House of Commons - International Development

Select Committee on International Development Tenth Report

4 Food security in the 21^st century

88. The establishment of the Taskforce, the development of the CFA and the proposal for an International Partnership for Agriculture and Food are all essential short- and medium-term responses to the food crisis. But it is also crucial that the international community looks further ahead at long-term measures significantly to improve food security. One route towards this is pursuing reforms to the UN's approach to assisting people who are food insecure. Simon Maxwell told us that the food crisis "presents an important opportunity to tackle outstanding issues of aid architecture and UN reform".[183] We will explore the options for reforms to the current UN approach in this chapter. Alongside this, we will assess another of the long-term drivers of food security—one that we believe donors such as DFID are currently under-emphasising: agricultural development.

The relationship between the WFP, FAO and other agencies

89. As we described in Chapter 2, the WFP works closely with a number of UN agencies. Its largest partnership is with UNICEF, followed by the FAO, but the WFP also works with: the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) on agriculture; the UNHCR on refugees; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on school feeding; the World Health Organisation (WHO) on public health and nutrition; the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS); the UN Development Programme (UNDP) on a range of issues; the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) on mother and child health; and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on humanitarian responses.

90. The WFP has particularly close relationships with the two other Rome-based agencies, the IFAD and the FAO.[184] The IFAD is purely a finance-based institution, whilst the FAO has policy and programme responsibilities: it has the specific UN mandate to work on agricultural production and productivity.[185] Josette Sheeran told us that the three agencies make proactive efforts to ensure efficient collaboration, have combined field offices and are linked on "hundreds of projects" such as a local purchase initiative, 'Purchase for Progress', in a number of African countries.[186]

91. However, evidence we received was critical of the inter-relationship between the Rome-based UN agencies. There was a view that the current system is too fragmented and that the agencies' remits overlap. The UK Food Group, for example, believed that a reorganisation of the three agencies' tasks was needed.[187] Other criticisms related specifically to the FAO. The Minister said that the FAO needed to "accelerate their reform efforts".[188] Oxfam said that the WFP "does not have such a strong relationship with FAO" and that this "undermines the ability of the UN system to develop interventions that could go beyond food distributions, and be more effective in terms of prevention, mitigation as well as post-crisis rehabilitation."[189]

92. Oxfam believed the WFP should focus on improved collaboration and co-ordination of the activities of the three Rome-based agencies at several different levels:

Pursue more consistent and comprehensive strategies regarding key global issues such as the achievement of MDG 1, food prices and biofuel production, with an emphasis on country-level strategies;
Ensure better integration of the fundraising and resource mobilisation underpinning such strategies;
Encourage participation by the Rome-based agencies in the design and the implementation of Poverty Reduction Strategies and efforts to ensure that food and agriculture are better integrated into national plans and World Bank/IMF strategies;[190] and
Provide pooled funding at country level on a multi-year basis so that aid is provided according to needs.[191]

93. Lawrence Haddad of the IDS agreed that a more integrated strategy was needed and suggested that common measures, indicators and standards relating to food security should be agreed amongst the three Rome-based agencies.[192] The UK Food Group suggested that the food agencies undertake "a relatively rapid 'meta-evaluation' of all of the global food and agricultural agencies together" that assessed their effectiveness in addressing hunger, including their long-term impact on policies supporting the global food system.[193]

94. The Minister said achieving improved system coherence within the UN approach to food security was a priority for DFID:

"You have got WFP in particular focussing on the short-term immediate humanitarian needs; you have got IFAD looking at the longer term financing needs; you have got the FAO providing, in theory, policy advice to developing country governments. At different times you are going to need all three to be in place [...] There are a huge number of agencies that have a role to play in responding to particular needs at particular times. What we want to do is to try and empower the lead person for the UN in those contexts—be it the humanitarian coordinator or the resident coordinator—to be able to corral those agencies into giving advice in a way that best suits the needs of the country governments and looks at their medium-term and their long-term needs."[194]

