Ill COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(94) 165 final 
Brussels, 04.05.1994 
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO THE COUNCIL ON 
COORDINATION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE MEMBER STATES 
CONCERNING FOOD SECURITY POLICIES AND PRACTICES 
A, •.:• 
- 1 -
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO THE COUNCIL ON 
COORDINATION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND MEMBER STATES CONCERNING 
FOOD SECURITY POLICIES AND PRACTICES 
1. Introduction and policies so far 
The Development Council adopted in May last a Conclusion to emphasise food 
security as one of the issues for enhanced coordination between the 
Communities' and Member states' cooperation policy. It therefore requested 
the Commission to present in Spring 1994 a policy proposal in the form of 
a Communication to the Council. Once accepted it will become the basis on 
which operational guidelines will be subsequently prepared in view of its 
implementation. 
Following meetings with experts from Member States, the foundations were 
laid for such a policy definition. In the spirit of the Maastricht Treaty, 
the immediate objective in the preparation process was to try to find 
common elements of views on FS policies among Member States and the 
Community, and to identify possibilities to harmonise the approach to FS 
and to implementation programmes. 
The purpose of this Communication is to give an outline of the present 
situation, to point out some sensitive policy areas, and to make proposals 
that are related to "coordination", "consultation" and "coherence" at 
policy and at operational level. It should be underlined that these can 
only mark one step in the process towards enhanced coordination. This text 
is by no means complete in covering the whole range of FS-related issues, 
but rather touches mainly on those items on which the issue of 
coordination seems to be most relevant. To this end, EC policies on FS to 
date will be indicated, and a few fields in which it is currently being 
applied will be sketched. 
Since the bulk of Community experience in the field of food security has 
been concentrated in subsaharan Africa, and food insecurity is worse in 
that part of the world, most of this text focuses on SSA. Nevertheless, it 
appears that the analysis and the conclusions are equally valid for other 
areas. 
2. What is food security 
Although this is certainly not the right place to present a detailed 
historical overview of the concept of food security, it appears 
nonetheless useful to describe what it is, and its changing emphasis. The 
evolution in EC thinking on FS through the subsequent policy statements, 
will also be indicated. 
The International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) of December 1993, which 
was a joint initiative of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation and 
the World Health Organisation, defined FS as access by all people at all 
times to the food needed for an active and healthy life. Its essential 
elements are the availability of food, and the ability to acquire it. 
- 2 -
This definition seems to be widely used by many agencies and governments, 
because it indicates so clearly the wish to eliminate hunger and 
malnutrition. 
Three dimensions of FS should be distinguished. First of all, supply of 
food at national and local levels, through national/local production and 
imports in one combination or another. Secondly, it is necessary to have a 
reasonable degree of stability in supply, both from one year to another, 
and within the year. Thirdly, demand: each household should have physical 
and economic access to the food it needs. It should have the ability to 
secure adequate food to meet the dietary needs of its members, either from 
its own production or through purchases (section inspired by ICN Theme 
paper no. 1). 
The supply at national level should be adequate, as a precondition to 
household food security. Important elements are domestic production, 
stockholding, trade and import policies, world market prices, food aid, 
availability of currency, exports, shortfalls in food production or 
interruptions in trade reduce availability leading to price rises, 
breakdown of distribution channels, and increasing food insecurity. 
Relatively small stocks can have a very important role in price movements 
and thus in accessibility of food for those groups with low income. 
Household FS in rural areas depends largely on local food production 
(cereals, roots and tubers, animal production) and prices, which relate to 
total output and to employment opportunities, both off-farm and on-farm 
(diversification of economy). Food insecurity in rural areas is often more 
of a transitory nature, has often a seasonal character. 
In urban areas household FS (HFS) depends primarily on income levels in 
relation to food prices. Through urbanisation, the number of chronic food 
insecure is rapidly increasing, which may be aggravated by the effects of 
macro-economic structural adjustment programmes such as reduction of the 
government administration, health care services and education no longer 
provided free of charge, etc. 
Needless to say that gender-is sue s are most relevant in this context. On 
the supply side, women are prominently involved in production. On the 
demand side, preparation of balanced diets is almost universally in the 
hands of women, while female-headed households are often among the more 
vulnerable groups, suffering chronic malnutrition, or hunger. 
3. FS as a concept in Community policy 
In the context of cooperation activities with developing countries, one of 
the most outstanding dimensions is food security at national and at 
household level. As FS can more simply be defined as the absence of hunger 
and malnutrition, the Community wants to contribute to make available to 
households, villages and countries enough resources to produce food or at 
least to obtain food. This has been a central issue in the development 
cooperation policy of the Community for more than twenty years now.(*) 
The issue largely points to the part of overall assistance dedicated to 
food aid, and to agricultural and rural development and support structures 
and policies. Roughly speaking, this part, except food aid, takes up more 
than half of EDF-funded activities. 
(*) See also "The EC and Food Security" by Walter Kennes, IDS Bulletin 
1990, Nr. 3. 
