Global Food Security

House of Commons International Development Committee Global Food Security

First Report of Session 2013–14

Volume II

Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 9,17 January, 12, 19, 26 March, 18 April and 9 May 2013.

Published on 4 June 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

The International Development Committee The International Development Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Office of the Secretary of State for International Development.

Current membership Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat, Gordon) (Chairman) Hugh Bayley MP (Labour, York Central) Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative, Congleton) Richard Burden MP (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Pauline Latham OBE MP (Conservative, Mid Derbyshire) Jeremy Lefroy MP (Conservative, Stafford) Mr Michael McCann MP (Labour, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) Fiona O’Donnell MP (Labour, East Lothian) Mark Pritchard MP (Conservative, The Wrekin) Chris White MP (Conservative, Warwick and Leamington)

The following members were also members of the Committee during the parliament: Mr Russell Brown MP (Labour, Dumfries, Galloway) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mr Sam Gyimah MP (Conservative, East Surrey) Richard Harrington MP (Conservative, Watford) Alison McGovern MP (Labour, Wirral South) Ann McKechin MP (Labour, Glasgow North) Anas Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Central)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/indcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.

Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Dr David Harrison (Clerk), Chloe Challender (Senior Committee Specialist), Judy Goodall (Inquiry Manager), Louise Whitley (Inquiry Manager), Rob Page (Committee Specialist), Anita Fuki (Senior Committee Assistant), Annabel Goddard (Committee Assistant), Paul Hampson (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the International Development Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 1223; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/indcom)

1 ActionAid Ev w1: Ev w115 2 Agricultural Biotechnology Council Ev w8 3 All-Party Group on Agriculture and Food for Development Ev w11 4 BBC Media Action Ev w14 5 Benny Dembitzer Ev w16 6 Christian Aid Ev w20 7 Concern Worldwide Ev w24 8 The Co-operative Group Ev w28 9 The Fairtrade Foundation Ev w32 10 Farm Africa and Self Help Africa Ev w36 11 Food Ethics Council Ev w39 12 Friends of the Earth Ev w42 13 The Hunger Alliance Ev w47 14 Institute of Development Studies Ev w48: Ev w113 15 Mercy Corps Ev w50 16 OECD Ev w54 17 The Planetary Boundaries Initiative (PBI) Ev w59 18 Research Councils UK (RCUK) Ev w62 19 SABMiller Ev w68 20 Small Foundation Ev w72 21 The Soil Association Ev w74 22 War on Want Ev w76 23 Tearfund Ev w80 24 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Ev w84 25 Professor Tim Benton, University of Leeds Ev w88 26 The Vegan Society Ev w92 27 WaterAid Ev w96 28 Wellcome Trust Ev w97 29 World Vision Ev w98 30 WWF-UK Ev w99 31 Business Action for Africa Ev w106 32 ONE Ev w110

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by ActionAid About us Founded as a British charity in 1972, ActionAid is an international NGO working in 45 countries worldwide, and our positions and recommendations reﬂect the experiences of our staff and partners in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe. Our vision is a world without poverty and injustice in which every person enjoys the right to a life with dignity. We work with poor and excluded people to eradicate poverty and injustice. Drawing on ActionAid’s long experience of promoting food rights, this submission highlights in particular our concerns and recommendations on the impact of biofuels on global food security.

Summary ActionAid1 welcomes this inquiry. The global food system is failing to ensure the right to food for an estimated 2.56 billion people daily. Only deep reforms will ensure a resilient and sustainable food system capable of feeding 9.3 billion people by 2050. Current policies—such as the introduction of mandates for the use of biofuels in transport fuels are adding to the problem. Forecasts suggest the EU’s biofuel policies may increase food prices by up to 36% by 2020, reducing the food intake of the world’s poorest people.The period 2001–10 saw 203 million hectares of land around the world under consideration in large-scale land acquisitions. (See Section A) Crops for possible biofuel use are estimated to account for 58% of global land acquisitions. Much of this land could produce food or had been previously. The UK must commit to ending the use of food for fuel by calling for the removal of land-based biofuels from EU mandates. It must also do more to persuade other Member States to follow suit. (See Section A) This year represents an important opportunity for the UK to demonstrate effective global leadership by using forums such as the G8 in June 2013 and the preceding Hunger Summit to commit to take action. As the Government will play host to key global players, there can be no better time to make the case for effective and long-lasting reform. Reforms must prioritise the eradication of gender discrimination as a key way to promote food security. Women farmers are not receiving enough support from governments and donors. In addition the waste of food—currently a third of produce—through the production of biofuels, animal feed and for use in industry must be addressed. (See SectionsB&C) Population and income growth, urbanisation, changing consumption patterns, stagnant yields, demand for land, feed and biofuels, as well as climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, are driving limited resources of food, energy, water and materials towards critical thresholds. (See SectionsD&E) Food demand will increase as incomes rise and diets switch towards more meat and dairy. Meanwhile, the effects of climate change could place 526 million people in the tropics at increased risk of hunger by 2050. (See SectionsF&G) In order to promote global food security, and demonstrate its commitment to ending hunger and ensuring the right to food for all, in our submission we propose the UK Government: 1. Scrap its target to have 5% biofuel in transport fuel. 2. Push for zero crop-based biofuel to count towards the European Union’s 10% renewable energy in transport target and lobby for the EU to account for the true scale of carbon emissions by including “indirect land use change” in calculations. 3. Use its financial and political influence, including in the G8 and G20, to improve governance, transparency and accountability around large-scale land acquisitions in developing countries, ensuring protection of human rights. 4. Push for implementation of all relevant aspects of the UN Voluntary Guidelines on land tenure. 5. Ensure renegotiation of the principles on responsible agricultural investment at the UN’s Committee on World Food Security reflect the fact that investment must work for poor communities. 6. Work within the G20 and use its G8 leadership to strengthen the level and quality of development finance for agriculture through increased aid, the promotion of pro-poor investment and firm steps to tackle tax evasion. 7. Use its influence to help ensure the UN Committee on World Food Security is supported as the foremost inter-governmental platform for coordinating global food security efforts and addressing the structural problems affecting the right to food. 8. Support policies and programmes that tackle gender discrimination. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w2 International Development Committee: Evidence

9. Strengthen links between agriculture and climate change by increasing UK support, including finance, for national adaptation plans. 10. Support, financially and politically, well governed national and regional food reserves. 11. Back national and global efforts to support social protection as a vital tool to fight hunger. 12. Ensure DFID programmes focus more support towards agro-ecology and women’s rights.

Inquiry Issues A. Land competition—the impact of biofuels on food security A.1 Land competition in developing countries has intensified over the past decade, due partly to rising agricultural and land prices driven by population growth and rising demand for food, biofuels, raw materials and timber.2 A.2 Globally, in 2001–10, 203 million hectares of land were under consideration or negotiation in large- scale land acquisitions.3 Crops that could be used for biofuel are estimated to account for 58%of all global land acquisitions (with agriculture and livestock explicitly 18% of deals and forestry 13%). Two-thirds of land acquired for biofuels was in Africa.4 Land used to produce biofuels for consumption in the EU in 2008 was enough to feed 127 million people.5 A.3 Women are often the first victims of “land grabs”, especially when they do not have legal titles to the land they farm—often identified by governments and investors as “available” for biofuel production.6 A.4 Biofuels have several effects on food security and nutrition. The impact of the EU’s biofuel policies suggests that, by 2020, oilseed prices may increase by up to 20%, vegetable oil prices 36%, maize prices 22% and wheat prices 13%.7 Higher agricultural and food prices, such as maize, decrease food availability to the poorest people, who spend up to 75% of their income on food. Rising prices could affect the intake of vegetable oils and fats important for energy, essential fatty acids and vital nutrients.8 A.5 More volatile prices make it difficult for poor farmers to respond to the market because of increased uncertainty and risk. Evidence of biofuel policies’ contribution to rising and increasingly volatile food prices on international markets is so compelling that, in 2011, 10 major international bodies recommended G20 governments abolish biofuel mandates and subsidies.9 A.6 Locally, biofuel projects have displaced small-scale producers from their land, as in Tanzania, Guatemala, Indonesia, Brazil and Colombia.10 Plantations take food land out of production and poor wages do not compensate for loss of livelihoods. In Tanzania food harvests fell 11% in 2008–11 as farmers left their land to work on plantations; many people told ActionAid they cannot afford three meals a day.11 A.7 Scarce water resources are also being diverted from other vital uses to biofuels production as in Mozambique and Kenya.12

The UK should — Scrap its target to have 5% biofuel in transport fuel. — Push for zero crop-based biofuel to count towards the European Union’s 10% renewable energy in transport target and lobby for the EU to account for the true scale of carbon emissions by including “indirect land use change” in calculations. — Push for implementation of all relevant aspects of the UN Voluntary Guidelines on land tenure. — Use its inﬂuence, including in the G8 and G20, to improve governance, transparency and accountability around large-scale land acquisitions in developing countries, ensuring protection of human rights. — Ensure renegotiation of the principles on responsible agricultural investment at the UN’s Committee on World Food Security reﬂect the fact that investment must work for poor communities.

B. Success/failure of global food system in guaranteeing food security and eliminating under-nutrition with reference to women, children and other vulnerable groups B.1 The global food system currently fails to ensure the right to adequate food for an estimated 2.56 billion poor people daily. Reforms at multiple levels are needed to ensure a more equitable, resilient and sustainable food system capable of feeding 9.3 billion people by 2050.13 B.2 The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, based on a narrow definition of the minimum calorie intake necessary for a “sedentary lifestyle”, estimates 852 million people in developing countries are chronically undernourished.14 Significantly, when FAO uses a more realistic definition of “normal activity” (involving a higher minimum calorie intake), the number of undernourished is 1.52 billion, rising to 2.56 billion in the case of “intense activity” or 44.7% of the developing world population.15 B.3 ActionAid’s village-level surveys indicate it is predominantly the poorest, powerless and most marginalised—such as the landless, female-headed households, smallholders, urban unemployed, children, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w3

minorities, the remote, disabled, low caste, tribal and indigenous groups—who are most vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition.16 B.4 Hunger stems from disempowerment, marginalisation and poverty. People are not hungry because too little food is produced but because they cannot afford or access available food, or lack the means to produce it. It is symptomatic that a third of food produced globally for human consumption is wasted17 and half of grain production is diverted to animal feed, industrial use and biofuels,18 while 1.4 billion people are overweight or obese.19 B.5 Under-recognised is the impact of gender discrimination on food security and nutrition. Most of world’s hungry are women and girls. Women represent the majority of small farmers who produce 90% of the world’s food and, in Africa, research shows women produce 20% more than men. Yet women’s vital role in food supply is under-supported by governments and donors.20

The UK should — Support policies and programmes that tackle gender discrimination.

C. Smallholder agriculture, women and new technologies C.1 As agriculture is a source of livelihoods for 86% of rural people, or an estimated 2.5 billion people,21 DFID should uphold and build on its policy of prioritising smallholder agriculture as a route out of poverty and hunger,22,23 including promotion of a stronger gender focus. Many smallholders and agricultural workers are women, who face discrimination and unequal access to land, public goods, services and resources compared to men.24 C.2 The UK government endorsed the groundbreaking ﬁndings of the ﬁve-year, multi-stakeholder IAASTD report,25 which called for a paradigm shift towards adopting agro-ecology sciences in agriculture and rural development. But DFID’s portfolio shows few signs of promoting agro-ecology. C.3 There is ample evidence that agro-ecology is highly productive and offers millions of smallholder farmers affordable, accessible, low-carbon and locally-adaptable models of agricultural development and resilience to meet multiple food security, climate change and environmental challenges. C.4 Crop yields increased by an average 79% in a survey of 286 agro-ecology initiatives in 57 countries covering 37 million hectares on 12.6 million small farms.26 UN agencies found yields increased by 116% in 114 agro-ecology projects across Africa, and by 128% in East Africa.27 A Foresight survey of 40 agro-ecology initiatives in 20 African countries on 12.8 million hectares found yields increased by a factor of 2.13 and, over a 3–10-year period, increased aggregate food production by 5.79 million tonnes annually, equivalent to 557 kg per farming household.28

The UK should — Ensure DFID programmes focus on the needs of women small-holders and increase support for agro-ecology.

D. Implications of demographic trends, rising income and climate change on global food system and key indicators of food security and good nutrition D.1 Population and income growth, urbanisation, changing consumption patterns, stagnant yields, growing demand for land, feed and biofuels, as well as the impact of climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, are driving limited resources of food, energy, water and materials towards critical thresholds.29 D.2 A “nutrition transition” is underway as population growth and rising incomes in many developing countries increase food demand and diets switch towards eating more eggs, meat, ﬁsh and dairy. D.3 Though annual population growth is set to slow to 0.4% by 2050, the UN projects 9.3 billion people by 2050 and 10 billion by 2083.30 Much of this rise is expected in high-fertility countries, 39 of these in Africa, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America.31 Asia’s population is expected to peak around 5.2 billion in 2052, while Africa’s may more than triple to 3.6 billion in 2100.32 Some 86% of population growth by 2020 will occur in mega-cities and large urban centres in developing countries.33 D.4 As food demand surges, climate change is expected to have far-reaching impacts on crop productivity, particularly in tropical areas. In sub-Saharan Africa, arid and semi-arid areas are projected to increase by 60 million to 90 million hectares,34 with yields from rain-fed agriculture in Southern Africa reduced by up to an estimated 50% by 2020.35 Yields in central and south Asia could decline by 30% by 2050.36 Such trends could place further upward pressure on food prices. D.5 While farmers in some areas will gain (eg Black Sea region), CGIAR’s Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) programme estimates 526 million people face increased risk of hunger in the tropics by 2050 because of climate change.37 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w4 International Development Committee: Evidence

D.6 Scientists estimate global production of wheat and maize fell by 3.8% and 5.5% respectively over the last three decades as a result of climate change.38 CCAFS says unless farmers adapt by 2050, wheat yields in irrigated systems in developing countries will fall by around 13%, irrigated rice yields by 15%, and maize harvests in Africa by 10–20%.39 D.7 CCAFS has identiﬁed hunger hotspots potentially highly vulnerable to climate change by 2050, saying most of the tropics will experience changes in growing conditions that will require adaptation to current agricultural systems.40 D.8 CCAFS projects Southern Africa as having the largest area with multiple climate change threats.41 Next are northeast Brazil, Mexico, Guyana, Nicaragua, and areas in Tanzania, Ethiopia, DR Congo, Uganda, India, Pakistan and the Middle East.42 D.9 High-input agriculture is a key driver of climate change. Crop and livestock agriculture account for about 15% of total emissions, including direct greenhouse gas emissions (methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide) and indirect emissions (from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides). Land use change, much driven by expansion of agricultural area, adds another 15–17%.43

The UK should — Strengthen links between agriculture and climate change by increasing UK support, including ﬁnance, for national adaptation plans.

E. Impact of global/local food shocks, how countries/regions cope, the role of democracy in increasing food security E.1 High and volatile food prices were devastating for millions in Asia, Africa and Latin America during the 2007–08 and 2010–11 food price crises, highlighting the fragility of a food system that, in the developing world, had also faced sharp declines in international aid for agriculture.44 E.2 The 2007–08 crisis reversed years of development gains with the number of people in extreme poverty rising by 130–155 million.45 A further 115 million people were driven into hunger,46 leading to a global record of 1.02 billion.47 E.3 Poor families cut the quality and quantity of food, struggled to pay for healthcare and education, took on debt, were forced to sell productive assets, and some engaged in risky sexual behaviour. Kids dropped out of school, and in some communities, children and the elderly were abandoned.48 The poorest, landless and female-headed households were hardest hit.49 Protests and food riots occurred in 31 countries. E.4 In early 2011 the World Bank estimated an additional 44 million people had been driven into extreme poverty since mid-2010 as food prices continued to rise.50 ActionAid surveys in 20 countries showed many poor families were hit by high local prices; families ate less nutritious food, cut out milk, meat and vegetables and often had only one meal a day.51 Women’s unpaid care burden increased and, like girls, they tended to get less to eat. E.5 Some countries were successful in preventing price transmission from global to domestic markets in 2007–08. The price of rice decreased in Indonesia in 2008, for example, while it escalated for neighbours. The country’s effective response involved a mix of easing trade policies (cutting import tariffs) and applying trade restrictions or regulations (export bans, price control, or anti-speculation measures). E.6 Successful measures to limit price rises depended primarily on governments’ ability to control domestic availability and regulate markets, often using pre-existing public systems. The release of public stocks, often coupled with food subsidies, was a key response. Stock interventions occurred in 35 countries, from Burkina Faso to Pakistan.52 National food reserves, when governed well, provide flexible and effective tools, and regional systems could strengthen regional coordination and integration.53 E.7 Safety nets helped mitigate the effects of high food prices. In Bangladesh, India, Brazil and Indonesia large-scale food-based safety nets combined social protection and support for food production. However, the bulk of the response was borne by people themselves; remittances from abroad jumped to $340 billion in 2008, a 40% rise on 2007.54 E.8 With democratic approaches playing a vital role, countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Malawi, Mozambique and Peru have significantly reduced hunger and malnutrition, according to UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, who cites six success factors:55,56 — Countries adopting a multi-sectoral approach on hunger and malnutrition. — Political impetus from the highest level of government. — Civil society participation and empowerment. — Use of multi-phased approaches within multi-year national strategies. — Establishment of institutions to monitor progress, ensuring political pressure for progress. — Continuity of financial investment. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w5

The UK should — Support, ﬁnancially and politically, well governed national and regional food reserves.

F. Role of international system, including food and agriculture organisations, the G8 and G20, and how to improve collaboration F.1 Donors, including the UK, have moved since the crisis to increase aid for agriculture. But this has fallen well short of covering the huge funding gap needed to address hunger.57 F.2 The world also needs ambitious policy action to address the structural problems that contributed to the food-price crisis and have gone largely unaddressed since 2008. Changes should discourage biofuels expansion, limit land grabs, regulate speculation, encourage use of buffer stocks, curb fossil fuel dependence, promote agro-ecology and reform global trade rules to support food security objectives. F.3 Leading governments from the developed and developing world have made insufficient progress in addressing these issues.58 The G20 has claimed de facto leadership and taken an increasingly prominent role on global food security. But its diverse country members have been unable to agree substantial policy changes, and this has stymied reform efforts elsewhere in the international system.59 This includes the UN’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS), which is formally recognised by most institutions as the appropriate body to coordinate policy responses to the global food crisis, because of its mandate and inclusive multi-stakeholder structure. F.4 The G8 has a major opportunity to set an example on the way forward at its June 2013 summit to be chaired by the UK. As well as increasing aid, the G8 could act to tackle tax evasion to increase sources of finance.60 The G8 could also promote measures to strengthen the level and quality of private sector investment. But the current thrust of its New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition appears more likely to benefit the interests of powerful agribusiness corporations at the expense of small farmers.61

The UK should — Work within the G20 and use its G8 leadership to strengthen the level and quality of development finance for agriculture through increased aid, the promotion of pro-poor investment and firm steps to tackle tax evasion. — Use its influence to help ensure the UN Committee on World Food Security is supported as the foremost inter-governmental platform for coordinating global food security efforts and addressing the structural problems affecting the right to food.

G. Strategies for reducing risk from short-term shocks/long-term structural factors and building resilience among the vulnerable G.1 Extending comprehensive social protection and building resilience and productive capacities through agro-ecology is the best strategy for reducing smallholder communities’ vulnerability to short-term shocks and longer-term threats. G.2 Yet up to 80% of the world’s poor lack comprehensive social protection such as income support, child benefit, pensions or sickness, maternity and disability allowances. A social protection floor in each country could fight hunger and protect, promote and transform people’s livelihoods.62 Long overdue is exploration of the proposed Global Fund for Social Protection to plug funding gaps and underwrite 48 Least Developed Countries’ plans to extend social protection.63

The UK should — Back national and global efforts to support social protection as a vital tool to ﬁght hunger. December 2012

References 1 ActionAid is an international NGO working with poor and excluded people to eradicate poverty and injustice in 45 countries. Our vision is a world without poverty and injustice in which every person enjoys the right to a life with dignity. Our positions reﬂect the experiences of our staff and partners in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe. 2 International Land Coalition, “Land Rights and the Rush for Land”, 2011, http://www.landcoalition.org/cpl/ CPL-synthesis-report. 3 International Land Coalition, “Land Rights and the Rush for Land”, 2011, http://www.landcoalition.org/cpl/ CPL-synthesis-report. 4 http://landportal.info/area/global; W.Anseeuw et al, “Land Rights and the Rush for Land: Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project”, January 2012, p. 25, http://www.landcoalition.org/ cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w6 International Development Committee: Evidence

cpl/CPL-synthesis-report; ActionAid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, April 2012, p.18 5 Oxfam, The Hunger Grains, September 2012, p.16 6 Action Aid, Fuelling Evictions: Community Cost of EU Biofuels Boom—Dakatcha Woodlands, Kenya, May 2011; W Anseeuw et al, “Land Rights and the Rush for Land—Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Project”, January 2012 7 Action Aid (2012). “Biofuelling the global food crisis: why the EU must act at the G20” Action Aid, http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/biofuelling_the_global_food_crisis.pdf; based on B Kretschmer, C Bowyer, and A Buckwell (2012) EU biofuel use and agricultural commodity prices: “A review of the evidence base”, London: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), www.ieep.eu/assets/947/IEEP_Biofuels_ and_food_prices_June_2012.pdf. 8 Action Aid (2012) “Biofuelling the global food crisis: why the EU must act at the G20” Action Aid, http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/biofuelling_the_global_food_crisis.pdf 9 FAO, et al, 2011. Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses. The international bodies included the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, FAO and UNCTAD. 10 ActionAid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, April 2012; Oxfam, The Hunger Grains, September 2012; ActionAid, Meals Per Gallon: The impact of industrial biofuels on people and global hunger, January 2010 11 ActionAid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, April 2012 12 ActionAid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, April 2012 13 UN (2011). World population prospects: the 2010 revision, 3 May 2011, New York: United Nations 14 FAO (2012). The State of Food Insecurity in the World, Rome: FAO, p8 15 FAO (2012). The State of Food Insecurity in the World, Rome: FAO, p55 16 ActionAid (2010). Who’s really fighting hunger? Why the world is going backwards on the UN goal to halve hunger and what can be done, Johannesburg: ActionAid International; ActionAid (2009) Who’s really fighting hunger? ActionAid’s HungerFREE Scorecard investigates why a billion people are hungry, Johannesburg: ActionAid International 17 FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste, Rome: FAO 18 FAO (2011). Food outlook, June, Rome: FAO 19 WHO fact sheet No. 311, “Obesity and overweight”, March 2011, Geneva: WHO 20 ActionAid (2010). Fertile Ground: how governments and donors can halve hunger by supporting small farmers 21 World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008, Washington: World Bank 22 DFID (2005). Growth and poverty reduction: the role of agriculture Glasgow: UK 23 Wyeth J and Ashley S (2009). Agriculture and food security: pre-evaluation review of DFID Policy. Agriculture Sector Policy Review. London: UK 24 FAO (2011). The state of food and agriculture, Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development, Rome: FAO 25 IAASTD is the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development 26 Pretty J et al (2006), Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries, Environmental Science and Technology, 40:4, 2006, pp.1114–1119 27 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development/United Nations Environment Programme (2008). Organic agriculture and food security in Africa, Geneva/Nairobi: UNCTAD/UNEP 28 Pretty, J (2011). Foresight project on global food and farming futures, Synthesis report C9: Sustainable intensification in African agriculture—Analysis of cases and common lessons, London: UK Government Office for Science 29 Pretty, J (2011). Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures, Synthesis report C9: Sustainable intensification in African agriculture—analysis of cases and common lessons, London: UK government, Office for Science 30 UN (2011). World population prospects: the 2010 revision, 3 May 2011, New York: United Nations cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w7

31 “World population to reach 10 billion by 2100 if fertility in all countries converges to replacement level”, UN press release, 3 May 2011, New York: United Nations 32 UN (2011). World population prospects: the 2010 revision, 3 May 2011, New York: United Nations, which states that by the end of the century, 10 of the 20 most populous countries will be in Africa (Nigeria, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zambia, Niger, Malawi and Sudan). 33 OECD/FAO (2011). Agricultural outlook 2011–20, Paris/Rome: OECD-FAO 34 UNDP (2007). Human development report 2007–08, Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world, New York: UNDP 35 IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 9, p448 36 Lobell, D et al, “Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030”, Science 1 February 2008 37 As stated in ActionAid (2011). On the Brink—Who’s best prepared for a climate and hunger crisis? reference 13, and CCAFS (2011). Mapping hotspots of climate change and food insecurity in the global tropics, CCAFS Report no.5, Copenhagen: CGIAR research programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). CGIAR is the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 38 Lobell, D et al, “Climate trends and global crop production since 1980,” Science, 5 May 2011 39 CCAFS (2012). Recalibrating food production in the developing world: Global warming will change more than just the climate, Policy brief 6, Copenhagen: CCAFS, p5, p9 40 CCAFS (2011). Mapping hotspots of climate change and food insecurity in the global tropics, CCAFS Report no.5, Copenhagen. According to CCAFS, shorter growing periods may affect Mexico, northeast Brazil, the African Sahel, Morocco and parts of Southern Africa and India. Reliable crop growing days will drop to critical levels below which cropping might become too risky to pursue as a livelihood strategy in many areas, including West Africa, parts of East Africa, Southern Africa, the Indo-Gangetic Plains, and south India. 41 The countries affected include Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique and South Africa 42 CCAFS (2011). Mapping hotspots of climate change and food insecurity in the global tropics, CCAFS Report no.5, Copenhagen: CCAFS 43 HLPE (2012). Food security and climate change, Rome: High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, p13 44 Curtis, M (2008). The crisis in agricultural aid calculates that the level collapsed from 17% of international aid in 1980 to 3.4% by 2006, based on the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (accessed 16 May 2008). 45 World Bank (2009). Global economic prospects. Commodities at the crossroads, Washington: World Bank 46 FAO (2008). The state of food insecurity in the world 2008, Rome: FAO 47 FAO (2009). The state of food insecurity in the world 2009, Rome: FAO 48 Hossain, N, et al (2009), Accounts of crisis: report on a study of the food, fuel and financial crisis in five countries, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton: IDS 49 FAO (2008). State of food insecurity in the world, Rome: FAO 50 World Bank (2011). Food price watch, February, Washington: World Bank, p5 51 ActionAid surveyed food security colleagues about the impact of rising local food prices in 20 countries, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, between mid January to mid February 2011, and again in May 2011. 52 Mousseau, F (2010). The high food price challenge A review of responses to combat hunger, Oakland Institute & the UK Hunger Alliance: Oakland, CA, & London, p1, p7 53 ActionAid (2011). No More Food Crises: the indispensable role of food reserves 54 Mousseau, F (2010). The high food price challenge A review of responses to combat hunger, Oakland Institute & the UK Hunger Alliance: Oakland, CA, & London 55 De Schutter O (2012). From charity to entitlement, Implementing the right to food in Southern and Eastern Africa, Briefing note 05, Geneva: United Nations, p2 56 De Schutter highlights the success of Brazil’s Zero Hunger strategy (which cut child malnutrition by 73% in six years), based on the right to food and human rights principles of participation, accountability, non- discrimination and the rule of law. See De Schutter O (2009) Mission to Brazil, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Human Rights Council, 19 February 2009, Geneva: United Nations, p13 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w8 International Development Committee: Evidence

57 It has been calculated that an additional US$42.7 billion per year for agriculture and rural development is needed to achieve zero hunger by 2025. See Schmidhuber J and Bruinsma J (2011) “Investing towards a World Free from Hunger”, in Prakash A (ed) Safeguarding Food Security in Volatile Global Markets, Rome: FAO. If OECD and developing countries shared equally the cost of raising these resources (each providing US$21.35 billion), this would mean that the UK would need to increase its annual contribution as an OECD donor by US$661.7 million (£425 million). 58 IATP/GDAE (2012). Resolving the food crisis, Assessing global policy reforms since 2007, Massachusetts: Tufts University, p7 59 IATP/GDAE (2012) Resolving the food crisis, Assessing global policy reforms since 2007, Massachusetts: Tufts University, p7 60 See ActionAid’s written evidence of 20 August 2012 to the House of Commons international development committee inquiry on tax and development. The UK could help tackle tax evasion by supporting and promoting a legally binding global standard for the public registration of the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts. 61 IFSN (2012). Cobwebbed, International food price crisis and national food prices, Some experiences from Africa, IFSN, p35 62 ActionAid’s HungerFREE scorecard showed that well-designed social assistance programmes, such as public works employment, cash transfers, food rations, and free school meals, are an important hunger-fighting weapon. See ActionAid (2010) Who’s really fighting hunger: why the world is going backwards on the UN goal to halve hunger and what can be done about it 63 De Schutter O & Sepúlveda M (2012). Underwriting the poor, A global fund for social protection, Briefing note 07, Geneva: United Nations, p2

Written evidence submitted by Agricultural Biotechnology Council (abc) The views expressed in this submission are those of abc—the umbrella organisation for the agricultural biotechnology industry in the UK. abc, comprising of six member companies, works with the food chain and research community to invest in a broad range of crop technologies—including conventional and advanced breeding techniques, such as GM. These are designed to promote the sustainable intensiﬁcation of agriculture by tackling challenges such as pests, diseases and changing climatic conditions, whilst reducing water usage, greenhouse gas emissions and other inputs. The companies are BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta. Further information is available at www.abcinformation.org

Executive Summary — The world population is growing. It is set to soar from seven billion to eight billion within the next 13 years before reaching nine billion by 2050. — Research is needed now in order to deliver more food from a similar amount of agricultural land by 2025. Otherwise food price instability will continue to increase and the pressure on precious areas of natural land will intensify. — Between 1996 and 2009, 229 million tons of additional food, feed and ﬁbre were produced thanks to the use of GM crops. Without this, it is estimated that an additional 75 million hectares of conventional crops would have been required to produce the same tonnage. — GDP growth in agriculture also contributes twice as much to poverty reduction as any other sector. — Just under half of the land grown with GM varieties is in developing countries—an area equivalent to the surface area of Ghana, the Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso put together. — The combination of enhanced productivity and efﬁciency generated by GM crop technology already provides a major boost to farmer income. — The costs of developing GM crops are high, and for many crops (often those grown in developing countries), there is no obvious pay-back, so alternative business models are required. — However, research on GM crops is currently thriving in Africa, with public-private partnerships looking at everything from disease-resistant bananas to drought-resistant sorghum. — GM is not a silver bullet, but should not be ignored as a tool for ensuring greater food security and reliability of agricultural supply. 1. The world population is growing. It is set to soar from seven billion to eight billion within the next 13 years before reaching nine billion by 2050. This necessarily increases the amount of food that we must produce, although there will be no increase in the land which we have to grow it on. 2. In addition, we have seen a number of extreme weather events this year which have had a negative impact on food production. In particular, the Midwest of America has experienced its worst drought for 50 years, and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w9

corn yields and reserves are likely to be the lowest since 2005–06. This will affect global food and feed prices. Similar poor weather has affected South America, the Ukraine and Russia. 3. In Sahel, West Africa, and elsewhere, rising global food prices are causing rising hunger, malnutrition and death. Save the Children and World Vision have called for more investment to protect against food insecurity, and highlighted the impact of price rises on the region. 4. Research is needed now in order to deliver more food from a similar amount of agricultural land by 2025. Otherwise food price instability will continue to increase and the pressure on precious areas of natural land will intensify. With rising demand and the impacts of an unpredictable climate putting pressure on production, it is increasingly clear that we need as many tools as possible to boost food security in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable way. 5. Worldwide, 1.4 billion people live in poverty—one billion of whom live in rural areas. The problem is particularly acute in rural Sub-Saharan Africa, where over 60% of the rural population live in conditions of poverty. A recent report by the Overseas Development institute showed that issues of poverty can be best tackled by investment in the agricultural sector, with GDP growth in agriculture contributing twice as much to poverty reduction as any other sector.i 6. About 16 million farmers grow over 160 million hectares of GM crops in 29 different countries according to figures published in 2011, and over 90% of these were resource-poor farmers. Future projections made by the agricultural biotechnology industry indicate that advances in GM technology will have particular relevance for areas where drought is a common occurrence and access to irrigation is limited. Commercialisation of drought tolerance technology, which allows crops to withstand periods of low soil moisture, is anticipated within five years. 7. From a global perspective, the combination of enhanced productivity and efficiency generated by GM technology already provides a major boost to farmer income.ii Between 1996 and 2009 it was the equivalent of adding over 4% to the value of global production of the four main crops of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. In developing countries, such a benefit would have been proportionately greater. 8. Just under half of the land grown with GM varieties is in developing countries—an area equivalent to the surface area of Ghana, the Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso put together.iii In the African continent commercialised GM crops include maize, cotton, and soybeans, with the number and diversity of crops increasing all the time. Trials are currently in progress on sorghum, bananas and cassava, while other developing countries grow GM squash, papaya, tomato, sweet peppers, trees and oilseed rape. Resource-poor farmers report that the technology increases yields through greater pest and disease resistance, and this results in lower machinery and fuel costs. But it also has other benefits. 9. The amount of arable land available for agriculture worldwide is declining, especially in the developing world. Research from the UN estimates that more than 70% of land available in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America suffers from severe soil and terrain constraints. With a growing population, there is little doubt that crop productivity has to increase. Unsurprisingly, the UN estimates that 80% of the required food production increases between 2015 and 2030 will have to come from intensification in the form of yield increases and higher cropping intensities. 10. Productivity gains from the application of industrial biotechnology in agriculture have had a big impact on the ability of it to keep pace with global demand for commodities. If such crops had not been available to farmers in 2009, maintaining global production would have required additional plantings of nearly 3.8 million hectares of soybeans, nearly six million hectares of corn, nearly three million hectares of cotton and 0.3 million hectares of canola.iv Between 1996 and 2009, 229 million tons of additional food, feed and fibre were produced thanks to the use of GM crops. Without this, it is estimated that an additional 75 million hectares of conventional crops would have been required to produce the same tonnage.v Some of these additional hectares could have required fragile marginal lands, which are not suitable for crop production, to be ploughed and for tropical forest, rich in biodiversity, to be felled. 11. Some of the benefits of seed technology uptake are tangible; others are aspirational. For example, for 80,000 farmers in Burkina Faso working an average of three hectares, the advent of GM cotton has meant a huge reduction in the existing use of insecticide. There has also been an immediate and substantial yield increase. 12. In other cases, such as the development of disease-tolerant bananas in Uganda, it remains a work in progress. In central Uganda, one of the main banana-growing regions, Banana Xanthomonas Wilt (BXW) hits up to 80% of farms, sometimes wiping out entire fields. To get rid of BXW, it is necessary to dig up and burn the affected plants, disinfect all machinery and tools and allow the ground to lie fallow for six months before replanting. For small-scale farmers, leaving their gardens lying empty for this long is not an option and so they switch to other crops. The International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) have been developing a GM solution to the problem of BXW, in conjunction with a Taiwanese biotechnology institute, Academia Sinica (AS). Initial trials are promising, with six out of eight strains showing 100% resistance to BXW. Development of wilt-resistant bananas has now progressed to the confined field-crop testing stage and is showing promise.vi cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w10 International Development Committee: Evidence

13. Regional differences in the response to adoption of GM technologies require close scrutiny because the technology may not be the best solution in all situations. For example, in India where there has been wide experience of the use of GM cotton, higher yields have been particularly beneﬁcial for women. Harvesting is primarily a female activity, therefore the women hired to pick the increased production have seen increases of 55% in average income, equivalent to about 424 million additional days of employment for female earners across the whole Indian crop.vii

14. There have been complaints from some farmers in Maharashtra that the seeds have not improved yield or met expectations of resistance to pests and diseases. Some campaign groups have interpreted this as a cause of increased suicides among farmers who have found themselves sinking deeper into debt. Yet there have also been increases in the costs of fertiliser, pesticides and other farming supplies together with the effects of years of drought. Rigorous analysis of research is therefore essential to ensure that the technology is not being oversold and that it is being adopted in the right circumstances and environments.

15. Research on GM crops is currently thriving in Africa, with public-private partnerships looking at everything from disease-resistant bananas to drought-resistant sorghum. But for many crops, there is no obvious pay-back and an alternative business model is required; quite simply how do companies overcome the cost of developing a new product when there is little chance of recuperating costs?

16. If it is a commodity crop such as cotton, technology will have already been developed or partially developed for markets elsewhere in the world, with R&D costs recovered through increased seed prices. The costs of this are high; and the industry’s top 10 companies invest $2.25 billion, or 7.5% of sales, in R&D and innovation.viii But the resultant GM seeds are priced appropriately for each market where they are sold. They may be more expensive than conventional seeds but the resulting savings and higher income potential make them a good investment for resource-poor farmers, through lower pesticide and herbicide costs and more reliable and higher yields.

17. In other cases, crop traits required for particular environmental, economic and political conditions may not be applicable on a global scale and therefore will not attract the same model of commercial investment. Such projects could not proceed without both investment and an understanding that the payback period might be extremely long. In effect it requires the establishment of public-private partnerships in which companies waive or limit their intellectual property rights to the use of speciﬁc genes and transformation techniques, allowing the beneﬁts of this technology to be maximised.

18. GM is not a silver bullet, but should not be ignored as a tool for ensuring greater food security and reliability of agricultural supply. December 2012

References i Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in Developing Countries. ODI ii Brookes, G and Barfoot, P (2011). GM Crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2009. PG Economics Limited.

3 Stephen Morse, Richard Bennett & Yousouf Ismael (2004). Nature Biotechnology 22, 379–380 iii ISAAA Brief 43–2011 Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 http://www.isaaa.org/ resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp iv ISAAA Brief 43–2011 Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 http://www.isaaa.org/ resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp v ISAAA Brief 43–2011 Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 http://www.isaaa.org/ resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp vi http://www.sinica.edu.tw/manage/gatenews/showsingle.php?_op=?rid:4043%26isEnglish:1 vi GM crops and gender issues, Nature Biotechnology Vol.28, July 2010 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/ newsandevents/pressreleases/gm_crop_produces/ viii Crop Life http://www.croplife.org/intellectual_property cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w11

Written evidence submitted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agriculture and Food for Development

1. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Agriculture and Food for Development welcomes this International Development Committee Inquiry into Global Food Security. The APPG calls for smallholder farmers (smallholders are generally farms less than 2 hectares, in developing countries, where farmers and their families work their own land) to be considered of paramount importance to addressing global hunger and eradicating poverty. Acknowledging that giving smallholder farmers’ rights and assistance to create viable businesses, is a key component of a coherent food system, and should be prioritised in policy making and in investment decisions. Addressing food insecurity means empowering smallholder farmers to move from subsistence farming, through public and private sector support—with strong information and technology transfer—to proﬁtable small businesses. There is a broad spectrum of policy interventions needed to ensure the empowerment of smallholder farmers; however, once this intervention has been made, the opportunity for smallholder farmers to thrive without further overseas development assistance is expected. This requires reliable ﬁnancing, strong public sector support and an enabling environment for private sector investment which will underpin the transformation from subsistence farmers (farming that provides for the basic needs of the farmer without surpluses for marketing) to successful small businesses. Donors, multilateral institutions, NGOs, private sector companies and countries themselves must consider the 450 million smallholder farmers worldwide as central agents to reducing global hunger and, given the right support, able to grow themselves out of poverty, for good.

Introduction

2. The APPG on Agriculture and Food for Development brings together Parliamentarians concerned with agriculture, nutrition and food security in the developing world. The Group promotes support for the developmental needs of the 450 million smallholder farmers who feed 2 billion people worldwide. It engenders progressive and informed debate within Westminster and beyond by bridging the gap between policy makers, agricultural development specialists and practitioners in the ﬁeld.

3. The APPG was established in October 2008 in response to growing concerns over the heightened Food Crisis and a steady decline in the funding of agricultural development both by bilateral and multilateral organisations over nearly two decades. Chaired by Lord Cameron of Dillington, the APPG is a cross-party initiative drawing members from both Houses of the UK Parliament which brings together Parliamentarians concerned with both the technical, and social science, of agricultural development in poorer parts of the world. It uses its cross-party membership to raise the understanding of developmental needs of smallholder farmers and other stakeholders in developing countries and hence facilitates debate on the level of support given by the British Government and other major donors. In doing this, the APPG recognises the pivotal role that agricultural research outputs have in helping smallholder farmers to increase their productivity and in eliminating global poverty.

4. The promotion of efficient agriculture is one of the most effective tools to ensure economic, social and political well-being in Africa. Significantly, because most African farmers are female, agriculture can boost the economic and social status of women, empowering them to make decisions about their own lives and those of their families. Evidence shows that farmer parents who move from subsistence to surplus tend to spend any available cash on educating their children. Efficient agriculture can boos nutrition and specifically reduce the nutritional shortcomings of expectant and recent mothers whilst simultaneously boosting the physical health and cognitive well-being of their children. So agricultural investment returns not only a healthy citizen, capable of achieving their full potential and less likely to require healthcare interventions later in life, but also an important increase in national overall productivity. What’s more, good agricultural practice adds resilience to individual livelihoods and fosters environmental sustainability. By turning subsistence agriculture into a vibrant, profitable and sustainable rural sector, countries can make progress towards virtually all the Millennium Development Goals. Smallholder farmers in Africa represent the largest economically productive business sector in the developing world, yet produce just one-sixth of the output of their colleagues in Europe or North America. The latent potential of this sector is clear.

5. For sub-Saharan Africa and many other poor countries, agriculture and the economy are synonymous. Few countries have developed their economy without ﬁrst developing their agriculture. So through catalytic funding that develops equitable, accessible markets that work for the poorest and most vulnerable, governments can reach millions of people in an effective manner. Such measures can also reach those too remote to beneﬁt from traditional development partnerships. World Bank studies have demonstrated that growth in agriculture is at least twice as effective at reducing poverty as growth in any other sector of the economy, whilst a 1% growth in agriculture has been shown to generate approximately 1.5% growth in nonagricultural sectors. Smallholder agriculture provides wages, food and assets for the vast majority of Africans.

6. Smallholder farmers have often been thought of as inefﬁcient when compared with larger estates, however, with the right support, that is not the case. When smallholder farmers have access to technical advice, inputs, and technologies, including high-yielding seeds, affordable fertilizer, and irrigation, they can be as efﬁcient as much larger farms, sometimes more so. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w12 International Development Committee: Evidence

Agriculture and Nutrition 7. The APPG are currently in the evidence gathering phase of a report (“Home Grown Nutrition”) into the role of agricultural interventions for smallholder farmers aimed at improved nutrition and health. This report will be published before the UK’s Presidency of the G8 held in Northern Ireland in June. Regarding linkages between agriculture and nutrition, a well-developed agriculture sector will deliver increased and diversiﬁed farm outputs (crops, livestock, non-food products) and this may enhance food and nutrition security directly through increased access to and consumption of diverse foods, or indirectly through greater proﬁts to farmers and national wealth. The links also work in reverse in that better nutrition and health of farmers increases their agricultural and economic productivity. The APPG reports in more detail on this topic before the G8 but wishes to point out that using agriculture and the potential of smallholder farmers to grow more nutritious and varied crops, for their own consumption, can be a sustainable way to improve nutrition and health for even the smallest farmers, without an overreliance on nutritional supplement handouts.