95. The WFP, FAO and IFAD produced a paper entitled 'Co-operation among UN Rome-based agencies' in 2007. However, the paper was short and based mainly on bringing together 'back office' administrative and processing work such as procurement and human resources in order to achieve efficiency savings, rather than on ways to collaborate on policy issues and within country programmes.[195] We believe many opportunities exist for greater integration between the three Rome-based UN agencies, the World Food Programme (WFP), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), whose remits include food security. These include: the increased use of shared strategies and attached funding mechanisms; participation by the agencies in national Poverty Reduction Strategies and World Bank/IMF plans; pooled funding at country level; and the use of common indicators and measures. These are just some of the many ways in which collaboration could be improved. We encourage the WFP, the FAO and the IFAD to carry out a review of how their global operations could be better integrated, building on their 2007 report on improving co-operation over administrative processes.

Making the system more effective: rethinking the architecture

UN SYSTEM COHERENCE

96. In 2006, the UN High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence produced a report entitled "Delivering as One". This has resulted in the 'One UN' initiative, a process being piloted in eight countries aiming for greater cohesion at the country level through one UN programme, one UN budgetary framework and one UN leader. DFID is providing financial support to a number of the pilots and told us it hopes that the approach will be rolled out further—including in new countries—in the next two years.[196] The WFP is committed to the One UN initiative and has country programmes in four of the pilot countries (Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda and Tanzania).[197]

97. The Coherence Panel's key purpose was to find ways to narrow the gap between the three areas of humanitarian assistance, development and the environment.[198] The WFP's written evidence suggested that the 'One UN' initiative may not thus far have narrowed this gap. The WFP pointed out that the pilots are focused on development activities that "may not be appropriate for responding to fast-moving humanitarian operations, which require different country-level structures." However the agency also said that activities closely linked with humanitarian activities, such as disaster preparedness, risk reduction, and longer-term recovery have nonetheless been considered in the 'One Programme', when deemed to be of a more predictable and longer-term nature.[199] Josette Sheeran said that she had seen "in response to this food crisis a pulling together not only of the UN system but the global system as I have never seen before." She highlighted that the UN Taskforce on the Global Food Security Crisis had "pulled together all the agencies of the UN to come up with a coherent response."[200]

98. We consider the 'One UN' approach, currently at its pilot stage, as a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving more efficient collaboration and greater UN coherence on food security. Humanitarian operations generally need to be rapid and tailored to the specific context, and may sometimes fall outside the longer-term processes covered under the 'One UN' country initiatives. However, we agree with the WFP that wherever possible activities closely linked with humanitarian activities should be included in the 'One UN' programme.

ONE LEAD UN AGENCY ON HUNGER

99. Another route towards improved UN coherence would be for one UN agency to be identified to lead work on hunger. Given that the WFP already leads the frontline response to hunger, and that its mandate is expanding to include social protection work and an increased focus on nutrition, it would seem the obvious candidate for this role. Limiting this leadership role to hunger, rather than the broader area of food security, would also make sense: as we have argued, there are many long-term developmental aspects to food security that require inputs based on the agriculture and environment expertise of the FAO and IFAD, amongst other agencies.

100. Simon Maxwell said, "A new vision for WFP as the lead UN agency on all aspects of hunger would be inspiring. It would also be consistent with current efforts to strengthen the UN and make it more coherent." He added that the WFP would require new resources to fulfil such a role, especially extra funding.[201] Lawrence Haddad supported a single leadership and said "While there are exceptions, very few truly joint initiatives manage to transcend the institutional fights for resources and media limelight."[202]

101. The Minister believed that identifying a lead agency would not be necessary if DFID's proposed International Partnership was successfully launched. He favoured "a light touch secretariat rather than a great new body, or a great new reform process that takes up huge amounts of time."[203] But it seemed to us that, in practice, the WFP already acts as lead agency on hunger and that substantial reforms to the UN system would not be needed. We believe that identifying the WFP as lead UN agency on hunger offers a route towards quick gains without substantial system-wide reforms being necessary. Making the role of lead agency explicit and official would assist the WFP in securing the additional resources it would need to fulfil this role.

Reprioritising agricultural development

DONOR SUPPORT TO AGRICULTURE

102. We will now turn to explore another long-term driver of food security, agricultural development. During the 1990s and early 2000s, donor support for agriculture declined. In 1986, 20% of aid was devoted to agriculture in the developing world. By 2006, that had shrunk to less than 3%.[204] It can be argued that by 'taking their eye off the ball', donors contributed to the onset of the current food crisis. Partly because agricultural development was under-emphasised, small farmers in developing countries have struggled to enter markets; grain supplies are at their lowest levels; and the availability of irrigation, seeds and infrastructure are insufficient. Global productivity growth has slowed from 3-5% 20 years ago to 1-2% now.[205]

103. Given the urgency of the global food situation, the priority is not exploring what went wrong in agricultural development over the last two decades, but how it can be put right. Alex Evans of New York University told us, "Until recently, agriculture was seen as a rather unfashionable relic of the past in many donor agencies [...] That needs to change quickly: donors need to invest heavily in programme aid—and in many cases, rebuilding their own capacity—in rural development."[206] DFID appears to be re-focusing on agriculture. Jonathan Lingham, Deputy Team Leader for Renewable Natural Resources and Agriculture at DFID, told us that "The role of agriculture has very often been moved down because of donor pressure in education and health. Only recently have we started to put more emphasis on agriculture and nutrition."[207] We have spoken in a number of our previous reports of the urgent need for donors to support the construction of the infrastructure that supports agriculture in developing countries, such as roads, bridges, crop storage facilities and irrigation.[208]

104. Many international actors are calling for a second 'green revolution' that embraces Africa as well as Asia.[209] This second revolution also needs to be greener in the environmental sense, with the efficiency of agricultural inputs such as water and energy given far more attention.[210] DFID is the first bilateral donor to support the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).[211] The Department has also launched a new package of support to agricultural research (including fisheries and forestry) which will see funding double to £400 million over five years.[212] £130 million of this will be allocated to the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the balance to international research institutions, regional institutions in Africa and Asia and joint programmes with UK research councils.[213] Specific areas that will be funded include research to:

Produce new varieties of staple crops and livestock (including adaptation to climate change);
Create new income opportunities for communities from high value commodities (fruits, vegetables, fisheries and forest products);
Conserve crop and animal biodiversity for future use;
Develop improved practices and policies for the sustainable management of water, land and forestry resources; and
Inform global and national agricultural and food policies (including policies on markets and trade).[214]

We commend DFID's £400 million support package to agricultural research. We hope that this signals the start of an upward trend in DFID support to agriculture that can assist a second 'green revolution' that could transform African, and continue to develop Asian, agriculture.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO DRIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

105. The Minister told us that developing countries needed to do more themselves to invest in agriculture.[215] Under the Maputo Declaration of 2003, African governments committed to allocate at least 10% of national budgetary resources for agricultural and rural development within five years. The Minister told us that a number of countries, including Mali, Madagascar and Namibia, are achieving the target.[216] However, many others are not. Lawrence Haddad from the IDS summarised some of the most urgent investments needed to help drive long-term agricultural growth in developing countries: better inputs and information; more farmer-driven design of intervention; greater priority to women's expertise and preferences; better market infrastructure; and higher yield technology. Professor Haddad suggested that aid agencies should link with private initiatives such as the Gates Foundation, which is contributing $3 billion to agriculture over the next 3 years.[217] There are also major opportunities for agencies such as DFID and the WFP to collaborate with the private sector, and in public-private partnerships. Collaboration between the public and private sectors is being pursued within the area of nutrition through initiatives such as the newly proposed $800 million Public-Private Safety Net to Tackle Rising Global Malnutrition in Africa, to be co-ordinated by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). The Fund will take financial, technical and in-kind contributions. It will be managed by a partnership that includes governments, the private sector and the WFP.[218] There is potential for similar initiatives to be launched within agricultural development. We recommend that DFID explore opportunities to work with private foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, and with the private sector more widely, towards long-term agricultural development in Africa and Asia. We also recommend that DFID seeks opportunities to participate in public-private partnerships, where appropriate.

