REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments: first biennial report. 
Date: 2014-12-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aid to agriculture, care of mothers and infants, development aid, food aid, food safety, modernisation aid, non-governmental organisation, undernourishment













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0712 - EN











|



52014DC0712

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments: first biennial report. /* COM/2014/0712 final */










List of acronyms
 
 3Cs || Coordination, complementarity and coherence 
 AGIR || Alliance Globale pour l’Initiative Résilience 
 AR4D || Agriculture Research for Development 
 CAADP || Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme 
 CFS || Committee on World Food Security 
 CGIAR || formerly Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 
 CORAF/WECARD || West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development 
 EC || European Commission 
 ECOWAP || Agricultural Policy of the Economic Community of West African States 
 ECOWAS || Economic Community of West African States 
 EIARD || European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development 
 EU || European Union 
 FAO || Food and Agriculture Organisation 
 ICN2 || Second International Conference on Nutrition 
 IFAD || International Fund for Agricultural Development 
 INGO || International Non-Governmental Organisation 
 MS || Member States 
 NEPAD || New Partnership for Africa’s Development 
 NGO || Non-Governmental Organisation 
 OECD/DAC || Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development / Development Assistance Committee 
 PCD || Policy Coherence for Development 
 SHARE || Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience 
 SUN || Scaling Up Nutrition 
 UN-SCN || United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition 
 USAID || United States Agency for International Development 
 VGGT || Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests 
 WFP || World Food Programme 
 WHA || World Health Assembly 

1.     
Introduction

In 2010, the
European Union (EU) and its Member States along with all partners sought to
address food and nutrition security by adopting an EU-wide policy framework for
food security.[1]
Since then, further EU development policy commitments have been undertaken to
reinforce the priorities established in 2010. An Implementation Plan for Food
and Nutrition Security[2]
was produced and divided into six policy priorities, accompanied by performance
criteria and indicative intervention areas.[3]
After approving the Implementation Plan in April 2013, the Council requested
that the European Commission produce, jointly with the Member States,
consolidated EU-wide biennial progress reports from 2014 onwards. This document
is the first of these reports. It reviews the EU and its Member States
performance in executing the Implementation Plan, for communication to the
European Parliament and the Council and to the general public.
This report sets
out to answer two basic performance questions: 1) how were the disbursements
and specific interventions made in 2012 aligned with the six policy priorities
and 2) how did the EU and its Member States adhere to the 3Cs of coherence,
complementarity and coordination in addressing these priorities.  
This report is
an upward accountability tool. It establishes a benchmark or baseline against
which subsequent reports will compare the performance of EU donors in working
together to deliver agreed EU policy priorities regarding food and nutrition
security. It draws on consolidated quantitative evidence (disbursement data
based on OECD-DAC reporting in 2012) and qualitative data on the 3Cs provided
by Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom and the EU in their respective reports. The methodology is
described in chapter 4 of the linked staff working document (SWD). The EU
donors, which contributed to this report together represent almost 90 % of
the total (all sectors) EU ODA provided by the EU and all Member States.
The report
reviews the performance of the EU and its Member States using existing
performance assessment data. As a consequence, the report also tests whether
current performance assessment systems are able to provide valid and reliable
data on EU engagement in the six policy priority areas. 
This report is
accompanied by a Staff Working Document (SWD), which provides additional
information and case studies.

