aid for food and nutrition security · along with australia, the eu, the netherlands, spain and...

Aid for Food and Nutrition Security

Sinead Mowlds William Nicol Earnán Ó Cléirigh Development Co-operation Directorate

Overall aid volume trendsTotal ODA (multilateral and bilateral) for FNS in 2010 stood at around USD 11.7 billion, up 49% in real terms from 2002 [Chart 1]. Its share of total ODA over that period, however, has only slightly fluctuated around an average of 7%. The data show that ODA for FNS has only kept pace with the overall rise in total ODA; there was no evident surge in ODA for FNS following the food price hikes of 2007 and 2008. The share of ODA for FNS began to pick up from a low of 4.5% around 2006 and therefore unrelated to the current interest in FNS. The USD 22 billion AFSI pledge in 2009 is associated with only a relatively small increase in subsequent levels of ODA for FNS, as only about one-third of the AFSI pledge represents additional money above planned spending.

Introduction

In 2012, some 925 million people do not have food and nutrition security (FNS). In other words, nearly 1 billion men, women and children go hungry every day without real hope for an improvement in their situation. Although chronic poverty is seen as a major cause of food insecurity, the relationship between hunger and poverty is complex and changing, and many other factors also play a role,

including low agricultural productivity, low public and private investment, rising fuel prices, conflict, gender discrimination and climate change.

FNS received a high level of political attention from the G8 and G20 after the food price crises of 2007 and 2008, when the number of people suffering from food insecurity surpassed the 1 billion mark. The 2012 G8 (Camp David) and G20 (Los Cabos) Summits both emphasised the need to advance efforts to increase agricultural production and productivity and tackle chronic malnutrition. The G8, for example, launched the New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition, which focuses on private sector investment in production and innovation, and the G20 launched the ‘AgResults’ initiative to promote innovation in agricultural products and systems. And the UN Secretary General has given top priority to eliminating hunger through the launch of the ‘Zero Hunger Challenge’. Despite this increase in political attention, the international community currently falls far short of meeting the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger between 1990 and 2015. The proportion of people in developing countries going hungry has plateaued at around 16% despite reductions in poverty and reinvigorated efforts to promote FNS.

If this MDG is to be achieved and if the international community is to develop a system for feeding the forecasted world population of over 9 billion people in 2050, all stakeholders must commit to significant and sustained efforts. This brochure summarises the actions of one group of stakeholders – Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors – to provide aid for FNS over the past decade. In synthesizing this information, we refer to data from the DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS)1 and apply as closely as possible the working definition of aid for FNS used by the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI) in tracking the spending of the USD 22 billion food security pledge made at the 2009 L’Aquila G8 Summit [Box 1].2 We therefore consider all aid reported under agriculture, agro-industries, forestry, fishing, nutrition and development food aid/food security assistance as being aid for FNS. While this approach will include some aid that is not specifically targeted to FNS and exclude some which is, we feel that, in the absence of a specific FNS classification, it provides a reasonable picture of trends in aid in this area. More generally, while we only count aid that identifies FNS as its key objective, it can be argued that most aid either directly or indirectly promotes FNS through its impact on poverty reduction and other determinants of FNS.

PAGE 1


Chart 1: ODA for FNS

BOx 1: SpeNdINg the L’AquILA FOOd SecurIty pLedge

At the 2009 L’Aquila G8 Summit, a number of donors (G8 members along with Australia, the EU, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) pledged a total of USD 22.2 billion to support food security over a three-year period. Of that amount, USD 6.8 billion (30%) was additional to previously planned expenditures. By the time of the 2012 Camp David G8 meeting, virtually all of the L’Aquila pledge had been committed, and 48% had been actually disbursed. Some countries such as Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK had already fully disbursed their pledges, with some donors ultimately committing more than their initial pledge [Chart 2]. Other countries will need to speed up disbursements to meet spending targets. The varying speeds of disbursement can be explained by different institutional approaches as well as the time needed to identify and target worthwhile investments. Nevertheless, countries will have to better manage the trade-offs between pressing partner country needs and investment and accountability requirements if the pledge is to be fully disbursed in the agreed time period.

