COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments: second biennial report - Annexes -
Date: 2016-06-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission
Subjects: aid to agriculture, developing countries, development aid, development policy, food aid, food safety, hunger, least-developed country, malnutrition, undernourishment

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.6.2016  SWD(2016) 155 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments: second biennial report - Annexes -   {COM(2016) 244 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. ADDITIONAL FIGURES AND EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTION, BY PRIORITY ................... 4 

1.1 Part of food and nutrition security in EU official development assistance (ODA) ........................... 4 

1.2 Progress against performance criteria ............................................................................................... 5 

1.3 Examples of interventions per priority .............................................................................................. 5 

1.4 EU and Member States’ support to partner countries ....................................................................... 9 

2. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................... 12 

2.1 The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme and an example of Integrated Agricultural 

Research for Development (IAR4D) ............................................................................................. 12 

2.2 Joint programming in the nutrition sector in Ethiopia ..................................................................... 14 

2.3  Sustainable Cocoa Business and Cocoa-Food Link Programme .................................................... 15 

2.4 Sustainable Trade Initiative ............................................................................................................. 16 

3. METHODOLOGY FOR NATIONAL REPORT AND PROGRAMMES SPREADSHEET 
DATABASE .......................................................................................................................................... 17 

Acronyms 

AGIR 
BMZ 
CGIAR 
EIARD 
EU 
FAO 
FARA 
FBS 
GIZ  
IDH 
IAR4D 
IATI 
MoreMilkiT 
MS 
ODA 

OECD/DAC 

SCB 
SSAB 
SSA-CP 
SWD 

Alliance Globale pour l’Initiative Résilience 
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development 
formerly Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 
European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development 
European Union 
Food and Agriculture Organisation 
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa 
Farmers’ Business School 
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit 
Initiatief Duurzame Handel - Sustainable Trade Initiative 
Integrated Agricultural Research for Development 
International Aid Transparency Initiative 
More Milk in Tanzania 
Member States 
Official Development Assistance 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development / Development 
Assistance Committee 
Sustainable Cocoa Business Project 
Sustainable Smallholder Agri-Business Cocoa-Food Link Programme 
Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme 
Staff Working Document 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  2010,  the  European  Union  (EU)  and  its  Member  States  adopted  an  EU-wide  policy 
framework  for  food  security  (COM(2010)  127).  Further  EU  development  policy 
commitments  placing  additional  emphasis  on  these  food  security  priorities  have  since  been 
adopted. At the request of the Council, a plan for implementing the food and nutrition security 
commitments was produced in 2013 (SWD(2013) 104 final). In its conclusions on food and 
nutrition security in external assistance of 28 May 2013, the Council invited the Commission 
and the Member States to produce a consolidated biennial progress report and to publish the 
first such report in 2014. The first report was adopted in December 2014 (COM(2014) 712). 

This  staff  working  document  (SWD)  accompanies  the  second  of  these  reports,  which  was 
coordinated  by  the  Commission  and  based  on  data  provided  by  Austria,  Belgium,  Finland, 
France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Spain,  the  United  Kingdom  and  the 
Commission.  This  SWD  provides  additional  information  and  case  studies  supporting  the 
analysis  and  findings  of  the  first  biennial  report  on  ‘Implementing  EU  food  and  nutrition 
policy commitments’. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. ADDITIONAL FIGURES AND EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTION, BY PRIORITY 

1.1 Part of food and nutrition security in EU official development assistance (ODA) 

The countries marked in blue reported for the second implementation plan report 

Donor(s) 
Austria 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovak Republic 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Estonia 
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Romania 
EU Institutions 
MS non-allocated 
Total EU ODA 
Total ODA MS 
reporting 

Total ODA in EUR all sectors 
2014 
2012  
483 356 485 
422 712 827 
1 031 111 304 
1 149 080 008 
47 162 147 
51 686 641 
1 712 999 254 
1 588 122 006 
706 683 922 
623 529 283 
7 319 150 079 
6 262 409 486 
7 946 628 741  10 830 852 982 
34 743 709 
394 478 442 
1 099 340 258 
229 534 749 
3 150 544 328 
78 047 081 
219 036 957 
12 334 949 
15 234 123 
531 757 577 
3 330 455 847 
8 922 307 722 
11 307 006 
22 684 746 
4 856 241 
52 641 818 
14 083 076 263  13 908 569 962 

83 490 552 
417 144 747 
558 353 060 
217 449 034 
3 083 975 538 
0 
338 529 992 
0 
14 861 684 
833 525 053 
2 853 599 398 
6 881 796 463 

48 466 711 370  53 092 451 093 

Food security ODA in EUR 
2014 
12 879 289 
143 387 169 

2012 
16 651 992 
158 786 599 

53 087 053 
362 425 577 
613 220 731 

63 732 037 
388 151 346 
760 657 517 

94 009 945 
90 680 023 

89 501 101 
107 287 557 

317 625 913 

317 300 731 

55 672 264 

656 156 719 

595 964 413 

821 742 924  1 015 118 912 
109 035 374 
181 398 586 

43 318 972 063  47 321 412 468  3 365 786 061  3 658 687 711 

Percentage of food and nutrition security  in EU 
total ODA 
Percentage of reporting Member States in EU 
total ODA 

2012 

2014 

7.8 % 

7.7 % 

89.4 % 

89.1 % 

4 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
1.2 Progress against performance criteria 

Table 2 shows disbursements and number of programmes which received funding per policy 
priority. 