2.     
How Well Did We Deliver On Our Policy
Commitments?
2.1
Overall analysis of our disbursements

EU donors
invested almost EUR 3.4 billion in food and nutrition security in 2012,
corresponding to approximately 8 % of their total official development
assistance (ODA). Interventions were split among 2 500 programmes and
covered more than 115 countries. EU Member States contributed through their
respective programmes. In addition,[4] EU
donors provided approximately EUR 1.1 billion for emergency and humanitarian
aid related to food and nutrition security in over 80 countries. On average,
humanitarian programmes accounted for 25 % of total food and nutrition
security related programmes (humanitarian plus development) with some
differences between Member States (see Figure 1). Together, development and
humanitarian aid corresponded to more than 10 % of ODA.
Fig. 1: Share of
development and humanitarian assistance for food and nutrition security per
donor
 Table 1: Geographical distribution of aid disbursement in 2012Continent || EUR || Percentage (%) 
 Africa – Sub-Saharan || 1,439,111,341 || 43 % 
 Global[5] || 958,251,930 || 28 % 
 Asia || 593,399,623 || 18 % 
 Latin America and Caribbean || 231,378,699 || 7 % 
 Neighbourhood || 87,841,667 || 2 % 
 Other || 55,802,800 || 2 % 
 Total || 3,365,786,060 || 100 % 
The majority of
interventions (approximately 65 %) operated at country level with more
than 115 partner countries, including fragile states[6],
receiving support. Geographically, Africa was the largest recipient of funds in
2012, receiving 43 % of total contributions (see Table 1). In Africa, Member States focused their support on specific countries, while the EU had a
broader geographical spread. Almost 30 % of interventions were global,
showing the importance of the global public good dimension of food and
nutrition security.
Fig.2.
Support received by partner countries (in EUR million)
Figure 2
provides an overview of the 20 partner countries which received the most
support. More information can be found in the table in chapter 1 of the SWD,
demonstrating that 68 partner countries received on average less than EUR 3
million per donor.

2.2
Interventions across the six policy priorities

The following
section reviews the EU donors’ interventions across the six policy priorities.
Table 2.
Distribution of disbursements per policy priority
 Priority || Amount in EUR million || Percentage 
 Priority 1: Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods || 2 022 || 60 % 
 Priority 2: Support effective governance || 395 || 12 % 
 Priority 3: Support regional agriculture and FNS policies || 151 || 4 % 
 Priority 4: Strengthen social protection mechanisms for FNS || 209 || 6 % 
 Priority 5: Enhance nutrition || 467 || 14 % 
 Priority 6: Enhance coordination of humanitarian and development actors to increase resilience || 122 || 4 % 
 Total || 3 366 || 100 % 
The majority of
the interventions (around 60 %) fall under Priority 1 (Improve smallholder
resilience and rural livelihoods), followed by Priorities 5 (Enhance nutrition)
and 2 (Support effective governance).
The disbursement
of funds for each priority was analysed. Many of the interventions contributed
to more than one priority area. Since the methodology did not allow programmes
to be categorised against more than one priority, the figures cannot be
interpreted in absolute terms. The performance criterion ‘number
and value of joint EU and its Member States programmes
supported at national, regional and global levels’ was difficult to assess and
therefore was not included in the reporting of the performance criteria. It is
important to note that the EU and its Member States invest in policy engagement
in the different policy areas and therefore the expenditure figures may not
provide a full picture of the importance of food security and nutrition.

2.2.1
Policy Priority 1: Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods
 
 Assessment of performance criteria ·     1 560 programmes received EUR 2.02 billion in 108 countries or at international level. ·     149 national and international research programmes with a value of EUR 379 million supported. 
More than half
of all the funds disbursed in 2012 (EUR 2 billion, approximately 60 % of
the total) were allocated to Priority 1, demonstrating that improving
smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods was an important objective of
combined EU assistance. Some 1 560 programmes in more than 100 countries
were funded.
Interventions
included supporting sustainable agricultural intensification and
diversification for smallholder farmers, especially women; improving
smallholder farmers’ access to land and water, farm inputs, and credit and
extension services; assisting partner countries in addressing the negative
effects of climate change on food and nutrition security; supporting pro-poor
agricultural and other research for technology development and transfer,
extension and innovation; and addressing rural livelihoods through income
generation, off-farm employment, and value chain and agri-business
interventions.
Some 62 %
of funds disbursed for Priority 1 were implemented at country level, 33 %
at global level, and 5 % at regional level. Most of the funds (37 %)
were disbursed in Africa, followed by 34 % worldwide, and 18 % in Asia. The 10 countries that received the most funding under this priority included several
fragile and food insecure countries, such as Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Democratic Republic of Congo (See SWD chapter 3, Figure 1).
Sustainable land
management is a crucial element of improving smallholder livelihoods. In Ethiopia, where a high proportion of rural people are vulnerable to physical and economic stresses,
the EU and several Member States are supporting initiatives. For example, the
Ethio-German Sustainable Land Management Programme targets the areas of Amhara,
Oromia and Tigray, introducing technologies and measures for erosion protection
and fostering the formation of user groups to encourage the sustainable
management of water catchment areas.
Research and
innovation in relation to sustainable agriculture, food security and nutrition
(AR4D) was another important area of support under Priority 1. EU donors were
significant contributors to agricultural research for development, contributing
an estimated EUR 380 million in 2012. This included support given to global
initiatives such as the CGIAR (formerly Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research), regional organisations, particularly in Africa, as well as national agricultural research institutes. European donors are members
of the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD)
(see Textbox 1). 
 Textbox 1: EIARD EIARD is a permanent, informal policy coordination platform for the EU and its Member States, together with Switzerland and Norway. It was recognised by the Council and European Parliament in 1997 to facilitate the coordination of European policy and investments for agricultural research for development (ARD). In 2012, EIARD members (including the EU) provided USD 231 million to the CGIAR Fund (45 % of the total). The coordination of European support to CGIAR is at the top of the EIARD agenda. EIARD is also an active member of the European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development (EFARD), which encompasses multiple stakeholders. 
Policy briefs
and position papers, commissioned by EIARD, have highlighted the importance of
translating research into action to achieve better impacts, including for the
poorest groups of farmers. Thanks to EIARD, Europe has one of the strongest
voices in the Council of the CGIAR (see also case study in SWD chapter 2.1).