- 3 -
The world food crisis of the early seventies demonstrated the 
vulnerability of food systems in many countries, especially in SSA. Aid 
agencies including the EC responded to this crisis by increasing the share 
of project funding in favour of agriculture, and, within agriculture, 
there was a strong shift from export crops to food crops. 
However, these increased financial efforts for agricultural and rural 
development did not improve the basic trends of the food situation. 
Gradually, attention was drawn to the wider economic environment of the 
agricultural sector, particularly to price policies, marketing, the 
provision of basic support services. It was concluded that more financing 
is not effective if the policy and institutional environment fails to 
provide the right incentives and services to agricultural producers, 
processors and traders. 
This analysis and awareness led the EC in 1981 to launch a "Plan to combat 
hunger in the world", also known as the Pisani Plan. A central part of the 
plan consisted in supporting the formulation and implementation of food 
strategies. The main characteristics of the food strategy approach were: 
to concentrate funding on the objective of food security, to define and 
implement coherent policies to promote FS through a process of policy 
dialogue, to strengthen coordination among donors, and to better integrate 
different kinds of aid instruments. 
These characteristics subsequently became central features of the third 
Lomé Convention (December 1984). As far as the implementation of this 
newly-conceived approach is concerned, results are varied: the 
concentration of funding was extended quite far; the process of policy 
dialogue was less effective than anticipated; coordination among donors on 
food security-related areas, and among ministries and parastatals with 
competences in FS-related matters was facilitated and stimulated; 
integration of instruments concerns mainly project aid and food aid 
through counterpart funds resulting from food aid sales (projects should 
be, in principle, FS-related). 
It may be interesting to note that, notwithstanding these various 
experiences, around 14 SSA countries appear to be receiving international 
assistance for the preparation of national food security strategies, of 
which at least four through EC funding (Kenya, Mali, Zambia, Ruanda). 
Resolution on food security in SSA 
In November 1988, when reviewing an assessment of the food strategy 
experience, the Development Council underlined the value of these 
strategies and the progress made so far. In order to further improve, it 
adopted a resolution which clarified its position on some basic FS issues 
and provided guidelines for future activities, which remain equally valid 
at present. 
On self-sufficiency in foodstuffs, the attitude was that this was 
neither necessary nor sufficient for food security. An appropriate balance 
should be struck between local production of food and export crops, and 
imports of food, taking into account the specific circumstances of the 
country. 
On the role of the private and public sectors, the complementarity of 
the two was underlined: the bulk of food marketing can most effectively be 
undertaken by the private sector, but the public sector must intervene 
where the other fails, and must prevent excess of monopoly situations. 
Market regulation should be carried out by a combination of buffer stocks 
and trade policy. 
- 4 -
The temporary protection of national markets in developing countries 
was considered to be justifiable by economic arguments (international 
dumping; overvalued exchange rate; infant industry) or, non-economic 
arguments (to diminish pressure on migration; environment protection). 
Rather than continued emphasis on guaranteed minimum prices for 
national production of cereals in particular, the need for stable producer 
prices and increased urban incomes (purchasing power) was underlined. 
Referring to consumption habits and policies, local food products 
should be encouraged by improving processing with appropriate technology, 
so as to obtain the convenience value and status of (imported) wheat and 
rice. 
It was also recommended to introduce more direct measures for 
increasing FS of vulnerable groups (including nutritional education), 
particularly so in revising general economic policies in a context of 
structural adjustment programmes. 
FS and structural adjustment 
It was experienced that the food policy dialogue faced severe limitations 
because various crucial policy measures cannot be handled at the sectoral 
level. Macro-economic and other global distortions have effects throughout 
the economy, and can only be addressed through structural adjustment 
programmes. 
The EC views on structural adjustment have been outlined in the Council of 
Ministers resolution of May 1988*). The most important element of this 
view is, that adjustment packages should not only be assessed in financial 
and economic terms but also the social dimensions should be dealt with: 
health, nutrition and FS, employment, and education. Subsequently, in the 
fourth Lomé Convention (1990-1999) special programmes for assistance to 
structural adjustment were introduced, including those social dimensions 
referred to above. 
Guidelines were therefore developed to help incorporate FS and nutrition 
considerations into the design and implementation of structural adjustment 
programmes in ACP countries where the EC is involved.**) 
The answer that can be given through the various aid instruments, has 
to be tuned to the situation. For the short term this could imply boosting 
the incomes of particularly vulnerable groups to allow them to purchase 
the food they need (labour-intensive public works, food stamps, FFW, 
etc.), to provide food aid (school-feeding; mother-and-child care 
feeding), and to channel food aid preferably through the normal marketing 
channels (monétisation; the resulting counterpart funds enabling the link 
to the longer-term). For the longer term, this should imply boosting the 
national production by creating a favourable economic environment which 
leads to offering better prices to farmers, increasing storage capacity so 
as to smooth consumer price fluctuations, etc. Temporary protective 
measures for food security reasons, within the possibilities offered under 
the relevant GATT provisions, is often justified. A regional approach in 
the form of a free-trade area or of a customs union, would also be 
worthwhile considering. 
*) There were also later Resolutions on structural adjustment: May '89; 
May '91 (on Counterpart Funds); May '92. 
