Special Report No 1/2012 ‘Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa’
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, development aid, food aid, food safety, malnutrition, nutritional needs, sub-Saharan Africa

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

2
1
0
2

1
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

EFFECTIVENESS OF EUROPEAN UNION 
DEVELOPMENT AID FOR FOOD  
SECURITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

EN

 
 
 
 
 
Special Report No 1 

 2012

EFFECTIVENESS OF EUROPEAN 
UNION DEVELOPMENT AID  
FOR FOOD SECURITY IN  
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 1 

 2012

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-9237-532-4
doi:10.2865/73005

© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

3

CONTENTS

Paragraph

GLOSSARY

I–IX	

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

1–13	

INTRODUCTION

1	

DEFINITION	OF	FOOD	SECURITY

2–6	

PERSISTENT	FOOD	INSECURITY	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	AFRICA

7	

MAIN	FACTORS	OF	FOOD	INSECURITY

8–13	

INTERNATIONAL	AND	EU	AGENDAS	ON	FOOD	SECURITY

14–17	

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

18–64	

OBSERVATIONS

18–47	

	EU	DEVELOPMENT	AID	FOR	FOOD	SECURITY	IS	RELEVANT	BUT	NEEDS	TO	FOLLOW	A	MORE	COMPREHENSIVE	
APPROACH

19–27	

28–34	

35–47	

	WHILE	IT	FOCUSED	ON	RELEVANT	COUNTRIES,	THE	COMMISSION	DID	NOT	SUFFICIENTLY	CONSIDER	FOOD	
SECURITY	WHEN	DRAWING	UP	THE	EDF	COOPERATION	STRATEGIES	FOR	OTHER	FOOD-INSECURE	COUNTRIES

	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	THEMATIC	PROGRAMME	OFFERS	GOOD	COMPLEMENTARITY	TO	THE	EDF	BUT	THERE	ARE	
LIMITATIONS	IN	THE	DESIGN	OF	THE	FOOD	FACILITY	IN	THE	FACE	OF	ONGOING	FOOD	PRICE	VOLATILITY

	EU	INTERVENTIONS	ARE	RELEVANT	TO	THE	COUNTRIES’	NEEDS	AND	PRIORITIES	BUT	NUTRITION	HAS	BEEN	
NEGLECTED

48–64	

	EU	INTERVENTIONS	ARE	MOSTLY	EFFECTIVE	BUT	SUSTAINABILITY	IS	OFTEN	AN	ISSUE

49–56	

	EU	INTERVENTIONS	ARE	OVERALL	WELL	DESIGNED,	ALTHOUGH	OFTEN	WITH	INSUFFICIENTLY	CLEAR	OR	
OVERLY	AMBITIOUS	OBJECTIVES

57–61	

EU	INTERVENTIONS	ACHIEVE	MOST	OF	THEIR	INTENDED	RESULTS

62–64	

THE	SUSTAINABILITY	OF	RESULTS	IS	OFTEN	AN	ISSUE

65–68	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

	
4

ANNEX	I	 —	 MAP	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	AFRICA	AND	SOUTH	

ASIA

ANNEX	II	 —	 OVERVIEW	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	ETHIOPIA

ANNEX	III	 —	 OVERVIEW	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	MALAWI

ANNEX	IV	 —	 OVERVIEW	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	RWANDA

ANNEX	V	 —	 SCORING	METHODOLOGY

ANNEX	VI	 —	 SCORES	OF	THE	AUDITED	INTERVENTIONS

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

	
	
	
	
	
	
5

GLOSSARY

ACP: African, Caribbean and Pacific States

AGP: Agricultural Growth Programme

Agri: Agriculture

CAADP: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CBT: Community-Based Treatment

CSPs: Country Strategy Papers

DCI: Development Cooperation Instrument

DEVCO: Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid

DPRPR	: Decentralised Programme for Rural Poverty Reduction

ECHO: Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

EDF: European Development Fund

EDPRS: Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation

FIDP: Farm Income Diversification Programme

FISP: Farm Input Subsidy Programme

FS: Food Security

FSLB: Food Security Budget Line

FSTP: Food Security Thematic Programme

GBS: General Budget Support

GHI: Global Hunger Index

HIV/AIDS: Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

IFPRI: International Food Policy Research Institute

INFSSS: Integrated Nutrition and Food Security Surveillance System

LRRD: Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

6

MDG: Millennium Development Goal

MDG1: Millennium Development Goal 1 (Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger)

MDG4: Millennium Development Goal 4 (Reduce child mortality)

MDG5: Millennium Development Goal 5 (Improve maternal health)

NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation

NIP: National Indicative Programme

OCTs: Overseas Countries and Territories

ODA: Official Development Assistance

OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PASDEP: Plan for Accelerated Sustained Development to End Poverty

RD: Rural Development

ROM: Results-Oriented Monitoring

SBS: Sector Budget Support Programme

SNNPR: Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region

SPTA: Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture

UN: United Nations

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

7

EXECUTIVE  
SUMMARY

I.
Food security is a major problem in sub-Saharan Africa, 
where 30 % of the population suffer from hunger.

II.
The Court examined whether European Union (EU) 
development  aid  for  food  security  in  sub-Saharan 
Africa is effective: whether EU development aid for 
food security is relevant to the countries’ needs and 
priorities and whether the EU interventions are effec-
tive. The  audit  focused  on  EU  direct  development 
support for the three dimensions of food security, i.e. 
food availability, access to food and utilisation of food 
(nutrition). It did not examine whether food security 
was mainstreamed in all relevant areas of EU coopera-
tion, such as health, education, or water and sanitation.

V.
The European Development Fund (EDF) and the Food 
Security Thematic  Programme  (FSTP)  complement 
each other. The Food Facility, set up in order to react 
to the impact of the 2007–08 food price crisis, was not 
designed to address long-term food price volatility.

VI.
EU aid properly addresses countries’ needs and pri-
orities as regards food availability and access to food. 
However, the Commission has not placed adequate 
emphasis on nutrition and could have done more to 
encourage countries to set up appropriate nutrition 
policies and programmes at an earlier stage. The Com-
mission has recently taken a number of initiatives to 
address this problem.

III.
The  Court  concludes  that  EU  development  aid  for 
food security in sub-Saharan Africa is mostly effec-
tive and makes an important contribution to achieving 
food security. However, there is scope for significant 
improvement in several areas.

IV.
In countries where food security is part of the EDF 
cooperation strategy, EU development aid is highly 
relevant  to  needs  and  priorities. The  Commission 
focused its development aid on countries with the 
highest  number  of  undernourished  people.  How-
ever, the Commission did not sufficiently consider 
the potential scope for EU support in other countries 
which also suffer from chronic food insecurity and are 
off track or late as regards the achievement of Millen-
nium Development Goal 1 (Eradicate extreme poverty 
and hunger) (MDG1).

VII.
EU interventions are mostly effective. They are well 
designed, are based on a sound knowledge of needs 
and priorities, and involve close dialogue with the gov-
ernments of the partner countries and a wide range 
of  stakeholders.  Often,  however,  the  interventions 
do not set sufficiently clear objectives. They are also 
sometimes overly ambitious, in particular in the case 
of Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) projects. 
Interventions aim to achieve long-lasting results by 
empowering local populations to address the under-
lying  causes  of  food  insecurity,  mainly  by  increas-
ing agricultural production and promoting income- 
earning activities.

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

8
8

EXECUTIVE  
SUMMARY

VIII.
The interventions in most cases improve availability 
of and access to food for beneficiaries. They help to 
increase  and  diversify  agricultural  production  and 
incomes, and support safety-net programmes for the 
most vulnerable. Half of the interventions have reason-
able prospects of being sustainable, but continued 
results are less clear for the other half. Large govern-
ment agricultural and social transfer programmes are 
not financially sustainable and largely depend on con-
tinued donor support.

IX.
The Court makes the following recommendations to 
improve the effectiveness of EU development aid for 
food security in sub-Saharan Africa:

(a)  For  the  programming  period  after  2013,  the 
Commission and the European External Action 
Service should carry out a structured assessment 
of the food security situation in each country and 
systematically consider the potential scope for 
EU support in this area.

(b)  The Commission should examine, possibly with 
other  development  partners,  the  feasibility  of 
a permanent instrument for financing urgent and 
supplementary measures that may be required 
to address the consequences of potential future 
food crises in developing countries.

(c)  The Commission and the European External Ac-
tion Service should give adequate priority to nu-
trition when defining the cooperation strategy, 
identifying and designing interventions, and us-
ing policy dialogue with partner governments, 
notably  in  the  framework  of  budget  suppor t 
programmes.

(d)  The Commission should set out intervention ob-
jectives that are sufficiently precise and measur-
able through performance indicators. It should 
ensure that the objectives are achievable by bet-
ter assessing the risks and assumptions concern-
ing the successful implementation of interven-
tions.

(e)  The Commission  should  better support  the fi-
nancial sustainability of agricultural and social 
transfer programmes. In doing so, the Commis-
sion should:

(i) 

(ii) 

place more emphasis on the development of 
effective agricultural extension services, post-
harvest infrastructure and rural credit;

ensure that social transfer programmes provide 
for adequate support to the development of 
income-earning capacities of the beneficiaries.

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

INTRODUCTION

9

1. 

2. 

DEFINITION	OF	FOOD	SECURITY

Food security has been defined as a condition where ‘all people, at all 
times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and 
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for 
an active and healthy life’ 1. It is generally seen as having three distinct 
dimensions which need to be fulfilled simultaneously and in a stable 
manner over time:

(a) 

food availability at national and regional levels;

(b)  physical and economic access to food at household level; and 

(c)  nutrition, i.e. food utilisation at individual level.

PERSISTENT	FOOD	INSECURITY	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	
AFRICA

Food security has long been, and still is, a global problem with an esti-
mated 1 billion people in the world suffering from hunger2 (see Figure 1). 
This figure fell during the early 1990s and stood at just over 800 million 
around the mid-1990s. Over the last decade, the total has been increas-
ing again, especially following the sudden sharp increase in food prices 
all around the world in 2007 and 2008 and following the subsequent 
economic crisis of 2008–09.

1 

‘Rome Declaration on 
World Food Security’ and 
‘World Food Summit Plan of 
Action’, Food and Agriculture 
Organisation (FAO), 1996.

2  Undernourishment or 
chronic hunger is the status 
of persons whose food 
intake regularly provides 
less than their minimum 
energy requirements. The 
average minimum energy 
requirement per person is 
about 1 800 kcal per day. 
The exact requirement is 
determined by a person’s age, 
body size, pregnancy and 
lactation (Source: FAO, see 
www.fao.org/hunger/en).

FIGURE	1

NUMBER	OF	PEOPLE	WHO	SUFFER	FROM	HUNGER

Africa

Asia

Millions
600

2004

2005

2003

2007

2006

2008

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

590

580

570

560

0

Millions
240

230

220

210

200

0

Source: Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

10

3. 

4. 

The problem is still particularly serious and persistent in south Asia and 
sub-Saharan Africa. The largest number of people suffering from hun-
ger live in south Asia, where some progress has, however, been made 
in particular during the 1990s. Scope for further progress is greatest in 
sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of people suffering from hunger 
is higher than in 1990, reaching 239 million in 2010, i.e. 30 % of the total 
population (see the map in Annex I).

In September 2011, after two consecutive poor rainy seasons, the Horn 
of Africa suffered from the worst drought in 60 years, leading to a  severe 
food  crisis  with  pre-famine  conditions  in  certain  parts  of  Kenya  and 
 Somalia. The combination of sharp rises in food prices, excessive live -
stock mortality, conflicts and restricted humanitarian access have dete-
riorated the food security situation of more than 12 million people and 
increased malnutrition and mortality rates among children.

FIGURE	2

MALNUTRITION	OF	CHILDREN	UNDER	THE	AGE	OF	FIVE	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	AFRICA:	
PREVALENCE	OF	UNDERWEIGHT

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

a
e
r
t
i
r
E

d
a
h
C

a
i

i

p
o
h
t
E

a
i
l
a
m
o
S

i
l
a
M

i
t
u
o
b

i
j

D

n
a
d
u
S

a
l

o
g
n
A

r
e
g
N

i

i

d
n
u
r
u
B

r
a
c
s
a
g
a
d
a
M

o
g
n
o
C
R
D

a
i
n
a
t
i
r
u
a
M

e
n
o
e
L
a
r
r
e
i
S

a
i
r
e
b
i
L

i

n
n
e
B

a
d
n
a
w
R

a
i
r
e
g
N

i

a
e
n
u
G

i

o
s
a
F
a
n
i
k
r
u
B

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
n
a
c
i
r
f
A

l
a
r
t
n
e
C

a
i
n
a
z
n
a
T
f
o
c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
d
e
t
i
n
U

s
o
r
o
m
o
C

a
y
n
e
K

i

w
a
l
a
M

a
d
n
a
g
U

n
o
o
r
e
m
a
C

e
r
i

o
v
I
'

d
e
t
ô
C

a
i

b
m
a
G

o
h
t
o
s
e
L

a
i

i

b
m
a
N

o
g
o
T

u
a
s
s
i
B
-
a
e
n
u
G

i

e
u
q

i

b
m
a
z
o
M

a
e
n
u
G

i

l
a
i
r
o
t
a
u
q
E

a
i

b
m
a
Z

a
n
a
h
G

l
a
g
e
n
e
S

e
w
b
a
b
m
i
Z

o
g
n
o
C

s
u

i
t
i
r
u
a
M

a
n
a
w
s
t
o
B

a
c
i
r
f
A
h
t
u
o
S

n
o
b
a
G

e
d
r
e
V
e
p
a
C

d
n
a
l
i
z
a
w
S

e
p

i
c
n

i
r
P

d
n
a
e
m
o
T
o
a
S

Source: ECA based on Food and Agriculture Organisation data.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11

3  The data refers to the latest 
survey year for each country.

4  Stunting: height by age is 
a measure of linear growth 
and as such an indicator 
of long-term effects of 
undernutrition not affected 
by seasonal changes.

5  Underweight: weight by 
age combines information 
from stunting and wasting. 
Children can be underweight 
because they are stunted, 
wasted or both.

6  Wasting: height by weight 
is an indication of the current 
nutritional status of a child 
and reflects recent nutritional 
intake and/or episode of 
illness. Severe wasting is often 
linked to an acute shortage of 
food.

7  Source: World Bank and 
FAO.

8  Source: United Nations 
Population Fund.

9  Some countries do achieve 
or exceed this target, such as 
Malawi and Ethiopia.

5. 

6. 

7. 

Sub-Saharan Africa is in a situation of chronic malnutrition with persist-
ently high rates, particularly for children (see Figure 23). According to the 
Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) latest surveys, an average of 
47 % of children under five years of age suffer from chronic malnutrition 
(stunting4), 30 % are underweight5, and acute protein energy malnutri-
tion (wasting 6) — associated with a high death rate — affects 9 % of 
children. Adults also suffer from malnutrition, with an average of 12 % 
of women affected. The most harmful effects of malnutrition occur dur-
ing pregnancy and the first two years of life. Its impact on physical and 
cognitive development is irreversible and it is a main cause of mother 
and child death and of disease among children under five.

Annexes II to IV give an overview of the food security situation in Ethi-
opia, Malawi and Rwanda, which were visited by the Court as part of its 
audit (see paragraph 16).

