Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694840707134.pdf (Malta)
IT-TNAX-IL LEĠIŻLATURA P.L.

5384 Dokument imqiegħed fuq il-Mejda tal-Kamra tad-Deputati fis-Seduta Numru 291 tal-15 ta’ Lulju 2015 mill-Onor.

Luciano Busuttil, President tal-Kumitat Permanenti dwar l-Affarijiet Barranin u Ewropej.
_______________________________ Raymond Scicluna Skrivan tal-Kamra • EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 2.12.2014 COM(2014) 712 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments: first biennial report.
{SWD(2014) 343 final} EN EN List of acronyms 3Cs AGIR AR4D CAADP CFS CGIAR Coordination, complementarity and coherence Alliance Globale pour l’Initiative Résilience Agriculture Research for Development Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme Committee on World Food Security formerly Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CORAF/WECARD West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development EC European Commission ECOWAP ECOWAS EIARD EU FAO ICN2 IFAD INGO MS NEPAD NGO Agricultural Policy of the Economic Community of West African States Economic Community of West African States European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development European Union Food and Agriculture Organisation Second International Conference on Nutrition International Fund for Agricultural Development International Non-Governmental Organisation Member States New Partnership for Africa’s Development Non-Governmental Organisation OECD/DAC Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development / Development Assistance Committee PCD SHARE SUN UN-SCN USAID VGGT WFP WHA Policy Coherence for Development Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience Scaling Up Nutrition United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition United States Agency for International Development Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests World Food Programme World Health Assembly 2 1.
INTRODUCTION In 2010, the European Union (EU) and its Member States along with all partners sought to address food and nutrition security by adopting an EU-wide policy framework for food security.1 Since then, further EU development policy commitments have been undertaken to reinforce the priorities established in 2010.
An Implementation Plan for Food and Nutrition Security2 was produced and divided into six policy priorities, accompanied by performance criteria and indicative intervention areas.3 After approving the Implementation Plan in April 2013, the Council requested that the European Commission produce, jointly with the Member States, consolidated EU-wide biennial progress reports from 2014 onwards.

This document is the first of these reports.


It reviews the EU and its Member States performance in executing the Implementation Plan, for communication to the European Parliament and the Council and to the general public.
This report sets out to answer two basic performance questions: 1) how were the disbursements and specific interventions made in 2012 aligned with the six policy priorities and 2) how did the EU and its Member States adhere to the 3Cs of coherence, complementarity and coordination in addressing these priorities.

This report is an upward accountability tool.


It establishes a benchmark or baseline against which subsequent reports will compare the performance of EU donors in working together to deliver agreed EU policy priorities regarding food and nutrition security.
It draws on consolidated quantitative evidence (disbursement data based on OECD-DAC reporting in 2012) and qualitative data on the 3Cs provided by Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the EU in their respective reports.

The methodology is described in chapter 4 of the linked staff working document (SWD).
The EU donors, which contributed to this report together represent almost 90 % of the total (all sectors) EU ODA provided by the EU and all Member States.

The report reviews the performance of the EU and its Member States using existing performance assessment data.

As a consequence, the report also tests whether current performance assessment systems are able to provide valid and reliable data on EU engagement in the six policy priority areas.
This report is accompanied by a Staff Working Document (SWD), which provides additional information and case studies.

2.

HOW WELL DID WE DELIVER ON OUR POLICY COMMITMENTS?

2.1 Overall analysis of our disbursements EU donors invested almost EUR 3.4 billion in food and nutrition security in 2012, corresponding to approximately 8 % of their total official development assistance (ODA).

Interventions were split among 2 500 programmes and covered more than 115 countries.
EU Member States contributed through their respective programmes.

In addition,4 EU donors provided approximately EUR 1.1 billion for emergency and humanitarian aid related to food and nutrition security in over 80 countries.
On average, humanitarian programmes accounted for 25 % of total food and nutrition security related programmes (humanitarian plus 1 2 3 4 COM(2010) 127, An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges and Council Conclusions on EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges 10 May 2010.