Performance criteria 

Year 
1. Improve smallholders' resilience and 
livelihoods 

 of which research programmes 

2. Support effective governance 

3. Support regional agriculture and food 
and nutrition security 
4. Strengthen social protection 
mechanisms for food and nutrition 
security  

6. Enhance coordination of humanitarian 
and development actors to increase 
resilience 
Total 

Number of 
programmes 
2012 

2014 

1 560 

1 822 

Support 
received (M€)  
2014 
2012 
2 137 
2 022 
58 % 
60 % 

Number of 
countries 
2012 

2014 

108 

103 

149 

410 

98 

94 

154 

588 

188 

102 

63 

148 

379 
395 
12 % 
151 
4 % 

209 
6 % 

467 
14 % 

122 
4 % 

300 
535 
15 % 
191 
5 % 

133 
4 % 

504 
14 % 

159 
4 % 

84 

92 

40 

40 

63 

64 

18 

37 

2 503 

3 343 

3 366 

3 659 

5. Enhance nutrition 

278 

341 

1.3 Examples of interventions per priority 

Priority 1: Improve smallholders' resilience and livelihoods 

  Netherlands: Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security and Linkages in Bangladesh 
  Germany: Programme on soil protections and rehabilitation; Green Innovation Centres for the Agriculture 

and Food Sector 

  Ireland: More Milk in Tanzania (MoreMilkiT) project — dairy value chain development. 
  Spain: Edible oil value chain enhancement in Ethiopia 
  Finland:  International  Fund  for  Agricultural  Development  Adaptation  for  Smallholder  Agriculture 

Programme 

  Austria: Promotion of small-scale agricultural production in Mozambique 
  EU: Cassava value chain for pro-poor development in Liberia 
  UK,  Sweden,  Netherlands,  Denmark:  African  Enterprise  Challenge  Fund  —  market  access  for  poor 

producers through private sector entrepreneurs. 

  Belgium: Programme de Desenclavement dans le Kwilu et Kwango [Programme to open up the Kwilu and 

Kwango regions] – Democratic Republic of Congo 

  EU  donors:  support  for  Consultative  Group  for  International  Agricultural  Research  (CGIAR)  — 

agriculture, food and nutrition security research for development 

  France: support for Cirad research — agricultural research for development 
  Italy: Regional network to support coffee small producers ‘café y café’ 

Priority 2: Support effective governance 

  Netherlands: Support to producer organisations 
  Austria: Improving smallholder farming through agricultural cooperatives and value chain development in 

Armenia 

  EU: PIP programme — support compliance with European Sanitary/Phyto-Sanitary regulations 
  Belgium: Joint Support Unit management in the Ministry of Rural Development in Democratic Republic of 

the Congo 

  Germany: Decentralisation and Good Governance Support Programme in Rwanda. 
  Finland: Sustainable Management of Land and Environment in Tanzania 
  France: Support to the water policy in Cambodia 
  UK: Digital Green ICT-enabled improvements in food security and health in India 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  Italy: Rural development support programme in Mozambique 

Priority 3: Support regional agriculture and Food and Nutrition Security policies 

  Netherlands: Marketing inputs regionally plus programme in West Africa. 
  UK,  Netherlands,  Belgium,  Finland  and  Sweden:  Trademark  East  Africa  —  support  to  East  African 

regional and international trade. 

  Germany and EU: Cocoa-Food Link Programme West and Central Africa 
  EU: Improving food security through intra-regional fish trade in sub-Saharan Africa 
  Finland and EU: Regional programme on food and nutrition security in Central America 
  Spain:  Support  to  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (FAO)  for  regional  sanitary  and  phyto-sanitary 

actions in Latin America. 

  Italy: Agro-food value chains in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua 
Priority 4: Improve smallholders resilience and livelihoods 

  EU, UK, Netherlands, Ireland: Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia. 
  Germany:  Burundi  Community  Resilience-Building  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  Project  —  Food 

Assistance for Assets activities using cash and vouchers transfers. 
  Austria: Contribution to PEGASE for vulnerable Palestinian families 
  Ireland: Social protection grant in Uganda 
  Netherlands: Sustainable trade initiative in Ethiopia 
  Spain: Nicaragua Inclusive Rural Support Common Fund 
  Finland: FAO Sustainable Aquaculture and Fisheries Development in the Kyrgyz Republic 
  Belgium: Five-year plans for growth and jobs in Bas-Congo and Katanga, Democratic Republic of Congo 
  Italy: Economic and social development in Dakar and Kaolak regions, Senegal 

Priority 5: Enhance nutrition 

  Germany: Programme on food and nutrition security, enhanced resilience 
  UK: Suchana-Ending the cycle of undernutrition in Bangladesh 
  Spain: Improving child nutrition and food security in Mali. 
  France: Nutrition facility in Central African Republic 
  Ireland: Reduce child & maternal undernutrition in Sierra Leone 
  Finland: Rural water supply and sanitation project - Western Nepal 
  EU: World Food Programme’s nutrition programme in Afghanistan. 
  Italy: Improving household food security and nutrition in women and youth, Egypt 
  Belgium: Programme to combat food insecurity and malnutrition 

Priority 6: Enhance coordination of humanitarian and development actors to increase resilience 

  EU France and Spain: support to regional food reserves system (under AGIR initiative, Sahel) 
  UK: South Sudan Food Security and Livelihoods 
  Germany: Somalia Protected Relief and Recovery Programme 
  Austria: Community Resilience and Development Programme in Palestine 
  France: Food aid for Chad with FAO 
  Spain: Support to Save The Children humanitarian assistance in Niger 
  Netherlands, Austria, EU: Resilience building in Ethiopia. 
  Italy: Resilience to drought and food security in Ethiopia. 

Policy  priority  1  has  been  the  major  focus  of  EU  donors.  It  includes  measures  to  support 
smallholders and family farmers in sustainable intensification, improve land management and 
the provision of services, promote pro-poor research and innovation, provide opportunities for 
off-farm  employment  and  to  link  smallholders  and  family  farmers  to  market  by  developing 
the  value  chain.  The  EU  and  its  Member  States  remained  a  key  supporter  of  research  and 
innovation,  including  to  the  Consultative  Group  for  International  Agricultural  Research 
(CGIAR) Fund (EUR 169 million), and is an important bilateral donor (EUR 69 million) to 
CGIAR  institutions. This funding supported an ambitious portfolio of new CGIAR research 
programmes,  geared  towards  tackling  future  key  development  challenges.  The  European 
Initiative for Agricultural Research and Development (EIARD) remains an effective platform 
for donor coordination and provides Europe with a strong voice in the CGIAR reform. 