**) "Guidelines for incorporating food security and nutritional 
considerations into support for structural adjustment in ACP 
countries", February 1991, Relief and Development Institute, for DG 
VIII. 
- 5 -
It appears that there is room for improvement in the application of these 
guidelines in the situations for which they were designed. 
In practice, the short-term dominates 
Notwithstanding this degree of knowledge and the excellent orientations 
and guidelines which are no doubt up-to-date, taking a look at current 
practices, these tend to show an excessive attention on the short-term 
issues. 
For example, in the case of FS and structural adjustment, a consumption-
oriented approach -understandably of a somewhat defensive nature- is 
adopted which concentrates on the situation at household level. The 
longer-term supply-side aspects very often do not come off the ground: 
agricultural sector plans with FS orientations under structural adjustment 
conditions have difficulty in coming to maturity, not to mention their 
implementation. 
In the case of emergency assistance, food insecurity is mainly regarded as 
an interruption in supply of food to certain groups affected by natural or 
man-made disaster. The apparent tendency since 19 89 that food aid for 
relief makes up for an increasingly important share of total food aid 
provided by the Community and the Member states, therefore comes as no 
surprise. A number of specialists in the field of food security are of the 
opinion that longer-term effects of interventions are overlooked, 
particularly by providing (too?) easily emergency food aid in massive 
quantities while disregarding the lessons learned by food aid agencies 
that food aid in general should be kept to a minimum, should be fully 
integrated with boosting own productive capacities, should be triangular, 
monetised, to some extent substituted, etc. 
The coordination between emergency activities and development-oriented, 
FS-oriented policies, is necessary, and must be continuously improved. In 
this context, the intermediary step "rehabilitation of productive 
capacity", which is typically the focus of the new 100 million ECU EC 
programme "Special initiative for Africa", could be of particular 
interest. 
Some donors with a preference for food aid in kind (e.g. USA) emphasise 
more on making up for short-term deficiencies in supply and taking away 
bottlenecks for certain groups of consumers, than working on the 
improvement of national and local supply. The yearly discussions in the 
World Food Programme give evidence of this short-term attitude. 
Deliberations of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) also tend to 
pay major attention to short-term distortions in supply (production; 
stocks; trade) and in accessibility of food. Lately, recommendations to 
better integrate food aid and development-oriented projects have been 
included in the reports. Probably the composition of the members of the 
CFS has much to do with such a cautious attitude of the CFS, which in 
principle could play a more important role in promoting longer term 
oriented food strategies. 
FS: from a side street back to the main street 
It seems that lately attention paid to FS has subsided considerably, which 
can to some extent be explained by a combination of the following 
elements. 
Performing early warning systems were established and emergency food 
aid programmes were institutionalised by most major donor agencies, which 
- 6 -
may have given the wrong impression that all precautions were taken, that 
everything related to FS was under control. Secondly, for a number of 
years, in SSA (in particular the Sahel) rains were generally good and well 
spread in time thus resulting in good crops and in less worries about FS, 
this of course with the exception of the serious drought in 1992 in 
southern Africa. Thirdly, the attention of the governments and donors 
alike was diverted by the urgent need to reform macro-economic structures. 
Fourthly, in regions other than SSA, food insecurity had become less of a 
problem i.e. was less prominent. It should be added that such reforms are, 
generally speaking, also conducive to better FS. 
Speaking at a somewhat higher level of abstraction, one should certainly 
take into consideration the fact that every paradigm, concept or model, 
has only a limited life cycle. 
Yet another possibility -and certainly an important one - why FS is losing 
its attraction, is its horizontal and more or less abstract character. 
From the narrower concept of national and household cereal balances, it 
has grown into something wider that is not directly operational. It 
requires a special effort and persistence to make FS orientation the 
guiding principle in longer-term oriented programmes (this problem is less 
serious for short-term focused operations). It could take many forms, and 
is relevant in almost every situation, and has in this respect a 
resemblance to other crosscutting (or horizontal) concepts such as 
sustainable development, or gender-specific approaches. 
It could also be that the remaining emergency situations (Eastern Africa; 
Southern Africa) have so dominated international publicity during the last 
couple of years, that longer-term FS has been totally overshadowed, 
referred to a secondary and somewhat placed at a more academic level. 
Whatever the reasons one prefers to explain the diminished attention given 
to FS, this course should be reversed: the need to re-emphasize FS is only 
too clear when looking at food insecurity in SSA at present. And there are 
no reasons to believe that the situation will get better soon. 
The demographic trend further aggravates this situation in SSA: the 
approximately 2% yearly increase in agricultural output and food 
production, systematically lags behind a population growth of about 3%. In 
other regions of the world, these two aspects of development have been 
much more in parallel. 
Of course, the concentration of EC funding on agriculture and FS has been 
questioned because other sectors such as health, education, urban 
development cannot be neglected. Nonetheless, agriculture and FS remain at 
the centre of attention in cooperation programmes because the Community 
was and is convinced that food security is very much among the major 
problems that have to be addressed in most of the developing countries. 