2.2.2
Policy Priority 2: Support effective governance
 
 Assessment of performance criteria ·         410 programmes in 87 countries received EUR 395 million. ·         Joint EU and Member States positions led to the adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT) in the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in 2012. ·           The 2012 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development / Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) peer review and the 2013 EU Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) Report indicate that policy coherence for development is improving. 
Approximately 12 %
of the EU and its Member States investments in 2012, amounting to EUR 395
million, went towards supporting effective governance. These interventions
included: support for initiatives discussed in the CFS; strengthening civil
society organisations and farmers’ organisations in partner countries and
promoting their empowerment to participate in decision-making processes;
empowering women and strengthening their decision-making role in relation to
food production, food consumption and household assets; supporting
decentralisation and local governance to enhance food security; supporting the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP); strengthening
global governance on food and nutrition security, including supporting the
Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement; and increasing advocacy to ensure that
food and nutrition security is prioritised in international and regional fora,
as well as at the level of national governments in partner countries.
Approximately 63 %
of the funds disbursed for Priority 2 were implemented at country level, 13 %
at regional level, and 24 % at global level. In relation to this
geographical distribution, 41 % of the funds were allocated to Africa, 15 %
to Asia, and 8 % to Latin America and the Caribbean. Globally, this
included non-earmarked core funding given to the Rome-based food agencies —
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD), and World Food Programme (WFP) — to support regional and
global food and nutrition security.
The EU and its Member
States contribute to international debates and roundtables through the
preparation of joint EU positions during the negotiation of UN General Assembly
Resolutions on Agricultural Development, Food Security and Nutrition, Rural
Women, and the Right to Food, including at annual sessions of the Human Rights
Council, and by developing joint positions for delivery at the annual session
of the CFS.
An example of
joint work is the combined EU donors’ support to the Voluntary
Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and
Forests
(VGGT). EU donors are now active in national, regional and international
initiatives to implement the VGGT, supporting land governance and security of
land tenure.
Another example is the work done by EU donors to support the ongoing process in
the CFS to develop voluntary principles for responsible agricultural investment
(RAI).
In Africa, EU donors work closely together to support CAADP at continental, regional and
country levels within the context of the CAADP Development Partners Task Team,
as contributors to the Multi-Donor Trust Fund and many other country-level
initiatives. Within the context of the African Year of Agriculture leading to
the 2014 Heads of States Summit in Malabo, development partners led by the EU
have politically supported the African Union and NEPAD Planning and
Coordinating Agency (NPCA).
As regards the
performance criterion of improvement in policy coherence for development (PCD),
good progress was made at both EU and Member States level, as recognised in the
2012 OECD-DAC peer review and in the 2013 EU Report on Policy Coherence for
Development. Finland piloted the OECD’s tool for PCD by analysing national and
EU policies which impacted on food and nutrition security in developing
countries.   