MAIN	FACTORS	OF	FOOD	INSECURITY

Many factors, which are all causes of poverty and lack of development, 
contribute to food insecurity:

(a) 

Low agricultural productivity: in sub-Saharan Africa, 70–80 % of the 
population is rural and lives on subsistence agriculture 7. Productiv-
ity has been growing at no more than 1–2 % per year, a rate not 
even sufficient to keep up with an annual population growth rate 
of 2,2 %8. The small size of farm holdings, over-reliance on rain-fed 
agriculture and inadequate access to productive inputs (seeds, fer-
tilisers, pesticides) are among the main reasons. 

(b)  Low rate of investment and decreasing share of donor aid allocated 
to agriculture and rural development: developing countries allocate 
on average 5 % of their national budget to agriculture and rural 
development, i.e. much less than the 10 % target set in the Maputo 
Declaration (see paragraph 9)9. In sub-Saharan Africa, donors alike 
have neglected the sector with agriculture receiving only 8 % of 
sector-specific official development assistance in 2009, compared 
to 16 % in 1996 (see Figure 3).

(c)  Poor purchasing power: due to scarce employment and income-
generating opportunities and the absence of social transfer mech-
anisms, the poor frequently lack the means to buy food.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

12

(d) 

Inadequate  storage,  processing  and  distribution  infrastructure: 
these factors hinder physical access to food at household level.

(e) 

Insufficient food intake and inappropriate dietary practices: such 
factors  contribute  to  malnutrition. They  are  linked  to  a  lack  of 
education about proper nutrition or insufficient diversity of food 
 sources,  inadequate  healthcare,  inadequate  access  to  drinking 
 water and sanitation facilities, or illiteracy among women. 

10  According to the FAO, 
between 2004 and early 2009, 
at least 2,5 million hectares 
were transferred from local 
users to foreign investors in 
five African countries alone 
(Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, 
Mali and Sudan).

(f ) 

Factors which are largely beyond the control of individual develop-
ing countries:

(i) 

(ii) 

victims of natural or man-made disasters are often forced to 
leave their homes and farms and are faced with the threat not 
just of hunger but of outright starvation;

the links between the financial markets and speculation within 
agricultural futures markets, as well as the development of 
bio-fuels contribute to the unavailability of food and to price 
increases. They also involve large-scale acquisition of arable 
land  in  sub-Saharan  Africa  by  foreign  companies  and  gov-
ernments10, which do not necessarily guarantee that African 
national interests are respected.

FIGURE	3

ANNUAL	OFFICIAL	DEVELOPMENT	ASSISTANCE	(ODA)	COMMITMENTS	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	
AFRICA:	OVERALL	TRENDS	AND	SHARE	ALLOCATED	TO	AGRICULTURE

)

%

(
A
D
O
c
ﬁ
i
c
e
p
s
r
o
t
c
e
s
f
o
e
r
a
h
s
e
r
u
t
l

u
c
i
r
g
A

18 %
16 %
14 %
12 %
10 %
8 %
6 %
4 %
2 %
0 %

Agriculture ODA commitments in constant US dollars - 
two-year moving average (right scale)

% of ODA allocatedto agriculture (left scale)

million US dollars
3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13

11  MDG1 sets as indicators 
for monitoring progress the 
prevalence of underweight 
children under five years of 
age and the proportion of the 
population below a minimum 
level of dietary energy 
consumption. Food security 
also plays an important role 
in relation to MDG4 (Reduce 
the mortality rate for the 
under fives by two thirds 
between 1990 and 2015) 
and MDG5 (Reduce 
the maternal mortality 
rate by three quarters 
between 1990 and 2015).

12  Joint statement by 
the Council and the 
representatives of the 
governments of the 
Member States meeting 
within the Council, the 
European Parliament and the 
Commission on European 
Union Development Policy: 
‘The European Consensus’  
(OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1).

13  COM(2010) 127 final 
of 31 March 2010.

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

INTERNATIONAL	AND	EU	AGENDAS	ON	FOOD	
SECURITY

In November 1996, the World Food Summit in Rome adopted a Declara-
tion and Plan of Action on World Food Security. It pledged an ongoing 
effort to eradicate hunger in all countries with the target of reducing 
by half the number of undernourished people by no later than 2015. 
The  central  place  which  food  security  occupies  in  the  development 
cooperation agenda has been recognised in Millennium Development 
Goal 1 (MDG1) adopted in September 2000 by the General Assembly of 
the United Nations11. 

At  the  Second  Ordinary  Assembly  of  the  African  Union  in  July  2003, 
African Heads of State and Government endorsed the Maputo Declara-
tion on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. They committed them-
selves to strengthening the development of agriculture and related value 
added activities, rural development and food security at national and 
regional levels and pledged to allocate 10 % of their national budget 
to agriculture by 2008. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Develop-
ment Programme (CAADP) aims to eliminate hunger and reduce poverty 
through agriculture and sets an agricultural annual growth target of 6 %.

The European Consensus on Development of December 2005 12 (here-
after ‘the European Consensus’) selects agriculture, rural development 
and food security as one of the areas on which EU development aid will 
concentrate. In relation to agriculture, the focus is on access to resources 
(land, water, finance), competitiveness on regional and international mar-
kets and risk management, as well as global agricultural research. Con-
cerning food security, the focus is on prevention, safety nets, improving 
access to resources, the quality of nutrition and capacity development.

In March 2010, the Commission issued a communication to the Council 
and the European Parliament on an EU policy framework to assist de-
veloping countries in addressing food security challenges 13. In view of 
the uneven and insufficient progress towards achieving food security 
and MDG1, it aims to set a comprehensive approach for the EU and its 
Member States in the fight against world hunger and malnutrition. It 
aims for:

(a) 

accelerated agricultural growth, with a focus on ecologically ef-
ficient agricultural intensification for smallholder farmers, and in 
particular women;

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

14

(b) 

improved access to food through employment and income-earning 
activities;

(c) 

(d) 

the formulation of nutrition policies and strategies and the setting-
up of coordination mechanisms between agriculture, health, educa-
tion and social protection sectors; and

improved crisis prevention and management, in particular by estab-
lishing close links between humanitarian and development actors 
and effective national or regional early-warning systems.

12. 

In  sub-Saharan  Africa,  the  Commission  has  used  four  main  instru-
ments since 1996 to fund interventions in the area of food security (see 
 Figure 4):

FIGURE	4

OVERVIEW	OF	MAIN	EU	FUNDING	SOURCES	FOR	FOOD	SECURITY	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	
AFRICA	(COMMITMENT	PERIODS)

I

C
H
P
A
R
G
O
E
G

I

C
T
A
M
E
H
T

7
0
–
0
0
0
2

9th EDF

3
1
–
8
0
0
2

10th EDF

Food Facility
2008–10

Food Security Budget Line
FSBL 1996–06

Food Security Thematic Programme
FSTP 2007–13

1996–

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: European Court of Auditors.

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

(a) 

as a geographical instrument, the EDF14 is the prime framework for 
cooperation with individual sub-Saharan countries. Direct support 
for food security is given to countries where either food security, 
agriculture or rural development is selected as a focal sector for 
cooperation in the CSP15 and national indicative programme (NIP). 
Funding  can  also  be  provided,  albeit  in  more  limited  amounts, 
under the non-focal areas of EDF support or under the so-called 
‘B-allocation’ which is destined to cover unforeseen needs; 

(b) 

three thematic instruments have been financed through the gen-
eral budget of the European Union (the ‘general budget’):

(i) 

during the period 1996–2006, a Food Security Budget Line 
(FSBL)16 was established to finance three main types of inter-
ventions at country level:

 — food aid, where operations are mainly short-term;

 — long-term financial or technical assistance in support of 
food security (e.g. supply of seeds, tools and other inputs 
essential to the production of food crops);

 — early-warning systems and storage systems;

15

14  The EDF is the main 
instrument for providing 
EU aid for development 
to the African, Caribbean 
and Pacific (ACP) States 
and overseas countries and 
territories (OCTs). It is funded 
by the Member States. For 
further details on the specific 
characteristics of the EDF 
see paragraphs 2 to 8 of 
the 2010 Annual Report 
of the Court on the EDFs 
(OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 251).

15  The Country Strategy 
Paper, prepared by the ACP 
State or OCT concerned and 
the EU, is drawn up for every 
EDF programming period and 
sets the general orientations 
for cooperation. The CSP 
includes a country diagnosis 
and the EU response strategy 
through the choice of focal 
and non-focal sectors, with 
focal sectors representing the 
priority areas of support.

16  Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1292/96 of 27 June 1996 
on food-aid policy and 
food-aid management and 
special operations in support 
of food security (OJ L 166, 
5.7.1996, p. 1).

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

16

(ii) 

(iii) 

the  FSTP  under  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument 
(DCI) 17 covers the period 2007–13. The main feature of the 
instrument is its focus on the regional, continental and glo-
bal  levels  in  order  to  support  research  and  technology  for 
agriculture and sustainable management of natural resources 
and ecosystems, strengthen the links between food security 
information/early-warning systems and the development of 
effective response strategies and exploit the potential of con-
tinental and regional approaches for food security. It may also 
intervene at country level in certain circumstances;

in December 2008, the Food Facility18 was established to pro-
vide a rapid response to the crisis caused by volatile food pric-
es in developing countries. The primary objectives of the Food 
Facility were to increase agricultural production, to mitigate 
the adverse effects of food price rises on local populations and 
to strengthen the productive capacities and governance of the 
agricultural sector to enhance the sustainability of interven-
tions. It provides for support to improve access to agricultural 
inputs and services and to safety-net measures.

17  Regulation (EC) 
No 1905/2006 of the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
18 December 2006 
establishing a financing 
instrument for development 
cooperation (OJ L 378, 
27.12.2006, p. 41).

18  Regulation (EC) 
No 1337/2008 of the 
European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
16 December 2008 
establishing a facility for 
rapid response to soaring 
food prices in developing 
countries (OJ L 354, 
31.12.2008, p. 62).

13. 

As Figure 5 shows, the financial allocations for food security to sub-
Saharan Africa for the period 2002–10 under the four instruments men-
tioned in paragraph 12 amounts to 3 177 million euro.

FIGURE	5

EU	AID	FOR	FOOD	SECURITY	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	AFRICA	FROM	2002	TO	2010

16 %

26 %

16 %

7 %

35 %

Source: European Court of Auditors.

9th EDF – 839 million euro

10th EDF – 1 098 million euro

FSTP – 222 million euro 

Food Facility – 513 million euro

FSBL – 505 million euro

Total – 3 177 million euro

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

17

14. 

The Court’s audit sought to assess the effectiveness of EU development 
aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa, which is the region where 
food insecurity is particularly serious (see paragraphs 4 to 6). The audit 
focused on two key questions:

(a) 

Is EU development aid for food security relevant to the countries’ 
needs and priorities?

19  Concerning the FSBL, 
see the Court’s Special 
Report No 2/2003 on the 
implementation of the food 
security policy in developing 
countries financed by the 
general budget of the 
European Union (OJ C 93, 
17.4.2003, p. 1).

(b)  Are EU interventions effective?

15. 

The audit focused on EU direct development support for the three di-
mensions of food security, i.e. food availability, access to food and nutri-
tional utilisation of food over the period 2002–10. It focused on interven-
tions supported at country level under the four geographic and thematic 
instruments mentioned in paragraph 12. The audit did not include an 
examination of:

(a)  whether food security was mainstreamed in interventions in other 
sectors (such as health, education, water and sanitation, peace and 
stability or trade);

(b) 

interventions at regional, continental and global levels; and 

(c)  emergency and humanitarian aid.

16. 

The audit was carried out between May 2010 and April 2011. It involved:

(a) 

a review of policy documents and interviews at the Commission 
in Brussels;

(b)  a review of the design and implementation of the FSTP and the 

Food Facility19;

(c) 

visits to three countries which had food security, agriculture and/or 
rural development as a focal sector under both the 9th and 10th 
EDFs: Ethiopia, Malawi and Rwanda. During those visits, the Court’s 
auditors interviewed EU delegation staff, representatives of na-
tional authorities, other donors, NGOs and beneficiaries. They also 
reviewed 22 interventions to assess the extent to which they were 
relevant to the beneficiaries’ needs and priorities and had achieved 
or were likely to achieve their objectives; the interventions were 
scored on the basis of the Commission’s results-oriented monitor-
ing (ROM) methodology (see Annex V);

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

18

(d)  a documentary review of EU cooperation strategies on food security 
in three other countries which had food security, agriculture and/
or rural development as a focal sector under both the 9th and 10th 
EDFs: Burundi, Eritrea and Niger;

(e)  a review of EU support for food security in 10 countries which also 
experience chronic food insecurity but did not have food secu-
rity, agriculture and/or rural development as a focal sector under 
both the 9th and 10th EDFs: Botswana, Cameroon, the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, Gambia, Lesotho, Liberia, Mali, Swaziland, 
Tanzania and Zambia.

17. 

Table 1 presents the amounts of EU development aid for food security 
financed from 2002 to 2010 under the four instruments mentioned in 
paragraph 12 in the 16 countries in the audit sample.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

19

TABLE	1

EU	DEVELOPMENT	AID	FOR	FOOD	SECURITY	FROM	2002	TO	2010	IN	THE	16	COUNTRIES	
IN	THE	AUDIT	SAMPLE

Country

9th EDF

10th EDF

FSBL

Food Facility

FSTP

Other budget 
lines

Countries where food security was supported under a focal sector for the 9th and 10th EDFs

Ethiopia

Malawi

Niger

Rwanda

Burundi

Eritrea

78,0

76,3

53,1

64,0

74,8

7,9

146,2

62,0

39,4

40,0

6,1

4,9

36,2

63,7

21,8

4,4

9,2

20,4

Countries where food security was not supported under a focal sector for the 9th and 10th EDFs

DR Congo

Zambia

Mali

Liberia

Tanzania

Cameroon

Swaziland

Gambia

Lesotho

Botswana

TOTAL

34,7

16,6

1,8

-

8,0

10,4

25,7

-

2,0

4,0

-

26,6

20,5

22,7

5,0

18,7

0,9

2,6

-

-

26,3

4,3

8,0

5,7

-

-

-

-

-

-

44,6

18,5

19,6

15,6

14,4

13,6

39,8

15,4

26,3

14,1

31,7

2,5

-

5,5

5,4

-

2,2

3,3

-

-

9,1

6,3

21,6

2,0

0,1

8,0

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,7

-

4,9

12,1

3,0

13,6

2,3

-

2,0

2,7

-

1,3

3,0

-

-

-

(million euro)

Total

310,9

223,8

138,8

136,2

116,6

66,6

124,8

64,9

58,7

53,3

44,6

32,9

29,6

8,1

7,4

4,0

457,2

395,7

200,0

266,9

52,6

48,7

1 421,1

Source: European Court of Auditors.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

OBSERVATIONS

20

EU	DEVELOPMENT	AID	FOR	FOOD	SECURITY	
IS	RELEVANT	BUT	NEEDS	TO	FOLLOW	A	MORE	
COMPREHENSIVE	APPROACH

18. 

This section addresses the question of whether EU development aid for 
food security is relevant to the countries’ needs and priorities. The Court 
examined whether:

(a)  EDF cooperation strategies consider the food security situation in 

the countries concerned; 

(b) 

the Commission uses the FSTP and the Food Facility in a comple-
mentary manner with the EDF; and

(c) 

the EU interventions are relevant to the countries’ needs and pri-
orities.

20  Annex III to Thematic 
Strategy Paper and 
Multiannual Indicative 
Programme 2007–2010 
(European Commission, 
document C/2007/1924, 
4 May 2007). The remaining 
funding was channelled 
through NGOs (15 %) and 
international organisations 
(5 %).

19. 

20. 

