Memorandum submitted by the Overseas Development
Institute (ODI)
Three papers are relevant to the inquiry. These
are summarised below.
A review of the links between needs assessment
and decision-making in response to food crises, Study carried
out for WFP, May 2007
[http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp128556.pdf]
Exploring the basis on which decisions about
response to food security crises are made by WFP and by its major
donors, this paper suggests that while WFP's own decision-making
is increasingly informed by robust needs assessments which are
publicly accessible, those assessments are neither yet fully trusted
by other actors nor are adequate to justify responses. Reasons
for food responses are not always clear from the analysis provided,
and decisions to provide food aid are too rarely articulated against
a range of other possible (non-food) options, including cash or
livelihood support.
Thus while considerable progress has been made
by WFP in this area over the past five years, there is much room
for improvement. In particular, progress in informing initial
decisions is not yet matched by an ability to make informed decisions
throughout the life of a programme. The bulk of WFP's expenditure
is now on "protracted relief and recovery operations"
(PRROs) but these are inadequately informed by needs analysis.
The lack of demand—internal and external—for good
information goes to the heart of this. There appears to be little
incentive (and some disincentive) for WFP country programmes to
re-assess situations or to monitor change and impact, particularly
if this is likely to indicate a scaled-down programme. More generally,
there appears to be little demand for information and analysis
once an operation has commenced, except when a decision to continue
or to exit has to be justified.
In conclusion, if WFP and its donors want appropriate,
proportionate and effective responses to food crises, then intelligent
and responsive programming by WFP and its partners is needed.
WFP's donors should themselves make much greater efforts to harmonise
their own funding decisions, and to make them on a less arbitrary,
more informed basis.
Biofuels and development: Will the EU help or
hinder? Briefing paper 32, January 2008
[http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/briefing/bp32-jan08-biofuels.pdf]
Developing countries are heavily affected by
global biofuels policies, both as potential producers for their
own use or export, and as consumers of crops displaced by biofuels
and of energy. Because Europe is a major producer of biofuels,
its policies can have a significant effect on them. Current EU
policy is to promote the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels
for transport.
The EU policy has two sets of motives: one to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and thus mitigate climate
change; the other to promote self-sufficiency in energy sources
and provide additional means of livelihood for Europe's farmers.
These unfortunately trade off against each other, since producing
feedstock for biofuels in Europe usually reduces net emissions
by less than feedstock produced in the developing world.
Current EU tariffs on imports of biofuels thus
reduce the potential to reduce emissions through trade. Granting
exemptions to imports of ethanol destined for biofuel use would
remedy this, without necessarily undermining the overall trade
policy.
Rising food prices: cause for concern, Briefing
Paper 37, April 2008
[http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/briefing/bp37-april08-rising-food-prices.pdf]
Food prices on world markets have been rising
since the early 2000s, and notably so in 2006 and 2007. Although
short-term factors explain some of the recent rise so that prices
are expected to fall within a year to eighteen months time, longer-lasting
influences means that prices are expected to remain above the
levels seen in the early 2000s. These influences include increases
in the costs of farming as energy prices rise, the demand for
biofuels and potential competition with food production, and the
buoyant demand for grains to feed livestock in China, India and
other rapidly-growing large emerging economies.
Higher price levels pose problems to three groups.
One is the poor who may find it hard to feed themselves as prices
rise. Even if some of the rural poor benefit as farmers, most
of the poor both urban and rural are net buyers of food, so the
overall effect will be negative. Another is made up of governments
of low income countries that import substantial fractions of their
food that face higher import bills, imported inflation, and in
some cases reduced flows of food aid. The third group are the
donor agencies, especially the World Food Programme, that find
their budgets can provide less food aid.
To deal with this, policy-makers need to:
— protect the poor against the effects
of short-term food price spikes,
— redouble efforts to increase food
production and to encourage broadly-shared economic growth,
— explore the potential for compensatory
financing of low income countries hit by increased import bills,
and to
— reconsider the balance of aid for
social protection, agriculture and food aid.
In addition the unexpected rise in prices raises
questions about the governance of global food systems. Under normal
conditions, markets usually produce efficient results; but not
necessarily when conditions become abnormal. In such times, public
capacity and willingness to respond matters.
| 