Land Ownership 8. With regard to the ownership of land, particularly on the continent of Africa, this cannot be seen as an easy to ﬁx problem for donors and external agencies. Land tenure is extremely complex and often rooted in cultural traditions and law. What is clear however, is that smallholder farmers need secure land tenure (whether through ownership or through rent of land) so that they can invest in the development of their farm, without fears that there land will be taken from them. 9. Regarding the acquisition of land by foreign investors, this can lead to beneﬁcial impacts for smallholders when the investment is responsible, transparent and inclusive of all of the people affected by the purchase. Employing smallholder farmers as out growers to a large farm in the centre (“hub and spokes” or “nucleus” model) can be one of the most risk free forms of farming (see FAO Report 2012). It is important to note that outside investment that does not respect local customs, without consultation or transparency does have a very detrimental impact on smallholders’ livelihoods and thus land investment must be carefully managed and monitored.

Agriculture and Water Management 10. Agriculture accounts for 70% of all global water usage. According to the UN World Water Development Report, “Few countries are conscious of how much water they use, for which purposes and how much they can withdraw without serious environmental consequences”. Yet without this measured approach, the risks to production could increase food price volatility and undermine private sector development gains made elsewhere. Fair recognition of water’s role in food production provides developing countries with an opportunity to develop fair prices for agricultural goods; prices which represent both the cost of production and its environmental impact. Establishing a basic minimum water right will ensure cooperation between farms of all sizes to achieve environmental sustainability.

The Role of the Private Sector 11. There is a growing appreciation that the answer to long-term sustainable agricultural development including smallholder farmers lies, at least in part, in the private sector and the encouragement of more commercially oriented farmers. Farming is a commercial enterprise but the private sector has not always engaged well with smallholders. Governments, with assistance from donors, must act to create the conditions that attract pro-poor private sector investment to secure and sustain the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. This by its very nature needs to be a long-term venture. Government’s role in kick-starting a commercially- viable smallholder agriculture should include the building of infrastructure such as rural roads; the provision of inputs through subsidy schemes; the removal of barriers to an effective marketplace; and frameworks for coordination and cooperation of public sector partnerships with the private sector. 12. The African Enterprise Challenge Fund is a relatively new ﬁnancial instrument which seems to indicate that private sector engagement with smallholders can have potentially game-changing impacts. Challenge Funds engage the private sector as key actors in development by awarding multi donor cost-shared grants. These deliver programmes, with both business and pro-poor agendas, in areas which business would not ordinarily be willing to engage. Innovation and additionality are key attributes that ensure added value in areas that would otherwise face high risk barriers of implementation and where commercial banks would not provide support. The Challenge Fund aims to unlock the longer-term potential for the business in terms of its proﬁtability, sustainability and high developmental impacts. 13. Initiatives such as the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition as well as the Scaling-up Nutrition movement are instrumental in ensuring private sector companies are encouraged to invest responsibly and sustainably in Africa’s agriculture and nutrition demands. It is very much hoped that the UK’s presidency of the G8 Summit in June 2013 also has a focus on agriculture, food security and nutrition, to ensure that all actors are engaged in helping create a commercially viable, equitable and inclusive food system which puts smallholder farmers at the centre. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w13

14. Public and private sector investments in small-scale farming require consistency. Some investments may only see returns in the medium to longer term and a long-term commitment (minimum of seven or eight years) is often required for smallholder farmers to lift themselves out of poverty. Although private enterprise will drive investment in the agricultural sector, governments have an important role to play as providers of public goods as well as targeted support and facilitating an enabling business environment. Any targets to ensure food security and create an equitable food system must involve the private sector—without which innovation, funds and market access will remain elusive for many smallholder farmers. 15. The private sector should be encouraged to invest in agriculture in a responsible and sustainable way, ensuring that smallholder farmers are included in any developments of their land. This can provide a mutually beneficial arrangement for the outside company and the smallholders as a reliance on each other forms over time. Jacqueline Novogratz from Acumen Fund gives the example of “Patient Capital” which makes markets work for the poor by balancing seemingly competing aims: it is an investing approach with long time horizons; it’s about building systems that encourage—indeed demand—real, sustained, and honest engagement with low income people as active participants; it uses markets not to maximise profits but as a listening device, because when someone has the choice to pay for a product (even at a subsidised price) she has the chance to have a say about what she desires, what she feels is worthwhile, what she does and does not want. 16. In recent years, innovative partnerships between the public, commercial and voluntary sectors have helped to identify the critical policy, regulatory, coordination and investment actions needed from the public sector to develop productive, competitive, profitable and equitable agri-food systems in sub-Saharan Africa. These partnerships put smallholder farmers at the centre of their business strategy as they acknowledge the central role that smallholders play in contributing to the food system across the world. An example of this is the C:AVA (Cassava : Adding Value for Africa) project where, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a partnership has been forged between smallholder farmers in Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria and Malawi. This is in partnership with public universities and research institutes in UK and Africa, and private sector processors and end users to develop value chains to manufacture and distribute high quality cassava flour.

Post-Harvest Losses 17. Developing countries can suffer very significant post-harvest losses of food. Global demand for food is expected to rise by as much as 70% in the next 40 years, yet reduction of post-harvest losses could offset over half that additional need while increasing the incomes of smallholder farmers. Often only very basic interventions will prevent losses, which generally occur close to where the crops are grown and are the result of lack of expertise, incentive or the ability to adopt preventative measures. Levels of losses, and the preventative measures that may be adopted, range from the relatively stable commodities such as cereal grains, pulses and oil seeds, to more perishable items such as fruit, vegetables, fish and meat. For cereal grains, pulses and oil seeds, losses commonly occur due to grain scattering or as a result of bio-deterioration caused by various pest activity. 18. Cumulative losses of cereals grains in sub-Saharan Africa typically range from 14 to 17%, with a potential value of around US$4bn per annum. For roots and tubers such as cassava, yams, sweet potatoes, etc, post-harvest losses are of the same order of magnitude. For example, Africa-wide cassava losses in 2002 were estimated to be about 18% or 101 million tonnes. Here, poor handling, marketing and transport are a particular problem. There are few accurate loss figures available for fruit and vegetables. Unlike grains, there are no generally accepted methods for assessing losses of fresh produce. Individual case studies give losses ranging from 0% to 100%. Losses of the very perishable animal and fishery products can be very high, although surprisingly few reliable studies are available. Aggregated figures for Africa suggest that for fish, financial losses would be at least US$ 70 million for each percentage point of loss. Much more investment is needed into research on loss prevention measures and disseminating best practice for prevention.

Knowledge Transfer and Learning 19. Farmers throughout the globe realise the importance of knowledge and information. Nowhere is this truer than in developing countries, like sub-Saharan Africa, where the margins between success and failure are so small but the consequences so great. 20. Centuries of practice show that smallholders are determined and resilient. Although they usually have a desire to upgrade their technical knowledge, they tend to be risk averse. Currently, however, not only are small- scale poor farmers not receiving appropriate information on new or improved agriculture techniques, but in many cases they have also lost the traditional knowledge of a generation of farmers decimated by the AIDS epidemic. A means must be found to support new and innovative extension systems, farmer ﬁeld schools and other methods of reaching diverse and spread-out populations. In this way, existing indigenous knowledge can be recorded, adapted and used in combination with new information and techniques. The increasing local capacity, augmented by partner organisations, can then transfer this knowledge to other farmers. This is particularly important if we are to achieve that important transition from subsistence to market orientated production. 21. Reliable, timely and accurate information allows farmers to mitigate some of the many risks faced in their day-to-day activities. Much of the knowledge required, such as that on improved seeds, production cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w14 International Development Committee: Evidence

techniques and post-harvest storage already exists, although it usually needs adapting to local contexts. Yet there is a real problem in terms of the separation of research, teaching, extension and policymaking which permeates both the developing and developed world.

Conclusions 22. The greatest poverty in Africa remains that of information and knowledge. All countries must continue to invest in agricultural research, both on an international and local scale. The biggest problem to be overcome remains communicating the considerable progress being made in the research stations to the mostly-female farmers on the ground. What’s also required is an effective feed-back loop, allowing smallholders to be active agents in developing solutions to their problems. Local Governments must be encouraged to properly fund their agricultural extension services and to understand their importance. Use of new technology can help to provide solutions to this problem but needs reliable investment and capacity building. 23. There is no doubt that development of a varied and mixed-crop agriculture will help prevent the serious malnutrition that currently exists in some parts of the world and the APPG’s forthcoming report will look to explore these themes in much more detail. 24. The APPG firmly believes that by turning subsistence agriculture into a vibrant, profitable and sustainable rural sector, countries can make progress towards virtually all the Millennium Development Goals. If smallholder farmers can be supported and integrated into value chains and local markets, they have significant potential to stimulate the rural economies of the areas in which they operate. Reliable financing, strong public sector support and an enabling environment for private sector investment will underpin the transformation from subsistence farmers to successful small businesses. Thus smallholders can feed themselves and their families, be resilient to shocks and develop their capacity become responsible entrepreneurial farmers, integrated into local value-chains. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by the BBC Media Action Executive Summary This policy note examines the role that information and communication can play in the medium term to increase food security among developing country populations. To date, relatively little emphasis has been placed on how people affected by food insecurity, especially farmers, can become sufficiently informed, engaged and empowered to take the steps they need to adapt to and confront the challenges they face. In order to address food insecurity—both at global and local levels—people require knowledge and information to understand what the risks are, what options exist for change and how to make informed choices. Those at the frontline of hunger, however, often have the least access to information and platforms for discussion to help them cope with immediate challenges, adapt to long-term trends and inform decision-making on policies that will affect their lives. The existing evidence base—which is small, but growing—indicates that media and communication can support a range of approaches to reducing food insecurity, thereby reducing the risk from short-term shocks and long-term trends. These include providing information, building skills, providing platforms for debate and enhancing accountability. 1. BBC Media Action is the BBC’s international development charity. This submission provides the perspectives of BBC Media Action on how the role of media, information and communication can contribute to improved food security. The views expressed are those of the charity, not of the BBC. 2. International attention on food security in recent years has focused on systemic issues such as agricultural and economic policy, climate change negotiations and investment in technologies capable of building resilience. While these structural variables are key to unlocking the food security puzzle, food insecurity is also influenced at the individual level. Specifically, this policy note will examine the role that information and communication can play in the medium term to increase food security among developing country populations. 3. To date, relatively little emphasis has been placed on how people affected by food insecurity, especially farmers, can become sufficiently informed, engaged and empowered to take the steps they need to adapt to and confront the challenges they face. 4. The 2011 Accra Report on Rethinking Support for Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change highlighted the importance of knowledge and information in facilitating adaptation. But while the media was mentioned in that report, media and communication were not highlighted as central tools necessary to help people adapt to changing environments. 5. In order to address food insecurity—both at global and local levels—people require knowledge and information to understand what the risks are, what options exist for change and how to make informed choices. Discussions about critical issues as well as analytic decision-making tools can also help those most plagued by food insecurity to manage the situation and to bridge the conversation among local populations, practitioners, experts and policymakers. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w15

6. Those at the frontline of hunger, however, often have the least access to information and platforms for discussion to help them cope with immediate challenges, adapt to long-term trends and inform decision-making on policies that will affect their lives.

7. The existing evidence base—which is small, but growing—indicates that media and communication can support a range of approaches to reducing food insecurity, thereby reducing the risk from short-term shocks and long-term trends. These include:

8. Providing information: Three-quarters of the world’s poorest people (most of whom are women) rely directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihoods.1 But farmers often lack information that will directly affect how much food they produce. They may need to know how to apply fertilizers, where to get high-quality seed, how to manage diseases in plants and animals, how to use new technologies and how to house and manage livestock.

9. Based on research conducted by BBC Media Action, rural farmers in Uganda say that they need more information about market prices, weather forecasts and how to combat the pests and diseases that affect their crops and livestock.2 African Farm Radio Initiative, implemented by Farm Radio International and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, found that farmers demonstrated increased knowledge of agricultural innovations as a result of listening to radio programmes, with 96% of listeners retaining over half of the knowledge promoted in the farm radio programmes.3 In Somalia, listeners to a regular radio programme supported by BBC Media Action on livestock issues for farmers were able to correctly identify symptoms of foot and mouth disease more often than farmers who didn’t listen to the programme.4

10. Information about markets can also impact how much money a farmer earns for his or her products and thus the amount of nutritious food he or she can provide for the family. A report based on experiences by the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) suggests that Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), including broadcast media, have the potential to improve access to market information to increase income.5 Farming radio programmes, for example, link farmers to new markets and buyers, strengthen farmers’ ability to negotiate prices and help them to adapt crops to meet demands.6

11. Building skills: Media can further support the development of skills. These can be analytical, decision- making or problem-solving skills which can help audiences make sense of the increasing information available. Media can also support the development of technical skills by providing instructions or encouraging people to seek local services to acquire new skills. BBC Media Action broadcast a radio programme in Somalia for livestock farmers in conjunction with a series of “listening groups” across the country. These groups were led by facilitators and followed learning exercises suggested by the radio programme. Our research showed that the combination of radio and face-to-face learning was effective at building technical skills, helping farmers identify and treat diseases and ensuring good hygiene in the handling of food products from livestock. This ﬁnding has been backed up by research conducted by the African Farm Radio Initiative on radio listening groups in other countries.7

12. Sparking innovation: Innovation is often equated with introducing a new technology or encouraging new ways of doing things. Media and communication technologies can help people consider old problems in a new light and share innovative ideas at scale across audiences of millions at a time.

Providing platforms for debate: Communities that are facing threats to their food security and existing ways of life often lack platforms where they can discuss problems and seek solutions. Media and communication can provide a platform that convenes and amplifies these discussions, making them accessible to wider populations, especially marginalized communities. Controversial issues around land rights and land use, in particular, often warrant public debate. Intractable conflict can prevent farmers from cultivating food or earning enough to eat. Yet public meetings in urban areas with high-level decision makers are often inaccessible to time-pressed and resource-poor rural residents with low levels of education. Media can bridge social and geographical divides to facilitate more rounded and representative debates. In Pakistan, where a government-led drainage project was affecting the food security and health of fishermen and farmers, a project which included media-based 1 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087–1192111580172/WDROver2008-ENG.pdf. 2 BBC Media Action (2010). “Getting on the same wavelength: Communicating livelihoods information and innovation in rural Uganda.” 3 Perkins, K, Ward, D and Leclair, M (2011). Participatory Radio Campaigns and food security: How radio can help farmers make informed decisions. [Online]. (URL http://www.farmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/farmradio-prcreport20111.pdf. Farm Radio International. (Accessed 10 December 2012) 4 BBC Media Action (2008). Impact research conducted on the Somali Livestock project. 5 Stienen, J, Bruinsma, W and Neuman, F (2007). “How ICT can make a difference in agricultural livelihoods.” In Commonwealth Ministers Reference Book 2007. [Online]. (URL http://www.globalgender.org/upload/%7B89B4F9C3-B4A4–49A6-A1E2- E1E074DF3368%7D_ICT%20and%20agricultural%20livelihoods.pdf).London: Henley Media Group Ltd.. (Accessed 10 December 2012). 6 Perkins, K, Ward, D and Leclair, M (2011). Participatory Radio Campaigns and food security: How radio can help farmers make informed decisions. [Online]. (URL http://www.farmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/farmradio-prcreport20111.pdf. Farm Radio International. (Accessed 10 December 2012). 7 Perkins, K, Ward, D and Leclair, M (2011). Participatory Radio Campaigns and food security: How radio can help farmers make informed decisions. [Online]. (URL http://www.farmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/farmradio-prcreport20111.pdf. Farm Radio International. (Accessed 10 December 2012). cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w16 International Development Committee: Evidence

discussions raised the debate to a national level by hosting an assembly at the affected area with community members, local leaders and landowners which was broadcast on national television.8 13. Enhancing accountability: Good governance plays a critical role in food security. Government rules and political processes can enable or constrain agricultural growth, increased food and nutrition security as well as better livelihoods.9 Media and communication can help hold leaders to account, facilitate participation and encourage transparency to secure equitable approaches to food security and timely responses to early warning systems that signal potential crisis. 14. Media and communication alone cannot grow more food. But they can provide information, inspiration and platforms for discussion and debate that will support farmers, leaders and policymakers alike to come up with new ideas and make decisions that will contribute to greater food security and nutrition. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by Benny Dembitzer THE PERFECT STORM OF WORLD STARVATION The challenge of massive starvation is creeping up silently on us, remaining largely unnoticed by the rich world whose inhabitants are unaffected. There is an illusion in the North, in the rich world, that the occasional report one reads that there is famine in East Africa (off the screens at the moment), in Pakistan (last year’s news), in Haiti (the year before) or in mid-2012 in Niger and the rest of the Sahel, are only minor blips on an otherwise reasonably calm, controlled global scene. Far from it. The 40 million people who were in some way or other threatened by famine in the Horn of Africa in 2011 have had a decent rainfall and thus are off the news. But they are not out of danger. It would take only another poor rainy season to bring them back onto the front of the rich world’s papers, providing more appalling pictures—to which most people have become so accustomed.

A Serious Error of Analysis A recent study by Chatham House states that many parts of the world are now one or two harvest away from disaster.i Global food stocks are dangerously low and prices keep on rising. That, in everyday parlance, translates into increasing starvation for the poorest people on earth. The World Bank estimates that there are around 1.4 billion people who live in perpetual poverty—below the magic number of $1.15 per day. According to FAO, there are at least 1 billion people who live in “hidden hunger”, a situation of permanent ill-nourishment. In the first 1,000 days of life a child needs a range of vitamins, micronutrients and minerals, to grow a healthy body and a healthy brain. Without that, they will grow stunted—the situation that afflicts 51% of the children of both Ethiopia and Rwanda.ii The logical question that arises from such facts should be very simple; from the point of view of the poorest, the system as it is now has failed. How can we improve it so that it does not fail in the future? The answer is not that we can tamper a bit here with climate change reduction or a bit there by improving food production in the North and giving more of it to the South. The damage caused by Hurricane Sandy on some of the most prosperous parts of the world indicates how little can be done to prevent or anticipate the very serious climatic changes that are taking place. There are a number of major independent forces that lead to an uncontrollable threat to global food security. They include; Population, which has increased by over 130% since 1946, from just under 3 billion to 7.1 billion people now, with prediction of 9.3 billion by 2050, mostly in poorest countries.iii Climate Change affects not just food production through changes in rainfall, temperature, incidence of extreme weather, but also upon food storage and distribution. More food is used as animal feed for people who are becoming better off. Loss of arable land due urbanisation, growth of industries and commercial activity is causing significant loss of arable land. Diversion of land use for biofuel production causes vast reduction in food and displacement of people. If biofuel production continues its present pattern, the number of additional people at risk of hunger in Africa alone will be somewhere between 25 million and 135 million by 2030.iv Speculation and Market Exploitation; huge volumes of capital from speculative funds (and from Quantitative Easing) have moved into purchasing commodities and land. 8 Panos London (2011). “All together now: Oral testimony,theatre, media, debate.” [Online]. (URL http://panos.org.uk/wp-content/ files/2011/06/All-together-now-case-study.pdf). (Accessed 10 December 2012). 9 http://www.fao.org/righttofood/project_files/goodFSgovernance/FoodSecurityGovernanceWorkshop_backgroundpaper.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w17

The historical rise in the cost of oil means an increasing cost of fertilizers, making them too expensive for the poorer farmers and further reducing self-sufﬁciency. It also increases the costs of transport and distribution of food. All of the above has led to a massive land grab; countries, large companies and speculative investment funds to invest into acquiring land in some of the poorest countries in Africa and Asia. According to OXFAM in the last 10 years an amount of land equivalent to eight times the total surface of the UK has been acquired by outsiders.v That means that several millions of the most vulnerable and poorest people on earth have been dispossessed. International aid has not fundamentally tackled the issue; there has been too little of it. We hear almost weekly appeals by the World Food Programme for money to buy more food for more disasters, from Syria to Mali—appeals that are not being met. Aid had not been used a tool for long term development. Between 1986 and 2006, the amount of ODA that went into agricultural development fell each year from 20% to 3%, thus reducing food self-sufﬁciency in the countries most in need.

Unpredictable Interaction The various interactions between these forces are producing consequences that are unpredictable and uncontrollable. In late 2010, for example, Russia banned all exports of wheat because of the danger that the country would run out of food after the disastrous fires of that summer. Egypt had been for some years the main buyer of Russia’s wheat. In early 2011, Egypt was forced to turn to international markets to purchase the wheat it needed for its people, at a time when the global price of wheat had climbed to its highest level ever. The sudden rise in the price of wheat for ordinary people on the streets of Cairo was one of the key reasons for the popular uprising that overthrew President Mubarak in January/February 2011. We need to move substantially away from the present framework within which the discussions on global development are held. To take but one example; Rwanda is a major exporter of coffee. Kenya is a major exporter of flowers. The International Financial Institutions are urging both of them to export more and concentrate on niche produce. But both countries are chronically short of food. The World Bank and WTO are executing their respective mandate vigorously by supporting the trade; who is the advocate for the smallholder? Certainly not their governments, which accept the strategy of the MNCs and have no choice but to follow the diktats of the World Bank. More aid is not the solution. Increasing food production in the North to give to the South is not the solution. More food is being produced today than at any other stage in the world’s history. Yet, more people than ever are starving for lack of food. The problem is that it is not reaching the hungry for the simple reason that they do not have the money to buy (or are not able to produce enough surplus of anything to exchange for) the food they need. A decision needs to be made as to whether to back exports as opposed to enabling local people to feed themselves. Purchases of land in countries that have spare space are not the solution when that additional production is then exported. But there are alternatives; Brazil for years has substantially reduced poverty and famine by introducing coupons to needy families through the Bolsa Familia. These have to be spent on local purchases of food and other items. It has created markets for very small local farmers. Thanks to the Gates Foundation, the WFP already makes guaranteed purchases of food over agreed time- scales from local producers in a range of countries in the South. It claims that it purchased more than 80 percent of all its food from developing countries,vi including Ethiopia, Vietnam, and Guatemala, and helped people affected by the epic flooding in Pakistan, the earthquake in Haiti, and the drought in the Sahel. In 2010 it purchased $1.25 billion of food commodities from 96 nations. As an intermediate step over, say, a three- to five-year period, expansion of the operation could be underwritten by international donors in order to build up the guaranteed level of purchases and widen the catchment area. In this way, a very serious input of pump-priming funds into local communities would be generated.

A New Agenda For effective action to be enabled, cultures, not just systems need to change. We need to start from accepting that, if rich and poor compete for scarce, finite resources, the market will inevitably prioritise our feed, fodder and fuel over poor people’s hunger. Thus there needs to be an alternative to market allocation, at least for staples. There is now a desperate need for clear action and leadership on the specific issue of hunger yet it is difficult to see where these will come from despite attempts from some NGOs to inform the public. The issue surely is development effectiveness not aid effectiveness. Governments in the South need to be reminded of the fundamental obligation they have to protect their own people in achieving the most basic rights of all, the right to life and the right to food. The 51 countries of Africa signed the Maputo Declaration in 2003, under which they committed themselves to devote 10% of their annual budgets to agriculture by 2008.vii By 2011 only five had actually reached that budget. International aid and investment cannot be a substitute for lack of political will and commitment by even the poorest nations.viii The action required will have to include a combination of changes that engage with the problem from all angles—better farming techniques and better support for farmers, more education of women and better harnessing of the diminishing amount of rainfall available, alternative energy sources and so on. There certainly cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w18 International Development Committee: Evidence

needs to be more technology appropriate to local situations and answering to the local levels of skills, as well as new ﬁnancial services. But, given the methodology to which the world of development has hitherto been wedded, all these would require that target countries start with a combination of supportive governments, functioning bureaucracies, favourable physical and non-physical environments, an honest business class, engaged academe, and people who are committed but also able to think independently. It will take a very long time indeed for this enabling environment to arise.

A Role for Non-State Actors There is now a clear leadership role that could be fulfilled by non-governmental bodies, in both re-focusing their appeals and re-directing their not inconsiderable strength towards the clear target of more food production. The voluntary agencies from various OECD countries form the bulk of the people in the North who have any serious understanding of the problems, and are in closest touch with the reality of the challenges. A system that combines the public concern of the voluntary development agencies with the single- mindedness—and therefore efficiency—of private business operations could become the core of a new, mixed, voluntary/private model of development. This combination of actors could cut loose from the official bodies and operate a new, clear agenda. Voluntary organisations should take the bold step of offering to commercial organisations investing in the South—both foreign and domestic—the opportunity of working to fair agreements within new structures, enabling commercial entities to concentrate on limited goals—for example, of growing cereals in the most effective way—whilst the voluntary bodies offer and discharge a wider development function, and maintain the human bounds of the whole operation. I elaborate these ideas in the following pages. Commercial enterprises in the North have provided its citizens with decent food, clothing and housing. They have been improving the standards of living of most people of the North for generations. This has been possible because their activities have occurred within a framework of social standards that were separately established over a period of time by regulation introduced through governmental legislation. NGOs operating in the South, given the necessary degree of legal control over areas of land leased to them, could provide in microcosm, and for specific periods of time, that framework of checks and balances which the state may be either unable or unwilling to provide, perhaps until such time as it can provide them. Within such a framework, commercial entities could in many areas of activity provide the drive and innovation that neither the voluntary movement nor state initiatives can, together with the precision and independence of action that the latter cannot offer. In the modern world, given the complex environment within which both private money and aid money operate, what is required is an updated system of relationship between the types of funding that would make it possible for private investment to remain attractive to its owners whilst servicing the aims of local economic growth and self-sustainability. Because the best arable land everywhere will have already been taken, and new land to be brought into use will need far greater inputs and deliver returns only over a longer period of time, it will not be feasible to improve food production without massive investment. The right environment for such investment can only be created through well-defined long-term allocation of land to investors, be they external or local. DFID has been helping FARM AFRICA undertake some pilot work in land tenure in Tanzania. It has provided £40 million for a comprehensive land tenure system in Rwanda, which could be a model to be repeated elsewhere. There has to be a move in this direction because, as sovereign and private overseas buyers accumulate more land to solve worsening food shortages in their own countries, a new and increasingly tight market in land will exclude the present users and poorest tillers. This market must be defused before it matures into a fully-fledged time-bomb. The new bodies proposed here, initiated and operated by non-state actors, could help break the constriction of the market while introducing an ethically-driven backdrop to at least part of it. Perhaps most importantly, they could provide arenas in which goals can be redefined as elaborated below to make local food and economic sustainability a realistic objective. We need a far more radical approach and joined-up thinking.

Short-Term Measures In the short term there must be more food reserves built in the countries that are at greatest risk.The highly inﬂuential IFPRI has, for years, suggested that strategic food reserves should be situated across various countries of the South to cope with emergencies and, backed by a fund, be used to stabilise prices in volatile markets. This is the obvious short-term solution. The biggest food buyer in the world, the WFP, should be put in charge of such stockpiles through a network of local agencies. The WFP suffers from many problems, not the least of which is that it is American-dominated in its thinking, which means that it is not self-critical, will broach no criticism from any outside source and loves quantiﬁable targets. More importantly, it has only recently started to understand that donating food from the rich world is not pro-development,ix but it has gradually become more capable and effective, and it is the best organisation available. It has not yet been given a mandate to be proactive and is only able to react to shortages. The silos that it would need to build, the agreements that would have to be reached with different governments, the maintenance programmes and the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w19

training for the staff would be an immediate contribution to the improvement of agriculture needed across many countries of the South.

Medium-Term Measures There should be initiatives aimed at revitalising bodies such as the Commonwealth Development Corporation whose task was to work to encourage and improve small-scale out-growers to produce more. This sort of body—as it functioned originally—could potentially be one of the most effective models of how to help the South develop agriculture in the long term. Such institutions would primarily fulﬁl the functions of a long- term management group. They could be the catalysts in securing land tenure agreements on behalf of local communities and individual families. The head lease-holding institutions would also be in a position to subcontract local, national and international NGOs to bring education and health facilities into the areas they have leased to supplement what is being done by host governments.

Long-Term Measures On the ground local communities must be encouraged and supported to develop along paths to suit their individual priorities need. Food security must be given top priority. There are ten building blocks necessary for the creation of food sovereignty. They should be the core of the next Millennium Development Goals. 1st Define ownership of land 2nd Improve the productivity of the farmers 3rd Improve the status of women 4th Generating local jobs The number of people working in vulnerable jobs in the world rose by over 100 million in 2009, thus exacerbating global poverty.x Coupons provided by the state or donors, and designated for purchasing food locally, could be more widely introduced so that local people can buy food from local farmers. There are already sufficient examples in various parts of the South for those implementing such schemes to be aware of the main benefits and pitfalls. 5th Mass primary education and upgrading skills 6th Make the school building the centre of the community Experience shows that the school can become the key transformational tool of the entire community. 7th Mobilising local financial resources for local investment Microfinance institutions and Village Savings and Loan Associations have spread across various parts of Africa and Latin America and they are becoming successful in recruiting large numbers of members both as savers and borrowers, attracting up to 3,000 in some villages in Kenya, for example. xi 8th: Developing small- and medium- scale enterprises More jobs and more sophisticated enterprises, starting with SMEs, need to be created in rural areas by up-scaling micro projects. They can most easily and naturally develop from the processing of agricultural produce: processing plants to make fruit juices, or mills to grind grains, or workshops to saw wood and make simple furniture. 9th Backing local social structures Until a few years ago, the mantra was “If you feed a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach the man to fish, he will be able to fish for the rest of his life.” But even that has now changed, given the environmental changes that have occurred and the running down of fish stocks. The mantra now is more likely to be; “If you give me a fish, you have fed me for a day. If you teach me to fish, then you have fed me until the river is contaminated or the shoreline seized for development. But if you teach me to organise, then whatever the challenge I can join together with my peers and we will fashion our own solutions.”xii 10th Encouraging joined-up thinking in the donor community There are too many statutory and voluntary organisation trying to do the same thing and in the process causing shortages of skills and diverting the local efforts from self-development to donor dependence. February 2013

References i The hard truth is that many of the fundamental conditions that gave rise to the tight markets in the past ten years remain. In the case of food, the world remains only one or two bad harvests away from another global crisis. Lower prices in the meantime may simply trigger another bout of resource binge, especially in the large and growing developing countries (Chatham House report; Resources Future, December 2012). ii UNICEF Nutrition Statistics, 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w20 International Development Committee: Evidence

iii UN Office of Population, 4 May 2011 iv Vermeulen, S., Sulle, E. and Fauveaud, S. Biofuels in Africa: growing small-scale opportunities. London: IIED, November 2009 v OXFAM, Our land, our lives, October 2012 vi WFP Press release, March 2011 vii (Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme, Policy brief, June 2009 viii Between six and ten countries have either reached or surpassed the 10% GDP allocation to the agriculture sector, although many more have increased their budgetary allocations and the average for Africa remains at 6%. On agricultural growth, the average for Africa in the period of 2003–2009 has been 4.5%. (official paper of the African Union, November 2012) ix The Observer, Food Monthly Supplement. May 2009 x ILO Global Employment Trends, 2010 xi Lauren Hendricks and Sybil Chidiac; Village savings and loans: A pathway to financial inclusion for Africa’s poorest households, Enterprise development and microfinance, Practical Action, UK June 2011 xii Richardo Levins Morales, Northland Poster Collective, 1977–2009

Written evidence from Christian Aid Summary Based on our experience, we believe that increasing, intensifying and diversifying food production in developing countries can play a very important role in eradicating hunger. This submission will substantiate this view by focusing on the following issues highlighted in the inquiry’s terms of reference: climate change, food crises, resilience, technology, smallholder farmers and markets. Specific recommendations include support for the following interventions: — Farmer-led research to further develop climate-resilient food production technologies and approaches that are financially and environmentally sustainable to help food producers adapt to changing growing seasons, temperatures, and precipitation, such as non-patented indigenous drought tolerant seeds, soil and moisture conservation farming techniques, agro-ecological methods to fertilize soil, retain moisture, and repel plant and animal pests and disease, and water harvesting and drip irrigation techniques. — Wide dissemination of existing and new knowledge on sustainable climate-resilient food production methods though quality public extension services using participatory approaches such as farmer field schools, farmer to farmer extension and farmer innovation networks. — Developing and up-scaling of appropriate climate information services, including early warning systems, seasonal forecasts and longer-term climate scenarios to support both on-farm planning and research and complementary input services, such as seed development and supply and soil testing. — Infrastructure development that is climate proof, and financially and environmentally sustainable to help food producers store surplus, irrigate small plots efficiently, transport food surplus from remote rural areas, and process surplus for consumption and sale, including scaling up investments in rural feeder roads and decentralised renewable energy services. — Productive safety net subsidies that help poor food consumers and producers to remain food secure in the face of weather or food price shocks. — Advocating for and resourcing processes that allow for the full participation of vulnerable communities in identifying the risks they face and the solutions to address these risks.

1. Introduction 1.1 Christian Aid is a Christian development and humanitarian organisation that insists the world can and must be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty. We work globally in 45 countries for profound change that eradicates the causes of poverty, striving to achieve equality, dignity and freedom for all, regardless of faith or nationality. We are part of a wider movement for social justice. We provide urgent, practical and effective assistance where need is great, tackling the effects of poverty as well as its root causes. 1.2 Christian Aid has been working on building food security and responding to food emergencies for a number of decades, and has learned valuable lessons as a result of this experience. We aim to analyse and address the root causes of chronic and acute hunger in all our food emergency responses, and integrate this understanding into our development programmes. This has led to our new corporate focus on building the resilience of communities to sudden shocks in the external environment. This approach is based on our cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w21

understanding that the inability to bounce back from the impacts of environmental and price shocks has trapped hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable households across the world into poverty and hunger. 1.3 Based on our experience, we believe that increasing, intensifying and diversifying food production in developing countries can play a very important role in eradicating hunger. However, this needs to be done in ways that are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable, and accompanied by a transformation in the power relations that govern the food system. Unless food producers, consumers and others who are excluded or marginalised from the existing food system gain knowledge, act collectively and exercise political agency to ensure their needs and interests are met by governments, corporations and development organisations, they will continue to face chronic and acute hunger. 1.4 This submission will substantiate this view by focusing on the questions on climate change, food crises, resilience, technology, smallholder farmers and markets posed by the International Development Committee’s enquiry into Global Food Security. It concludes by making a number of recommendations to DFID. 1.5 We welcome the opportunity to provide written evidence to the International Development Committee on global food security.

2. Climate Change and Food Security “Slow onset climate changes are expected to have potentially catastrophic effects on food production in many developing countries, particularly between 2050 and 2100” FAO10 2.1 Climate change is already destabilizing weather patterns across the world, which is impacting on the production, processing, distribution and consumption of food. The greatest impact has been in low income countries where a disproportionate number of the world’s undernourished and food insecure population resides, and where food systems are most vulnerable. Even in the absence of weather shocks, subsistence households in many of the poorest countries experience seasonal hunger for a number of well-documented reasons, including the inability to produce sufficient amounts of food.11 Insufficient local food production has resulted in import dependence in many low income countries especially in Africa, which increases the vulnerability of poor consumers, including smallholder producers in rural areas, to the huge fluctuations in international cereal commodity prices. Huge price spikes lead to acute undernourishment in poor households, which spend most of their household income on food. This was well documented across a number of countries during the 2008 international cereal commodity price spike. In the absence of reliable buyers, stable prices, and infrastructure,12 farming households are less able to cope with the risks involved with investing more labour, credit or other assets in food production for the market. As a result, where surplus crops are produced, they often go to waste while potential food consumers in the same region or country go hungry. 2.2 Climate change is further destabilizing these already fragile local food systems. While specific impacts depend on the local agro-ecological and climate systems, growing evidence is showing impacts on the production, processing and distribution and consumption of food. Food production in many regions is already affected by increased duration and intensity of droughts, increased local flooding and other extreme weather events, and changes in seasonal variability—these weather patterns are increasingly being attributed to climate change. In Zimbabwe, for example, agro-ecological zones are shifting and semi-arid areas expanding—this means that land that used to be suitable for crop cultivation or livestock grazing can no longer be used for these purposes. Given the lock-in effect of past global greenhouse gas emissions, these slow-onset changes are now unavoidable. 2.3 In Africa, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predicts an increase of between 5 and 8% in arid and semi-arid areas by 2080, a 50% decrease in crop yield in some rain fed areas within 10 years, shorter growing seasons, increased frequency of droughts, floods, cyclones, and the emergence of new animal and plant pests and diseases if global warming continues its upward trend. By 2020, up to 250 million people in Africa could be exposed to increased water stress.13 A Stanford University study predicts that a further 1°C rise in average temperature will reduce yields across two thirds of Africa’s maize growing areas, even without a drought.14 This scenario is highly probable given that global temperatures are likely to increase beyond 2°C as a result of the failure to reach agreement on adequate internationally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 2.4 According to the World Food Programme, the number of climate-related natural disasters has doubled in the past 10 years. Extreme weather events such as severe and long-lasting droughts and flash floods, exacerbated by land degradation, have triggered major food crises across the Sahel and eastern Africa in the 10 Climate Change and Food Security in the Context of the Cancun Agreements, submission by the FAO to the 14th Session of the AWG-LCA, www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/54337/icode 11 Reasons include: Soil nutrient depletion, erosion, desertification, and deforestation, which will affect two thirds of Africa’s cropland by 2025, land tenure insecurity, inadequate advice on techniques to increase production, inadequate knowledge on soil fertility management, soil restoration, integrated pest management, inadequate access to good quality seed. 12 Infrastructure includes energy services, transport, marketing, storage, and irrigation 13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers, Section 3: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/sprms3.html 14 David S Battisi and Rosamond L Naylor, “Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat”, Science 323, pp 240–242, January 2009 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w22 International Development Committee: Evidence

past two years alone.15 This year, a combination of violent conﬂict and ﬂooding has caused a major food crisis in some of the most productive and fertile areas around the river Niger.

3. Food Crises Impacts and Reactions

3.1 The poorest consumers and producers, including smallholder farmers living in already degraded land are also the most food insecure and are therefore most vulnerable to price and weather shocks. Even in thriving economies such as Ghana, poor urban households spend more than half of their income on food.16 The wellbeing of smallholder farmers across the world relies heavily on farm-gate prices of staple foods. These prices have become more unstable due to weather shocks and volatile international food commodity markets. The sudden ﬂuctuations of food prices do not only deepen and widen poverty; they also increase the risk of conﬂict and threaten the reversal of decades of human development progress and economic growth.

3.2 The most effective responses to food crises are those that address the root causes, by combining the development of resilient and environmentally sustainable local food systems, sustainable national tax regimes and complementary social protection mechanisms. Examples of national-led efforts include the Ethiopian safety net programme, or the NREGA programme in India. Recent initiatives such as AGIR in the Sahel and SHARE in the Horn of Africa show how international actors can cooperate to address food shocks even in extremely fragile situations.

4. The Best Strategies for Reducing Risk and for Building Resilience

4.1 Christian Aid believes that a virtuous circle can be promoted, where people are supported to strengthen their food security and manage the risks that threaten them at the same time. Environmental sustainability is increasingly recognised as a fundamental basis to resilience in agriculture. We recognise that poor people live in a multi-risk environment. They face a number of different interlinked risks and changes on a short, medium and long-term basis—not only natural disasters and climate change but also resource degradation, conﬂict, disease, poor governance, inequality, lack of decent employment, unfair markets, price crashes, competition for scarce resources and more. These factors limit their ability to reduce vulnerability to widespread food emergencies. Therefore, at the core of resilience building is the capacity to manage both shocks and stresses.

4.2 To achieve positive and sustained change, Christian Aid supports an integrated approach that encompasses and integrates different priorities, disciplines, sectors and timeframes. Donors, policy makers and practitioners need to think and work across professional boundaries such as humanitarian, development, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation or market development. Rather than looking at issues in isolation, it is necessary to consider how different factors and timeframes interact. This approach encourages different organisations to work on different elements in a joined-up way—from local to national, and even international, levels.

4.3 At the local level, this will include practical interventions with and by vulnerable communities, together with advocacy, research and learning. The role of the community, and especially the most vulnerable, must be central in determining the risk-reducing priorities they face, the detailed risk scenario information they need, and the action planning required to address these scenarios, such as through the process of Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (PVCA). A key part of this is increasing access to and use of climate forecasting information. Christian Aid’s work with partners in Kenya has demonstrated the value of seasonal forecasts to small-scale farmers, 96% of whom attributed increased production to forecast-informed decisions, two-thirds estimating the yield increase to be greater than 15%.17

4.4 As well as practical projects, solutions are likely to involve inﬂuencing policy and practice at local, national and/or international levels in favour of a more resilient food security system. An important factor in building the resilience and adaptive capacity of local food systems is to redress existing political and economic power imbalances. The voices of smallholder farmers, as well as their technical capacities, need to be strengthened to enable them to adjust rapidly to price changes and shocks. This may mean engaging directly with budget allocations or provision of essential services; inﬂuencing market functioning, increasing traditional land tenure security and inheritance practices, or other non-governmental decisions; and/or advocacy aimed at national or international policy processes.

4.5 However, there is no “one size fits all” as resilience is a function of the particular shock or risk. Responses must consider both the type of risk being addressed, how that risk interacts with other risks, and how a particular type of risk might affect the different individuals that make up households and sub-groups within a community (ie men, women, children, the elderly and the disabled, displaced persons, PLHIV) as no single intervention will build resilience in all vulnerable groups. Thus, interventions aimed at building resilience need 15 For more detail on the causes and impacts of these crises see Humanitarian Briefing Paper: Sahel Food Crisis February 2012, Christian Aid and Humanitarian Briefing Paper: East Africa Food Crisis, September 2011 16 UNDP (2012) Towards a food secure future: Africa Human development report http://mirror.undp.org/angola/LinkRtf/Afhdr_ 2012.pdf (consulted 26/12/2012) 17 See Strengthening Access to Climate Information, SALI Kenya (Evaluation, Oct 2012) cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w23

to not only target improving adaptive capacity generally but speciﬁcally need to reduce the sensitivity of vulnerable groups.18

5. The Role of Technology, Small-Holder Agriculture and Markets in Food Security 5.1 Since the 1990s, a suite of new biotechnologies have been added to conventional breeding processes to enhance crop and livestock production possibilities for smallholder farmers. These include technologies such as marker assisted selection and tissue culture extraction. Modern biotechnologies, if used to develop seeds that are affordable and accessible to smallholder farmers, for indigenous and other locally adapted crops, can play an important role to reduce low crop yields caused by existing and new pests and diseases, reduced moisture availability, increased soil salinity, increased temperatures, and rotting. 5.2 Farmers should be involved in the technology development process, from determining the problem that needs to be addressed through on-farm trials and farmer-led participatory research. New biotechnology should only be approved with clear evidence from diagnostic studies demonstrating that the proposed technology seeks to address an expressed priority of small-scale producers. This will ensure that new biotechnologies are developed according to farmer priorities on production constraints and potential improvements needed, tested under on-farm conditions to reduce the uncertainty, cost and risk faced by farmers in adopting new technologies, and satisfy local food storage, consumption and taste preferences. 5.3 Biotechnologies should also enhance the ecosystem services of agricultural land, in view of the vulnerability of the natural resource base on which future food production depends.19 This implies a focus on biotechnologies that reduce the requirement for fossil-fuel based inputs, are suitable for use under integrated pest management practices, are designed for land management practices that reduce land degradation, increase the resilience of agricultural production to more frequent and severe droughts, floods, and increases in temperatures as a result of climate change, foster and encourage the conservation of agri-biodiversity, improve the ratio of crop output to energy input, and increase the potential of farmers to generate their own seed and planting material for own use, exchange or through certification for local sale.20 5.4 Globally, small-scale farmers constitute 85% of total farmers, farm 60% of all arable land and produce more than half of the planet’s food supply. Global food security therefore depends to a large extent on the long-term sustainability of smallholder farmers, both to support future food production, but also to support the livelihoods and incomes necessary to buy food in some of the most food insecure countries. In Africa, for example, 70% of working adults on average earn a living from agricultural activity, mostly in the smallholder sector. 5.5 In low income countries, active support for smallholder farmers, combined with the empowerment of women, has been shown to reduce malnutrition. In southern Mali, for example, Christian Aid has worked with a local partner organisation between 2007 and 2011 to help women in 35 villages increase and diversify their agricultural production by facilitating access to affordable inputs and extension services enabling them to grow vegetables on small plots, and assistance in forming cooperatives to process, store and market their rice production. This, together with health and nutritional education targeted at women, reduced malnutrition levels by about 25%.21 5.6 Local staple food markets in many parts of Africa are failing and fragmented—surplus production does not reach deficit areas, and local staple food growers are unable to sell their produce at a fair price, which reduces their incentive to invest more to grow food for the market. The reasons for staple food market failures have been well documented, and include lack of adequate road networks, storage, farmer marketing and business skills, and finance. The dismantling of parastatal grain marketing boards, which have acted as buyers and sellers of last resort, in the 1980s and 1990s, has exacerbated this problem, especially in southern and eastern Africa. Although these boards were often marred by inefficiency and corruption, their food price stabilisation function remains vital and should continue in the form of an accountable and efficient price stabilisation mechanism.