WHILE	IT	FOCUSED	ON	RELEVANT	COUNTRIES,	THE	COMMISSION	DID	
NOT	SUFFICIENTLY	CONSIDER	FOOD	SECURITY	WHEN	DRAWING	UP	
THE	EDF	COOPERATION	STRATEGIES	FOR	OTHER	FOOD-INSECURE	
COUNTRIES

Table 2 indicates the state of the hunger situation and the trend towards 
achieving MDG1 in sub-Saharan countries. It also identifies the countries 
where direct development aid to food security was provided under food 
security, agriculture and/or rural development focal sectors for the 9th 
and 10th EDFs.

For the period 1996–2006 the FSBL was intended to be the main Com-
mission instrument for providing EU assistance for food security and ap-
proximately 80 % of the funding provided under the FSBL was channelled 
through financing agreements with national governments 20. However, 
at the same time, some countries receiving FSBL funds also had food 
security or a related area as a focal sector in their CSP and therefore also 
received significant funding from the EDF.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

21

TABLE	2

FOOD	SECURITY-RELATED	FOCAL	SECTORS	OF	EU	COOPERATION	UNDER	THE	9TH	AND	
10TH	EDFS	AND	THE	STATE	OF	FOOD	INSECURITY	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	AFRICA

Country

DR Congo

Ethiopia

Tanzania

Kenya

Nigeria

Sudan

Mozambique

Angola

Uganda

Zambia

Burundi

Madagascar

Cameroon

Malawi

Chad

Zimbabwe

Rwanda

Eritrea

Côte d’Ivoire

Niger

Senegal

Togo

Sierra Leone

Central Afr. Rep.

Guinea

Undernourished people 

Millions

41,9

31,6

13,7

11,2

9,2

8,8

8,1

7,1

6,1

5,2

4,7

4,5

3,9

3,9

3,8

3,7

3,1

3,0

2,8

2,7

2,0

1,8

1,8

1,7

1,6

%

69

41

34

31

6

22

38

41

21

43

62

25

21

28

37

30

34

64

14

20

17

30

35

40

17

Increasing/deteriorating/off track

Decreasing/improving

No increase

GHI 2010

MDG1 trend

Focal sector  
9th EDF

Focal sector  
10th EDF

Extremely alarming

Alarming

Alarming

Serious

Serious

Alarming

Alarming

Alarming

Serious

Alarming

Extremely alarming

Alarming

Serious

Serious

Extremely alarming

Alarming

Alarming

Extremely alarming

Serious

Alarming

Serious

Alarming

Alarming

Alarming

Serious

Off track

On track

Off track

Late

Achieved

On track

On track

On track

Off track

Off track

Off track

Off track

On track

On track

On track

Late

Late

Late

Late

On track

Late

On track

Late

Late

Late

Agri

FS

-

RD

-

FS

-

RD–FS

-

Agr–RD

-

-

FS–Agri

Agri–RD

FS

RD

-

RD

RD

-

RD

-

-

RD

-

RD

RD–FS

-

-

-

-

-

RD

RD

-

Rehab–RD

RD–Agri–FS

-

Agri–FS

-

-

RD

FS

-

RD

-

-

-

-

-

FS: food security

Agri: agriculture

RD: rural development

GHI: Global Hunger Index

Rehab: rehabilitation

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

22

TABLE	2

FOOD	SECURITY	RELATED	FOCAL	SECTORS	OF	EU	COOPERATION	UNDER	THE	9TH	AND	
10TH	EDFS	AND	THE	STATE	OF	FOOD	INSECURITY	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	AFRICA

Country

Mali

Ghana

Burkina Faso

Liberia

Benin

Botswana

Congo

Namibia

Lesotho

Gambia

Swaziland

Mauritania

Mauritius

Cape Verde

Comoros

Djibouti

Equatorial Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

São Tomé and Príncipe

Seychelles

Somalia

South Africa

Undernourished people 

Millions

1,5

1,2

1,2

1,2

1,0

0,5

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,3

0,2

0,2

0,1

%

12

5

9

33

12

25

15

19

14

19

18

7

5

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

Increasing/deteriorating/off track

Decreasing/improving

No increase

GHI 2010

MDG1 trend

Focal sector  
9th EDF

Focal sector  
10th EDF

Serious

Serious

Alarming

Alarming

Serious

Serious

Serious

Serious

Serious

Serious

Serious

Serious

Moderate

No data

Alarming

Alarming

No data

Alarming

No data

No data

No data

No data

Achieved

Achieved

On track

Off track

On track

Off track

Achieved

On track

Late

Off track

Off track

On track

On track

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

No data

-

RD

FS

-

-

-

-

RD

-

RD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

RD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

FS: food security

Agri: agriculture

RD: rural development

GHI: Global Hunger Index

Rehab: rehabilitation

Source: European Court of Auditors based on data from The state of food insecurity in the world 2010. 
The Global Hunger index 2010 and FAO ‘Progress on MDG 1’ and the CSPs for the 9th and 10th EDFs.  
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/es/Hunger_Portal/MDG_Progress_per_country.pdf

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

23

21  OJ C 93, 17.4.2003, p. 1.

22  The Global Hunger Index 
(GHI) is a multidimensional 
statistical tool developed 
by the International Food 
Policy Research Institute 
(IFPRI) to describe a country’s 
situation. It combines 
three equally weighted 
indicators: (i) the proportion 
of undernourished people 
as a percentage of the 
population; (ii) the prevalence 
of underweight children 
under the age of five; and 
(iii) the mortality rate of 
children under the age of 
five. It scores the countries 
on a 100-point scale with 
0 being the best score (‘no 
hunger’) and 100 being the 
worst, although neither of 
these extremes is reached 
in practice. Values less 
than 5.0 reflect low hunger, 
values between 5.0 and 9.9 
reflect moderate hunger, 
values between 10.0 and 19.9 
indicate a serious problem, 
values between 20.0 and 29.9 
are alarming and values 
of 30.0 or higher are 
extremely alarming.

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

Since 2007, the approach is that EU funding for food security at country 
level should come from the geographical instruments, i.e. the EDF in 
the case of sub-Saharan African countries. Countries are expected to 
integrate their food security policies into the overall national develop-
ment plan while the Commission aims to direct its response strategy at 
national level through one planning document, i.e. the CSP, rather than 
a series of fragmented instruments. This approach reflects a recommen-
dation in the Court’s Special Report No 2/2003 on the implementation of 
the food security policy in developing countries financed by the general 
budget of the European Union21.

As Table 2 shows, food security has been consistently part of the EDF 
cooperation strategy in 11 countries under both the 9th and 10th EDFs. 
This focus is relevant since these countries are among those with the 
highest number of undernourished people and most of them have an 
‘alarming’ to ‘extremely alarming’ Global Hunger Index22 rating. About half 
of these countries are also late or off track as regards the achievement 
of MDG1.

However, this table also shows that food security, agriculture and rural 
development have been selected as a focal sector less frequently for the 
10th EDF (12 countries) than for the 9th EDF (17 countries). This evolu-
tion is inconsistent with the critical situation as regards MDG1, which 
is among the most off-track MDGs, and the increased priority that the 
EDF was expected to give to food security when it was decided to move 
away from the national level of support provided under the FSBL.

In a number of countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
Sudan, Chad, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Liberia, EU support for food 
security was mainly channelled through the FSTP. These countries are 
considered  as  being  in  protracted  crisis  and  it  is  the  purpose  of  the 
FSTP to support the linking relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) 
process or to intervene in countries where the geographical instrument 
is not functioning as it should due to exceptional circumstances (see 
paragraphs 29 and 30).

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

24

23  In particular by the 
World Bank, the FAO, the 
International Fund for 
Agricultural Development, 
as well as the Commission, 
which states that ‘the drop in 
agriculture’s share of public 
development aid and its 
lower ranking in the priorities 
of developing countries 
have served to exacerbate 
the situation’ (Food security: 
understanding and meeting 
the challenge of poverty, p. 5, 
October 2009).

25. 

26. 

However, several other countries, which are not in such a situation but 
also suffer from chronic food insecurity and are off track or late as regards 
the achievement of MDG1, received little or no EU development aid in 
that area. This is, for example, the case of Tanzania, Zambia, Botswana, 
Lesotho, Gambia and Swaziland. The division of labour with other de-
velopment partners cannot be a sufficient explanation since it is widely 
acknowledged23 that agriculture and nutrition do not receive adequate 
attention and funding from the donor community.

The Court acknowledges that the Commission does not have sole respon-
sibility for defining the EDF cooperation strategy and selecting interven-
tions, which have to be done in partnership with the partner country and 
in coordination and complementarity with other development partners. 
However, the Court found that the Commission did not give sufficient 
attention to food security when drawing up the EDF cooperation strat-
egy in the countries mentioned in paragraph 25, notably for the 10th 
EDF. As indicated in its Special Report No 2/2003 (paragraph 90), the 
Court considers that the CSPs should explicitly include the concept of 
food security. This is not the case for the CSPs of the abovementioned 
countries which do not provide an appropriate assessment of the state 
of food insecurity, its causes and the country’s needs in relation to all 
three food security dimensions (see Box 1).

BOX	1

INADEQUATE	FOOD	SECURITY	ASSESSMENTS	IN	MOST	OF	THE	CSPs

Out of the 10 CSPs reviewed, two (Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) do not mention the 
countries’ respectively alarming and extremely alarming food insecurity status. The importance of agriculture 
for rural livelihoods is highlighted in several CSPs, but without making the link with food security in order to 
identify the key strategic issues of food availability problems, the extent to which households can afford basic 
food needs and the impact of insufficient food crop production on nutritional status. While all CSPs contain a 
poverty analysis section, only two (Lesotho and Mali) assess the impact of poverty on access to food. As regards 
nutrition, the under-fives’ malnutrition rate is provided only in three CSPs (Mali, Tanzania and Zambia). Food 
security needs and priorities are seldom mentioned, and only two CSPs (Liberia and Mali) describe the actions 
needed to improve national food security.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

25

27. 

At the September 2010 High Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly, 
President Barroso announced that the EU had launched an MDG initia-
tive of 1 billion euro, financed from unallocated EDF reserves, to foster 
progress in ACP countries on those MDGs which are furthest from being 
achieved, including MDG124. Whilst this renewed emphasis on food se-
curity is appropriate, it confirms that there was scope for higher priority 
to be given during the programming of the 10th EDF.

24  This funding is intended 
for the most committed 
and needy countries. 
The MDG initiative has 
two components: one 
of 300 million euro reserved 
for ‘well performing’ countries 
according to the outcome of 
the mid-term review of the 
10th EDF CSPs, and a second 
one of 700 million euro open 
to all EDF countries.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

26

THE	FOOD	SECURITY	THEMATIC	PROGRAMME	OFFERS	GOOD	
COMPLEMENTARITY	TO	THE	EDF	BUT	THERE	ARE	LIMITATIONS	IN	THE	
DESIGN	OF	THE	FOOD	FACILITY	IN	THE	FACE	OF	ONGOING	FOOD	PRICE	
VOLATILITY

THE	FOOD	SECURITY	THEMATIC	PROGRAMME

The FSTP was given more limited scope than the previous FSBL, which 
improves the coherence of EU external assistance instruments, notably 
the complementarity to the EDF. The main feature of the new approach 
used for the FSTP is its focus on the regional, continental and global 
levels.

25  European Commission, 
document C/2010/9263 of 21 
December 2010.

The FSTP’s main use at country level has been to support the linking 
relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) process in countries to 
complement Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection DG (ECHO) relief 
operations and provide a bridge to future development interventions 
(e.g. Sudan and Sierra Leone). It provides a more flexible source of fund-
ing than the CSPs under the EDF which have a long programming frame-
work and generally limited scope for the revision of strategy during the 
mid-term review process.

The FSTP also intervenes in countries which also suffer from particular 
food insecurity but where the fact that the EDF is not functioning as it 
should due to political circumstances has meant that it has not been 
possible to establish a CSP (e.g. Somalia and Zimbabwe), or where in 
practice the national government does not exercise authority over its 
full territory (e.g. the Democratic Republic of the Congo). 

For the period of the 2011–13 Multiannual Indicative Programme 25 the 
FSTP has taken on a new complementary role at country level. It is being 
used to provide additional funding for certain countries with chronic 
food insecurity but which have not selected  food security  as a focal 
sector under the 10th EDF. The Commission is now prepared to allocate 
FSTP funding to such countries if food security policy is a priority for the 
government and is likely to be selected as a priority for EU cooperation 
for the next programming period starting in 2014. This approach reflects 
the fact that food security and/or related areas have been less frequently 
selected as a focal sector for the 10th EDF than had been expected after 
the termination of the FSBL (see paragraphs 23 and 25).

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

27

32. 

33. 

THE	FOOD	FACILITY

The Food Facility was to provide a rapid response to the 2007–08 crisis 
caused by volatile food prices in developing countries. Given the sig-
nificant preparatory work which had to be done by the Commission and 
the interinstitutional procedures required to put the instrument in place, 
setting up the Food Facility in 10 months was a considerable achieve -
ment by the Commission26. On the other hand, in an international crisis 
situation much can change over the course of 10 months and food prices 
actually fell sharply during the second half of 2008 before implementa-
tion of the Food Facility began (see Figure 6).

In  addition, the Food Facility was  only  programmed for  a  short time 
 period (2008–10) although it was recognised that ‘all the data for the out-
look on the food markets lead to the conclusion that the high volatility 
of food prices could continue in the years to come’27. Indeed, although 
food prices fell steeply in the second half of 2008, they have since been 
rising steadily again and in the first months of 2011 reached new record 
highs (see Figure 6). This makes it questionable whether a ‘one-off ’ ad 
hoc response to a rise in food prices was appropriate for dealing with 
price rises which seem likely not to be a short-term shock but part of a 
marked, long- term upward trend.

26  Following the 
Commission’s communication 
of 20 May 2008 on ‘Tackling 
the challenge of rising food 
prices — Directions for EU 
action’ (COM(2008) 321 final 
of 20 May 2008) and the 
European Parliament 
resolution of 22 May 2008 
on rising food prices in the 
EU and the developing 
countries (P6_TA(2008)0229), 
Regulation (EC) 
No 1337/2008 was adopted 
on 16 December 2008. 
On 30 March 2009, the 
Commission adopted the 
decision for implementing 
the Food Facility.

27  Recital 1 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1337/2008.

FIGURE	6

FAO	FOOD	PRICE	INDEX	2002–11

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

2002–04 = 100

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: FAO Monthly Real Food Price Indices January 2002 to September 2011.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

28

34. 

Although the rationale for the Food Facility was to complement EU devel-
opment policy instruments by primarily addressing the period between 
emergency aid and medium- to long-term development cooperation28, 
this is not reflected in the timeframe set for the Food Facility. Interven-
tions were required to start over the period 2009-10. This leaves a gap, 
as far as EU development cooperation is concerned, of at least two years 
until the next programming period for longer-term development co-
operation under the EDF CSPs. A longer implementation period would 
have been more appropriate given the objectives of the Food Facility.

28  Recital 2 and 
Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1337/2008.

29  Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 
Malawi, Niger and Rwanda.

EU	INTERVENTIONS	ARE	RELEVANT	TO	THE	COUNTRIES’	NEEDS	AND	
PRIORITIES	BUT	NUTRITION	HAS	BEEN	NEGLECTED

35. 