The L’Aquila pledge is only part of overall donor financial support for FNS and many donors’ support for FNS goes well beyond the AFSI pledge. In Australia, for example, where the entire pledge of USD 360 million was additional to previously planned expenditures, total ODA in support of FNS over the pledge period amounted to over USD 1.5 billion. Similarly, the US made an AFSI pledge of USD 3.5 billion over 2010-12, but overall ODA for FNS in 2010-11 already amounted to over USD 4.8 billion. While a strict comparison between L’Aquila pledges and total ODA for FNS is not possible, total ODA for FNS averaged around USD 12.6 billion p.a. for the 2008-10 period, compared to the L’Aquila pledge average of USD 7.4 billion p.a. 2009-11.

Source: OECD DAC/CRS, Commitments, constant 2010 USD

Chart 2: Tracking the L’Aquila Pledge* Million, uSd

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Australia

Canada

EuropeanCommission

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Russia

Spain

Sweden

UK

US

USD, Millions

Pledge Commitments Disbursements

Source: Based on 2012 G8 Accountability Report. * Some donors did not report commitments; one donor did not report disbursements

USD,

Mill

ions

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

02002

Aid Volume Share of Total ODA

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

9%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

PAGE 2

Who are the main FNS donors?In terms of volume, the main FNS bilateral donors are the US and Japan, which spent on average USD 1.7 billion and USD 1.3 billion p.a. respectively over 2008-10 [Table 1]. Together, these two donors account for just under half of total bilateral ODA for FNS. In terms of the importance of FNS in a donor country’s overall aid programme, countries above the DAC average of 6% for 2008-10 included Canada (12%) as well as Ireland, Japan and Spain (each at 10%).

What is the aid being spent on? Most ODA for FNS is allocated to agriculture (61% for 2008-10), the second largest category being development food aid at 22%. Compared to 2005-2007, there has been little change in the composition of ODA for FNS, despite growing recognition of the persistence and severity of the problem and a better understanding of the comprehensive nature of the causes of FNS, which include but extend well beyond agriculture. ODA for nutrition, for example has remained at 3% of ODA for FNS despite it being increasingly recognised as a critical factor, but this underestimates overall support for nutrition as it does not include sizeable amounts channelled through humanitarian budgets. Similarly, agricultural research for development (AR4D – CRS code 31182) accounts for only 4.6 % of total ODA for FNS despite renewed interest, but this is also likely to underestimate total support [see Box 2].

Table 1: Bilateral ODA for FNS: 2008-2010 Average

Source: OECD DAC/CRS, Disbursments, current prices

PAGE 3

tOtAL OdA (MILLION uSd)

% OF OdA FOr FNS

United States 1708 Canada 12%

Japan 1364 Ireland 10%

Spain 477 Japan 10%

France 455 Spain 10%

Canada 423 Norway 9%

Germany 352 Korea 8%

Norway 287 Luxembourg 7%

United Kingdom 255 Denmark 7%

Australia 179 Finland 7%

Netherlands 142 United States 7%

Denmark 121 Australia 7%

Belgium 115 Belgium 7%

Sweden 96 Italy 6%

Italy 79 France 5%

Ireland 74 Switzerland 4%

Switzerland 72 New Zealand 4%

Korea 54 Germany 4%

Finland 52 United Kingdom 3%

Luxembourg 21 Sweden 3%

Austria 14 Netherlands 3%

New Zealand 10 Greece 2%

Greece 5 Austria 2%

Portugal 3 Portugal 1%


Who are the main recipients?At the regional level, Sub-Saharan Africa received 41% of ODA for FNS in 2009-10 Asia was the other main recipient, with 32%.[Chart 4]. In terms of income groups, 42% of ODA for FNS went to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs) were the second largest recipient group with 25%. While the share going to Other Low Income Countries (OLICs) appears relatively low (10%), there are in fact only 6 countries in this group now, as compared to 48 LDCs and 40 LMICs.

The top five recipients in 2010 in terms of volume were Afghanistan, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia and Brazil. Compared to 2005, countries such as China and Viet Nam now receive much less ODA for FNS. In terms of ODA for FNS per capita, the top five recipients in 2010 were Afghanistan, Armenia, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Mali and Bolivia. Overall, there has been considerable movement in ODA for FNS between 2005 and 2010; half of the countries currently in the top 20 recipients list (volume and per capita) were not on the list in 2005, including Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Liberia, Mongolia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe [Table 2]. In addition, total ODA for FNS in 2010 for both Afghanistan and Mali represents a threefold increase from their 2005 totals.