During the preparatory meeting of 5 October 93, MS experts agreed on their 
conclusions: that it is necessary to boost actions towards longer term 
food security, particularly in SSA. The best approach to this end would be 
to resume dialogue with the countries concerned, and start again FS 
planning and its implementation as a process, to emphasise the FS 
dimension of a variety of activities that all contribute to it: 
agricultural development, rural infrastructure, marketing and transport 
infrastructure, poverty alleviation programmes, employment creation, 
- 7 -
private sector development, trade, import, and price policies. Better 
food security can therefore not be achieved in one go, but rather calls 
for a process-approach. With this perspective, coordination between MS and 
Community should be increased. 
Possibilities within international bodies such as the Committee on World 
Food Security (FAO), the Committee on commodity Problems, UNCTAD, should 
not be overlooked as ways to improve the awareness on the importance of 
FS. 
It is interesting to note, that the World Bank is also increasingly 
interested in food insecurity, as evidenced by its recent "Conference on 
Actions to Reduce Hunger Worldwide" (30/11 - 1/12/93). Concrete follow-up 
actions are being worked out, as it appears. 
5. Related policy fields 
Before turning to coordination between Community and Member states, it 
seems useful to look into various other fields of community policy that 
are either directly related to our subject -such as food aid- or have an 
effect on it, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) . These 
interrelations need to be seen from the point of view of Community-
internal coordination and of internal cohesion, or consistency. 
Food aid and FS 
To many, food aid is the practical expression, the equivalent of FS. 
Though it is true that food aid is art important instrument to ensure 
availability and accessibility of sufficient food to many households, and 
a powerful tool to help alleviate emergency situations; it is also true 
that such an approach to food aid can only give short-term relief and 
satisfaction. FS calls rather to work on the supply-side at national and 
at local/household level, making people and countries less dependent on 
the climate hazards, on the whims of the world markets and long-haul 
supply of their daily food. In fact, FS requires a combination of 
policies: poverty-alleviation (which is long-term objective), agricultural 
development facilitating a stable balance of local/national production of 
food stuff and its import, enhancing peoples' productive capacities and 
purchasing power, and above all, absence of political unrest and armed 
conflicts. 
Food aid makes up for a large portion of ODA (Official Development Aid) of 
the Community: for 1987-91 its percentage oscillated around 20% of total 
aid disbursements. The Member States have much lower figures: on average 
around 5%, with Italy, UK and Germany on the upper level, Belgium and 
Denmark considerably below that. When comparing the composition of ODA 
programmes of the Member States and the Community, one could say that a 
specialisation, a labour division, has established itself. Also in terms 
of volume, the difference is striking: the Community handles around 3 
million tonnes, and the Member states as a whole 1 million. The reasons 
for this evolution have probably to do with efficiency and the scale of 
operations, and certainly also with the availability of products due to 
the CAP. 
For all DAC countries together, food aid makes up for 5-7% of total ODA 
disbursements. The only important exception is the USA with a figure 
similar to that of the EC: around 2 0%. 
Some say that food aid and emergency humanitarian aid are mostly needed 
and given because no effective and coherent development policies and 
programmes -including population planning- have been pursued in the past: 
it is viewed that the first just helps to mask the consequences of poor 
policies. Others say that such aid is merely needed to repair damages 
caused by trade wars. Although this is certainly not the right place to 
further discuss these views, their reference is nevertheless useful 
because it points to the external and internal roots of poor FS in many 
places, without implying that donors are in a position to actually 
influence these factors sufficiently. 
Transforming a food aid orientation with deliveries from overseas into a 
food security orientation -with the exception of course for emergency 
purposes- is badly needed but extremely difficult to realise because of 
the many vested interests in food aid. To mention a few: 
- food aid is perceived as a possibility to reduce surplus stocks, in 
particular cereals, but also of dairy products, meat, vegetable oil. 
Many see therefore a link between food aid supplies and agricultural 
policies, notably of the USA and the EC, and regard the GATT Agreement 
on Agriculture as an opportunity to reduce this linkage; 
- international agribusiness lobbies in Member states and in other DAC 
countries push for continuation; 
- governments of recipient countries are, normally speaking, tempted to 
make the substantial amounts of untagged food aid to be continued, 
because its proceeds have become an essential component of the budget 
of various ministries; 
- to organise food aid pledging conferences and distributing the food, 
is much easier to do and has more glamour, than pursuing over many 
years longer-term oriented coherent development policies and 
programmes with a FS orientation: this goes for recipient governments 
and donors alike; 
- the eternal slow disbursement problem of donor agencies can be 
relieved through food aid and emergency programmes; preliminary 
results of EC-wide evaluation of food aid, show a tendency to shift 
from "programmed" to emergency operations, THE quick-disbursement 
actions "par excellence"; 
- last but not least, -speaking in general- additional budget 
authorisations for food aid based on mobilising existing surplus 
stocks in donor countries, may often be easier to obtain than 
increases in aid budgets. 