The Court examined whether, in the six countries under review where 
food security, agriculture or rural development was a focal sector for EU 
cooperation under the 9th and 10th EDFs29, EU interventions:

(a) 

address the country’s needs and priorities in relation to the three 
dimensions of food security; and

(b) 

target the most vulnerable groups. The relevance of the 22 inter-
ventions examined was scored on the basis of the Commission’s 
results-oriented monitoring (ROM) methodology (see Annex V). The 
scores are set out in Annex VI.

THE	THREE	DIMENSIONS	OF	FOOD	SECURITY

36. 

In all six countries, the interventions financed under the EDF and the 
general budget are relevant to the needs and priorities set out in the 
national poverty reduction strategies and food security-related sector 
strategies. Overall, the main focus has been on the availability of and 
access to food. Little attention has been given to nutrition.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

29

37. 

38. 

FOOD	AVAILABILITY

Concerning availability, the interventions aim to support the national 
efforts to increase the production of food crops by raising productivity, 
notably through increased and better use of essential agricultural inputs 
(mainly improved seeds and fertilisers), agricultural diversification, small-
scale irrigation schemes, sustainable management of natural resources 
(e.g. water) and improved access to rural credit and extension services. 
In Ethiopia, Malawi and Niger, support was also provided for the national 
crisis prevention and management mechanisms (see Box 2).

The  cooperation  strategies  under  the  9th  and  10th  EDFs  do  not  ad-
dress the availability dimension in Ethiopia, although the CSPs acknowl-
edge that raising agricultural productivity and production is one pil-
lar of the government’s Food Security Policy and Plan for Accelerated 
Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) to achieve long-term 
food security and economic growth. In addition, few donors support the  
Agricultural Growth Programme (AGP), which is faced with a significant 
funding gap. The Commission has financed some NGO projects under 
the FSBL and the Food Facility, but these were short-term and small-
scale responses which are not commensurate with the country’s needs.

BOX	2

FOOD	AVAILABILITY

Malawi’s strategic priorities are to stimulate agricultural production through diversification to more drought-
resistant crops, small-scale irrigation and better functioning of the National Food Reserve Agency. The EU and 
other development partners support the Farm Input Subsidy programme (FISP), which is the largest government 
programme in the country and accounts for about 10 % of the national budget. The FISP provides smallholder 
and subsistence farmers, representing 90 % of the population, with subsidised fertiliser and improved maize 
seeds. This helped increase maize production and make the country maize self-sufficient for the last four years.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

30

30  For Burundi and Rwanda, 
the focal sector is rural 
development.

ACCESS	TO	FOOD

39. 

The interventions aim to improve economic, physical and social access 
to food. They generally support the development of farm and non-farm 
income earning activities, the development of farmers’ organisations 
and the improvement of rural infrastructure, notably roads and market 
facilities. The Commission also supports safety-net interventions, such as 
public works programmes which provide income-earning opportunities 
for households with little or no agricultural land. For the most vulnerable 
households, often with no working capacity, the Commission supports 
social transfer programmes which provide non-contributory cash trans-
fers (e.g. in Ethiopia and Rwanda) (see Box 3).

NUTRITION

40. 

In none of the six countries under review is nutrition addressed under 
the 9th and 10th EDFs cooperation strategies and interventions. This is 
of particular concern in the case of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Malawi and Niger, 
which all have food security as a focal sector for EU cooperation 30 and 
where progress cannot be achieved unless all three food security dimen-
sions are given appropriate attention.

BOX	3

ACCESS	TO	FOOD

In Ethiopia, the Productive Safety-Net Programme (PSNP) provides predictable and stable transfers of cash and 
food to 8,3 million beneficiaries in chronic food-deficit areas in order to improve their access to food and reduce 
the country’s dependency on emergency food aid. Transfers are conditional on beneficiaries working on public 
works programmes, except for vulnerable groups for whom transfers are made on an unconditional basis. The 
cost of the PSNP for the period 2005–14 is 3 600 million US dollars, mainly funded by development partners.

In Rwanda, the sector budget support programme for social protection funded from the 10th EDF supports 
the implementation of the social protection strategy. One objective of this strategy is to establish a system 
of non-contributory cash transfer programmes that (a) provide all elderly people and their households with 
a guaranteed minimum income; (b) provide essential financial assistance for the most vulnerable families not 
in receipt of support from other cash transfer programmes; and (c) enable the government to respond quickly 
and efficiently to emergencies.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

31

31  ‘Thematic evaluation of 
food aid policy and food aid 
management and special 
operations in support of food 
security’, July 2004.

32  Food Security Thematic 
Programme, Mid Term Review 
(2007–2009), Final Report, 
September 2009.

33  Malawi and Ethiopia 
adopted their national 
nutrition strategy 
in 2007 and 2008, 
respectively. In Rwanda, 
a national emergency 
programme to eliminate 
malnutrition was established 
and a Task Force on Nutrition 
created in 2009. Niger has 
had a national contingency 
plan concerning food 
security crisis prevention 
and nutrition since 2007. In 
Burundi, a working group 
was set up recently on the 
initiative of the World Food 
Programme with the aim to 
create a national forum on 
food security and nutrition. 
Eritrea’s 2004 national 
food security strategy 
acknowledges the problem 
of malnutrition but focuses 
on access and availability.

34  Concept note ‘Enhancing 
EC’s contribution to 
address maternal and child 
undernutrition causes’, 
January 2009.

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

In addition, except for Malawi and Niger, few interventions have been 
financed under the thematic programmes. Insufficient attention to and 
funding for nutrition is not a recent feature of EU external aid. This issue 
was already raised in July 2004 by the evaluation of the FSBL 31 and in 
September 2009 by the mid-term review of the FSTP32. It is of consider-
able concern given the harmful effects of malnutrition (see paragraph 5).

The fight against malnutrition was given insufficient priority by the gov-
ernments in these six countries which have only started to set up policies 
and programmes in this area since 2007–0933. The Commission has not 
been  proactive  to  encourage  them  to  set  up  such  policies  and  pro-
grammes at an earlier stage and increase opportunities for EU support. 
The 9th and 10th EDF CSPs are generally weak as regards the assessment 
of chronic malnutrition; whilst some CSPs mention the problem, they do 
not analyse the causes, needs and priorities to be addressed.

Also, the Commission has not used its policy dialogue to raise the issue 
of malnutrition with the partner governments. This may be more difficult 
in certain countries where hunger and malnutrition are politically highly 
sensitive areas and where governments are reluctant to engage with de-
velopment partners on these issues (e.g. Eritrea and Niger). However, this 
would be possible in countries where policy dialogue is good, notably 
where appropriate dialogue frameworks have been set up in relation to 
budget support programmes (e.g. Rwanda).

The Commission has recently taken a number of initiatives in order better 
to address the question of nutrition. In March 2010, it adopted a com-
munication which establishes a comprehensive approach to addressing 
food security (see paragraph 11). It stresses the scale of malnutrition and 
sets as a priority for EU support the formulation of nutrition policies and 
strategies and the setting up of coordination mechanisms between the 
agriculture, health, education and social protection sectors. The Commis-
sion has also issued guidance for its staff on how to integrate nutrition 
when programming aid and designing interventions 34, and in 2010 it 
established a specialist technical assistance team to provide advice.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

32

45. 

46. 

In cases where the Commission has supported nutrition, assistance is 
generally channelled either through the UN system or, in most cases, 
through NGO projects. The projects’ objectives relate to the preven-
tion and detection of malnutrition at household and community levels. 
Activities such as educational sessions on diet diversification, cooking 
sessions, community kitchens and herbal gardens, school gardens, meas-
urement sessions for children and community supplementary feeding 
centres are covered by the projects. Some projects tackle the treatment 
of malnutrition either through the community-based treatment (CBT )35 
approach or through health services. Other projects cover urban malnu-
trition through innovative approaches such as bio-intensive gardening 
and small-scale dairy production (see Box 4).

TARGETING	THE	MOST	VULNERABLE	GROUPS

In countries where the majority of the population depends on subsist-
ence agriculture and is faced with food insecurity, targeting those who 
are in the greatest need of support is a challenge. Developing countries 
frequently do not have reliable demographic and financial information 
on individual households and lack the administrative capacity to im-
plement targeting procedures. There is also a risk that the targeting of 
government programmes may be based on non-poverty-related criteria. 
Some of the neediest may be excluded from community-based exercises 
for reasons such as their low status in the community or the remoteness 
of their homes.

35  A joint statement by the 
World Health Organisation, 
the World Food Programme, 
the United Nations System 
Standing Committee on 
Nutrition and the United 
Nations Children’s Fund 
on community-based 
management of severe acute 
malnutrition explains the CBT 
approach as follows: ‘large 
numbers of children with 
severe acute malnutrition 
can be treated in their 
communities without being 
admitted to a health facility 
or a therapeutic feeding 
centre. The community-
based approach involves 
timely detection of severe 
acute malnutrition in the 
community and provision of 
treatment for those without 
medical complications with 
ready-to-use therapeutic 
foods or other nutrient-dense 
foods at home’.

BOX	4

NUTRITION

‘Green health — backyard gardening to increase food production among vulnerable households’ is an NGO 
project funded by the Food Facility in the rural area of the district of Zomba in Malawi. The project targets 5 000 
vulnerable people living with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) 
who particularly suffer in the event of poor food intake. Its objective is to promote backyard gardening in order 
to increase participants’ own food production and improve their nutritional status and general health. Activities 
include training in simple, affordable and sustainable systems to increase food production, the management of 
water resources and the provision of horticultural inputs. As regards nutrition, the project provides training on 
how to grow nutritious and immune-boosting vegetables, fruits, trees and herbs. Demonstration gardens and 
cooking sessions are held to promote new crops and new ways to use old crops.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

33

47. 

Within these constraints, the Court found that in the three countries 
visited  during  its  audit  (Ethiopia,  Malawi  and  Rwanda)  the  targeting 
mechanisms were mostly effective (see Box 5). The Commission’s inter-
ventions concentrate on the most food insecure regions and sections 
of the population. Agricultural interventions are well targeted at poor 
smallholder farmers who have the will and potential to increase and di-
versify their production; however, sometimes they do not assess properly 
whether the beneficiaries have the technical and financial capacity to get 
into the intended agri-business activities. Safety nets, social protection 
programmes and nutrition-related interventions are directed towards 
the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable groups, e.g. women, or-
phans, households headed by children, marginalised communities, and 
HIV/AIDS-infected and affected households. 

EU	INTERVENTIONS	ARE	MOSTLY	EFFECTIVE	BUT	
SUSTAINABILITY	IS	OFTEN	AN	ISSUE

48. 

This section addresses the question of whether in the three visited coun-
tries  (i)  EU  interventions  are  well  designed;  (ii)  their  planned  results 
are achieved; and (iii) the results are or are likely to be sustainable. The 
design, results and sustainability of the 22 interventions examined were 
scored on the basis of the Commission’s results-oriented monitoring 
(ROM) methodology (see Annex V). The scores are set out in Annex VI.

BOX	5

TARGETING	OF	INTERVENTIONS

The government of Rwanda is firmly committed to poverty reduction and has strengthened this focus in the 
Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) adopted in 2007. Targeting of beneficiaries 
under the ninth EDF-funded Decentralised Programme for Rural Poverty Reduction (DPRPR) follows a commu-
nity-based approach (‘Ubudehe’) based on the traditional Rwandan system of solidarity. It follows a collective 
process at village level to classify households according to seven poverty levels and select priority households 
for support. The government is now using this approach for its social protection programmes.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

34

EU	INTERVENTIONS	ARE	OVERALL	WELL	DESIGNED,	ALTHOUGH	OFTEN	
WITH	INSUFFICIENTLY	CLEAR	OR	OVERLY	AMBITIOUS	OBJECTIVES

49. 

Almost all reviewed interventions are based on a sound knowledge of 
the situation, the main causes of chronic food deficit and malnutrition, 
the most affected and vulnerable areas and sections of the population, 
and the main needs and priorities to be addressed:

36  Specific, measurable, 
achievable, relevant and 
timed.

(a)  government-led interventions are designed in close cooperation 
between  the  ministries  involved  and  the  EU  delegation,  and  in 
some cases other donors;

(b) 

(c) 

the long field experience of NGOs is instrumental in the design 
of their interventions, which follows a strongly participatory and 
demand-led approach involving a wide range of stakeholders, such 
as decentralised government departments, local authorities and 
local communities;

in  most  cases  workshops  are  organised  to  assess  needs,  and  to 
discuss and explain the activities envisaged, the roles and respon-
sibilities of the main partners and the implementation timetable 
and arrangements.

50. 

51. 

General budget support (GBS) and sector budget support (SBS) pro-
grammes used in Rwanda are based on a sound assessment of the gov-
ernment’s macroeconomic policy, public finance management reform 
programme, and sector policies and strategies concerning agriculture 
and  social  protection.  As  regards  the  Food  Facility-funded  GBS  pro-
gramme in Malawi, there is a good analysis of the additional budgetary 
cost resulting from the increase in fertiliser prices; however, there is no 
analysis of the food security situation.

The quality of the objectives set at the design stage of the interventions 
is variable. Often they do not comply with all SMART36 criteria, and are in 
particular seldom measurable due to the absence of performance indica-
tors setting the targets and/or of a baseline situation against which to 
measure progress. This hampers the assessment of the achievement of 
these objectives. However, in some cases the definition of the objectives 
is improved during the start-up phase of implementation.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

35

The  objectives  are  also  sometimes  overly  ambitious,  in  particular  in 
the case of NGO projects which have modest budgets and a relatively 
short implementation period. This was particularly true of NGO projects 
funded under the Food Facility: they had approximately 20 months for 
implementation, which in practice was reduced to more like 15 months 
as the first months were given over to procurement and other prepara-
tory activities. In some cases, the interventions are based on unreason-
able assumptions concerning the conditions necessary for successful 
implementation, e.g. the institutional and management capacities of 
the national or local authorities, the quality of rural infrastructure or the 
availability of suitable staff (e.g. nutritionists and extension workers).

37  Recommendations 1(c) 
and 1(d) of Special 
Report No 11/2010 ‘The 
Commission’s management 
of general budget support 
in ACP, Latin American and 
Asian countries’.

Budget support programmes in Malawi and Rwanda make reference to 
the objectives of the national poverty reduction strategies and sector 
policies and programmes. They do not state how they aim to contribute 
to the governments’ objectives. In its Special Report No 11/2010 37, the 
Court recommended that the Commission should improve the definition 
of the objectives of GBS programmes.

Performance indicators used for budget support programmes in Rwanda 
are specific, measurable, achievable and time-bound. They are also rele-
vant but there is duplication between the different budget support pro-
grammes which all focus on one programme in the Strategic Plan for the 
Transformation of Agriculture (SPTA), under which significant progress 
is being made. No indicator is linked to other government agricultural 
programmes where progress is lagging behind, notably in the area of 
institutional development, and of storage, processing and distribution 
infrastructure. This insufficient complementarity between budget sup-
port programmes is not an effective approach to the policy dialogue.

The GBS programme in Malawi was to be disbursed by way of a single 
fixed  tranche,  with  no  performance-related  conditions/indicators  or 
policy dialogue requirements related to food security. This reduces the 
potential benefits in providing aid through budget support rather than 
through the funding of specific projects.

52. 

53. 

54. 

55. 

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

36

56. 

Sustainability is well embedded in the design of the interventions. These 
aim to achieve long-lasting results by empowering local populations to 
address the underlying causes of food insecurity, mainly by increasing 
agricultural production and promoting income-earning activities. They 
are aligned with the national or local development plans and, as indicat-
ed in paragraph 49, involve the stakeholders concerned at all stages of 
implementation, thus encouraging ownership. Most of the interventions 
envisage an exit strategy with assets and responsibility for continuing 
the activities being formally handed over to local structures (see Box 6).