BOx 2: AgrIcuLturAL reSeArch FOr deveLOpMeNt (Ar4d)

The 2009 L’Aquila statement on global food security called for strengthened investment in access to education, research, science and technology, as analyses of the impact of AR4D show that such investments have a very high rate of return.

If we apply a narrow definition of AR4D (i.e. only CRS category 31182 – agricultural research), total ODA expenditures averaged USD 471 million per annum over 2009-10. About 20% of the overall total came from the multilateral sector, while France is by far the major bilateral donor, accounting for just under half of the bilateral total.

Actual support for AR4D is, however, expected to be much higher, as some DAC donors may be reporting ODA for AR4D under other sector codes. Therefore, if we take a broader definition of AR4D that covers the wider ‘agricultural education/research/services grouping,’4 total ODA expenditures averaged USD 1.3 billion per annum in 2009-10, representing 11% of total ODA for FNS. France is again the main donor, and its ODA is dedicated primarily to agricultural research. Other important donors such as Canada, Denmark, Japan and the US focus much more of their ODA on AR4D on agricultural, livestock and financial services [Chart 3].

AR4D can make an important contribution to FNS, but only relatively small amounts of aid presently support these activities. The AFSI group has therefore decided to monitor progress on the commitment to increase investment in this area and to align it better with partner country identified priorities.

PAGE 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Agricultural extension Agricultural education/training

Agricultural research Other Agricultural education/research/services

Aust

ralia

Aust

riaBe

lgiu

mCa

nada

Denm

ark

Finl

and

Fran

ceGe

rman

yGr

eece

Irela

nd Italy

Japa

nKo

rea

Luxe

mbo

urg

Neth

erla

nds

New

Zea

land

Norw

ayPo

rtuga

lSp

ain

Swed

enSw

itzer

land

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mUn

ited

Stat

es

Aust

ralia

Aust

riaBe

lgiu

mCa

nada

Denm

ark

Finl

and

Fran

ceGe

rman

yGr

eece

Irela

nd Italy

Japa

nKo

rea

Luxe

mbo

urg

Neth

erla

nds

New

Zea

land

Norw

ayPo

rtuga

lSp

ain

Swed

enSw

itzer

land

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mUn

ited

Stat

es

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Agricultural extension

Agricultural education

Agricultural research

Other agricultural education/research/services

PREV CHART

Correct CHART

Chart 3: Bilateral ODA for AR4D: 2009-2010 Average (Million, USD)


how much is going to food crisis areas? Over the past decade, the Horn of Africa and the Sahel have experienced persistent food crises. In the Horn of Africa, total emergency food aid for 2010 amounted to USD 825 million, with ODA for FNS standing at USD 811 million [Table 3]. Ethiopia was by far the main recipient of both emergency food aid (USD 498 million) and ODA for FNS (USD 534 million). In comparison, Chad received USD 139 million in emergency food aid and only USD 47 million in ODA for FNS. The reverse is true for Uganda, which received only USD 31 million in emergency food aid and USD 117 million of ODA for FNS. Looking at ODA for FNS on a per capita basis, again Ethiopia tops the list at USD 6.4 per capita, while Uganda and Eritrea each received less than USD 4 per capita. At present, and triggered by severe under-development, drought and conflict and the resultant massive displacement of people, the areas of highest concern are in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya.

In the Sahel region, aid levels both by volume and per capita are considerably higher than in the Horn. Of course, the Sahel includes more countries, including some also classified as part of the Horn of Africa. The Sahel has five countries in the list of top 20 recipients on a per capita basis, while the Horn has none. Total

emergency food aid to the Sahel stood at USD 1.3 billion in 2010. Ethiopia and Sudan account for 72% of that total, with Chad and Niger also receiving sizeable amounts. Turning to ODA for FNS, Ethiopia again dominates the picture in terms of volume, accounting for over one-third of the total. However, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Sudan were also important recipients in 2010. On a per capita basis, Mali was the main recipient in 2010, with over USD 15 per capita, while Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan received less than USD 5 per capita. Such low levels of ODA, together with often significant shortfalls in both government and private sector spending, help illustrate why the Los Cabos G20 Summit focused heavily on the pressing challenge of strengthening both emergency and long term responses to food insecurity.

