­was­$12.9­million,­down­8.2%­from­2011.­

In 2013, Germany has taken the lead on the New Alliance cooperation Agreement with Benin, where 12% of households (972,000 people) are experiencing food and nutrition insecurity and 13.2% (1,048,000 people) are at risk.

In 2013, BMZ presented its concept on rural development and food security.69 The respective task force set up in 2012 by various divisions of the ministry, KfW and GIZ focuses­on:

n improving­the­strategic­orientation,­integration,­and­control­of­the­ministry’s­development­­policy instruments, aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of food security and rural development;­

n shaping the international development policy agenda and enhancing coordination with multilateral­organisations;

n improving cooperation with private enterprises, civil society, and the research community, and promoting coherence with development activities implemented by other German ministries;­­and

n revising the strategic guidelines for German development policy in the food security sector.

Further­initiatives­related­to­food­security­are­the­“EU­Policy­Framework­to­Assist­Developing­­Countries­ in­ Addressing­ Food­ Security­ Challenges”­ and­ the­ recently­ launched­ “Global­Nutrition for Growth Compact 2013”.As mentioned in the individual paragraphs it remains unclear to what extent the commitments of the German Federal Government reach the smallholder farmer and improve their ability to increase productivity for subsistence and commercial food production.

69 Ernährungssicherung­–­Strategische­Orientierung­ für­die­deutsche­Entwicklungspolitik;­Positionspapier;­BMZ-Strategiepapier­11:2013e­African­Cashew­Initiative

3Chapter

29

‘A positive sample project: The African Cashew Initiative (ACI)’:

The GIZ70 has been supporting the African cashew nut industry in the process of

restructuring and achieving an international standard of competitiveness. The project

aims­at­boosting­the­cashew­value­chain­in­the­five­partner­countries:­Benin,­Burkina­­

Faso, Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Mozambique. At the initiation of the project in 2009,

productivity was negligible. Within three years, the following measures had been

implemented:­

n Training materials were developed and 800 trainers equipped to train more than 240,000­farmers­(1/3­of­them­women)­in­cultivation­methods­and­good­agricultural­practice. Farmers were also trained to develop an entrepreneurial basis.

n 75,000 farmers have formed cooperatives that were trained in organisation, bulk selling,­sales­negotiation,­and­certification.­The­cooperatives­run­32­nurseries.­…

n In collaboration with the NGO TechnoServe, 20 local processing companies were advised on funding, business planning, appropriate mechanisation, employee training, and workplace equipment.

n GIZ and local banks developed funding instruments for processing companies.

n GIZ also supports the trade in cashew nuts throughout the value chain, ensuring that farmers’­financial­interests­are­respected.­…

n In­2012,­there­is­significant­improvement­in­the­quality­of­cashew­nuts­produced­by­smallholder farmers.

n In­2011,­smallholder­income­is­$5­million­higher­than­in­2009­.­In­2013,­income­is­expected­to­be­$20­million­higher.­The­product­price­for­cooperative­farmers­has­risen by 10%, due to a better basis for negotiations.

n The 20 cashew processing companies increased their annual capacity to more than 29,000 tonnes. In 2011, they employed more than 3,500 people, with 74% being women.

n In­cooperation­with­farmers­and­research­institutes,­crops­with­five­to­eight­times­more­yield­have­been­identified­and­are­now­developed­and­promoted­further.

n Networks connect all people involved in the value chain.

70With­funds­from­BMZ,­the­Bill­&­Melinda­Gates­Foundation,­and­various­private­sector­companies

3Chapter

30

71 Brandt­ W.­ (1980)­ North-South:­ A­ Programme­ for­ Survival­ –­ Report­ of­ the­ Independent­ Commission­­on­ ­International­ Development­ Issues.­ Cited­ after:­ Quilligan­ JB­ (2002)­ The­ Brandt­ Equation­ –­ 21st­Century­­ Blueprint­ for­ the­ New­ Global­ Economy.­ Philadephia,­ USA.­ htttp://www.brandt21forum.info/BrandtEquation_19-Sept04.pdf­(Last­accessed­April­5,­2014)­

Future ODA for food security must be focused on smallholders not just as recipients of information and technology but also as partners for development based on their own knowledge and experiences.

Greater investments in agriculture can have a major impact on diverse foods from sustained ecosystems­and­can­greatly­improve­the­livelihoods­of­smallholders:­Experience­from­recent­­decades­indicates­that­new­technologies,­hybrid­seeds,­and­biofortification­alone­will­not­achieve global food and nutrition security. The moral imperative for global food and nutrition security requires a political rather than an economic approach, or as the Brandt-Report put it­more­than­three­decades­ago:­‘One­must­avoid­the­persistent­confusion­of­growth­with­development, and we strongly emphasize that the prime objective of development is to lead to­self-fulfilment­and­creative­partnership­in­the­use­of­a­nation’s­productive­forces­and­its­full­human­potential.’71

SummaryAs a participant in G8 and G20 programmes, the German Federal Government has accepted responsibility for agricultural development for global food and nutrition security. It has shown accountability regarding its commitments.

The previous trend of lowering ODA for agricultural development for global food and nutrition security has been reversed, although total ODA is far from the target of 0.7% of­the­GNP­set­earlier­and­achieved­by­several­European­countries­(≥0.7%:­Sweden,­­ Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). Agricultural ODA is far from being adequately budgeted and is even less oriented towards smallholder farmers than before.

Up to now, the focus on smallholder farmers in German ODA is – with some exceptions (see­the­‘African­Cashew­Initiative’)­–­more­on­paper­than­in­reality.­Often,­the­­so-called­private sector refers to big enterprises and multinational companies rather than to smallholder farmers, their cooperatives, and small- and medium-sized business in partner countries.

The integration of agriculture, nutrition, and health – as suggested by scientists and experts – is not yet evident in the implementation of German ODA for agriculture, ­despite­the­use­of­the­term­‘nutrition-sensitive­agriculture’.­

German engagement towards food and nutrition security is only partly directed towards enabling food sovereignty and supporting sustainable use of local resources. Too much emphasis is placed on technologies based on agroindustrial approaches, given the stated concern for smallholder farmers.

3Chapter

A4Bro-BLSt-GB-28/14

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V., IBAN DE15 3705 0198 0000 0011 15, BIC C0LSDE33Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V., Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 1, 53173 Bonn, Tel. +49 (0)228 2288-0, Fax +49 (0)228 2288-333, www.welthungerhilfe.de