6. How can DFID Contribute to Addressing Food System Challenges? 6.1 DFID should ensure that all aid to food and agriculture development through its bilateral programme, but also through the multilateral programmes receiving UK aid, aims to build the resilience of local food systems to the impacts of slow onset climate change, sudden onset weather shocks, and price shocks. It should develop a policy outlining how it will support smallholder farmers who are the majority of food producers, to 18 For more detail on the PVCA approach, see Christian Aid Good Practice Guide: Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments, Christian Aid, 2012, and for Christian Aid’s approach to resilience, see Thriving, Resilient Livelihoods: Christian Aid’s Approach, October 2012 19 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Working Group Assessment Reports: Current States and Trends, 2005 www.millenniumassesssment.org 20 The International Assessment on Agricultural Science, Knowledge and Technology Development (IAASTD) report expressed particular concern about [intellectual property regimes] eventually inhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independent research community to conduct analyses and long-term experimentation on impacts’ 21 This project was funded by the EU and implemented by Christian Aid partner, the Association for Development and Community Support in the Kolondièba District, Sikasso, Southern Mali between February 2008 and December 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w24 International Development Committee: Evidence

access production technologies, extension services and markets, and outline how it will support the infrastructure necessary for the functioning of local food markets. 6.2 DFID support for food and agriculture development through existing climate funds, bilateral aid programmes, and multilateral food and agriculture programmes should therefore focus on: — Farmer-led research to further develop climate-resilient food production technologies and approaches that are financially and environmentally sustainable to help food producers adapt to changing growing seasons, temperatures, and precipitation, such as non-patented indigenous drought tolerant seeds, soil and moisture conservation farming techniques, agro-ecological methods to fertilize soil, retain moisture, and repel plant and animal pests and disease, and water harvesting and drip irrigation techniques. — Wide dissemination of existing and new knowledge on sustainable climate-resilient food production methods though quality public extension services using participatory approaches such as farmer field schools, farmer to farmer extension and farmer innovation networks. — Developing and up-scaling of appropriate climate information services, including early warning systems, seasonal forecasts and longer-term climate scenarios to support both on-farm planning and research and complementary input services, such as seed development and supply and soil testing. — Infrastructure development that is climate proof, and financially and environmentally sustainable to help food producers store surplus, irrigate small plots efficiently, transport food surplus from remote rural areas, and process surplus for consumption and sale, including scaling up investments in rural feeder roads and decentralised renewable energy services. — Productive safety net subsidies that help poor food consumers and producers to remain food secure in the face of weather or food price shocks. — Advocating for and resourcing processes that allow for the full participation of vulnerable communities in identifying the risks they face and the solutions to address these risks. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by Concern Worldwide 1. Concern Worldwide is making a submission to inform the International Development Committee’s new inquiry on global food security.

Executive Summary 2. Despite considerable progress, 870 million people continue to go hungry every day and 170 million children under ﬁve are stunted due to chronic malnutrition. The vast majority of these people are poor and vulnerable farmers. In Asia and Africa for example, small farmers represent more than three quarters of all farms and contribute to a large part of the world’s agricultural production. 3. However, farmers around the world face major challenges to escape the traps of hunger and poverty. Agriculture is instrumental for achieving food and nutrition security, but it cannot solve the deeply rooted challenges that perpetuate poverty on its own. A wide-range of interventions combined with sustainable agriculture practices can help achieve agriculture’s full potential to reduce hunger and enhance people’s resilience.

About Concern 4. Concern is leading the search for innovative solutions to break the cycle of poverty and hunger, by addressing their root causes. Our work helps create the conditions that are needed to build resilient communities and lift the poorest and most vulnerable out of hunger. Since our foundation in 1968, Concern has been widely regarded as one of the world’s leading humanitarian organisations. Today, our work focuses on four sectors that are key to tackling extreme poverty: improving livelihoods, education, and health and HIV and AIDS. 5. Concern’s submission focuses on two key issues: the global food system and the role of smallholder agriculture, and the best strategies for reducing risk and building resilience among the most vulnerable. In conclusion, global policy recommendations are suggested.

I. The limited success of the global food system in guaranteeing food security and eliminating under-nutrition 6. Considerable progress towards reducing hunger and undernutrition in mothers and children has been achieved over the past decades. From 1990 to 2008, the prevalence of stunting in children under ﬁve years of age declined from 40 to 29%, and 63 countries are on track to achieving the MDG-1 target of a 50% reduction in underweight prevalence.22 22 D Nabarro, P Menon, M Ruel and S Yosef, Scaling up in agriculture, rural development and nutrition Focus 19, Brief 9, June 2012 SUN: A Global Movement to Accelerate Progress in Reducing Maternal and Child Undernutrition, International Food Policy Research Institute, (Washington DC, 2012). cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w25

7. Yet, almost 870 million people continue to go hungry every day, out of which well over than half live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.23 According to the 2012 Global Hunger Index, 20 countries around the world face levels of hunger that are “alarming” or “extremely alarming”.24 Today, 170 million children under ﬁve are stunted due to chronic malnutrition.25 It is estimated that hunger costs developing countries $450 billion per year,26 and “hidden hunger” up to 10% of GDP in developing countries.27 8. With rising climate variability, land degradation, cyclical droughts, food price volatility, and complex political economy systems, vulnerable regions like the Sahel and the Horn of Africa have to cope with more intense risks and recurrent crises. This requires that policy makers and donors address chronic poverty and malnutrition, risks and crises as an integral part of development, and treat disasters like drought as predictable and manageable events when designing development interventions.

The Role of Small-Scale Agriculture in Increasing Global Food and Nutrition Security 9. The evidence for action is overwhelming: investments in agriculture have spurred growth and reduced poverty. In low income countries, agriculture-led growth is five times more effective in reducing poverty than growth in other sectors.28 10. However, smallholder farmers who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods do not have access to the inputs, services and markets they need to develop as strong and resilient rural entrepreneurs. Improving farmers’ access to adequate inputs like drought resistant seeds that they can afford, to appropriate and regular extension services and financial institutions, and linking farmers to markets can help make poor farmers more resilient to shocks in the short term, and enable them to plan and take risks in the long-term. 11. There is considerable evidence that sustainable intensification of small farming systems, using low external inputs, agro-ecological methods and crop diversification can reduce risks and improve food security for smallholder farmers. It is particularly suited to smallholder farmers in ecologically fragile, risk prone areas. In Zimbabwe, poor small farmers who started practising Conservation Agriculture (CA) are achieving yields that are so much higher than farmers who use traditional cultivation techniques that they have gone from food deficits to surpluses. A study carried out by Concern on the impact of CA on food security and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in low potential areas of Zimbabwe in 200829 found a dramatic improvement in food security amongst farmers who have successfully adopted CA techniques. 12. The farmers who adopted CA achieved much higher maize yields than traditional farmers. The extra maize yields contributed to over 60% of the food needs of the very poor and almost 70% of the food needs of the poor in the targeted area. The success of this programme largely hinged on intensive investment in extension services, and careful use of inputs, based on specific guidelines developed by the CA task force. 13. A year on, these farmers went from being production-deficit households to production-surplus households. Each participating village produced on average a surplus equivalent to 179% of the village’s annual food energy needs. This enabled farmers to provide food to surrounding food insecure villages by selling or offering grain as payment for work. Today, these farmers are selling their maize surpluses to aid agencies that distribute food aid, which is incredible evidence of the successes CA can achieve. 14. Agriculture is central to the challenges of food and nutrition security and poverty, but it cannot solve all of the deeply rooted challenges that perpetuate poverty on its own. A wide-range of interventions from the nutrition, health and social protection sectors can help achieve agriculture’s full potential to reduce hunger.

II. The best strategies to reduce risk from shocks and build resilience for the most vulnerable 15. According to the United Nations (UN) resilience is “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions”.30 16. In 2011, East Africa had two consecutive seasons with below-average rainfall, resulting in one of the worst droughts in 60 years. Although the 2011 drought affected the whole region of the Horn of Africa, central and southern Somalia were most affected by the crisis31. This was due to a multiple set of factors including 23 The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012, Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, World Food Programme and International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, 2012. 24 The 2012 Global Hunger Index, The challenge of hunger: ensuring sustainable food security under land, water and energy stresses, WeltHungerHilfe, IFPRI and Concern Worldwide, Bonn, Washington DC, Dublin, 2012. 25 The World Health Report 2001: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001. 26 ActionAid, Who’s really fighting hunger? Why the world is going backwards on the UN goal to halve hunger and what can be done, HungerFREE scorecard 2010, London, 2010. 27 A Stein and M Qaim. 2007. The human and economic cost of hidden hunger. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 28(2): 125–134. 28 The World Bank, World Development Report, Agriculture for development, Washington DC, 2008. 29 Concern Worldwide, Food Security and Livelihoods Recovery Programme: end of programme evaluation. Stephen Brown, FEG Consulting, November 2008. 30 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2007. 31 J Mosley, Translating early warning into early action, East Africa Report, Chatham House, London 2012. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w26 International Development Committee: Evidence

drought, conflict, high and volatile global food prices, the region’s reliance on food imports, and the long-term deterioration of coping strategies in local communities.32 Malnutrition rates amongst children in some areas were a staggering 50%. 17. Food production fell drastically, leading to an increase in food prices of up to 300% in the southern regions of the country. In July 2011 the UN declared a famine in southern Somalia, which affected about three million people.33 18. Since then, an estimated 14.5 million people are still stuck in acute phases of food insecurity—that is right on the brink of a humanitarian emergency and two steps away from famine.34 These same people face complex obstacles to escaping the cycle of poverty and hunger they are trapped in. For most, economic, social and political inequality and marginalisation are at the heart of this challenge. This means the little assets they have are insufficient to create and accumulate income, afford food, health care and education. This increases their vulnerability, but also dissuades them from taking risks that could actually help them escape this cycle. 19. Thus, reducing chronic malnutrition requires positive changes in livelihoods, assets, production, income but also women’s access to productive resources, health services, social protection, reduction of risk, and water/ sanitation/hygiene, as well as formal control over assets and decision-making power. In the absence of such changes, intolerable levels of under-nutrition will spike up even higher due to stresses or shocks. 20. In Kenya recurrent droughts have eroded people’s livelihoods, assets and coping strategies. However, a survey revealed that severe acute and global acute malnutrition (SAM and GAM respectively) in the district of Moyale were much lower than in neighbouring districts with similar conditions. As drought cycles have shortened, the need for a more flexible approach to planning, responding to, and recovering from droughts has become clearer.35 Concern’s community-based approach to disaster and risks has helped reduce malnutrition and improve resilience in the long-term. Resilience practices include using drought-resistant crops and diversifying livestock, conflict resolution in management of natural resources particularly water, including potential to exploit public–private partnerships, as well as developing trigger indicators to inform health and nutrition interventions at times of crisis, and flexible planning and funding.

Making Agriculture Nutrition-Sensitive 21. The limitations of production-focused agriculture interventions to deliver improved nutrition have been well documented.36 The evidence is clear that while increased agricultural production and income are probably necessary, they are clearly not sufficient to reduce child under-nutrition. Far more substantial impacts were achieved when agricultural interventions incorporated non-agricultural components that addressed other determinants of child nutrition.37 Agricultural interventions aimed at improving nutrition have been undertaken for decades by governments. However, the studies that evaluated these actions presented multiple limitations, making it difficult to fully capture the linkages between nutrition and agriculture, including links with other that may have influenced nutrition outcomes.38 Uncovering agriculture’s true potential to reach poor communities where malnutrition is chronic, to increase family incomes and to diversify their diets, requires investment in broad-ranging rigorous research. 22. Concern’s Realigning Agriculture to Improve Nutrition (RAIN) programme addressed this by integrating agriculture and nutrition/health interventions at all project levels to improve nutritional status within the critical 1,000 days from conception until a child reaches its second birthday. It is currently being implemented in Zambia, and may be launched in Rwanda in the future. It goes beyond the traditional objectives of food security programs and focuses on measureable improvements in nutrition security. It is now looking to include work on the promotion of women-focused appropriate technology, links with health care, and empowerment of women.

Expanding the Reach of Social Protection 23. The majority of the poor in low income countries depend on the health of their crops or livestock and on their own labour for their livelihoods. They are vulnerable to numerous sources of risk which when realised lead to great ﬂuctuations in their income. Weather-related risk is particularly important, with evidence indicating that variation in rainfall and temperature is a major determinant of year-to-year changes in farmer yields, stocks and incomes. In the absence of social protection programmes, services and formal means to manage risks households adopt informal risk management strategies when a shock occurs including borrowing or liquidating assets. 32 D Maxwell, M Fitzpatrick, The 2011 Somalia famine: Context, causes, and complications, Global Food Security, 5–12, 2012. 33 United Nations News Centre, UN declares famine in two regions of southern Somalia, July 20, New York, 2011. 34 Fewsnet, East Africa Food Security Outlook, October 2012 to March 2013, USAID, Washington DC, 2012. 35 W Erasmus, L Mpoke and Y Yishak, Mitigating the impact of drought in Moyale District, Northern Kenya, Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Issue 53, March 2012, Overseas Development Institute, London, 2012. 36 World Bank, From Agriculture to Nutrition: Pathways, Synergies and Outcomes, Washington DC, 2008. 37 World Bank, From Agriculture to Nutrition: Pathways, Synergies and Outcomes, Washington DC, 2008. 38 Masset E, Haddad L, Cornelius A and Isaza-Castro J, A systematic review of agricultural interventions that aim to improve nutritional status of children. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:16] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w27

24. Social protection encompasses all forms of social insurance and social welfare that governments regulate, provide, or otherwise make available to their citizens. There has been a growing recognition that in situations of chronic food insecurity institutionalised social protection programmes are more efﬁcient and effective than repeated annual emergency food aid.39 Social protection programmes like cash transfers, can help smooth consumption and sustain spending on essentials in lean periods without families having to resort to selling their assets or other negative coping mechanisms. They have the potential to help poor households save, invest in productive assets and obtain better credit terms. Evidence from Latin America and South Africa is encouraging. In Brazil the national programme Bolsa Familia accounted for 21% of the total fall in the Gini index (a measure of income inequality) between 1995 and 2004.40 In Mexico, the Oportunidades programme was found to have reduced the poverty gap amongst beneﬁciaries by 30% after two years.41

25. In its latest work with farmers, Concern is combining agriculture, micro-finance, cash transfers and business development services together to support a five step pathway out of poverty towards economic development. Although this is still in its early stages in Burundi, research from leading development experts suggests that the graduation model increased standard of living, business income and food security.42 In this model cash transfers will provide a safety net during the adoption of new production techniques, microfinance will be used to encourage financial discipline and life planning and traditional livelihoods style interventions aimed at improving agricultural production, which have been proved to work, such as conservation agriculture.

III. Global policy recommendations to improve food and nutrition security worldwide

26. The years leading up to 2015 will provide many opportunities to renew commitments to tackle global hunger and undernutrition, including the 2013 G8 Summit in Lough Erne. Donors like DFID have a crucial role to play in supporting this goal. Here are some policy measures that require urgent action:

27. (A) Promote livelihoods for chronically food insecure households: despite strong economic growth in Sahel and the Horn, in most countries, the level of chronic food insecurity, and poverty, remains persistently high. Current development practice is leaving increasing numbers of poorer households, particularly in ecologically fragile and marginalised areas, behind. This need not be. There is evidence that support for low cost, agro-ecological farming can increase productivity, resilience, adaptation to climate change, and help restore the natural resource base. Similarly, in the Sahel and the Horn, although with several important caveats, there are proven ways to improve the productivity and resilience of pastoral livelihoods, based on mobility. Such initiatives, with particular attention focused on the poorer households, needs to be scaled up in risk prone, ecologically fragile areas, as part of an integrated approach to resilience.

28. (B) Prevent chronic and acute child undernutrition: even in normal years, the level of severe acute malnutrition is close to, or above the emergency threshold in many parts of the Sahel. No matter how “early” the response, any shock will inevitably cause a spike of cases of severe acute malnutrition, on top of already unacceptably high levels. The only way to stop this is to greatly reduce current levels of severe, and moderate acute malnutrition and establish a comprehensive prevention program to address malnutrition.

29. (C) Support social protection for the most vulnerable groups: Ethiopia has used its high growth rates to make signiﬁcant progress in reducing poverty. A contributing factor has been Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme. Ethiopia recently added early warning and contingency planning functions for triggering a scaling up of PSNP interventions in response to emergencies. Resilience makes safety net/social protection programming both developmental and humanitarian.43

30. (D) Scale-up early warning/early response systems: if measures are not taken to improve early response, to protect livelihoods and loss of assets, all other efforts to strengthen resilience and the gains of development will be wiped out, and the numbers of vulnerable households locked into chronic food insecurity will increase. In addition, early warning systems, including indicators of severe and moderate malnutrition levels, as well as malnutrition response action plans that set out precise triggers, processes, and responsible stakeholders must be put in place to improve people’s ability to respond and bounce-back from extreme weather events, high food prices, and other risks. December 2012

39 DFID, “Cash Transfers Evidence Paper”, DFID, London, 2011. 40 R Holmes, J Hagen-Zanker, M Vandermoortele, Brazil’s Story: Social protection in Brazil: Impacts on poverty, inequality and growth, Development Progress, Overseas Development Institute, London, 2011. 41 M Nino-Zarazua, Mexico’s Progresa-Oportunidades and the emergence of social assistance in Latin America, Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester, Working Paper 142, Manchester, 2–11. 42 E Duﬂo, Targeting the ultra-poor : impact assessment, preliminary results, Global Graduation Meeting, 18 July 2012. 43 Intermon Oxfam, Déﬁnition du Cadre d’orientation stratégique de moyens d’existence (COSME) en Afrique de l’Ouest (Sahel), Avril 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w28 International Development Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by The Co-operative Group Summary — This submission focuses on the importance of smallholder farmers and co-operatives and the role that the co-operative sector plays in supporting them. — It contains a brief introduction to The Co-operative’s work to tackle global poverty; an overview of our campaigning work in 2012, in partnership with Oxfam, on the role that smallholder farmers and co-operatives can play in feeding the world fairly and sustainably. This includes recommendations and appendices. — The UK government can enhance support for smallholder farmers and co-operatives by: investing a greater proportion of the budget allocated to Economic spending in agricultural development, targeted at programmes supporting smallholder farmers and co-operatives to build capacity, grow more food and access local and international markets; and advocating that G8 and G20 members commit at future meetings to increase support for smallholders and co-operatives.

Introduction 1. The Co-operative Group (The Co-operative) is a unique family of businesses, jointly owned and democratically controlled by its seven million members. We are the fifth largest food retailer, the third largest retail pharmacy chain and the number one provider of funeral services in the UK. We also have strong market positions in banking, insurance and legal services. We are also one of the UK’s largest commercial farmers. The Co-operative employs over 100,000 people, and has 4,800 retail outlets and branches. 2. The Co-operative has always been at the forefront on ethics and our Ethical Plan reinforces our aim to be the UK’s most socially responsible business. This leadership extends to our programme of Tackling Global Poverty work and we’ve set a number of ambitious targets on this in our Ethical Plan, from Fairtrade leadership to support for overseas co-operatives. 3. Our programme of Tackling Global Poverty work extends across four key strands: ethical trade, co- operative support, responsible finance and campaigning. 4. Ethical Trade: We were the first major retailer to champion Fairtrade and continue to lead the way as we undertake the most radical Fairtrade conversion programme ever seen. We’re also committed to continually improving working conditions in our supply chain. 5. Co-operative support: We’re investing £6 million each year into co-operative support initiatives in some of the world’s poorest countries. The initiatives we support go beyond Fairtrade commitments alone, and equip poor communities to better help themselves towards lasting improvements. 6. Responsible Finance: Our bank invests in microfinance and our members can also make small loans directly to entrepreneurs in the developing world through our support for lendwithcare.org. Since the inception of our bank’s unique Ethical Policy, over £320m of finance has been declined from organisations in conflict with our position on international development and human rights. 7. Campaigning: We have a long history of advocating for change and raising awareness on development issues via campaigns and outreach events with our members. In 2012, the UN-designated International Year of Co-operatives, we are campaigning alongside Oxfam to champion the role that smallholder farmers and co- operatives can play in feeding the world fairly and sustainably.

Evidence and Recommendations Public policy work to champion the role smallholder farmers and co-operatives can play in feeding the world fairly and sustainably 8. There are around 500 million smallholder farming households in the world, together feeding nearly a third of the world’s population. This figure is even higher in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where smallholder farmers produce up to 80% of food. 9. Despite this, the majority of smallholder farmers still lack investment and consequently struggle to produce much beyond subsistence levels. Globally, investment in agriculture is declining—between 1983 and 2006, the share of agriculture in official development assistance fell from 20.4% to 3.7% in real terms.44 Additionally, one in seven people around the world goes to bed hungry every night and, with global population predicted to reach nine billion by 2050, global food production will need to increase by 70%. 10. There is broad agreement that smallholders can provide much of the extra food needed to feed the world’s growing population.45 According to the United Nations International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD), smallholder farms are often very efficient in terms of production per hectare and have 44 http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/growing-a-better-future-010611-summ-en.pdf 45 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/getinvolved/images/WFD2012_leaflet_en_low.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w29

tremendous potential for growth.46 The World Bank recognises that access to markets for smallholder farmers is a vital opportunity to reduce rural poverty.47 Moreover, The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO) notes that growth in small-scale agriculture can have twice the effect on the poorest as growth in other sectors.48 11. UN FAO also notes that “one of the necessary steps to achieving food security is to support and invest in cooperatives, producer organizations and other rural institutions”, thanks to the role these groups play in helping smallholder farmers to increase food production, market their goods and create jobs, improving their own livelihoods and increasing food security in the world.49 In recognition of this, the UN FAO named “Agricultural co-operatives: key to feeding the world” as the theme for World Food Day in 2012.50 12. In February 2012, The Co-operative launched a campaigning partnership with Oxfam to call on the UK Government to unlock greater support for smallholder farmers and co-operatives to help feed the world fairly and sustainably, particularly highlighting the role of co-operatives in supporting smallholders to pool resources, realise economies of scale and secure fairer prices. We are asking the UK Government to champion: (i) Fair and sustainable methods of increasing global food production — By “fair” we mean methods that principally beneﬁt the poorest and empower marginalised groups, including women, young people and indigenous communities.51 — By “sustainable” we mean approaches that support farmers to increase and diversify their production, manage risks, cope with volatile food prices and adapt to a changing climate, and techniques which are ecologically sustainable, promoting natural resource management and conservation.52 (ii) The crucial role of smallholder farmers and co-operatives — By “smallholder” we refer to farms with less than two hectares of cropland.53 — By “co-operatives” we mean organisations that are jointly-owned and democratically run for a common need by their members, in this case smallholder farmers. (iii) Increased investment in sustainable smallholder agriculture to lift farmers—many of whom are women—out of poverty — By “increased investment” we are particularly focussing on investment from the UK Government and groups of donor countries, such as the G8 and G20. However we recognise that domestic governments and the private sector also have a role to play in supporting smallholder farmers and co-operatives. 13. In the run-up to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June 2012, almost 18,000 Co-operative members and Oxfam supporters called on the UK Government to champion smallholder farmers and co-operatives at the Summit. A group of campaigners from The Co-operative and Oxfam met Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg ahead of his departure for Rio to represent the 18,000 people who took action. During the Summit, the UK Government announced Department for International Development (DfID) funding that will support six million smallholder farmers through the UN International Fund for Agriculture and Development’s (IFAD) Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP). 14. In July 2012, we placed an advert in the voting booklet for our Membership elections asking our members to support the campaign. Members could sign up as part of their ballot paper to join us in calling on the UK Government to unlock greater support for smallholder farmers and co-operatives to feed the world fairly and sustainably. In total, over 56,900 of our members responded, which represented the largest ever single member response to a Co-operative campaign communication.

Recommendations 15. Given the mandate from over 75,000 Co-operative members and Oxfam supporters across the UK to champion smallholder farmers and co-operatives, as well as the numerous case studies within The Co- operative’s supply chain demonstrating the benefits of building the capacity of smallholders and co-operatives (see Appendix), we recommend that IndCom highlights the following points in its “Inquiry into Global Food Security”: — the role of smallholder agriculture in increasing food security and the part that DFID should play; 46 IFAD (undated) Food prices: smallholder farmers can be part of the solution, http://www.ifad.org/operations/food/farmer.htm. IFAD cites the example of Vietnam, which has gone from being a food-deficit country to a major food exporter, largely through development of its smallholder farming sector. 47 World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. 48 FAO (2009) How to Feed the World in 2050. 49 Ibid 50 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/getinvolved/images/WFD2012_leaflet_en_low.pdf 51 Methods should enable farmers to participate in identifying their own needs and most suitable investments. Investments should strengthen the capacity of co-operatives to treat men’s and women’s needs equitably, undertake collective actions and bargain for better prices and services. 52 Such as low external input technologies, integrated pest management and improved soil and water management. 53 World Bank Rural Development Strategy definition cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w30 International Development Committee: Evidence

— the role of the international system, including the G8 and G20; and — the role of the private sector in increasing food security. 16. The UK Government can play an important role in unlocking greater support for smallholder farmers and co-operatives, both in terms of its own investment of aid monies (paragraph 17), and leveraging funding commitments from other donor countries through fora such as the G8 and G20 (paragraph 18). 17. Against a backdrop of declining global investment in agriculture, we welcomed Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s announcement at Rio+20, on DfID’s commitment to support six million smallholder farmers. We believe this is an excellent starting point towards helping smallholder farmers and co-operatives to build capacity and grow more food. We would recommend that as the UK Government’s aid budget increases to 0.7% of Gross National Income from 2013, a greater proportion of the budget allocated to Economic spending should be invested in agricultural development, targeted at programmes supporting smallholder farmers and co-operatives to build capacity, grow more food and access local and international markets. 18. We are also hopeful that DfID’s announcement can help to raise awareness internationally of the need to increase investment in smallholders and co-operatives, and we believe the UK Government should play an important role in advocating that G8 and G20 members commit at future meetings to increase support for smallholders and co-operatives. 19. In terms of the role the private sector can play in increasing food security, we would recommend that IndCom highlights in its Inquiry the role that the co-operative sector is playing in this regard. For example: — We believe that as the UK’s fifth largest food retailer, with a global supply chain, we can make a significant impact on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and their capacity to grow more food in a fair and sustainable way. Through our pioneering commitments to Fairtrade (see Appendix) we’re supporting tens of thousands of smallholder farmers in our supply chain with fair and stable prices, and Fairtrade premiums to invest in farm improvements or community welfare projects, which in turn help provide stability for rural families to plan for the future. — Through our work to go “beyond Fairtrade” (see Appendix), we’re further strengthening relationships with smallholder farmers and co-operatives in our supply chain, helping to ensure sustainability of supply in the longer term. — Working alongside the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), we spearheaded the new Global Development Co-operative (GDC), which aims to support co-operatives in developing countries by providing much needed access to finance with investment from co-operatives around the world. Due to make its first loans to co-operatives in 2013, the GDC will initially target agricultural co-operatives in Africa amongst its loan recipients (see Appendix). — As membership organisations, co-operatives can advocate on areas of public policy that are important to their members, pushing for broader political change. In the case of our Grow Co- operatives campaign, we’re aiming to bring about changes that could benefit smallholder farmers and co-operatives beyond our supply chain. — As the UK’s largest consumer co-operative we also play an important role in the international co-operative movement, joining with other co-operatives from around the world (as members of the ICA) to raise awareness of the importance of co-operatives to a wide range of economic and social issues. 20. In summary, in its Inquiry into Global Food Security we recommend that IndCom highlights the role the Government can now play in unlocking greater support for smallholder farmers and co-operatives, both through its own activities and investment, and on the international stage. We also recommend that IndCom highlights the important role that the co-operative sector is playing in supporting Global Food Security. To support its recommendations, we hope that the Committee can draw on the evidence presented in this submission and in the following Appendix, which demonstrates the benefits in practice of building the capacity of smallholder farmers and co-operatives.

APPENDIX THE CO-OPERATIVE’S SUPPORT FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMERS AND CO-OPERATIVES 21. This appendix details examples of The Co-operative’s projects and initiatives which demonstrate the beneﬁts in practice of supporting smallholder farmers and co-operatives to build capacity, grow more food and access international markets.

Pioneering Fairtrade 22. Through our pioneering commitments to Fairtrade over the last twenty years, we’ve been supporting tens of thousands of smallholder farmers in our supply chain with fair and stable prices and Fairtrade premiums to invest in farm improvements or community welfare projects, which in turn help provide stability for rural families to plan for the future. Today, we remain second to none in terms of Fairtrade availability54 and 54 We sell Fairtrade products in every one of our 2,800 Food stores. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w31

overtrade55 and our most ambitious target yet—that if it can be Fairtrade, it will be56—will extend the beneﬁts of Fairtrade to thousands more smallholder farmers.

Going “Beyond Fairtrade” 23. Building on our leading approach to Fairtrade, we are also investing in a range of projects and initiatives that support our Fairtrade producers with benefits above and beyond what the Fairtrade premium delivers alone. Today, sixteen co-operatives and producer associations across Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean are benefiting from our programme of beyond Fairtrade initiatives, of which five examples are given below. We’re supporting tens of thousands of producers in a variety of ways, be it helping them to strengthen democracy, boost productivity, diversify into other products, improve environmental practices, have a stronger voice in trading negotiations or improve community wide-access to basic necessities like clean water, sanitation and green energy.

Fintea tea co-operative, Kenya 24. Traditionally, small-scale tea farmers face numerous challenges. The global price of tea is highly unstable and with only a small farm, individual growers often have no bargaining power to negotiate decent terms of trade. In a project which secured match-funding from the Department for International Development (DFID), The Co-operative has supported over 15,000 tea smallholders in Kenya to form into co-operatives, become Fairtrade certified and supply into our “99” Fairtrade tea blend. 25. In Kericho, where the project is located, the high cost of production coupled with the ever-declining tea prices meant many of these farmers were living under the poverty line. In addition, many farmers had no other income source and were getting poorer. By organising into five producer co-operatives, overseen by the Fintea Growers Co-operative Union, the 15,000 farmers, half of whom are women, are benefiting from a stronger negotiating position and can collectively own and share the profits from the business, increasing the incomes of participating tea farmers by as much as 30%. They are also being given the opportunity to diversify into other products to reduce their dependency on the volatile tea sector and improve local food security.

Kuapa Kokoo cocoa co-operative, Ghana 26. After years of government monopoly control over Ghana’s cocoa trade, the industry was restructured in 1993 and cocoa farmers began to organise themselves and market their own cocoa. Kuapa Kokoo co-operative was formed, aiming to empower farmers to gain a dignified livelihood, increase women’s participation and enable environmentally friendly cocoa cultivation. The co-operative originally had 200 members in 22 village societies and has grown to over 1,300 village societies, representing over 48,000 farmers, 28% female. 27. In the year 2000, we launched the first own-brand product in the UK to be Fairtrade certified—The Co- operative Milk Chocolate. The conversion signalled the start of a relationship with the Kuapa Kokoo growers, who have been benefitting ever since. Fairtrade premiums received from sales of The Co-operative’s products have been significant, and have helped to improve access to clean water and health services in cocoa growing communities. 28. The Co-operative also goes beyond Fairtrade and pays a further premium on all the Fairtrade cocoa sourced from Kuapa Kokoo through Divine Chocolate’s own “producer support and development fund” which aims to develop the co-operative’s capacity and strength, for example investment in ground nut milling equipment has helped create additional sources of income. Today Kuapa Kokoo supplies big brands in the UK, such as The Co-operative, Cadbury’s and Divine—a company in which the farmers themselves own a 45% stake.

FEDECOCAGUA coffee co-operative, Guatemala 29. In March 1969, thousands of small coffee growers organized into 19 co-operatives across Guatemala to form FEDECOCAGUA (Federación de Cooperativas Agrícolas de Productores de Café de Guatemala— Federation of Guatemalan Coffee Producer Co-operatives). FEDECOCAGUA started to export Fairtrade coffee in 1997, and today, 30% of its coffee exports are sold under Fairtrade terms. In 2003, we switched 100% of our own-brand coffee to Fairtrade, supporting thousands of smallholder coffee farmers, including members of Fedecocagua. 30. Today, FEDECOCAGUA is made up of 54 primary co-operative societies representing 20,000 smallholder coffee farmers. To enable FEDECOCAGUA to sell more coffee under Fairtrade terms, The Co- operative is going beyond Fairtrade to support twelve of the primary co-operatives with capacity building and training, in particular helping them to achieve Fairtrade certification. The project is also supporting three other groups of coffee producers to form into co-operatives, achieve Fairtrade certification and become member co- operatives of FEDECOCAGUA, helping them to own more of the value chain. In total, 5,000 smallholder coffee producers are set to benefit. 55 We sell more Fairtrade for the size of our business than any of our competitors. 56 In our Ethical Plan, we’ve set a target that if a primary commodity from the developing world can be Fairtrade, it will be Fairtrade, and we aim to be 90% of the way there (by sales value) by the end of 2013. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w32 International Development Committee: Evidence

Banelino banana co-operative, Dominican Republic 31. The Co-operative is supporting smallholder banana producers belonging to Banelino co-operative in the Dominican Republic with capacity building and training to improve the productivity and quality of bananas and enable diversiﬁcation into additional crops to help provide additional sources of income. In addition, Banelino is establishing a training school for young people to help secure the long-term sustainability of small- scale banana farming in the region.

The Global Development Co-operative 32. The Co-operative Banking Group is spearheading the Global Development Co-operative (GDC)—a development fund to help provide much needed finance to co-operatives in developing countries. Finance for co-operatives is often scarce, either because traditional lenders are not active in this market or do not sufficiently understand the co-operative business model. Additionally, co-operatives in developing countries often have limited collateral to put forward. Working with the International Co-operative Alliance, the GDC aims to support co-operative businesses in developing countries by raising £20 million to provide access to fair priced loans for capital and infrastructure projects. Due to make its first loans to co-operatives in 2013, the GDC will initially target agricultural co-operatives in Africa amongst its loan recipients. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by The Fairtrade Foundation 1. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important enquiry. We would like to offer some key points which we hope are of assistance, especially with regard to the IDC’s questions on: — The role of the international system, including food and agriculture organisations and the G8 and G20, and ways in which collaboration could be improved; — The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable;

2. Background on Fairtrade 2.1 The Fairtrade Foundation is the independent non-profit organisation that licenses use of the Fairtrade mark on products in the UK in accordance with internationally agreed Fairtrade standards. 2.2 Fairtrade producers are for the most part selling cash crops such as coffee or sugar, though many will also grow staple crops as well. Many of the concerns of cash-crop producers are similar those of smallholders growing staple crops (for instance price volatility, challenges in accessing credit, and environmental degradation). 2.3 There are 1.24 million farmers and workers in the Fairtrade system, across 66 countries. 60% of all farmers and workers are in Africa. 2.4 The UK is the biggest retail market for Fairtrade. In 2012 retail sales grew by 19% to £1.57 billion. The growth in sales reflects a partnership between UK consumers, campaigners, and businesses with the farmers and workers in the developing world who grow our food for over 20 years. 2.5 We believe that the growth in Fairtrade sales over this time reflects a high level of interest from the public in the provenance of their food, and the wellbeing of those who produce it. It also reflects an awareness on the part of business that there is a good business case for social investment and fair treatment of producers. 2.6 Regional markets are much smaller, but growing fast, with South Africa trebling retail sales to EURO 7.2 million from 2010 to 2011. 2.7 In close collaboration with Fairtrade International, other members of the Fairtrade movement, and the academic community, a growing body of research and impact monitoring is helping to understand the contribution (and boundaries) of Fairtrade with respect to poverty reduction, improved livelihoods and sustainable, inclusive growth.

3. Fairtrade and Food Security 3.1 Fair prices for producers 3.1.1 Price volatility is a serious disincentive to investment by cash-crop producers in their farms, with a similar dynamic to that seen in recent years in staple crop prices. Coffee, for example, takes ﬁve years from nursery to ﬁrst crop, while international prices vary considerably from year to year (see graph). 3.1.2 Fairtrade’s model seeks to address the critical problems facing small farmers in international supply of low returns and price volatility by giving growers of most commodities a guaranteed, minimum price for their produce. The minimum price is intended to ensure that farmers can earn enough to cover at least the basic costs of sustainable production. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w33

3.1.3 A review of literature on the impact of Fairtrade Standards and interventions across products conducted by the University of Greenwich found that 29 out of 33 impact studies showed Fairtrade producers’ income beneﬁtting from guaranteed minimum prices and 27 showing beneﬁts in terms of improved economic stability. The study also showed that Fairtrade producers had more stable incomes and that Fairtrade could act as a buffer against the effects of price volatility in global markets. Indeed, in some areas where Fairtrade is practised, it can be the main motor for economic development in the community.i 3.1.4 The destructive effect of price volatility, and the uncertainty as to whether prices received will cover production costs are experienced across the agricultural sector in the developing world, with serious consequences for livelihoods, poverty reduction and growth. Measures to address volatility and encourage sustainable pricing should take high priority in any package of policy responses to food security.

3.2 A focus on smallholders 3.2.1 In its 2012 State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) report, the FAO revealed that despite increased agricultural aid budgets, farmers themselves are by far the largest source of investment in agriculture. This fact alone suggests that solutions for smallholders are less about development assistance (though well-targeted aid plays a vital role) but about the importance of a supportive policy and trading environment. 3.2.2 The SOFA also stated that governments also have a special responsibility to help smallholders overcome the constraints they face in expanding their productive assets and to ensure that large-scale investments in agriculture are socially beneﬁcial and environmentally sustainable.

3.3 Helping farmers receive a fair share of value, and to move up the value chain 3.3.1 Much agricultural policy in the past two decades has sought to link smallholders into export markets by integrating them into supply chains. However, there remain too many international supply chains in which companies have little or no traceability back to primary producers, and few significant programmes to invest in strengthening producer capacity. The norm is that smallholders still sell to middlemen, with no knowledge of where their crop may end up. Cash crop farmers still receive only a small fraction of the final sale price of commodities such as coffee or cocoa. 3.3.2 The Fairtrade Foundation believes that governments and business need to explore ways to ensure greater transparency and a fairer distribution of value across the supply chain, helping smallholders to secure a sustainable price for their produce. 3.3.3 Intrinsic to Fairtrade is that small farmers gain more than in conventional value chains. The minimum price (where applicable), social premium, access to pre-financing and strengthening of producer organisations all offer larger benefits than to small farmers in non-Fairtrade supply chains. 3.3.4 The Fairtrade Foundation’s own research into how to make international supply chains work better for small farmers indicates how, with better business trading relationships that firmly put people and fairness at their heart, producers can be better empowered to contribute to the development of their own communities. It highlights areas of good practice that the Fairtrade Foundation is calling on business engaging with smallholder organisations to adopt. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w34 International Development Committee: Evidence

3.3.5 These include: — Building strong and long-term relationships with farmer organisations so that farmers will be economically more secure to plan for the future. — Timely cash payments throughout the year, rather than a one-off payment during harvest season, so households are not left without any income for the rest of year. — Provide farmers with information on the entire value chain of their products, as well as with other useful information on for example commodity prices and global markets. — See the Fairtrade relationship between farmers and consumers as an asset that can be used to add value to products, for example with producer stories on packaging.ii

3.4 Investment of Fairtrade Premium income in supporting local food security 3.4.1 In additional to the minimum price or market price (whichever is higher) Fairtrade producers receive an additional sum of money called the Fairtrade Premium that they receive from the sale of their Fairtrade products. This is used by producers for investment in social, environmental and economic development projects, decided upon democratically by a committee of producers within the organisation or of workers on a plantation. 3.4.2 Evidence from our impact research shows that many Fairtrade communities have chosen to invest their Premium income in community projects that directly contribute to making them more food secure. For instance, in Malawi, one of the world’ poorest countries, many farmers are now more food secure as Premium income earned from the sale of their sugar and tea has provided for maize supplements in the lean months. 3.4.3 The Fairtrade Premium is also frequently used to invest in farms, to improve productivity, add value, or similar.

3.5 Enhancing farmers’ and farmer organisations’ access to credit 3.5.1 Timely and affordable access to credit is a key concern for smallholders. Without it, they are unable to buy inputs or technology, or diversify into new crop varieties. Innovations are needed to encourage more financial institutions to extend their services to smallholders. Businesses themselves must look closely at their own practice when offering credit to ensure timeliness, scale, and ease of access. 3.5.2 Fairtrade helps to address this through its pre-financing support for farmers (whereby producer organisations in most Fairtrade commodities are also able to request up to 60% of the purchase price of their produce as pre-finance). A number of impact studies show that Fairtrade producers are more credit-worthy and enjoy greater access to credit than their non-Fairtrade counterparts, for example to cover harvest expenses and other costs. 3.5.3 The premium received by Fairtrade growers can be used to establishing a fund for community finance. Smallholders can also use Fairtrade contracts as collateral when taking out loans from financial institutions. This can allow smallholders to access lines of credit otherwise unavailable to them. Fairtrade’s role in forming and developing cooperatives also enables small farmers to increase their access to credit though community- based finance organisations and group loan guarantees. 3.5.4 The Fairtrade system is also working on enhancing farmers’ access to credit. Fairtrade International in partnership with Incofin Investment Management and the Grameen Foundation has recently launched the Fairtrade Access Fund, a unique investment fund that will provide farmers’ cooperatives and associations with long-term loans to build their businesses. Organisations such as Shared Interest and Oikocredit also play a useful role in this regard.