2.2.3
Policy Priority 3: Support regional agriculture and food and nutrition security
policies
 
 Assessment of performance criteria ·         98 regional programmes received payments worth EUR 151 million. 
Policy Priority
3 received 4 % of the total funds disbursed. EU donors gave approximately
EUR 151 million, for a total of 98 programmes.
This priority
included support for development and implementation of regional agricultural
policies; strategies to step up integration of regional food markets, for
example the fish sector; animal disease control programmes; and initiatives to
address sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards and food safety for combating food-borne
illnesses. Other initiatives supported in 2012 concerned information systems for
agriculture and food and nutrition security, such as early warning systems and
market transparency.
In terms of
geographical distribution of the investments, approximately 35 % of the
funds were allocated to Africa, 42 % to interventions at a global level,
12 % to Asia, and 7 % to Latin America and the Caribbean.
The EU, France, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany all provide regional food and
nutrition security related assistance in West Africa within the context of the
ECOWAS Agricultural Policy, known as ECOWAP (see Textbox 2). A case study
presenting European support to ECOWAP, including efforts to promote coherence,
complementarity and coordination, is presented in chapter 2.2 of the SWD.
Textbox
2: ECOWAP
Joint efforts by the
EU and some of its Member States to support ECOWAP provide an example of EU
donors’ coordination and complementarity for food and nutrition security
initiatives. EU donors coordinate within the ECOWAP Group and are engaged in
joint interventions under the auspices of ECOWAP. For example the EU, France and Spain are supporting the regional food reserves system; the EU and France have supported
ECOWAS in combating fruit flies; and France, Spain and the USA are supporting the Regional Agency for Agriculture and Food (RAAF).
ECOWAP is generally
acknowledged as a first of its kind on the African continent, serving to
implement the regional dimension of CAADP. There also seems to be widespread
consensus among national stakeholders of the importance of ECOWAP as a
framework to guide strategic regional investments tackling cross-border issues.

2.2.4
Policy Priority 4: Strengthen social protection mechanisms for food and
nutrition security, particularly for vulnerable population groups
 
 Assessment of performance criteria ·         94 programmes in 40 countries received EUR 209 million. 
Policy Priority
4 received 6 % of the total funds disbursed in 2012. EU donors gave
approximately EUR 209 million, for a total of 94 programmes in 40 countries.  
The recent food
crisis drew attention to the importance of social transfers in ensuring
household food security, improving nutrition, reducing poverty and
vulnerability, and supporting agricultural development. Different types of
social transfers, such as seasonal cash transfers and food-for-work or
vouchers, have been used in a number of countries to facilitate access to food
in the short term. 96 % of the programmes under Priority 4 were
implemented at country level and 4 % at global level. The 10 countries
that received the most support in 2012 included Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Kenya and Somalia (see chapter 3, Figure 4 of the SWD).
The Productive
Safety Nets Programme, Ethiopia, is perceived as an excellent programme by the
Government of Ethiopia. It addresses chronic food security in the country, and
is financed by a consortium of EU (involving Denmark, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the EU) and non-EU donors.