SUPPORTING FARMERS IN THE CURRENT FOOD CRISIS

106. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has urged countries to seize "an historic opportunity to revitalise agriculture" as a way of tackling the food crisis.[219] DFID is building on this approach through its proposed International Partnership for Agriculture and Food.[220] A key priority during the current food crisis is working out how best to support farmers to help them to benefit from higher food prices. Some farmers are benefiting from the higher prices they can charge for their produce, but given the soaring cost of fertiliser (which has increased by over 40%) and the fact that they too must purchase food for their families, many are losing out. As Lawrence Haddad told us, "Allowing [smallholder farmers] to respond to food price increases in ways that drive down prices for all but allow them to increase their own profits [...] is win-win".[221]

107. Problems such as the high risk of crop failure and lack of access to markets may dissuade small farmers from seeking to scale up their outputs. Joachim von Braun of the International Food Policy Research Institute suggested that possible ways to assist small farmers included: training farmers in new crops and production techniques; improving their access to finance, especially microfinance; building infrastructure; and developing domestic market institutions, such as commodity exchanges, to make markets more efficient and transparent to farmers in remote areas.[222] Dr Edward Clay of the ODI warned that further fluctuations needed to be prepared for: a sudden price drop or correction, following the current peak, would alter farmers' circumstances once more.[223] It is possible that some kind of insurance scheme for farmers could help incentivise poor farmers to increase their productivity by reducing the risks they face from price fluctuations and crop failure.

108. We believe that making small-scale agriculture a more reliable economic venture is key to improving food security over the longer-term. Helping poor farming communities insulate themselves against economic and other shocks such as extreme weather events will require a whole range of development inputs, including: adaptation to climate change; improvements to global trade rules; and the development of new technologies that help ensure reliable yields. But we believe that agencies such as DFID can also support specific interventions that will help farmers increase their productivity, including: training in new crops and production techniques; improved access to finance; building infrastructure; and developing domestic market institutions, such as commodity exchanges. We recommend that DFID also explore opportunities for insurance schemes for poor farmers that could help mitigate the risk in increasing their outputs or developing commercial ventures. We will explore agricultural development further in our current inquiry into DFID's Departmental Annual Report 2008.

GENETIC MODIFICATION

109. The debate about the use of genetically modified (GM) technology has been reinvigorated by the current food prices increases. Around 100 million hectares, or about 8%, of the world's cultivated land are sown with genetically modified organisms.[224] Countries are divided in their support for GM: supporters, such as the USA and Brazil, argue that the technology can contribute to increased yields and help crops withstand climactic variability. Supporters also point to possible nutritional benefits: staple crops in developing countries, such as cassava, can be fortified with vitamins, minerals and protein to provide a whole day's nutrition requirements from one meal.[225] The UK Government is more measured in its approach to GM foods. The Minister told us "I do not think they are going to be a magic bullet which solves the issue of rising food prices, but they are going to have a contribution to make."[226] He believed that, ultimately, the decision about whether to use GM crops as a response to the food crisis should be made by individual countries:

"We do need to allow developing countries to make their own judgments about whether or not to allow GM crops to be planted. As well as funding the initial research into different types of GM crops, we are also providing support through the UN's Environment Programme to help developing countries develop their own ability to manage the decision as to whether or not to allow their own people to use GM crops."[227]

We agree that it should be for developing countries to decide whether to explore the use of genetically modified crops as a response to the current food crisis. We commend DFID for helping fund initial research into different types of GM crops so that countries can make an informed decision on the basis of reliable information.

183 Ev 78 Back

184 WFP, 'Co-operation among UN Rome-based agencies' (prepared for the Executive Board Annual Session, Rome 4-8 June 2007) Back

185 Ev 91 Back

186 Q 26 Back

187 Ev 82 Back

188 Q 84 Back

189 Ev 69 Back

190 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are prepared by governments through a participatory process involving the World Bank, the IMF, donors and civil society. Back

191 Ev 69 Back

192 Ev 61 Back

193 Ev 82 Back

194 Q 82 Back