3.6 Building stronger farmers’ organisations 3.6.1 A core characteristic of Fairtrade is building and strengthening producer organisations in terms of their democratic functioning, transparency and participation of small-scale producers. It results in organisational strengthening principally through enabling producer organisations to achieve greater influence nationally and locally, by improved democracy in decision making and levels of participation, and a greater higher ability to attract other sources of funding. Fairtrade principally results in improved individual empowerment in terms of producer self-confidence, improved market and export knowledge and greater access to training. Fairtrade’s experience of working to empower of individual producers and organisations holds lessons for broader policies to increase farmers’ participation in decisions that affect them. Features of the Fairtrade model are bottom-up, participatory consultation, with producer organisations themselves democratically deciding where to invest the social premiums. 3.6.2 The democratic and independent organisation of small producers is a key element of Fairtrade—firstly to ensure fair and transparent distribution of the Fairtrade premium, and more generally to facilitate long-term processes of sustainable development and empowerment. Fairtrade Standards follow ILO Recommendation R193 on the promotion of co-operatives as a proven model that contributes to the socio-economic development of farming communities. Fairtrade farmer organisations—co-operatives, associations or others—must incorporate co-operative principles including voluntary membership, democratic control, economic participation of members, autonomy and independence, and concern for the community. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w35

3.6.3 Joining together in co-operatives enables farmers to pool resources, beneﬁt from economies of scale and strengthen their position in the market. By working closer with their buyers, Fairtrade co-operatives can learn about quality requirements and consumer needs. They can invest additional income in processing and warehouse facilities to increase their share of the export price, in technical assistance to improve yields, in training cuppers to improve quality, and in skills training and better business methods to improve the efﬁciency of their co-operatives. All of this investment enables co-ops to negotiate higher prices for their members, allowing them to lift themselves out of poverty through trade.

4. The Role of the Private Sector in Building Food Security 4.1 Current international supply chains for most commodities are dominated by transnational corporations, who usually take the lion’s share of value, while small farmers tend to be marginalised and receive low returns for their produce. Governments and business must explore ways to ensure “fair competition” in international supply chains to avoid excessive corporate power undermining small farmers. 4.2 DFID and other international donors are increasingly placing emphasis on the potential of the private sector to support pro-poor growth and investment, and we welcome this, while keen to ensure that the benefits for poverty reduction are clear. At the same time, businesses are increasingly aware of the need to satisfy consumer expectations of ethical and environmentally sustainable products, and the need to incorporate social and environmental considerations into supply chain management beyond that traditionally covered by corporate sustainability policies. This is partly driven by security of supply concerns—that the medium to long term interests of business are not well served by business models which secure cheap prices in the short term but risk leaving cash crop livelihoods unviable. By contrast, social investment through fair pricing and supportive business partnerships has the scope to boost productivity, create attractive livelihoods and communities for smallholders, and encourage sustainable access to produce. 4.3 It is hard to underestimate the role of private business in rural development. Buyers, the first point of sale for smallholder farmers, are key actors in development. Food retailer and trader buying practices impact the lives of smallholder farmers from whom they source produce; some buying practices can facilitate a farming communities’ development while others can undermine poverty alleviation initiatives and trap farmers in poverty. 4.4 The Fairtrade Foundation is in an influential position, at the interface between smallholder famers, businesses, consumers and donors, to explore how the major actors in the supply chain including buyers, can have a greater impact on development on the ground. Its value added is being able to bring the business perspective to the development debate and vice versa. 4.5 Fairtrade’s standards present a framework that businesses comply with when sourcing from smallholder farmers, combined with the brand strength and consumer recognition levels of 78%57 in the UK market, motivates businesses to deepen engagement and help farmers move up the value chain. 4.6 When good practice is undertaken, businesses build long term relationships with producer organisations to build food security in their communities. At scale this effect can be substantially amplified. Responsible business partnerships with smallholder farmers through Fairtrade can dramatically increase productivity (as demonstrated by Tate and Lyle’s partnership with the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association) build sustainable grower communities, add value addition at origin in projects such as the Marks and Spencer/FRICH funded product with Iria-ini tea growers and build producer organisations themselves, for example Cafedirect’s support for the establishment of the CECAQ—11 cooperative in Sao Tome.

5. Focus in Donor Spending 5.1 Earlier in this submission we noted that farmers themselves are the dominant investors in their own farms, and that therefore solutions are less about aid and more about the policy and trading environment. At the same time, well targeted aid is crucial, and investment in agriculture is currently far too low. 5.2 The Fairtrade Foundation is a member of the Enough...If campaign, and supports the Enough If analysis on financing for agriculture. This identifies a US$ 42.7 billion funding gap, of which Enough...If is calling on G8 member states to commit US$21.3 billion. 5.3 We are concerned that many donor initiatives risk focusing on overly-technical solutions, without paying sufficient attention to the “quick wins”. Agricultural extension services, for example, are very poorly supported, despite being essential for the adoption of improved farming methods, or business expertise. It has been estimated for example that less than 2% of Nigerian farmers have access to extension services. 5.4 Women farmers need to be specifically targeted in extension services, subsidy programmes, credit schemes and agricultural research. It has been estimated that if women had the same access to productive resources such as land and inputs as men, they could increase yields on farms by 25–30%. 5.5 Alongside investment in increasing farm productivity, capacity building in marketing, food safety or integrated crop management are also essential. 57 Globescan cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w36 International Development Committee: Evidence

5.6 While welcoming many of the commitments made as part of the New Alliance for Food and Nutrition Security (such as the measures aimed at smallholders including crop insurance) we are concerned that the initiative may risk falling into the trap of underinvestment in low tech but high return elements. We would also welcome greater transparency around the engagement of the various business participants of the New Alliance, and the use to which their contributions to the initiative will be put. We also note that the funding allocated appears very low by comparison with the scale of the challenge as assessed by the FAO.

6. Summary of Key Messages

6.1 The Fairtrade Foundation believes that the following ﬁve points are key to improving the livelihoods and food security of smallholders. The background to these points is explained further in our recent report “Powering Up Smallholder Farmers to Make Food Fair”iii (Fairtrade Foundation, February 2013).

6.2 Farmers first: Increase smallholders’ voice, influence and organisation—where smallholders are organised, they are better able to influence policy, negotiate for better deals, and pool resources to boost productivity and market access.

6.3 Fair share of value: Ensure farmers are empowered in value chains and receive fair prices—enabling farmers to move up the value chain trade their way out of poverty.

6.4 Fair access to ﬁnance: Ensure access to timely and affordable credit—crucial for farmers who wish to invest in their farms and businesses, but are prevented from doing so by poor access to credit.

6.5 Future proofed farming: Prioritise environmentally sustainable agriculture and climate resilience— helping farmers adapt to pressure on natural resources and a changing climate.

6.6 Focus in government funding: increase and target national and donor government spending on agriculture—sufﬁcient investment, targeted towards the real priority needs of smallholder farmers

6.7 In view of the opportunity presented by the forthcoming G8 summit in the UK in June 2013, and the Event on Food and Hunger which will take place alongside the G8, we are also asking the G8 to adopt the above 5 point agenda within future commitments on food and agriculture. March 2013

References i Valerie Nelson and Barry Pound, The Last Ten Years: A comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of Fairtrade, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, September 2009, pp. 6–7 ii “Business must understand how to better work with smallholder farmer to ensure global food security”, 12 May 2012, http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/press_ofﬁce/press_releases_and_statements/may_2012/new_research_ for_world_fair_trade_on_how_to_best_work_with_small_farmers.aspx iii http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2013/F/FT_smallholder%20report_2013_lo-res.pdf

Written evidence submitted by Farm Africa and Self Help Africa

1. Summary

1.1 Farm Africa and Self Help Africa share common strategic objectives of reducing poverty, improving environmental sustainability and developing an economically prosperous rural Africa. Together our work aims to increase the ability of rural Africans to play an active role in local and global supply chains.

1.2 Farm Africa and Self Help Africa believe that the private sector has a signiﬁcant role to play in securing global food security by promoting improved production and generating income for smallholder farmers. We urge the Government to broker this role by promoting partnerships between smallholder farmers and companies; supporting African governments to establish a positive environment for smallholder farmers to access domestic and international markets; and continuing to provide appropriate levels of capital to enable public/private partnership projects to get off the ground (see recommendations in section 4 below).

1.3 We also believe the following should be key questions for the inquiry: — What is the private sector’s potential as a vehicle for scaling up income generation opportunities for smallholder farmers? — What needs to happen to fulﬁl this potential and ensure the greatest beneﬁts to smallholder farmers and their communities? What action is required from governments, donors and NGOs? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w37

— How is the benefit to smallholder farmers measured and what best practice ensures that those benefits are maximised? — How do companies find smallholder farmers who can supply particular goods? Are there challenges and what could make this easier? — How will the UK use its Presidency of the G8 and its position as co-chair of the Leadership Council of the New Alliance for Food and Nutrition to promote more and better partnerships between the private sector and smallholder farmers?

2. Context: Smallholder Farmers and Food Security 2.1 The global food system is facing an unprecedented challenge in meeting anticipated population growth, with forecasts suggesting that food production needs to rise by over 70% over the next 40 years.58 Within Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, the pressures on food supply are even more striking. Chronic hunger, under-nutrition, and persistent poverty have been exacerbated by continuing droughts. Africa’s net food imports are substantial, and growing;59 and the recent surges in global food prices have seen food import bills soar. In Africa, 65% of the population (80% in some countries) rely on smallholder agriculture for their living. While most smallholders own less than two hectares of land, they deliver 90% of the continent’s agricultural production. 2.2 Despite increasing concerns over food security, donor investment in agriculture has actually decreased. Globally, the agricultural share of total ODA decreased from 20% in the 1980s to 4% in mid-2000s and 6% by 2009.60 Agriculture represented only 3.1% of the UK Government’s total ODA in 2009 and 1.4% in 2010.61 Of the top 10 countries receiving bilateral ODA for agriculture from the UK Government, only four were in Africa.62 And Government expenditure on agriculture is also low: in sub-Saharan Africa, the share of Government expenditure on agriculture averaged 3–6% in between 2003 and 2007.63 It was only in the 1980s that the share was close to the Maputo Declaration target of 10%. 2.3 Women smallholders comprise an average of 43% of the agricultural labour force of developing countries (50% in Sub-Saharan Africa).64 Of those women in the least developed countries who report being economically active, 79% identify agriculture as their primary economic activity.65 Yet, despite many communities’ dependence on women to grow food, women often lack access to productive assets such as land, and services like extension services, credit and quality inputs, that can enhance farm productivity. For example, women receive less than 10% of all credit going to smallholder farmers.66 Women farmers could grow 30% more food if they had access to the same resources as men: by helping women farmers boost production, we could reduce global hunger by 150 million people.67 2.4 Extreme weather events such as drought or flooding are likely to become more frequent and they hit the poorest, hardest. Agriculture also contributes to climate change: land use change, principally as a result of deforestation, is responsible for between 12% and 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions68 (in Ethiopia, or example, forest areas decline by 1% each year69 as land is cleared for wood fuel or to plant crops). Fertilisers, ruminant digestion, rice cultivation and fuel use all contribute to green house gas emissions. Innovative and affordable ways to mitigate the effects of climate change, such as drought resistant seeds, or water harvesting and irrigation techniques, are essential if smallholder farmers are to mitigate the impact of the changing climate. Sustainable practices that will reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint are relatively easy to introduce and allow farmers and their communities to become more resilient to climate change challenges and protect natural resources. 2.5 Smallholder farmers’ income has a direct impact on production and ultimately on food security, yet income levels are subject to a variety of constraints. Population increases mean farmers have to cultivate the same land season after season. Fertilisers, or grazing cattle, are required to ensure the land remains productive: fertilisers and cattle cost money. Pest infestations require pesticides to save the crop: pesticides cost money. When the rains are no longer consistent, farmers need to buy improved, drought resistant seeds: improved 58 FAO (2009) “How to Feed the World in 2050.” 59 East Africa’s total food net imports (excluding fish) have risen from $805 million in 2001 to $3.7 billion in 2008 (a 24% year on year increase over the period) (Source: FAOStat) 60 Lowder, S K and Carisma, B (2011). “Financial resource flows to agriculture: A review of data on government spending, official development assistance and foreign direct investment.” ESA Working Paper No. 11–19, Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, December 2011. 61 www.donortracker.org 62 Zimbabwe, Ghana, Rwanda, Malawi (Source: http://www.donortracker.org) 63 Lowder, S K and Carisma, B (2011). “Financial resource flows to agriculture: A review of data on government spending, official development assistance and foreign direct investment.” ESA Working Paper No. 11–19, Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, December 2011. 64 FAO (2011). “The State of Food and Agriculture in 2010–11: Women in Agriculture” 65 FAOSAT quoted in Doss, C (2011). “If women hold up half the sky, how much of the world’s food do they produce?” FAO, March 2011 66 Ibid 67 http://www.gatesfoundation.org/infographics/Pages/women-in-agriculture-info.aspx 68 ODI, Climate Funds Update (November 2012). “Climate Finance Thematic Briefing—REDD+ Finance”. 69 Final Report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change (March 2012), “Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change, Final Report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change” cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w38 International Development Committee: Evidence

seeds cost money. As household income decreases, so too does family labour: young men frequently move to the city to earn cash for the family. Now the farmer needs to hire local labour to help with weeding or harvesting: labour costs money. And smallholder farmers themselves spend days on other people’s farms to earn cash for their families, taking time away from their own farms, potentially missing opportunities to plant seeds before the rains come. Breaking this vicious cycle of poverty is key to increasing smallholder farmer incomes and food security.

2.6 Farm Africa and Self Help Africa believe smallholder farmers are at the heart of the solution to food insecurity. Our work has shown that investing in smallholders not only helps them to lift them and their families directly out of poverty, but helps produce sufficient food for themselves and the wider region. There is potential to scale-up this work to impact global food production. Productivity improvements are vital given the low yields prevalent in much of rural Africa (2 to 3 times lower than global averages). But our experience shows that productivity improvements alone are not sufficient. Demand side solutions are also critical: farmers need to be able to maximise increased production through improved post-harvest technologies and better links to markets. In addition, there is also greater recognition of the importance of markets and the role that the private sector—both multi-nationals and local African enterprises—can play. Long-term change lies in ensuring long- term sustainability by developing value chains, lobbying to change unfavourable trade policies and improving access to finance.

3. The Role of the Private Sector in Improving Smallholders’ Productivity and Incomes

3.1 Smallholder farmers are, of course, already part of the private sector, but recent years have seen growing interest from the international private sector in African farmers as suppliers of goods. The growing African middle class and potential expansion of domestic and regional markets also promise to increase the opportunities for smallholder farmers to benefit from greater market access closer to home. This interest from both international and African companies is reflected in the creation of Grow Africa, which brings together the international private sector, African and donor governments, and the announcement of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition at this year’s G8 Summit. In the latter, individual African and international companies as well as donors identified the ways in which they would be working with or supporting smallholder farmers based on country plans developed by African governments around Pillar II of CAADP.

3.2 The private sector is therefore increasingly seen as a key player in scaling up support to smallholder farmers and providing them with the markets and access to inputs they require to increase their productivity and income. Yet, there remains a gap between the recognition of the importance of the private sector, the development of related policies, and practice on the ground. Greater emphasis must be placed on turning theory into practice.

3.3 The private sector cannot act alone. Action is required by a range of other actors if smallholders are to beneﬁt from the opportunities that expanding supply chains can bring and if private sector actors are to invest: — African governments need to provide the right conditions to encourage domestic and international investment—for example, investing in agriculture and rural infrastructure; implementing policies that encourage smallholders to form cooperatives; taking steps to reduce delays or costs to smallholders; and working with neighbours to promote the expansion of regional trade. — Farmers’ organisations are often vital in bringing together individual farmers so that they can aggregate production and collectively improve access to inputs and markets. — International NGOs can provide expertise and support for the development of supply chains and to help farmers and farmer organisations reach the standards required by companies for their supply chains. — Private and public donors, investors and regional trade structures can provide the “patient capital” (both in terms of ﬁnance and the appropriate environment) necessary to get projects off the ground.

3.4 Self Help Africa and Farm Africa both work to help smallholder farmers to access supply chains: — Farm Africa has been supporting smallholder farmers in Ethiopia to supply Diageo’s Meta Brewery with barley. Earlier this year, Ethiopia’s Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) prioritised barley as one of the country’s key value chains and Diageo pledged to source an initial 1,000 metric tonnes of malt barley locally from smallholder farmers. Farm Africa played a key role in supporting smallholder farmers to negotiate and secure their contracts with the Meta Brewery, as well as using research and knowledge to increase productivity and quality. Having a trusted partner on-the-ground (Farm Africa) has been vital to both Diageo and ATA and the pilot project has yielded important lessons for the government, for Diageo and for private sector engagement in agriculture more generally. Diageo eventually want to source 20,000MT of barley per year in Ethiopia, and advance contracting will be a key pillar of the ATA’s “Barley Roadmap”. There is clearly potential for scale-up and replication of this supply chain model. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w39

— Self Help Africa has an initiative for cashew value chain development working in Benin alliance with the private sector. The cashew sector presents huge potential for growth in Benin. With approximately 200,000 smallholders engaged in cashew nut, yields are remarkably low at just 120,000 tonnes, of which only 5% is processed in country. This initiative has started by working with 1,000 smallholders to increase the quality and quantity of cashew yields by improving farmers’ skills, organisational capacity and access to markets. The initiative has three key private sector partners: PepsiCo as investor and ultimate market buyer; Tolaro Global as the processor and which has recently opened a factory in Parakou; and DREDAS as the local partner with many years’ experience working with cashew producers in the area. Self Help Africa played an initial brokerage role and is overseeing project implementation and capacity building. Self Help Africa aims to use the project to document and disseminate scalable, proven good practices for integrating farmers into value chains.

3.5 Farm Africa and Self Help Africa are also both members of the African Smallholder Farmers Group of UK NGOs. We are working with other members of this group to look at what factors contribute to smallholder farmers’ ability to increase their income through access to markets and entrepreneurship. Self Help Africa, Practical Action, CAFOD and Christian Aid have formed a steering group that has commissioned research into what factors are most important in enabling farmers to successfully beneﬁt from market access. One of the aims of this research is to feed into the development of the “Doing Business in Agriculture Index” being developed by the World Bank, as referenced in the text launching the New Alliance for Food and Nutrition at this year’s G8.

4. The Way Forward—Recommendations

4.1 If the UK government wants to ensure that the private sector plays a positive role in promoting improved production and income generation for smallholders, enabling them to ensure their own food security, it should: — Support African governments in generating a positive environment for smallholders to access domestic and international markets. It should also support the development of a Doing Business in Agriculture Index by the World Bank that includes factors relevant to small-scale producers. — Support or promote mechanisms that enable more successful partnerships to be formed between smallholder farmers and those domestic and international companies looking to integrate them into their supply chains. This should include facilitating access to knowledge, support services, markets and investment. — Build on the work they are already doing through the African Enterprise Challenge Fund and the New Alliance, to provide capital to enable projects to get off the ground. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Food Ethics Council

Summary

1. The central priority for successful efforts to reduce hunger and improve food security must be to tackle the social injustice that pervades all aspects of the food system.

2. The governance of agricultural research needs to be revised to ensure that small-scale producers have a fair say in decisions on priorities that will shape their opportunities for years to come.

3. There is a sufﬁcient body of evidence on the relationship between food price volatility and speculation on food commodities to warrant further regulation of that speculation.

Introduction—The Food Ethics Council

4. The Food Ethics Council is a charity that provides independent advice on the ethics of food and farming. Our aim is to create a food system that is fair and healthy for people and the environment. In pursuit of this aim we: — Research and analyse ethical issues. — Mediate between stakeholders. — Develop tools for ethical decision-making. — Act as honest brokers in policy and public debate.

5. The 13 members of the Food Ethics Council are all leaders in their relevant ﬁelds, and appointed as individuals. They bring a broad range of expertise to our work, from academic research through to practical knowledge of farming, business and policy. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w40 International Development Committee: Evidence

Social Justice and Global Food Security 6. The Food Ethics Council’s core response to the issues raised by this inquiry is that success of the global food system in securing long-term food security is fundamentally dependent upon addressing the severe social injustice that pervades all aspects of the food system. In elaborating upon this underlying assessment, our submission draws heavily on the findings of our Food and Fairness Inquiry, a two-year investigation into social injustice in the domestic and global food system.70 The inquiry was conducted by a committee representing all perspectives within the food sectors—senior food industry figures, academics, public officials and civil society campaigners. 7. The world currently produces more than enough food to feed the population, but around a billion people are still living in hunger. This doesn’t mean that measures to increase food production and productivity have no place in addressing global food insecurity—they clearly do—but it does mean that the central priority for successful efforts to reduce hunger and improve food security must be to tackle inequality. One important point about the relationship between production levels and social justice is that measures to increase supply (and thereby make food more affordable for poor people) can actually have the opposite of the desired effect—in fact pushing new people into poverty. By and large, the rapid increase in production has come from industrialisation in agriculture, based on capital-intensive inputs such as high-yielding varieties of seed, fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation systems. Since it is only larger producers who can afford the necessary investments or have access to sufficient credit, this trend leaves small-scale farmers at a disadvantage. As the majority of poor people in poor countries depend on small-holder agriculture—the poorest two billion people depend on 500 million smallholders—this can jeopardise rural incomes and increase vulnerability to hunger. 8. When hunger exists in the midst of highly productive commodity agriculture, it provides a stark illustration of this problem. The commodities in question are not only food crops but also, increasingly, biofuels and animal feed. Our Food and Fairness Inquiry considered evidence showing how meat consumption in rich countries is contributing to an expanding soy industry in Paraguay, with severe adverse consequences for local food security, farmers’ livelihoods and the environment. Land and food that had been used for direct human consumption is instead turned to food and fuel for consumption by wealthier economies. 9. These inequalities of outcome—including hunger—are underpinned and compounded by inequalities of opportunity. When we published the report of the Food and Fairness Inquiry in 2010, there were 1.3 billion small-scale farmers globally, most of whom were poor. Evidence submitted to the inquiry showed that the livelihoods of these poor farmers are threatened by constraints on the opportunity to produce, in the form of restricted or unequal access to the resources need to farm, and to markets for their products. We heard then how “land grabbing” was already exacerbating this inequality of access—a problem which has of course escalated in the last two or three years. 10. Regarding access to markets, for many small-scale producers, domestic and regional markets will be the most realistic and important destination, so measures to improve the functioning of these markets and to address issues around terms of trade assume a high priority. Improving the functioning of markets would have the significant added advantage of helping to reduce post-harvest food waste, which is another crucial element in progress towards global food security. The Government’s Foresight Report on Global Food and Farming Futures showed that grain losses vary from 10–25% in Asian, African and South American countries; while losses from perishable crops are typically in the range of 30–40%. The use of information and communication technology to “improve market information and allow producers to make better decisions about timely supply to markets to achieve best prices, avoiding or at least reducing gluts and produce waste” is one of the report’s recommendations for reducing levels of post-harvest waste.71 Other recommendations, such as financial support for smallholders to enable them to store produce rather than selling when prices are lowest, would have similar dual-benefits in terms of waste reduction and improved food security. 11. Production for export is also an important option, however, and there are significant constraints on small producers’ access to global markets. In effect, food markets globally make increasing demands on producers to operate at a large scale. Supermarkets require their suppliers to provide large volumes of produce at a low price, with the flexibility required for just-in-time delivery, and in line with a wide range of quality standards. Meeting these standards requires sophisticated systems for implementation and control, and entails costly documentation and certification processes. These are requirements that, to a great extent, large organisations are best placed to satisfy, though retailers do provide some support to help smaller producers overcome the obstacles they face in meeting these standards. The overall effect is that price and standard pressures have pushed smaller-scale producers and processors out of the market across all sectors: meat and dairy; horticulture and fruit. 12. Our more recent Beyond Business As Usual report (published in January 2013)—which explored how government and business can work more effectively together in pursuit of a sustainable food system—also considered the potential for companies to promote fairness and environmental sustainability through their supply chain relationships.72 By working to develop long-term relationships with their suppliers, retailers can 70 Food Ethics Council, Food Justice: The Report of the Food and Fairness Inquiry, 2010 71 Government Office for Science, Foresight Report on Global Food and Farming Futures: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability, 2011; pp. 92–96. 72 Food Ethics Council, Beyond Business As Usual: Towards a Sustainable Food System, 2013. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w41

help to secure suppliers’ economic sustainability, and can also give suppliers the assurance and confidence to invest in more sustainable production practices, and in training and developing their workforce. Also, the recognition that sustainable supply chains need to be founded on sustainable communities means that businesses are recognising the need to invest in the wider social and environmental well-being of the communities from which they source, rather than just in the well-being of their workforce. Despite the important progress that has been made in developing these long-term relationships, however, the fact remains that some players are able to make excessive margins thanks both to their disproportionate power, and the lack of transparency about respective margins along the supply chain. Among other things, greater transparency about respective profit margins would enable people to promote social justice for poor country producers by making more informed purchasing decisions. The approach pioneered by French organisation Alter Eco—which gives a breakdown of profit distribution along their products’ supply chains on the product packaging—provides a possible model for how this can be done.

13. The third social justice perspective that we considered in the Food and Fairness Inquiry—in addition to equality of outcomes and of opportunities—was “autonomy and voice”: that is, the ability of people and communities to influence the decisions and policies that matter to them. Again we found significant problems with direct implications for food security. Smallholders and peasants in poor countries have very limited influence on decisions about the regulation of food and farming systems. Small-scale farmers are comparatively neglected and marginalised in policy-making processes, not least because they have little or no access to resources for political lobbying.

Agricultural Research

14. In addition to these general points about the relationship between social justice and food security, our recent work has considered a number of more speciﬁc issues that fall within the remit of this Inquiry. One of these is agricultural research, which is an area of policy and decision-making that has signiﬁcant potential to alleviate the resource constraints facing small-scale producers and to promote food security. It can increase productivity by marginal producers, facilitate sustainable farming and help people gain secure livelihoods. The challenge of feeding a growing population means that there is currently an unprecedented need for coordinated and effective agricultural research. It is crucial to food security that small-scale producers have a fair say in decisions on priorities for agricultural research that will shape their opportunities for years to come.

15. However, the balance of agricultural research spending at the global level has been shifting from the public to the private sector, constraining opportunities for small-scale producers to participate in decision- making. Public spending on agricultural research has declined in recent times, including in research and development around productivity. Private sector agricultural research spending is focused on the most lucrative markets, which generally means farmers with capital or credit and access to markets, not smallholders on the margins of the global food system. This has led to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)—the most comprehensive review to date of the challenges and opportunities in improving food security globally—to conclude there is “a gap in research and technology that is relevant to the poorest”.73

16. Correcting this is not simply a matter of increased public spending on agricultural research. In order to ensure that publicly funded research serves the public good, decision-making processes must be accountable. This includes promoting participatory research and rural development (speciﬁcally by making the participation of small-scale producers a condition for most new public investment in research to promote food security).

Price Spikes and Volatility, and Food Price Speculation

17. Several of the causal factors behind the recent food price spikes are uncontested: bad harvests; high oil prices; growing international demand for meat and dairy products; export bans; and a policy-driven demand for biofuels. The contribution of speculation in commodity markets to both price spikes and wider price volatility is more contentious, although there is a substantial body of opinion that claims that speculation has indeed been a significant contributory factor—including, for example, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. The Food Ethics Council’s approach to this issue takes as its starting point the view that, due to the many complex factors that can affect both food prices and financial markets, it is unlikely that there will ever be a definite answer to the question about the relationship between commodity speculation and food price volatility.

18. This uncertainty does not, however, lead to an impasse as to whether to place restrictions on “food speculation”. Given that there is a strong possibility that speculation impacts upon price volatility, and given that this volatility has signiﬁcant adverse implications for the food security of large numbers of vulnerable people, then that constitutes a strong argument for increased regulation on food speculation. On the basis of this “precautionary principle”, then, regulation should be introduced in case there is a causal relationship between speculation and price volatility. 73 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Agriculture at a crossroads, 2009; pp. 16–17. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w42 International Development Committee: Evidence

19. It is also important to recognise that while food price volatility is likely to increase over the coming years, it also seems certain that there will be an overall upward trend in prices. This assessment is based on a number of factors, including: the rising costs of inputs, global population growth, changes in diets in major emerging economies, depletion of ﬁnite resources, and the various effects of climate change. It is, of course, the world’s poorest people who are most vulnerable to the effects of this ongoing rise in the price of food.

Food Consumption in Rich Countries 20. We noted above how demand for meat in rich countries has a dramatic effect on land use in poor countries, with severe adverse consequences for local food security, farmers’ livelihoods and the environment. Measures to address domestic (UK) demand for meat and dairy products therefore have a significant role to play in promoting global food security—both by allowing farmers to use the land to produce food for local consumption and for export, and by reducing the environmental impact of our consumption of livestock products. 21. The Food Ethics Council has been working with WWF-UK to try and find ways of making the evident need to reduce meat and dairy consumption in high meat-consuming countries like the UK politically acceptable—given the wholly legitimate concerns of domestic producers and processors about the impact of a crude “eat less meat” message. In our recent joint report, Prime cuts: Valuing the meat we eat, we make a series of recommendations about how a “less but better” message could provide a way of squaring this circle, and support a transition to less but better meat consumption and production. 22. Another relevant aspect of food consumption in the UK, and other rich countries, is the level of waste. The most recent figures from the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) show that UK households waste about 20% of the food and drink they buy.74 This represents an important reduction in the level of household food waste over the last few years. However, in the context of global food security, there is clear obligation to achieve further, significant reductions. This is partly an ethical issue about the unacceptability of wasting food when so many of the world’s population are starving; but there is also practical element— reducing food waste will reduce the environmental impact of our food consumption, and thereby contribute to achieving long-term global food security. March 2013

Written evidence submitted by Friends of the Earth Introduction 1. Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland is the UK’s most inﬂuential environmental campaigning organisation. We are a unique network of campaigning local groups working in over 200 communities throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 2. We are a member of the Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 74 national member groups. 3. Friends of the Earth welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Commons Select Committee’s inquiry into global food security. Sustainable food production and consumption have been key campaigning issues for Friends of the Earth for more than 40 years.

Summary—A Crisis of Consumption, not a Crisis of Production 4. Fears of shortages, almost a billion hungry and sharply rising food prices for the third time in four years. You’d be forgiven for thinking that the world is running out of food. But the truth is we produce more than enough food to feed the world. The problem is ensuring a fair distribution of food supplies, resources and land to allow enough nutritional food for everyone without destroying the planet’s natural resources. 5. “We have the resources to guarantee food security for all, today and in four decades from now.” FAO Director General José Graziano da Silva February 2012. 6. As the UN High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on food security and nutrition put it recently: “We don’t have a crisis of production. We have a crisis of consumption.”75 7. Friends of the Earth believes that it is the global industrialised nature of our food economy which lies at the heart of the problem. Countries around the world have been encouraged to rely on exported production largely to feed high levels of consumption in the industrialised countries at the expense of local food sufﬁciency, leaving them vulnerable to sudden changes in price. They have also been forced to open up their markets to cheap highly subsidised food from the EU and US. Many food and feed exporting countries are not beneﬁting from the current high prices because they are dependent on expensive imported food to feed their own 74 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/new-estimates-household-food-and-drink-waste-uk 75 HLPE, Webinar: What’s Causing Higher and More Volatile Food Prices Around the World? 12 September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w43

population. Meanwhile, corporate control over the food system has risen with biotechnology and agribusinesses reporting record proﬁts while millions are starving.76

8. Friends of the Earth advocates that: — It is crucial to address the role of more sustainable diets, starting with the high level of consumption of livestock products in industrialised countries. — We need policy incentives (for example from CAP reform) for more protein animal feed and mixed farming systems in the UK to replace the demand for overseas protein. — The diversion of land and water resources towards crop-based biofuels must be ended. — Public investment should be redirected away from industrial, high-input and intensive agriculture towards small-scale sustainable agriculture that stimulates rural development and local markets. — Speculation in commodity markets must be ended. — Land grabbing must be stopped and governments must provide the conducive climate to encourage farmers to invest, including secure tenure rights, fair trading systems and providing infrastructure and extension systems. — International food system governance must be strengthened, particularly the role of the UN Committee on World Food Security. — Agricultural techniques—such as agroecology—that renew, recycle and preserve natural resources, mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty must receive more support.

Sustainable Diets

9. In assessing how to best make use of our food resources, it is crucial to address the role of diet, starting with the high level of consumption of livestock products in industrialised countries. This competes with crop production for land and is a key cause of increasing consumption of grain and oilseeds. The production and consumption of livestock products is a driving force behind deforestation and environmental instability in agriculture. What we eat and how it is produced are crucial factors in assessing our use of land and available soils.

10. Growing demand for meat—the FAO expects meat production to double by 205077—is increasing demand for vegetable proteins and grain for animal feed, which is depriving humans of vital food supplies. A report for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2009 calculated that reducing meat consumption in the industrialised world and balancing it worldwide to the 2000 level of 37.4 kg/capita in 2050 would free an estimated 400 million tons of cereal per year for human consumption—enough to cover the annual calorie need for 1.2 billion people.78

11. The expansion of land use to produce feeds and pasture is also causing signiﬁcant greenhouse gas emissions and seriously damaging biodiversity and vital water and soil structures.79

12. Although availability of good agricultural land is limited, our recent study Eating the Planet finds that feeding the world in 2050 is possible without the most intensive forms of animal and crop production or a massive expansion of agricultural land if developed countries adopt healthier, lower-meat diets and food is distributed more equally. In addition, the report finds that sufficient food can be provided in 2050 without further deforestation, through robust policy intervention.80 A follow up report on diets found that adopting a lower meat diet in the UK could prevent 45,000 early deaths and save the NHS £1.2 billion each year.81

13. We also need to grow more feed in the UK to replace our demand for overseas protein and land which should be used to feed local people. Our recent report Pastures New,82 outlines how we can directly replace 50% of soy meal currently used for animal feed with home grown alternatives, if the right incentives were in place. The on-going reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is vital to get these incentives— incorporating crop rotations with legumes (proteins) into Pillar 1 of the CAP would provide a steady source of UK protein, lowering costs for farmers and significantly reducing our global “land footprint” and negative impact on food security.83 76 Grain, 2008. Making a killing from hunger—http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=39 77 http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/home.html 78 Nellemann, C et al (Eds). February 2009. The environmental food crisis—The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal http://www.grida.no/files/ publications/FoodCrisis_lores.pdf 79 Friends of the Earth, 2008. What’s feeding our food? 80 Friends of the Earth & Compassion in World Farming, 2009. Eating the planet? 81 Healthy Planet Eating, Friends of the Earth 2010, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/healthy_planet_eating.pdf 82 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/pastures_new.pdf 83 Crop Rotations Benefiting farmers, the environment and the economy, Friends of the Earth et al, 2012 http://www.foeeurope.org/ sites/default/files/briefing_crop_rotation_june2012.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w44 International Development Committee: Evidence

Food not Fuel The drive to grow crops for biofuels means that less land is available for food, reducing supply and pushing up prices.84 Food and feed crops, such as maize, wheat and soy, are being used to create ethanol and biodiesel, ensuring direct competition between feeding people and fuelling cars. 14. Food prices are dependent on several interrelated factors that affect supply and demand, including: the weather, oil prices, national trade and export policies/bans, financial speculation, income growth, grain stock levels/inventories and biofuels. 15. There has been much debate and research on the role the increased uptake of biofuels is playing on food price rises and volatility. Although they vary in methodology, time scales, crops and geographical regions, the vast majority of studies conclude that biofuels are increasing food prices. As the UN Committee on World Food Security says, “After some initial debate, hardly anybody today contests the fact that biofuel production was a major factor in the recent food price increases”.85 16. Ten of the world’s biggest and most influential international institutions including the World Bank, OECD and the WTO have concluded that food prices are “substantially higher than they would be if no biofuels were produced”86 and that this impact is so damaging that governments should scrap biofuel targets and mandates: “G20 governments [should] remove provisions of current national policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or consumption.” IFAD, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, World Bank, WTO87 17. The expansion of land used for biofuel crops also causes deforestation, exacerbating climate change and vulnerability in agriculture. As many countries move to adopt even higher mandates for biofuel use—wrongly seen as a way of tackling climate change—this pressure on food supplies and prices will grow. In some cases, agricultural land in developing countries is being used to grow fuel for the West instead of food to feed the population locally.88 18. Friends of the Earth is calling for ending the use of food crops for biofuels and for the focus instead to be on doubling vehicle efficiency and reducing demand for fuel.

Speculation 19. Food prices have risen sharply for the third time in four years, with the price rises prompting the UN Food and Agriculture Agency to claim that the world may be on the brink of a major new food crisis caused by environmental disasters and rampant market speculators. 20. The sudden price hikes, which follow years of falling prices for agricultural produce, are a result of rising demand combined with falling supply of key crops and an increase since 2005 in speculation in commodity markets. US and European demand for crops for biofuels is competing with the demand for animal feed crops to produce meat for western consumption and increasing consumer demand in emerging economies. Poor harvests in countries hit by drought (possibly a result of climate change) have also affected supplies, while rising oil prices have pushed up fertiliser and transport costs. 21. These material factors are exacerbated by large speculative investments in commodity markets. These investments turn what are longer term trends into sudden and damaging price spikes, driving up prices for both farmers and consumers and creating economic and food insecurity. Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, has recently stated that much of the recent increase in the price and volatility of food commodities is due to a “speculative bubble”.89 22. The UK and EU must take immediate steps to end damaging speculation in commodity markets. The World Development Movement is calling for both parties to require all deals on food derivatives to go through a central, transparent clearing house and to impose tough limits on commodity speculation by banks and hedge funds who are not part of the real food economy.90

New Technologies and Agricultural Investment 23. Tackling the food crisis means recognising that some of the solutions currently being put forward will not feed the world and will exacerbate hunger, poverty and climate change. 84 Food not fuel: agrofuels, food prices and hunger, Friends of the Earth International, 2012, http://www.foei.org/en/resources/ publications/pdfs/2012/food-not-fuel-agrofuels-food-prices-and-hunger-1 85 Price volatility and food security, The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, July 2011 http://www.fao.org/ ﬁleadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE-price-volatility-and-food-security-report-July-2011.pdf 86 Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses June 2011, FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF http://www.oecd.org/trade/agriculturaltrade/48152638.pdf 87 Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses June 2011, FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF http://www.oecd.org/trade/agriculturaltrade/48152638.pdf 88 Africa Up For Grabs, Friends of the Earth Europe, http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/FoEE_Africa_up_for_grabs_2010.pdf 89 Olivier de Schutter, Food Commodities Speculation and Food Price Crises http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/ otherdocuments/20102309_brieﬁng_note_02_en.pdf 90 http://www.wdm.org.uk/food-speculation cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w45

24. Investment in agriculture is urgently needed, but it must be investment in the right agricultural methods that help to feed the world sustainably. 25. GM crops do not address hunger or poverty. Instead they risk diverting resources away from food for the hungriest and exacerbating the problems brought about by intensive agriculture. 26. The recent International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report revealed that there was no conclusive evidence that GM crops have increased yields.91 Recent studies have shown that GM soya beans suffer from “yield drag”, resulting in a 5–10% reduction in yields.92 Contrary to claims by the biotech industry, no GM crops modified to increase yields or resist droughts are on, or even close to being on, the market. 27. Instead crops have been modified to be resistant to insect pests and tolerant to herbicides, resulting in a dramatic increase in the use of chemicals to deal with weeds that develop resistance to the chemicals over time.93 GM crops have been used for more intensive production methods by big companies, mainly to produce animal feed, at the expense of local farmers and the natural environment. 28. Often factory farming is posited as a solution to feeding the world as it supposedly produces more food for less money. However, factory farming has a high social and environmental cost that undermines these claims. 29. Most of the animal breeds used in factory farming are specifically bred to produce massive yields of meat and dairy. This is only possible with huge amounts of high protein feed, such as soy.94 The UK imports over one million tons of soy per year,95 with 40% coming from South America. The demand for cheap high protein feed is fuelling both deforestation and the displacement of local communities,96 neither of which are figured into the final farm gate price. 30. As noted by the IAASTD, shifting to sustainable farming will mean investing in research and development to help farmers make the best use of farmland and water resources. This means modern farming will be used to enhance local traditional knowledge, while protecting people’s right to determine their own food production systems. 31. According to the IAASTD report: “systems are needed that enhance sustainability while maintaining productivity in ways that protect the natural resource base and ecological provisioning of agricultural systems.”97 32. This will require new research and investment at an international level to help the world’s poorest countries move away from the industrial farming methods that have been forced on them. International institutions such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) can play a role in this. Public funding currently directed towards large-scale industrial monoculture, via the World Bank and other international financial institutions, should be redirected towards small-scale sustainable agriculture that stimulates rural development and local markets. Priority should be given to producing for local consumption and regional trade, rather than export. 33. A more equitable and sustainable farming pattern must attach greater importance to protecting biodiversity and must recognise land rights, which have often been cast aside in the race towards industrial agriculture.

Land Grabbing and Access to Land for Small Scale Food Producers 34. Access to land and security of tenure are essential to achieve the right to food and food security for the approximately one billion hungry people, the majority of whom are small scale food producers themselves. They are hungry not because their model of food production is not viable, but rather because the prices they receive for their produce are too low, decades of marginalisation in policy making and research and because for many years they have been encouraged to produce cash crops for export markets rather than food crops for local consumption. This is compounded by years of highly unequal land distribution which means many of the rural poor either farm on marginal, tiny plots or are landless.98 Increasingly, vast areas of global farmland are providing for high consuming western populations and increasingly, elites in developing countries. 35. Since 2008, this existing inequality has been intensified by “land grabbing”—where governments, private investors and corporations are taking control of vast areas of land from local communities and small scale food producers. There are many reasons for the rise in land grabbing—the largest number are for food exports and 91 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, 2008. Agriculture at the crossroads 92 http://www.globaluncertainties.org.uk/ 93 http://www.cgiar.org/ 94 Compassion in World Farming, 2009. Beyond Factory Farming 95 Friends of the Earth, 2010. Pastures New 96 Friends of the Earth, 2010, From Forest to Fork 97 http://www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_Press_Release_final.doc 98 UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food—Access to Land http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20101021_ access-to-land-report_en.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w46 International Development Committee: Evidence

biofuels, but there are also land grabs to access water sources, for carbon storage projects and for ﬁnancial speculation.99 36. Multiple studies and reports have exposed that shifts in control over land and its resources has resulted in severe food insecurity, loss of livelihoods and environmental damage from conversion of forests and low input systems to plantations and high input industrial agriculture.100,101 37. Some international institutions and governments believe that land deals, if conducted properly, can reduce hunger and poverty and provide much needed investment in agriculture. Yet this is completely contradicted by the evidence. 38. Overwhelmingly investors are targeting poorer countries with weak land tenure security—largely poor countries in Africa. Sixty-six% of land acquired is from countries that have above average hunger combined with a high share of GDP from agriculture. But almost two thirds of the crops produced are for possible non- food use. This is not all. In many cases, export is the principal aim of the production, domestic markets are of marginal concern. 39. A clear and ugly picture emerges. Investors are looking for countries with cheap and easy access to land to give them high returns and export food. But these countries are the most at risk of hunger. The dependence of the poor in these countries on agriculture means few other jobs are available. The largest share of land acquired is from forested land—24% of all deals and 31% of their total area.102 40. The narrative that foreign private investment in agriculture and land is necessary also needs to be examined. The latest State of Agriculture report from the FAO shows that farmers themselves are by far the largest investors in agriculture. Data from the report shows that farmers in low- and middle-income countries invest more than $170 billion a year in their farms. This is three times as much as all other sources of investment combined, four times more than contributions by the public sector, and more than 50 times more than ofﬁcial development assistance to these countries.103 41. Therefore it is clear that the most important type of investment to consider in addressing food security and agricultural growth is those by farmers themselves rather than those by other actors including agribusinesses and foreign investment funds. It is vital to ensure that governments can provide the most conducive climate to encourage farmers to invest. This includes secure tenure rights, fair trading systems and providing infrastructure and extension systems.

