House of Commons - Global Food Security - International Development Committee

Global Food Security - International Development Committee Contents

4 Protecting the vulnerable from shocks

76. In the previous two chapters we saw that there has been a progressive tightening of the balance between demand for and supply of food, leading to food price shocks. In this chapter we will consider the impacts of shocks on the poorest and most vulnerable, and consider how best these impacts might be reduced.

Social protection

77. When shocks occur, the poor may have to sell their assets (e.g. livestock) in order to buy food. The loss of their assets increases their vulnerability to future shocks. The provision of social protection, including cash transfers and other social insurance and social welfare schemes, seeks to reduce the need for the poor to sell their assets.[235] It can also contribute to food security in various other ways such as helping households to save, invest in productive assets and obtain better credit terms.[236] At present, 60% of people in developing countries lack access to social protection, including 75% of households in sub-Saharan Africa.[237]

78. Social protection schemes often make a valuable contribution to food security. In Brazil, the coupon-based Bolsa Familia scheme played a key role in reducing hunger over a number of years.[238] We recently visited Ethiopia, where we heard about the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). This programme was seen as a key factor in mitigating the impact of the 2011 Horn of Africa drought within Ethiopia.[239] For further details about PSNP, see Box 3.

Box 3

Social protection: the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) in Ethiopia

During our visit to Ethiopia we were told about the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). Under PSNP, beneficiary households receive a cash transfer of around 2,350 Birr per year, in return for contributing up to five days' labour per month on public works programmes, including construction of roads, schools and health posts. Construction of roads has provided villagers with better access to markets, allowing them to get a better price for their produce. The public works programmes have also including the fencing-off of water points to prevent contamination of water-supplies by livestock. This has led to declining prevalence of water-borne diseases.

PSNP also provides larger cash transfers to those who are unable to work (due to age, illness, disability or pregnancy). The first stage of PSNP, operational between 2005 and 2009, reached between 4 and 5 million beneficiaries per year; the second stage, operational since 2010, has reached on average 7.5 million beneficiaries per year. The scheme currently covers half of all rural Ethiopian districts.

PSNP is funded jointly by the Government of Ethiopia and ten donor organisations. The total cost of PSNP is £1.4 billion over the current (2010-14) five year phase, of which £210 million is provided by DFID.

79. DFID plans to fund social protection in 15 countries by 2014. This represents a significant increase since 2009, when it was only funding social protection in nine countries,[240] but nevertheless suggests that in 14 of the 29 countries in which DFID is currently working bilaterally,[241] it does not currently plan to fund social protection. In a recent report, we expressed our regret that DFID was not supporting cash transfers in Malawi.[242] When shocks occur, social protection plays a vital role in protecting the food security of the poorest. In 14 of the 29 countries in which it has bilateral programmes DFID does not currently plan to fund social protection. We ask the Department to explain the thinking behind this.

Humanitarian assistance

80. When emergency interventions are needed to protect food security, assistance can either be provided 'in kind' (food aid) or via cash- and voucher-based schemes. WFP has traditionally provided conventional food aid, but since 2008, has been using cash and vouchers as well.[243] WFP's spending on these schemes increased from £27 million in 2009 to £134 million in 2011.[244] Provided markets are functioning and beneficiaries are able to access markets, WFP regards these schemes as superior to food aid: they stimulate markets and allow beneficiaries to access a greater choice and variety of foodstuffs (e.g. fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, animal products). Moreover, conventional food aid creates challenges of cost and supply.[245] Where emergency interventions are needed to protect food security, cash- and voucher-based schemes are preferable to in-kind food aid provided markets are accessible and functioning. Where appropriate, we recommend that DFID and its partner organisations favour cash- and voucher-based schemes over in-kind food aid.

81. Where in-kind food assistance is required, there are many advantages in purchasing food locally from developing country suppliers. In his recent Budget, US President Barack Obama announced that the US would scale up its procurement of food aid from developing country suppliers.[246] WFP, under its Purchase for Progress scheme, purchases its food from producers in developing countries either directly from farmers' organisations (through direct contracts, forward contracts or 'smallholder-friendly tenders') or from traders or NGOs who work with smallholders.[247] In Ethiopia, for example, WFP has signed forward delivery contracts to the value of $12.3 million, with 16 co-operatives, whose total combined membership is 500 000 smallholders. These contracts have enabled the co-operatives to access bank loans; previously banks were only willing to lend to exporters.[248] The scheme is currently being piloted in 20 countries (Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua).[249] It is funded by a variety of donors, including DFID.[250] An evaluation of the programme found that while there had been some challenges, there had been many positive impacts.[251] Ertharin Cousin, Executive Director of WFP, told us that she would scale up the Purchase for Progress scheme 'in a heartbeat' if donors were to make additional funds available.[252] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development described it as an 'amazing project,' and agreed to consider scaling up DFID's support.[253] WFP's 'Purchase for Progress' scheme has a double benefit: it supports WFP's humanitarian work while also supporting local economies in developing countries. We were pleased that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State agreed to consider scaling up DFID's support, and we reiterate our belief that this would be a wise thing for DFID to do.