It seems one cannot avoid the conclusion that this vicious circle could 
only be interrupted through deliberate joint efforts of coordinated donors 
and governments with sufficient inspiration and motivation to push for 
such a change. One of the conditions of success is to have a sufficiently 
long spell of political rest to carry along such lines for quite a long 
period of time. 
On the other hand, in the case of developing countries that have anyhow to 
import substantial amounts of cereals and therefore rely on a mixture of 
commercial imports and food aid, the latter could very well be provided 
and considered as a balance of payment support provided that sectoral 
policies are in place. Cases in point are Egypt and Bangladesh. In such 
situations, both parties benefit: surpluses in donor countries can be 
utilised as food aid, and the recipient country needs less commercial 
imports. When counterpart funds are then tagged for 
- 9 -
activities that contribute to longer-term FS, the chances for some 
substantial benefits, including for food insecure groups, are not 
negligible. 
Timing between the various elements we refer to here, can be illustrated 
as follows: 
Timescale 
Location 
Policies Emergency 
Famine Relief 
Immediate 
Feeding centres 
schools, etc 
Emergency 
Food aid Food Security 
1-10 years 
Near to medium term 
Vulnerable areas 
and groups 
Increase supply/food 
production 
Monetised food aid 
Labour-intensive prog 
Income generat.progr. Poverty Reduction 
-50 years 
(very) Long-term 
Whole country 
Economic growth 
Agricultural growth 
Equity; Production 
Diversification 
(inspired by: Overcoming global hunger. An issues paper; IBRD, Nov. 1993) 
Food aid, FS, and development programmes 
As already indicated in the above table, food aid is not bound to only 
giving immediate relief in emergency famine situations. since the 
eighties, various modalities have evolved to provide food aid in a way 
that enhances its contribution to development. The main ones are: 
- monétisation: instead of free distribution, to sell food aid through 
normal market channels, thus generating counterpart funds which can be 
used for other, development-oriented, actions. Monétisation concerns at 
present most of the programmed food aid given directly to recipient 
countries (EC '93: 125 MECU); 
triangular operations (EC plus two LDC countries) and local 
purchases, which contribute to regional integration and south-south trade. 
While during 1983-87 these operations represented only 5% of the EC food 
aid budget, during 1988-92 the share has increased to 13.5%; 
- to build up small-sized security - or market-regulatory stocks, and 
improving national and regional storage facilities (through cooperation 
with WFP and UNHCR, and with NGOs); 
- to fund also non-food items that are needed for rehabilitation, such 
as seeds and small agricultural tools (around 1% of EC food aid budget); 
- partial substitution of food-in-kind donations by cash payments 
(currently around 5 MECU); 
- last but not least, to seek multi-annual programming of food aid, in 
combination with a policy dialogue with the recipient country. 
Although one cannot say that these modalities have become common features 
of all food aid operations of EC or of Member States, when compared to the 
situation 10 years ago, there is certainly an evolution, a positive 
difference. 
- 10 -
Some interesting examples of combinations of food aid and development 
objectives, can be mentioned here: the Integrated Food Assisted 
Development Programme (IFADEP) in Bangladesh, the Programme 
Restructuration du Marché céréales (PRMC) in Mali, and the evolution of 
food aid in Bolivia. See further details in Annex 1. 
These (and other) examples lead to the conclusion that, generally 
speaking, the consistent implementation of national FS plans over a 
sufficiently long period of time, seems to be about the best way to reduce 
food insecurity. In this perspective, it is recalled that in at least 14 
countries such plans are being funded. Compared to the 1970s, the contents 
of the planning concept have changed a lot since. Decentralisation, local 
government and community involvement, an enabling and regulatory role of 
the government rather than direct implementation, relying heavily on 
private sector for marketing, storage, transportation, services, private 
initiative also in production, are all remarkable differences. 
Nonetheless, grain marketing boards do still have a role to play in 
stabilizing supply and facilitating access (prices), as becomes clear from 
the Mali example. 
Anyhow, within such a national FS plan, non-emergency and programmed food 
aid has its role to play, be it that in due time this role should 
diminish, or even cease completely. 
Notwithstanding these improvements, all agencies involved in food aid are 
continuously faced with problems related to the challenge of delivering 
food aid on time and at a reasonable cost. The problem is most pressing in 
emergency situations; it is equally important for programmed food aid and 
for food security, in view of these possible negative effects on farm 
prices when late deliveries spill over into the next marketing year. 
FS and Common Agricultural Policy 
The EC CAP has been very successful in its objectives to transform a long­
standing food deficiency situation into self sufficiency of the Community 
area for a range of products including wheat, dairy products and meat. 
As in USA, Japan and elsewhere, producer and export subsidies resulted in 
surplus production. Many people say that these surpluses are highly useful 
and appreciated, first of all because avoiding food deficiency here, 
secondly allowing to help combat emergency situations and shortages in 
other areas of the world, and thirdly facilitating lower world market and 
consumer prices in importing countries. 
On the other hand, it should be recognized that in certain countries these 
low import prices affected internal competition, discouraged national 
production (of cereals, meat, dairy production), have reinforced trends to 
abandon consumption of traditionally produced cereals and tubers. These 
adverse effects vary from one country to another. The recent case of 
frozen meat from EC on markets along the Gulf of Guinea, a traditional 
export market for meat from the Sahel, serves as an example. 