2.2.5
Policy Priority 5: Enhance nutrition in particular for mothers, infants and
children
 
 Assessment of performance criteria ·         278 nutrition-related programmes in 63 countries received EUR 467 million. ·         The EU and its Member States advocacy of better nutrition has increased, as witnessed by their active participation in international processes (e.g. G8/20, SUN, and World Health Assembly (WHA), as well as by the support provided to mainstreaming nutrition in CAADP investment plans, and by the fact that already 45 developing countries have joined the SUN Movement. 
Policy Priority
5 is an area where EU donors’ joint work has led to achievements. It received
14 % of the total funds in 2012, approximately EUR 467 million, for a
total of 278 programmes in 63 countries. After Policy Priority 1, this was the
second most important priority for EU donors in 2012.
This
priority included interventions addressing under-nutrition through funding and
scaling up of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions which
targeted mothers and young children, with a focus on the first 1 000 days
of life.
The
interventions also provided support to continental, regional and national
nutrition research programmes and plans. Partner countries were encouraged to
improve national nutrition governance, to help them integrate nutrition into
national polices, such as agriculture and health, and to help them increase
awareness-raising and behavioural changes.
Some 80 %
of the programmes supported under Priority 5 in 2012 were implemented at
country level, 17 % at global level, and 3 % at regional level.
Regarding the geographical distribution of these investments, 46 % of the
funds were allocated to Africa, 17 % to interventions at the global level,
26 % to Asia, and 8 % to Latin America and the Caribbean. The countries
which received the largest amounts in 2012 included Bangladesh, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Myanmar (see  chapter 3, Figure 5 of
the SWD).
By participating
in international efforts and engaging in relevant processes, such as the
G8/G20, WHA, CFS, the SUN Movement and the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition,
EU donors have improved coordination, increased effectiveness and secured
greater mobilisation for better nutrition. Good examples of joint global work
on nutrition include support to the SUN Movement Secretariat by the EU, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (see Textbox 3). This illustrates
the potential strengths of EU coherence, coordination and cooperation at global
level and in global governance. (For more information, please refer to the case
study in chapter 2.3 of the SWD).
 Textbox 3: The SUN Movement The collaborative efforts of a number of EU Member States and the European Commission to support the SUN Movement Secretariat provide an example of EU coordination and complementarity at the global level.  Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) is a global movement which brings together all stakeholders to tackle under-nutrition, with a particular focus on increasing political will and investment to address maternal, infant and child under-nutrition. France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the European Commission are working together on the SUN Donor Network to support the SUN Movement and are jointly funding, together with others, the work plan of the SUN Movement Secretariat. This joint donor collaboration, along with coordinated advocacy efforts, allows for consolidated strategic planning, budgeting and reporting with predictable multi-annual funding. 
At the 2013
Nutrition for Growth event in London, EU donors defined their political and
financial commitments to fight against stunting, pledging EUR 7.9 billion (1.7
billion for nutrition-specific interventions and 6.1 billion for
nutrition-sensitive interventions).[7]
In particular, through its specific commitment to reduce the stunting of 7
million children under the age of 5 by 2025, the European Commission has set an
example for others to follow, placing itself as a major player in the political
arena.
EU donors have
engaged in a number of joint activities, such as developing a methodology for
estimating nutrition-sensitive spending and an accountability framework to
monitor the impact of nutrition interventions and to track investments in
nutrition.  At country level, joint activities have been reported in Tajikistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, the Sahel, Zambia, Bangladesh and Mozambique.

2.2.6
Policy Priority 6: Enhance coordination between development and humanitarian
actors to build resilience and promote sustainable food and nutrition security
 
 Assessment of performance criteria ·         63 resilience-oriented programmes in 18 countries received EUR 122 million in 2012. ·         EU and its Member States acknowledged the importance of building resilience in 23 countries in 2012 and have conducted 8 joint analyses and planning exercises. 
Policy Priority
6 received 4 % of the total funds in 2012. EU donors gave approximately
EUR 122 million to a total of 63 programmes in 18 countries. Some of the
interventions reported under other priorities (such as Priority 1: Improve
smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods; 4: Strengthen social protection
mechanisms for food and nutrition security, particularly for vulnerable
population groups; and 5: Enhance nutrition, in particular for mothers, infants
and children) also addressed this priority area.
This priority
area included interventions to increase the resilience of particularly
vulnerable groups to withstand the impacts and consequences of crises. The
focus here was on food and nutrition security. Most actions provided direct
support to households and communities to improve access to sufficient and
adequate food through temporary social transfers; nutrition-related measures
aimed at women and children; and interventions to initiate or revive
agricultural production and improve the availability of food, and maintain
natural means of production.
Priority 6
supported the integration of resilience-building into partner countries’
policies and planning. It also supported the capacity of partner countries and
local communities to anticipate, prevent and prepare for food security crises
and to enhance crisis response, respecting the differential impacts and
capacities of women, men and vulnerable groups and including improved risk
monitoring.
With regard to
the geographical distribution of the investments, approximately 75 % of
the funds were allocated to Africa, 23 % to the global level, and 2 %
to Asia. It is therefore not surprising that nine African countries received
the largest share of support, including Niger, Mali, Mauretania, Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan (chapter 3, Figure 6 of the SWD).
Recently,
the EU donors have stepped up their drive to build resilience among
vulnerable communities by better targeting the root causes of food insecurity
to mitigate the impact of food crises. The EU adopted a new policy
framework in May 2013 to address resilience challenges. At regional level, the Global
Alliance for Resilience Initiative in West Africa and Sahel (AGIR) was launched
in December 2012 with the EU as one of its founders.
Further support was also provided to the multi-donor initiative for drought
recovery Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (SHARE).
At regional
level, in West Africa through AGIR, funding from the EU, France and Spain also helped to establish
an emergency food reserve system in the region. EU donors
undertook some joint analyses and planning exercises to improve resilience
building. For example: improving country resilience in Niger, Ivory Coast,
Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad, and Senegal; country programming papers in Ethiopia,
Somalia, Kenya and Uganda; and joint analyses and planning exercises in Haiti.