BOX	6

THE	DESIGN	OF	INTERVENTIONS

GOOD	PRACTICE

The design of the Farm Income Diversification Programme (FIDP) is geared towards empowering communities 
to improve their food security situation in a sustainable manner. The FIDP’s approach favours its sustainability:

 ο the government of Malawi has strong ownership of the project, which is implemented through the country’s 

decentralised structure; 

 ο the FIDP is demand-driven, stimulating ownership by and empowering communities. The FIDP provides 
start-up inputs and best practices for farmers who first demonstrated the capacity to form clubs and who 
are willing to start new activities to diversify their income; 

 ο capacity building is provided at various levels (district, extension workers, lead farmers, ministries and uni-

versities) and the FIDP uses lead farmers to train and support the other farmers.

WEAK	PRACTICE

‘Promoting urban agriculture’ is a project which aims to improve the nutrition and health situation of HIV/
AIDS-affected people in Addis Ababa. It was designed by an NGO and local partners which have a thorough 
knowledge of urban agriculture activities. The project was based on reasonable assumptions regarding the food 
security situation. However, some risks, such as the difficulty of obtaining farm inputs and land from the local 
authorities, were underestimated. The land issue proved to be a major obstacle in the implementation phase, 
eventually forcing the project to abandon, or significantly reduce, certain activities, such as the construction 
of three vegetable centres for the HIV associations targeted by the project.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

37

38  Paragraphs 86 and 87 of 
Special Report No 11/2010.

57. 

58. 

59. 

60. 

EU	INTERVENTIONS	ACHIEVE	MOST	OF	THEIR	INTENDED	RESULTS

The Court cannot assess the extent to which the EU budget support 
programmes in Malawi and Rwanda have contributed to the results of 
the governments’ programmes since there are multiple and complex 
intervening factors and there is not yet an established evaluation meth-
odology 38.  For  these  reasons,  no  score  is  given  in  Annex VI  to  these 
programmes. However, in these highly aid-dependent countries, the EU 
budget support programmes have provided crucial funding to the na-
tional agricultural and social protection programmes.

Reviewed interventions are mostly successful in improving the avail-
ability of food for beneficiaries: in Malawi and Rwanda, they effectively 
support the governments’ agricultural inputs subsidy programmes and 
efforts to disseminate new and environmentally sustainable farming 
practices, and they contribute to the significant increase and diversifi-
cation of agricultural production and incomes.

In all three countries, labour-intensive public works programmes for the 
construction and maintenance of rural infrastructure (mainly for rural 
roads, markets and soil and water conservation) provide a source of in-
come for poor populations and improve the distribution of food within 
the countries; in Ethiopia, such programmes provide more predictable 
income for beneficiaries and reduce their dependency on emergency 
food aid. Unconditional cash transfers under safety-net interventions 
improve the livelihood of the most vulnerable and their capacity to feed 
themselves.

Greater access to more available and diversified food sources is a pre-
requisite  for  better  nutrition.  In  addition,  the  —  too  few  (see  para-
graphs 40 to 44) — nutrition-focused interventions have been effective 
at raising awareness among mothers and those caring for children of 
the causes of malnutrition and providing knowledge of good childcare 
and feeding practices. In Ethiopia, country-wide screening campaigns 
make it possible to detect and treat cases of severe acute malnutrition 
among children under the age of five.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

38

61. 

The main factors which negatively affected the performance of interven-
tions were:

(a)  weaknesses in project design, notably overly ambitious objectives, 
unreasonable assumptions or ad hoc project structure not involving 
local institutions in the implementation of activities;

(b) 

limited government interest in certain activities, e.g. nutritional 
support; and

(c)  delays  which  have  not  made  it  possible  to  implement  all  the 

planned activities (see Box 7).

BOX	7

THE	RESULTS	OF	INTERVENTIONS

GOOD	PRACTICE

The Decentralised Programme for Rural Poverty Reduction (DPRPR) in Rwanda was a country-wide success. 
Several projects financed by the DPRPR, such as the radical terraces, the distribution of seeds, fertilisers and 
livestock, and the construction of roads, bridges and markets, increased the availability and diversity of food. 
Access to food was also increased through income-generating activities. The project’s independent evalua-
tion noted that 96 % of the beneficiaries consider that they are less poor at the end of the project than before 
and only 10 % still have difficulty feeding their families, as against 97 % before the project. A notable effect of 
DPRPR was the change in mentality it introduced in rural areas. With the confidence gained from the success 
of their projects, farmers took the initiative to create new projects that were neither envisaged nor financed by 
the DPRPR, such as rural credit, professional training and the construction of houses for the most vulnerable.

WEAK	PRACTICE

Due to inadequate project design and insufficient government ownership, the Sustainable Nutrition Rehabili-
tation Programme in Malawi failed to increase the capacity of the Nutrition Rehabilitation Units to continue 
operating the Integrated Nutrition and Food Security Surveillance System (INFSSS). The project partially achieved 
its intended results: monthly bulletins were issued during the project although with a seven- to eight-month 
delay and data on malnourished children were gathered by only half of the sentinel sites. Soon after the end 
of the project, data stopped being collected and the INFSSS was no longer operational.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

39

62. 

63. 

THE	SUSTAINABILITY	OF	RESULTS	IS	OFTEN	AN	ISSUE

The prospects for sustainability are good for half of the interventions but 
there are fewer guarantees of continued results for the other half. In gen-
eral, there is strong ownership by the governments which have a clear 
willingness to continue to implement the programmes at the end of the 
EU intervention, as well as by the beneficiaries who have seen a positive 
change in their livelihood and food security situation and have acquired 
the capacity and motivation to maintain and develop their activities.

39  In Malawi, the Farm 
Input Subsidy Programme 
accounted for 10 % of 
the 2009 national budget 
and 71 % of the agriculture 
budget.

Large government agricultural and social transfer programmes represent 
a high budgetary burden for these countries39 and their funding depends 
on continued significant donor support. Inadequate access to effective 
agricultural extension services, post-harvest facilities (storage, process-
ing and marketing) and rural credit remain as obstacles for many farm-
ers to expanding their activities and achieving economic sustainability. 
Until farmers can afford to buy agricultural inputs at market prices the 
gradual reduction of currently high subsidies (e.g. 50 % in Rwanda) is an 
option that is difficult for the governments to consider in order to keep 
the costs of such programmes manageable. Inadequate support to the 
promotion of productive capabilities of beneficiaries is one reason for 
the low exit rates from and, hence, the high cost of some social protec-
tion programmes (see Box 8).

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

40

64. 

The implementation period of NGO projects is sometimes too short to 
ensure that the beneficiaries have acquired the capacity to use the new 
agricultural or nutrition practices introduced. There is also often limited 
willingness or capacity on the part of government or local institutions 
to take over the activities or provide support after the project has been 
phased out.

BOX	8

THE	SUSTAINABILITY	OF	RESULTS

GOOD	PRACTICE

The ‘Improved food production for home and market in Arba Minch Zuria Woreda and Chencha Woreda in the 
Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region (SNNPR) of Ethiopia’ programme has very good prospects 
of sustainability since it has: 

(a)  a participatory project design promoting ownership among target local farm households and local govern-
ment beneficiaries. The needs are identified locally and an implementation agreement is signed with the 
regional authorities;

(b)  a clearly defined exit strategy with a set of specific activities addressing the handover of the project prac-

tices and outputs;

(c)  a sort of self-generating scheme based on a revolving fund, not reliant on future funding, which will help 

farmers access inputs in a more affordable way; and

(d)  institutional support is ensured from the start of the project and capacity-building activities are provided to 
local government offices and district and zone technical offices for the Cooperatives Union and individual 
farmers.

WEAK	PRACTICE

The Ethiopian government and communities have strong ownership of the Productive Safety-Net Programme, 
but financial sustainability is a major issue. Due to unrealistic objectives and inadequate complementary income-
generating support, only 6 % of beneficiaries ‘graduated’ from the programme up to 2010, i.e. earned their 
livelihood and no longer needed support from the programme. The ‘Household asset building’ component has 
been redesigned for the following phase, but with insufficient financial resources.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

41

65. 

66. 

The Court concludes that EU development aid for food security in sub-
Saharan Africa is mostly effective.

The  EU  development  aid  makes  an  impor tant  contribution  to  the 
progress made by partner countries towards achieving food security:

(a) 

the EU is a prominent international actor in terms of food security 
in quite a number of sub-Saharan African countries, and provides 
effective support as regards food availability and access to food;

(b)  EU development aid is highly relevant to the countries’ needs and 
priorities and there is good complementarity between the EDF and 
the FSTP;

(c) 

the Food Facility was set up in a reasonably short period of time 
and represents a considerable additional EU commitment towards 
improving food security in developing countries;

(d)  EU interventions are mostly well designed, achieve most of their 
intended results and half of them have reasonable prospects of 
being sustainable.

67. 

However, there is scope for significant improvement in several areas:

(a)  given the scale of food insecurity in the region and what is gener-
ally acknowledged as an insufficient level of funding for agriculture 
and nutrition by the donor community, the Commission did not 
sufficiently consider the potential scope for EU support in other 
countries which are also faced with chronic food insecurity and are 
off track or late as regards the achievement of MDG1;

(b) 

(c) 

the Commission did not give adequate priority to nutrition and 
could have done more to encourage the countries to set up ap-
propriate nutrition policies and programmes at an earlier stage;

the Food Facility was not designed to address long-term food price 
volatility and does not provide the intended complementarity with 
the EDF;

(d) 

the interventions’ objectives are often insufficiently clear and some-
times overly ambitious; 

(e)  despite strong ownership by partner governments and beneficiar-
ies, large government agricultural and social transfer programmes 
are not financially sustainable and depend on continued significant 
donor support.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

42

68. 

The Court makes the following recommendations to improve the ef-
fectiveness of the EU development aid for food security in sub-Saharan 
Africa:

RECOMMENDATION	1

For  the  programming  period  af ter  2013,  the  Commission  and  the 
 European External Action Service should carry out a structured assess-
ment of the food security situation in each country and systematically 
consider the potential scope for EU support in this area.

RECOMMENDATION	2

The Commission and the European External Action Service should ex-
amine, possibly with other development partners, the feasibility of a 
permanent instrument for financing urgent and supplementary meas-
ures that may be required to address the consequences of potential 
future food crises in developing countries.

RECOMMENDATION	3

The Commission and the European External Action Service should give 
adequate priority to nutrition when defining the cooperation strategy, 
identifying and designing interventions, and using policy dialogue with 
partner governments, notably in the framework of budget support pro-
grammes.

RECOMMENDATION	4

The Commission should set out intervention objectives that are suf-
ficiently precise and measurable through performance indicators. It 
should ensure that the objectives are achievable by better assessing 
the risks and assumptions concerning the successful implementation 
of interventions.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

43

RECOMMENDATION	5

The Commission should better support the financial sustainability of 
agriculture and social transfer programmes. In doing so, the Commis-
sion should:

(a) 

(b) 

place more emphasis on the development of effective agricul-
tural extension services, post-harvest infrastructure and rural 
credit;

ensure that social transfer programmes provide for adequate sup-
port to the development of income-earning capacities of the 
beneficiaries.

This Report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Karel PINXTEN, 
Member  of  the  Cour t  of  Auditors,  in  Luxembourg  at  its  meeting  of 
10 January 2012.

For t he  Cou r t  of Au d it ors

Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
President

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

 
ANNEX	I

44

44

MAP	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	SUB-SAHARAN	AFRICA	AND	SOUTH	ASIA

a
e
r
o
K

.

N

a
e
r
o
K

.

S

i

a
n
h
C

a

i
l

o
g
n
o
M

n
a

t

u
h
B

l

a
p
e
N

n
a

i

t
s
k
a
P

.

p
e
R
c
m
a
s
I

l

i

n
a
t
s
k

i

i
j

a
T

n
a

i

t
s
n
a
h
g
A

f

i

n
a
t
s
n
e
m
k
r
u
T

.

n
a
r
I

.

p
e
R
z
y
g
r
y
K

i

n
a
t
s
k
e
b
z
U

.

b
r
e
z
A

t
i

a
w
u
K

q
a
r
I

i

a
n
e
m
A

r

i

a
g
r
o
e
G

.

p
e
R

.

b
a
r
A

n
a
i
r
y
S

y
e
k
r
u
T

n
o
n
a
b
e
L

i

i

a
s
n
u
T

n
a
d
r
o
J

l

e
a
r
s
I

o
c
c
o
r
o
M

a
y
b
L

i

a
i
r
e
g
A

l

i

a
e
n
u
G
w
e
N

a
u
p
a
P

e
t
s
e
L
-
r
o
m
T

i

i

a
s
e
n
o
d
n
I

s
e
n
p
p

i

i
l
i

h
P

d
n
a

l
i

a
h
T

i

a
s
y
a
a
M

l

m
a
n
t
e
V

i

i

a
d
o
b
m
a
C

i

e
n
u
r
B

a
k
n
a
L

i
r

S

D
R
P

o
a
L

r
a
m
n
a
y
M

h
s
e
d
a
g
n
a
B

l

i

a
d
n

I

n
a
m
O

.

E
A
U

.

.

p
e
R
n
e
m
e
Y

a
e
r
t
i
r

E

n
a
d
u
S

t

r
a
a
Q

i

n
a
r
h
a
B

i

a
b
a
r
A

i

d
u
a
S

.

p
e
R

.

b
a
r
A

.
t

p
y
g
E

i
t

u
o
b

i
j

D

a

i
l

a
m
o
S

s
o
r
o
m
o
C

i

a
p
o
h
E

t

i

i

a
n
a
z
n
a
T

a
y
n
e
K

a
d
n
a
g
U

i

d
n
u
r
u
B

a
d
n
a
w
R

.
p
e
R

.

m
e
D

o
g
n
o
C

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R

o
g
n
o
C

n
o
b
a
G

n
o
o
r
e
m
a
C

a
e
n
u
G

i

l

a
i
r
o
t
a
u
q
E

n
a
c
i
r
f
A

l

a
r
t
n
e
C

d
a
h
C

r
e
g
N

i

a
i
r
e
g
N

i

o
s
a
F
a
n
k
r
u
B

i

Benin

Togo

Ghana

e
r
i
o
v
I
’

d

e
t
ô
C

a
i
r
e
b
L

i

e
n
o
e
L
a
r
r
e
S

i

a
e
n
u
G

i

i

u
a
s
s
B
-
a
e
n
u
G

i

l

a
g
e
n
e
S

i

a
b
m
a
G

i
l

a
M

i

a
n
a

t
i
r
u
a
M

a
r
a
h
a
S
n
r
e
t
s
e
W

-
i
r
g
A
d
n
a
d
o
o
F
e
h
t

m
o
r
f
a
t
a
d
n
o
d
e
s
a
b
s
i

p
a
m

s
i
h
T

.
)

g
r
o

.
i
r
p

f
i
.

w
w
w

:

/
/
p
t
t
h

(
e
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

I

h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R
y
c

i
l

o
P
d
o
o
F

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

I

e
h
t

m
o
r
f

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
r
e
p
h
t
i

w
d
e
c
u
d
o
r
p
e
r
d
n
a
d
e
t
p
a
d
A

:

e
c
r
u
o
S

t
r
o
p
e
r
e
h
T

.