International Food System Governance 42. There are a multitude of bodies, initiatives and institutions which have attempted to address hunger and the food crisis—from the World Trade Organisation to the G8. Yet many of them have not been able to show real leadership or political will to make the changes necessary. Many of these are also fragmented, unaccountable and dominated by a few rich private or rich country interests.104 In this context the reform of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) establishes a space in which the causes of the failure of global food governance can be addressed by all actors concerned. The CFS is the central body for international collaboration on food security. The roles of CFS are: — Coordination at global level initially and over time also at national and regional levels. — Policy convergence. — Support and advice to countries and regions. — Over time to increasingly also promote accountability and share best practices at all levels by developing mechanisms to monitor progress toward objectives. 43. The CFS is a unique, democratic, multi-stakeholder and legitimate and democratic space for global governance of the world’s food system. It includes a space for governments, civil society, the private sector and donors.105

Climate Change, the Environment and Models of Agriculture 44. Climate change and the energy crisis have shown that a food system based on the intensive use of petrol products and chemicals is not sustainable. But climate change is not the only problem. Industrial agriculture 99 GRAIN Seized: The 2008 landgrab for food and financial security www.grain.org/article/entries/93-seized-the-2008-landgrab- for-food-and-financial-security 100 Land Rights and the rush for land ILC http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/publication/1205/ILC%20GSR%20report_ ENG.pdf 101 Land and Power: The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments in land OXFAM http://policy- practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/land-and-power-the-growing-scandal-surrounding-the-new-wave-of-investments-in-l-142858 102 Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix Database http://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdf 103 The State of Food and Agriculture 2012 http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/en/ 104 Global Governance for World Food Security: A Scorecard Four Years After the Eruption of the “Food Crisis” Heinrich-Böll Foundation http://acuns.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Global-Governance-for-World-Food-Security.pdf 105 Committee on World Food Security, Reform of the Committee on World Food Security. CFS:2009/2 Rev.2. Rome: FAO, 2009, p2. www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs0910/ReformDoc/CFS_2009_2_Rev_2_E_K7197.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w47

practises have resulted in a quarter of soils globally being degraded, a biodiversity crisis, severe water scarcity and a broken nitrogen cycle which is leading to massive climate emissions from fertilizer use, pollution from nitrogen overload in intensive systems and soil depletion. Therefore it is vital that we support agricultural techniques that renew, recycle and preserve natural resources rather than just maintain them.

45. Agro-ecological methods of production have the best chances of tackling the environmental and social challenges of food production, while increasing yields. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, “Agroecology seeks ways to enhance agricultural systems by mimicking natural processes, thus creating beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of the agroecosystem. It provides the most favourable soil conditions for plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and by raising soil biotic activity. The core principles of agroecology include recycling nutrients and energy on the farm, rather than introducing external inputs; integrating crops and livestock; diversifying species and genetic resources in agroecosystems over time and space; and focusing on interactions and productivity across the agricultural system, rather than focusing on individual species. Agroecology is highly knowledge-intensive, based on techniques that are not delivered top-down but developed on the basis of farmers’ knowledge and experimentation.” He also finds that, “Agroecology, if sufficiently supported, can double food production in entire regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.”106

46. Several reports from the UN have shown that agro-ecology can double yields and provide a sustainable way out of hunger and poverty for many.

47. Yet a recent analysis of major donors in agriculture including the UK Department for International Development revealed that it has provided hundreds of millions of pounds of funding to technology-led solutions to the food crisis such as advanced genetics and precious little funding for agro-ecology.107 December 2012

Written evidence submitted by The Hunger Alliance

1. The Hunger Alliance—a UK-based DFID-NGO coalition comprising of ActionAid, Action Against Hunger, CARE International UK, Christian Aid, Concern, Save the Children (UK), and others—welcomes this Inquiry. New research for the Hunger Alliance by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)108 on sustainable smallholder agriculture’s contribution to better nutrition (attached)—drawing on evidence from Bangladesh, Tanzania, Ghana, Zambia and India—contains new evidence on the importance of supporting this type of agriculture for improving food security and nutrition outcomes.

2. The current global food system is hampering the realization of the right to adequate food, as enshrined in international law, of 852 million people. In poor countries, 15% of the population in developing countries is undernourished,109 and over 30% of the world’s population suffers from micronutrient deﬁciencies, or “hidden hunger”—especially vitamin A, iodine, zinc and iron.110

3. Despite some progress, undernutrition remains the single largest risk factor contributing to the global burden of disease across Africa.111 More than 170 million children under ﬁve in poor countries were stunted due to chronic malnutrition in 2010, equivalent to 26% of children worldwide,112 and childhood malnutrition is the underlying cause of death in an estimated 35% of all deaths among children under ﬁve.113 This undernutrition not only affects children’s healthy physical development, it also undermines their cognitive development and therefore their future potential.

4. Specifically this new research finds: firstly, that female empowerment in agriculture improves child nutrition; secondly that low-input homestead gardens and small-scale livestock rearing are powerful instruments in providing micronutrients and ensuring access to healthy and diverse diets; thirdly that agricultural interventions are most effective when integrated with improved maternal public health and nutrition education, better dietary, water and sanitation strategies, social protection, and an explicit focus on women’s rights and women’s empowerment; and fourthly that biofortification of specific food has the potential to yield nutritional benefits. 106 OHCHR, Eco-farming can double food production in 10 years, says new UN report, www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/press_ releases/20110308_agroecology-report-pr_en.pdf and Human Rights Council, Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. A/HRC/16/49. UN, 2010, p6. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/178/ 49/PDF/G1017849.pdf 107 A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? An analysis of the “sustainable intensification” of agriculture http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2012/a-wolf-in-sheep2019s-clothing-an-analysis-of-the-2018sustainable- intensification2019-of-agriculture/view 108 Wiggins, S and S.Sharada (2013). Smallholder agriculture’s contribution to better nutrition, (London: ODI) forthcoming 109 FAO (2012). State of food insecurity in the world, Rome: FAO 110 FAO (2012). Combating micronutrient deficiencies: Food-based approaches, p30, Rome: FAO 111 FAO (2012). State of food insecurity in the world, Rome: FAO 112 FAO (2012). State of food insecurity in the world, Rome: FAO 113 WHO (2012). Global health observatory (GHO) data repository (available at www.who.int/gho.en/) cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w48 International Development Committee: Evidence

5. To overcome undernutrition in food insecurity, DFID should: 5.1 support policies and programmes that support small-scale environmentally sustainable agriculture systems and ensure a firm understanding of where financial support for agriculture is being spent. 5.2 Specifically, within such support, DFID should prioritise women smallholders and tackle gender discrimination, empowering women and girls through education; back sustainable smallholder- based agricultural interventions such as homestead gardens and small livestock rearing; accompany investments in agriculture with support in complimentary sectors: primary healthcare, water, sanitation, social protection, health, hygiene and nutrition; monitor progress on the biofortification of staples and the nutritional impacts on the most marginalized farmers. 5.3 Focus on women to overcome disparities in practices including access to markets, inputs, insurance and finance and land and water bodies. 5.4 Use the opportunities surrounding this year’s G8 to re-emphasise support for the Scaling Up Nutrition movement and to ensure improved monitoring, accountability and integration of CAADP, SUN and other initiatives. 5.5 Ensure that support for smallholder agriculture is environmentally sustainable and prioritises mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. 20 March 2013

Written evidence submitted by Professor Lawrence Haddad, Director, Institute of Development Studies (IDS) An Overview of IDS’ Work on Global Food Security Food insecurity is a pressing global challenge. The causes of food insecurity are complex and the integrated approach required to effectively tackle the problem is often lacking. IDS’s research on food seeks to inform and shape current policy debates on developing a joined up response to delivering greater food security and justice for all. IDS has recently led the production of the report Social Protection for Food Security (http://bit.ly/MWlLg0), which was commissioned by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. IDS Director Lawrence Haddad is the UK representative on the UN Committee on World Food Security’s High Level Panel of Experts. He was also one of the Lead Experts on the UK Government’s Foresight Project on the Future of Food and Farming. IDS also hosts the Future Agricultures Consortium (http://www.future-agricultures.org/) and the Adaptive Social Protection in the Context of Agriculture and Food Security programme (http://www.ids.ac.uk/project/ adaptive-social-protection) and is a member of DFID funded nutrition research consortia Transform Nutrition (http://www.transformnutrition.org/) and Linking Agriculture and Nutrition in South Asia. The Institute is also undertaking work that explores the complex causes underlying the global problem of food insecurity including food price spikes, fair access to land and water and the impact of climate change. IDS has also been exploring the role of the private sector in increasing the availability and access to food through investments in agriculture and working in partnership with GAIN and USAID (agriculture value chains for nutrition), Oxfam (Growing a Better Future) and Action Against Hunger (Aid for Nutrition) to produce new research on how to tackle global food insecurity and undernutrition.

Responses to Issues Highlighted by the Inquiry 1. The success or otherwise of the global food system in guaranteeing food security and eliminating undernutrition with particular reference to women, children and other vulnerable groups The global food system has been relatively successful in meeting demand, but not good at generating demand or in promoting healthy diets. In a world of seven billion people, about one billion are hungry, a further billion are not hungry but suffer from hidden hunger in the form of micronutrient deﬁciency and a further 1.5 billion are overweight or obese. So based on a very broad deﬁnition of being between hunger and overweight, 3.5 of the world’s seven billion are getting a healthy diet. The demand of the 5.5 billion who are neither hungry nor experience hidden hunger is well met by the global food system in the sense that food prices have stayed reasonably stable on a long term downward trend until recently.

2. The implications of demographic trends, rising income and climate change on the global food system and on key indicators of food security and good nutrition One of the features of food is that it is demand and supply inelastic. When the price of food rises it is difficult to cut back on consumption and the quality is inevitably reduced. It is also difficult for small scale farmers to respond due to their limited access to finance and an inability to take price risk. Income growth and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w49

population growth are putting demand pressure on food prices. Climate change, volatile energy prices and the intertwining of energy and food prices via biofuels are adding to volatility in food prices.

3. The impact of global and local food shocks and how different countries and/or regions cope with food crises and the role of democracy in increasing food security

The impact of food price volatility on people’s lives can be devastating, particularly during the first 1000 days of human development post conception. The harm caused by global and local food and price shocks in the first 1,000 days of an infant’s life can be permanent if it is not reversed within the same time period. Livelihoods, lives and life courses will be permanently damaged. Different countries have employed different coping mechanisms. Countries that can afford it invest in a wide range of food price stabilisation measures and social protection mechanisms. The recent IDS led report Social Protection for Food Security, commissioned by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (http://bit.ly/MWlLg0) recommended that every country should aim to establish a comprehensive and nationally owned social protection system that will help enable the realisation of the right to adequate food for all. In a world where markets work perfectly, food is not politicised, food tastes are generic, and risks can be perfectly managed it does not matter where food is grown. It should be grown where technical and economic efficiencies are greatest. However, in the real world where none of these conditions hold we need to establish a more diverse global food system with many different sources of production in which risk is spread more equitably.

4. The role of the international system, including food and agriculture organisations and the G8 and G20, and ways in which collaboration could be improved

A much more integrated approach and set of policy responses to tackle global food insecurity is required and that incorporates climate, energy, trade, security and ﬁnance. The international system needs to ﬁnally establish a truly developmental trade round sorted after a decade of trying. There is also a role for some kind of virtual buffer stock. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and US farm policies need to be reformed to reduce subsidies to rich country farmers giving them unfair competitive advantages. The UK has a critical role to play in providing political leadership on these issues, particularly as it assumes the G8 presidency in 2013 at the same time as Ireland takes up the EU presidency.

5. The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable

Resilience is the ability to minimise falling, the ability to rebound, and the ability to rebound to a better place. At the strategic level, resilience is promoted by diversiﬁcation of production in terms of location, crops and farm size and not single model solutions. Technology has a role to play in promoting the resistance of crops to various stresses such as pests and drought. At the policy level, a combination of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), Social Protection and Climate Change adaptation strategies offer the best approaches for increasing resilience. However, funding for DRR initiatives in particular is minuscule as outlined in the recent Global Humanitatian Assistance report produced by Development Initiatives (http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/report/gha-report-2012).

The concept of resilience does encourage policy makers to take a more integrated approach to addressing resource scarcity and poverty reduction. However there is a danger that building resilience becomes overly concerned with short term technical ﬁxes that improve people’s short term coping strategies but fail to address the root causes of why they remain poor and hungry.

6. The role of the following in increasing food security and the part that DFID should play in — Competition for land use—including for biofuels, cash crops, livestock or agriculture and the impact of diet choices on food production capacity The UK government has an important role to play in providing political leadership in driving the establishment of a more secure and equitable global food system, particularly as it assumes the G8 presidency in 2013. DfID, alongside other government departments including DEFRA, DECC and BIS need to develop a much more integrated approach to addressing global food security that draws on the thorough analyses of the issues set out in the 2011 Foresight Report and by the Global Food Security Programme. — small holder agriculture and large scale farming The debate on smallholder agriculture is stuck in an ideological battle and the “romantics” versus’ the industrialists’ is one caricature of the extremes. This debate has not been resolved because the evidence on what is the best approach under different conditions has not been systematically assembled. It should be. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w50 International Development Committee: Evidence

— external interventions—including land deals, corporate investment and donor interventions The evidence, such as it is, is that the governance of all of these interventions is key. If they are designed with the poorest in mind, they stand a chance of delivering. If they are not, the chances are remote. Typically, they are not. — The private sector It is important to remember that smallholder farmers in Africa and Asia are part of the private sector. A big factor in their effectiveness is the enabling environment that includes roads, public research and development, extension agents and irrigation. Larger firms, especially those with multinational locations need to be incentivised to pay more taxes, disclose more information particularly when benefitting directly from public funds, and they need to be incentivised to sign up to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative or an equivalent. — New technologies, including irrigation, and the dissemination and distribution of these, with special reference to small farmers and women As has been said many times, women need to be central to the decision making at all levels including crop attributes, marketing associations, extension, access to inputs and access to finance etc. They have a more balanced view of what agriculture is intended to deliver ie food, income and nutrition and it makes no sense to under-invest in their half of the entrepreneurial talent pool. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the future of farming is that it is not attractive to the next generation of entrepreneurs and this issue is being explored in more detail by the IDS based Future Agricultures Consortium. Public policy needs to provide some kind of demand floor to ensure that smallholder farming remains viable until other higher productivity activities can begin to thrive and generate higher paid jobs. There is overwhelming evidence that indicates that the agricultural intensification stage cannot be bypassed, although mobile technologies may be weakening this assumption. — Global policy measures, including monitoring, food stocks, financial shock facilities, food, nutrition and agriculture initiatives There needs to be better processes put in place to monitor global food insecurity more effectively. We don’t have a detailed enough picture of where the hungry are located at a sub- national level or how this changes on a year to year basis. The contrast with the effort put into collecting economic data is stark. This data would begin mobilising wider society, enable citizens to more effectively hold their governments to account and provide a clearer guiding action to all. — Food markets, trading, storage and distribution There is a lot of waste along the food value chain and a lot of scope for understanding how the governance of food value chains benefits smallholder producers and vulnerable consumers. We are working on these issues at IDS within the Partnering for Better Food Project (http://www.ids.ac.uk/idsproject/partnering-for-better-food) under the leadership of Spencer Henson and John Humphrey and in our Accelerating progress in reducing hunger and undernutrition programme (http://www.ids.ac.uk/idsresearch/accelerating-progress-in-reducing- hunger-and-undernutrition). — The role of commodity funds and major global commodity companies The evidence on the role of commodity funds and major global commodity companies is not clear. There is a lot of liquidity looking for investment opportunities and there is a moral case to say that food commodity speculation has a much bigger impact on vulnerable groups than does price speculation in metals for example. I personally favour some kind of tax on food price speculation, perhaps linked to speed of flows rather than levels. This idea has been explored in more detail by former IDS fellow Neil McCulloch in his policy briefing Tackling instability in financial markets with a panic tax (http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/IF14.pdf) December 2012

Written evidence submitted by Mercy Corps Summary Mercy Corps is an international development organisation with extensive experience in food security, nutrition, agriculture and rural livelihoods programming, operating in forty four countries globally including many fragile and conﬂict-affected states. In response to the IDC Inquiry Mercy Corps is presenting evidence under the topics as summarised below:

The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable — DFID should adopt a livelihoods approach to resilience to ensure that communities bounce back better from shocks. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w51

— DFID should adopt the following principles for resilience programming: — It is essential to address structural causes of poverty and marginalisation. — Asset creation should be prioritised as a means of providing a safety net. — Work at local, regional, national and international level. — Continuous learning and review. — Build Trust and Cohesion among Stakeholders. — Identify Natural Boundaries for interventions. — The integration of conflict management into resilience programming is essential to promoting food security in fragile and conflict affected states. — Mercy Corps programme experience provides evidence of conflict management interventions increasing drought resilience among pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia. — DFID should work to improve the linkage between humanitarian programmes, and development aid programmes, and support efforts to address this gap with multilateral aid donor.

The role of the following in increasing food security and the part that DFID should play in: Small holder agriculture and large scale farming — Securing land tenure for small-holder farmers should be prioritised in food security programming and policies, with conflict resolution measures incorporated. When small holder farmers have secure land tenure, they are more likely to invest in their land, which increases yields and provides a variety of other social benefits. — Mercy Corps’ Red Tierras programme in Guatemala and Colombia demonstrates the benefit of integration of conflict mitigation and agricultural development approaches. New technologies — Mercy Corps is supportive of cash based programming as a means to achieve value for money in food security programmes. — Electronic money transfer can be more efficient, secure and transparent than physical cash, and link poor people to financial services. — DFID should seek opportunities to promote the affordable provision of essential extension, market information and financial services to smallholders through mobile technology. — Mercy Corps’ Agri-Fin Mobile programme provides evidence of bundled mobile services for smallholders that integrate extension services, market price information and financial services in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Indonesia.

Introduction Mercy Corps greatly appreciates the leadership that Britain is showing on global hunger issues. The Prime Minister’s Hunger Summit this past summer, UK leadership within recent G8 meetings, and the present Parliamentary inquiry all underscore the depth of the UK’s commitment to this issue. Mercy Corps is a global relief and development organisation with annual revenues of approximately £180 million ($293 million), operations in forty-four countries and dual headquarters in the UK (Edinburgh) and US (Portland, Oregon). We design and manage programmes that foster secure, productive, and just communities in countries experiencing and emerging from conflict, drought, and other major shocks. We have extensive programmes related to food security, nutrition, and agriculture, and we will draw on these experiences to highlight several areas where we believe UK hunger policy could make innovative progress. At present, DFID policy towards hunger alleviation has many strong points, including growing investment in resilience to food shocks and support for agricultural growth that emphasises particular support for smallholder farmers. DFID also supports cash transfer programming in emergency responses, which we have found can rapidly and cost-effectively improve access to food. We also welcome the Government’s international commitments to improve food security by supporting and contributing to several global initiatives.114 As the G8 Summit, which will be hosted by the UK in 2013 will focus on food security, we hope that DFID will use this opportunity to take a strong leadership role at international level to improve global policies and secure the mobilisation of adequate funding115 for resilience, nutrition, and sustainable small-scale agriculture, building on and going beyond the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. 114 From the 2008 Comprehensive Framework for Action, the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, and the post-Olympic hunger event. 115 The UK and other donors should make significant progress towards mobilising their fair share of $21.3 billion to fill the agriculture funding gap and to reach the $5 billion needed from donors to fund direct nutrition interventions. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w52 International Development Committee: Evidence

Mercy Corps’ Submission

Mercy Corps wishes to submit the following evidence under three of the inquiry topics relating to resilience, land, and new technology:

The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable

1. Resilience is not new in the ﬁeld of international development. But a number of recent events116 and trends have brought it to the forefront of development thinking. As practitioners we are being challenged to apply a more complex, forward-thinking systems approach to the problems faced by the communities where we work-taking into account the complex social, economic, political and environmental factors affecting most vulnerable populations. Therefore Mercy Corps welcomes DFID’s Deﬁning Disaster Resilience Approach Paper, and DFID’s contribution to moving the forward the discussion around resilience in the international development community. However we think that the commitment to embed resilience in all DFID country programmes by 2015 will require further development of the resilience programming policy. We welcome the importance ascribed in the Approach Paper, to retention of assets and, as part of this, the role of economic assets in resilience promotion, and propose that DFID should adopt a livelihoods approach to resilience,so that communities are supported not only to absorb shocks and disturbances, but to also have the opportunity to develop and thrive—in DFID’s terms, to bounce back better—gaining increased prosperity and resilience as a result.

2. Drawing on Mercy Corps’ extensive experience in the humanitarian and development sector around the world, and particularly in countries in transition, we recommend that DFID resilience programming policy integrates the following key principles: — Addressing structural causes. Vulnerability is a defining characteristic of being poor. Resilience requires going beyond coping and adaptation strategies to help transform the structural causes of poverty and marginalisation. — Prioritising Asset Creation. We know that resilient households and communities need to draw on a sustainable base of financial, physical, political, human, social and natural resources. Thus asset creation and protection for the poor and vulnerable is critical for building resilience within complex systems. — Working at Multiple Levels or Scales. As climate, political, social, economic and cultural systems are complex and interact at many levels; transformational resilience requires action at the local, regional, national and international level. — Systematising Learning and Acting. The knowledge guiding a project must come from internal and external actors and include both scientific and normative information, linking top down and bottom up learning, we believe it is necessary to engage in continuous analysis, learning and redesign to improve the approach and programmes. — Building Trust and Cohesion among Stakeholders. Transformational change requires trust, as well as cohesion and ownership, between communities, government and the private sector. — Identifying Natural Boundaries. Many challenges and many communities defy political borders. Climate change and pastoral societies in Africa are just two examples. The natural borders of a community or system may determine the perimeters and parameters of a project, not just administrative or legal boundaries. Thinking and operating beyond traditional governance boundaries will be challenging, frustrating and complex with new stakeholders, yet absolutely necessary.

3. Mercy Corps welcomes DFID’s commitment to integrate resilience into their conflict prevention work. The integration of conflict management into resilience programming is essential to promoting food security in fragile and conflict affected states. In mid-2011, Mercy Corps undertook a study to examine if and how its peace-building programme for pastoralists in Ethiopia has affected key factors associated with drought resilience. This study shows that effective peace-building interventions can contribute to creating conditions that foster greater drought resilience among pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia. Such efforts can further the objectives of disaster risk reduction projects, and mitigate the need for large scale humanitarian relief during periods of severe drought. In regions where chronic, violent conflict is present, activities to promote peace appear to be a pre-requisite for strengthening resilience since livelihoods diversification, market integration, and other forms of risk reduction and adaptation are directly dependent on security and freedom of movement. To have an impact on these factors, conflict management programmes need to take an integrated approach, which strengthens the local governance structures and social cohesion that underpin communities’ resilience to disasters, conflict, and other shocks. 116 ??? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w53

4. In addition, this study points toward a number of recommendations for programming intended to strengthen resilience among pastoralist communities in the Horn of Africa: — Interventions that increase access to pasture and water should be prioritised when designing programmes that aim to support pastoralist communities afflicted by drought. This will reduce the likelihood that households will engage in distressful coping mechanisms while refraining from fostering aid dependency. — Peace-building activities that improve security and increase access to natural resources must be a core component of any programme that aims to strengthen pastoral livelihoods and drought resilience in conflict-affected environments. — Mercy Corps’ experience highlights the importance and benefits of working on peace-building and disaster risk reduction simultaneously in order to harness peace-building activities to reduce vulnerabilities to external shocks. 5. Many bilateral and multilateral donors have aid systems that aim to address acute humanitarian need through emergency aid (short term shocks), and also support development aid addressing chronic need (long term structural factors), but without adequate provision for supporting the transition from relief to recovery. The Approach Paper outlines the principle of “bringing together development and humanitarian efforts”, but more work may be needed to purposefully close the gap. Mercy Corps believes that resilience requires a developmental component and, like food security more generally, needs to be addressed through both short and long term interventions. DFID should continue to review ways to bridge the gap between humanitarian and development interventions. DFID should also continue to support multilateral aid reform, including through the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative, the current second phase of the Multilateral Aid Review, and the planned 2013 Hunger Summit prior to the G8 Meeting, and should support a similar process among key donors to address the humanitarian/development division. In particular DFID should support efforts to examine this as part of the design of the EU Multi-annual Financial Framework as it relates to the revision of the EU Thematic Instrument for Food Security, under the DCI, and strengthening of support for Linking Relief to Recovery and Development (LRRD) through developing a specific Action Plan with concrete deliverables.

The role of the following in increasing food security and the part that DFID should play in: Small holder agriculture and large scale farming 6. To promote food security, DFID should adopt an approach that encompasses issues of land access and land conflict. Securing land tenure for small-holder farmers should be prioritised in food security programming and policies with conflict resolution measures incorporated to generate further peace-building and governance gains. Food security is closely linked to secure land tenure for small holder farmers and if DFID and the international community want systemic change, land rights must be prioritised. When small holder farmers have secure land tenure, they are more likely to invest in their land, which increases yields and provides a variety of other social benefits to families. Mercy Corps’ extensive work in Latin America to secure land titles for vulnerable small holder farmers via alternative dispute resolution has not only decreased conflict over land and improved agricultural inputs, but also linked communities to local governments. Besides ensuring programmes are sensitive to the need of small holders to gain legal access to land, DFID can play an important role by promoting policies with developing countries’ governments that promote fair land registration practices, prevent land grabs and secure the rights of small holder farmers. Mercy Corps has sought to address these issues through the Red Tierras programme developed initially in Guatemala then expanded to Colombia, which seeks to promote participatory decision making and land conflict resolution. The programme approach incorporates a four-way integration of agricultural development activities, land and natural resource conflict resolution, land policy advocacy and community training on Alternative Dispute Resolution. The programme has resolved 314 land conflicts securing land tenure for over 105,000 marginalised indigenous people; establishing six municipal mediation centres ensuring sustainability and local ownership of the mediation process. 11 Municipal Land Commissions and three Departmental/Regional Land Advocacy Networks have been established to promote key land legislation.

New technologies, including irrigation, and the dissemination and distribution of these, with special reference to small farmers and women 7. Mercy Corps is supportive of DFID’s emphasis on cash transfers as a means of supporting food security and retention or replacement of lost assets. An effective humanitarian response to a food security crisis is underpinned by a balance between commodity and cash based interventions that reﬂect market conditions and the assessed need. Mercy Corps has found that when properly managed this can rapidly and efﬁciently improve access to food when market conditions allow. Cash transfer programming can be implemented rapidly based on snapshot market analysis and determination of needs. Cash transfer to victims of ethnic unrest in Kyrgyzstan cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w54 International Development Committee: Evidence

in 2010 were provided in less than a month, far quicker than most food assistance programmes, and led to an increase in families with household food stocks from 64 to 87%. As well as strengthening local markets, which need to be monitored for distortion, cash programming can help achieve Value for Money in avoiding costs associated with commodity procurement, storage and distribution. 8. Mercy Corps is a member of the Better than Cash Alliance which makes the case that use of electronic transfer is an effective way of expanding financial inclusion by linking people (via mobile phones or other appropriate technology when this is possible), to banking services. There is evidence that electronic transfer is cheaper, more secure, and more transparent and a potentially faster way of providing assistance, with the benefit of facilitating linkage of people to financial services in the future. 9. DFID should seek opportunities to promote the affordable provision of essential extension, market information and financial services to smallholders through mobile technology. With support from Swiss Development Cooperation Mercy Corps is implementing Agri-Fin Mobile, a food security programme using a new methodology which seeks to address the problems of smallholder farmers’ lack of access to essential information and financial services, through providing agricultural advice, market information and financial services over mobile phone in an affordable “bundled” package. Access to mobile phones is growing dramatically in rural areas in developing countries, and mobile phones are increasingly becoming the most effective medium to reach millions in remote areas. Providing access to rural advisory and financial services through mobile phones has a high potential to improve smallholders’ productivity, stabilise their incomes, and thereby contribute to increased food security. This programme, recently recognised by the Clinton Global Foundation aims to improve incomes of 180,000 smallholders in Indonesia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. The Agri-Fin Mobile programme approach works with partners in each country to build sustainable business models, where farm and crop management tools and financial services are “bundled” in affordable, mobile phone services, and the sustainable provision of these services is promoted on a commercial basis. The programme targets partners with existing financial, and agricultural technical service mobile platforms or applications, or demonstrated interest in developing and investing in them, and facilitates development of a business model whereby the bundling process provides an increased value proposition for each partner, such as, increased fee income, greater outreach or reduced risks. The food security impact of the programme is monitored in terms of smallholder incomes, production and livelihoods, and improvements in the rural market system. Although the programme is in its infancy there are lessons learned around partner selection at the national level: — While partners with the highest market share are desirable in terms of reach, the need to be agile and innovative may recommend smaller partners when larger competitors lack these characteristics; — The channel to small holder farmers is a key priority, so it is important to look for opportunities to integrate multiple channels to increase distribution of advisory information and services to farmers to drive adoption; — Seek partners that are umbrella organisations for producers, buyers or input suppliers in order to reach a higher number of beneficiaries with minimal resources. Umbrella organisations can also help influence members, aggregate impact as well as ensure that the programme is not providing unfair advantage or discouraging competition among industries; — Transaction volumes are critical, look out for areas to start with which drive transactions and therefore usage, hence working with produce buyers at the tail end of production and input suppliers at the beginning of production, as well as working in value chains that have on-going or multiple harvest periods per year, such as horticulture or dairy. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by OECD Factual Information This submission draws on a wide range of OECD analysis, including that undertaken with other international organisations, in particular for the G20. The focus is on key priorities for the attainment of global food security, and on actions that OECD countries can take both individually and in the context of multilateral initiatives.

Main Points 1. The challenge of ensuring global food security is ﬁrst and foremost one of raising the incomes of the poor so that they can afford the food they need to lead healthy lives. A majority of the world’s poor lives in rural areas, where farming—predominantly by smallholders—is the most important economic activity. Agricultural development, and smallholder development in particular, thus have a key role to play in raising incomes. But that role cannot be seen in isolation. Economic development will lead to large numbers of subsistence farmers leaving the sector. Broad-based development is needed to ensure that they are pulled, rather than pushed, out of farming. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w55

2. Large increases in agricultural investment will be needed both to raise incomes and increase the supply of food sustainably. Most of the investment will need to come from the private sector, but governments have an important role in establishing the framework conditions. Public investment, supported by development aid, can also complement and attract private investment. Policies that support agriculture’s enabling environment, but do not distort incentives or crowd out the private sector, are likely to be more effective in the long term than specific subsidies to the agricultural sector. Priority areas for public spending include research, innovation and rural infrastructure, together with social protection and backstopping to ensure improved nutrition. 3. Trade will have an increasingly important role to play in ensuring global food security. Countries need to avoid policies that distort world markets and make them a less reliable source of food supplies. There have been significant changes to agricultural policies in many OECD countries over the past decade, with reforms in the past five years facilitated by high international food prices. As a consequence, the international spill- over effects of support and protection in OECD countries have diminished. Remaining trade distortions could be eliminated with few immediate consequences for farmers’ incomes, so now would be a good time put in place more efficient alternatives, including social safety nets and tools to help farmers manage risk. This would lock in the benefits of reform and address charges that OECD countries’ farm policies are not coherent with their aid and development policies. 4. In the context of high food prices, new issues have emerged with potential implications for food security. They include export restrictions, the use of biofuel mandates, and the opportunities and threats presented by increased foreign investment in agriculture. On these issues, as well as in terms of conventional support mechanisms, policies in emerging economies (in particular the BRIICS) are increasingly important. Multilateral action is needed to ensure that national policies in OECD and emerging economies do not generate a new range of spill-overs that compromise food security in poor countries.

The challenge of eliminating global hunger is more about raising the incomes of the poor than an issue of food prices 5. Eliminating hunger and malnutrition, and achieving global food security more widely, requires first and foremost raising the incomes of the poor. According to FAO figures, there are approximately 850 million undernourished people in the world—this population is mostly a subset of the 1.3 billion people that the World Bank estimates to be living on less than USD 1.25 per day. 6. Higher food prices have made the challenge more difficult, but price levels are not the fundamental problem. High prices impose undeniable hardship on the poorest consumers, including many subsistence farmers whose production is insufficient to meet their consumption needs. Yet the persistence of global hunger—the chief manifestation of food insecurity—is a chronic problem that pre-dates the current period of higher food prices. Indeed there were as many hungry people in the world in the early 2000s, when international food prices were at all-time lows, as there are today. Similarly, high food prices have made little difference to the overall downward trend in the proportion of undernourished (Figure 1).

Figure 1 UNDERNOURISHMENT AND WORLD FOOD PRICES, 1990 TO 2012 FAO food price index, 2002/04=100 Prevalence of undernourishment, % of global population 250 20.0

18.0 Undernourishment 200 16.0

14.0

150 12.0

10.0 Food price 100 8.0

6.0

50 4.0

2.0

0 .0 1990-92 1995 -97 2000-02 2005-07 2010 -12

Source: FAO (2012b) for the prevalence of undernourishment and FAOSTAT for the food price index. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w56 International Development Committee: Evidence

Agricultural development has a key role to play in ensuring food security 7. Agricultural development has a key role to play in generating the incomes needed to ensure food security, especially in the poorest economies. For the best part of 30 years, agriculture has been effectively discriminated against by developing country policymakers and neglected by donors. One reason was low rates of perceived success, compared with investments in areas such as health and education. Another was the combination of falling real agricultural prices and, in successfully developing economies, a declining share of agriculture in GDP and employment. These changes were misinterpreted as “declines”, when in fact they were signs of development success, with productivity growth bringing prices down and permitting labour and other resources to be allocated to other sectors. In recent years, thinking has come full circle, and the importance of investing in agricultural development is now widely recognised. But, in re-emphasising agricultural development, it is crucial that policymakers and donors do not go to the other extreme of prioritising agriculture exclusively, at the expense of balanced economic development. 8. Approximately two-thirds of the world’s poor live in rural areas, where agriculture is the dominant sector. Most of the farming is done by smallholders (predominantly women), so raising their incomes is a priority. There are better opportunities for those smallholders to develop commercially viable operations than there have been for many years. Yet, the realisation of those opportunities by some will result in others moving out of agriculture into new, ultimately more remunerative, activities. Indeed, it is important to recognise that—as all OECD countries have experienced—the majority of future generations will have better opportunities outside agriculture than within it. Moreover, there is no single efﬁcient farm structure: global food security will need to be underpinned by a mix of small, medium and large farms.

There is a need for increased investment in rural areas, which offer higher returns than agricultural subsidies 9. The connected challenges of raising agricultural and rural incomes, and boosting supply sustainably, call for large increases in agricultural investment. FAO estimates total investment needs at over USD 80 billion per year over the next four decades, which is about 50% higher than current levels. Most of this investment will have to come from the private sector, but strategic public investments can help attract private investment— both foreign and domestic. Many developing countries have a dearth of domestic resources, and their agricultural sectors have suffered from decades of under-investment. Rising levels of foreign investment, prompted by higher food prices, can help redress this neglect. However, there are legitimate concerns about the nature of some of these investments and who will benefit. Hence, it is important that governments provide appropriate framework conditions for investment in agriculture, and that there are commitments to responsible business conduct on the part of both investors and recipients. OECD has developed a policy framework for sustainable investment in agriculture, which is designed as a practical tool to help policy makers create an attractive business climate for agricultural investment. Development aid can be a catalyst, complementing the primary role of private sector investment. 10. There is a strong case for increasing the share of public spending in support of agriculture, and redressing urban bias in the allocation of resources. There are high returns to investments in agricultural research, technology transfer, and farm extension and advisory services. These investments help farmers directly; indirectly they benefit consumers by increasing overall food supply, thereby containing upward pressure on food prices and dampening the price volatility associated with tight markets. 11. In the case of low-income countries, it has been suggested that—because of weak institutions and market failures—some market interventions may be warranted. For example, some price stabilisation has been proposed as a way of providing a more predictable investment climate and containing the impact of large international price swings. Similarly input subsidies for seed and fertiliser have been suggested as a way of redressing failings such as the under-development of infrastructure, missing markets for credit and inputs, and a lack of knowledge of the benefits of improved technologies. These arguments need to be balanced against multiple drawbacks. For example, price stabilisation thwarts the development of private risk management and can export instability onto world markets. Similarly, the provision of input subsidies can impede the development of functioning private markets. Moreover, such measures often become a target for special interests, imposing a severe drain on national budgets at the expense of essential public investments. If they are to be used, they should be time-bound with a clear exist strategy and they should not crowd out essential investments which tackle the market and institutional failures they are designed to offset.

Sustainable agricultural productivity growth is central to ensuring that adequate supplies of food will continue to be available in the future 12. There is more scope for raising agricultural productivity than there is for mobilising more land and water resources. While it is likely to become increasingly difﬁcult to push yield frontiers at a constant percentage rate of growth (ie exponentially), there is great scope for developing countries to close the yield gaps with developed countries. For example, cereal yields in Central and West Africa are just 1–2 MT/ha, compared with 7–9 MT/ha in Western Europe. The key to realising these gains is innovation in the wider sense, combining adapted technologies with improved farm management practices. There is evidence of high rates of return to research and development accompanied with extension, albeit with long time lags. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w57

13. There is important scope for sustainable intensiﬁcation, and investments in infrastructure can help limit producer losses, which account for around one-third of all production in low income countries. Yet current production patterns may not always be compatible with sustainable resource use, implying trade-offs between sustainability and immediate food security outcomes. In many countries and regions, there is no effective pricing of natural resources, with the result that production is too intensive or occurs in areas where ultimately it should not. Pricing of resources could improve the sustainability of production but raise farmers’ costs and, in some circumstances, put upward pressure on food prices. Likewise, agriculture is a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change, but taxing farmers’ greenhouse gas emissions could lower their incomes and raise food prices. These trade-offs underscore the primary importance of income growth: Only if incomes grow sufﬁciently can food security and sustainable resource use be fully compatible.

Trade has an important role to play in ensuring global food security 14. Open markets have a crucial role to play in raising production and incomes. Trade enables production to be located in areas where resources are used most efficiently and has an essential role in getting product from surplus to deficit areas. Trade also raises overall incomes through the benefits to exporters (in the form of higher prices than would be received in the absence of trade) and importers (through lower prices than would otherwise be paid), while contributing to faster economic growth and rising per capita incomes. Trade will also be essential in order for supply increases to be achieved sustainably. It enables production to locate in areas where natural resources, notably land and water, are relatively abundant, and where systems are more resilient to the effects of climate change. Looking ahead, the areas of the world with sustainable productive potential are not the same as the areas experiencing rapid population growth. 15. However, reforming countries may need to put in place parallel measures to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs. In order for existing and potential exporters to reap the full benefits from reform, there may be a need for complementary supply-side investments. Conversely, the needs of those who stand to lose from the removal of trade may require a combination of adjustment assistance and social safety nets. For mitigating the adverse impacts of international price volatility, targeted social programmes (including cash transfers) are a preferable option, while agricultural investments and the development of risk management tools can improve farmers’ resilience to risk. 16. At the macro level, self-sufficiency is likely to be an expensive way for food importing countries to limit their exposure to periodically higher food import bills. Hedging on international markets is an alternative option, while the international community has several financing mechanisms that could enable developing country governments to overcome rare but potentially severe surges, such as that experienced in 2007–08. The best way of coping with problems related to the unreliability of world markets is for countries to desist collectively from adopting beggar-thy-neighbour policies. These policies cause bilateral and regional trades to break down, and generate wider negative spill-overs when applied by countries with a larger presence on world food markets. Many of the responses to the 2007–08 food price spike were ineffective because of the collective impact of other countries applying similar measures. Multilateral coordination can help avoid such contagion in future. The creation of the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) and the associated Rapid Response Forum (RRF) at the beginning of 2012 responds to the demand for improved transparency on markets, stocks and policy developments. AMIS is housed at the FAO, with a secretariat that includes representatives of other international organisations, including OECD.

Now is an opportune moment to lock in fundamental reforms to agricultural policies in OECD countries

17. An important contribution that OECD countries can make, immediately, is to accelerate the reform of policies that create negative international spill-overs. Historically, the concern has been with high levels of support and protection that have the potential to undercut farmers’ livelihoods in developing countries. Tariffs on agricultural products remain several times higher than those levied on industrial goods, which restricts market access for developing country farmers with export potential. Higher prices have historically led to the accumulation of surpluses, which have been disposed of with the use of export subsidies. These depress international prices, making conditions more difﬁcult for competitors on international markets and for import- competing producers on domestic markets. Policies to support farmers have also often been counter-cyclical, which stabilises domestic markets but exports instability onto world markets. 18. There have been important reforms, with the result that the marginal impacts of support on developing countries are now much lower. Across the OECD area, annual support to farmers, in the form of higher prices than those prevailing on world markets or direct payments ﬁnanced by taxpayers, increased from USD 239 billion in 1986–88 to USD 248 billion in 2009–11. This represents a decline in real terms and as a proportion of farmers’ incomes, with the share of farmers’ gross receipts coming from consumer and taxpayer support falling from 37% to 20% (Figure 2). There are now only three countries (Japan, Norway and Switzerland) where government support accounts for a half or more of farm revenues. 19. The reduction in the degree of support provided has been accompanied by a shift in the ways in which support is provided—support has become less production and trade-distorting (Figure 2). Whereas in 1986–88 90% of farm support was linked to output or input use (predominantly higher prices for the former, lower for cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w58 International Development Committee: Evidence

the latter), by 2009–11 that share was down to 58%. However, reform has been uneven. For example, the share of support in the European Union linked to output or input use fell from 96% to 33%, whereas the corresponding change in Japan was from 97% to 87%, and the change in the United States was from 64% to 46%. In recent years, there has been little use of export subsidies.

Figure 2

OECD COMPOSITION OF PRODUCER SUPPORT ESTIMATE, 1986–2011

Percentage share of gross farm receipts

% Support based on commodity output Payments based on input use Other payments

The Producer Support Estimate (PSE) captures transfers to farmers from consumers (in the form of higher prices) and taxpayers (in the form of budgetary payments).

Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database, 2012.

20. Reforms in recent years have been facilitated by strong market conditions, which have reduced the gaps between domestic prices and world market prices. Moreover, as price gaps have narrowed, so the counter- cyclical element of domestic support programmes has declined. At the same time, some OECD countries have instituted supports for biofuel production, which have the reverse tendency of making international food prices higher than they would otherwise be, while (in the case of mandates) adding to price volatility by creating a demand that is less responsive to prices. In addition, a number of tariff peaks and cases of tariff escalation remain.