Chart 4: ODA for FNS: Breakdown of Geographic & Income Group: 2009-2010 Average

41%

20%

32%

7%

42%4%

25%

10%

19%

41%

20%

32%

7%

42%4%

25%

10%

19%

OtherOther

Table 2: Top 20 Recipients of ODA for FNS 2010

Source: OECD DAC/CRS, Disbursments, current prices Note: “other” includes unallocated disbursements

Source: OECD DAC/CRS, Disbursments, current prices Note: “Other” refers to Europe (1%), North Africa and Middle East (2%), North America (5%), Oceania (1%), and unallocated (12%).


PAGE 5

vOLuMe (MILLION uSd) per cApItA (uSd)

Afghanistan 697.7 Afghanistan 20.3

Ethiopia 534.1 Armenia 20.2

India 489.1 West Bank & Gaza Strip 19.6

Indonesia 331.5 Mali 15.3

Brazil 267.3 Bolivia 15.1

Mali 235.9 Haiti 14.4

Ghana 228.6 Mongolia 13.7

Tanzania 223.4 Mauritania 12.1

Vietnam 221.6 Sierra Leone 11.4

Bangladesh 207.4 Malawi 11.2

Mozambique 177.9 Gabon 11.1

Kenya 175.2 Guinea-Bissau 10.8

Malawi 167.1 Senegal 10.8

Sudan 161.0 Rwanda 10.5

China 149.9 Gambia 10.2

Bolivia 149.5 Zimbabwe 9.9

Niger 147.9 Niger 9.5

Haiti 143.7 Ghana 9.4

Pakistan 142.9 Liberia 9.3

Senegal 134.0 Nicaragua 9.3

Sub-Saharan Africa

South & Central America

Asia

LDCs

OLICs

LMICs

UMICs


Is OdA for FNS going where it is most needed? Aid allocations are complex and vary according to a variety of factors relating to both donors (e.g. political and strategic factors, comparative advantage) and partner countries (e.g. priorities, needs, absorptive capacities). In relation to FNS, individual donor allocation decisions result in a distribution of ODA to developing countries which have varying levels and intensities of food and nutrition insecurity.

Using a Gini coefficient approach, the actual allocation of ODA for FNS can be assessed in comparison to what countries should receive based exclusively on the severity of their food and nutritional insecurity. There are various proxies for measuring this need. Two are used below. One is the number of hungry people. But as this only measures the level and not the intensity of the problem, child stunting is also used to proxy chronic hunger.

Charts 5 and 6 show how closely the allocation of ODA for FNS corresponds to these measures of need. The 45 degree lines represent the “ideal” distributions that would be achieved if ODA for FNS was allocated in proportion to the number of undernourished people or the number of stunted children under the age of five. The curve below the 45 degree line represents the actual distribution. The gap between the “ideal” and the actual distributions is used to calculate the coefficient - the higher the value, the less the actual allocations target need. The high coefficients found for undernourishment (0.52) and child stunting (0.66) in part reflect the lack of a mechanism for the overall targeting and co-ordination of ODA for FNS. By comparison, a similar analysis of the distribution of IDA funding in relation to poverty (per capita GNI), which does have an allocation mechanism, shows better targeting, with a coefficient of 0.45.

Chart 4: ODA for FNS: Breakdown of Geographic & Income Group: 2009-2010 Average Table 3: Emergency and FNS ODA to the Horn of Africa & the Sahel 2010

Source: OECD DAC/CRS, Disbursements

hOrN OF AFrIcA

eMergeNcy FOOd AId

(USD, Millions)FNS

VOLUME (USD, Millions)

PER CAPITA (USD)

chad 139.4 47.5 4.2

djibouti 4.5 4.0 4.5

eritrea 0.7 13.2 2.5

ethiopia 497.9 534.1 6.4

Kenya 142.8 175.2 4.3

Somalia 39.7 38.2 4.1

uganda 30.6 117.4 3.5

SAheLeMergeNcy

FOOd AId (USD, Millions)

FNS

VOLUME (USD, Millions)

PER CAPITA (USD)

Benin 1.7 49.4 5.6

Burkina Faso 17.1 130.8 7.9

chad 139.4 47.5 4.2

djibouti 4.5 4.0 4.5

eritrea 0.7 13.2 2.5

ethiopia 497.9 534.1 6.4

gambia 0.2 17.6 10.2

Mali 6.7 235.9 15.3

Mauritania 2.7 42.0 12.1

Niger 142.5 147.9 9.5

Senegal 0.2 134.0 10.8

Somalia 39.7 38.2 4.1

Sudan 436.5 161.0 3.7

PAGE 6

Chart 5: Allocation of aid to FNS (no. of hungry people) (*)(**) Chart 6: Allocation of FNS (child stunting)(*)