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O
h
t
l
a
e
H
d
l
r
o
W
e
h
t
d
n
a

,
)
s
y
e
v
r
u
S
h
t
l
a
e
H
d
n
a
c
h
p
a
r
g
o
m
e
D

i

(
S
H
D
E
R
U
S
A
E
M
d
n
u
F
s
n
e
r
d

'

,

l
i

h
C
s
n
o
i
t
a
N
d
e
t
i
n
U
e
h
t

,

s
n
o
i
t
a
N
d
e
t
i
n
U
e
h
t

f

o
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O
e
r
u
t
l
u
c

.

x
e
d
n
i
-
r
e
g
n
u
h
-
l
a
b
o
g
-
9
0
0
2
/
n
o
i
t
a
c

l

i
l

b
u
p
/
g
r
o

.
i
r
p

f
i
.

w
w
w

:

/
/
p
t
t
h
t
a
e
n

i
l

n
o
d
n
u
o

f
e
b
n
a
c
s
e
m
o
c
p
a
m

i

s
i
h
t
h
c
h
w
m
o
r
f

.

8
0
0
2
r
o
f
e
r
a
y
t
i
l
a
t
r
o
m
d

l
i

h
c
n
o
a
t
a
d
d
n
a
,
e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
a
e
r
a
a
t
a
d
h
c
i
h
w

r
o
f
8
0
–
3
0
0
2

o
d
p
a
m

s
i
h
t
n
o
d
e
s
u
s
n
o
i
t
a
n
g
i
s
e
d
e
h
t
d
n
a
n
w
o
h
s

s
e
m
a
n
d
n
a
s
e
i
r
a
d
n
u
o
b
e
h
T

y
c
i
l

o
P
d
o
o
F
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

I
e
h
t
y
b
e
c
n
a
t
p
e
c
c
a
r
o
t
n
e
m
e
s
r
o
d
n
e
l
a
i
c

ffi
o
y
l
p
m

i

t
o
n

r
o
f
e
r
a
d
e
h
s
i
r
u
o
n
r
e
d
n
u
f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
p
e
h
t
n
o
a
t
a
d

,
I

H
G
0
1
0
2
e
h
t

r
o
F
:
e
t
o
N

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
h
t
n

i

r
a
e
y
t
s
e
t
a
l
e
h
t

i

r
o
f
e
r
a
t
h
g
e
w
r
e
d
n
u
d

l
i

h
c
n
o
a
t
a
d

,

6
0
–
4
0
0
2

.
s
r
o
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c
d
n
a
s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p
s
t
i

f
o

,
)
I
R
P
F
I
(
e
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

I

h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

d
n
a

l
i

z
a
w
S

t

o
h
o
s
e
L

a
c
i
r
f

A
h
t
u
o
S

s
u

i
t
i
r
u
a
M

r
a
c
s
a
g
a
d
a
M

i

e
u
q
b
m
a
z
o
M

e
w
b
a
b
m
Z

i

a
n
a
w
s
t
o
B

i

i

a
b
m
a
N

i

l

w
a
a
M

i

a
b
m
a
Z

l

a
o
g
n
A

l

i

l

g
n
m
r
a
a
y
e
m
e
r
t
x
E
0
,
0
3
≥

l

i

g
n
m
r
a
A
9
,
9
2
–
0
,
0
2

s
u
o
i
r
e
S
9
,
9
1
–
0
,
0
1

e
t
a
r
e
d
o
M
9
,
9
–
0
,
5

w
o
L
9
,
4
≤

a
t
a
d
o
N

□

□

□

□

□

□

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45

ANNEX	II

OVERVIEW	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	ETHIOPIA

Food insecurity is a persistent problem in Ethiopia. Despite continuous support from the donor 
community over the last 20 years, the number of people in need of food assistance increased from 
6,7 million in 1994 to 12,6 million in 20101. The main causes of food insecurity are the high population 
growth rate (annual average of 2 million people) which, combined with the reliance on small-size 
and rain-fed agricultural holdings, results in unsustainable pressure on land 2 and soil erosion. This 
in turn reduces agricultural productivity and yields. Insecurity of land tenure by farmers is another 
important cause of food insecurity. Land is the property of the state and farmers have usufruct rights, 
which both discourage and hamper access to the loans necessary to undertake productive invest-
ments. Inefficiency of domestic markets and inadequate transport infrastructure pushes up food 
prices, further hindering access to food. Furthermore, it also complicates the physical distribution 
from surplus to deficit production areas, thereby increasing the need for food imports.

While national agricultural production has increased over the last five years 3, Ethiopia is still depend-
ent on commercial food imports and food aid. For example, food aid imports averaged 700 000 tonnes 
over the past decade4. Nevertheless, there are no reliable figures on the national food gap due to 
significant discrepancies (up to 40 %)4 between the national crop production data published by the 
Ministry of Agriculture and by the Central Statistical Agency. 

Ethiopia’s population is currently estimated at 77,5 million people, 85 % of whom depend on agricul-
ture as their primary source of livelihood. Agriculture’s contribution to the national gross domestic 
product (GDP) is 45 % and its development is therefore essential for poverty reduction. Since its 
first comprehensive strategy for the agricultural sector5, the government of Ethiopia has supported 
agricultural production and productivity as the main means of attaining food sufficiency and boost-
ing economic growth.

Food security has been a priority under the national poverty reduction strategies. The Sustainable 
Development and Poverty Reduction Paper (PRSP) covering the period 2002–05 recognised the 
need to improve food availability and access. The PRSP was followed by the Plan for Accelerated 
Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), which covered the period 2005–10 and included 
food security policy as part of its agricultural development policy. This priority was maintained in 
the current poverty reduction strategy for the period 2010–15, the Growth and Transformation Plan.

1  Ethiopia’s Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency, time series data 2010.

2  According to the EU delegation, more than one third of households farm less than 0,5 hectares.

3  According to the Commission’s draft MTR of the 10th CSP carried out in 2009: ‘Cereals production rose from a post-drought level of 
10 million tonnes in 2004 to over 16 million tonnes in 2007 and 2008.’

4  EC 10th EDF CSP diagnosis study on rural development and food security.

5  Agriculture development-led industrialisation strategy, 1993.

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

46

ANNEX	II

The first food security policy adopted in 2001 aimed to increase the availability of food, improve ac-
cess to food and strengthen emergency response capabilities. This policy stressed the government’s 
intention to move from food-aid relief towards a more predictable and development-oriented sup-
port. In 2003, a Government-Donor Coalition for Food Security agreed on the design of the Produc-
tive Safety-Net Programme (PSNP). Since 2005, the PSNP has provided conditional and unconditional 
cash and/or food transfers for approximately 8 million people who would otherwise need food aid 
through emergency appeals. Its aim is to improve access to food while safeguarding the productive 
assets of vulnerable households. 

The  food  security  policy  is  implemented  through  the  Food  Security  Programmes  (FSPs),  which 
have  so  far  covered  the  periods  2005–10  and  2010–14. The  FSP  has  four  pillars:  (i)  the  PSNP; 
(ii)  voluntar y  population  resettlement;  (iii)  the  household  asset-building  programme  (HAB);  
and (iv) the complementary investment programme for rural infrastructure. 

As for the nutrition situation, the MDG-related indicators are lagging behind 6. The first national nutri-
tion strategy was adopted in 2008 and is being implemented by the Ministry of Health through the 
national nutrition programme for 2008–13. Its aim is to reduce the scale of malnutrition in Ethiopia, 
especially amongst children under the age of five and pregnant and lactating women.

6  According to the government of Ethiopia’s PASDEP progress reports from 2007 and 2009 MOFED — Matrix Table 1, the indicator on 
prevalence of underweight children under the age of five is close to 40 % while the MDG target is 30 %.

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

47

ANNEX	III

OVERVIEW	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	MALAWI

Malawi’s economy is dominated by agriculture, which represents 35 % of national GDP and employs 
85 % of the workforce, most of whom are smallholders and subsistence farmers. The main food crop is 
maize, which takes 75 % of cropland, tobacco being the main cash crop. Smallholder agriculture thus 
plays a crucial role in the economic development of the country, but low productivity is slowing down 
the overall pace of development and has become the main cause of poverty and food insecurity.

Low agricultural productivity is due to several structural constraints such as: (i) population density 
(the highest in Africa) which, combined with the small7 size of rain-fed agricultural holdings, results 
in soil degradation; (ii) the lack of rural credit, which hinders smallholders’ access to productive as-
sets such as land and inputs; (iii) poor market access and inadequate infrastructure, which increase 
transaction costs and food prices; and (iv) limited off-farm employment, which directs the population 
towards environmentally unsustainable coping strategies (i.e. deforestation).

Available data indicate that 70 % of all households in Malawi run out of their own self-produced food 
between three to four months prior to the next harvest8. Food insecurity in Malawi is also a problem 
of access to food. In 2005, 22 % of the population was ultra-poor, meaning that one in every five 
people could not afford a minimum basic diet9. As for the nutrition situation, the lack of food access 
and an unbalanced diet based mainly on maize are the major causes of chronic malnutrition. Between 
60 % and 70 % of caloric intake comes from maize, with the result that 43 % of the under-fives are 
stunted, 22 % are underweight and 5 % suffer from acute malnutrition10.

The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) covering the period 2006–11 includes agri-
culture and food security as well as prevention and the management of nutrition disorders among 
its priorities. The government’s objective for food security is ‘to make Malawi a hunger-free nation’. 
The medium-term expected outcome is that ‘food will be available for all Malawians in sufficient 
quantities and qualities, at affordable prices’. The strategies defined to achieve this outcome are based 
on increased agricultural productivity, functioning crop markets, reduced food-aid dependency, ef-
fective early-warning systems, income-generating activities, coordination of food aid and imports, 
and the construction of silos to improve storage capacity. These strategies were further developed 
in more operational plans in the food security policy adopted in 2006.

7  According to USAID’s food security programme for 2008–14, three out of four farmers cultivate less than a hectare and 40 % of holdings 
are less than half a hectare.

8  Economics Association of Malawi and Ministry of Agriculture, ‘Can Malawi reverse the growing chronic and acute food and nutrition 
insecurity?’, concept note for a regional conference on food and nutrition security, 19–21 June 2006.

9  Malawi Integrated Household Survey, 2004/05.

10  UN System High-Level Task Force for the Global Food Security Crisis, country report 23 February to 4 March 2010.

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

48

ANNEX	III

The government’s commitment to improving food security is reflected in its budgetary priorities. 
In 2009, 14 % of the national budget was allocated to agriculture, most of which (71 %) for the Farm 
Input Subsidy Programme (FISP). The FISP11 was launched in 2005 and is the largest programme in 
the country. It is part of the National Safety-Net Strategy 12 (NSNS) and provides smallholder and 
subsistence farmers with subsidised fertiliser and improved maize seeds which, combined with good 
rains, have increased maize production, making the country maize sufficient for the last four years 13. 

In its national nutrition policy and strategy adopted in 2007 14, the government of Malawi recognised 
that this issue had so far received insufficient attention. This policy seeks to enhance the response 
to malnutrition with a focus in the following three areas: (i) prevention and control of the most com-
mon nutrition disorders among women, men, boys and girls in Malawi by 2012; (ii) increased access 
to timely and effective management of the most common nutrition disorders; and (iii) an enabling 
environment for the effective implementation of nutrition services and programmes.

11  The FISP is currently funded by the government of Malawi (for the fertiliser component), plus the Commission, DfID, Ireland and 
Norway (for the seed component).

12  The NSNS was adopted in 2002 and has four main components: public works programme; targeted input programme; targeted 
nutrition programme and direct transfers programme.

13  UN System High-Level Task Force for the Global Food Security Crisis, country report 23 February to 4 March 2010. The self-sufficiency 
level is set at 2,3 million tonnes.

14  The national nutrition policy and strategic plan, 2007–12.

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

49

ANNEX	IV

OVERVIEW	OF	THE	FOOD	SECURITY	SITUATION	IN	RWANDA

Rwanda suffered greatly from the 1994 genocide. After a rehabilitation period, the country has 
under taken major steps on the path to recovery. Rwanda’s priorities are embodied in Rwanda Vision 
2020, which was issued in July 2000 after a national consultation process which lasted two years.

The agricultural sector employs 80 % of the population, mainly in subsistence agriculture, and ac-
counts for 42 % of GDP. Vision 2020’s aim is to transform Rwanda from a subsistence agriculture 
economy to a knowledge-based society, adopting a ‘pro-poor ’ approach to combat hunger and 
poverty. Rwanda’s first Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (2002–05) focused on reconstruction 
and rehabilitation. Despite rapid and sustained economic growth during this transition period, limited 
progress in poverty and inequality reduction was achieved. This led to a redefinition of priorities 
under the second Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) which covers the 
period 2008–12. One priority under ‘Agriculture’ is to develop a food security strategy.

Despite strong political will and impressive results, Rwanda is still in a difficult situation regarding 
food insecurity, ranked 64 out of 84 countries in the 2010 Global Hunger Index. The country is in 
a food deficit 15 situation and the population is highly vulnerable to food insecurity with 40 % of 
people undernourished. Rwanda is unlikely to achieve the MDG1 targets for poverty and undernour-
ishment. Indeed, the MDG1 poverty indicator (percentage of population below the national poverty 
line) decreased from 60,4 % (baseline in 2000) to 56,9 % in 2006, struggling to achieve the 2015 tar-
get of 30,2 %. Similarly, the MDG1 child malnutrition indicator (percentage of underweight children 
under five) was 22,5 % in 2006, better than the 2000 baseline rate of 24,5 %, but lagging behind 
the 2015 target of 14,5 %.

Food availability has significantly increased since 2006 mainly due to improved yields for the main 
crops as well as favourable climatic conditions. Under Vision 2020, alongside the poverty reduction 
strategies, Strategic Plans for the Transformation of Agriculture (SPTA I and II) were adopted with 
the Crop Intensification Programme (CIP) being a key programme aiming to increase agricultural 
productivity in high-potential food crops and ensure food security and self-sufficiency. Food avail-
ability as a whole has improved, but there are concerns about the production of key food security 
crops. While yield had increased for several main crops (maize, rice and wheat), the production of 
several other key food security crops (sweet potatoes, beans, bananas, cassava and sorghum) had 
been declining since 2000.

15  The figures in the Ministry of Agriculture’s latest Food Balance Sheet (January–June 2010) indicate a food surplus. However, the 
following needs to be considered: (i) the post-harvest losses rate used for the calculation is 15 %, while a 30 % rate would have been more 
realistic since no major improvements have been noted in post-harvest losses; (ii) the reliability of the crop assessments is questionable.

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

50

ANNEX	IV

Access to food remains a challenge. Improvement in poverty rates and inequality did not follow the 
pace of Rwanda’s rapid economic growth: the proportion of the population living below the national 
poverty line only slightly decreased from 60,4 % in 2000 to 56,9 % 2006, with extreme poverty fall-
ing only from 41,3 % to 36,9 %. Coupled with high poverty, increasingly high food prices 16 hinder 
access to food for the most vulnerable people, notably those who have no or little land. The main 
challenges are access to scarce wage labour and access to land, which is becoming more and more 
difficult due to increasing demographic pressure. In order to address this issue, the government is 
piloting Vision 2020 Umurenge programme ( VUP), a flagship of the EDPRS, in the poorest two sectors 
in each district. VUP is a highly decentralised integrated rural-development programme designed to 
accelerate extreme poverty reduction by targeting the neediest people. It is implemented through 
three components: (i) public works, planned through community-based participatory approaches; 
(ii) credit packages for cooperatives and small and medium-sized enterprises to foster entrepreneur-
ship and off-farm employment opportunities; and (iii) direct support for those unable to participate 
in public works and those without the productive capacity to qualify for credit packages. The gov-
ernment decided to scale up VUP to cover the whole country with a social protection strategy that 
was adopted in January 2011.

