List of conclusions and recommendations
Social protection
1. We are gravely concerned that millions of people are being pushed into acute hunger by rising food prices. We recognise that it is the poorest of the poor, those living on a dollar a day or less, who are being hit the hardest. We welcome the WFP's broadening of its activities from food aid alone to food assistance, and its associated increasing use of cash and food transfer schemes. These social protection schemes offer a flexible and effective approach to building up vulnerable communities' resilience to food insecurity over time. We encourage DFID and the WFP to continue to evaluate the different elements within social protection packages—the right balance of cash and food and the best techniques for targeting transfers—to ensure that an optimal package can be provided. We commend DFID's decision to increase its funding for the Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia to £30 million per year. We encourage both DFID and the WFP to explore options for replicating lessons from the Ethiopian scheme elsewhere.
(Paragraph 25)
In-kind food donations
2. The rapid rise in commodity prices has put huge strain on the purchasing power of both food agencies such as the WFP and poor people globally. We believe that it would be of deep concern if the USA were to follow up on suggestions that it might reduce the amount of aid it provides to the WFP because of rising prices and costs. We also believe that the USA should review its practice of giving nearly all its support 'in-kind' as food, given that cash donations are of much more value to the WFP than food donations in developing the flexible "toolbox" that it now requires. (Paragraph
27)
The WFP as a humanitarian
actor
3. The WFP deserves credit for its role at the centre of the UN's response to humanitarian emergencies, including its leadership of the global food aid sector and the logistics cluster. We acknowledge the difficult and often dangerous job that WFP employees do in difficult environments, especially conflict-prone and conflict-affected states. Priority must be given to ensuring coherence with other UN agencies in line with the 2005 Humanitarian Reform Agenda. The WFP should continue to support the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in its role in overseeing the co-ordination of emergency responses.
(Paragraph 32)
4. We believe the WFP deserves credit for its ongoing lifesaving work in Darfur and southern Sudan. We were particularly pleased to hear that conditions are improving sufficiently in southern Sudan to allow key WFP programmes such as road-building and school feeding to be handed over to the government. We welcome DFID's funding of the Sudan Recovery Fund and the contribution this will make to the transition process. We believe DFID's increased contributions to pooled international emergency funds such as the Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs) in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo are an effective way of helping ensure a coherent UN approach in crisis situations such as Darfur.
(Paragraph 35)
5. We are deeply concerned about the hunger crisis in Zimbabwe. The ban on food aid imposed by Robert Mugabe's government in June 2008 will halt or hamper delivery of vital WFP supplies to millions of people. The disastrous state of Zimbabwe's economy and agricultural sector is likely to leave innocent citizens without any source of food and condemn many to starvation. We urge the UK Government to continue to press for the food aid ban to be revoked as soon as possible so that the Zimbabwean people can receive the humanitarian assistance they so desperately need.
(Paragraph 38)
Hunger, malnutrition
and the MDGs
6. We believe that DFID does not give nutrition the attention or resources it deserves. Malnutrition kills up to 2.5 million children a year—around five times more than the number of children dying from HIV/AIDS. The effects of malnutrition in children under two years old endure throughout their lives. Malnutrition is easily passed on to the next generation by expectant mothers who are malnourished. Yet it is entirely preventable, and often at very little cost. The fact that DFID does not have a nutrition policy, even if it does now have a policy team, is not satisfactory. Indirect policies focusing on wider sectoral approaches to health and social development make a necessary but insufficient contribution to combating child malnutrition. We recommend that DFID adopt more direct policies to combat malnutrition and give greater support to proven interventions such as support to breastfeeding and micronutrient supplementation.
(Paragraph 51)7. We are very concerned that DFID does not have a measurable target for malnutrition. The Department's decision to measure progress towards MDG 1 using a poverty indicator alone, rather than including indicators for hunger and nutrition, implies it believes that wider poverty reduction strategies are sufficient tools with which to combat hunger and nutrition. This is far from proven. We recommend that DFID add a new indicator under MDG 1 in the 2008-11 PSA to enable its work on nutrition and hunger to be properly targeted and measured.
(Paragraph 53)
8. DFID and other donors have given nutrition insufficient priority. It is fragmented across different UN bodies, with no agency taking overall responsibility. We believe that it is therefore vitally important for the WFP to continue its nutrition activities. A huge opportunity exists at the point of delivery of food aid: adding micronutrient supplements and working with breastfeeding mothers are just two examples of the essential nutritional interventions that the WFP factors into its work. As an agency working at the point of delivery in humanitarian emergencies, it is essential for the WFP to raise its profile as a major implementation agency for nutrition-focused work.
(Paragraph 56)
9. We were surprised that DFID was not more supportive of the wider development activities undertaken by the WFP, of which nutrition is one. Long-term development work such as nutrition and agricultural development builds the foundations for communities' survival in emergency situations. Failing to use the interface between development and emergency work is a missed opportunity as well as an inefficient use of resources. We recommend that DFID expand its funding for the WFP to include the agency's essential development work, especially on nutrition which is currently under-funded and under-emphasised by the international community and the UN system.
(Paragraph 57)
Biofuels
10. We agree with DFID that there are both challenges and opportunities in the use of biofuels and that the development of international sustainability guidelines on their use would be beneficial. We were disappointed that the Rome Summit of June 2008 did not produce a clear statement on the links between biofuels and rising food prices. As a first step, we urge the UK Government to press for rapid action on the "in-depth studies" and exchanges of experience on biofuels which were agreed in Rome. Proper research must be the basis for further negotiation on the global approach to biofuels if consensus is to be achieved. We also encourage DFID to fulfil its pledge to work closely with the European Commission and EU member states to address the possible impacts of biofuels on food security and to take action, where necessary, to address them.
(Paragraph 66)
Rising food prices:
trends
11. It seems likely that, whilst food prices may not continue their steep rise, they are also unlikely to drop significantly. We believe that given the uncertain nature of current food and commodity price predictions, the safest plan of action is to prepare for relatively higher prices over the next decade, and we encourage the WFP and DFID to make the necessary adjustments to their policies.
(Paragraph 70)
The appropriate
response from the WFP, DFID and the international community
12. We reiterate our support for the WFP's increasing use of social transfer schemes. We commend the WFP's latest Strategic Plan for its emphasis on local procurement of goods and services in developing countries.
(Paragraph 72)
13. We are very concerned at the constraints that global food prices are imposing on the WFP's budgets. Up to 20 million tonnes of food may be needed to assist the new groups of people being pushed into poverty by the current food price rises. Securing this additional food supply, which represents less than 1% of global cereal production, is achievable. But donor contributions to the WFP will have to increase substantially: the usual total of US$3 billion a year in voluntary contributions may need to double to US$5-6 billion. It is important that these increased contributions are made directly to the agency's core budget rather than as earmarked funds. We welcome DFID's pledge to take rising food and transport costs into account when responding to new humanitarian appeals by the WFP. We encourage DFID to do all it can to compensate for rising prices when disbursing funds to the WFP and to encourage other donors to do the same.
(Paragraph 77)
14. We are concerned that there are 775 million people who are regularly hungry but who are currently not receiving sufficient assistance from their national governments, and who are not covered by the WFP's emergency operations. We welcome DFID's recognition that, as well as immediate emergency responses to the global food crisis, longer-term approaches addressing food security are highly important. We support the establishment of an International Partnership for Agriculture and Food and are anxious to see rapid action in taking the proposal forward. We urge DFID to build on momentum from the G8 Summit and ensure that the Partnership has the international community's agreement by the time of the UN High Level meeting on the MDGs, scheduled for 25 September 2008.
(Paragraph 81)
15. We commend the establishment of the UN Taskforce on the Global Food Security Crisis, and we hope that the UK's proposed International Partnership for Agriculture and Food could—assuming international agreement to the Partnership is secured—lead on sequentially from the Taskforce's initial phase of work.
(Paragraph 84)
16. We commend the UN Taskforce's development of a Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA). We urge the Taskforce, together with the international community, to finalise the CFA as soon as possible. We hope that implementation of CFA strategies at country level will be well underway by the time of the September 2008 meeting on the MDGs, so that the international community can assess progress at this point. We strongly encourage the Taskforce to put national country needs at the centre of the process. We request that DFID update us on progress on the International Partnership and the CFA in response to this Report.
(Paragraph 87)
The relationship
between the WFP, FAO and other agencies
17. 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.
(Paragraph 95)
UN system coherence
18. 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.
(Paragraph 98)
One lead UN agency
on hunger
19. 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.
(Paragraph 99)
20. 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.
(Paragraph 101)
Reprioritising
agricultural development
21. 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.
(Paragraph 103)
22. 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.
(Paragraph 104)
23. 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.
(Paragraph 105)
Supporting farmers
in the current food crisis
24. 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.
(Paragraph 108)
Genetic modification
25. 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.
(Paragraph 109)
A
| 