The term ‘food and nutrition’ has now replaced food security.
SWD (2013) 104 final Boosting food and nutrition security through EU action: implementing our commitments.

Emergency and humanitarian aid related to food security did not fall under the EU’s long-term commitment to food and nutrition security and therefore was not included in this report.

3 development) with some differences between Member States (see Figure 1).

Together, development and humanitarian aid corresponded to more than 10 % of ODA.

Fig.
1: Share of development and humanitarian assistance for food and nutrition security per donor Table 1: Geographical distribution of aid disbursement in 2012Continent Africa – Sub-Saharan Global5 Asia Latin America and Caribbean Neighbourhood Other Total EUR Percentage (%) 1,439,111,341 958,251,930 593,399,623 231,378,699 87,841,667 55,802,800 3,365,786,060 43 % 28 % 18 % 7 % 2 % 2 % 100 % The majority of interventions (approximately 65 %) operated at country level with more than 115 partner countries, including fragile states6, receiving support.
Geographically, Africa was the largest recipient of funds in 2012, receiving 43 % of total contributions (see Table 1).

In Africa, Member States focused their support on specific countries, while the EU had a broader geographical spread.

Almost 30 % of interventions were global, showing the importance of the global public good dimension of food and nutrition security.
5 6 This includes programmes and projects listed in the respective databases as ‘worldwide’ or where geographical location was ‘not specified’.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLICUS/Resources/511777- 1269623894864/FY10toFY13Harmonized_list_Fragile_Situations.pdf Harmonized list of fragile situations, FY2012.

4 Fig.2.

Support received by partner countries (in EUR million) Figure 2 provides an overview of the 20 partner countries which received the most support.
More information can be found in the table in chapter 1 of the SWD, demonstrating that 68 partner countries received on average less than EUR 3 million per donor.

2.2 Interventions across the six policy priorities The following section reviews the EU donors’ interventions across the six policy priorities.

Table 2.
Distribution of disbursements per policy priority Priority Amount in EUR million Percentage Priority 1: Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods Priority 2: Support effective governance Priority 3: Support regional agriculture and FNS policies Priority 4: Strengthen social protection mechanisms for FNS Priority 5: Enhance nutrition Priority 6: Enhance coordination of humanitarian and development actors to increase resilience Total 2 022 395 151 209 467 122 3 366 60 % 12 % 4 % 6 % 14 % 4 % 100 % The majority of the interventions (around 60 %) fall under Priority 1 (Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods), followed by Priorities 5 (Enhance nutrition) and 2 (Support effective governance).
The disbursement of funds for each priority was analysed.

Many of the interventions contributed to more than one priority area.

Since the methodology did not allow programmes to be categorised against more than one priority, the figures cannot be interpreted in absolute terms.
The performance criterion ‘number and value of joint EU and its Member States programmes supported at national, regional and global levels’ was difficult to assess and therefore was not included in the reporting of the performance criteria.

It is important to note that the EU and its Member States invest in policy engagement in the different policy areas and therefore the expenditure figures may not provide a full picture of the importance of food security and nutrition.
2.2.1 Policy Priority 1: Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods Assessment of performance criteria • 1 560 programmes received EUR 2.02 billion in 108 countries or at international level.

• 149 national and international research programmes with a value of EUR 379 million supported.
More than half of all the funds disbursed in 2012 (EUR 2 billion, approximately 60 % of the total) were allocated to Priority 1, demonstrating that improving smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods was an important objective of combined EU assistance.