The reform of the CAP, and reforms in other countries following the GATT 
Agreement on Agriculture, could in the medium term lead to an overall 
reduction in surplus production levels, to lower carry-over stocks and 
lower export volumes. Prices on the world market are therefore expected to 
increase and, in exceptional situations, such as major droughts, also 
change significantly, thus potentially affecting world food security, in 
- 11 -
particular for those countries relying heavily on imports. Some experts 
(e.g. the World Bank) however expect lowering world market prices for 
cereals because of continued increases in productivity over the increase 
in demand, and increased exports from countries other than USA and EC 
(e.g. Vietnam). Unfortunately, roots and tubers, very important in SSA, 
are not included in these analysis. 
whatever the scenario, it is evident that the magnitude of the combined 
effects is hard to predict and can only be studied on a case-by-case 
basis, it is most of all dependent on the long-term effects of the GATT 
agreements. 
Apart from the more general interactions between the Community's 
agricultural policies and the policies in developing countries described 
above, there are numerous product specific linkages related to trade 
concessions either under GSP or in the context of special agreements, e.g. 
on sugar, rum, cotton and bananas. The actual benefits of such concessions 
to developing countries in general cannot, however, always be easily 
assessed, as the concessions do not apply to all of them, and some may 
have undesired repercussions on the countries which are excluded, e.g. the 
re-export of ACP sugar after refining. 
Tapioca imports in Europe lower the costs of animal production but reduce 
the use of domestic feedstuffs; they are important for the incomes and 
thus food security of small farmers mainly in SE-Asia. However, this 
situation also contributes to monoculture and soil degradation. 
This is certainly not the right place to discuss in great detail the cases 
mentioned here, that should be avoided. But it is important to recognise 
that there are substantial interdependencies between these two fields of 
policies, that can no longer be denied. It is identical in so many other 
sectors where North-South interdependencies have also come into existence. 
Therefore, when discussing FS, CAP aspects should be kept in mind, and 
vice versa. 
In this context it is interesting to note that the Development Council in 
its meeting of November 1992 "has recognised the linkage between 
development cooperation policy and other Community policies". It also 
recognised the need to take account of the impact of the latter on 
developing countries. Article 130 V of the Maastricht Treaty also contains 
references taking account of these effects. 
In this regard, Commission services are at present examining the 
possibilities of a further strengthening of internal coordination and 
decision making procedures. 
6. Monitoring food security 
Keeping a close eye on changes in FS at national, local and household 
level, is of course a task for national governments, local communities or 
other operators, that are not often equipped for it, or lack funds to do 
so. To help make up for this, various international initiatives were 
taken, largely because of the wish to have relevant data to send out 
warning signals as early as possible. In this way, lead time before 
mobilising emergency food aid could be shortened, thus limiting the 
casualties. Annex 2 provides extra details on international initiatives in 
the field of monitoring and early warning, as well as a brief indication 
of related development. 
- 12 -
7. Coordination on FS between the Community and the Member states 
The starting-point is, that each Member State has full responsibility for 
its own development cooperation policies and programmes, and that, in 
accordance with Article 130 X of the Maastricht Treaty, the Community and 
MS will seek coordination on policies, and consultation on operational 
programmes in this field. The Article also states that the Commission may 
take initiatives to promote this coordination, and that joint actions 
could be undertaken. The general procedures and mechanism for coordination 
and consultation shall be, initially, those that were already agreed upon 
by the Council in its Resolution adopted in December 1993. 
Therefore, in the case of FS as one of the priority fields for both EC and 
MS, the aim to enhance policy coordination is to be achieved through a 
more systematic use of existing instruments, and to reinforce these. This 
includes in particular to make greater use of meetings of FS experts from 
MS and Commission Services. It is proposed that this group of experts will 
help to implement, and to monitor the application of a Council Resolution 
on coordination concerning FS that is envisaged to be adopted this year; 
it will exchange information, and make recommendations regarding 
practicalities of operational consultations between Community and MS. 
(For the sake of completeness, it is added, that no Food Security 
committee is proposed, because there is no particular financial instrument 
to this end, that needs to be managed). 
From the preceding section 5 it has to be concluded that concerning the 
contents of the process to enhance coordination, at policy level the 
starting position will be to work together towards national and local 
basic food stuff balances. The next level of targets is to join forces in 
choosing and implementing long-term investments to reduce vulnerability of 
these often precarious situations. At the top of the list is coordinated 
joint involvement in conceiving and implementing FS strategies in an 
increasing number of food insecure countries. 
On the other hand, we should be realistic enough to abandon the over-
optimistic idea that in all countries full FS for all is a feasible 
option. Extended drought periods and wars in SSA will continue to cause 
emergency situations and call for massive relief operations. We had better 
monitor closely and be prepared. 
Coordination at Community and MS level is also needed for all food aid in 
relation to FS, either through the Food Aid Committee, or else in the 
Council Working Group on Food Aid. It is therefore proposed, that the FAC 
and the Council Working Group will give priority to looking into 
possibilities for further improvements on the following issues: 
- a better integration of food aid and development-oriented 
programmes/projects; 
- monétisation of food aid; 
- to emphasise direct food aid programmes, as a better tool towards 
food security, particularly through the counterpart funds; 
- pooling of counterpart funds which should be tagged as resources for 
national FS policies, and not just be treated as balance of payment 
support; 
- 13 -
- monitoring of needs (crops and stock-assessments) and appraisal of 
adequate levels of food aid; 
- maintaining a level of food aid strictly limited to actual needs and 
taking into account the negative effects of food aid; 
- enhancing triangular operations, and exchange of information in this 
field. 
Furthermore, it seems appropriate to consider more closely the effects 
which the CAP, in combination with the policies of other developed 
countries, may have on the markets and food security in developing 
countries following the implementation of the Uruguay Round commitments. 
Such an evaluation could eventually lead to recommendations regarding the 
practical application of CAP instruments in the future. Such an approach 
would be in line with the above indicated request of the Development 
Council (Nov. 92) to assess links and impacts. 
At recipient country level, it is proposed to organise coordination 
meetings between representatives of the MS and the Delegation of the EC to 
review any upcoming proposals in these fields, or to prepare joint policy 
initiatives such as FS planning. In those countries where this well-known 
mechanism is already being used, part of the meetings could be devoted to 
a special FS focus. 
Working together at country level on FS issues, offers the additional 
advantage of obtaining a better leverage in discussions with the 
government on medium- and long-term policies which, in the end, determine 
the national and local supply aspect of the FS equation. 
Coordination at recipient country level is also required to put into 
practice an interesting option that becomes relevant now that the GATT 
Agreement has been signed. It is proposed to consider this option in the 
case of countries implementing structural adjustment programmes and 
suffering a structural food-deficit. The option could be named "the joint 
interest approach", and comprises the following elements: 
During the transition period towards full implementation of the GATT 
Agreement, to increase temporarily programmed food aid to be monetised 
and its counterpart funds pooled; to negotiate and monitor jointly 
national food security plans and programmes which will be funded 
through the CPF. This way, cash could be fed into the national economy 
and a contribution could be made to FS. By pooling sufficient amounts 
of counterpart funds, there will be considerable leverage to increase 
chances of adequate FS plans and programmes. And the interests of all 
parties concerned, can be met. 
The inherent risk to de-stabilise the foodstuff market of the 
recipient country, is to be avoided, or at least to be kept to a 
minimum by a detailed programming based on needs assessment, local and 
national absorption and handling capacities, and adequate timing of 
operations. 
For the practical modalities of coordination, the Mali case should be 
considered. 
Increased coordination will also be needed for regional approaches to food 
security, such as IGGAD, CILSS, SADCC, PTA, the Conference of the 
Ministers of Agriculture of Western and Central Africa. 
- 14 -
There is one more field, in which a Community coordination initiative is 
proposed : implementation of the Declaration of the ICN. Within the UN, 
there is serious discussion on the question of who should take the lead in 
setting up national plans and formulate programmes to help improve the 
nutritional situation of the countries, and of vulnerable groups in 
particular. FAO requests this role, but seems not be an acceptable party 
in the eyes of many others. 
Furthermore, since the lion's share of the Declaration of the ICN 
deals with FS issues, and is very much focused on Subsaharan Africa where 
the problems are greater, a leading role for the Community (active in all 
of SSA; FS re-emphasised; long experience; major food aid donor) in its 
implementation seems to be a logical step. Such an approach appears to be 
an appropriate way to introduce realistic national FS plans and 
strategies, that take account of lessons learned, and present realistic 
views on the roles of the government and other actors. 
Article 130 X of the Maastricht Treaty, refers explicitly to 
coordination in relation to international organisations and international 
conferences. 
It is therefore proposed that the community will take on a 
coordinating role in implementing ICN's Declaration, with due regard to 
other international initiatives in this field. Practical modalities for 
this coordination need to be worked out through pilot experiences in two 
or three countries. 
AS 
ANNEX 1 
SOME EXAMPLES OF FOOD AID CONTRIBUTING TO DEVELOPMENT 
As examples showing a good combination of food aid and development 
objectives, were chosen: the Integrated Food Assisted Development 
Programme (IFADEP) in Bangladesh, the Programme Restructuration du Marché 
Céréales (PRMC) in Mali, and the evolution of food aid in Bolivia. 
The first combines financial and technical assistance with food aid, 
and is closely integrated into Bangladesh' development policy. The project 
aims to improve the standard of living and quality of life of the rural 
poor in the country, with a view to gradually reducing the overall amount 
of food aid required. The programme, which is being implemented in close 
cooperation with WFP, covers four sub-projects: 
-assistance to assetless rural women (free distribution of food); 
-development of small-scale inland fisheries (food for work); 
-development of markets and rural transport; 
-strengthening of institutions. 
The total package will make available over 560.000 tonnes of cereals and 
30 million ecu over a period of six years. It is foreseen that the level 
of EC food aid to the country will gradually decline from the present 
level of 140.000 tonnes to under 100.000 tonnes after 1996, as the country 
moves towards self sufficiency in cereals. 