21. Given high food prices, now would be a good time to remove all trade-distorting instruments and put in their place more efﬁcient alternatives, including social safety nets and tools to help farmers manage risk.

Continued efforts are needed to improve the functioning of world food markets

22. Getting world food markets to function more smoothly will also require wider efforts at the multilateral level. G20 governments have sought to tackle two immediate dimensions of the food security question: how to combat price volatility and improve the functioning of world markets, and how to achieve sustainable agricultural productivity growth (and bridge the gap for smallholders). The OECD, along with other international organisations, has provided analytical support to those initiatives.

23. In the context of high food prices, new issues have emerged with potential implications for food security. They include export restrictions, the use of biofuel mandates, and the opportunities and threats presented by the involvement of new actors investing in agriculture. On these issues, as well as in terms of conventional support mechanisms, policies in emerging economies (in particular the BRIICS) are increasingly important. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w59

24. Export restrictions are only weakly constrained by WTO rules, and were used by several emerging economies during the 2007–08 food price spike. Export restrictions add to upward pressure on international food prices, and transfer price risk to the international market. Recent evidence suggests that the aggregate result of exporting countries imposing export restrictions, and importers temporarily reducing tariffs, has been equivalent to spectators standing up in a stadium in order to see better. The first movers may have had some advantage, but in the end there has been little benefit to adopters of those policies, while non-adopters have suffered and more countries have lost than have gained. 25. With respect to biofuel policies, there is a potential trade-off between the use of agricultural products as a source of renewable energy, and the resulting diversion of land to biofuel production adding to upward pressure on food prices. There are huge uncertainties over the scale of impact that biofuels will have on overall land use. Technological developments in biofuels, the cost and availability of fossil fuels and the policy environment are hazardous to predict. The removal of policies that subsidise or mandate the production and consumption of biofuels that compete with food would ensure that these technologies come on-stream when and where they make economic sense, and in the meantime do not jeopardise food security unnecessarily. Indeed, biofuels could provide significant economic opportunities for some developing country farmers. 26. While increased private investment in agriculture by agro-food industries and institutional investors can enhance productivity, drive job creation and income growth, there are legitimate concerns regarding the terms of the deals and their implications for existing rights and livelihoods. Several OECD and emerging economies see such investments as a way of meeting their food energy demand, and overcoming fears of reliance on international trade. In this context, well-designed laws, regulations and policies promoting responsible business conduct, supported by effective enforcement mechanisms, can help ensure that investments do bring benefits to both investors and host countries. To support this objective, the Committee on World Food Security is undertaking an inclusive consultation process to develop principles for responsible agricultural investment (rai). The OECD aims to contribute to this process by developing, in conjunction with FAO, a practical guide to help private companies avoid infringing existing internationally recognised principles and standards of responsible business conduct when investing in agricultural supply chains. Improved functioning of the world trading system would also deter investments that are based on geo-political reasoning as opposed to commercial logic. 27. OECD is heavily focused on the positive actions that its member countries can take, and on areas where action is needed at the global level. But, at all levels of development, national governments themselves have the responsibility for putting in place the conditions that will enable them to achieve food security for all their citizens. March 2013

Further Reading OECD (2013), forthcoming, Global Food Security: Challenges for the Food and Agriculture System, Paris. OECD (2012). Agricultural Policies for Poverty Reduction, Paris. OECD (2012), Policy Framework for Investment in Agriculture, OECD Publishing, Paris. Brooks J (2012), Policy Coherence and Food Security: The Effects of OECD Countries’ Agricultural Policies. Paper presented to OECD Global Forum on Agriculture, November 2012, Paris.

Written evidence submitted by The Planetary Boundaries Initiative (PBI) 1. The Planetary Boundaries Initiative (PBI) is a new NGO, formed to explore the implications for governance, law, and policy of recent scientific work identifying a set of nine “planetary boundaries”. 2. The planetary boundaries analysis has been put forward in various scientific papers, including the initial papers which had Johan Rockström as their lead author, and is now the subject of a major research programme based at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. This analysis provides a clear way of conceptualising and working towards quantifying the environmental limits which human activities should stay within. The “planetary boundaries” concept responds to current scientific understanding of the functioning of the Earth System. Scientists now consider it possible to quantify the risk of crossing thresholds or tipping points which would lead to fundamental state changes with major implications for human societies. For a summary of the “planetary boundaries” analysis, see: http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html 3. In this evidence, we will be concerned only with what can be seen as a single, although extremely important, aspect of the problem of food supply and security: the environmental context within which the production and consumption of food takes place. The Planetary Boundaries Initiative does not have an agreed view on the full range of questions raised by the subject of global food security, but we do have a view about the planetary boundaries which largely set the environmental context, which we believe it is vital to take into account when devising and recommending policies on food. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w60 International Development Committee: Evidence

4. Any set of policies recommended by the Committee needs to take into account the “planetary boundaries” analysis. This is partly because it is becoming increasingly inﬂuential, and therefore is now something which some policy-makers and organisations will be using to assess any policy recommendations; and partly of course because the analysis reﬂects real constraints on what is possible. For example—an important example in the context of this inquiry—a set of policies for food and agriculture which ignores the problem of nitrogen pollution will come up against the barrier presented by limits to the overuse of nitrogen-based fertilisers. Such policies are therefore not viable.

5. The boundaries which are particularly relevant to food are: ocean acidiﬁcation, freshwater use, biodiversity, nitrogen and phosphorus, land use, and climate change. This amounts to six of the nine boundaries (the others are ozone depletion, aerosol loading, and chemical pollution), including all three of the boundaries which are currently being exceeded (biodiversity, nitrogen and phosphorus, and climate change).

6. In general terms, the Planetary Boundaries Initiative advocates the need for policy-makers to take serious account of the nine planetary boundaries, and to reﬂect this in international legal agreements, national legislation, governance arrangements, economic and business arrangements, and the setting of objectives and indicators, such as those to be established as part of the process of setting Sustainable Development Goals and “post-MDGs” for the world community. The recognition of planetary boundaries through these means would help to establish a context for policy-making on (amongst a very wide set of problems and issues) global food security. In this evidence, we will outline the main legal and policy issues we believe are raised by this idea.

Planetary Boundary Law

7. The “planetary boundaries” concept is one that is helpful for establishing a new way of guiding international law for the better protection of the environment. In the spheres of human rights and trade law, we have clearly identiﬁed goals, such as human security and “free trade”. However, there is no such overall goal for the protection of the environment leading to lack of effective integrated enforcement. Although there is the policy of sustainable development which is frequently taken as an overriding goal for environmental protection, the level of protection is often weakened by policy decisions that strive to ﬁnd a balance between the economic, social and environment. This does not necessarily help to ensure that human activities do not go beyond the capacity of natural earth system thresholds.

8. Additionally, whilst there are a plethora of multi environmental agreements (MEAs) these can often compete to the disadvantage of one another as they have not been developed with synergies established between them (eg; climate change and biodiversity governance).

9. In the context of food security, where so many different environmental regimes are in play as noted here, such lack of integrated environmental measures leads to a kind of fragmentation of global governance outcomes, where it becomes impossible to achieve an international set of goals, such as those set out in the millennium development goals.

10. Moreover, whilst there is a core value system, such as the polluter pays, precautionary principle, sustainable development and common and differentiated responsibility, many argue these are weak and vague terms that simply provide a set of commitments by States.

11. The PBI considers that it is necessary to begin to look at global governance through the lens of planetary boundaries in order to find a concept that provides greater definition and certainty to the concept of sustainability whilst also reflecting the value humanity places on the preservation of the biophysical conditions upon which we all depend.

12. The planetary boundaries concept can provide such a definition when seen in terms of ecological integrity. Instead of the term “ecological integrity” remaining vague and weakly defined, the concept of planetary boundaries provides a way in which “integrity” can be measured and quantified. Scientists are used to establishing measures and indicators at a national scale. Now we should urge the international community to consider establishing thresholds at a planetary scale that are recognisable within a system of international law. The PBI Declaration established by the Planetary Boundaries at www.planetaryboundariesinitiative.org is one way in which this could be achieved.

13. Unless we deﬁne governance around such fundamental goals and principles we consider that there is unlikely to be little real progress around governance on the issue of food security.

Policy Issues

14. Thinking about food supply and security in relation to planetary boundaries shows in a particularly acute form the predicament the planet and its people are currently in. Many policies to increase food production would increase the degree to which the three currently exceeded boundaries will be exceeded in the future: for example, policies involving far more use of nitrogen-based fertilisers, far more extensive use of land for agriculture, or increased carbon emissions. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w61

15. At the same time, many policies designed to ensure that human impacts on the environment stay within the boundaries would reduce food supply and make the food security situation worse. If humanity had either solely environmental or solely social problems to solve, the tasks ahead would be far more straightforward than they are. The difficulties we face arise from the need to address both sets of problems at the same time. This has been conceptualised as the need for humanity to operate within a space bounded on the one side by the planetary boundaries and on the other by a set of human needs, such as the need for adequate nutrition. 16. We envisage a two-fold set of policies and actions. One set would be based around devising and achieving an international agreement about human impacts in relation to each of the boundaries, or possibly in some cases a series of regional agreements. We already have the beginnings of such a regime in the case of climate change and biodiversity loss, and we can envisage parallel agreements on, for example, nitrogen use and ocean acidification. Each agreement might set a total “budget” for the relevant factor, such as total carbon emissions, or total nitrogen use, with such a global budget then being divided up between different countries. 17. In order for national governments to be able to deliver on such an agreement, this would then have to be complemented, principally at the national level but in some cases again through agreement internationally (eg in the case of EU policy on agriculture), by policies on food and agriculture (and of course also other policy areas outside the scope of the current inquiry) which will enable each country to stay within its allocated segment of the global budget. This would amount simply to reflecting biophysical reality in governance and policy arrangements. Although it may take many years to put such a framework in place, it seems very clear to us that this is what is required, in order to reconcile human needs with environmental limits.

Land Use and Biodiversity 18. The land use and biodiversity boundaries are very closely connected, and both have an obvious relevance for food supply. However to some extent the implications of these two different boundaries point in different directions for policy. We can think of land use by analogy with geopolitical competition for territory among major powers. Instead of that form of rivalry, we can think about competition between agriculture, urban uses (such as industry, housing and transport), and biodiversity-rich biomes such as forest. Although the global situation is of course far more complex than this, we can say as an initial generalisation that biodiversity depends principally on “wild land”, and food supply principally on agriculture. To the extent that this is a valid generalisation, the implications of the need to keep within both these boundaries are in conflict with each other. 19. In order to “complete the circle”, we will need forms of agriculture which retain biodiversity, uses of wild land which help to sustain food production, and urban design which provides space for biodiversity and enables efficient distribution of food supplies. Probably most significantly, we also need forms of food production which are efficient in their use of land, so that land remains available for biodiversity. That in turn needs to be reflected in diet and consumption patterns, agriculture subsidy expenditure, and relative prices for different foods. Overall this implies the need for a shift amongst relatively affluent consumers towards lower levels of consumption of meat.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus 20. Nitrogen and phosphorus are being released into the environment to a dangerous extent, currently exceeding the relevant boundary. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus are over fertilising lakes and seas, and acidifying soils. This is particularly a problem for food policy, because most of the excess nitrogen and phosphorus is derived from fertilisers, which have contributed enormously to the worldwide increase in food production over the past century or so. It is possible to argue that nitrogen- and phosphorus-based fertilisers are the principal reason why the pessimistic predictions made by Malthus concerning food production have so far proved false. In order to maintain this level of food output without increased environmental damage, fertilisers will need in future to be deployed in far more efﬁcient ways. 21. According to the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM), the excess use of nitrogen is leading to severe pollution of air, water, land and sea around the world, as well as contributing to climate change when emitted to air in the form of nitrous oxide. One of the most serious consequences of the excessive release of nitrogen to the environment is the eutrophication of freshwater and marine systems when it enters water in untreated sewage or run off from fertiliser use. This is currently having devastating impacts on mangroves and river deltas. Phosphorus is also contributing to eutrophication.

Climate Change and Ocean Acidiﬁcation 22. Climate change is a threat to food production, both through changing the distribution of climatic zones, and therefore the food that can be produced in different areas, and through extreme weather events, such as droughts. Both ocean acidiﬁcation and climate change have the same principal cause: the emission of excessive quantities of carbon dioxide (along with nitrogen pollution in the form of nitrous oxide). Carbon dioxide in turn is produced partly through food production, and its processing, refrigeration, and distribution. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are also tending to rise because agriculture is reducing the amount of land available for forests which absorb CO2. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w62 International Development Committee: Evidence

23. A policy for food therefore has to be inseparable from a policy for climate change, even though much of the debate about climate change has focused on energy generation and other aspects, such as transport policy. As with biodiversity and land use, climate change and ocean acidiﬁcation considerations imply the need for greater efﬁciency in the use of land for food production, along with changes in consumption patterns.

Freshwater 24. Human appropriation of water supplies is now on a vast scale, not currently beyond the boundary of what the planet as a whole can sustain, but nevertheless causing serious problems regionally and seasonally. There are three main aspects to these negative impacts: shortage of drinking water for humans, loss of irrigation for agriculture, and climatic changes. 25. Water is essential for virtually all food supply, although it can in most cases be used more efﬁciently, but allowing sufﬁcient water for food supply may imply a need to reduce water use for some manufacturing processes, the production of drinks, and non-food crops such as cotton; and a need for the more cautious design of dams and irrigation schemes.

Conclusion 26. The Planetary Boundaries Initiative is not in a position to put forward a full-scale policy for agriculture and global food security. However, when the Committee comes to devise its own recommendations, we urge it to give serious consideration to the global environmental context, and speciﬁcally to the way this context is represented through planetary boundaries analysis. Deborah Tripley Director on behalf of Planetary Boundaries Initiative 17 December 2012

Written evidence submitted by Research Councils UK (RCUK) Executive Summary 1. Food security is an international issue which requires an international solution. No funder or body in the UK, or elsewhere in the world, has the resources to tackle the challenge alone. From a research perspective, global co-ordination is required to achieve value for money from investments, to prevent duplicative funding commitments and to identify unexploited research areas. The UK can contribute through application of its excellent research base in areas underpinning biospheric, environmental, social and economic aspects of the food system, particularly when co-ordinated through multi-agency programmes. DFID should continue to make full use of the UK research base in supporting its work. 2. Climate and broader environmental change will have significant ramifications for agricultural and fishery productivity, particularly in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that are least well equipped to respond. Co-ordinated and interdisciplinary research is urgently needed to understand and address these impacts, and to assess how they will interact with economic, social, political and demographic forces to affect affordability and developing world food security. 3. The UK’s main public sector funders of food-related research and training have joined forces to develop, design and implement a programme to coordinate research and associated activity on Global Food Security (GFS), collectively spending around £400 million per year. 4. DFID, alongside other funders, should continue to support collaborative research, particularly to ensure that advances in basic research are translated into practical applications which support food security worldwide. RCUK and DFID have jointly funded a number of research programmes to support research relevant to the issue of global food security, based on collaborations between UK researchers and those from developing countries. These programmes are beneficial to the developing country partners, and mutually beneficial to RCUK and DFID. RCUK greatly values its joint research programmes with DFID, and is keen to build upon their success. 5. Research underpinning the development of new technologies, mechanisms to put innovations into practice and increased understanding of environmental and socio-economic factors will have an important role to play in the achievement of food security.

Introduction 6. Research Councils UK (RCUK) is a strategic partnership set up to champion the research supported by the seven UK Research Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities, contributing to the delivery of the Government’s objectives for science and innovation. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w63

7. This evidence is submitted by RCUK on behalf of the Research Councils listed below and represents their independent views. It does not include or necessarily reﬂect the views of the Science and Research Group in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The submission is made on behalf of the following Councils and their research centres: — Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). — Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). — Medical Research Council (MRC). — Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). — Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). 8. This response focuses only on those questions or parts of questions relevant to RCUK or the individual Councils that have contributed to the response. It also provides some more generic brieﬁng that is relevant to the overall subject of the Inquiry, and which the Committee may wish to consider.

General Briefing The Global Food Security Programme 9. The UK’s main public sector funders of food-related research and training have joined forces to develop, design and implement a programme to coordinate research and associated activity on Global Food Security (GFS). The programme partners are Research Councils UK, BIS, Defra, DFID, DH, FSA, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Technology Strategy Board, with the Wellcome Trust and the Met Office as observers. The Global Food Security Strategic Plan 2011–16 was launched in February 2011 and represents a single shared high-level strategy across all programme partners.117 Collectively, GFS partners spend around £400 million per year on food-related research. 10. The GFS programme uses the UN FAO definition of food security: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food, that is produced sustainably, to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” 11. The programme is intended to help meet the global challenge of providing the world’s growing population with access to environmentally, economically and socially sustainable, safe, affordable and nutritious food, which will need to be produced and supplied from the same or less land and marine resources, with lower inputs of finite resources and against the constraints of climate change. The programme has four major interdisciplinary and whole-systems research themes: — economic resilience; — resource efficiency; — sustainable production and supply; and — sustainable, healthy and safe diets. 12. Meeting the challenges of our future food security is not just an issue for government: it involves everyone across the food system. The complex and inter-related problems of food security can only be tackled through coordinated and integrated interdisciplinary research, coupled with its effective translation into practice and policy. The GFS programme therefore aims to provide knowledge and evidence for policy development (both nationally and locally), and to enable food producers and processors, retailers, consumers and civil society to respond to and manage the challenges facing the food system. This research concerns both supply-side (growing sufficient food against environmental and climatic constraints) and demand-side issues (including consumer choice and waste management). 13. The Foresight report on The Future of Food and Farming118 was timely and informative in providing detailed context and analysis on the global food system and the many challenges that it faces. The GFS programme has a key role to play in providing research and evidence to help address some of the recommendations from the report. 14. In June 2011, a joint GFS-Foresight workshop was held, focused on a paper by Pretty et al entitled “The Top 100 Questions of Importance to the Future of Global Agriculture”,119 produced as part of the Foresight report. The workshop brought together a sub-set of the lead expert group from the Foresight project, a number of key stakeholders, and the GFS Programme Coordination Group. The outputs from this joint workshop have informed the programme’s initial set of priorities, currently being taken forward together with a range of issues emerging from system-change, horizon-scanning and scoping exercises.

RCUK’s Relationship with DFID 15. RCUK exists primarily to support UK research of the highest international quality, whilst DFID funds research in order to generate knowledge that will directly help to alleviate poverty in developing countries. 117 http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/gfs-strategic-plan.pdf 118 http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11–546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf 119 http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/news-events/news/2011/110608-n-global-food-security-priorities.html cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w64 International Development Committee: Evidence

Those aims are not mutually exclusive, and RCUK has a productive and mutually-beneficial partnership with DFID. RCUK is committed to working flexibly with DFID to promote and support research that is both of high scientific quality and has substantial relevance to international development. 16. RCUK and DFID have jointly funded a number of research programmes to support research relevant to global food security: — The Sustainable Agriculture Research for International Development (SARID) programme, supported by BBSRC and DFID, awarded £7.3 million for 12 projects in 2008.120 — The Combating Infectious Diseases of Livestock for International Development (CIDLID) programme, supported by BBSRC, DFID and the Scottish Government, awarded £13.5 million for 16 projects in 2010.121 — The Sustainable Crop Production Research for International Development (SCPRID) programme, supported by BBSRC, DFID, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Government of India, awarded £16.0 million for 11 projects in December 2011.122 — The Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme, supported by NERC, ESRC and DFID and launched as part of the Living With Environmental Change partnership, is delivering a £40.5 million research programme over seven years until 2016.123 — The Joint Fund for Poverty Alleviation, supported by ESRC and DFID, has so far supported 83 research projects totalling £36.5 million, with a phase three project call recently launched.124 — The Zoonoses and Emerging Livestock Systems (ZELS) programme, supported by BBSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC and DFID, is currently open for applications and expected to provide up to £18.5 million research funding.125 17. All projects funded through these programmes are based on collaborations which bring together the expertise of UK researchers with the complementary skills of developing countries researchers. RCUK and DFID are therefore supporting excellent, RCUK-funded researchers in the UK in applying their research to problems directly relevant to the food security needs of developing countries, whilst enhancing the scientific capabilities of “southern” partners for the longer term. 18. RCUK values greatly, and is keen to develop further, its productive and mutually-beneficial collaborations with DFID by building on the success of the jointly-funded research programmes described above. It recognises that DFID requires partners to implement and deliver its research strategy, and the UK research community— with its existing relationships in developing countries and excellence in science and technology—is well placed to fulfil that need.

Responses to Questions The success or otherwise of the global food system in guaranteeing food security and eliminating undernutrition with particular reference to women, children and other vulnerable groups 19. Given that food security is dependent on access to food (rather than just on food availability), a “successfully” operating system requires food to be affordable and meeting preferences, and for there to be no political or cultural impediment to accessing it. 20. Rising malnutrition across the world, driven by rising food prices, suggests that the global food system is increasingly failing. Nutrition, including access to all essential nutrients. is important for healthy development and ageing, mental health, well-being, educational attainment and economic productivity. Chronic hunger impairs immune system function and is damaging to pregnancy and lactation, making malnutrition an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths worldwide.126 21. There is an urgent need to ﬁnd sustainable ways to make good quality and nutritious food available to low-income families and communities at affordable prices. DFID should continue its important work on nutrition interventions for the most vulnerable (breastfeeding women and young children), ensuring that nutrition-related problems are not passed from one generation to the next.

The implications of demographic trends, rising income and climate change on the global food system and on key indicators of food security and good nutrition 22. The huge variety in food systems across the world—operating in different social, economic, political and environmental situations—will be differentially affected by interrelated factors such as climate change, 120 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/2007/sustainable-agriculture.aspx 121 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/2008/combating-infectious-diseases-livestock.aspx 122 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/2011/1103-sustainable-crop-production-international.aspx 123 http://www.espa.ac.uk/ 124 http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/funding-opportunities/23327/esrc-dﬁd-joint-fund-for-poverty-alleviation-research- phase-3.aspx 125 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/2012/zoonoses-emerging-livestock-systems.aspx 126 http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-library/life-free-hunger-tackling-child-malnutrition cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w65

energy security, water security, and market variations. Research is required to better understand the relationship between these factors, and their relative and combined impact on food security. 23. Climate change, and environmental change more broadly, will significantly impact agriculture and fisheries globally, particularly in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that are least well equipped to respond. The extremes of climate are predicted to widen, with increased incidence and severity of both droughts and flooding.127 Some areas may be affected by both extremes, whilst the climate of others may move further towards (eg desertification) or away from the extremes. This has significant ramifications for agricultural productivity and related food security issues, with, for example, water stresses increasing, growing seasons and pests and diseases changing, pollutions affecting yields and soil structures being altered. 24. Co-ordinated and multidisciplinary (ie socio-economic, agricultural and environmental) research is urgently needed to understand and address the potential impacts of climate and environmental change on the food system. The impacts of increasingly extreme weather are already being felt, and recent work for the Food Research Partnership (FRP), led by GFS, suggests that weather-driven fluctuations in food supply will increasingly put the global food system at risk of failure.128 We urgently need to understand how fluctuations in weather will interact with demographic and economic trends to impact affordability and developing world food security.

The role of the international system, including food and agriculture organisations and the G8 and G20, and ways in which collaboration could be improved 25. RCUK’s comments in this section are focused on the role of the UK within the international research system in areas underpinning global food security. 26. No funder in the UK, or elsewhere in the world, has the resources to tackle the research challenges associated with achieving global food security alone. Food security is an international issue which requires a coordinated international response. Global partnerships are needed to achieve value for money from investments, and to prevent duplicative funding commitments. 27. The UK can contribute to global challenges in agriculture, fisheries and food security through the application of its research expertise. The UK has a strong research base in many areas underpinning the biospheric, social and economic aspects of the food system, as well as internationally leading research institutes with unique public-funded research capabilities. For example, the Pirbright Institute129 is a world reference laboratory for a number of livestock diseases, Rothamsted Research130 hosts the world’s oldest long-term agricultural experiments, and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH)131 conducts world-leading research on the environment-agriculture interface. This excellent research base is an asset to international partners, especially in some LDCs where scientific infrastructures are less well developed. 28. Co-ordination of UK research efforts through collaborations such as the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences,132 the Belmont Forum,133 and through multi-agency programmes such as the Research Council-led Global Food Security, Living with Environmental Change134 and Global Uncertainties135 programmes, helps to increase the impact of UK contributions to international agriculture and food security agendas. DFID should make full use of the UK research base, and RCUK as a knowledge and research provider, in supporting its work. 29. Nonetheless, there remains an urgent need to understand the global research effort. Only by analysing research at national, regional (eg EU), and international (eg CGIAR136) levels will it become evident where there is scope for alignment, and where unaddressed opportunities remain. As discussed at the recent G20 Meeting of Agricultural Chief Scientists, the G8 and G20 have the capacity to lead such an exercise, and to facilitate delivery of partnered programmes to ensure that research gaps are appropriately filled.

The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable 30. Better understanding of where short term risks arise (for example from climate and pollution extremes or pest outbreaks) will come from greater insight into how the food system as a whole, as opposed to just food production, operates. An understanding of the natural and managed environment’s role in the provision of sustainable and resilient food security will be required for full development of risk governance strategies. 127 http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/frp-severe-weather-uk-food-chain-resilience.pdf#search=%22FRP%22 128 http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/frp-severe-weather-uk-food-chain-resilience.pdf#search=%22FRP%22 129 http://pirbright.ac.uk/ 130 http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/ 131 http://www.ceh.ac.uk 132 http://www.ukcds.org.uk/ 133 http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/international/belmont.asp?cookieConsent=A 134 http://www.lwec.org.uk/ 135 http://www.globaluncertainties.org.uk/ 136 http://www.cgiar.org/ cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w66 International Development Committee: Evidence

The role of the following in increasing food security and the part that DFID should play in: — Competition for land use—including for biofuels, cash crops, livestock or agriculture and the impact of diet choices on food production capacity. — Small holder agriculture and large scale farming. — External interventions—including land deals, corporate investment and donor interventions. — The private sector. — New technologies, including irrigation, and the dissemination and distribution of these, with special reference to small farmers and women. — Global policy measures, including monitoring, food stocks, ﬁnancial shock facilities, food, nutrition and agriculture initiatives. — Food markets, trading, storage and distribution. — The role of commodity funds and major global commodity companies.

31. Research underpinning the development of new technologies, improvements in dietary health, mechanisms to put innovations into practice and increased understanding of socio-economic factors will have an important role to play in the achievement of food security. For example, potential lies in: — reducing the incidence of animal disease. The Pirbright Institute, strategically funded by BBSRC, played a key role in developing the vaccination technologies which achieved global eradication of rinderpest in 2011.137 The economic, environmental and animal welfare benefits of this programme exemplify the extensive impact of research and innovation in controlling potentially devastating livestock diseases; — improving maternal and child health in low income countries. Research supported by the MRC International Nutrition Group,138 Human Nutrition Research139 and Gambia Unit140 aims to identify strategies for optimisation of maternal and child health in low income countries, with a particular focus on interventions to combat micronutrient deficiencies and early life infections; — enhancing the sustainability of food production through genetic modification. Through the introduction to commercial crops of genes, from related or other plants, that confer naturally- occurring resistance to pests or pathogens, GM may offer scope for more environmentally- benign alternatives to the repeated application of pesticides. BBSRC has recently supported research on the development of potatoes resistant to nematode worms or “blight” fungus, and of aphid-resistant wheat. GM may also have the potential to increase agricultural productivity through reduction of animal disease, for example by preventing the transmission of avian influenza;141 — increasing yields through pest and weed control. Research at Rothamsted has led to the development of new farming systems for sustainable intensification. The “push-pull” strategy diverts (pushes) insect pests and parasitic weeds from the main crop and entices (pulls) them into a trap crop. In parts of Africa, this innovative approach is already responsible for doubling cereal crop yield on poor subsistence farms whilst minimising negative environmental impacts;142 — reducing sensitivity to and impacts of air pollutants on crop yield. Air pollution, especially ozone, reduces crop yields in developing countries.143 Possible strategies for mitigating such effects included pollutant resistant genotypes, chemical protection and changed management practices—and should be urgently explored; — developing marine farming technologies. Aquaculture and mariculture have tremendous scope to produce high quality nutrition from fish, shellfish and algae, without using scarce resources of land and fresh water. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) seeks to create a functioning, self-sustaining mini-ecosystem in which high value fish (eg salmon) are farmed alongside parasite-feeding species, filter-feeding shellfish to consume waste products, and seaweeds (macro-algae) that provide a structure, habitat and valuable product for algal biofuels, pharmaceuticals, fertiliser and fuel. The Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) is a leader in IMTA development;144,145 137 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/impact/eradicating-rinderpest.aspx 138 http://www.ing.mrc.ac.uk/default.aspx 139 http://www.mrc-hnr.cam.ac.uk/ 140 http://www.mrc.gm/ 141 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/1102_avian_influenza_chickens.pdf 142 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/publications/business/2009/autumn/opinion-john-pickett.aspx 143 http://icpvegetation.ceh.ac.uk/publications/documents/ozoneandfoodsecurity-ICPVegetationreport%202011-published.pdf 144 http://www.sams.ac.uk/maeve-kelly/integrated-multitrophic-aquaculture-research 145 http://www.sams.ac.uk/kenny-black/irc-imta cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w67

— increasing water efficiency and exploring non-conventional water resources: Water security is essential to food security. Increasing water productivity, for example through better irrigation management and rainfall harvesting, is vital to increasing food production per land unit. Use of non-conventional water resources such as saline/brackish groundwater, treated waste water, water from cooling towers and from mines will be needed to reduce reliance on the finite, and in many regions scare, resource of fresh water. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) is exploring alternative water resources, and trialling drought and salt-tolerant crops across Europe and North Africa;146 — modelling and building resilient food systems in the face of climate change. Food production is determined by an integration of farming, environment and demand. Developing models to predict how weather perturbations create demand signals, and drive land-use and production changes, will be crucial in both short- and long-term planning. The UK is a world leader in climate science and modelling, and DFID should use this information to ensure that its development strategies provide future resilience in food systems by accounting for changing weather; — early detection of disease and other stresses in crops. New technologies based on Earth observation techniques (from satellites or aircraft) will facilitate early identification of crop disease outbreaks for preventative action; — developing sustainable landscapes delivering both food and ecosystem services. The challenge of sustainable intensification is both about producing more per unit area, with lower environmental costs, and about managing landscapes to deliver crucial wider ecosystem services such as pollination. The UK has considerable expertise in this area, as reflected by investments in the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU),147 Social Economic and Environmental Research (SEER)148 and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Sustainability (BESS)149 programmes; — understanding pathways to sustainability in agriculture. Agriculture is central to sustainable development in food production, impacts on ecosystems and landscapes, and the development of sustainable rural economies and communities. Research is required to fully understand the role of biodiversity in delivering sustainable agriculture, for example through pollination and nitrogen fixation services. The Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability (STEPS) Centre,150 supported by ESRC, is an interdisciplinary global research and policy engagement project which unites development studies with science and technology. The creation of sustainable food systems through local initiatives, and issues of governance and accountability throughout the food supply chain have been explored through the ESRC- supported Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS);151 — understanding food choices and behaviour. Eating habits are sometimes said to be among the most difficult of all to change, yet individuals are also constantly solicited in the name of responsible consumption to change their habits and/or to buy new products. Substantial changes in the relation of societies to food will be necessary to respond to issues of environmental sustainability, but it is far from clear how this might be achieved. The Sustainable Practices Research Group,152 supported by ESRC, aims to cast a sociological and comparative light on processes of changing habits; and — reducing waste in the global food system. A significant proportion (30 to 40%) of food in the developing worlds is lost to waste, for example through inadequate food-chain infrastructure, post-harvest pests, poor storage technologies and poor access to markets. Coordinated natural and social science research is required to understand and reduce food losses.153 32. DFID should continue to support collaborative research, particularly to ensure that advances in basic research are translated into practical applications which support food security worldwide. 33. DFID should also support farmers in LDCs to articulate their technological and policy needs in the short- and long-term, stimulate local private sectors and develop LDC research capacity. These measures will help to ensure that food production technologies will be embedded within local agricultural, social, economic and environmental contexts, rather than developed as abstractions of externally perceived problems. 34. Achieving long-term sustainability in food production and food security in LDCs will necessitate long- term planning and capacity building, training, innovation and engagement between DFID and RCUK to make best use of UK research. An holistic approach that takes into account factors such as environmental change, 146 http://www.swup-med.dk/ 147 http://www.relu.ac.uk/ 148 http://www.cserge.ac.uk/current-research-projects/seer 149 http://www.nerc-bess.net/ 150 http://steps-centre.org/ 151 http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/ 152 http://www.sprg.ac.uk/ 153 J. Parfitt et al, 2012. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010 365, 3065–3081. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w68 International Development Committee: Evidence

globalisation, changes in diet and economic resilience in the food economy is required. Sustainability can be achieved when investment can be integrated with local research capacity—requiring continuity of approaches and funding, and the empowerment of LDCs to commission research from countries such as the UK. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by SABMiller

Executive Summary The global food system is facing an unprecedented confluence of pressures, with agriculture and farmers at the centre. Enhancing the productivity of smallholder farmers in Africa and elsewhere is an important part of the food security equation, as it will increase food production and incomes for many of the most food insecure people. However, it must also be recognised that commercial farmers are a crucial part of the global food system and therefore of any food security solution. As a brewer, both smallholder and commercial farmers are crucial to our supply chain, and we therefore have the opportunity—within our value chains—to influence agricultural production and productivity. We seek to develop commercially sustainable business models that raise productivity, optimise resource efficiency and boost the incomes of local farmers, while providing us with better quality, cost-competitive raw materials. We have made great progress in incorporating smallholder farmers into our value chain, giving them access to new markets, and helping them drive improvements in productivity and efficiency. We pioneered this approach with the launch of Eagle Lager in Uganda in 2002, which uses locally grown sorghum instead of more expensive imported barley. We have also worked with smallholders in Mozambique to create the world’s first commercially-produced cassava beer. Both of these projects have created new sources of income for thousands of smallholders farmers. SABMiller also believes that larger commercial farms have an important role to play in promoting food security. We are supportive of multilateral and national initiatives to strengthen this sector in both developed and emerging economies, and we have also been directly contributing ourselves, for example through our development of the commercial barley sector in Zambia, and our work directly with farmers in South Africa and Northern Europe. We believe that it is essential for governments and international organisations to look at agricultural development holistically, and to follow strategies that balance support to large-scale, commercial smallholder and smallholder farmers in order to increase food production and food access, drive economic growth and social development, and alleviate poverty. DfID is well placed to support this process, and should continue to support public private partnerships that help integrate smallholder farmers into agricultural value chains. To promote the development of robust agricultural sectors, governments in food insecure countries need to continue to improve the enabling environment for business, especially in relation to infrastructure and legal and governance frameworks.

1. Introduction and Overview 1.1 SABMiller welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee to aid its inquiry into how the global food system can ensure an end to hunger. As a major global brewer, we have many years of experience working with farmers and suppliers in a range of lower and middle-income countries, notably in Africa, India and Latin America. Agriculture is at the core of our brewing supply chain, and our operations support agricultural supply chains and therefore farmers’ incomes in many parts of the world. 1.2 Policy debates around global food security are therefore of interest to us, as our business growth depends on healthy, growing agricultural sectors in the countries where we operate. We also have the opportunity to help improve food security at the local level through our agricultural supply chains, which are a critical part of our value chain. 1.3 Given our expertise and experience, our submission focuses on the important role of the private sector in promoting food security, in particular the following areas: — The need for productive, resource-efﬁcient global, regional and local agricultural systems to meet growing global demand for food. — The need for more productive farming and more effective, affordable local and regional food markets in Africa, where many of the world’s hungry live. — The need for smallholder farmers to improve productivity to feed themselves and to generate income through participating more fully in local and regional markets. — The role of governments, donors, the private sector and civil society in supporting these processes. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w69

2. The Global Context 2.1 The global food system is experiencing an unprecedented confluence of pressures, including growing and increasingly wealthy populations, climate change, growing demand for fresh water supplies and energy, and increasing competition for valuable agricultural land including for biofuels production. 2.2 These pressures are asking some demanding questions of the global food system: in particular, how to provide sufficient quantities of affordable, nutritious food in a way that protects biodiversity, conserves energy and does not exacerbate water scarcity, while also alleviating poverty. 2.3 In November 2012, the World Bank warned that high and volatile global food prices have become the “new norm”, creating increased risk for supplies at a time when 12% of the global population remains chronically undernourished. This means that the global food system is failing to rise to the challenges it faces, and the symptoms of these failures are currently being felt by some of the world’s most vulnerable and poorest people, particularly in Africa and parts of Asia. 2.4 At the centre of the food security challenge are farmers, whether they are smallholders in Africa and India, who are typically the “faces” of the food security issue, or large-scale commercial farmers in the developed world. Enhancing smallholder productivity in developing economies (particularly in Africa) is one part of the equation, as this will both increase food supplies and also raise incomes (and therefore ability to purchase food) for many of the world’s most food insecure people. Achieving this will call for a number of complementary strategies: creating effective links to markets, promoting appropriate mixes of crops, facilitating the transfer of technology and skills, and increasing access to finance for investment in inputs. 2.5 But smallholder farmers in developing countries are only one part of the wider food system that is required to meet rising global demand for food. The other part of the answer therefore must lie in the food production of commercial farmers in the developed and developing world. 2.6 As a brewer, both smallholder and larger commercial farmers are crucial to our supply chain, and we can influence the farmers with whom we work. 2.7 We have embraced this responsibility in the way that we engage with farmers. We have established programmes to support farmers from whom we source to improve their productivity and the efficiency with which they use inputs such as water and fertilizer. This not only provides us with better value raw materials, but helps increase farmers’ overall production of both brewing and food crops, and their incomes. This impact on food production is particularly important in the case of smallholder farmers in developing markets, where the combination of increased food production and increased income can mean food security for them and their families.

3. The Importance of Smallholder Farmers for Food Security 3.1 Africa in particular holds the power to transform agriculture and food security. It has abundant land and natural resources and contains around 60% of the world’s uncultivated land. The 2008 World Development Report notes that in sub-Saharan Africa 470 million people are located in rural areas, agriculture employs 65 percent of the labour force and the sector drives 32 percent of GDP growth. African governments, international donors, civil society organisations and businesses have all recognised the fundamental importance of agriculture and smallholder farming for food security, and SABMiller itself has been working with smallholder farmers in Africa for many years. 3.2 We believe that smallholder farmers will only sustainably raise their incomes if they are able to increase their production of staple foods and diversify into other food and non-food crops, thereby participating meaningfully in local and regional agricultural markets. This increase in agricultural production and trade will contribute to the food security both of the individual farmers, and at a broader local and regional level. 3.3 Achieving this calls for more than just a focus on the smallholder crop mix and farming practice. Factors such as, infrastructure, microﬁnance and access to markets are critical, and there is a need for private sector and government engagement to create effective markets, build smallholder capacity to become part of a value chain, and ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to allow value chains to function effectively. 3.4 Recognising the crucial role of the private sector, SABMiller has been pioneering new models to help this happen to the beneﬁt of both local farmers and our business.

4. How the Private Sector can Empower Smallholder Farmers 4.1 “SABMiller, for example, is working with small-holder farmers in South Sudan to use cassava in the production of beer. By sourcing ingredients locally it will improve market opportunities for around 2,000 poor farmers. This is not altruism. The result for the company—a healthy proﬁt and a whole new market. The result for Africa—employment, growth and consumer choice.”—Andrew Mitchell, UK Secretary of State for International Development, 2010 to 2012 4.2 Sourcing agricultural raw materials locally has always been an important part of SABMiller’s business model, and is becoming even more so. We work to build value chains that secure long-term supply, mitigate cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w70 International Development Committee: Evidence

commodity price volatility, and reduce transport costs—all sound commercial reasons. But there is a bigger picture. By building local value chains, we drive local economic growth and stimulate social development, delivering a win for local communities as well as for our business. 4.3 Sourcing material locally means that we can control our costs better, for example in Africa, by removing the need to import barley from Europe. By guaranteeing markets for crops and paying a pre-negotiated and jointly agreed price, we offer farmers security and help create jobs, incomes and prosperity, thereby directly impacting on food security. We also help farmers to improve agricultural productivity and expertise, and we would expect farmers to grow a variety of crops that are matched to stable markets. This means farmers are not reliant on a single customer and have a sustainable business model. 4.4 Our engagement with smallholder farmers is not corporate philanthropy—it makes good business sense. It beneﬁts local communities in the form of new income streams, while beneﬁtting SABMiller in the form of security of supply, cost stability and sometimes lower costs. It is therefore a sustainable way of driving local economic growth and improving food security.

5. The Importance of Cash Crops for Food Security 5.1 SABMiller pioneered its smallholder sourcing approach with the launch of Eagle Lager in Uganda in 2002. This product uses locally grown sorghum instead of more expensive imported barley, and now accounts for over 30% of the market in Uganda and supports around 7,000 smallholder farmers . This approach radically altered the agri-business model by enabling smallholder farmers to enter into a profitable cash crop market, increasing the incomes of many thousands of smallholder farmers. 5.2 We have built on this approach with our work in Mozambique, where we have worked with smallholder farmers to produce the world’s first commercially-produced cassava beer, Impala. Cassava is a very important source of calorie intake in Africa, where it is widely grown as a subsistence crop. However, it has very low levels of commercialisation because its roots deteriorate quickly once harvested. As a result, farmers are generally unable to profit from any surplus. 5.3 In order to address this problem, we partnered with DADTCO (Dutch Agricultural Development and Trading Company) to develop a mobile processing unit that could process cassava at a village level, close to the farm, to then be brewed as Impala beer. The production of Impala in Mozambique is expected to use about 40,000 tonnes of raw cassava every year, creating a new market and additional income for initially 1,500 smallholder farmers. We have started to work with cassava farmers in South Sudan on a similar approach, supported by AECF funding, and now have plans to expand this model to several other markets in Africa. 5.4 SABMiller India has been working since 2005 with barley farmers in Jaipur and Sikar. From an initial catchment area of about 3,300 acres spread over three centres, the project has now increased to 15 farmer centres, nearly 6,500 farmers and barley cultivation of about 30,000 acres. The project not only optimises land use, improves farmer yield and income but also improves their overall standard of living.

6. Addressing Food Security Concerns Around Cash Crops 6.1 Some have observed that the production of cash crops can undermine food security by reducing household food production and reducing the overall amount of land available for food production. Such concerns need to be taken seriously, and SABMiller has taken them into consideration when designing its partnerships with farmers in developing countries. 6.2 For instance, our intention in our cassava work in Mozambique and elsewhere is to support farmers to significantly increase productivity through better varieties and better farming practice. This means that they can continue to produce ample cassava for consumption, while producing a surplus for sale to us. We hope to develop this value chain to bring in other purchasers of cassava, for example local food processors. 6.3 We recognise that cassava alone will not address all of the farmers’ nutritional requirements and are looking at two strategies to address this. Firstly, selling cassava generates an income that farmers can use to purchase additional foodstuffs. Secondly, as part of working with cassava farmers to improve farming practice and access to finance and inputs, there is a significant opportunity to promote cultivation of other food crops for consumption and sale. We are currently working on how to ensure that the investment in the cassava value chain delivers benefits in both income and food production to support poverty reduction, food security and nutrition. Separately, we are working as part of an EU-funded initiative with Hanoi University of Science and Technology to take by-products of cassava processing and dramatically increase their value.