Some 1 560 programmes in more than 100 countries were funded.
Interventions included supporting sustainable agricultural intensification and diversification for smallholder farmers, especially women; improving smallholder farmers’ access to land and water, farm inputs, and credit and extension services; assisting partner countries in addressing the negative effects of climate change on food and nutrition security; supporting pro-poor agricultural and other research for technology development and transfer, extension 5 and innovation; and addressing rural livelihoods through income generation, off-farm employment, and value chain and agri-business interventions.
Some 62 % of funds disbursed for Priority 1 were implemented at country level, 33 % at global level, and 5 % at regional level.

Most of the funds (37 %) were disbursed in Africa, followed by 34 % worldwide, and 18 % in Asia.

The 10 countries that received the most funding under this priority included several fragile and food insecure countries, such as Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Democratic Republic of Congo (See SWD chapter 3, Figure 1).
Sustainable land management is a crucial element of improving smallholder livelihoods.

In Ethiopia, where a high proportion of rural people are vulnerable to physical and economic stresses, the EU and several Member States are supporting initiatives.
For example, the Ethio- German Sustainable Land Management Programme targets the areas of Amhara, Oromia and Tigray, introducing technologies and measures for erosion protection and fostering the formation of user groups to encourage the sustainable management of water catchment areas.

Research and innovation in relation to sustainable agriculture, food security and nutrition (AR4D) was another important area of support under Priority 1.
EU donors were significant contributors to agricultural research for development, contributing an estimated EUR 380 million in 2012.

This included support given to global initiatives such as the CGIAR (formerly Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), regional organisations, particularly in Africa, as well as national agricultural research institutes.

European donors are members of the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD) (see Textbox 1).
Textbox 1: EIARD EIARD is a permanent, informal policy coordination platform for the EU and its Member States, together with Switzerland and Norway.

It was recognised by the Council and European Parliament in 1997 to facilitate the coordination of European policy and investments for agricultural research for development (ARD).

In 2012, EIARD members (including the EU) provided USD 231 million to the CGIAR Fund (45 % of the total).
The coordination of European support to CGIAR is at the top of the EIARD agenda.

EIARD is also an active member of the European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development (EFARD), which encompasses multiple stakeholders.

Policy briefs and position papers, commissioned by EIARD, have highlighted the importance of translating research into action to achieve better impacts, including for the poorest groups of farmers.
Thanks to EIARD, Europe has one of the strongest voices in the Council of the CGIAR (see also case study in SWD chapter 2.1).

6 2.2.2 Policy Priority 2: Support effective governance Assessment of performance criteria • 410 programmes in 87 countries received EUR 395 million.

• Joint EU and Member States positions led to the adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT) in the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in 2012.
• The 2012 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development / Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) peer review and the 2013 EU Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) Report indicate that policy coherence for development is improving.

Approximately 12 % of the EU and its Member States investments in 2012, amounting to EUR 395 million, went towards supporting effective governance.
These interventions included: support for initiatives discussed in the CFS; strengthening civil society their organisations and farmers’ organisations empowerment to participate in decision-making processes; empowering women and strengthening their decision-making role in relation to food production, food consumption and household assets; supporting decentralisation and local governance to enhance food security; supporting the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP); strengthening global governance on food and nutrition security, including supporting the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement; and increasing advocacy to ensure that food and nutrition security is prioritised in international and regional fora, as well as at the level of national governments in partner countries.
in partner countries and promoting Approximately 63 % of the funds disbursed for Priority 2 were implemented at country level, 13 % at regional level, and 24 % at global level.

In relation to this geographical distribution, 41 % of the funds were allocated to Africa, 15 % to Asia, and 8 % to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Globally, this included non-earmarked core funding given to the Rome-based food agencies — Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and World Food Programme (WFP) — to support regional and global food and nutrition security.
The EU and its Member States contribute to international debates and roundtables through the preparation of joint EU positions during the negotiation of UN General Assembly Resolutions on Agricultural Development, Food Security and Nutrition, Rural Women, and the Right to Food, including at annual sessions of the Human Rights Council, and by developing joint positions for delivery at the annual session of the CFS.
An example of joint work is the combined EU donors’ support to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT).