Rwanda is in a situation of chronic malnutrition with persistently high rates, particularly for children. 
According to the Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey carried out in 2005, 45 % of children  under 
five years of age suffer from chronic malnutrition (stunting 17), 22 % are underweight 18, and acute 
protein energy malnutrition (wasting19), which is associated with a high death rate, affects 4 % of 
children. Malnutrition also affects adults: 6,5 % of women are malnourished, with the highest rate 
of 8,8 % in the Southern Province where 4 % are severely malnourished 20. Malnutrition contributes 
to about 50 % of infant and child morbidity and mortality21.

16  According to the Rwanda Statistical Yearbook 2009, with 2003 as a 100 baseline, the change in the Consumer Price Index in 
December 2008 was as follows: bread and cereals: 223; meat: 190; fish: 207; vegetables: 192 and food and non-alcoholic beverages: 200. 
Since 2006, the government has succeeded in significantly decreasing the inflation rate.

17  Stunting: Height by age is a measure of linear growth and as such an indicator of long-term effects of undernutrition not affected by 
seasonal changes.

18  Underweight: Weight by age combines information from stunting and wasting. Children can be underweight because they are stunted, 
wasted or both.

19  Wasting: Height by weight is an indication of the current nutritional status of a child and reflects recent nutritional intake and/or 
episodes of illness. Severe wasting is often linked to acute food shortage.

20  According the 2009 Country Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (WFP).

21  Ministry of Health, Report on the First National Nutrition Summit held in Kigali from 24 to 26 November 2009.

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

51

ANNEX	IV

According to the national nutrition policy adopted in 2007, the root causes of malnutrition in Rwanda 
include inadequate institutional support for nutrition interventions, lack of ownership and control 
over family resources, and low literacy rates, particularly among women. In areas with high food 
production where the produce is often sold to increase household income, malnutrition is due to 
imbalanced or non-diversified diets, as well as inappropriate food storage practices which lead to 
food shortage during the lean season. The national nutrition policy asserts the multisectoral dimen-
sion of nutrition, and its importance in a country’s economic growth and in the achievement of the 
MDGs. It acknowledges the insufficient financial support (0,5 % of the national budget) and political 
interest given to nutrition, both by the government and development partners (apart from UNICEF). 
In 2009, after the President of Rwanda had decided that nutrition was to become a national prior-
ity, a national emergency programme to eliminate malnutrition was established and a Task Force 
on Nutrition was created under the Agriculture Sector Working Group to ensure close collaboration 
between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Local Government, other government organisations, 
UN agencies, development artners and several nationally based NGOs.

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

52

ANNEX	V

SCORING	METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of the audit, the scoring of relevance, design, results and sustainability was based on 
the Commission’s results-oriented monitoring (ROM) methodology. The criteria used are listed below.

Relevance

Clearly embedded in national policies and EC strategy, responds to Paris Declaration commitments on ownership, alignment and harmonisation, is highly 
relevant to needs of target group.

Fits well into national policies and EC strategy (without always being explicit), reasonably compatible with Paris Declaration commitments, relevant to target 
group’s needs.

There are some issues/problems regarding consistency with national and EC policies, Paris Declaration or relevance to targeting.

Contradictions with national policies or EC strategy, Paris Declaration commitments, relevance of needs is questionable. Major adaptations needed.

Clear and well-structured logframe; feasible and consistent vertical logic of objectives; adequate SMART OVIs (objectively verifiable indicators);  
risks and assumptions clearly identified and managed; exit strategy in place.

Adequate intervention logic although it might need some improvements regarding hierarchy of objectives, OVIs, risks and assumptions.

Problems with intervention logic may affect performance of project and capacity to monitor and evaluate progress; improvements necessary.

Intervention logic is faulty and requires major revision for the project to have a chance of success.

A

B

C

D

Design

A

B

C

D

Results

⇒ 

For closed projects

A

B

C

D

Benefits and capacities drawn from results are available, of good quality and used by all target groups.

Outcomes are mostly good quality, available and used by most target groups. Room for improvement exists, however without a serious impact on effectiveness.

Some benefits are available, but not always of the best quality. Improvements are necessary to ensure the project can achieve its purpose in terms of quality, 
reach and availability.

Outcomes are not available in most cases and are of poor quality. Major changes are required in order to attain results.

⇒ 

For ongoing projects

A

B

C

D

Full achievement of results is likely in terms of quality and coverage. Negative effects have been mitigated.

Results will be achieved with minor limitations; negative effects have not caused much harm.

Results will be achieved only partially among other things because of negative effects to which management was not able to fully adapt. Corrective measures 
have to be taken to improve ability to achieve results.

Project will not achieve its purpose unless major, fundamental remedial action is taken.

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

53

ANNEX	V

Sustainability

⇒ 

Financial/economic sustainability

A

B

C

D

Potentially very good; costs for services and maintenance are covered or affordable; external factors will not change that.

Likely to be good, but problems might arise namely from changing external economic factors.

Problems need to be addressed regarding financial sustainability either in terms of institutional or target-group costs or changing economic context.

Very questionable unless major changes are made.

⇒ 

Level of ownership

A

B

C

D

Local structures and institutions are strongly involved in all stages of implementation and are committed to continue producing and using results after the end 
of EC funding. 

Implementation is based in large part on local structures and institutions which are also involved to some degree in decision-making. Likeliness of sustainability 
is good, but there is room for improvement.

Project uses mainly ad hoc arrangements and not enough local structures and institutions to ensure sustainability. Continued results are not guaranteed.  
Corrective measures are needed.

Project depends completely on ad hoc structures with no prospect of sustainability. Fundamental changes are needed to enable sustainability.

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

54

ANNEX	VI

SCORES	OF	THE	AUDITED	INTERVENTIONS

Interventions

RWANDA

Type of 
project

Amount  
(million 
euro)

EU  
instru­
ment

Period

Rele­
vance

Design

Results

Sustain­
ability4

General and sector budget support pro-
grammes (6 programmes)

Government

336,10

EDF +  
EU budget  
(Food 
Facility)

2002–10

Government

34,00

EDF

2004–08

Programme Décentralisé de Réduction  
de la Pauvreté Rurale (PDRPR)

‘Améliorer la sécurite alimentaire  
des fermiers, principale composante  
de la population, par le renforcement  
du secteur agricole’

‘Projet de développement integré  
en milieu rural’

Reconciliation and peace building through 
food and income security, Gitarama

ETHIOPIA

NGO

NGO

NGO

0,54

0,75

0,72

Productive safety-net programme

Government

157,72

Pastoralist food security partnership project

Promoting urban agriculture

Improved food production for home and 
market in Arba Minch Zuria Woreda and 
Chencha Woreda in SNNPR Region of 
Ethiopia

NGO

NGO

NGO

Building resilient pastoralist communities

NGO

Support for the nutrition programme

Unicef

1,02

0,25

1,09

2,24

7,60

EU budget 
(DCI)

EU budget 
(NGO)

EU budget 
(NGO)

EDF +  
EU budget 
(FSBL)

EU budget 
(FSBL)

EU budget 
(NGO)

EU budget  
(Food 
Facility)

EU budget  
(Food 
Facility)

EU budget 
(FSBL)

2010–15

2006–08

2003–07

2005–14

2006–10

2006–10

2009–11

2009–11

2006–08

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

B

B

B

C

B

B

B

C

B

B

B

1

B

2

B

B

B

B

B

B

2

B

1

A

2

C

B

C

B

C

A

2

B

Special Report No 1 / 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

55

ANNEX	VI

Interventions

MALAWI

Type of 
project

Amount  
(million 
euro)

EU  
instru­
ment

Period

Rele­
vance

Design

Results

Sustain­
ability4

Food security programme 2004–06

Government

45,00

Food Facility budget support

Government

15,90

EU budget 
(FSBL)

EU budget  
(Food 
Facility)

2004–14

2009–10

Income generation public works programme

Government

25,00

EDF

2005–11

Green health — Backyard gardening  
to increase food production among  
vulnerable households

Farm Income Diversification  
Programme — FIDP

NGO

1,56

EU budget  
(Food 
Facility)

2010–12

Government

36,50

EDF

2005–16

Sustainable Nutrition Rehabilitation (SNR)

TOTAL

Governement 
and  NGO

4 NGOs

1,50

4,70

672,20

EDF

2006–07

2006–10

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

B

C

C

B

B

C

1

B

2

3

National component

C

C

EU component

B

C

C

1

B

2

C

D

C

1  The Court cannot assess the extent to which the EU budget support programmes have contributed to the results of the 
governments' programmes since there are multiple and complex intervening factors and no suitable evaluation methodology  
yet exists.

2  The intervention is at a too early stage of implementation to be assessed. 

3  Adequate data not available due to weaknesses in the monitoring and evaluation system.

4  The overall score for sustainability results from the combination of the scores for financial/economic sustainability and for the level 
of ownership.

Special Report No 1/ 2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

56

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

II.
The Court focused its audit on three dimensions of food 
security (availability, access, nutrition) to which stability 
elements  contribute.  Stability  has  become  more  promi-
nent over the years in the EU policy framework (as a fourth 
dimension). This has been restated in the 2010 food secur-
ity policy (COM(2010) 127). Significant amounts relevant 
to  food  security  are  also  channelled  through:  (i)  food 
assistance;  (ii)  instruments  such  as V-Flex  inter ventions 
established to tackle the impact of food price rises on the 
national budget; and (iii) supra-national levels (global, con-
tinental and regional), which are not part of this audit. 

IV.
The  Commission  welcomes  the  Cour t ’s  finding  that  EU 
development  aid  for  food  security  is  highly  relevant  to 
needs and priorities.

A number of other elements than the hunger/MDG1 situ-
ation  come  into  consideration  when  programming  EU 
assistance, not least the aid effectiveness agenda, i.e. align-
ment  to  policies  and  priorities  of  beneficiary  countries, 
harmonisation,  and  division  of  labour  between  donors. 
When programming EDF10, the Commission had to reduce 
the focal sectors to two, among those in which it had a 
recognised comparative advantage. However, the Commis-
sion acknowledges that more systematic attention should 
have been given to food security, notably with the termin-
ation of the FSBL. 

V.
The Commission welcomes the recognition by the Court of 
the complementarity of the FSTP and EDF. The Food Facil-
ity aimed at addressing food price rises in the short term. 
It was an ad hoc instrument to react to the soaring food 
prices of 2007/08. It was the first time in several decades 
that food prices started to rise. The Food Facility did not 
intend  to  address  food  price  evolution  (neither  rise  nor 
volatility), in the longer term. 

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

57

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

VI.
The  Commission  considers  that  nutrition  has  not  been 
given sufficient attention. However, since 2008, the impor-
tance of nutrition has been stressed and the Commission 
has become a very proactive actor in this area.

Recent  scientific  evidence  (2008)  has  shown  that  nutri-
tion strategies which tackle the immediate and underlying 
causes of undernutrition are effective, especially during 
pregnancy and early childhood. In line with this evidence, 
and based on feedback from delegations, the Commission, 
in recent years, has stepped up its commitment to fight 
undernutrition through: (1) increased financial support, 
(2) greater, proactive engagement in national and inter-
national coordination, (3) strengthened technical cap acity 
with  the  creation  of  (i)  a  nutrition  advisor y  ser vice  and 
(ii) the development of technical guidance. 

B y  and  large,  the  Commission  has  been  leading  the 
renewed priority given to nutrition, both at political and 
operational levels. 

VII.
The  Commission  welcomes  the  Cour t ’s  appreciation  in 
respect of the quality of EU interventions. The Commission 
acknowledges  that  on  occasions  the  project  objectives 
could be clearer and more realistic, especially in the case 
of some NGO projects. 

NGOs have an added value for food security in terms of 
operating at grass-roots level, including in areas where the 
administration is absent, outreach to marginalised commu-
nities, improving sector governance and using innovative 
approaches.

VIII.
Agriculture  and  social  transfer  systems  need  time  to 
develop and, as such, sustainability beyond a project cycle 
is an issue. A longer-term funding commitment in succes-
sive phases should be envisaged.

The sustainability of large agricultural and social protec-
tion programmes depends on government budgetary allo-
cations, as well as on the number of target beneficiaries. 
Sustainability  can  be  enhanced  by  reducing  the  size  of 
the target group (clear aim of the Ethiopian government) 
or guaranteeing budgetary allocations (e.g. for key social 
services). The sustainability of not having such large pro-
grammes in place should also be considered, i.e. the situa-
tion of vulnerable groups in Ethiopia before the PSNP and 
aid delivery prior to PSNP). 

IX.	(a)
The Commission fully agrees with this recommendation.

IX.	(b)
The Commission agrees to examine this possibility. High 
volatility will remain a feature of food prices in the future. 
The Commission believes that a multi-pronged approach 
will be required including to support partner countries to 
factor food price volatility in their own food security pol-
icies and addressing the issue at various levels and through 
various instruments, a number of them being outside the 
remit  of  development  cooperation.  In  the  future  multi-
annual financial framework (MFF) 2014–20 the capacity for 
response to crises should be enhanced. 

IX.	(c)
The Commission agrees to give adequate priority to nutri-
tion.  I t  has  already  taken  steps  to  ensure  that  under- 
nutrition is addressed in EU external assistance through 
a  reference  document,  specialist  advisor y  ser vices  and 
action at political level (such as with the ‘Scaling-up nutri-
tion’ (SUN) initiative, UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, 
donor coordination with EU Member States, the USA and 
Canada, etc.) and policy level (EU food security policy, pol-
icy dialogue with partner countries). 

IX.	(d)
The Commission agrees with the recommendation. It has, 
over the past years, undertaken significant efforts in devel-
oping methodological guidance and reinforcing quality 
through quality support groups.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

58

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

17.
The Commission agrees with the order of magnitude pro-
posed in the table but wishes to point out the difficulties 
encountered in establishing precise amounts allocated to 
food security. As indicated by the Court in paragraph 15, 
food security is an objective of a multisectoral nature. For 
example some interventions relevant to nutrition may be 
found under ‘health’, or ‘water and sanitation’. Furthermore 
it may be only part of the intervention objectives. 

OBSERVATIONS

The Commission agrees that the comprehensive approach 
to food security needs to be applied in a more systematic 
way.

19.
A number of other elements than the hunger/MDG1 situ-
ation  come  into  consideration  when  programming  EU 
assistance, not least the aid effectiveness agenda, i.e. align-
ment  to  policies  and  priorities  of  beneficiary  countries, 
harmonisation,  and  division  of  labour  between  donors. 
When programming EDF10, the Commission had to reduce 
the focal sectors to two, among those in which it had a 
recognised comparative advantage. However, the Commis-
sion acknowledges that more systematic attention should 
have been given to food security, notably with the termi-
nation of the FSBL. 

22.	
The  Commission  welcomes  the  Cour t  obser vation  that 
food security has consistently been part of the EDF coop-
eration  strategy  in  11  countries,  in  both  the  9th  and 
10th EDFs.

23.	
See the Commission’s reply to paragraph 19.

The Commission will seek to maximise impact by sharpen-
ing its targeting of beneficiaries. Methodologies and tech-
nologies available to target and reach vulnerable groups 
have improved in recent years and will be put to use.

IX.	(e)
The Commission agrees with this recommendation. These 
are some of the areas of intervention highlighted in the EU 
food security policy (COM(2010) 127).