With  1  882  programmes  under  this  priority,  all  EU  donors  have  substantial  portfolios  of 
agrifood value chain work. For example: 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Ireland supports oilseed, cocoa and dairy in Tanzania;  
  Spain supports the edible oil value chain in Ethiopia;  
  France  supports  domestic  value  chains,  rice  in  Senegal,  Mali,  Niger,  Guinea  and 

Cambodia;  
the EU supports the cassava value chain in Liberia; and  

 
  several EU donors support the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund.  
 

In Ethiopia, Italy is helping small farmers integrate into formal markets. 

Under  policy  priority  2,  the  EU  and  Member  States  have  been  very  active  in  negotiating 
international  agreements  and  commitments  and  in  supporting  regional  and  national  level 
policies.  Further,  the  EU  and  various  Member  States  have  continued  to  support  local 
governance and decentralisation processes, which are key to rural transformation. They also 
supported  the  implementation  of  the  Voluntary  Guidelines  on  the  Responsible  of  Tenure  of 
Land, Fisheries and  Forests. Member States, in particular France,  succeeded in  getting food 
security and food systems recognised in the Paris Agreement as key issues in responding to 
climate change. At regional level, EU and Member States continue to substantially support the 
Comprehensive  Africa  Agriculture  Development  Programme  process,  which  is  also  an 
important aspect of Germany’s ‘One World — No Hunger’ initiative and the EU’s increased 
investment in African countries. 

The EU and Member States, in particular Finland, have continued to ensure policy coherence 
for  development  in  the  food  and  nutrition  security  area.  The  2015  EU  report  on  policy 
coherence for development1 scrutinises the EU and Member States’ agricultural and fisheries 
policy initiatives to identify their impact on developing countries and summarises the steady 
progress  made  since  2013. In  2015,  the  coherence  of  EU  internal  policies  and  programmes 
with  EU  food  and  nutrition  security  objectives  was  discussed  between  EU  services,  civil 
society, Member States and the European Parliament. A further governance initiative was the 
EU  Joint  Research  Centre’s  foresight  study  on  ‘Global  Food  Security  2030’,2  which 
highlighted the importance of pursuing a food system approach and better aligning policies in 
different sectors within and outside Europe. 

Policy priority 3 saw continued support for regional programmes addressing trade, sanitary 
and phyto-sanitary measures. Regional cooperation for food security and fisheries governance 
also  continued,  with  a  slight  increase  in  funding  and  a  near  doubling  of  the  number  of 
programmes. Examples of this support are: 

 

 

 

the EU and Member States support the Economic Community of West African States 
(ECOWAS)  in  West  Africa  with  the Netherlands  leading  the  Marketing  Inputs 
Regionally Plus programme; 
the  United  Kingdom,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium,  Finland  and  Sweden  support 
Trademark East Africa; 
the  EU  and  France  support  the  reinforcement  of  African  veterinary  and  fisheries 
governance; 

  Finland and the EU support the second phase of the Regional Programme on food and 

nutrition security in Central America; and 

  Spain supports the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ work on 

sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures. 

1 SWD (2015) 159. 
2 Albino Maggio, Tine Van Criekinge, Jean Paul Malingreau 2015 JRC Foresight Series study ‘Global Food Security 2030 — Assessing 
trends with a view to guiding future EU policies. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
Policy  priority  4  saw  a  drop  in  disbursements  from  EUR  209  million  to  EUR 133  million. 
However,  102  social  protection  programmes,  8  more  than  in  the  last  report,  are  still  being 
implemented across 40 countries. For example, the EU, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands 
and Ireland have continued to support the well-performing Productive Safety Net Programme  
in Ethiopia. In Burundi, Germany supported the Community Resilience-Building and Disaster 
Risk Reduction Project, and in Uganda Ireland supported social protection grants. Austria also 
provided support to vulnerable families in Palestine. Spain was active in Nicaragua with the 
Inclusive Rural Support Common Fund, while Belgium supported five-year plans for growth 
and jobs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  

Under  policy  priority  5  all  EU  donors  have  substantial  portfolios,  with  341  programmes 
implemented in 64 countries. Progress under this priority area is covered in Section 5. 

Policy  priority  6  has  seen  a  far  greater  focus  on  programmes  to  promote  resilience  being 
implemented  in  the  Sahel  and  Horn  of  Africa,  thereby  facilitating  countries’  and  regional 
organisations’  resilience  agendas.  In  West  Africa,  within  the context  of  the  Global  Alliance 
for Resilience Initiative (AGIR) and of the Club du Sahel, the EU, Spain, France, Belgium, 
Austria,  Luxemburg  and  the  United  Kingdom  are  all  strongly  involved  in  addressing  the 
underlying causes of food crises. Their work has a long term perspective that links relief and 
rehabilitation  to  development.    Progress  towards  enhancing  the  resilience  agenda  to  food 
crises featured prominently during the AGIR meeting in Milan in October 2015. Now nearly 
all AGIR countries have launched an inclusive dialogue process to identify national priorities 
for resilience. Moreover, at its 42nd session, the Committee on World Food Security endorsed 
in  Protracted  Crises
a  ‘Framework  for  Action  for  Food  Security  and  Nutrition 

8 

 
 
1.4 EU and Member States’ support to partner countries 

9 

 
 
 
 
10 

 
 
 
 
 
11 

 
 
2. CASE STUDIES 

2.1 The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme and an example of Integrated 
Agricultural Research for Development (source for Textbox 1, page 5 of the Report) 

The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme (SSA-CP) led by the Forum for Agricultural 
Research in Africa (FARA) and supported by the EU and several Member States proved that 
Integrated Agricultural Research for Development  (IAR4D) is a good and effective approach 
to agricultural research and responds to farmers’ needs. Individuals participating in IAR4D 
innovation  platforms  attained  an  average  income  of  EUR  99  per  year,  231 %  above  the 
baseline figure of EUR 44 per year. Women participants substantially increased their income 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  farm  households  benefited  from  the  programme,  even  beyond  the 
IAR4D  pilot  areas.  Specific  impacts  include  a  120 %  increase  in  soybean  yields  among 
participating  farmers  in  northern  Nigeria  and  an  80 %  increase  in  the  income  of  banana 
farmers in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

In  spite  of  considerable  investment  in  research  and  extension,  growth  in  the  yields  of 
agricultural crops in Africa has lagged behind other parts of the developing world. A possible 
reason  for  this  is  that  research  systems  have  typically  been  top-down  and  have  not  been 
directed at  farmers’  needs. With the population of Africa  set to  double by 2050, there is an 
urgent  need  to  improve  the  performance  of  crop  and  livestock  production  to  meet  growing 
food and nutrition security needs. 

SSA-CP applied an approach based on IAR4D to research and innovation, working through 
36 innovation platforms in three pilot learning sites in western, central and southern Africa. 
Innovation platforms bring together farmers, researchers, the private sector and governmental 
and  non-governmental  actors  to  diagnose  problems  and  opportunities  and  to  generate 
innovation  on  targeted  value  chains.  SSA–CP  was  one  of  the  challenge  programmes  of  the 
Consultative  Group  for  International  Agricultural  Research  Fund,  but  was  unusual  in  being 
led  by  the  FARA  (which  is  not  a  CGIAR  institution).  FARA  implemented  the  programme 
with  CGIAR  research  centres,  sub-regional  research  organisations  and  a  wide  variety  of 
governmental and non-governmental partners, including those from the private sector. 

SSA-CP ran for 10 years from 2004 to 2014. It was entirely funded by European donors, with 
the  European  Commission  being 
than  
EUR 13  million. The United  Kingdom/Department  for International Development, Italy,  the 
Netherlands and Denmark also provided support. 

largest  contributor,  committing  more 

the 

SSA-CP has completed a proof of concept that demonstrates that IAR4D works and is more 
effective  in  generating  benefits  than  conventional  research  and  development.    Highlights  of 
the  analysis  show  that  individuals  participating  in  the  innovation  platforms  attained  an 
average income of USD 1 362 per year, i.e. 231 % above the baseline figure of USD 588 per 
year. Gender-disaggregated data showed that women increased their income by an average of 
326 %, and tens of thousands of farm households benefited from the programme, even beyond 
the IAR4D pilot areas. 

Examples  of  where  the  programme  had  a  particular  impact  include  a  120 %  increase  in 
soybean yields among participating farmers in northern Nigeria, leveraging of USD 6 million 
for  agricultural  production  in  Niger,  and  80 %  increase  in  the  income  of  banana  farmers  in 
Uganda  and  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  linked  to  development  of  nutritious  non-
alcoholic drinks. 

12 

 
 
The  sustainability  of  the  IAR4D  approach  depends  on  it  being  adopted  by  African 
governments  and  by  the  scientific  community.  Some  African  countries  (Gambia,  Liberia, 
Mozambique,  Nigeria  and  Sierra  Leone)  have  incorporated  IAR4D  into  their  extension 
approach.  The  SSA-CP  approach  has  also  been  tested  in  the  systems  programmes  of  the 
CGIAR,  including  the  Drylands,  Humid  Tropics  and  Aquatic  Agricultural  Systems 
programmes. 

‘Potatoes  provide  more  income  in  the  family  and  I  can  send  the 
children  to  school.  I  produce  chips  which  I  can  sell.  Researchers 
should help us by producing more high-yielding seed, which is also 
resistant to diseases and that would improve our yields.’ 
Semahame  Mwamini,  Vice-president  of  the  Muungano  IP  Integrated 
Agricultural Research for Development 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2 Joint programming in the nutrition sector in Ethiopia (source for Textbox 2, page 6 of 
the Report) 

Early  in  2013,  the  European  Union  and  the  20  Member  States  represented  in  Ethiopia  plus 
Norway  (EU+)  endorsed  the  EU+  Joint  Cooperation  Strategy  for  Ethiopia.  The  aim  of  this 
strategy  was  to  ensure  a  coherent  and  cohesive  response  to  Ethiopia’s  development 
challenges,  to  improve  alignment,  promote  harmonisation,  a  results-based  approach, 
predictability and transparency, while avoiding overlapping or fragmented interventions. 

In 2014, the EU group identified three pilot joint programming areas: i) health; ii) nutrition; 
and iii) the green sectors. For nutrition, a core group of six Member States (the Netherlands, 
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) and the Commission was established 
to  take  the  joint  programme  forward  on  behalf  of  the  broader  membership  of  14  Member 
States. The process was facilitated by the EU. 

The  group  established  a  road  map,  finalised  a  mapping  exercise,  commissioned  and 
completed a ‘Situation Analysis of the Nutrition Sector in Ethiopia 2000-2015’ and developed 
the EU+ nutrition strategy. The strategy is based on Ethiopia’s strategic priorities highlighted 
in the Second National Nutrition Programme 2015-2020. Its main objectives are: 

 

 
 

 
 

 

to  articulate  a  common  understanding  of  development  challenges  and  guiding 
priorities  for  EU+  support  to  the  objectives  of  the  Second  National  Nutrition 
Programme; 
to achieve complementarity across sectors and fill gaps; 
to  align  EU+  partners’  country  strategies  with  agreed  mutual  guiding  principles  and 
actions in specific sectors; 
to enhance the quality of policy dialogue and advocate jointly; 
to  make  EU  financing  more  effective  by  focusing  on  alignment,  harmonisation, 
managing for results, predictability and mutual accountability; 
to enhance the leverage and visibility of EU support to Ethiopia. 

The strategy also contains actions to integrate nutrition in a number of relevant sectors such as 
health,  social  protection  and  agriculture  and  food  systems.  For  each  sector,  a  lead  Member 
State  ensures  that  all  priority  actions  are  implemented  through  their  own  programmes  or 
programmes from the local government or other Member States. 

The  core  group  on  nutrition  has  also  advocated  and  negotiated  for  mainstreaming  nutrition 
into the Ethiopian Government’s development programmes, such as the Agricultural Growth 
Programme,  the  Productive  Safety  Net  Programme  and  the  Sustainable  Land  Management 
Programme. The group also played a key role in redesigning the programmes to mainstream 
nutrition across their components and introduce nutrition-sensitive programming. 

The  EU+  nutrition  strategy  is  an  excellent  example  of  how  the  EU+  initiative  can  be 
integrated  into  national  nutrition  planning,  resourcing  and  implementation,  evidence-based 
documentation  and  monitoring  and  evaluation.  Through  the  strategy,  Member  States  speak 
with one voice, have the same political message and collectively advocate for mainstreaming 
nutrition across relevant line ministries, both at strategic and programme levels. The strategy 
gives  the  EU  an  identifiable,  visible  presence  which  lives  up  to  its  aid  effectiveness 
commitments.  However, for the EU+ nutrition group to function successfully it is important 
to  maintain  continuous  contact  with  the  Member  States  and  keep  them  informed  about  the 
process and its achievements. This requires time and dedication on the part of the lead party 
which prepared most of the documents. While joint programming increases the workload, one 
clear benefit has been the ‘Situation Analysis of the Nutrition Sector’, the findings of which 
have been used by all development partners. 

14 

 
 
2.3  Sustainable Cocoa Business and Cocoa-Food Link Programme (source for Textbox 4, 
page 9 of the Report) 

Cocoa  is  one  of  the  most  significant  crops  in  West  Africa,  occupying  between  five  and  six 
million hectares in the coastal humid zone. The region accounts for nearly 70% of the world’s 
cocoa supply.  Cocoa is mainly grown by small-scale farmers on fields of two hectares or less. 
It is a source of income for three million smallholder families and one of the leading foreign 
exchange  earning  crops.  However,  farmers  lack  the  resources,  technical  knowledge  and  in 
particular the business skills they need to take full advantage of the opportunities of growing 
cocoa and food markets. Current cocoa yields are low and there is considerable potential for 
improvement by adopting better agricultural practices. 

The Sustainable Cocoa Business Project (SCB) was one of several commodity-based projects 
funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) 
with co-funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the private sector. SCB was 
active  in  Cameroon,  Côte  D’Ivoire,  Ghana  and  Nigeria  from  2009  to  2014  and  adopted  the 
Farmers’  Business  School  (FBS)  approach  to  developing  farmers’  business  skills.  The  FBS 
approach  involved  business  service  centres  that  facilitate  access  to  inputs,  technical  advice, 
market information and micro-finance. Building on the success of SCB, the EU co-funded a 
follow-up  as  the  Sustainable  Smallholder  Agri-Business  Cocoa-Food  Link  Programme 
(SSAB)  within  the  framework  of  the  New  Commodities  Programme  under  the  European 
Development Fund. SSAB strengthens support to diversify crops and income sources in order 
to  improve  food  security  and  resilience  to  shocks  such  as  falling  cocoa  prices.  Togo  was 
included  in  the  target  countries.  SCB’s  budget  was  EUR  8.3  million  (BMZ  4.8M;  World 
Cocoa  Foundation  1.75M;  Bill  and  Melinda  Gates  Foundation  1.75M;  Nigeria  0.5M)  and 
SSAB  has  a  budget  of  EUR  9.5  million  (European  Development  Fund  5.0M;  BMZ  4.0M; 
Nigeria  0.5M).  The  German  International  Cooperation  (Deutsche  Gesellschaft  für 
Internationale  Zusammenarbeit    GIZ)  manages  the  implementation  of  both  projects  in 
collaboration with partner organisations in the target countries. 

An independent review of SCB in 2013 found that more than 17 000 farmers had graduated 
from FBS. 80 % of these had adopted business tools and improved agricultural practices and 
90 %  had  increased  their  cocoa  yields  by  more  than  33 %.  A  recent  update  from  SSAB 
revealed  that  32 000  smallholders  (20 %  of  whom  are  women)  have  accessed  inputs  from 
business service centres, cocoa yields by FBS graduates have increased by 33-50 % and net 
income from non-cocoa sources has increased by between five and twelve times from baseline 
values. 

After  Farmer  Business  School  I  measure  my  plots,  realise  my 
cropping calendar and my operating account for my farms. I opened 
a savings account at the micro-finance service of the Diocese. I have 
diversified  my  business  and  revenues.  I  pulled  420 000 FCFA  to 
produce  a  hectare  of  peanuts  and  obtained  a  net  profit  of  440 000 
FCFA I repeated this project in 2013 with good profit. By doing so, I 
pay my children’s school fees easily now. 

Ndzana Toua Bibiane Obala, Cameroon (2013) 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
2.4 Sustainable Trade Initiative (source for Textbox 5, page 9 of the Report) 

Growing  concerns  over  the  environmental  and  social  impact  of  producing  cash  crops  and 
related products have stimulated a market for products that are certified as being sustainably 
produced. 
The Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH - Dutch Initiatief Duurzame Handel) aims to accelerate 
and  scale  up  sustainable  trade  by  building  impact-oriented  coalitions  of  pioneering 
companies, civil society organisations, governments and other stakeholders. IDH is supported 
by a grant co-funded by the Netherlands (EUR 125 million); Switzerland (EUR 24.5 million) 
and Denmark (EUR 1.2 million) for 2008-2015. IDH is active in more than 60 countries and 
supports 250 businesses within a framework of 18 commodity-based programmes, including 
cash crops, timber and fish. It is implemented through a wide range of private sector and non-
governmental organisations partners, and participating companies must commit to provide a 
minimum  of  50 % co-funding.  By  the  end  of  2013  IDH  had  leveraged  EUR 56  million  of 
private sector funding. 

An independent review of IDH in 2013 concluded that the initiative had become a key player 
in  advancing  coalitions  of  private  sector  and  other  stakeholders  for  sustainable  commodity 
sourcing. IDH has a strong capacity-building element linked to compliance with sustainability 
standards  and  certification.  For  example,  200 000  cotton  farmers  have  been  trained  and 
licensed  and  IDH  support  to  the  ‘Better  Cotton  Initiative’  has  enabled  Better  Cotton  to 
dominate the sustainable cotton market. Similar numbers of cocoa farmers have been trained 
and  certified,  and  IDH  has  supported  production  of  350 000  tonnes  of  fish  from  Vietnam 
under  the  label  of  the  Aquaculture  Sustainability  Council.  There  is  growing  evidence  that 
capacity  built  by  IDH  has  translated  into  improvements  in  producer  livelihoods.  Rainforest 
Alliance  smallholder  tea  farmers  in  Kenya  trained  through  IDH  interventions  achieved  an 
average  30 %  increase  in  yield  (as  against  a  15 %  increase  in  a  control  group).  Ghanaian 
cocoa farmers increased production by an average of 6 % and secured a 5 % price premium as 
a result of certification. IDH conducts quality work on impact evaluation and further evidence 
of positive impacts is likely to emerge as the initiative continues. 

Sustainability is not only important for western countries. It is also important for our country 
because it brings more value to our farmers. 
Dr Reddy Saleh, Ministry of Trade, Indonesia. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3. METHODOLOGY FOR NATIONAL REPORT AND PROGRAMMES 
SPREADSHEET DATABASE 

Guidelines to prepare the second national reports on implementing EU food and 
nutrition security policy commitments 

I) INTRODUCTION 

The  first  implementation  plan report  was  published  in  December  2014. It  was  the  first ever 
report  in  which  EU  donors  jointly  reported  on  their  commitments  on  food  and  nutrition 
security. 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. 

The second EU report will provide a consolidated assessment of the EU and Member States’ 
performance  on  the  six  food  and  nutrition  security  policy  priorities  set  out  in  the 
implementation plan. It will also provide an assessment of how the collective performance of 
the  EU  and  Member  States  delivered  on  these  policy  priorities,  and  the  level  of  coherence, 
complementarity and coordination. The assessment will be based on a quantitative assessment 
of food and nutrition security interventions informed by an analysis of the distribution of the 
total  investments,  and  a  qualitative  assessment  of  how  well  the  EU  and  Member  States  are 
working  together  at  national,  regional  and  global  levels.  This  report  will  show  the  EU’s 
progress in delivering commitments since the 2014 report, which serves as a baseline. 

The  second  report  will  reflect  the  recommendations  for  further  improvements  made  in 
Council Conclusions of 2015. These include: 

following a refined and simplified reporting format and methodology; 

 
  ensuring  consistency  with  the  overall  approach  of  the  EU  Development  and 

 
 

Cooperation Results Framework; 
focusing on selected policy priorities; 
including,  in  addition  to  inputs  and  outputs,  more  attention  on  outcomes  generated 
through  case  studies  and/or  those  available  through  our  (Member  States  and 
EuropeAid) individual reporting systems; and 

  continuing  with  the  emphasis  on  assessing  the  efficacy  of  in-country  coordination, 

harmonisation, division of labour and joint analysis. 

II) GUIDANCE ON COMPLETING THE NATIONAL REPORT 

The national report should be made up of three sections preceded by a summary of no more 
than one page that provides an overview of the headline results and the main lessons learnt. 

Section 1: Overview of Member States’ expenditure on projects and programmes relevant to 
food and nutrition security broken down across the six policy priorities and analysis; 

Section  2:  Overview  of  Member  States’  strategic  priorities  for  food  and  nutrition  security 
(global, regional and country level), which includes a general assessment and an assessment 
of coordination and complementarity of joint work in three countries; and 

Section  3:  Examples  of  outcomes  presented  in  the  form  of  case  studies  and/or  or  results 
already reported through the indicators defined in respective corporate results frameworks (if 
available). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 1: Distribution of investments 

This first section summarises the main findings from the disbursements you have entered in 
the spreadsheet according to the six priorities defined. The completed spreadsheet will serve 
as  the  main  supporting  annex  to  this  report.  (See  guidance  below  on  how  to  complete  the 
spreadsheet.) 

In  order  to  provide  a  visual  overview  of  the  distribution  of  investments  your  Member  State 
made in 2014, we have maintained the graphics facility which will be based on the data you 
entered  in  the  spreadsheet.  Once  you  have  entered  all  the  data  in  the  spreadsheet,  press  the 
refresh  button.  This  will  automatically  create  a  chart  showing  the  distribution  of 
disbursements  broken  down  among  the  six  priority  areas  as  well  as  a  chart  showing  the 
distribution  of  disbursements  across  geographical  areas.  These  graphs  will  help  you  outline 
the basic characteristics of the portfolio’s distribution. 

Section 2: Member States’s strategic priorities 

This section provides you with an opportunity to explain your country strategic priorities for 
food and nutrition security and how these priorities have changed since the first report. It also 
gives  you  the  opportunity  to  highlight  the  different  ways  in  which  you  approach 
implementation that are not adequately captured in section 1 and/or which cut across specific 
interventions. For example, it could cover 

the significance of your country’s support to food-insecure countries; 

 
  your  country’s  work  on  policy  dialogue  in  global,  continental  and  regional  fora 
including  joint  programmes  and  joint  programming  in  three  selected  countries 
(Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Mali); 

  other dimensions of aid effectiveness; and 
  adherence  to  principles  such  as  those  relating  to  fragile  states  and  Linking  Relief, 

Reconstruction and Development. 