EU donors are now active in national, regional and international initiatives to implement the VGGT, supporting land governance and security of land tenure.

Another example is the work done by EU donors to support the ongoing process in the CFS to develop voluntary principles for responsible agricultural investment (RAI).
In Africa, EU donors work closely together to support CAADP at continental, regional and country levels within the context of the CAADP Development Partners Task Team, as contributors to the Multi-Donor Trust Fund and many other country-level initiatives.

Within the context of the African Year of Agriculture leading to the 2014 Heads of States Summit in Malabo, development partners led by the EU have politically supported the African Union and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA).
7 As regards the performance criterion of improvement in policy coherence for development (PCD), good progress was made at both EU and Member States level, as recognised in the 2012 OECD-DAC peer review and in the 2013 EU Report on Policy Coherence for Development.

Finland piloted the OECD’s tool for PCD by analysing national and EU policies which impacted on food and nutrition security in developing countries.
2.2.3 Policy Priority 3: Support regional agriculture and food and nutrition security policies Assessment of performance criteria • 98 regional programmes received payments worth EUR 151 million.

Policy Priority 3 received 4 % of the total funds disbursed.

EU donors gave approximately EUR 151 million, for a total of 98 programmes.
This priority included support for development and implementation of regional agricultural policies; strategies to step up integration of regional food markets, for example the fish sector; animal disease control programmes; and initiatives to address sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards and food safety for combating food-borne illnesses.

Other initiatives supported in 2012 concerned information systems for agriculture and food and nutrition security, such as early warning systems and market transparency.
In terms of geographical distribution of the investments, approximately 35 % of the funds were allocated to Africa, 42 % to interventions at a global level, 12 % to Asia, and 7 % to Latin America and the Caribbean.

The EU, France, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany all provide regional food and nutrition security related assistance in West Africa within the context of the ECOWAS Agricultural Policy, known as ECOWAP (see Textbox 2).
A case study presenting European support to ECOWAP, including efforts to promote coherence, complementarity and coordination, is presented in chapter 2.2 of the SWD.

Textbox 2: ECOWAP Joint efforts by the EU and some of its Member States to support ECOWAP provide an example of EU donors’ coordination and complementarity for food and nutrition security initiatives.

EU donors coordinate within the ECOWAP Group and are engaged in joint interventions under the auspices of ECOWAP.
For example the EU, France and Spain are supporting the regional food reserves system; the EU and France have supported ECOWAS in combating fruit flies; and France, Spain and the USA are supporting the Regional Agency for Agriculture and Food (RAAF).

ECOWAP is generally acknowledged as a first of its kind on the African continent, serving to implement the regional dimension of CAADP.
There also seems to be widespread consensus among national stakeholders of the importance of ECOWAP as a framework to guide strategic regional investments tackling cross-border issues.

2.2.4 Policy Priority 4: Strengthen social protection mechanisms for food and nutrition security, particularly for vulnerable population groups Assessment of performance criteria • 94 programmes in 40 countries received EUR 209 million.

Policy Priority 4 received 6 % of the total funds disbursed in 2012.
EU donors gave approximately EUR 209 million, for a total of 94 programmes in 40 countries.

The recent food crisis drew attention to the importance of social transfers in ensuring household food security, improving nutrition, reducing poverty and vulnerability, and 8 supporting agricultural development.

Different types of social transfers, such as seasonal cash transfers and food-for-work or vouchers, have been used in a number of countries to facilitate access to food in the short term.
96 % of the programmes under Priority 4 were implemented at country level and 4 % at global level.

The 10 countries that received the most support in 2012 included Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Kenya and Somalia (see chapter 3, Figure 4 of the SWD).

The Productive Safety Nets Programme, Ethiopia, is perceived as an excellent programme by the Government of Ethiopia.
It addresses chronic food security in the country, and is financed by a consortium of EU (involving Denmark, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the EU) and non-EU donors.