Source: OECD DAC/CRS5 and FAO Index: 0.52

Source: OECD DAC/CRS and WHO Index: 0.66

* Excluding China & India **some figures are estimates

ODA

for F

NS

% stunted under 5 yrs

ODA

for F

NS

No. of Undernourished

ODA

for F

NS

% stunted under 5 yrs

ODA

for F

NS

No. of Undernourished

concluding remarksODA for FNS only represents a portion of the total financing needed to support country FNS plans. According to G8 information6, ODA supports about one-quarter of the total financing needed, developing country contributions cover another quarter, leaving a financing gap of about 50%. Under the 2003 Maputo Declaration, African countries pledged to spend a minimum of 10% of national budgets on agriculture. Progress towards meeting this target varies considerably across countries, but the average rate across Africa in 2010 was around 6.5%, with only a small number of countries actually meeting or surpassing the target. The most serious problem, however, is finding ways to attract sustainable investment from the private sector (international, domestic and informal). There is still much to do to encourage more private sector investment and public-private partnerships, for example in tackling obstacles related to credit, productivity and risk. This is now a focus of the recent G8 Camp David initiative on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.

Focusing on trends and patterns of ODA for FNS means focusing on inputs. While this is usually the first part of any aid story, the most important part concerns how well that aid is working. In other words, is it delivering the intended benefits? Considerable work is now underway on two fronts – delivering aid effectively and measuring its results. Based on the DAC Principles of Aid Effectiveness of Accra and Busan and the Rome Principles on Sustainable Global Food Security, donors are increasing support to partner country-owned food security plans and investment strategies, helping to strengthen capacity for in-country implementation and co-ordinating their programmes in partner countries. The AFSI group is also currently active in developing a framework for better measuring the results of ODA for FNS that will cover data collection, common indicators to track progress and provide good practices to contribute to the design and implementation of frameworks tailored to the specific situations and needs of partner countries.

end notes1. This brochure uses ODA statistics reported under the DAC allocation codes as the basis for analysing trends and patterns of donor support for FNS. Inevitable limitations arise due to reporting differences among donors and from the use of its classification system in measuring support for activities and objectives that run across many codes. In light of the importance given by the international development community to supporting FNS, it will be worthwhile to undertake efforts to explore how to measure ODA for FNS as accurately as possible.

2. The L’Aquila pledge covered G8 members plus Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the EU. CRS categories of aid promoting FNS that were covered when tracking the pledge included: agriculture, agro-industries, forestry, fishing, nutrition and development food aid/food security assistance. Donors also included the amounts of ODA that directly promote FNS within certain ‘of which’ categories when they have the main purpose of improving food security (e.g. transport and storage, safety nets and rural development). Emergency food aid and humanitarian aid were not counted in the pledge. By comparison, the data we use in this note from the DAC CRS database on ODA for FNS include all DAC donors as well as multilateral aid, but they only go up to 2010. They also exclude the ‘of which’ categories covered under the L’Aquila pledge as there is generally insufficient information available in the CRS database to identify those commitments/disbursements within these broader categories that have food security as their main purpose. More generally, we use disbursements rather than commitments data as much as possible, in order to focus on the amount of aid being received by developing countries rather than the more traditional measures of ‘donor effort’.

3. Compared to the coverage of the L’Aquila pledge, the overall donor support figure covers all bilateral and multilateral commitments. In addition, Russia is excluded, as are the ‘of which’ categories (see note 2). An earlier time period (2008-10) is used, 2010 being the latest available year for CRS data on ODA for FNS.

4. In addition to agricultural research (CRS 31182), this broader group includes activities such as agricultural extension (31166), education/training (31181), agriculture, livestock and financial services (31191, 31193, 31194, 31195) and plant and post harvest protection and pest control (31192).

5. Due to a lack of available data, estimates of undernourishment were established for the following countries: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uruguay.

6. See the 2012 Camp David G8 Accountability Report, chapter 1.

PAGE 7

Photos © World Bank. Photographers: Curt Carnemark, Ray Witlin, Dominic Sansoni, Alejandro Lipszyc, Ami Vitale, Masaru Goto

aid for food and nutrition security · along with australia, the eu, the netherlands, spain and...

Documents