7. Commercial Farming and Smallholder Farming 7.1 We believe that a sole focus on smallholder farmers as the solution to agricultural development, poverty reduction and food security is too limited. In reality, agricultural development needs to encompass all farming systems to meet increases in demand for food that resulting from population increases in Africa, and growing demand from increasingly wealthy emerging economies. 7.2 Larger commercial farms can rapidly scale up food production by leveraging their economies of scale and frequently superior productivity. Commercial farms are a cornerstone of economic growth and job creation— cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w71

particularly for the young and low-skilled. No country has been able to sustain a rapid transition out of poverty without raising productivity in its agricultural sector (with the exception of Hong Kong and Singapore, which had no sector to start with154).

7.3 Unfortunately, the commercial agricultural sector in much of Africa remains under-developed. In July 2012, Mthuli Ncube, Chief Economist and Vice President of the African Development Bank (AfDB) discussed the need for African economies to diversify away from oil extraction and raw materials in order to correct the “jobless” economic growth currently being experienced by the continent. Dr Ncube identiﬁed efﬁcient commercial farming in particular as a powerful driver for job creation, but described it as a “missed opportunity” in Africa where, despite an abundance of fertile land, complex social and political issues of land ownership and title are still hampering farming development.155

7.4 A number of African countries have recently identiﬁed commercial farming as a key sector in their national economic growth strategies. The governments of Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and Mozambique , for example, have recently announced plans aimed at facilitating the growth of commercial farming of both food and cash crops.

7.5 A new body aimed at promoting private sector investment in African agriculture, Grow Africa, was initiated at the World Economic Forum in 2011, with seven of the “ﬁrst wave” countries convening a ministerial meeting in Dar es Salaam in March 2012. Involvement of the private sector in agricultural development has also become an important component of NEPAD’s CAADP, upon which Grow Africa is building.

7.6 SABMiller supports NEPAD’s focus on building the capacity of small and medium-sized farms, and welcomes these new pro-private sector initiatives, as it is our experience that genuine impact on agricultural productivity can only be achieved through a partnership of government, the private sector, large and small farmers.

7.7 We are also strongly supportive of African government ambitions to scale-up commercial farming, and this has formed a key plank of our strategy in several countries.

7.8 For example, our Zambian business Zambia Breweries (ZB) has been working to establish barley as a new crop for commercial farmers, to obviate the need to import expensive barley from Europe and the US. This has created a new agricultural sector in Zambia.

8. Recommendations

8.1 We believe that it is essential for governments and international organisations to look at agricultural development holistically, and to follow strategies that balance support to large-scale, commercial smallholder and subsistence farmers in order to increase food production and food access, drive economic growth and social development, and alleviate poverty. As our work in Africa, India, Latin America and elsewhere shows, private sector investment in the agricultural sector—particularly smallholders—can be a part of the answer to poverty reduction and food security.

8.2 However, to create thriving, productive agricultural sectors, strong governance on the part of government is critical. Private investors need a hospitable business environment, including good infrastructure and robust legal and corporate governance frameworks, which provide a stable and predictable environment for businesses to invest with conﬁdence.

8.3 We recommend that DfID supports existing multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture, and Grow Africa, which seeks to accelerate investments and transformative change in African agriculture based on national agricultural priorities.

8.4 We would recommend that DfID funding for agriculture and smallholder farmers should focus on overall agricultural policy, governance, smallholder capacity and supporting the development of effective value chains, with a focus on working through public-private partnerships. This would help ensure markets for smallholder outputs, develop the capacity of smallholders to deliver to those markets, and a hospitable environment for agricultural trade—which together would play a significant role in enhancing food security. We would particularly call for funding to support fledgling, innovative companies involved in the value chain between farmer and ultimate buyer. Innovative financing instruments like the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (ACEF) also have a key role to play and DfID is to be commended for its global leadership in this area. January 2012

154 Professor C Peter Timmer. “A World without Agriculture: The Structural Transformation in Historical Perspective” (AEI Press, 2009). 155 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/uk-africa-food-prices-idUKBRE86U0J920120731 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w72 International Development Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Small Foundation 1. Summary and Recommendations 1.1 Small Foundation (SF) is a grant-making organization registered as a charity in Ireland. Its objective is the speedy and permanent elimination of the threat of famine from Africa. The people most at risk of famine are rural smallholder families. SF believes the threat of famine can be eliminated only through the widespread creation of opportunities for these people to gain economic independence through income generation. The necessary first steps are the improvement of agricultural productivity in volume, quality and reliability and the creation of linkages to markets. This will contribute to food security not just for the producers but globally. 1.2 SF funds the scaling up of initiatives by NGOs and businesses that open up access for smallholder communities to knowledge, technology, finance and markets. But it believes only the private sector can create those opportunities on the required continent-wide scale. 1.3 The private sector does not operate in a vacuum. Action is required by the public sector and other actors to enable smallholders to become part of opportunity-creating value chains. 1.4 We therefore believe that the key issues for the inquiry are: — What are the obstacles to the private sector providing adequate and sustainable opportunities for smallholders and their communities? These are all the factors, whether physical, legal, political or institutional, that inhibit access by smallholders to knowledge, technology, finance and markets. — How can the public sector foster the conditions for private sector-led solutions to thrive? This role lies in the removal of the obstacles referred to above. This involves public investment in: education at all levels, including training in community organisation, business and entrepreneurship; last-mile distribution (and, where appropriate, local manufacture) of productivity-enhancing technology, including improved inputs and irrigation; financial institutions to meet the financing needs of farmers and of all the players along the value chain; transport and communication infrastructure; and legal systems to create a robust and trusted commercial law framework, including title to land. — How can we bring the required parties together to enable smallholder farmers to be embedded in viable value chains? A new type of organisation to broker effective partnerships may have a role. — How can the Doing Business in Agriculture Index being developed by the World Bank help African governments improve the environment for domestic and international investment and for smallholders seeking to improve their incomes?

2. Smallholder Farmers and Food Security 2.1 Small-scale subsistence farmers, who make up about 80% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa, mostly rely on rain-fed agriculture to provide for their families’ needs. As a result, even in good years, they are often hungry and their children are malnourished. 2.2 SF believes that, given the opportunity, even the most impoverished subsistence farming communities in sub-Saharan Africa can transform their own lives. Such a transformation requires them to move from subsistence farming to farming as a business with diversified produce for the market as well as their own consumption, with larger and more reliable harvests and more off-farm income. The farmer’s family would then be able to meet its own food needs and the surplus income can be invested in health, education and further improvements in productivity. At the broader level, the surplus food produced contributes to the global food supply. 2.3 SF believes that this transformation can be achieved by giving smallholder farmers access to opportunities. It funds a range of approaches, run by NGOs, social businesses and profit making businesses, aimed at finding ways to do this. However, SF firmly believes that scaling up these opportunities so that the majority of smallholder farmers can benefit will require a greatly enhanced private sector in Africa. This will be mostly local small-scale businesses, though larger businesses, both local and multinational, also have an important role to play. 2.4 The probable long-term future for the majority of poor people in rural Africa is to become urbanized, as has happened with their counterparts in the histories of now-developed countries. The conclusion is sometimes drawn from this that it is futile to try to improve rural economies in Africa. This conclusion is seriously wrong- headed. Improving rural economies is a necessary step on the road to prosperous urbanization in Africa, as it has been everywhere else with the exception of a handful of small city states.

3. The Role of the Private Sector 3.1 In SF’s thinking, the private sector encompasses small local businesses in Africa, including smallholder farming businesses, as well as the largest multinationals, and every business in between. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w73

3.2 Agriculture is, for the most part, the domain of the private sector. This has always been the case, but there is renewed interest in the role of the private sector in providing more of the inputs and income generation opportunities, including access to markets, that smallholders need to thrive. This was reﬂected in the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition announcement at the Camp David Summit in May 2012 that aimed to forge a new partnership between African governments, international donors and the private sector “to increase responsible domestic and foreign private investments in African agriculture, take innovations that can enhance agricultural productivity to scale, and reduce the risk borne by vulnerable economies and communities.” The announcement recognised “the critical role played by smallholder farmers, especially women, in transforming agriculture and building thriving economies.” The New Alliance seeks to align public and private sector investments with African strategies for food security and nutrition, but recognises that the conditions for private sector investment need to be right. 3.3 SF applauds this initiative but it must be built on and broadened.

4. The need for Effective Partnerships 4.1 Companies such as Diageo, SAB Miller, Unilever, as well as African companies, are already using African smallholder farmers to supply them with produce. SF knows of, and has some involvement with, examples of this in Ethiopia, South Sudan, Mozambique and Kenya. Several private sector companies have signed up to the New Alliance country plans, outlining what they will provide. Most of them—domestic and international—are looking to expand their use of small-scale producers in their supply chains. Working with smallholder farmers, however, presents particular challenges, not least ensuring a consistent quantity and quality of supply. Ill-conceived plans that underestimate the effort and understanding required to get farmers to the required level of expertise, both organisational and technical, can be disastrous for both business and farmers. 4.2 Reducing and overcoming these challenges requires action from others. African governments can create conditions conducive to such investment. Non-governmental actors, from local cooperatives to international NGOs, have an important role to play in working with farmers, and farmer organizations, to reach the levels of output and standards required to enter supply chains securely and profitably. Donors and financial institutions are needed to provide the “patient” finance required to move these businesses forward.

5. Improving the Investment Climate 5.1 CAADP, and particularly its “Pillar 2” on market access, is doing important work in encouraging domestic and international investments of this kind. We are also pleased to see that the World Bank is working on a “Doing Business in Agriculture” index and would like to see DFID and other sovereign donors supporting this initiative. This index will look at the various factors required to make a country a conducive environment in which to invest in agriculture—measuring the ease, for example, of accessing credit, irrigated land and inputs. 5.2 To capture the full picture, the Index should include factors that particularly affect smallholders, that reﬂect the developmental and food security beneﬁts of increasing their incomes and that help governments, donors, NGOs and others to identify areas that need to be addressed to help them achieve this. The environment for the creation of cooperatives and other producer organizations, vital to aggregating smallholders’ production, will be a key factor.

6. The need to Broker more and Better Partnerships 6.1 If the private sector and value chains are to expand the opportunities for income creation for smallholder farmers, more partnerships are needed between all the necessary elements: companies who need produce, smallholders who can meet that demand, cooperatives and NGOs who can work with the farmers to prepare them to supply the produce, the patient capital required to get these projects off the ground and the trade and pre-harvest ﬁnance needed to keep them going. 6.2 We therefore believe that sparking an exploration of how these partnerships might be brokered more effectively would be a productive line of inquiry for the Select Committee.

7. The Role for the UK Government 7.1 The UK Government has the opportunity to build on the New Alliance when it assumes the G8 Presidency in 2013. As the sixth largest donor to African agriculture, helping smallholder farmers position themselves to access the opportunities provided by the private sector should be a priority for its bilateral and multilateral spending. This should include helping marginalised smallholders, including women, get into a position where they have the opportunity to become integrated in value chains. Vehicles for this could include increasing funding via the African Enterprise Challenge Fund; the Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG); regional enterprise funds similar to the Maendeleo Agricultural Enterprise Fund;156 increased support to NGOs and cooperatives that have the motivation and skills to work with the private sector on sustainable 156 http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/news-views/news-archive—2010/post/133-farm-africa-proposes-a-new-agricultural-fund-at-the- clinton-global-initiative cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w74 International Development Committee: Evidence

and inclusive value chains, perhaps via a dedicated fund; and additional support to cooperatives, building on the AGRA initiative supporting centres of excellence for cooperatives in Tanzania and Mali. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by The Soil Association Introduction The Soil Association is a UK charity, campaigning for healthy, humane and sustainable, food, farming and land use. We welcome the opportunity to make the following submission to the International Development Commons Select Committee’s (IDC) inquiry on “global food security”.

Summary According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, IAASTD and development charities, helping to feed those currently starving or malnourished means increasing food production, supply and availability in those countries where the problems are occurring, and to the poorest people in those countries, and local agro- ecological systems are best suited to achieve this. This is particularly the case when considering future threats to agricultural production, as the resources currently needed to produce food, oil based fertilisers and pesticides, mined phosphates and fresh water, become scarcer and more expensive. Organic and other agro-ecological farming systems can help the world feed itself, but as well as changing our farming systems, we need to eat differently, feed our livestock differently, and waste less food. 1. Food has never before existed in such abundance. There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment they need, and yet there are nearly one billion people in the world today who are hungry and another billion who are malnourished, lacking the essential micronutrients they need to lead healthy lives. At the same time, more than 1 billion are overweight, of which 300 million are obese, posing a major risk for diet-related illnesses such as type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. There are clearly huge global inequalities in the distribution of food. People continue to go hungry because they cannot afford to buy food, or access it in other ways such as growing it themselves. This arises directly because of poverty, but natural disasters, conflict, poor agricultural practices and infrastructure and over-exploitation of the environment can all be contributory factors. 2. In addition to demographic changes, it should be recognized that the dietary shift of a growing population will also have a significant impact on the natural environment. Business-as-usual global projections assume that with economic growth populations in the developing world will increase their consumption of meat and dairy products, extending the nutrition transition that is already occurring in the developed world. Whilst the human health costs of such a shift are already being felt in terms of increased rates of obesity, and non-communicable diseases such as Type-2 diabetes and some types of cancer,157 the impacts on the natural environment should also be considered. Such diets involve the rapid expansion of livestock numbers, causing increased greenhouse gas emissions, and expansion of grain production as feed, putting further pressure on important bio-diverse habitats. 3. The recent increase in food prices has pushed yet more people in the Global South, who are reliant on food imports and spend a large proportion of their income on food, into hunger. Small countries that are dependent on imports especially in Africa were deeply effected by the food and economic crises. The causes of this price hike include biofuel policies that have diverted grain away from the food supply, harvest failures and commodity speculation. The majority of the people who are hungry live in the Global South, in poor rural areas, and are often directly involved in producing food. Many do not have land of their own and work for others, often in seasonal jobs, to earn money to survive. Poor people living in urban areas are another group that are at risk of hunger, and this is a growing issue as cities continue 4. A key challenge is that we are now living in a resource-constrained world and this will impact on our ability to produce food and to protect the natural environment. Peak phosphorus is the second critical resource constraint which will be a key challenge in the future. The supply of phosphorus from mined phosphate rock could “peak” as soon as 2033,158 after which this non- renewable resource will become increasingly scarce and expensive. Thus, we are facing the end of cheap and readily-available phosphate fertiliser on which intensive agriculture is totally dependent. The impact of this is likely to be an increase in the price of food as production levels drop. 157 Friel, S, et al (2009), Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture, Lancet, 2009, 374: 2016–25. 158 Cordell, D, Drangert, J, and White, S (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought, Global Environmental Change, 19, pages 292–305. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w75

5. New support for smallholder agriculture, especially in Africa, is urgently needed to increase productivity and provide economic opportunities for small scale farmers. This investment needs to be focused on agro-ecological systems, such as organic, rather than on intensive farming methods that will further degrade the environment and require expensive inputs made from fossil fuels, that will become increasingly scarce in the future.

6. The United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, has argued for the scaling up of such models of agriculture and ensuring that they work for the beneﬁt of the poorest farmers. Developing agroecology requires supportive policy. However, in most African countries organic agriculture is not speciﬁcally supported by agricultural policy, and is sometimes actively hindered by policies advocating the use of high-input farming.

7. Agroecology is a science and a set of farming practices that seek to improve agricultural systems by mimicking natural processes, creating beneﬁcial biological interactions among the different components of the agro-ecosystem. Organic systems put into practice the core principles of agroecology such as recycling nutrients on the farm, integrating livestock and crops, diversifying species and genetic resources, and considering the productivity of an entire agricultural system rather than a single crop. Agro-ecological farming is based on highly knowledge-intensive techniques that to expand. Urban agriculture is already a reality for many people in the Global South, but there is an increasing focus on the important role it can play in reducing hunger for the urban poor. Of course, in poor countries with a food-deﬁcit production levels should be increased where appropriate, but agriculture also needs to play a role in reducing hunger through growing farmer and household incomes, building infrastructure and markets, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

8. Investment by governments and donors in agriculture in the Global South had dropped over the last three decades, although this is now changing with new investment from agri-food companies and new global policy initiatives. New support for smallholder agriculture, especially in Africa, is urgently needed to increase productivity and provide economic opportunities for small scale farmers. This investment needs to be focused on agro-ecological systems, such as organic, rather than on intensive farming methods that will further degrade the environment and require expensive inputs made from fossil fuels, that will become increasingly scarce in the future.

9. Agro-ecological farming is based on highly knowledge-intensive techniques that are developed through farmers’ knowledge and experimentation. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (“the IAASTD report”) is supported by 400 scientists and 60 countries and recommends support for agro-ecological sciences that would contribute to addressing environmental issues whilst maintaining and increasing productivity. It also recommended that community-based innovation and local knowledge combined with science-based approaches as the best way to addressing the problems, needs and opportunities of the rural poor.

10. In the world by 2050, and it has been frequently argued that a massive increase in food production, of 70–100%, will be needed to feed them all. This is not just due to more people, but reﬂects the assumptions made by the authors of the modelling study about the diet we will all be eating. In making and using these predictions, policy-makers are assuming that many more people in countries in the Global South will be eating a “Western” diet with more intensively-produced meat, dairy products, sugar and vegetable oils, following the shift in eating habits that has already occurred in countries in the Global North as incomes rise.

11. The model also assumes that there will be no reduction in the amounts eaten in the Global North, and in fact that there will be further 14% increase in the consumption of such foods, 22 despite growing recognition of the negative health impacts of such diets in both low and high income countries. This continuing shift towards higher consumption of livestock products from intensively reared animals has implications for mitigating climate change. A large rise in the production of cereals would be needed for animal feed. The greenhouse gas emissions from such intensively-reared livestock are signiﬁcant; from converting natural habitat to land to grow feed crops. The methane from cattle and sheep, and nitrous oxide from the production and application of manufactured fertilizers to grow animal feed.

12. A 70% increase or doubling in the production of food would not solve the hunger problem with 290 million people predicted to still be malnourished in 2050 if such a strategy was implemented. Moreover, such massive increases in food produced like this would have huge negative impacts on both the environment and human health, and are not necessary with action to change diets and reductions in food losses and waste. December 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w76 International Development Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by War on Want

Summary — The global food system has clearly failed to guarantee food security to the peoples of the world. According to the latest figures from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), published in October 2012, over 1.5 billion people do not have access to sufficient food to sustain a lifestyle of “normal activity”. The number of people chronically undernourished in Africa has risen from 175 million in 1990 to 239 million today. In the USA, food banks are struggling to cater for the 50 million people known to be living with food insecurity. In the UK—a country where the concept of food banks was unknown until recently—record numbers have been forced to turn to them for help during 2012. — The scandal of hunger at these levels is not due to insufficient quantities of food being available. As shown by the pioneering research of Amartya Sen, those who do not have access to sufficient food in the modern era are denied access through poverty and unequal distribution, not through the unavailability of food. At the same time as record numbers of people go hungry, the multinational corporations that dominate the global food system have used their market power to make record profits. — DFID is directing hundreds of millions of pounds from the UK aid budget towards agricultural programmes with the purpose of extending still further the power of multinational food corporations, especially in Africa. War on Want believes that DFID’s support for a new Green Revolution in Africa risks deepening vulnerability, poverty and hunger among rural populations, undermining any chance of sustainable food security in the long run. — Positive alternatives already exist that hold out real hope for ending the scandal of global hunger once and for all. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, has confirmed the importance of agroecology as a means of combating rural poverty, ecological degradation and climate change together. The framework of food sovereignty offers an even more comprehensive solution to the social, political and environmental failures of the current food system. — The relatively low profile of the food sovereignty movement in the UK is due to the exclusion of small-scale farmers and rural communities from the debate. In this respect, the International Development Committee is strongly encouraged to take evidence from representatives of the international farmers’ movement La Via Campesina, which celebrates the 20th anniversary of its founding in 2013. — War on Want believes there is a fundamental contradiction between the interests of multinational corporations and the needs of small-scale farmers, and that ultimately global food security requires a new framework to replace the failed model that has been dominant in recent years. The International Development Committee is encouraged to use this timely inquiry to examine the framework of food sovereignty as a strong source of food security for the world’s peoples in the long run.

1. War on Want welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry by the House of Commons International Development Committee. War on Want has been actively engaged with issues of global food security for many years, through our longstanding partnerships with farmers’ movements in countries such as Mozambique, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Malawi and South Africa; our publication of the comprehensive report Food Sovereignty: Reclaiming the global food system in October 2011; and our promotion of the food sovereignty framework in the British and European contexts. We have also taken public positions critical of the UK government’s controversial role in promoting the interests of multinational food corporations in the global food system, most recently through our report The Hunger Games: How DFID support for agribusiness is fuelling poverty in Africa, published in December 2012.1

A failing system

2. There can be no doubt that the globalised food system has failed to guarantee food security to the peoples of the world. The latest figures from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), published in October 2012, record that 1.52 billion people do not have access to sufficient food to sustain a lifestyle of “normal activity”. It should be noted that this figure is considerably higher than the much quoted statistic of 868 million people who are chronically undernourished—a figure which is “a very conservative indicator of hunger”, according to the FAO, as it relates only to those who fail to secure the minimum intake of calories required to support a “sedentary” lifestyle.2

3. Certain regions of the world have seen signiﬁcant increases in hunger levels over the past 20 years. The new FAO statistics reveal that the number of people chronically undernourished in Africa has risen from 175 million in 1990 to 239 million today. Undernourishment in the “developed” regions of the world has also been on the rise in the past ﬁve years. In the USA, food banks are struggling to cater for the 50 million people known to be living with food insecurity. In the UK—a country where the concept of food banks was unknown until recently—record numbers have been forced to turn to them for help during 2012. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w77

4. As the FAO and other authorities have repeatedly made clear, the continuing scandal of hunger at these levels is not due to insufﬁcient quantities of food being available to meet the needs of the current world population—or, indeed, the needs of the nine billion people that are expected to be living on this planet by 2050. As shown by the pioneering research of Amartya Sen, those who do not have access to sufﬁcient food in the modern era are denied access through poverty and unequal distribution, not through the unavailability of food. The primary cause of continuing hunger in the 21st century is a globalised system of food production, distribution and consumption that fails to cater equitably for the needs of the world’s peoples. Changing this system for the better is the focus of the food sovereignty movement, described below.

5. The dominant model of “food security”, by contrast, restricts itself to a narrow focus on consumption alone, and relegates the issue of hunger to a social welfare problem that can be solved through handing out aid. In the words of Michel Pimbert, “The mainstream deﬁnition of food security, endorsed at food summits and other high level conferences, talks about everybody having enough good food to eat each day. But it doesn’t talk about where the food comes from, who produced it, or the conditions under which it was grown. This allows the food exporters to argue that the best way for poor countries to achieve food security is to import cheap food from them or to receive it free as ‘food aid’, rather than trying to produce it themselves. This makes those countries more dependent on the international market, drives peasant farmers, pastoralists, ﬁsherfolk and indigenous peoples who can’t compete with the subsidised imports off their land and into the cities, and ultimately worsens people’s food security.”3

6. The current regime of industrial agriculture has, however, benefited the small coterie of around 40 multinational corporations that effectively control the global food system from farm to fork.4 In 2010, the world’s four largest agrochemical companies (Bayer, Dow, Syngenta and Monsanto) and three largest grain traders (ADM, Bunge and Cargill) together made profits of US$20 billion. The fact that such profits come at a time when the world is experiencing record levels of hunger is no coincidence. As global agriculture becomes increasingly dominated by the power of agribusiness, small-scale peasant farmers and indigenous peoples become more vulnerable to hunger and poverty. Many have been forced off their lands as a result of expropriation by foreign investors backed by donors and government elites; many more have been locked into dependency on corporate seeds and chemical inputs, and find themselves trapped in an escalating spiral of debt and despair.

DFID support for agribusiness

7. The UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) has played a signiﬁcant role in promoting the model of industrial agriculture on the global stage. War on Want’s new report The Hunger Games: How DFID support for agribusiness is fuelling poverty in Africa, published in December 2012, reveals how DFID is directing hundreds of millions of pounds from the UK aid budget towards agricultural programmes with the express purpose of extending the power of multinational food corporations in Africa—a business opportunity identiﬁed by former Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, as “the next, maybe even the last, big market”.5

8. This includes DFID’s pledge of £395 million to the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, involving 45 of the largest agribusiness companies in programmes across Africa; DFID’s support for pro- corporate “agricultural growth corridors” in Tanzania and Mozambique; DFID’s continued funding of pro-GM bodies such as the African Agricultural Technology Foundation and the HarvestPlus initiative; and DFID’s support of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), whose promotion of agro-dealer networks in countries such as Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya has given a vital boost to the fortunes of agribusiness corporations seeking to penetrate the new markets of the continent.6

9. The drive for a new Green Revolution in Africa fails to recognise the long-term social and ecological problems caused by the high-input, intensiﬁed agriculture of the initial Green Revolution in Latin America and Asia. Crop yields rose in the early years for those farmers who were able to buy the new, “improved” packages of hybrid seeds, fertiliser and pesticides, but intensive monoculture farming gradually led to a decline in productivity growth rates as land was no longer permitted to lie fallow and regenerate, while the increased use of pesticides and fertilisers brought its own inevitable ecological consequences in the form of soil degradation, water pollution and increased emissions of nitrous oxide, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.7

10. The Green Revolution had an equally devastating impact on farmers themselves, many of whom soon found themselves driven into debt as a result of rising agrochemical prices, declining fertility and a need to apply ever more inputs to their fields. More and more rural households were forced to sell livestock and land to fend off bankruptcy, and over a quarter of a million farmers committed suicide in India alone between 1995 and 2010 as a result of desperation in the face of rising indebtedness.8 Those who were drawn into planting genetically modified seeds as part of the second wave of the Green Revolution soon discovered that the promises of the biotechnology corporations were as hollow as those of their predecessors, as they were forced to spend more and more on agrochemicals to fight off new pest attacks. In the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, where the government eventually banned Monsanto from operating as a result of its ineffectiveness, nine out of every 10 farmers who committed suicide were found to have been growing genetically modified cotton.9 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w78 International Development Committee: Evidence

Positive alternatives (1): Agroecology 11. There already exist positive alternatives to the failed model of globalised industrial agriculture. The majority of the staple crops used to feed the planet’s population are grown not by multinational corporations but by small-scale farmers using traditional methods. These smallholdings are known to have higher yields than large, plantation-based farms, and they also have far greater potential for poverty reduction for the 2.6 billion people around the world who currently depend on farming for their livelihoods. According to the United Nations, for every 10% rise in yields on small farms, there is a 7% reduction in poverty in Africa, and over 5% in Asia. Increased investment in such small-scale farming could create an estimated 47 million extra jobs over the next 40 years, in comparison with the status quo.10 12. There is significant potential for achieving higher yields through farming according to the principles of agroecology. In 2010, Olivier De Schutter, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, submitted the most authoritative report on agroecology to date.11 According to De Schutter, “The core principles of agroecology include recycling nutrients and energy on the farm, rather than introducing external inputs; integrating crops and livestock; diversifying species and genetic resources in agroecosystems over time and space; and focusing on interactions and productivity across the agricultural system, rather than focusing on individual species.” De Schutter examined scientific studies into the effectiveness of agroecology, including the study carried out by Jules Pretty and others, which compared the impacts of 286 projects in 57 developing countries.12 It found that productivity increased by 79% on average under the agroecology system, while environmental services such as insect pollination, fish stocks, water supply and crop pollination also improved. 13. Agroecology also has startling potential with respect to global warming. The Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania carried out a 10-year study comparing organic agriculture with fields under standard tillage using chemical fertilisers. It found that the organically farmed fields could sequester (capture) up to 2,000lb of carbon per acre per year from the atmosphere. By contrast, fields relying on chemical fertilisers lost into the atmosphere almost 300lb of carbon per acre per year. If organic agriculture were practised on all 434 million acres of cropland in the USA, the study concluded, nearly 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide would be sequestered per year, mitigating close to one quarter of the country’s total fossil fuel emissions. At the global level, according to similar calculations by non-governmental organisation GRAIN, if traditional systems of mixed farming were adopted throughout the world, approximately two thirds of the excess carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere would be captured within 50 years.13 14. As a result of these and other studies, De Schutter has confirmed that agroecology reduces rural poverty, improves nutrition, increases resilience to climate change and improves gender equality. He concluded his 2010 report to the United Nations by calling on all states to include agroecology in their plans to reduce poverty and to mitigate climate change. War on Want has worked closely with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology to promote the concept in the UK context, and commends the work of that group to the International Development Committee as an important source of evidence in its current inquiry.14

Positive alternatives (2): Food sovereignty 15. The broader framework for the positive transformation of the global food system is the framework of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty was defined at the Forum for Food Sovereignty held in Nyéléni, Mali, in February 2007 as “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems”.15 The international community echoed the definition when 58 governments meeting in Johannesburg in April 2008 approved the executive summary of the synthesis report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which defined food sovereignty as “the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural and food policies”.16 In August 2011, the first ever European Forum for Food Sovereignty made explicit its connection to the Nyéléni declaration in its call to take back control of the food system and establish food sovereignty in Europe.17 16. While it embraces the principles of agroecology, food sovereignty involves far more than just sustainable methods of food production. Based on the inalienable right to food of all peoples, food sovereignty requires agrarian reform in favour of small-scale farmers and landless rural workers, granting peasant communities control over their land and over what they grow. At the macroeconomic level, it requires changes in global food trade so that domestic producers can be protected from competition from cheap food imports, and local food markets prioritised over the export of cash crops or biofuels. It also requires much greater controls over oligopolies in the global food chain, in order to prevent multinational food companies from abusing their market power. 17. The relatively low profile of the global food sovereignty movement in the UK context is due to the exclusion of small-scale farmers from the debate—a debate hitherto dominated by think tanks, academics and other “experts”. To counter this, War on Want brought representatives of farmers’ movements from Brazil, Cuba, Kenya, Mozambique and Sri Lanka to a full day of debate at the House of Commons in October 2011, at which they were able to share their experiences of pursuing positive alternatives to industrial farming with each other and with members of the food sovereignty movement in the UK. All who took part were in turn members of La Via Campesina, the umbrella movement that brings together organisations of peasant farmers, landless people, indigenous people and rural workers from across the world. Celebrating its 20th anniversary cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w79

in 2013, La Via Campesina expounded the seven principles underpinning the food sovereignty framework at the FAO’s World Food Summit in 1996, and with its support peasant organisations are encouraging their members to turn their backs on chemical-intensive farming and to develop their own community-based, agroecological alternatives. War on Want strongly encourages the International Development Committee to take evidence in the course of the current inquiry from representatives of La Via Campesina, and stands ready to provide contact details as required. 18. War on Want believes there is a choice to be made between a global agricultural regime that has signally failed to guarantee food security to the world’s peoples, and a positive alternative that is socially progressive, ecologically sustainable and brought under the control of community-based farming. There is a fundamental contradiction between the proﬁt motive of multinational corporations and the food needs of rural communities, and this contradiction cannot be wished away with the rhetoric of public-private partnership or corporate social responsibility. The International Development Committee is encouraged to take the opportunity of this timely inquiry to examine the framework of food sovereignty as a strong source of food security for the world’s peoples in the long run. December 2012

References 1 Copies of both War on Want reports mentioned have been sent to the International Development Committee as background papers to the current submission; both are freely available from our website: waronwant.org 2 The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012: Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition, FAO, 2012, especially Annex 2, and the accompanying technical note “FAO methodology to estimate the prevalence of undernourishment”, 9 October 2012 3 Michel Pimbert, Towards food sovereignty, International Institute for Environment and Development, November 2009; emphasis added 4 Emmanuel Dalle Mulle and Violette Ruppanner, Exploring the Global Food Supply Chain: Markets, Companies, Systems, 3D, 2010; Who Will Control the Green Economy? ETC Group, 2011 5 “Africa is open for business”, Andrew Mitchell, speech to London School of Business, 11 July 2011 6 In addition to War on Want’s report The Hunger Games: How DFID support for agribusiness is fuelling poverty in Africa, see also Helena Paul and Ricarda Steinbrecher, African Agricultural Growth Corridors: Who benefits, who loses? EcoNexus, December 2012; and also Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA): Laying the groundwork for the commercialisation of African Agriculture, African Centre for Biosafety, 2012. 7 Prabhu L. Pingali and Mark W. Rosengrant, Confronting the Environmental Consequences of the Green Revolution in Asia, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1994; “Fertilizer use responsible for increase in nitrous oxide in atmosphere”, University of California, Berkeley, 2 April 2012 8 P Sainath, “In 16 years, farm suicides cross a quarter million”, The Hindu, 29 October 2011; Ritambhara Hebbar, “Framing the Development Debate: The Case of Farmers’ Suicide in India”, in Chandan Sengupta and Stuart Corbridge (eds), Democracy, Development and Decentralisation in India: Continuing Debates, New Delhi: Routledge, 2010, pp. 84–110 9 Raj Patel, Stuffed & Starved: Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World Food System, London: Portobello Books, 2007; Sanjay Suri, “Environment: Indian farmers win battle against GM cotton”, Inter Press Service, 25 May 2005 10 Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, United Nations Environment Programme, 2011, pp37–38 11 Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, UN document A/ HRC/16/49, 20 December 2010 12 Jules Pretty et al, “Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries”, Environmental Science and Technology, 2006, 40(4), pp1114−1119; see also Peter Rosset et al, “The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 2011, 38(1), pp161–191 13 Tim LaSalle and Paul Hepperly, Regenerative Organic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming, Rodale Institute, 2008; “Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up”, Seedling, October 2009, pp9–16 14 More information—including the excellent infographic on Agroecology vs Industrial Agriculture—can be found at agroecologygroup.org.uk 15 The full definition is included within the Declaration of Nyéléni, available at www.nyeleni.org; for further elaboration, see Hannah Wittman et al, Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community, Food First Books, 2010; Michael Windfuhr and Jennie Jonsén, Food Sovereignty: Towards Democracy in Localised Food Systems, Practical Action Publishing, 2005 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w80 International Development Committee: Evidence

16 Agriculture at a Crossroads, Washington DC: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Synthesis Report, 2009 17 “Food Sovereignty in Europe Now!”, Final declaration of the European Food Sovereignty Forum 2011, Krems, Austria, 21 August 2011

Written evidence submitted by Tearfund — Food security is a major contributor to dignity, hope, poverty reduction, good health, better education, social inclusion, sustainable development, peace, democracy and national security. — Agriculture is a major contributor to, and major maleficiary of, environmental degradation, including, but not limited to climate change. Climate change will increase the number of undernourished people from anywhere between 40 and 170 million. The amount of land suitable for agriculture is shrinking. — Climate volatility is also increasingly contributing to shocks in global food prices, which hit the poorest (who spend up to 80% of their income on food) the hardest. It is hitting small scale farmers, on which nearly two billion people depend for food) hard. — Food shocks have lasting disbenefits to the resilience of communities, and undernutrition can have permanent impacts on human development and national economies. Development interventions in agriculture are hugely more cost effective than humanitarian responses to food shortage, returning £24 for every £1 spent. — A number of specific agricultural and nutritional commitments have been made that need to be seen through by governments and the international community. Aid can make a real difference, and the move to 0.75 GNI in the UK and, more importantly, beyond should continue. The UK should invest greater human diplomatic resources in the UN Committee on World Food Security. 1. Tearfund is a Christian relief and development agency working in partnership with organisations in around fifty countries, often working alongside or through networks of local churches, as well as responding directly in response to significant disasters. 2. We have seen food insecurity first hand, working through partners and operational programmes that support smallholder farmers on a daily basis, tackling hunger, food crises and climate change in thirty-five priority countries and regions. 3. Through our policy and programmatic work, we have built up expertise on food security, climate change and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) issues. This short submission will therefore focus on the links between food security and climate change, and food crises and resilience. 4. Tearfund believes that everyone should be able to grow or afford to buy enough nutritious food, according to their dietary preference, to lead an active life every day, whatever the weather or economic climate. This applies as much to those yet to be born as those alive now, who will take our population to nine billion by 2050. The world must produce enough food, and both produce and consume it in a more sustainable way. 5. Our vision is that rural farmers, herders and fisher folk, especially women, are empowered with better land tenure, access to seeds and water, information on market prices, reliable weather forecasts, extension services, decision making processes, education and health so that they are resilient to droughts, floods and erratic food prices and can sustainably produce enough to feed themselves and sell on the market or have income from alternative livelihoods. 6. This would give each adult a better chance of eating the at least 2200 calories needed to give them enough energy each day, and each child would have a varied, micro-nutrient rich diet which is sufficient for their brains and bodies to develop fully. It also bestows confidence that people can feed their families today and tomorrow, delivering dignity and hope. 7. To this end, our partner programming focuses on increasing knowledge and understanding of changing climate and techniques for meeting the challenges such as: — Malawi: introducing drought resistant maize, quick maturing crops and new crops like potato and cassava; introducing camel, hens and goats instead of cows; harvesting rainwater. — Bangladesh: establishing floating gardens and kitchen gardens, raising the sides of ponds, putting houses on raised plinths, and re- and afforestation. — Nepal: introducing polytunnels, and solar water heaters and solar electricity. — Honduras: altering growing patterns. 8. Food security is a major contributor to poverty reduction, good health, better education, social inclusion, sustainable development, peace, democracy and national security.159 159 http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5061E/y5061e08.htm, http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/ Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf, http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/ home/archive/issues2012/thefuturewewant/hungeranationalsecuritythreat; cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w81

9. Growth in agriculture needs to be sustainable, reducing pressures on natural resources and biodiversity. Agriculture is a major contributor to, and major maleﬁciary of, environmental degradation. The impact both ways warrants signiﬁcant attention at the government level: as the Stockholm Institute has argued, the world is already exceeding or approaching sustainable thresholds in freshwater consumption, agricultural land use, biodiversity loss and nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.160

10. To address the failures of the global food system, Tearfund is calling for the following: — Strong political leadership from governments, donors and the UN to champion agriculture on the agenda nationally and globally and implementing their commitments: (i) National governments should develop comprehensive and country led national food security strategies (guided by the Committee on World Food Security global strategic framework for action on food security), across Ministries that will ensure resilience in availability, access, and utilisation of food to climatic and economic shocks (as part of wider poverty reduction and climate change adaptation strategies). The focus should be on female smallholder farmers, landless labourers and pastoralists in rural areas. African governments should allocate 10% of their budgets to agriculture in line with the Maputo agreement in 2003. (ii) Governments and donors should be held accountable for ensuring food security for all people today and in the future, having committed to reaching MDG Target 1c. (iii) Donors should ensure that there is an agreed implementation plan that can track the disbursement of global pledges for food security, made at the G8 Summit in May 2012 and in L’Aquila in 2009, as additional aid to the most food insecure. — Investment in smallscale, sustainable agriculture (particularly women producers) in order to increase yields, reduce poverty and increase resilience to droughts and food price rises: (i) Investment in small-scale agriculture will increase the supply of food on local markets, improve incomes and food security, build resilience to shocks and drive rural development Smallscale farms are often the most productive (output per unit of land or energy) and rely less on environmentally-degrading agricultural inputs, or intensive use of water.161 Thus, they can be more efficient, ecological, sustainable and beneficial to the majority of poor people. It is beneficial to use techniques like conservation farming (reduced tillage) and using organic manure. (ii) Investment should focus on women who produce a significant amount of the world’s food, and they are more likely to share economic gains with their family and community. This will include improving women’s access to assets, better land tenure, education, health status, and empowerment in farmers’ associations and decision making processes. Equalising women’s access to land, livestock, education, financial services, extension, technology and rural employment to that of men’s, would increase farm yields by 20–30% and lift 100–150 million people out of hunger.162 It will also help to combat child malnutrition and slow population growth.

The implications of climate change on the global food system and on key indicators of food security and good nutrition

11. The IPCC estimate that climate change will increase the number of undernourished people from anywhere between 40 and 170 million.163 This correlates with the trends seen by Tearfund’s partners. Smallholder farmers represent the part of the global food system which provides food for over two billion people,164 and their food security and nutrition is being impacted by the increased number and intensity of extreme weather events caused by climate change.

12. A Nepalese partner165 informs us of the scale of the problem they are facing: “There is a strong linkage between food security and weather patterns in Nepal. Agriculture makes up 30% of the national economy and 60% of the population [work in it]. Small alterations in weather patterns, especially rainfall, threaten the livelihood of almost half the population.” In 2011, Mexican partners highlighted that some regions of the country had seen no rainfall for two years, seriously impacting people’s ability to feed themselves.166 It is estimated that some 3.4 million tonnes of maize were lost to drought, with one region losing 70% of its crops. Approximately 40 million cows died due to a lack of water, and the heat caused roads to subside, meaning that farmers can’t get the produce that survived to market. These factors have a devastating impact on the quantity and quality of food that households are able to either grow or purchase. 160 http://www.stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries 161 http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf 162 http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am719e/am719e00.pdf 163 The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 164 http://www.ifad.org/pub/viewpoint/smallholder.pdf, Foreword 165 http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Research/Dried%20Up%20Drowned%20Out%202012%20-%20full%20report.pdf 166 http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Research/Dried%20Up%20Drowned%20Out%202012%20-%20full%20report.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w82 International Development Committee: Evidence

13. The amount of land suitable for agriculture is shrinking, as seasons change and the soil becomes less fertile. A Tearfund partner in Bangladesh spoke of a couple who used to have 11 acres of land, including a rice paddy which produced 2,000kg of rice. Cyclones and floods reduced their land to two acres, and they can no longer produce rice. Furthermore, for four months of the year, even those two acres are flooded—meaning they can grow nothing at all. It’s predicted that, in some countries, crop yields could be halved by the end of this decade, whilst crop revenue could be down by 90% by the end of the century.167 14. Silas Ndayisaba, a 52 year old Rwandan, has been a farmer since he was 16. He told us “when the weather is good, I have produce to sell…Things have changed in the last 20 years. Thirty years ago, we had good harvests and could predict the weather patterns. [But now] The weather is less predictable and the drought means that we have a lot less food…this year the harvest wasn’t good because of the flash floods.” Beans used to cost him 40 RWF (4p) but now they cost 450 RWF (47p). This is a more than tenfold increase in a country where the average income is about £320 per year. The impact on him is serious: “Twenty years ago, we could plan. Today we can’t. Prices have gone up. I buy less and I only eat twice a day.” 15. When climate change increases the severity and likelihood of extreme weather events, it can cause shocks in global food prices. For example, the prices of key crops on the global market, such as maize and soybeans, have been at record highs over the past few months. This price rise is largely due to severe droughts in the US, and poor and erratic rains in India and Russia.168 This has a knock on impact on local prices; for example the cost of sorghum increased by 220% in South Sudan between April and July 2012.169 People living in poverty spend up to 80% of their income on food. When prices rise like this, they reduce both the quality and the quantity of their food, with devastating impacts (see next section).