2.2.5 Policy Priority 5: Enhance nutrition in particular for mothers, infants and children Assessment of performance criteria • 278 nutrition-related programmes in 63 countries received EUR 467 million.
• The EU and its Member States advocacy of better nutrition has increased, as witnessed by their active participation in international processes (e.g.

G8/20, SUN, and World Health Assembly (WHA), as well as by the support provided to mainstreaming nutrition in CAADP investment plans, and by the fact that already 45 developing countries have joined the SUN Movement.

Policy Priority 5 is an area where EU donors’ joint work has led to achievements.
It received 14 % of the total funds in 2012, approximately EUR 467 million, for a total of 278 programmes in 63 countries.

After Policy Priority 1, this was the second most important priority for EU donors in 2012.

This priority included interventions addressing under-nutrition through funding and scaling up of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions which targeted mothers and young children, with a focus on the first 1 000 days of life.
The interventions also provided support to continental, regional and national nutrition research programmes and plans.

Partner countries were encouraged to improve national nutrition governance, to help them integrate nutrition into national polices, such as agriculture and health, and to help them increase awareness-raising and behavioural changes.

Some 80 % of the programmes supported under Priority 5 in 2012 were implemented at country level, 17 % at global level, and 3 % at regional level.
Regarding the geographical distribution of these investments, 46 % of the funds were allocated to Africa, 17 % to interventions at the global level, 26 % to Asia, and 8 % to Latin America and the Caribbean.

The countries which received the largest amounts in 2012 included Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Myanmar (see chapter 3, Figure 5 of the SWD).
By participating in international efforts and engaging in relevant processes, such as the G8/G20, WHA, CFS, the SUN Movement and the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, EU donors have improved coordination, increased effectiveness and secured greater mobilisation for better nutrition.

Good examples of joint global work on nutrition include support to the SUN Movement Secretariat by the EU, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (see Textbox 3).
This illustrates the potential strengths of EU coherence, coordination and cooperation at global level and in global governance.

(For more information, please refer to the case study in chapter 2.3 of the SWD).

Textbox 3: The SUN Movement 9 The collaborative efforts of a number of EU Member States and the European Commission to support the SUN Movement Secretariat provide an example of EU coordination and complementarity at the global level.
Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) is a global movement which brings together all stakeholders to tackle under-nutrition, with a particular focus on increasing political will and investment to address maternal, infant and child under-nutrition.

France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the European Commission are working together on the SUN Donor Network to support the SUN Movement and are jointly funding, together with others, the work plan of the SUN Movement Secretariat.
This joint donor collaboration, along with coordinated advocacy efforts, allows for consolidated strategic planning, budgeting and reporting with predictable multi-annual funding.
At the 2013 Nutrition for Growth event in London, EU donors defined their political and financial commitments to fight against stunting, pledging EUR 7.9 billion (1.7 billion for nutrition-specific interventions and 6.1 billion for nutrition-sensitive interventions).7 In particular, through its specific commitment to reduce the stunting of 7 million children under the age of 5 by 2025, the European Commission has set an example for others to follow, placing itself as a major player in the political arena.
EU donors have engaged in a number of joint activities, such as developing a methodology for estimating nutrition-sensitive spending and an accountability framework to monitor the impact of nutrition interventions and to track investments in nutrition.

At country level, joint activities have been reported in Tajikistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, the Sahel, Zambia, Bangladesh and Mozambique.
2.2.6 Policy Priority 6: Enhance coordination between development and humanitarian actors to build resilience and promote sustainable food and nutrition security Assessment of performance criteria • 63 resilience-oriented programmes in 18 countries received EUR 122 million in 2012.

• EU and its Member States acknowledged the importance of building resilience in 23 countries in 2012 and have conducted 8 joint analyses and planning exercises.

Policy Priority 6 received 4 % of the total funds in 2012.
EU donors gave approximately EUR 122 million to a total of 63 programmes in 18 countries.

Some of the interventions reported under other priorities (such as Priority 1: Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods; 4: Strengthen social protection mechanisms for food and nutrition security, particularly for vulnerable population groups; and 5: Enhance nutrition, in particular for mothers, infants and children) also addressed this priority area.
This priority area included interventions to increase the resilience of particularly vulnerable groups to withstand the impacts and consequences of crises.

The focus here was on food and nutrition security.


Most actions provided direct support to households and communities to improve access to sufficient and adequate food through temporary social transfers; nutrition- related measures aimed at women and children; and interventions to initiate or revive agricultural production and improve the availability of food, and maintain natural means of production.
Priority 6 supported the integration of resilience-building into partner countries’ policies and planning.

It also supported the capacity of partner countries and local communities to anticipate, prevent and prepare for food security crises and to enhance crisis response, 7 Exchange rate 1.29 USD/EUR.

10 respecting the differential impacts and capacities of women, men and vulnerable groups and including improved risk monitoring.
With regard to the geographical distribution of the investments, approximately 75 % of the funds were allocated to Africa, 23 % to the global level, and 2 % to Asia.

It is therefore not surprising that nine African countries received the largest share of support, including Niger, Mali, Mauretania, Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan (chapter 3, Figure 6 of the SWD).
Recently, the EU donors have stepped up their drive to build resilience among vulnerable communities by better targeting the root causes of food insecurity to mitigate the impact of food crises.

The EU adopted a new policy framework in May 2013 to address resilience challenges.

At regional level, the Global Alliance for Resilience Initiative in West Africa and Sahel (AGIR) was launched in December 2012 with the EU as one of its founders.
Further support was also provided to the multi-donor initiative for drought recovery Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (SHARE).

At regional level, in West Africa through AGIR, funding from the EU, France and Spain also helped to establish an emergency food reserve system in the region.

EU donors undertook some joint analyses and planning exercises to improve resilience building.
For example: improving country resilience in Niger, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad, and Senegal; country programming papers in Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Uganda; and joint analyses and planning exercises in Haiti.
2.3 Coordination, complementarity and coherence (3Cs) With 44 countries supported by more than five EU donors, coordination plays an important role in ensuring EU aid effectiveness at country level, with the EU engaging in and aligning with the food and nutrition security strategies and agricultural investment plans of partner countries.
Existing structures, such as sector working groups (which are often not limited to only EU donors), are regarded as key mechanisms through which EU donors coordinate their work, pursue policy dialogue, and regularly share information.
In addition to coordination between donors and partner countries, capacity-building processes improve the coordination between all local and non-local stakeholders such as non- governmental organisations (NGOs), international NGOs (iNGOs), the private sector and research organisations involved in food and nutrition security.

The EU’s joint programming contributes significantly to EU and its Member States complementarity and synergies.
Since 2011, joint programming processes have been started in approximately 20 partner countries, although in each country the process is at a different stage.8 An example of joint programming by the EU and its Member States is the development of an EU+ Road Map for nutrition in Ethiopia which offers a practical example of joint analysis and planning, prioritisation, division of responsibilities and coordination for nutrition interventions.
Joint implementation approaches include division of labour based on sector mapping; joint analysis, appraisal and sector response; aid modalities (budget support, pooled funding, delegated cooperation, and trust funds); and joint monitoring, evaluation and reporting improved systems.

Common strategic approaches complementarity, such as AGIR and SUN deployment in Chad.
initiatives have also to global 8 Joint analyses have been done in Bolivia, Ivory Coast, and Ethiopia, while joint programming documents have been prepared for South Sudan, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Laos, Myanmar, Namibia, Paraguay, Rwanda, Senegal and Togo.

11 Actions falling under the six priorities have been reported to be consistent with partner countries’ strategies.

In Kenya, EU donors’ division of labour reflected the policy priorities of the Implementation Plan.
A case study on Ethiopia referred to in the chapter 2.4 of the SWD analyses the European efforts to enhance the 3Cs within and between EU donors’ external assistance programmes (see Textbox 4).

Textbox 4: 3Cs in Ethiopia The participatory case study on the 3Cs in Ethiopia demonstrated that, under the clear vision, ownership and leadership of the Ethiopian authorities, EU donors are key partners in addressing the country’s most critical food and nutrition security issues.
The large, national flagship programmes — clearly country-led — are designed and implemented with help from the international community, providing channels for both structured dialogue and financial contributions.

Joint programming offers a unique opportunity for improving coordination and for common analysis and planning, prioritisation, and division of responsibilities to increase the efficacy of our efforts.
The process should further involve the different Ethiopian partners, including civil society, and other major donors.

At EU level, formal arrangements on coordination include the European Council Working Groups, while informal exchanges take place through the Heads of Agriculture and Rural Development Group (HARDs), including its subgroups on Land Issues and Private Sector Development in Agriculture, and EIARD, which are reported to be important mechanisms for policy development and exchange.
Coordination within the EIARD platform fosters joint policies and strategies in Europe and also helps build coherence, coordination and complementarity.

These formal and informal arrangements also serve to coordinate EU donors’ participation in international fora and initiatives.

This includes the UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, CFS, the SUN Movement, the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2), G8 and G20.

3.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.


Food and nutrition security is a significant component of EU development cooperation: with almost EUR 3.4 billion spent in more than 115 countries by the EU donors in 2012 alone, food and nutrition security is important both in terms of share of total development assistance (around 8 % of their total ODA disbursed in 2012) and in geographical coverage.
In particular, food insecure states in Sub-Saharan Africa receive substantial support, in line with the policy that the EU and its Member States agreed to implement in 2010.

2.

The majority of the interventions focused on three priorities in 2012: Priority 1 (Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods) received the most support (approximately 60 %), followed by Priority 5 (Enhance nutrition) which received 14 %, and Priority 2 (Support effective governance) at 12 %.

3.
3.

There may be opportunities for EU donors to operate more efficiently: 68 partner countries received less than EUR 3 million on average per donor.

Average payment size is EUR 1.34 million.

This is most striking in Central America, where four countries are supported by four or more donors with an average amount per donor of less than EUR 2.2 million.

EU donors need to continue to improve their division of labour, under partner countries’ leadership of course.

12 4.
12 4.

Demand-led research, extension and innovation needs more attention, both in terms of increased investments in accordance with 2010 commitments and, in particular, to ensure the translation of results into action on the ground so as to maximise impact.

5.

EU donors are showing growing leadership on critical topics identified by the international community.
Since 2010 they have been responding collectively to food security needs and crises, focusing on issues such as nutrition, resilience and access to land.

The EU donors have rallied around global and EU initiatives such as SUN, SHARE and AGIR, and have been involved in the development of the VGGT in the CFS.

These successes can be built upon in addressing initiatives centred around EU donors’ shared priorities.

6.

Collaboration with all stakeholders, within national systems, has a clear advantage.
A case study carried out in Ethiopia demonstrated that the joint European contribution to addressing food and nutrition security was very relevant in terms of policy development and investments.

Together, EU donors are pursuing innovative approaches that are integrated with the existing national systems.
A valuable lesson learned is that there is a potential for more dialogue with farmers’ organisations, local and international NGOs and the private sector, especially regarding national programme formulation and implementation.

This should be pursued in all our partner countries.

7.

EU donors’ coordination at country level should move beyond information sharing.
Coordination mechanisms have been particularly successful at global, continental and regional levels, as shown by the EIARD experience and in West Africa by the ECOWAP coordination mechanism for development partners.

However, at country level there is scope for improvement by taking coordination beyond information sharing for greater coherence, complementarity and lesson sharing.

8.
8.

Ongoing EU joint programming provides good opportunities to improve effectiveness: it contributes to better coordination, complementarity and division of labour.

This can also lead to more joint result-based frameworks, monitoring and evaluation, including at community level.

Joint programming in relation to food and nutrition security needs to be strengthened.

9.
9.

Our methodology for EU joint reporting on food and nutrition security needs to be refined with a focus on specific topics, to include more emphasis on result/ impact assessment, for example through case studies carried out primarily with our partners and for more qualitative information.

4.

CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING FORWARD This is the first ever report in which EU donors are commenting jointly on a major topic.

It is an upward accountability tool.


With almost EUR 3.4 billion spent in more than 115 countries by the EU donors in 2012, the EU and its Member States are delivering significantly on food and nutrition security.

Since 2010, EU donors have shown growing leadership at global level in areas such as nutrition, resilience and land governance.

They will continue to tap into these successes in addressing new emerging challenges, such as climate-smart agriculture, rural transformation and food systems.
In Africa, there are new opportunities for policy dialogue and support at country level led by the CAADP process.

The 2014 Malabo declaration shows renewed 13 commitment on the part of African countries to agriculture and food security and sets continental expectation that could enhance EU donors’ alignment and support in line with the 2010 policy commitment on CAADP.
In partner countries, there is a potential for more dialogue with farmers’ organisations, local and international NGOs and the private sector.

Globally, joint programming in food and nutrition security can be further strengthened.

Working together provides the EU and its Member States with a stronger voice, and a greater coverage and volume of development assistance.

This approach will improve our visibility and lead to more efficient development assistance, better results and greater impact.
This report sets the baseline for subsequent reports.

In the next report, we will compare our performance to the 2012 situation.

Meanwhile, the methodology used to develop this report will be improved; it will feature selected topics and policy priorities, and put more emphasis on results/impacts.

The next report will also be illustrated by case studies undertaken with partners and with Member States.
14 COMMITTEE REFERENCE 3510/2015 FINAL BRIEF FOREIGN AND EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Working Group 1 COM(2014) 712 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL – IMPLEMENTING EU FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY FIRST BIENNIAL REPORT COMMITMENTS: POLICY Legal Basis: N/A Implementing Ministry: Ministry for Foreign Affairs Participating Ministry: N/A Originating Department: Directorate-International Development, Economic Affairs and European Institutions, MFA Received by Parliament: 29 May 2015 Aim After approving the Implementation Plan in April 2013, the Council requested that the European Commission produce, jointly with the Member States, consolidated EU-wide biennial progress reports from 2014 onwards.
The main aim of the report is to review the EU and its Member States performance in executing the Implementation Plan, whilst communicate to the European Parliament, the Council and to the general public progress made.

The biennial report concludes that since 2010, EU donors have shown growing leadership at global level in areas such as nutrition, resilience and land governance.
Identifying Africa as the country with the biggest share of assistance, the 2014 Malabo declaration shows renewed commitment on the part of African countries to strengthen agriculture and food security mechanisms.

The Government recognizes that Malta’s financial contribution to food and nutrition security is small compared to overall EU levels.

Nonetheless, Malta through its annual Official Development Assistance (ODA) attaches great importance to this stream of development assistance.
Looking at data gathering techniques, the Government endorses the current system and welcomes commitment to improve the methodology of the reports, as well as attributing greater emphasis on results/impact.

Nonetheless, the Government expresses concern at the possibility of including all Member States in such reports.
This is not desirable due to the possible logistical hurdles of data gathering differences, whilst the possibility to KM 07/07/2015 COMMITTEE REFERENCE 3510/2015 reflect negatively on Malta’s contribution and effort when quantifiable data is published and compared to other states.

Committee Recommendation The Committee concurs with the Ministry’s position contained in the Explanatory Memorandum of 24 March 2015 and has therefore decided to clear this document from scrutiny.

KM 07/07/2015