In  addition,  following  the  Council’s  request  to  streamline  and  deepen  the  methodology,  the 
European Commission will report on two themes: 
1) enhancing nutrition (in particular for mothers, infants and children) and 
2) inclusive agrifood chains and systems. 
Please explain in this section the connection between the topic(s) in the 2016 report and the 
six priorities. 

On joint programming and joint implementation processes, please report in general how you 
were involved in joint programming and joint implementation in the countries in which you 
are  active.  The  idea  is  also  to  present  a  case  study.  Please  provide  a  brief  assessment  of 
coordination  and  complementarity  between  your  country  and  other  Member  States  /  the 
European Commission by answering the following two questions: 
1.  What steps have you taken, individually or jointly, to improve coordination: 

a.  at policy and decision making level (i.e.: joint priorities, alignment to the partner’s 

priorities); 

b.  on the ground (i.e.: shared/joint implementation/programmes, joint programming, 

joint actions, consultation and sharing of information); and 

c.  in international fora. 

2.  What  steps  have  you  taken,  individually  or  jointly,  to  improve  complementarity  across 
any 

nutrition 

security 

sector 

avoid 

food 

and 

to 

sectors  within 
duplication/inefficiencies? 

the 

18 

 
 
 
 
Section  3:  Results  reporting  through  selected  case  studies  and/or  existing  corporate 
reporting systems 

This  section  is  your  opportunity  to  provide  details  on  your  achievements  in  terms  of 
improving  nutrition  in  particular  for  mothers,  infants  and  children,  and  promoting  inclusive 
agrifood chains/systems. 

Remembering  that  results  is  a  collective  term  covering  ‘Outputs,  Outcome  and  Impact’ 
(OECD/DAC  Glossary  of  Key  Terms  in  Evaluation  and  Results-Based  Management),  this 
year’s report will focus on: 

a)  Outputs  —  the  reach  of  your  agency  or  the  number  of  individuals,  households, 
communities and institutions your agency has supported; and 

b) Outcome — the responses to the support and the immediate benefits to the target groups. 

Accordingly, we propose that we present our results in two ways: 

1.  The  achievements  in  nutrition  security  and  inclusive  agrifood  chains/systems  from  your 
individual reporting systems informed by your corporate targets, with an emphasis on outputs. 

Please provide the following information: 

 

 

if available, the findings from your corporate results reporting for 2014 related to food 
and nutrition security achievements; 
if available, data on the number of beneficiaries (undernourished people, smallholder 
farm(er)s) reached, including if possible explanations of who (man, women, children 
and smallholders) was reached, where (the countries) and with what type of action; 
  2014  reports  on  progress  towards  your  nutrition  commitments  prepared  for  SUN 

(Scaling-Up Nutrition) and the global nutrition report. 

2. Case studies. 

Individual  case  studies  will  be  used  to  complement  the  information  on  the  number  of 
beneficiaries  reached.  The  evidence  for  the  case  studies  will  come  from  evaluations.  Please 
could  you  indicate  all  your  available  evaluations  which  show  outcome-related  information. 
This  could  include  behavioural  changes  of  mothers  and  children  under  five,  changes  for 
smallholder farmers (i.e. using the services and products made available through the donors’ 
programmes) and the direct benefits they obtain.  

The  European  Commission  will  collate  the  relevant  evaluations  that  the  Member  States’ 
evaluation departments or programmes consider robust. We will then decide together on the 
evaluations that will provide the evidence with which to inform 2-3 case studies. These case 
studies will be prepared by the European Commission. 

III) GUIDANCE ON COMPLETING THE SPREADSHEET 

EuropeAid  proposes  to  keep  the  OECD/DAC  reporting  as  the  other  possibility-  IATI 
(International  Aid  Transparency  Initiative)  reporting-  is  not  yet  used  by  all  Member  States. 
The OECD will only publish the final 2014 data in December, but EuropeAid would like to 
propose that you make the data submitted to the OECD available to the Commission as soon 
as possible. 

As regards methodology, EuropeAid proposes to make an initial selection of programmes for 
each Member State. This approach will reduce the number of programmes to be screened by 
each  Member  State.  We  estimate  that  this  reduction  can  range  from  10 %  to  75 %  of  the 
number of programmes compared to 2012, depending on the Member State. 

19 

 
 
 
A two-prong approach is proposed: 

I. 

For the 9 Member States that participated in the 2012 report: share with EuropeAid the 
2014 OECD-DAC CRS plus (Creditor Reporting System) file reported to OECD. 

EuropeAid will check which 2014 programmes were already in the 2012 spreadsheet 
database and will allocate the programmes according to the six priorities following the 
2012 classification. 

II. 

For the programmes which were not in the 2012 spreadsheet database, EuropeAid will 
pre-select  the  programmes  which  have  one  of  a  list  of  76  OECD-DAC  CRS  codes 
proposed by EuropeAid. 

This new list (see Table 2) has been compiled based on the 2012 spreadsheet database. 
In  2012,  99  DAC  codes  were  used.  However,  some  of  these  DAC  codes  were  not 
relevant or represent only a small number of programmes. EuropeAid proposes using 
this list of 76 DAC codes, which represent more than 99 % of the total amount. 

EuropeAid will send back three different databases of programmes to each Member State: 

  Database  1:  Programmes  which  were  already  in  the  2012  database,  and  for 

which EuropeAid proposes a priority. 

  Database 2: New programmes (not in the 2012 database), related to one of the 

76 DAC codes. 

  Database 3: Programmes with a DAC code not related to food security. 