2.3
Coordination, complementarity and coherence (3Cs)

With 44
countries supported by more than five EU donors, coordination plays an
important role in ensuring EU aid effectiveness at country level, with the EU
engaging in and aligning with the food and nutrition security strategies and
agricultural investment plans of partner countries. Existing structures, such
as sector working groups (which are often not limited to only EU donors), are
regarded as key mechanisms through which EU donors coordinate their work,
pursue policy dialogue, and regularly share information.
In addition to
coordination between donors and partner countries, capacity-building processes
improve the coordination between all local and non-local stakeholders such as non-governmental
organisations
(NGOs), international
NGOs
(iNGOs), the private sector and research organisations involved in food and
nutrition security.
The EU’s joint
programming contributes significantly to EU and its Member States
complementarity and synergies. Since 2011, joint programming processes have
been started in approximately 20 partner countries, although in each country
the process is at a different stage.[8]
An example of joint programming by the EU and its Member States is the
development of an EU+ Road Map for nutrition in Ethiopia which offers a
practical example of joint analysis and planning, prioritisation, division of
responsibilities and coordination for nutrition interventions.
Joint
implementation approaches include division of labour based on sector mapping;
joint analysis, appraisal and sector response; aid modalities (budget support,
pooled funding, delegated cooperation, and trust funds); and joint monitoring,
evaluation and reporting systems. Common strategic approaches to global
initiatives have also improved complementarity, such as AGIR and SUN deployment
in Chad.
Actions falling
under the six priorities have been reported to be consistent with partner
countries’ strategies. In Kenya, EU donors’ division of labour reflected the
policy priorities of the Implementation Plan. A case study on Ethiopia referred to in the chapter 2.4 of the SWD  analyses the European efforts to
enhance the 3Cs within and between EU donors’ external assistance programmes
(see Textbox 4).
 Textbox 4: 3Cs in Ethiopia The participatory case study on the 3Cs in Ethiopia demonstrated that, under the clear vision, ownership and leadership of the Ethiopian authorities, EU donors are key partners in addressing the country’s most critical food and nutrition security issues. The large, national flagship programmes — clearly country-led — are designed and implemented with help from the international community, providing channels for both structured dialogue and financial contributions.  Joint programming offers a unique opportunity for improving coordination and for common analysis and planning, prioritisation, and division of responsibilities to increase the efficacy of our efforts. The process should further involve the different Ethiopian partners, including civil society, and other major donors. 
At EU level,
formal arrangements on coordination include the European Council Working
Groups, while informal exchanges take place through the Heads of Agriculture
and Rural Development Group (HARDs), including its subgroups on Land Issues and
Private Sector Development in Agriculture, and EIARD, which are reported to be
important mechanisms for policy development and exchange. Coordination
within the EIARD platform fosters joint policies and strategies in Europe and also helps build coherence, coordination and complementarity. These
formal and informal arrangements also serve to coordinate EU donors’
participation in international fora and initiatives. This includes the UN
General Assembly, Human Rights Council, CFS, the SUN Movement, the Second
International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2), G8 and G20.