URBAN FOOD SECURITY

82. As we saw in Chapter 2, urbanisation is a key issue: by 2020 86% of population growth is expected to occur in large urban centres in developing countries. While peri-urban agriculture can play an important role,[254] urban areas tend to depend more on the market for their food (as opposed to rural areas where a subsistence approach is more common), so the impact of price spikes is particularly stark in urban areas. Cash- and voucher-based schemes are especially appropriate in urban areas, and innovative new methods of targeting might be appropriate.[255] Given that urban food insecurity is increasingly common, we urge DFID to think give more consideration to how it provides social protection in urban areas. Cash- and voucher-based schemes are especially important in urban settings.

Emergency food stocks

83. In the previous chapter we discussed the role of large-scale food stocks in reducing price volatility. Here we are concerned with smaller-scale food stocks maintained for humanitarian purposes. In his evidence Professor Stefan Dercon, DFID's Chief Economist, expressed his support for humanitarian food stocks,[256] as did other witnesses, including Ertharin Cousin, Executive Director of WFP and Daniel Gustafson, Deputy Director General (Operations) of FAO.[257] Professor Dercon argued that humanitarian food stocks should be sufficient for three to four months.[258] An important issue to consider is who should administer food stocks, and where they should be stored. Professor Dercon argued that management by individual countries was most desirable, as this would give the countries concerned greater ownership of the policy.[259] In terms of storage, IFPRI recommends that stocks be dispersed across the Global South.[260] Professors Dorward and Lang echoed this, with the latter underlining the importance of 'spreading where those stocks are and what the stocks are in.'[261] The maintenance of food stocks for humanitarian purposes is of critical importance. These stocks should be managed by individual countries, as this gives the countries concerned greater ownership of the policy. Stocks should be stored on a decentralised basis. We recognise that some countries may lack the capacity to store and manage stocks satisfactorily; in these cases, we recommend that DFID support capacity building.

Nutrition

84. Having access to an adequate quantity of food is not in itself a guarantee of food security if that food lacks the requisite nutritional quality. Inadequate access to important micronutrients (e.g. vitamins and minerals) gives rise to a phenomenon known as undernutrition. (Undernutrition can also be used in a more general sense, as an alternative term for hunger, but in this report all references to undernutrition refer to micronutrient deficiency.) Undernutrition is a common problem amongst the poor: in situations where the poor cannot afford a balanced diet, the first priority tends to be calorie-rich foods rather than nutritious foods.[262]

85. A distinction is drawn between acute undernutrition (transitory undernutrition, common during shocks) and chronic (long-term, irreversible) undernutrition.[263] Conventional wisdom states that nutrition is especially important during the 1,000 day period between conception and a child's second birthday;[264] moreover, if chronic undernutrition can be prevented during this period, the risk of acute undernutrition also falls significantly.[265] The latest research indicates that the risk of stunting in children is determined in part by maternal nutrition on the day of conception.[266]

86. Incidence of undernutrition is extremely high, with over 30% of the world's population suffering.[267] Undernutrition is profoundly damaging to both physical and mental development. One of the most obvious effects is stunting. In 2010 over 170 million children under the age of five— 26% of all the world's children—suffered from stunting (slowed growth).[268] In countries such as Ethiopia and Rwanda, over half of all children are stunted.[269] Vitamin A deficiency, a consequence of a diet high in rice and low in fruit and vegetables, affects between 100 million and 140 million children worldwide. As a consequence up to 250 000 children lose their sight each year, with half of these dying within 12 months.[270] In addition to its health implications, the scourge of undernutrition places a severe constraint on economic development. Some claim that undernutrition can reduce GDP by up to 10%.[271]

87. In this context, the importance of tackling undernutrition is clear. WFP claims that initiatives to tackle chronic undernutrition offer returns on investment of anything between 15:1 and 139:1. WFP also argues that preventing undernutrition is significantly more cost-effective than curing it.[272] Micronutrient fortification represents a particularly effective method of tackling undernutrition. In his written evidence, Sir John Beddington extols the virtues of Quality Protein Maize (QPM): compared to conventional maize, QPM contains nearly 100% more usable protein.[273] Efforts are currently underway to produce a number of other fortified crops, including wheat and rice high in zinc; beans and millet high in iron; and sweet potatoes and maize rich in beta-carotene, a precursor to Vitamin A.[274] WFP provides fortified Corn Soya-Blend to pregnant women and new mothers, and argues that nutrition is especially important for lactating mothers.[275] For children under the age of six months WFP encourages exclusive breastfeeding; for children between six months and two years, supplemental feeding is the preferred approach.[276] Undernutrition affects over 30% of the world's population, and 26% of all the world's children suffer from stunting. We find this quite shocking and wholly unacceptable. Undernutrition has long-term health implications; more broadly, it also represents a barrier to development. Combating the scourge of undernutrition should be a top priority for the international community. We welcome the forthcoming 'Nutrition for Growth' event, and urge participants in the event to make substantive commitments.