INTRODUCTION

1.
The Court focused its audit on three dimensions of food 
security (availability, access and nutrition) to which stabil-
ity elements contribute. Stability has become more promi-
nent over the years in the EU policy framework (as a fourth 
dimension). This has been restated in the 2010 food secur-
ity policy (COM(2010) 127).

7.
The Commission shares the Court’s analysis of the factors 
contributing to food insecurity but wishes to emphasise as 
well the more political dimensions of food insecur ity which 
affect disproportionately specific population groups, such 
as nomads and ethnic minorities. 

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is another ex ample 
of  the  negative  impact  of  political  instability  on  food 
secur ity, with malnutrition rates of 69 %, as indicated in 
Table 2 of the report. 

7.	(b)
This low rate of investment has been recognised by the 
international  community  and  led  to  the  commitment 
under taken  under  the  L’Aquila  Food  Security  Initiative 
(AFSI) to substantially increase official development assist-
ance (ODA) to food security.

7.	(f )	(ii)	
Evidence on the role of speculation in price volatility and 
the impact of bio-fuels on food prices remains inconclu-
sive but warrants adequate monitoring.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

25.
There are other factors coming into consideration at pro-
gramming.  For  example,  in  Botswana,  a  middle  income 
country, the choice of human resources development as a 
focal sector was in line with the government development 
strategies to diversify the economy from over-reliance on 
the mining sector, allowing for a broader based growth. In 
other countries, the lack of sound and consistent agricul-
tural and/or food security policy constrained the choice of 
these areas as focal sectors. Selecting this area for EU sup-
port would have led to inefficient use of public resources. 

26.
The Commission recognises the need for a more system-
atic assessment of the food security situation and a more 
explicit link between the selected focal sectors and food 
security issues, irrespective of whether food security is a 
focal sector or not.

Box	1
See the Commission’s reply to paragraph 26.

27.	
Food security has, since the food crisis, gained attention 
from the entire international community, as a worldwide 
challenge, and is now a top priority of the G8/G20.

32.
The Commission is pleased with the positive assessment 
of  the  speed  at  which  the  Commission  set  up  the  Food 
Facility.

59

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

33.
At the time of the design of the Food Facility, there was 
little  indication  that  the  food  price  rise  would  become 
a recurrent issue. It was generally believed that the FFF 
(fuel,  food  and  financial)  crisis  would  be  shor t-lived.  It 
appears now that food prices are remaining volatile and 
high. However the Food Facility was envisaged as a short-
term response to the 2008 crisis, to be relayed by other 
instruments in the longer term.

34.
See the Commission’s reply to paragraph 33.

36.
The  Commission  considers  that  nutrition  has  not  been 
given sufficient attention. However, since 2008, the impor-
tance of nutrition has been stressed and the Commission 
has become a very proactive actor in this area.

See also the Commission’s reply to paragraph VI.

38.
In Ethiopia it was a deliberate choice to support the pro-
ductive safety-net programme (PSNP) and hence privilege 
the access dimension, which improves the food security 
situation for a maximum number of people per euro spent.

39.
Access to food has gained importance in EU interventions. 
While the recognition of the issue within partner countries 
is important, the Commission has also promoted, and is 
promoting, this recognition by developing together with 
some Members States and with active contributions from 
EU delegations, methodological guidance on social trans-
fers as a tool to enhance access to food. 

40./42.	Common	reply
The  Commission  considers  that  nutrition  has  not  been 
given sufficient attention. However, since 2008, the impor-
tance of nutrition has been stressed and the Commission 
has become a very proactive actor in this area.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

60

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

50.
For the Food Facility, the main concern of the Commission 
was to tackle the impact of the price of fertilisers on food 
production and food prices.

51.
While the Commission does not disagree with the Court 
concerning the audited interventions, the Commission's 
results-oriented  monitoring  (ROM)  reports  show  overall 
an improvement. However the definition of SMART per-
formance  indicators  is  particularly  challenging  for  food 
security  where  results  depend  also  on  external  factors 
(e.g. climate).

52.
The Commission recognises that some NGO projects objec-
tives may be overstated. Yet these projects deliver actual 
results on the ground.

As the NGOs have demonstrated over the years, through 
their  strong  anchorage  in  the  field,  to  be  effective  and 
efficient, the Commission considers their contribution in 
the implementation of the food security measures as very 
important.

53.	
The Commission has replied to Special Report No 11/2010 
that ‘the  revised  guidelines  will  provide  more  detailed 
guidance on the intervention logic underlying the general 
budget support programmes in order to better articulate 
the link between objectives and results’. This would apply 
to sector budget support programmes as well.

54.	
This  paragraph  links  well  with  Recommendation  6  (Dia-
logue)  of  the  Cour t  of  Auditors  Special  Repor t  on  glo -
bal  budget  suppor t  (No  11/2010).  At  the  occasion  of 
this  report,  the  Commission  acknowledges  the  need  to 
re inforce its strategic approach to policy dialogue.

However,  in  the  case  of  Rwanda,  in  the  par ticular  con-
text of rebuilding the country, the cooperation between 
the  authorities  and  the  Commission  is  ver y  fruitful  and 
focused, as the Court recognises. 

Recent  scientific  evidence  (2008)  has  shown  that  nutri-
tion strategies which tackle the immediate and underlying 
causes of undernutrition are effective, especially during 
pregnancy and early childhood. In line with this evidence, 
and based on feedback from delegations, the Commission, 
in recent years, has stepped up its commitment to fight 
undernutrition through: (1) increased financial support, 
(2) greater, proactive engagement in national and inter-
national coordination, (3) strengthened technical cap acity 
with  the  creation  of  (i)  a  nutrition  advisor y  ser vice  and 
(ii) the development of technical guidance. 

B y  and  large,  the  Commission  has  been  leading  the 
renewed priority given to nutrition, both at political and 
operational levels. 

43.	
The  respective  importance  given  to  the  various  dimen-
sions of food security in the agenda of the government of 
Rwanda (GoR), as well as of the Commission, has evolved 
over time.

In the years following the genocide in Rwanda, priority was 
given to recovery, with tremendous challenges to face in 
terms of rehabilitation (infrastructures, human cap acity, 
administration…)  and  food  availability.  As  the  GoR  has 
started in the recent past recognising the extent of mal-
nutrition and the importance of confronting the issue of 
food security, the Commission has aligned in its response 
strategy to support the GoR’s various initiatives in relation 
to food security.

Besides, recognition by partner countries of undernutrition 
is a strong political statement that not all of them choose 
to make.

47.	
The Commission welcomes the Court’s observation. The 
Commission would like to stress that, while the cap acity 
of  the  beneficiaries  may  have  been  an  issue  on  spe -
cific projects, significant support is directed at building 
this  capacity.  Most  safety-net  programmes  indeed  have 
a strong capacity-building component aiming at enhanc-
ing the ability of the beneficiary to generate revenue and 
at their ‘graduation’ from programme support, and progres-
sively from poverty.

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

55.
The GBS programme in Malawi was to be disbursed by way 
of a single fixed tranche with conditionalities related to fis-
cal reforms. The objective was to reduce the fiscal gap due 
to the important increase of prices for fertiliser that the 
government provides as part of a farm input programme. 
The  EU  intervention  was  key  in  maintaining  the  current 
level of agricultural production, for food security reasons.

Box	6	–	Weak	practice
Food security interventions often take place in difficult, if 
not hostile, environments, trying to reach marginal groups, 
and are therefore per se more risky operations, yet worth 
under tak ing  and  achieving  significant  results  at  small 
costs.

With growing urbanisation, urban agriculture plays a more 
impor tant  role  in  food  secur it y,  in  par ticular  for  HIV 
patients.

61.
The  Commission  agrees  that  the  factors  listed  by  the 
Court can negatively affect the performance of projects. 
These factors would affect projects in all sectors. Commis-
sion  methodologies  have  been,  and  are  being,  updated 
to reflect this and ensure better assessment of these ele-
ments.  For  instance  during  a  quality  review  of  projects 
Commission staff are invited to pay specific attention to 
overambition, ownership, risk assessment and demand-led 
technical cooperation.

Box	7	—	Weak	practice
The Commission wishes to draw the attention to the fact 
that  data  collection  in  Malawi  has  been  resumed  with 
funding from the multiannual food security programme 
2004–06, albeit with a different approach which puts more 
emphasis on decentralised structures.

61

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

63.
The Commission accepts this observation. These are some 
of the areas of intervention highlighted in the food secur-
ity policy (COM(2010) 127).

Box	8	—	Weak	practice
The Commission recognises that graduation is a complex 
issue, where the conditions for success depend on external 
factors, especially economic growth.

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

65.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s report and notes 
with satisfaction that the Court concludes that EU devel-
opment aid to food security in sub-Saharan Africa is mostly 
effective and makes an important contribution to progress 
in achieving food security in partner countries.The Com-
mission  agrees  that  there  are  areas  for  improvements, 
notably:

 — systematic attention to food security in the next program-

ming exercise;

 — an adequate consideration to nutrition;

 — a more systematic application of its comprehensive approach 

to food security.

The Commission wants to stress that steps have been, and 
are being taken, in these directions.

67.	(a)
A number of other elements than the hunger/MDG1 situ-
ation  come  into  consideration  when  programming  EU 
assistance, not least the aid effectiveness agenda, i.e. align-
ment  to  policies  and  priorities  of  beneficiary  countries, 
harmonisation,  and  division  of  labour  between  donors. 
When programming EDF10, the Commission had to reduce  
the the focal sectors to two, among those in which it had a 
recognised comparative advantage. However, the Commis-
sion acknowledges that more systematic attention should 
have been given to food security, notably with the termi-
nation of the FSBL.  

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

62

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

67.	(b)
The  Commission  considers  that  nutrition  has  not  been 
given sufficient attention. However, since 2008, the impor-
tance of nutrition has been stressed and the Commission 
has become a very proactive actor in this area.

Recent  scientific  evidence  (2008)  has  shown  that  nutri-
tion strategies which tackle the immediate and underlying 
causes of undernutrition are effective, especially during 
pregnancy and early childhood. In line with this evidence, 
and based on feedback from delegations, the Commission, 
in recent years, has stepped up its commitment to fight 
undernutrition through: (1) increased financial support, 
(2) greater, proactive engagement in national and inter-
national coordination, (3) strengthened technical cap acity 
with  the  creation  of  (i)  a  nutrition  advisor y  ser vice  and 
(ii) the development of technical guidance. 

B y  and  large,  the  Commission  has  been  leading  the 
renewed priority given to nutrition, both at political and 
operational levels. 

67.	(c)	
The Food Facility aimed at addressing food price rises in 
the  short  term.  It  was  an  ad  hoc  instrument  to  react  to 
the soaring food prices of 2007/08. It was the first time in 
several decades that food prices started to rise. The Food 
Facility did not intend to address food price evolution (nei-
ther rise nor volatility) in the longer term.

67.	(d)	
The  Commission  ack nowledges  that  on  occasions  the 
project  objectives  could  be  clearer  and  more  realistic, 
especially in the case of some NGO projects. 

67.	(e)
Agriculture  and  social  transfer  systems  need  time  to 
develop and, as such, sustainability beyond a project cycle 
is an issue. A longer-term funding commitment in succes-
sive phases should be envisaged.

The sustainability of large agricultural and social protec-
tion programmes depends on government budgetary allo-
cations, as well as on the number of target beneficiaries. 
Sustainability  can  be  enhanced  by  reducing  the  size  of 
the target group (clear aim of the Ethiopian government) 
or guaranteeing budgetary allocations (e.g. for key social 
services). The sustainability of not having such large pro-
grammes in place should also be considered (i.e. the situa-
tion of vulnerable groups in Ethiopia before the PSNP and 
aid delivery prior to PSNP). 

Recommendation	1
The Commission fully agrees with this recommendation. 

Recommendation	2
The Commission agrees to examine this possibility. High 
volatility will remain a feature of food prices in the future. 
The Commission believes that a multi-pronged approach 
will be required including to support partner countries to 
factor food price volatility in their own food security pol-
icies and addressing the issue at various levels and through 
various instruments, a number of them being outside the 
remit  of  development  cooperation.  In  the  future  multi-
annual financial framework (MFF) 2014–20 the capacity for 
response to crises should be enhanced.

Recommendation	3
The Commission agrees to give adequate priority to nutri-
tion.  I t  has  already  taken  steps  to  ensure  that  under-
nutrition is addressed in EU external assistance through 
a  reference  document,  specialist  advisor y  ser vices  and 
action at political level (such as with the ‘Scaling-up nutri-
tion’ (SUN) initiative, UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, 
donor coordination with EU Member States, the USA and 
Canada, etc.) and policy level (EU food security policy, pol-
icy dialogue with partner countries).

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

63

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Recommendation	4
The Commission agrees with the recommendation. It has, 
over the past years, undertaken significant efforts in devel-
oping methodological guidance and reinforcing quality 
through quality support groups.

The Commission will seek to maximise impact by sharpen-
ing its targeting of beneficiaries. Methodologies and tech-
nologies available to target and reach vulnerable groups 
have improved in recent years and will be put to use.

Recommendation	5
The Commission agrees with this recommendation. These 
are some of the areas of intervention highlighted in the EU 
food security policy (COM(2010) 127).

Special Report No 1/2012 – Effectiveness of European Union development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	1/2012
Effectiveness	of	European	Union	development	aid	for	food	security	in	sub-Saharan	Africa

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2012 — 63 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-532-4
doi:10.2865/73005

HOW	TO	OBTAIN	EU	PUBLICATIONS

Free	publications:

• 

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced	publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	reports	of	
cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
2
-
0
0
1
-
E
N

-
C

F O O D  I N S E C U R I T Y  I S  A  P E R S I S T E N T  P R O B L E M  I N  S U B - S A H A R A N  A F R I C A:  H U N G E R 

AFFEC TS  30 %  OF  THE  POPULATION  AND  NEARLY  HALF  OF  THE  CHILDREN  SUFFER 

FROM CHRONIC MALNUTRITION. THE COURT EXAMINED WHETHER EUROPEAN UNION 

(EU) DEVELOPMENT AID FOR FOOD SECURIT Y IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA IS EFFEC TIVE, 

I.E.  WHE THER  IT  ADDRESSES THE  COUNTRIES’  NEEDS  AND  PRIORITIES  AND  THE  EU 

I N T E R V E N T I O N S  AC H I E V E  T H E I R  O B J E C T I V E S.  T H E  AU D I T  F O C U S E D  O N  E U  D I R E C T 

DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF FOOD SECURIT Y, I.E. FOOD 

AVAILABILITY, ACCESS TO FOOD AND FOOD UTILISATION OR NUTRITION. 

T H E   C O U R T   C O N C LU D E S   T H AT   E U   D E V E LO P M E N T   A I D   F O R   F O O D   S E C U R I T Y   I N 

S U B - S A H A R A N  A F R I C A  I S  M O S T LY  E F F E C T I V E,  H I G H LY  R E L E VA N T  TO  CO U N T R I E S’ 

NEEDS  AND  PRIORITIES,  AND  MAKES  AN  IMPORTANT  CONTRIBUTION TO  ACHIEVING 

F O O D  S E C U R I T Y.  H O W E V E R,  T H E R E  I S  S CO P E  F O R  S I G N I F I C A N T  I M P R O V E M E N T  I N 

SEVERAL AREAS, SUCH AS BET TER ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL SCOPE FOR SUPPORT IN 

CHRONIC FOOD INSECURE COUNTRIES, GIVING ADEQUATE PRIORITY TO NUTRITION AND 

IMPROVING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE INTERVENTIONS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS