REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final Report on the implementation of the EU Food Facility
Date: 2013-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural production, developing countries, food aid, fund (EU), hunger, price of agricultural produce

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.4.2013  
COM(2013) 194 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Final Report on the implementation of the EU Food Facility 

{SWD(2013) 107 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Final Report on the implementation of the EU Food Facility 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AFSI 

L’Aquila Food Security Initiative 

AGIR Sahel 

Alliance Globale pour l'Initiative Résilience 

AU-IBAR 

African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources 

CSP/RSP 

Country/Regional Strategy Paper 

DEVCO 

Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid 

EDF 

EU 

FAO 

FSTP 

IFAD 

MFF 

NGO 

NSA 

PSNP 

European Development Fund 

European Union 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

Food Security Thematic Programme 

International Fund for Agricultural Development 

Multi- annual financial framework 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Non-State actor 

Productive Safety Net Programme 

SHARE 

Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience 

SWD 

UN 

Staff Working Document 

United Nations 

UNHLTF 

United Nations High-Level Task Force 

UNRWA 

United Nations Relief and Works Agency 

WB 

WFP 

The World Bank 

World Food Programme 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  2008,  the  long-term  trend  of  decreasing  food  prices  reversed  with  a  sharp  rise  of  staple 
food  prices.  As  a  consequence,  more  than  100  million  people  in  developing  countries 
plunged into hunger. High and volatile food prices worsened  the food insecurity situation, 
particularly for the most vulnerable people, and contributed to food riots in several countries.  

During  the  G8  Summit  in  July  2008,  the  Commission  announced  its  intention  for  a  EUR  1 
billion Food Facility instrument to react on a large scale to the effects of the food price 
crisis, indeed the EU response through the existing instruments1 required to be scaled up to 
address the needs resulting from such an economic shock. On 16 December 2008, the Food 
Facility  ('Facility  for  a  rapid  response  to  soaring  and  volatile  food  prices  in  developing 
countries') was established.  

The EU Food Facility constituted the first major financial response to the food crisis and 
helped to strengthen international coordination in the UN and the G8. For its most part, the 
Food  Facility  added  to  the  US$  3.9  billion  contribution  made  by  the  Commission  to  the 
L’Aquila  Food  Security  Initiative  (AFSI).  The  AFSI  was  launched  by  G8  leaders  on  July 
2009  and  amounts  US$22  billion  in  support  of  sustainable  agriculture  and  food  security  in 
developing  countries  over  three  years.  Following  up  on  these  commitments,  more  recently 
the EU has launched two new initiatives to respond to the massive food crises that have 
hit  the  Horn  of  Africa  and  the  Sahel  (SHARE2  and  AGIR3  Sahel).  Moreover,  the 
Commission  has  adopted  a  new  policy  framework  to  strengthen  the  resilience  of  the  most 
vulnerable people and communities to future crises4. 

Covering  a  period  of  three  years  (2009-2011),  the  EU  Food  Facility  primarily  addressed 
the  period  between  emergency  aid  and  medium-to-long  term  development  assistance. 
The objectives were to:  

•  encourage a positive supply response from the agricultural sector in target countries and 

regions,  

•  mitigate the negative effects of volatile food prices on local populations in line with global 

food security objectives, including UN standards for nutritional requirements; and,  

•  strengthen  the  productive  capacities  and  the  governance  of  the  agricultural  sector  to 

enhance the sustainability of interventions.  

In  line  with  these  objectives,  three  categories  of  measures  were  eligible  for  financing: 
measures to improve access to agricultural inputs and services, safety net measures, and 
other small-scale measures aiming at increasing production based on country needs.  

This report provides information on the various implementation measures taken, the outcomes 
and likely impact, and the key lessons learned and recommendations in order to improve the 
current and future EU food security programmes.  

This Communication is accompanied by a Staff Working Document (SWD), which provides 
more detail on measures taken and their short-term impact.5 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

The Vulnerability FLEX mechanism (500 million EUR), the European Development Fund-B envelope 
(185.9  million  EUR),  the  Food  Security  Thematic  Programme  (50  million  EUR)  and  ECHO  (210 
million EUR). 
Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience (SHARE). 
AGIR : Alliance globale pour l'Initiative Résilience - Sahel 
COM (2012) 586. 
SWD(2013) 107. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

PROGRAMMING AND IMPLEMENTATION 

In  March  2009,  the  Commission  submitted  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  an 
Overall  Plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  Food  Facility  containing  a  list  of  target 
countries  and  the  foreseen  balance  between  entities  eligible  for  implementation.  It  included 
the following indicative financial breakdown: (i) EUR 920 million would be allocated to 50 
countries selected on  the  basis  of  indicative criteria,  (ii)  EUR  60  million  would  be  used  for 
regional-level  interventions  in  Africa,  and  (iii)  EUR  20  million  was  retained  for  support 
measures. 

The funds were entirely committed by May 2010. The speed of the approval process owes 
much to the set up of a Task Force by the Commission, the use of fast track procedures, and to 
the  flexibility  shown  by  the  European  Parliament,  which  accepted  shortened  periods  for 
exercising its right of scrutiny.  

While  the  large  majority  of  activities  was  implemented  as  planned,  in  the  course  of 
implementation a number of changes were made to the Overall Plan, amounting to 5.2% 
of the value of the EU Food Facility6. Implementation could not take place in the Comoros 
while,  in  a  few  countries,  allocations  were  reduced  (e.g.  Madagascar,  Guinea,  Sao  Tomé  y 
Principe) or increased (e.g. Zambia). Budget support programmes could not be implemented 
as  initially  foreseen7,  on  the  other  hand  support  channelled  through  NGOs  and  EU 
Member States agencies increased, compared to initial plans.  

The  large  majority  of  activities  ended  in  2011.  However  a  few  interventions  were  only 
completed  in  the  first  half  of  20128.  By  31  December  2010,  the  EU  Food  Facility  was 
contracted9 through a total of 179 contracts and agreements covering 232 projects. Budget 
Support  operations  and  projects  with  International  and  Regional  Organisations  have  been 
managed  centrally  at  DEVCO,  together  with  the  support  measures,  while  the  projects  with 
NGOs and Member States agencies were devolved to EU Delegations in January 2010. The 
Commission disbursed almost 100% of the total amount of EUR 983.7 million (excluding 
the  support  measures).  This  very  high  rate  was  achieved  thanks  to  the  use  of  fast  track 
procedures, close monitoring, and flexibility in re-allocations.  

A  maximum  of  2%  of  the  EU  Food  Facility (i.e. a maximum of EUR 20 million) had been 
foreseen  in  the  Regulation  for  support  measures,  including  the  recruitment  of  temporary 
staff  in  EU  Delegations,  monitoring,  audit,  evaluation,  studies,  conferences  and  technical 
assistance. Eventually, EUR  17.3  million  were  used  for  these  purposes.  In  addition  to  the 
use of support measures, the Commission redeployed ten posts at Headquarter level to set up 
the initiative.  

3. 

MONITORING, AUDIT AND EVALUATION 

The  Food  Facility  has  been  closely  monitored:  176  projects  (more  than  75%  of  the  Food 
Facility  projects)  have  been  monitored  using  the  Results-Oriented  Monitoring  ROM 
approach and 236 monitoring reports have been drafted by external experts, analysed by the 
Commission staff in Brussels and in EU Delegations and shared, in most cases, with both the 
implementing partners and local authorities.  

6 
7 

8 

9 

SWD(2013) 107. 
Budget  support  programmes  became  less  important  than  planned  in  Comoros,  Madagascar,  Niger, 
Ethiopia and Zambia.  
For  a  very  small  number  of  projects,  the  Commission  has  granted  an  extension  until  the  31st  of 
December 2012, due to later reallocation of funds to a well performing project (Zambia) or to difficult 
contexts (Mali, Yemen, Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan). 
With the exception of EUR 5.8 million for Zambia, contracted in 2011. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The project scores have been good, with 70% of the projects scoring a 'very good and good' 
performance,  23%  performing  'with  problems'  and  only  7%  listed  as  having  'major 
difficulties'10.  These  results  are  similar  to  the  averages  of  the  ROM  results  for  EU 
projects  in  general,  as  assessed  in  2011.11  A  second  monitoring  mission  was  often 
conducted  later  during  the  lifespan  of  the  project,  aiming  to  measure  the  progress  in 
performance and follow up on the recommendations. 

Furthermore, regular progress reports and specific final reports have been delivered by the 
implementing partners12 with whom field visits and regular coordination meetings have been 
undertaken.  The  whole  set  of  monitoring  information  has  been  captured  in  a  global 
management  scoreboard  developed  as  an  interactive  tool  used  to  update  in  real  time 
monitoring information at the Commission and in EU Delegations.  

Independent  evaluations  have  been  undertaken  at  three  levels:  (i)  at  project  level  for  the 
projects implemented by International Organisations, NGOs and Member State Agencies, (ii) 
at implementing partner level (e.g. FAO13, AU-IBAR), and (iii) at global level, on the EU 
Food Facility Instrument14. A Final Evaluation of the EU Food Facility has been carried out in 
2011-2012  and  followed  the  Evaluation  Methodology  of  the  Commission.  It  concluded 
notably  that  the  Commission  has  been  efficient  and  effective  in  implementing  the  Food 
Facility,  the  interventions  were  relevant  and  projects  had  a  clearly  positive  effect  on 
beneficiaries.  However,  a  longer  implementation  period  and  a  narrowed  geographical  scope 
would  have  allowed  a  greater  impact.  Moreover,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  published 
recently a Special Report on the Effectiveness of EU food Security assistance in Sub-Saharan 
Africa  which  recommends,  among  others,  that  the  EU  should  examine  the  feasibility  of  a 
permanent  instrument  to  address  the  consequences  of  potential  future  food-crises  in 
developing countries15. 

4. 

THE OUTCOMES AND LIKELY IMPACT  

Despite  its  short  timeframe,  the  Food  Facility  reached  more  than  59  million  direct 
beneficiaries  with  spillover  effects  on  93  million  indirect  beneficiaries,  most  of  them 
vulnerable  smallholders  and  their  families16.  The  interventions  have  been  aligned  to  partner 
countries’  policies  and  priorities  and  implemented  in  coordination,  complementarity  and 
coherence  with  the  EU  food  security  instruments  such  as  the  Food  Security  Thematic 
Programme and EU Member States' and other donor’s programmes. 

More than 65% of the interventions have scaled up on-going operations, with additional 
funding  channelled  through  existing  implementation  structures  where  relevant  and  possible. 
This  allowed  a  quick  response  and  fitted  in  the  short  time  span  of  the  Food  Facility. 
Designed as part of the UNHLTF coordinated international response to the food price crisis, 
almost 60% of the funding was channelled through UN agencies.  

10 
11 

12 
13 

14 

15 

16 

Results-Oriented Monitoring final report available in DEVCO website. 
The  Annual  Report  2012  on  the  European  Union’s  Development  and  external  assistance  policies  and 
their implementation in 2011. SWD (2012) 242 final. 
Aggregated data from reports are presented in the section 4 « Outcomes and likely impact ». 
"European  Union  Food  Facility. Foundations  for  future  action.  FAO Initial  Review  of  Selected 
Projects". http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ISFP/EuFF_web.pdf 
Food  Facility  Final  Evaluation:  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-
areas/ruraldev/food_intro_en.htm 
Special  Report  n°1:  Effectiveness  of  European  Union  Development  Aid  for  food  Security  in  Sub-
Saharan Africa. 2012. European Court of Auditors. 
This figure does not include the Budget Support interventions and Regional Organisations activities. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This  permitted  a  timely  and  tailored  response  thanks  to  the  agencies'  wide  presence  on 
the ground, which provided a good visibility profile to the Food Facility at country level. The 
Food  Facility  has  also  been  instrumental  in  strengthening  the  Commission  partnerships 
with the United Nations Rome Based Agencies17, which ultimately led to the signature of a 
Statement  of  Intent  for  a  framework  for  programmatic  cooperation  on  food  security  and 
nutrition.18  The  interventions  have  also  been  implemented  by  more  than  425  non-State 
actors,  most  of  them  local  and  country-based.  More  than  two-third  of  them  have  been 
contracted by the UN agencies while 124, operating under the Call for Proposals, have been 
contracted by the Commission.  

The main achievements, results and short-term impact of the Food Facility interventions are 
presented below for each of the three types of interventions identified in the Regulation.  

4.1.  Measures to improve access to agricultural inputs and services 

Most  of  the  interventions  of  the  Food  Facility  (62%)  focused  on  improving  smallholders’ 
agricultural  production  and/or  access  to  inputs.  The  distribution  of  agricultural  inputs 
represented  the  largest  component  of  the  projects  implemented  by  FAO  and  by  NGOs. 
124.600  metric  tons  of  certified  and  ameliorated  seeds  and  950.000  metric  tons  of  fertiliser 
have been distributed to the targeted farmers. The main challenge in this field was to meet the 
agricultural  calendar-specific  requirements  despite  binding  procurement  procedures  and 
limited availability on the local market. As reported by the implementing partners, the various 
projects  led  to  an  average  increase  in  agricultural  production  of  50%  (with  a  range 
between 20% and 100%) and an average increase in household annual income of almost 
EUR 290 (with a range between EUR 40 and EUR 2100). 

In Guatemala, FAO and WFP jointly strengthened the agricultural productivity and marketing capacity 
of  14.000  smallholders.  In  Alta  Verapaz,  the  maize  productivity  of  farmers  increased  from  an  average  of  2.1 
tons/hectare to an average of 3.5 tons/hectare. Households were able to produce surpluses of 20% on average as 
some the producers could achieve a good level of organization and meet international quality standards. 

Production  has  also  been  increased  through  projects  targeting  livestock  owners,  by 
providing  them  with  a  total  of  834.000  animals  (cattle,  goats,  pigs  and  chicken).  An 
important impact has been achieved in terms of productivity through increasing agricultural 
mechanisation  (in  Zambia  for  example,  the  use  of  lighter  seeding  implements  instead  of 
heavy  ploughs  promoted  gender  equity  as  planting  and  weeding  is  traditionally  women’s 
work) and decreasing mortality through livestock vaccination.  

AU-IBAR  implemented  the  "Vaccines for the  Control  of  Neglected Anima  Diseases  in  Africa"  (VACNADA) 
project  in  28  Sub-Saharan  African  countries.  A  total  of  44.6  million  livestock  were  vaccinated  against  4 
contagious  animal  diseases,  dramatically  reducing  the  occurrence  of  those  diseases  in  the  target  areas.  The 
higher  immunity  gained  by  vaccinating  allowed  livestock  owners  (especially  smallholders  who  could  not 
afford  to  pay  for  vaccination)  to  keep  their  stock,  sell  the  surplus  and  cover  household  and  unforeseen 
expenditures. 

The project also improved the production capacity (in some cases by 100%) and the quality of selected vaccines 
through the supply of equipment and the upgrading of facilities of vaccine producing laboratories, complemented 
with training activities to enhance veterinary services capacities. 

Most  of  the  projects  have  accompanied  the  seed/fertiliser  and  livestock  distribution  with 
the  distribution  of  tools,  vaccines,  and  agricultural  machineries.  More  than  88.000 
machineries and post-harvest facilities have been provided to beneficiaries. Partnerships with 

17 
18 

FAO, WFP and IFAD. 
Statement of Intent - Programmatic Cooperation on Food Security and Nutrition signed by FAO, WFP, 
IFAD and the Commission on 27 June 2011. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  private  sector,  in  particular  through  local  agro-dealers,  contributed  not  only  to  enhance 
inputs availability and circulation but also stimulated the local economy. Various projects 
involved diversification of production (e.g. horticulture in Bangladesh, small animal rearing 
in Tanzania, fish-ponds, medium scale plantain or vegetable production in Haiti), which led to 
beneficiaries  having  access  to  more  diversified  food.  In  addition,  projects  enhanced 
production for the market, allowing the generation of a small cash income for households that 
previously lived on subsistence.  

In  the Self Help  Africa  project  implemented  in  Ethiopia the  agricultural  production  increased  by  35%  for 
17.500 households through the distribution of 606 Mt of improved seeds, 29 Mt of animal feed, 278.000 animal 
drugs  (antibiotics  and  antihelminthtics),  machinery  (seed  cleaners,  irrigation  pumps,  dairy  materials)  and  the 
construction  of  16  seed  stores.  The  yearly  income  of  the  beneficiaries  has  increased,  ranging  from 
approximately 290 EUR to 1.500 EUR. 

The  operations  involved  capacity  building  to  support  the  sustainable  achievement  in 
increased  agricultural  productivity.  Capacity  building  activities  were  associated  with  a 
wide  range  of  actions  including  the  training  of  farmers  in  agricultural  and  irrigation 
techniques;  they  also  enhanced  the  capacities  of  local  farmer  groups  and  producers’ 
associations.  Moreover,  training  sessions  not  only  targeted  farmers  but  also  government 
officials  and  other  stakeholders.  Almost  2.5  million  people  have  benefitted  from  the 
various training activities. Extension methodologies, such as Farmer Field Schools and rural 
promoters,  provided  effective  channels  for  advice  through  on-farm  demonstrations  on 
sustainable  production  intensification,  good  agriculture  practices,  conservation  agriculture, 
soil fertility management, small-scale irrigation, crop diversification etc.  

In Zambia, food production increased through an improved access to agricultural inputs and the promotion of 
conservation agriculture principles. During extension days at Farmer Field Schools (FFS) 400 Camp Extension 
Officers transferred their knowledge in Conservation Agriculture to 28 lead farmers who, in turn, each trained 15 
other participating farmers. In this manner nearly 180,000 farmers were reached.  

The  dissemination  of  conservation  agriculture  practices  resulted  on  average  in  a  30%  increase  in  maize 
production from 2 tons/hectare to 2.6 tons/hectare. Following on from the EUR 16.9 million channelled into 
the  project  through  the  Food  Facility,  a  new  contribution  of  EUR  11.1  million  is  planned  (financed  from  the 
European Development Fund) to further spread the conservation agriculture approach in the country. 

4.2. 

Safety net measures and nutrition interventions 

Safety  net  type  of  interventions,  amounting  to  approximately  EUR  138  million,  allowed 
beneficiaries to cope with the effects of high food prices, mostly through cash/food for work 
projects and voucher schemes. Rural poor (and sometimes urban poor) have benefitted from 
safety  net  measures  (e.g.  PSNP  in  Ethiopia)  and  cash  or  food  for  work  projects  (e.g.  Sierra 
Leone,  Pakistan).  Safety  net  measures  have  been  implemented  by  partners  experienced  in 
cash or food distribution, like the World Bank, UNRWA, and WFP but also by NGOs, which 
have  used  one  quarter  of  the  amount  channelled  through  them  as  cash  for  work  (EUR  57 
million).  

In  most  cases,  the  extra  income  resulting  from  activities  has  helped  the  beneficiaries  to 
overcome  the  food  price  crisis,  as  well  as  –  in  a  few  cases  –  the  natural  disasters  affecting 
them  during  the  lifespan  of  the  Food  Facility  (droughts,  floods).  Moreover,  it  increased  the 
resilience  of  the  poorest  and  prevented  the  sale  of  their  productive  assets  (animals,  small 
machinery), which allowed households to improve their lives after the crises. 

In  Bangladesh,  food  and  cash  for  work  schemes  benefitted  607,000  people  through  short-term  employment 
provided  to  121,000  marginal  or  landless  agricultural  workers  during  the  lean  seasons;  989  flood  resilient 
agricultural  assets  including  embankments,  access  roads,  raising  land  and  seed  beds,  and  irrigation 
facilities have been built and rehabilitated to protect 1.7 million people.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
In very specific cases, food was also distributed, as food for work or even as food aid, to the 
most  vulnerable  people.  For  example,  UNRWA,  in  the  Occupied  Palestinian  Territory, 
distributed  34.500  Mt  of  food,  and  WFP  distributed  96.600  Mt  in  countries  with  areas 
characterised by severe food scarcity (e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Guatemala).  

More  than  one  third  (37%)  of  the  projects  had  nutrition-related  activities.  The  Food 
Facility  improved  the  nutritional  status  of  the  most  vulnerable  people,  especially  children. 
Several  interventions  specifically  targeted  children  up  to  6  years  and  pregnant  and  breast-
feeding women, in  order  to  mitigate  the effects of the food price crisis. In Niger, Mali, and 
Liberia  for  example,  more  than  25.000  Mt  of  nutritional  foodstuff  and  millions  of  vitamins 
have  been  distributed  while  141.000  beneficiaries,  mostly  mothers  and  medical  and 
paramedical personnel were trained in nutrition improvement practices. 

In  Mali,  more  than  11  million  children  aged  between  6  and  59  months  received  Vitamin  A  supplementation; 
1.300.000  children  in  Niger  have  benefitted  from  mothers  sensitization  and  awareness  building  campaigns 
related to prevention of malnutrition. In Guatemala, 100,000 children from 6-36 months and 50,000 pregnant 
and breast-feeding women received additional food rations while 8,000 subsistence farmers received food rations 
for participating in training activities. 

4.3. 

Other small-scale measures aiming at increasing agricultural production 

Many  of  the  projects  included  other  components  that  targeted  production  improvement,  for 
instance  by  addressing  post-harvest  losses,  water  availability  and  conservation  or  access  to 
markets.  In  total  315.350  ha  of  agricultural  land  was  rehabilitated  or  irrigated  while  13.656 
dikes, dams, and micro-dams, and more than 10.600 km of road (mainly feeder roads) were 
rehabilitated or construction. Furthermore, other small-scale measures included the provision 
of micro-credit, the construction of seed centres and research facilities. 

In Northern Afghanistan, 4,880 families participated in a cash for work programme in infrastructure and water 
activities  resulting  in  the  construction  and  rehabilitation  of  107  km  of  roads,  1,057  km  of  irrigation 
channels; 3,164 ha of land were made available for agriculture, thus improving agricultural productivity and 
access  to  villages  and  markets,  especially  during  winter.  As  a  consequence,  218,000  people  benefited  from 
rehabilitated and newly built infrastructure and flood protection measures, and 6,500 families now have access to 
safe drinking water. 

Other  activities  covered  diverse  domains  including  fishing  (Cambodia,  Philippines,  Guinea 
Conakry, Mozambique), urban agriculture (Kenya), policy framework support (Nepal), seed 
multiplication  (Burkina  Faso,  Niger,  Nepal,  Mozambique),  or  conservation  agriculture 
(Zambia). 

The Food Facility positively impacted the lives of more than 59 million direct beneficiaries 
by  boosting  sustainable  agricultural  production  from  small-scale  farmers,  reducing 
post-harvest  losses  and  facilitating  access  to  markets.  The  interventions  improved 
smallholders’  capacities  in  land,  livestock,  and  water  management,  contributing  to  increase 
and  diversify  their  sources  of  incomes.  Furthermore,  the  Food  Facility  contributed  to 
increasing  access  to  food  and  to  strengthening  the  food  and  nutrition  situation  of  the 
most vulnerable people, especially women and children. 

5. 

KEY LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

Lessons learned 

1. 

The  EU  has  proven  its  ability  to  establish  and  effectively  implement  the  EUR  1 
billion  Food  Facility.  This  bold  move  has  placed  the  EU  at  the  forefront  of  the 
donor community with regards sustainable agriculture and food security. Since 
then, it has remained the first donor on food security, which continues to be on the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

top of the international agenda with the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative and the G8 
New Alliance for Food and Nutrition Security initiative.  

The successful implementation of the Food Facility owed much to its swift set up, 
its  scale,  and  above  all  to  its  responsiveness.  The  creation  respectively  by  the 
Commission and by the UN of two dedicated Task Forces to mobilise the appropriate 
work force and expertise played a central role.  

The  main  objective  was  to  rapidly  address  the  consequences  of  the  food  price 
crisis, rather than its causes. However, the Food Facility enhanced the readiness of 
the  poor  people  and  communities  to  face  subsequent  crises,  which  was  beneficial 
since  many  countries  in  sub-Saharan  Africa  have  since  been  hit  again  by  food 
crises  as  a  result  of  multiple  and  intertwined  drivers  including  poverty,  climate 
hazards,  high  and  volatile  food  prices,  pressure  on  natural  resources  (including 
inappropriate  land  tenure  systems),  rapid  demographic  growth,  fragile  governance, 
and political instability. Furthermore, the most vulnerable people will be confronted 
more frequently and more severely to the impact of these factors, particularly in the 
Sahel and the Horn of Africa. 

The  Food  Facility’s  focus  on  increased  agricultural  production  has  successfully 
triggered  a  positive  supply  response  at  local  level.  However,  those  interventions 
cannot substitute for the need for partner countries to strengthen their long term 
support to sustainable agriculture and food security.  

The achievement of programmes’ objectives has sometimes been challenging due to 
the relatively short implementation period. As it is already the case with SHARE and 
AGIR  Sahel, 
the  articulation  between  short  and  medium-to-long  term 
interventions must be strengthened.  

Moreover,  Food  Facility  interventions  primarily  targeted  food  availability  and 
access to food. While access to food is a major concern, access to nutritious food is 
even more challenging in many partner countries. Addressing maternal and child 
under nutrition could have been given more attention.  

In 2012, nearly 30 million vulnerable people have been suffering from food crisis in 
the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, it highlights the need for the EU to maintain a 
strong  capacity  to  react  promptly.  As  recommended  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors and the Parliament, the Commission will identify the best options taking 
advantage  of  the  modifications  of  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the  Financial 
Framework.  

Recommendations 

The  EU  should  increase  its  assistance  in  sustainable  agriculture  and  food  security.  In  the 
framework of its geographical programming for 2014-2020:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

The EU should place sustainable agriculture and food security at the core of its 
policy  dialogue  with  partner  countries  and  further  support  partner  countries’ 
policies and priorities addressing the underlying factors fomenting food crises. 

The  EU  assistance  should  give  particular  attention  to  food  insecure  countries. 
The  “structured  food  security  assessment”  developed  by  the  Commission  to  this 
purpose should be fully used. 

Fostering  the  resilience  of  the  most  at  risk  people,  communities,  and  partner 
countries is a central aim of EU assistance towards food and nutrition security. 
In the framework of its approach to resilience the EU should increase its support to 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
4. 

5. 

vulnerability reduction by increasing partner countries’ capacities to prevent and 
to prepare to future shocks, and to respond to crises when they occur. It means, 
notably  enhancing  Disaster  Risk  Management  activities,  in  particular  in  disaster 
prone partner countries.  

Building  on  the  lessons  learned  from  the  Food  Facility  implementation  as  well  as 
from  the  launch  of  SHARE,  and  AGIR  Sahel  initiatives,  the  EU  should  use  the 
existing  instruments  and  the  recent  possibility  to  set  up  Trust  Funds  to  foster  a 
structural approach to support partner countries confronted by food crises. 

Using  wherever  possible  the  existing  national  and  regional  structures  and 
capacities, the EU response to food crises will be designed according to the nature of 
the crisis and its context. Such an approach will pay careful attention to ownership, 
taking  into  account  the  inter-relation  between  food  security  on  one  hand,  and 
governance,  state  fragility  and  peace  building  on  the  other  hand,  in  particular  in 
fragile states and in chronic food insecure contexts. 

6. 

CONCLUSION AND STEP FORWARD 

Through the Food Facility, instrumental in fostering a coordinated UN response, the EU has 
been able to rapidly and effectively respond to the effects of the 2007/08 food price crisis. The 
EUR 1 billion Food Facility has directly benefitted over 59 million people in 49 developing 
countries.  

It has been able to support a positive supply response from small-scale farmers, increasing 
production and income. The safety net measures have mitigated the effects of food price 
increases  on  the  most  vulnerable  segments  of  the  population.  Other  measures  have  more 
broadly  supported  the  production  base  for  agriculture.  In  that  sense,  the  Food  Facility  has 
achieved  significant  results  towards  increasing  sustainable  agricultural  production, 
reducing post-harvest losses and facilitating access to markets. 

Moreover,  the  Food  Facility  has  contributed  to  placing  sustainable  agricultural 
development and food security at the frontline of the global development agenda. It has 
stimulated  continued  international  attention  in  fora  like  the  Committee  on  World  Food 
Security  and  the  G8  and  the  G20  stressing  the  need  to  increase  agricultural  production  and 
productivity  on  a  sustainable  basis  and  contributing  to  strengthen  global  governance 
mechanisms by improving global market information19.  

While the Food Facility largely reached its objectives, more needs to be done to address food 
insecurity,  particularly  in  low  income  and  disaster  prone  countries.  Building  on  the  lessons 
learned from the Food Facility, the EU support to sustainable agricultural development and 
food security should be strengthened as a focal sector of cooperation in chronically food 
insecure countries.  

In the framework of the joint programming exercise for 2014-2020, the EU Delegations have 
been provided a specific guidance to ensure that sustainable agriculture and food security 
priorities have been taken care of, in particular in 52 partner countries selected according 
to structured food and nutrition security assessments. These priorities should be reflected 

19 

In  the  framework  of  its  Action  Plan  on  Food  Price  Volatility  and  Agriculture,  the  G20  Agricultural 
Market  Information  System  (AMIS)  initiative,  launched  in  June  2011,  aims  for  example,  to  increase 
global  market  transparency  and  information  and  strengthen  policy  coordination.  http://www.amis-
outlook.org.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in  the  policy  dialogue  developed  by  the  EU  Delegations, which  will  emphasize long-term 
impact and ownership20, in particular from a long-term sustainability perspective.  

In this context, the EU should focus on the most off track countries in the area of food and 
nutrition  security,  using  the  most  effective  existing  financing  mechanisms  to  reduce 
structural  vulnerability  in  the  long  run,  and  fostering  the  resilience  of  the  poorest 
households, countries and regions in the face of future food crises, whatever their nature. 

20 

According to the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the Accra Agenda for Action, 
and the EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour.  

EN 

11 

   EN