The PRMC was initiated 12 years ago when in Mali the cereals market 
was completely controlled and regulated, and the country not yet a part 
of the Monetary Union of Western Africa (CFA zone). The objective was to 
liberalise and stabilise the cereals market. The main tool was a multi-
annual pledge of up to 58.000 tonnes cereals (a minor part in cash), and 
to manage this amount as a modest buffer stock for price stabilisation and 
food security purposes. Donors and Mali authorities jointly managed this 
stock, and in particular pooled the proceeds into a common counterpart 
fund; this was used for various purposes that were however always related 
to marketing and storage of cereals (harvest-anticipating credit, storage, 
conditioning of cereals, etc.), and for the handling and distribution of 
all food aid in cereals. It was not used for activities that directly seek 
production increase. 
At present, with lesser FS problems in Mali, emphasis is moving towards 
modernising cereals marketing and storage, and to include to a larger 
extent paddy (until recently, PRMC concentrated on dry cereals) . Apart 
from the small buffer stock, marketing, trade and storage of cereals in 
Mali is completely liberalised: it is an all private sector. So far, the 
only exception is agricultural credit. 
Among the keys to this successful programme are multi-annual commitments 
of food aid, strong operational donor coordination, pooling of counterpart 
funds, use of the latter for specific FS/marketing purposes only, and a 
steady policy line of the government. 
In the case of Bolivia, since 1990 the Community has adopted a 
strategy to link food aid to most vulnerable groups (peasant population in 
the Andes highlands), with support to their agricultural development. 
Thus, of the total volume (20.000 tons in 1990; 16.000 tons in 93), the 
system of free distribution has progressively been changed into a 
monetised form, which reaches at present 7 5%. Counterpart funds are being 
used to support other rural development and FS projects in the Andes. The 
substantial increase in agricultural output in the tropical lowlands, has 
enabled local purchases for free distribution, and also purchases for 
triangular operations with neighbouring Peru. 
For 199 4, it is envisaged to start substitution actions for continued 
support to agricultural development and food security. 
16 
ANNEX 
MONITORING FOOD SECURITY 
The main international initiatives on early warning are "Global 
Information and Early Warning Systems" (GIEWS; FAO), "Famine Early Warning 
system" (FEWS; USAID) which covers mainly the Sahel, "Diagnostic 
Permanent" (DIAPER; EC) and SADCC's network. In addition to that, in many 
countries national early warning systems some operate remarkably well 
under very difficult conditions (as the one in Tchad). Where needed, 
special "crop and food supply missions" are fielded by FAO and WFP. NGOs, 
with their often extensive network of contacts or personnel in remote 
areas, play a substantial role in providing the right information at the 
right time. 
One of the interesting conclusions that can be drawn from data provided by 
sources like GIEWS is that in large areas, armed conflicts are a more 
important cause of food shortages than adverse weather conditions. 
Unfortunately, FS-oriented programmes cannot avoid political unrest, 
reduce armed conflicts. One can just hope that increased FS and poverty 
reduction in the long run help to diminish the (physical) drive to make 
war. 
Notwithstanding the achievements, there is much room for improvement of FS 
monitoring systems, especially on the reliability of data, which is either 
weak, or forged so as to obtain higher (emergency) food aid shipments. 
Other areas in need of improvement, are exchanges of working methods and 
approaches between different geographical areas (anglophone, and 
francophone), and to include traditional food crops other than cereals 
-notably roots and tubers- systematically in the analysis. 
A more active involvement of the Community and its MS in monitoring FS 
will certainly result in better quality. 
Other ways and means to obtain data and to improve the output of existing 
systems, should be further explored. In some countries such as cote 
d'Ivoire and Mali, household budget surveys are regularly being organised 
thus enabling a view on household FS. 
Further work on household FS indexes is needed, that should however take 
into account the results of FAO's CFS in this field. It is in particular 
here that the quality aspect of FS should come into the picture: the 
composition of the daily menu in relation to nutritional requirements for 
a healthy and active life. This is a field that is at present not 
sufficiently covered by data gathering exercises. 
The initiative (of Save the Children Fund and FAO) to complement the 
analysis of the supply of foodstuffs (meteorological data; crop and food 
supply assessment) with a more in-depth analysis of demand by "risk 
mapping" of certain areas or groups of people assumed to be particularly 
vulnerable, seems also very useful in this context. The Commission is 
gladly providing support to this supplementary study at sub-national level 
that will establish the reference points and will facilitate future 
monitoring of the food security situation. 
Certainly such sophisticated ways and tools of monitoring are performing 
well and provide quality data. But one should not overlook that they 
require considerable funds and (expatriate) personnel, causing high 
recurrent costs. The simple and cheaper forms of monitoring, the quantity 
assessments, are less demanding, and yet, even these are not without 
creating problems. 
#„»a«fc> -' ««a*»*»»*'-
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(94) 165 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN io il 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-180-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-67905-0 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
Lr2985 Luxembourg