88. There is a strong correlation between female empowerment and child nutrition. If women are educated about nutrition and have decision-making power, food production within communities tends to be more varied and nutritious.[277] Additionally, given the latest evidence on the causal relationship between maternal nutrition on the day of conception and subsequent stunting, there is a need to focus particularly on meeting the nutritional requirements of all women of childbearing age.[278] The importance of nutrition in the 1,000 day period between conception and a child's second birthday is well-recognised, but the latest evidence stresses the extent to which maternal nutrition on the day of conception influences the risk of her child suffering from stunting. Nutrition programmes should therefore focus on meeting the nutritional requirements of all women of childbearing age.

89. There are a number of major international initiatives to tackle undernutrition. Perhaps the most prominent is the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) initiative, which brings together governments, the private sector, academia, civil society organisations (CSOs) and the UN. Its aim is to support the development of country-owned strategies on undernutrition,[279] with a focus on innovation and on the critical 1,000 day period between conception and a child's second birthday.[280] Other important initiatives include Renewed Efforts to Address Child Hunger and Undernutrition (REACH).[281]

90. DFID currently has bilateral nutrition programmes in 16 countries. We asked the Department whether it planned to increase its number of bilateral nutrition programmes; we were told that its future plans on nutrition would be announced at the 'Nutrition for Growth' event on 8 June 2013.[282] Asked whether he thought DFID had enough bilateral nutrition programmes, Marc van Ameringen, Executive Director of GAIN, said that it 'definitely' did not.[283] Ertharin Cousin, Executive Director of WFP, argued that DFID could plausibly operate bilateral nutrition programmes in any country which has committed itself to fighting undernutrition (i.e. committed to the Scaling Up Nutrition initiative):[284] currently 35 countries have done so.[285] At the 'Nutrition for Growth' event on 8 June 2013, DFID should launch additional bilateral nutrition programmes. The Executive Director of WFP suggested to us that DFID could operate bilateral nutrition programmes in any country which has committed to the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) initiative: we accept that this is unrealistic, since it would include a number of countries in which DFID has no bilateral presence. However in four SUN countries (Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda and Sierra Leone), DFID has a bilateral presence but does not have a bilateral nutrition programme. In these countries, bilateral nutrition programmes should be launched., with a particular focus on nutrition during pregnancy and early years.

Adaptation to extreme weather events

91. Extreme weather events are a major threat to the vulnerable. Climate change will exacerbate the situation.[286] Dry areas will become dryer while wet areas will become wetter, leading to more droughts and more floods.[287] Oxfam argues that extreme weather events could cause short-term price increases equivalent to two decades' worth of gradual price increases.[288] In view of this, it follows that climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction are of the utmost importance. WFP emphasises that responses to extreme weather events should be proactive rather than reactive. It praises the UK Government for its work on this, and also praises the work of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD) Regional Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Platform during the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa: under this platform, national governments focused on incorporating resilience into their national planning frameworks.[289]

92. There is widespread agreement that forecasting is crucial for disaster risk reduction: Geographic Information Systems can play a key role in this.[290] Professor Tim Benton, of the University of Leeds, highlights the role of remote sensing in predicting yields, and the importance of using models that are able to heed such predictions. He also stresses the potential of improved long-term forecasts and of predicting and mapping levels of pest infestation.[291] Climate change and disaster risk reduction are of the utmost importance for food security, and it is important that the UK maintain its current proactive approach to these matters. Forecasting tools such as remote sensing also have an important role to play.

93. Forecasting is clearly of little use if actors are unable or unwilling to respond appropriately to forecasts. In the case of the 2011 famine in Somalia, forecasting was perfectly adequate.[292] In his evidence to us Daniel Gustafson, Deputy Director General (Operations) of FAO, recognised certain shortcomings in FAO's own advocacy work following the forecasts; he also argued that other institutions failed to act in response to forecasts. Ertharin Cousin, Executive Director of WFP, took a slightly different view, arguing that the central problem was the difficulty in gaining access to al-Shabbab-controlled areas, particularly for multilaterals and especially for WFP.[293] While forecasting is important in itself, ensuring adequate responses to forecasts is equally crucial, and this should be a priority for the international community. We recommend that DFID ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms are in place for triggering, escalating, recording and justifying responses to forecasts. The international response to the 2011 Somalia famine was inadequate. This was due to a variety of factors: we recognise the inherent difficulties in operating in insecure environments such as Somalia, but this does not absolve the international community entirely. We commend FAO for recognising certain shortcomings in its own advocacy work. More broadly, there is some disagreement as to whether agencies responded to forecasts as promptly as they should have done. DFID should press relevant actors to ensure that these allegations are fully investigated, with a view to minimising the risk of any such situation occurring in future.

235 Q 34; Ev w26-27 Back

236 Ev w27 Back

237 Ev 85 Back

238 Ev w17 Back

239 Rob Bailey, Managing Famine Risk (Chatham House, 2013), p 33 Back

240 Ev 100 Back

241 "Department for International Development: What we do", Inside Government, www.gov.uk Back

242 International Development Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2012-13, The Development Situation in Malawi, HC 118, Para 34

Back

243 UN WFP, Revolution: From Food Aid to Food Assistance, 2010, p 4 Back

244 Ev 87 Back

245 Ev 87 Back