28 Food security policy in developing
countries
| (24385)
Special Report No. 2/2003
| Special Report No. 2/2003 from the European Court of Auditors on the implementation of the food security policy in developing countries financed by the general budget of the European Union, together with the Commission's replies.
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 24 September 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxv (2002-03), paragraph 6 (18 June 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
28.1 The World Food Summit in Rome, hosted by the UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 1996, made a commitment to halve
the number of undernourished people from 800 million to 400 million
by 2015. However, the number of people in developing countries
who do not receive enough food is still reckoned to be 800 million.
The annual decrease of 8 million has been matched by the growth
in the world's population.
28.2 In central, southern and eastern Africa, 44%
of the total population is undernourished. In Afghanistan, Haiti,
North Korea and Mongolia, the figure is 62%, while India, China
and Bangladesh account for half of the undernourished people in
the world.
The document
28.3 Council Regulation (EC) 1292/96 pre-dates the
Summit and deals with food aid policy, food aid management and
special operations in support of food security. The Special Report
by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) examines whether the Commission
has taken all reasonable steps to achieve the food security objectives
set out in the Regulation. The Regulation introduced a new approach,
moving the focus away from short-term aid to long-term development.
28.4 When we considered the Special Report on 18
June 2003, we asked the then Secretary of State (Baroness Amos)
to summarise the Commission's replies annexed to the Special Report
and to add any further comments she wished to make.
The Secretary of State's letter
28.5 The then Secretary of State points out in her
letter of 24 September that the objective of halving the number
of undernourished people in the world was not in the Regulation
but was adopted by the World Food Summit. She notes that Council
Conclusion 1539/01 recommended that the Commission initiate improvements
to the way the food aid programme is directed and managed. The
changes urged by the Council are, she says, very much in line
with the main recommendations contained in the ECA Report, and
to a certain extent pre-empt them. She comments that the Government,
together with the other Member States, is working with the Commission
to implement fully the changes recommended in the Council Conclusions
and repeated in the ECA Special Report.
28.6 Under separate headings, the Minister comments
at some length on the issues raised in the report. These can
be summarised as follows:
POLICY COHERENCE
· Some
progress has been made in achieving more systematic procedures.
The reformed Country Strategy Papers (CSP) emphasise full cooperation
and collaboration with partner governments, other donors and civil
society institutions in benefiting countries. At the same time,
whilst food security is a priority for many developing countries,
it has not always featured prominently in their own National Development
Plans. The new generation of CSPs, which are developed in partnership
with beneficiary governments, other donors and civil society,
represent significant progress in correcting this. These CSPs
are often themselves integrated into nationally owned Poverty
Reduction Strategies. There is still some way to go before all
food insecurity issues are addressed in all CSPs for all countries
but the mid-term review of the revised CSPs is due to begin in
2003/4.
SEPARATE REGULATION AND INSTRUMENT
· The
Commission expresses the view that a separate food aid regulation
is justified as an instrument to provide a link between immediate
food crisis responses, medium-term relief and rehabilitation,
and long-term development. It also largely accepts the case of
those Member States which call for the complete integration of
food aid into existing mainstream development and development
structures. It proposes that this entire area be studied as part
of an, already planned, second evaluation of EC food aid and food
aid policy scheduled for 2004.
· Without pre-judging
the outcome of the second evaluation study, the Minister says
that her Department (DFID) favours a complete integration of food
aid into existing EC assistance programmes. The EC's existing
humanitarian assistance programme should take on emergency responses
and the EC's existing main regional development programmes should
absorb longer-term relief, rehabilitation and food security interventions.
The separate food aid regulation could then be allowed to lapse
— for reasons of clarity and simplicity. The separate food
aid budget line could be integrated into other existing regional
development budget lines, making a small contribution to a much
needed simplification of the overall budget. The separate Commission
and Council food aid committees and working groups could be absorbed
into the existing main regional development programmes' committees
and working groups offering greater policy coherence. Furthermore,
she says, DFID remains to be convinced that these changes could
not be initiated now, rather than awaiting the outcome of a second
evaluation study. The Department will explore these issues in
future meetings with the Commission.
DECONCENTRATION
· The
Commission identifies a number of institutional and structural
reasons for the lack of involvement of benefiting groups in the
planning and implementation of food security programmes, noting
that this situation has improved as the Commission reform process
has become effective, with deconcentration (devolution) of food
programme identification, planning and management to the EC's
own in-country offices (delegations). The deconcentration process
has also improved the frequency and effectiveness of co-ordination
and consultation with other donors and institutions locally.
Information DFID has received from its overseas offices suggests
that this is mostly the case. However, there is still room for
improvement and this will be one priority for DFID officials when
considering future EC food aid programmes.
MORE RELIABLE FOOD VULNERABILITY, PROGRAMME AND FINANCIAL
DATA
· The
Commission agrees that better baseline data is needed for monitoring
food security in working with other bodies and donors on international
efforts to improve the quality of the data. Similarly, the Commission
claims that recent improvements and upgrades to its own management
information means it is now able to provide the type of financial
and programme data that was unavailable at the time of the ECA
report. The Minister comments that recent EC food programme reports
issued by the Commission seem to bear this claim out, as they
contain more up-to-date and comprehensive detail than previously.
DELAYS IN PROGRAMMING
· The
ECA report highlights the long delay between decisions being taken
and funds being made available. This has now been addressed by
shortening the programming process to a maximum of nine months
and changing from annual to multi-annual financing periods.
CO-ORDINATION
· The
Commission agrees that co-ordination with Member States through
the Food Security and Food Aid Committee has recently improved
but still remains unsatisfactory. However the programme of deconcentration
of management of EC food aid programmes to the Commission's in-country
delegation offices has shown that local co-ordination is the most
effective model. This reinforces DFID's view that there is little
reason to continue the role of the Food Security and Food Aid
Committee and that its work should be integrated into the existing
main regional development programme committee structures. But,
whilst the Food Security and Food Aid Committee continues to exist,
DFID will continue to engage with the Commission and Member States
in attempting to focus the Committee's agenda on more strategic
issues whilst also supporting moves towards reform.
Conclusion
28.7 We thank the Government for this full and
informative response, which gives us a good idea of its thinking
on this important issue and how it should be handled in future
by the Commission.
28.8 We now clear the document.
| 