3.     
Findings And
Recommendations

1.       
Food
and nutrition security is a significant component of EU development
cooperation: with almost EUR 3.4 billion spent in more than 115 countries by
the EU donors in 2012 alone, food and nutrition security is important both in
terms of share of total development assistance (around 8 % of their total
ODA disbursed in 2012) and in geographical coverage. In particular, food
insecure states in Sub-Saharan Africa receive substantial support, in line with
the policy that the EU and its Member States agreed to implement in 2010.
2.       
The
majority of the interventions focused on three priorities in 2012: Priority 1
(Improve smallholder resilience and rural livelihoods) received the most
support (approximately 60 %), followed by Priority 5 (Enhance nutrition)
which received 14 %, and Priority 2 (Support effective governance) at 12 %.
3.       
There
may be opportunities for EU donors to operate more efficiently: 68 partner
countries received less than EUR 3 million on average per donor. Average
payment size is EUR 1.34 million. This is most striking in Central America,
where four countries are supported by four or more donors with an average
amount per donor of less than EUR 2.2 million. EU donors need to continue to
improve their division of labour, under partner countries’ leadership of
course.
4.       
Demand-led
research, extension and innovation needs more attention, both in terms of
increased investments in accordance with 2010 commitments and, in particular,
to ensure the translation of results into action on the ground so as to
maximise impact.
5.       
EU
donors are showing growing leadership on critical topics identified by the
international community. Since 2010 they have been responding collectively to
food security needs and crises, focusing on issues such as nutrition,
resilience and access to land. The EU donors have rallied around global and EU
initiatives such as SUN, SHARE and AGIR, and have been involved in the
development of the VGGT in the CFS. These successes can be built upon in
addressing initiatives centred around EU donors’ shared priorities.
6.       
Collaboration
with all stakeholders, within national systems, has a clear advantage. A case
study carried out in Ethiopia demonstrated that the joint European contribution
to addressing food and nutrition security was very relevant in terms of policy
development and investments. Together, EU donors are pursuing innovative
approaches that are integrated with the existing national systems. A valuable
lesson learned is that there is a potential for more dialogue with farmers’
organisations, local and international NGOs and the private sector, especially
regarding national programme formulation and implementation. This should be
pursued in all our partner countries.
7.       
EU
donors’ coordination at country level should move beyond information sharing.
Coordination mechanisms have been particularly successful at global,
continental and regional levels, as shown by the EIARD experience and in West Africa by the ECOWAP coordination mechanism for development partners. However, at
country level there is scope for improvement by taking coordination beyond information
sharing for greater coherence, complementarity and lesson sharing. 
8.       
Ongoing
EU joint programming provides good opportunities to improve effectiveness: it
contributes to better coordination, complementarity and division of labour.
This can also lead to more joint result-based frameworks, monitoring and
evaluation, including at community level. Joint programming in relation to food
and nutrition security needs to be strengthened.
9.       
Our
methodology for EU joint reporting on food and nutrition security needs to be
refined with a focus on specific topics, to include more emphasis on result/
impact assessment, for example through case studies carried out primarily with
our partners and for more qualitative information.

4. Conclusions
and Looking Forward

This
is the first ever report in which EU donors are commenting jointly on a major
topic. It is an upward accountability tool. With almost EUR 3.4 billion spent
in more than 115 countries by the EU donors in 2012, the EU and its Member States are delivering significantly on food and nutrition security.
Since
2010, EU donors have shown growing leadership at global level in areas such as
nutrition, resilience and land governance. They will continue to tap into these
successes in addressing new emerging challenges, such as climate-smart
agriculture, rural transformation and food systems. In Africa, there are
new opportunities for policy dialogue and support at country level led by the
CAADP process. The 2014 Malabo declaration shows renewed commitment on the part
of African countries to agriculture and food security and sets continental
expectation that could enhance EU donors’ alignment and support in line with
the 2010 policy commitment on CAADP. In partner countries, there is a potential
for more dialogue with farmers’ organisations, local and international NGOs and
the private sector. Globally, joint programming in food and nutrition security
can be further strengthened. Working together provides the EU and its Member States with a stronger voice, and a greater coverage and volume of development
assistance. This approach will improve our visibility and lead to more
efficient development assistance, better results and greater impact.
This
report sets the baseline for subsequent reports. In the next report, we will
compare our performance to the 2012 situation. Meanwhile, the methodology used
to develop this report will be improved; it will feature selected topics and
policy priorities, and put more emphasis on results/impacts. The next report
will also be illustrated by case studies undertaken with partners and with Member
States.
[1]               COM(2010) 127, An EU policy
framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges
and Council Conclusions on EU policy framework to assist developing countries in
addressing food security challenges 10 May 2010.
[2]               The term ‘food and nutrition’
has now replaced food security.
[3]               SWD (2013) 104 final Boosting
food and nutrition security through EU action: implementing our commitments.
[4]               Emergency and humanitarian aid
related to food security did not fall under the EU’s long-term commitment to
food and nutrition security and therefore was not included in this report.
[5]                      This
includes programmes and projects listed in the respective databases as ‘worldwide’ or where geographical location was ‘not specified’.
[6]               http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLICUS/Resources/511777-1269623894864/FY10toFY13Harmonized_list_Fragile_Situations.pdf
Harmonized list of fragile situations, FY2012.
[7]               Exchange rate 1.29 USD/EUR.
[8]               Joint analyses have been done
in Bolivia, Ivory Coast, and Ethiopia, while joint programming documents have
been prepared for South Sudan, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Laos, Myanmar, Namibia, Paraguay, Rwanda, Senegal and Togo.