Each Member State will then be asked: 

  Database 1: to verify the Commission’s analysis. 
  Database  2:  to  identify  the  food  and  nutrition  security  programmes  and  apply  the 

guidance on completing the spreadsheets below. 

For the purpose of the exercise, please include only those programmes/projects: 

A. 
which  have  a  particular  focus  on  food  and  nutrition  security  (by  being  specifically 
designed  to  improve  food  and  nutrition  security,  or  by  have  specific  food  and  nutrition 
security  objectives or activities); and/or 

which  clearly  fall  within  one  or  more  of  the  four  pillars  of  food  security  (i.e.  food 

B. 
availability, access to food, utilisation of food and stability); and/or 

which  clearly  fall  within  the  definition  of  ‘food  and  nutrition  security’.  (‘food  and 
C. 
nutrition security exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access 
to food, which is consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and 
food preferences, and is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services 
and care, allowing for a healthy and active life.’) 

Core  contributions  at  multilateral  level  to  a  range  of  United  Nations  agencies,  funds  and 
programmes  (such  as  the  United  Nations  Children's  Fund  and  the  United  Nations 
Development Programme) should be excluded as it would be difficult to allocate a proportion 
of this funding to food and nutrition security. You should include only those contributions to 
these agencies if they specifically target food and nutrition security as stated above (points A, 
B  and  C).  With  regards  to  the  Rome-based  agencies,  please  report  in  the  same  way  as  for 
DAC reporting. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Administrative and overhead costs (including salaries and travel-related costs) are part of the 
projects and should be reported on. 

Please bear in mind that all data you report on must be official 2014 DAC data, which means 
the financial disbursements you reported to the OECD DAC in 2014. 

Filling in the spreadsheet step by step: 

Please remember to enter the name of your Member State, the date of completion, the contact 
person and the reporting system (by disbursement) on the top left of the excel sheet. 

1.  Column A: List your relevant food and nutrition security projects and programmes in 

the first column ‘projects or programmes’. 

2.  Column B: Select the relevant CRS code corresponding to the project entered. If you 
do not use EUR, please enter the equivalent amount in EUR using the April 2012 
OECD exchange rate available here: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=169# 

3.  Column  C:  If  no  CRS  code  is  applicable  to  your  project,  please  explain  in  a  few 

words what your project entails. 

4.  Column D: Enter the financial amount disbursed for that activity in 2014. 

5.  Column E: Specify for each project or programme the corresponding policy priority 
using  the  scroll  down  menu.  There  are  six  to  choose  from.  (Tip:  You  will  need  to 
print out and read the summary description of all projects or programmes to help you 
complete the rest of the columns.) 

6.  Column  F:  Choose  the  relevant  level  of  intervention:  national,  regional  or  global 

using the scroll down menu. 

7.  Column G: Choose the relevant region or country using the scroll down menu. 

8.  Column  H:  This  column  will  be  filled  in  automatically  based  on  your  choices  in 
columns G and H. This column will serve to create a chart showing the distribution of 
disbursement across geographical area. 

9.  Column  I:  will  enable  you  to  make  any  additional  comments  or  remarks  you  may 

have. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Proposed list of DAC CRS codes potentially related to food security 

DAC CRS code and description 
11330- Vocational training 
11420- Higher education 
12110- Health policy and administrative 
management 

12220- Basic health care 
12240- Basic nutrition 
13020- Reproductive healthcare 
14010- Water sector policy and administrative 
management 
14015- Water resources conservation 
(including data collection) 
14020- Water supply and sanitation — large 
systems 
14021- Water supply — large systems  
14022- Sanitation — large systems 
14030- Basic drinking water supply and basic 
sanitation 

14031- Basic drinking water supply 
14032- Basic sanitation 
14040- River basins’ development 
15110- Public sector policy and 
administrative management 
15112- Decentralisation and support to 
subnational government 
15150- Democratic participation and Civil 
society 

15160- Human rights 
15170- Women’s equality organisations and 
institutions 

16010- Social/ welfare services 
16050- Multi-sector aid for basic social 
services  
16062- Statistical capacity building 
21020- Road transport 

24030- Formal sector financial intermediaries 
24040- Informal/semi-formal financial 
intermediaries 
25010- Business support services and 
institutions 
31110- Agricultural policy and administrative 
management 

DAC CRS code and description 
31181- Agricultural education/training 
31182- Agriculture research 

31191- Agricultural services 
31192- Plant and post-harvest protection 
and pest control 
31193- Agricultural financial services 
31194- Agricultural cooperatives 

31195- Livestock/veterinary services 
31210- Forestry policy and administrative 
management 

31220- Forestry development 
312291- Forestry services 
31282- Forestry research 

31291- Forestry services 
31310- Fishing policy and administrative 
management 
31320- Fishery development 
31381- Fishery education/training 

31382- Fishery research 

31391- Fishery services 
32110- Small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SME) development 
32130- Small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SME) development 

32161- Agro-industries 
32182- Technological research and 
development 
33110- Trade policy and administrative 
management 
33120- Trade facilitation 
33150- Trade-related adjustment 
41010- Environmental policy and 
administrative management 

41030- Bio-diversity 

41081- Environmental education/ training 

41082- Environmental research 

22 

 
 
DAC CRS code and description 
31120- Agricultural development 
31130- Agricultural land resources 

31140- Agricultural water resources 
31150- Agricultural inputs 
31161- Food crop production 
31162- Industrial crops/export crops 

31163- Livestock 
31164- Agrarian reform 
31165- Agricultural alternative development 
31166- Agricultural extension 

DAC CRS code and description 
43010- Multi-sector aid 
43040- Rural development  
43050- Non-agricultural alternative 
development  
43081- Multi-sector education/training 
43082- Research/scientific institutions 
51010- General budget support 
52010- Food aid/Food security 
programmes 
91010- Administrative costs 
99810- Sectors not specified 
NA 

23