The impact of global and local food shocks and how different countries and/or regions cope with food crises 16. Tearfund has documented the effects of a food shock on community food security and nutrition in Malawi,170 finding that three initial impacts (widespread crop failure, reduced access to water, and the emaciation/death of livestock) had the following consequences: — Household assets were depleted, undermining people’s capacity to maintain livelihoods and food security following the drought. — Households engaged in distress sales of livestock and other household assets at depressed market prices (sometimes as low as 10% of normal levels), meaning they were unable to purchase sufficient food. — There was widespread malnutrition and oedema, particularly affecting men (who are expected to provide for their families first) the elderly and children, in some cases resulting in death. — People were forced to rely on hardship foods such as weeds, maize husks and the roots of banana trees, which often cause vomiting and are of poor nutritional value. 17. “Escaping the Hunger Cycle”171 (commissioned by Tearfund and others through the Sahel Working Group) notes the correlation between high prices and the number of children who suffer acute malnutrition. High prices result in households reducing the quality and quantity of their food. Even if this only happens for a short period, the impact can be permanent, for example the resultant stunting amongst under-twos causes irrevocable damage to their life chances.

The role of the international system, including food and agriculture organisations and the G8 and G20, and ways in which collaboration could be improved 18. There remains a need for aid to support agriculture. Achieving a world free from hunger by 2025 through supporting agriculture and rural development is estimated to cost an additional $42.7 billion per year. Rich countries should follow the example of the UK and meet the 0.7% GNI pledge. 19. Adapting to climate change is one of the major issues faced by smallholder and large-scale farmers. The international community should therefore make swift progress on its pledge, made at the Copenhagen climate talks, to find $100 billion a year in climate finance, in addition to aid, from 2020, with a significant scale up towards that point. Tearfund is joining others in recommending that this comes in part from a global emissions levy on the shipping industry, which will require international co-operation at the International Maritime Organisation and in other forums. Furthermore, the UK should use its seat on the board of the Global Climate Fund to push for 50% of climate finance to be used for adaption in the most vulnerable countries. 20. The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is the only legitimate international forum for the discussion of food security issues. Tearfund attended the 39th Session of the CFS in October and were pleased with the consensus-brokering role played by the EU. However, conversations with the UK Representative suggested that additional human capacity to engage with the Rome Based Agencies would be extremely 167 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/impacts.pdf 168 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d02b0ae-cce9–11e1–9960–00144feabdc0.html#axzz24APm4lgL, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ d3dea69a-d030–11e1–99a8–00144feabdc0.html#axzz24APm4lgL 169 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2012/08/30/severe-droughts-drive-food-prices-higher-threatening-poor 170 http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Research/Investing%20in%20communities%20web.pdf 171 http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Research/Escaping%20the%20Hunger%20Cycle%20English.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w83

beneﬁcial, and would enable the UK team to play a more active role in CFS conversations. At the moment they only appear able to monitor the conversations. Extra capacity would enable the UK to engage in the CFS reform and counter efforts by other Member States to derail this process. 21. The CFS mandate includes objectives of “coordinating a global approach to food security” and “promoting policy convergence”.172 However, some member states tried to constrain the remit of the CFS, arguing against the CFS giving serious consideration to issues with a signiﬁcant impact on food security such as trade, or climate change. Whilst the CFS must be careful not to duplicate negotiations taking part in other areas of the multilateral system (eg the UNFCCC), it cannot simply ignore the links between these issues. This attitude continued when considering the work of the CFS High Level Panel of Experts, with criticism being made of their inclusion of these issues. The role of the HLPE should be to give an objective assessment of an issue, including its crossover with other sectors. The CFS can then decide whether or not to take this on board, but should not be able to prevent them assessing all the evidence.

The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable

22. Investment in risk reduction is good value for money. In Malawi, Tearfund invested in agriculture and building the resilience of smallholder farmers to drought, implemented by a local church organisation. Subsequent research found returns of £24 for every £1 spent. This is not least because it is much more cost effective to invest in agriculture to increase resilience to drought than it is to provide emergency relief and make up the developmental losses.173 This research has been widely cited, for example by the previous Secretary of State at DFID at the launch of the HERR, and by the ODI.174

23. Tearfund partners JEMED in Niger have worked with Tuareg pastoralists (one of the most vulnerable groups of people) to improve their resilience to shorter term shocks and longer term chronic food insecurity. The Tuareg realised they were in danger of losing their whole way of life, and decided to sacrifice some traditions now in order to preserve some aspects of their culture. JEMED has helped communities to establish 22 “fixation sites”. These don’t settle people permanently, but provide a base from which they can access wells, grain banks, health and training, whilst still keeping hold of traditional pastoral ways. In 2008, this also enabled communities to de-stock early, in response to early warning signs. Nomadic people had never sold their livestock before, but this time they kept only the best breeding stock and moved them to other areas, keeping them alive in the process. Consequently, people in fixation sites lost a third less livestock during the drought than others in neighbouring areas.175

24. This example illustrates what steps donors and governments of countries facing food shocks/insecurity could take to reduce risk and build resilience: — Integrate risk analyses and resilience-building activities into development planning and implementation. — Invest a minimum of 10% of humanitarian aid budgets to support context-specific activities and increase people’s asset base, livelihood security and preparedness for drought. — Promote strong linkages and coherence between climate change adaptation, DRR, poverty reduction and national sustainable development plans. Encourage systematic dialogue, information exchange and joint working relationships between institutions, focal points and experts working in these areas. — Engage financial and technical support to strengthen local adaptive capacity in order to reduce the risk to the poorest and most vulnerable. — Decentralise financial and human resources for appropriate administrative levels, so that agile responses to upcoming shocks can be implemented without having to submit requests to central government. — Tackle political, economic and cultural policies, practices, institutions and processes that increase people’s vulnerability to climatic shocks and use appropriate tools when assessing how to adapt to climate change in specific contexts. — Set up drought contingency funds with pre-agreed triggers to preserve the livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists. Investing now will reduce the need to respond to future food crises. — Build on existing approaches to minimize vulnerability to climatic shocks and build resilience of smallholders with diverse and flexible strategies eg diversify income sources through off- farm livelihood strategies, building and protecting key assets, access to credit, disaster risk reduction, and community disaster preparedness committees. 172 http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/cfs-about/en/ 173 Summary: http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Research/Investing%20in%20Communities%20poster%20web.pdf. Full report: http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Research/Investing%20in%20communities%20web.pdf 174 ODI Citation: http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-49/building-resilience-for-food-security-in-malawi- a-cost%E2%80%93benefit-analysis 175 http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Research/Escaping%20the%20Hunger%20Cycle%20English.pdf, p29 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w84 International Development Committee: Evidence

— Compare the effectiveness of natural fertilisers and chemical fertilisers in agricultural areas facing the twin threats of land degradation and climate change. Consider the implications of these ﬁndings for national agricultural policy, including subsidy programmes. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by Mr Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Contribution of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Olivier De Schutter, to the inquiry launched by the International Development Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in advance of the June 2013 G8 Summit As a contribution to the deliberations within the International Development Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in preparation for the June 2013 G8 Summit, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, draws attention to what he considers key priorities for international action in 2013 to progressively realize the human right to adequate food. 1. The right to food is a human right recognized under international law, which protects the right of all human beings to feed themselves in dignity, either by producing their food or by purchasing it. All States have a duty to respect, protect and fulﬁll the right to food, which may require adopting adequate legislative and policy frameworks. The ﬁght against hunger and malnutrition can also be enhanced by a stronger adoption of the right to food principles and requirements, which are increasingly being implemented in a number of countries. In recent years, the operational dimensions of the right to food—its added value in improving the effectiveness of food security strategies—have been better understood, and a range of regions and countries have strengthened the legislative or policy frameworks that enhance the protection of the right to food based on the principles of participation, accountability, and non-discrimination. 2. The eight priorities for international action in 2013 serve three key objectives: (I) to support well-designed, human rights-sensitive food security policies at national level; (II) to strengthen global efforts to cope with food price volatility; and (III) to improve accountability.

I. Support Well-Designed, Human Rights-Sensitive Food Security Policies at National Level Priority 1: Strengthen national implementation of the right to food and review efforts to implement the Right to Food Guidelines 3. Grounding food security strategies in the right to food means that there will be improved safeguards against corruption or diversion of funds, and against discrimination (particularly against women or ethnic minorities); that the beneficiaries of support schemes shall be informed about their rights and shall be able to claim benefits if they are denied the support they are entitled to; and that the efforts shall focus on the most marginalized groups, thus maximizing the impact of food security strategies on poverty reduction. This is why the international community has repeatedly emphasized the need to rely on the right to food in efforts to reduce hunger and malnutrition, including in the 2009 Rome Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security. This is also why the Committee on World Food Security has decided to hold, during its 41st session in 2014, a 10 year review on progress made in implementing the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, adopted unanimously by the member States of the FAO in 2004. The review will be an opportunity to take stock of progress made over the past decade, identifying obstacles that remain and sharing good practices. The commitment of the CFS to review progress of the right to food at national level will not only provide a strong encouragement to make progress towards implementing these Guidelines in all regions. It will also provide a unique opportunity to assess the contribution the right to food can make to the effectiveness of national food security strategies grounded on accountability, participation and non-discrimination, and independent monitoring of progress. 4. All countries should set as a priority to increase their efforts in implementing the Right to Food Guidelines. A number of countries have initiated processes to build strategies or framework laws that will materialize their commitments to translate the right to food into normative or policy frameworks. Such countries should be encouraged to rapidly bring their efforts to fruition, including with external support and international cooperation. The countries that are now pioneers in the implementation of the right to food at national level, particularly in Latin America, could stimulate efforts in other countries, through South-South cooperation. The G8 States would usefully contribute to the CFS review of progress by preparing a review of their own national efforts, including how they integrate the Right to Food Guidelines in their development cooperation policies and programmes. 5. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food expresses his availability to support this process.Heis currently working in support of the implementation of the right to food in Africa. The progress already achieved in implementing the right to food at national level in Africa, Asia and Latin America, are highlighted in reports presented by the Special Rapporteur, in particular in Briefing Note 1 “Countries tackling hunger with a right to food approach. Significant progress in implementing the right to food at national scale in Africa, Latin cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w85

America and South Asia”; Briefing Note 5 “From Charity to Entitlement: Implementing the right to food in Southern and Eastern Africa” (June 2012); and Briefing Note 6 “A Rights Revolution: Implementing the right to food in Latin America and the Caribbean” (September 2012).176 6. National strategies should comprise the establishment of appropriate institutional mechanisms, particularly in order to: (i) identify, at the earliest stage possible, emerging threats to the right to adequate food, by adequate monitoring systems; (ii) improve coordination between the different relevant ministries and between the national and sub-national levels of government; (iii) improve accountability, through the setting of targets, with measurable indicators, defining the timeframe within which particular objectives should be achieved; and (iv) ensure the adequate participation, particularly, of the most food-insecure segments of the population. Where States do not yet have national framework laws, their creation can become a key element of national strategies on the progressive realization of the right to food. Such laws ensure that participatory rights are stipulated for civil society (including food producers’ organizations), and that national strategies are adopted, and revised, at regular intervals. Participation is indeed key. Civil society organizations are also key stakeholders in the fight to eradicate hunger, malnutrition and poverty, and have proven to have a catalytic role for the adoption of national strategies; they should have a central role in all countries. Right to food strategies shall only be successful if they are informed by the views of the victims of hunger and malnutrition, and if the authorities are held accountable for results.

Priority 2: Guarantee gender equality and the empowerment of women 7. While essential to the right to food of women, this would also contribute to the realization of the right to food of other members of society: the advancement of women’s rights translates into improved physical and mental development of children, whose ability to learn and to lead healthy and productive lives will gain; it translates into better health and nutritional outcomes for the household, as the decision-making power within the family is rebalanced in favour of women; and it results in higher productivity for women as small-scale food producers, in a context in which small-scale family agriculture is increasingly feminized in all regions, due to the fact that it is the men who ﬁrst exit from agriculture and migrate to seek employment in the other sectors. 8. The obligation to remove all legislative provisions that discriminate against women, and to combat discrimination that has its source in social and cultural norms, is an immediate obligation that must be complied with without delay. States should also mainstream a concern for gender in all laws, policies and programmes, where appropriate by developing incentives that reward public administrations which make progress in setting and reaching targets in this regard; and they adopt multi-sector and multi-year strategies that move towards full equality for women, under the supervision of an independent body to monitor progress, and relying on gender-disaggregated data in all areas that relate to the achievement of food security. The Special Rapporteur will highlight complementary recommendations in this regard in a future report that will be presented to the 22nd session of the Human Rights Council in March 3013 (U.N. document A/HRC/22/50).

Priority 3: Direct the reinvestment in agriculture towards food security, the reduction of rural poverty, and improved resilience to climate change 9. As a result of the food price crises of 2008 and 2010, both governments and the private sector are reinvesting in agriculture, a sector that has been largely neglected over the past thirty years. This is welcome. However, depending on how they are channelled—for which producers and in support of which model of agricultural development—investments in agriculture may diverge widely in their effects on improving food security, reducing rural poverty, and preserving the health of the soils and the ecosystems in the face of the threats emerging from climate change. In March 2011, following the presentation by the Special Rapporteur of a report assessing what agroecological techniques could contribute to the modernization of agriculture, the Human Rights Council encouraged “States and donors, both public and private, to examine and consider ways to integrate the recommendations [contained in the report ‘Agroecology and the right to food’ (A/HRC/16/ 49)177] in policies and programmes” (A/HRC/RES/16/27, OP 14). G8 States could contribute to ensure that adequate follow-up is given to this recommendation not only by international agencies, but also by national aid agencies. Comparative assessments could be conducted, proactively, of how different agricultural modes of production, in different contexts, are more or less conducive to food security and the right to food. This is also a commitment made in the Outcome document “The Future We Want” adopted at the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, reafﬁrming “the necessity to promote, enhance and support more sustainable agriculture” as well as “the need to maintain natural ecological processes that support food production systems”, and “resolving to increase sustainable agricultural production” globally (A/RES/66/288, Annex, paras. 110–111). The Outcome document also tasks the Committee on World Food Security in “facilitating country- initiated assessments on sustainable food production and food security” (para. 115). 10. Given the importance of improving access to land and the security of land tenure for improving food security, the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) adopted by the 38th session of the 176 Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Food/SRRTF%20BN%2005_SouthernEasternAfrica_en.pdf and http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Food/SRRTF%20BN06_LAC_en.pdf 177 Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/Annual.aspx cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w86 International Development Committee: Evidence

Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on 11 May 2012, will be another vital element in global efforts to improve food security in 2013. The Special Rapporteur also notes that an inclusive consultation process has been be adopted and initiated within the CFS for the development of principles for responsible agricultural investments which enhance food security and nutrition. 11. In his reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the Special Rapporteur observes that investments in countries facing signiﬁcant poverty levels need to be directed at promoting farming systems that contribute to employment creation and rural development, with powerful poverty-reducing effects; and that such investments should encourage modes of agricultural production that respect the environment, and do not accelerate climate change, soil depletion, and the exhaustion of freshwater reserves. He notes that the multiplier effects of investments in agriculture through linkages with the local economy are signiﬁcantly larger where such investments support small-scale food producers who contribute most to local food security and to improved nutritional outcomes, and have a direct impact on the reduction of rural poverty.

II. Strengthen Global Efforts to Cope with Food Price Volatility Priority 4: Establish a Global Fund for Social Protection 12. In the face of persistently high food prices and levels of hunger, it is unacceptable that nearly 80% of the world’s poor do not have basic social protection to fall back on. One major reason why least developed countries do not put social protection schemes in place is that they fear that the establishment of standing social protection schemes shall be fiscally unsustainable: they may face an unaffordable surge in the levels of disbursements in the wake of droughts, floods, epidemics, food price spikes and other shocks to which a high proportion of their populations are vulnerable. 13. The Special Rapporteur has called for creation of an international mechanism in order to close the funding shortfall for putting in place a social protection floor in least developed countries, and to underwrite these schemes against major shocks by brokering or providing reinsurance (see “Underwriting the Poor: a Global Fund for Social Protection”, Briefing Note 7, by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and co- authored by Magdalena Sepúlveda, Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, October 2012).178 14. The proposal of a Global Fund for Social Protection is intended as a contribution to the international dialogue on how to ensure the right to social security for all through the establishment of national social protection floors in all countries, as called for by the International Labour Conference. The proposal has received broad support from governments, international agencies and civil society, and a range of organizations are currently discussing ways to support its progressive operationalization. Provided the necessary political goodwill is created, G8 countries could launch a message in June 2013 on the need to overcome the crisis by ambitious measures, including efforts to strengthen social protection at the global level.

Priority 5: Establish Food Reserves 15. Excessive price volatility is still unresolved and is expected to remain on domestic and international markets. In that context, there is a demand from a number of countries, particularly the members of the African Union, that the international community address the question of volatility. These countries want to reduce their vulnerability when international markets are volatile. These governments see stocks as a useful tool to smooth prices. 16. Reserves are not a panacea, but provided the governance conditions are right, they can help reduce price variations that are inter-seasonal or that are linked to unpredictably changing weather patterns. The management of food reserves can be expensive and complex, and they only work as part of a wider system of risk management and price stabilization. But, if they are governed transparently and particularly if established at regional level, in a system in which countries of a same region provide mutual insurance against shocks, food reserves can be effective. Conversely, the lack of stocks has a higher price, both in dollar terms and in the cost on human welfare. The international community has begun to encourage some limited experiments, related to emergency stocks. The most advanced experiment to date is being conducted in the West African region, across 11 countries, on a range of strategic staple crops. It is important to broaden the strategy to think about the role stocks can play in strengthening producers’ market power, stabilizing national food supplies and providing some insulation against price shocks in international markets. Much of the existing debate relies on analysis of 1980s programs that do not take account of the very big changes in both domestic and international markets since then. There are new technologies for communication, transportation and storage that should be explored in relation to stocks. 17. Food price volatility was debated at international level during the 2011 annual session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), on the basis of a report from its High-Level Panel of Experts. The World Bank, in collaboration with FAO, WFP and other partners have informed the CFS that they are addressing these issues simultaneously, namely assessing buffer stocks and food reserves, and preparing a code of conduct for emergency humanitarian food reserves. While the agencies are to inform the CFS of the outcome of their 178 Avaiable at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Food/20121009_GFSP_en.pdf (full text) and http://www.ohchr.org/ Documents/Issues/Food/20121009_GFSP_execsummary_en.pdf (executive summary). cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w87

efforts, the June 2013 G8 Summit could be another step in the process to take measures to curb price volatility, as to enable the 40th Session of the CFS (in October 2013) to review progress made on the recommendations made on this issue at its 37th session, including through (a) an assessment of the constraints and effectiveness of local, national and regional food reserves made by international organizations, and (b) working towards a draft code of conduct for emergency humanitarian food reserves. Postponing this question or not addressing it at the highest level would undermine the credibility of the G8 and the CFS alike.

Priority 6: Give ﬁrst priority to food security in agrofuel policies

18. Since 2008, the Special Rapporteur has consistently stated that it is imprudent to support extra agrofuel production when food prices are high and volatile and when the impacts on smallholders and land patterns are likely to be negative, and the environmental beneﬁts highly questionable. There is now a large consensus on this issue across all international agencies. The Special Rapporteur has welcomed the European Commission’s announcement, on 17 October 2012, that it would propose to revise the targets set by the EU’s 2009 renewable fuels directive (Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources). However, the EU, US and others should now move towards full removal of agrofuel mandates and subsidies. In addition, any development of agroenergy production should be preceded by robust case-by-case impact assessments that are sensitive to food security and take into account, in particular, the impacts on land rights of the local communities. Putting an end to the current policies, that all impartial observers have now recognized are having a large range of unintended perverse impacts, should be a priority for the G8 in 2013.

Priority 7: Encourage local and regional markets, reshape food chains in order to strengthen the bargaining position of the small food producers, and enable a transition towards less dependency on international markets

19. Countries should build strategies to be more resilient to food price volatility, and avoid excessive dependence on international markets. Poor, net-food-importing countries should be encouraged to strengthen their agricultural sectors by investing in storage facilities and infrastructure improving the ability of small- scale producers to be linked to markets; by supporting their farmers through extension services; by encouraging small-scale farmers to form cooperatives in order to achieve economies of scale in the processing, packaging and marketing of food. These countries should also be encouraged to support the urban consumers’ access to affordable and nutritious food by setting up or strengthening social protection schemes providing income support (see Priority 4), and by improving the connection of the local food producers to the nearby urban markets.

20. This transition shall take time, and it shall require investments. It is one that, although it is in the long- term interest of the countries concerned, may be in tension with their short-term interest in continuing to rely on cheap food imports, even at the expense of their agricultural sector. The G8 countries have a responsibility to facilitate such a transition. This means encouraging developing countries that currently depend on food imports to feed themselves in order to gradually reduce such dependency. Depending on each country’s situation, this could mean increasing the levels of import tariffs on agricultural products and thus better protect their producers from the impacts of import surges, and using the revenues from such tariffs to finance rural development and infrastructure benefiting farmers, and to massively invest in social protection for the net food buyers and in particular for the non-food-producing poor households. In the past, trade policies that were insufficiently aware of their impacts of rural poverty and local food insecurity have resulted in the marginalization of a large number of less competitive production units—mall-scale farmers in developing countries who were in effect crowded out by imports subsidized by OECD countries—and in an increase in inequality and poverty in the rural areas in developing countries.

21. Efforts to phase out export refunds should be accelerated. G8 countries should recall the reference made to their abolition by 2013 as part of a global trade deal, at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference of the WTO in December 2005. It should also be acknowledged that, while the negative impacts of export refunds are particularly important, they are not the only source of distortions that could produce negative impacts on developing countries’ markets. Direct payments are close to 30% in some major agricultural countries of the G8, with total subsidies accounting for 40% in the EU for instance. This comes in addition to market price support policies such as import tariffs, which ensure protection against lower-price imports. Without these various forms of support, producers in certain G8 countries would not be in a position to compete on world markets, since the social and environmental conditions under which they operate would not allow them to be competitive. G8 countries should therefore progressively build a monitoring of the impacts of their agricultural exports towards developing countries. Adequate supply management schemes aimed at avoiding overproduction could go a long way towards limiting the negative impacts on the local markets of developing countries of the support given to domestic farmers in order to stabilize their incomes and in order to help them meet the requirements they are imposed. Mechanisms should be established immediately to shield the local agricultural producers in developing countries, to the maximum extent possible, from the negative impacts of the export policies of G8 countries. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w88 International Development Committee: Evidence

III. Improve Accountability Priority 8: Strengthen accountability mechanisms in global efforts related to food security, including MDGs and SDGs 22. A real risk exists that commitments made in international summits will remain empty promises without effective monitoring and accountability. Global commitments must be grounded in human rights and enable citizens to monitor the commitments of their Governments. They must put accountability, the foundation of a human rights-based approach to development, at the core of its commitments. 23. States should incorporate universally agreed international human rights norms and standards in any new “Global Goals” such as the Sustainable Development Goals, or possible follow-ups of the Millennium Development Goals, and they should establish strong built-in accountability mechanism to ensure their implementation. This is a call made by 22 United Nations human rights experts in March 2012, including the Special Rapporteur on the right to food (see Open letter “If Rio+20 is to deliver, accountability must be at its heart”),179 and it will be renewed before future international summits when necessary. 24. These 22 U.N. human rights experts have suggested a proposal as to how a double accountability mechanism could be established. At the international level, existing intergovernmental institutions could monitor, on the basis of agreed indicators, progress on global goals in a similar process to the Universal Periodic Review inaugurated in 2007 by the Human Rights Council to provide a peer review of the human rights records of all 193 Member States of the United Nations every four years. At the national level, States should establish participatory accountability mechanisms through which people’s voice can be reﬂected and independent monitoring can be conducted. 17 December 2012

Written evidence submitted by Professor Tim Benton, University of Leeds Summary — The world is changing fast: population size, age-structure, urbanisation and climate change. The importance of climate change on developing world food insecurity is not yet well articulated, even though the signals of increasing extreme weather frequency are well noted. — The food system is increasingly a global one, and is shaped by crucial interactions with water, climate, society and local and international trade; in addition, recognition is growing that essential ecosystem service provision requires interventions within agricultural landscapes. Thus, the food system is an interdisciplinary system cutting across scales. Furthermore, in the globalised system, many issues are in common between developed and developing world knowledge needs. — There are many areas where our knowledge needs are large, and so research must play a crucial role in delivering food security for the world’s poorest. However, this work needs to be multidisciplinary (covering production, environment and social systems) and preferably interdisciplinary. — There is a considerable need to ﬁnd better ways of working together internationally to make research more efﬁcient; however, there is a poor understanding of how best to do this as the mapping of international activities, interests and expertise is patchy. — DFID plays a key role in delivering research for development.

Introductory Comment 1. I am writing this in my personal capacity as an academic. I am also the “Champion” of the UK’s Global Food Security (GFS) programme,180 which is a partnership, across the main public funders of research in disciplines relating to the provision and use of food: including nutrition and health, farming, environment, international development. The role of GFS is to help coordinate research in this area and act as a conduit between research and stakeholders. As the Department for International Development is a partner within GFS, the partnership did not respond to this enquiry as it requests comment upon DFID activity. However, in response to being asked to submit written evidence in my personal capacity, I agreed: hence the views expressed are not those of the GFS partnership but those as an academic with experience in this ﬁeld. 2. In the paragraphs below, I address the questions as posed by the Call for Evidence (I highlight these in bold), which is framed around ending hunger. Whilst hunger is traditionally seen as a developing world phenomenon and over-consumption as a developed world phenomenon, this will increasingly become blurred. As food prices continue to rise, the poor in all societies are at increasing risk from hunger; and malnutrition can impact on those who have enough calories not to be hungry but whose diet maybe constrained by issues of price and availability. 179 Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/OpenLetterRio20.aspx 180 See www.foodsecurity.ac.uk cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w89

The implications of demographic trends, rising income and climate change on the global food system and on key indicators of food security and good nutrition; 3. These are all important drivers. Firstly, with demography, much of the developing world has experienced rapid population growth which, with some large exceptions in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), is projected to reduce as we progress through the next decades. Many areas of the developing world therefore have a population pyramid, heavy at the base with many young people and each age group declining in size. However, as birth rate declines, this population pyramid changes shape, reflecting fewer children, more adults and then fewer old people (the “coffin shape” of a mature population). In much of the developing world, therefore, the proportion of young people will decline over time.181 This is unlikely to be the case in SSA, where, for the foreseeable future, population growth rates will continue at 2% or more. 4. The second demographic driver is the transition from rural to urban, with much of population growth being in the urban environment. Both these issues provide challenges for food production: an aging workforce and a smaller rural workforce. In addition, the growth of megacities provides great logistical challenges for adequate food provision (transport, storage, contamination, access to an adequate range of nutrients etc), especially in low income countries where infrastructure is under-developed. 5. Rising income, and the significant growth of the global middle class and its global distribution,182 is making significant changes in international supply chains. The expected growth of wealth in Asia, coupled with the nutritional transition to a more highly consumptive diet, suggests that demand for a range of food products, and the ability to buy them, will increase flows of food imports to the newly wealthy countries, with some potential for less wealthy countries to have less access to the international food market. 6. However, my opinion is that potentially the most important driver of food insecurity is climate change, especially the impact of extreme weather. Weather is important in its ability to provide sudden and severe shocks to the food system. This is currently being underestimated in our thinking. The evidential basis of the importance of increasing severe weather was recently gathered together in the appendix to a report for the GCSA-chaired Food Research Partnership.183 Food production systems are extremely prone to perturbations due to the weather and there is significant evidence that variability in weather is increasing (in frequency, severity and spatial scale of impact). At the current time, our emissions profile is putting us on course for a 4–6 degree increase in average temperatures by the end of the century.184 As the variability in the weather is currently increasing about twice as fast as the average is moving, this implies that a hot summer at the end of the century could be 10 degrees hotter than a hot summer now. As extreme heat creates significant stress for livestock and arable systems, reducing yield and increasing mortality, it is highly possible that extreme weather, significantly impacting on agricultural production, will become sufficiently common in many areas that local food security will be threatened. There is some recent evidence, for example, that drought frequency in China will increase significantly,185 even over the next two decades, to significantly impact on rice production; creating a greater reliance on imports. 7. Thus, the weather may be a significantly greater constraint on local production systems and this, coupled with more complex international supply chains and a significantly greater amount perhaps being diverted to the richer Asian countries, may be a significant threat for the food security of the poorest countries. In addition, the aging and more urbanised population may interact with weather leading to even more difficulty for local food production.

The impact of global and local food shocks and how different countries and/or regions cope with food crises and the role of democracy in increasing food security; 8. Clearly, there is significant geographic variation in terms of the likelihood of experiencing damaging food production shocks (from flooding to extreme heat and drought); and as there are physiological limits on, for example, plant growth associated with temperature, hotter, drier, countries are on average going to be more vulnerable to such shocks. Furthermore, recent research has indicated that there is a correlation between vulnerability to weather-related shocks and systems of governance, with middle-income countries being more vulnerable to droughts and with full democracies being less vulnerable.186 Countries’ adaptive capacities will also vary with factors such as labour available, infrastructure and investment in agriculture.187 181 UNPD 2010 revision predicts that in Asia, the numbers of people under 20 will decline from 1.4 billion to 1.2 billion from now until 2050, whereas the numbers of people over 50 will increase from 0.8 to 1.9 billion. The figures for Africa are 0.6–0.9bn for the under 20s and 0.1 to 0.4 billion for the over 50s. 182 The US NIC report “Global Trends 2030”, using OECD data, indicates that the global middle class in 2000 was about 60% EU+ North America and 20% Asian, and by 2050 will be about 12% EU + North America and 68% Asian 183 FRP report on UK food system resilience, appendix on severe weather available at http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/ frp-severe-weather-uk-food-chain-resilience.pdf 184 Peters, G P, R M Andrew, T Boden, J G Canadell, P Ciais, C Le Quere, G Marland, M R Raupach, and C Wilson. 2013. The challenge to keep global warming below 2 [deg]C. Nature Clim. Change 3:4–6. 185 Forster, P et al (2012). Food Security: near future projections of the impact of drought in Asia. Working Paper from the Centre for Low Carbon Futures. Available at http://www.lowcarbonfutures.org/ 186 Simelton, E, E D G Fraser, M Termansen, T G Benton, S N Gosling, A South, N W Arnell, A J Challinor, A J Dougill, and P M Forster. 2012. The socioeconomics of food crop production and climate change vulnerability: a global scale quantitative analysis of how grain crops are sensitive to drought. Food Security:1–17. 187 Forster, P et al (2012). op cit cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w90 International Development Committee: Evidence

9. There is also an international dimension for the majority of country’s food security, and it depends on the international trade (or aid) in food. Especially looking a long time ahead, there is a risk that some/many countries will be severely challenged by weather and will increasingly require trade/aid to meet local requirements. This includes large and rich countries (China, for example) as well as many tropical countries. In a paper in Science in 2009,188 the authors suggested that by the end of the century almost every summer across much of SSA will be hotter than any so far recorded. The recent empirical data on the speed with which weather extremes are evolving indicates a need for concern.189

The role of the international system, including food and agriculture organisations and the G8 and G20, and ways in which collaboration could be improved; 10. Food security concerns a whole host of issues: production, sustainability, logistics, access, availability, choice, waste, nutrition, international trade etc etc. This calls for approaches recognising the food system as a system, and that many aspects of the food system are international. In the past there has been too much a tendency to break the systems into silos: thinking about food or water or environment, demand or supply, developed or developing worlds. Understanding the food system, and how it responds to shocks, explicitly requires interdisciplinary and cross-scale thinking. The UK’s Global Food Security programme is an exemplar of trying to encourage collaboration and inter-disciplinarity, and we need more of this at an international level. The CGIAR, receiving signiﬁcant UK funding from DFID, is a mechanism for international collaboration, but its links to higher research organisations are often not as well developed as they should be to solve some of the issues. 11. The G8 and G20 are potential mechanisms for aligning international research agendas and increasing collaboration, as evidenced by the G8 open data initiative, encouraging international sharing of agriculturally relevant data.190 This, one hopes, will be a spring board to potential exploitation of such data. In addition to working together, in a world of constrained research budgets, understanding who is doing what, who is not doing what, and who is most capable of doing something are necessary issues to maximise the collective efﬁciency of spending; and the G8 and G20 are potential ways to deliver these landscaping tools. There are many other scales of engagement promoting international collaboration (eg bipartite funding relationships, international collectives—such as the Belmont Forum, the Wheat Consortium, the Worldwide Universities Network, the EU, the UN bodies), but understanding the landscape is highly complex, and therefore we potentially miss opportunities to make progress.

The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable; 12. The principle risks for the most vulnerable are generally climatic extremes (such as drought, or ﬂood), and input shocks. One can build resilience to the extremes by planning—eg training in good farming practice, providing advice, or infrastructure like water harvesting and storage, by stimulating a diverse portfolio of products (such that if one fails, not everything is lost), by ensuring a safe supply of inputs (eg the Malawi subsidised fertiliser regime191), and by providing micro-economic schemes like insurance. However, when the climate fails, for some parts of the world, food aid will always be a necessary safety net. 13. A key area which can increasingly help is via developing new forecasting tools. These include better seasonal and longer term weather forecasting, more accurate downscaled local forecasting of weather, developing new tools to map and predict pest outbreaks, and also using a range of remote sensing tools to map and understand landuse change, including local degradation of soil. One of the key issues emerging is the need to ensure agricultural landscapes retain ecosystem-service delivery. For example, fragments of rainforest can provide food, forage, fuel, ﬁbre and pollination, and even more importantly, can affect local climate and stimulate rainfall. However, if the forests are seen as being an ungoverned commons, or simply free resource to exploit, they get degraded and the ability to grow food in the locality gets impaired due to local collapse of ecosystem services. Better understanding of how to use land to deliver the food and the necessary range of services is required.

The role of the following in increasing food security and the part that DFID should play in: 14. Whilst DFID is responsible for International Development and DEFRA for UK/EU issues, many of the same issues apply equally to both the developed and the developing world. This calls for close alignment between DEFRA and DFID. The focus of international development is also often very immediate (as in the most vulnerable countries there is always the urgency of today’s problem) but unless signiﬁcant effort is also spent about thinking about the mid-to-long-term future there is potential for promoting indirect negative impacts. Hence, as a general comment, there is a greater need to future-proof development actions than is sometimes acknowledged. 188 Battisti, D S and R L Naylor. 2009. Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat. Science 323:240–244. 189 Hansen, J et al (2012). “Perception of climate change” PNAS www.pnas.orc/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1205276109 190 https://sites.google.com/site/g8opendataconference/ 191 http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=4187 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w91

Competition for land use—including for biofuels, cash crops, livestock or agriculture and the impact of diet choices on food production capacity;

15. Competition for land and water is perhaps the biggest long term issue determining local food security, alongside climate change. In contrast to the research investment in understanding climate, or in biotechnology and crop improvement, the research investment to optimise conflicts for resources is insignificant. If each parcel of land is treated independently, the consequence is the tragedy of the commons at the landscape scale (see para 13). Understanding how to optimise land use (from the farm scale via landscape to regional and international scales) to deliver equity for all societal needs (food, water, energy, environment), and the social and governance situations under which this can be brought about is crucial and largely unstudied. DFID (and DEFRA and RCUK) can all play an important role in filling this evidence gap.

Small holder agriculture and large scale farming;

16. There is a consensus in the development literature is that small-holder farming is the current key development pathway; however, the issue is then how to stimulate production growth in such a way to scale- up production to stimulate market growth. Part of this is through co-ordination of smallholders to “upscale”. However, at some stage, this suggests a transition from small plot farming to collective larger farming to take advantages of scale efﬁciencies and machinery, especially if the rural population density declines. Thus, the future must surely contain both small holder and larger-scale farming. Transition to larger scale farming then also raises the issue of landscape planning (para 13, 15) and social equity and gender issues. All these factors are under-researched in terms of how best to upscale in the way to provide the most beneﬁt and in a sustainable way.

The private sector;

17. The private sector is probably integral to many issues around sustainably increasing local food security in the face of the constraints. This includes the agricultural business for supply of inputs (including seeds), and even agricultural training and advice, and the local food chain (buyers, processors, transporters) as well as co- ops and so on. Many international companies provide important support underpinning local economies (both for issues of CSR, but also because a happier workforce is a better and more loyal one). Producing food for international markets, however, is often predicated upon suppliers being relatively large scale, and not, therefore taking produces from small-holders or local co-ops (para 16). Encouraging both engagement of existing business, but also an innovation approach, is an important part of development, and DFID’s engagement in the UK’s Agri-Tech strategy development is welcomed.

New technologies, including irrigation, and the dissemination and distribution of these, with special reference to small farmers and women;

18. The development of innovative ways of (sustainably) producing local food, as well as storing, transporting and preparing food is urgently needed. As with the UK’s recognition of the “valley of death” between upstream research and innovation and on-farm deployment, this is often doubly the case in development, especially with the extra problems of remote communities, poor infrastructure and the gender issues around access to women. It is to be welcomed that DFID is investing, in association with BBSRC, NERC and ESRC, signiﬁcant monies for research to understand production, environmental and social issues in the developing world. However, engineering solutions for agriculture, perhaps especially in the developing world, have been under-resourced in recent years.192

Global policy measures, including monitoring, food stocks, ﬁnancial shock facilities, food, nutrition and agriculture initiatives;

19. As the world gets more variable and demand supply imbalances drive the potential for increased volatility in markets, the global food system will need greater strategic management and monitoring. Clearly, at local scales, we need to encourage sustainable yield growth on existing agricultural land, and discourage de novo land conversion for agriculture. However, on a global scale we could be considerably better at monitoring in real-time agricultural production, land use, economics and the feedback to the agricultural cycle. This could involve remote-sensing to estimate yields, coupled with new approaches to modelling that were more informative and took greater cognisance of predictive technologies. At the moment, we don’t even have a good understanding of how food prices, in terms of the FAO index, relate to food prices and local access in the developing world. Nor do we have a predictive understanding of how food prices drive local land use decisions and crop-choices by farmers. Modelling the system better would be the ﬁrst step to mitigating price spikes caused by shocks. February 2013

192 http://www.iagre.org/sites/iagre.org/ﬁles/repository/IAgrEGlobal_Food_Security_WEB.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w92 International Development Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by The Vegan Society 1. Summary 1.1 The Vegan Society 1.1.1 The Vegan Society seeks life and equity for all, and sustainable plant-based agriculture and food systems.

1.2 Key points 1.2.1 Well-planned, culturally appropriate vegan diets can demonstrably support healthy living at every age and life-stage. 1.2.2 Stock-free farming, which avoids all intentional animal inputs, can enable communities to secure their own food supply. 1.2.3 To achieve universal food security, we will need to seek and accept support, involvement and leadership from all groups in the Majority World, especially women farmers and child-headed families. 1.2.4 Governments and international systems need to provide political will, ﬁnancial investment, strong legal support and accountability to ensure that people in vulnerable situations can secure their own food supply.

2. Evidence: The Food Security Benefits of a Move Away from Animal Farming 2.1 The Vegan Society, plant-based nutrition and stock-free farming 2.1.1 The Vegan Society welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to the International Development Select Committee’s inquiry into Global Food Security. The Vegan Society works with partners to share the benefits of plant-based living for humans, non-human animals and the planet. We seek life and equity for all, and sustainable plant-based agriculture and food systems. The Vegan Society is a member of Bond, the UK body for non-governmental organisations working in international development. 2.1.2 Well-planned, culturally appropriate plant-based nutrition has been demonstrated to support healthy living at every age and life-stage.1 It is the position of the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriate vegan diets can also help to prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.2 Nutritious, tasty plant-based diets can also make efficient use of fertile land, fresh water and energy. 2.1.3 Stock-free agriculture covers all methods of farming free of the intentional use of non-human animals. Many stock-free farmers use agro-ecological approaches, viewing farms as part of the wider eco-system. 2.1.4 In the following sections, we address the issues as posed by the International Development Committee (using italic type for the Committee phrasing3).

2.2 The success or otherwise of the global food system in guaranteeing food security and eliminating undernutrition with particular reference to women, children and other vulnerable groups 2.2.1 The global food system is clearly failing. Food security means everyone has a reliable supply of adequate, nutritious, safe, and culturally appropriate food. 2.2.2 Each individual has the strongest interest in their own food security. We each need to have the right resources if we are to be able to secure our own food supply. However, we must give access to fertile land for all, as a necessary condition to achieving food security and food supply resilience. 2.2.3 Fertile land, fresh water and energy are all much sought-after. Food production based on animal farming needs significantly more fertile land, fresh water and energy than plant-based agriculture and nutrition. Nutritious, tasty, culturally appropriate plant-based diets can have very wide appeal whilst making efficient use of these resources. The Vegan Society have estimated that, in the UK context, we can produce well-balanced, appealing plant-based diets using just one third the fertile land, fresh water and energy currently used to feed Britain.4 2.2.4 Human farming of non-human animals greatly increases competition for resources.5 2.2.5 Humans using crops first-hand is generally much more resource-efficient than using those resources second-hand via farmed non-human animals. For example, around a billion tonnes of grain is wasted each year by the global “livestock” industry. Used first-hand by humans, this grain would be sufficient to meet the food energy needs of an extra 3.5 billion humans.6 2.2.6 Consuming crops second-hand, after feeding to non-human animals, is particularly an inefficient use of nitrogen (N) compared to first-hand consumption in crops as part of a healthy plant-based diet. As we choose to move to plant-based diets, we can significantly reduce demand for synthetic N fertilisers. This in turn helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also, to reduce competition for scarce energy resources. The human population can be sustained from plant-based (legume) sources of protein (and nitrogen) for the foreseeable future.7 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w93

2.2.7 It is therefore clear that a move away from “animal-based” farming will significantly reduce competition for land, water, energy and food. We need instead to move toward appropriate plant-based farming techniques such as field-scale arable, field and garden horticulture, and agro-forestry. 2.2.8 Whenever there is competition for resources, vulnerable groups—including women and children—will always lose out. We need to take concrete actions to reduce resource competition. If we genuinely want to end malnutrition, we need to quickly get fertile land, fresh water and energy resources into the effective control of people currently in vulnerable situations. 2.2.9 We also need to rapidly support and empower everyone, including women and children, to start practicing the skills of stock-free farming and plant-based nutrition. 2.2.10 These steps will enable people to free themselves from their vulnerable situations, and secure their own food supply. 2.2.11 To achieve these outcomes, existing farmers need financial and educational support during 2013, to adopt stock-free techniques, and to stop artificially breeding animals. People interested in becoming farmers and growers will also need access to fertile land, fresh water, tools, seeds, training and finance to enable them to start using stock-free techniques to grow their own food. 2.2.12 People suffering from poor nutrition themselves need support to start exploring market gardening to help with their own food security and their own livelihoods. They also need support in planning, securing and enjoying nutritionally complete plant-based diets. This work must complement effective food aid. 2.2.13 Those of us with power to help must genuinely challenge ourselves to support a secure food supply, and an end to malnutrition and hunger, for all. 2.2.14 We will need support, involvement and leadership from all groups in the Majority World, especially women farmers and child-headed families. International development charities such as HIPPO (Charity No 1075420) offer practical, successful examples such as the HIPPO vegetable growing projects in Kenya.

2.3 The implications of demographic trends, rising income and climate change on the global food system and on key indicators of food security and good nutrition 2.3.1 We already grow food sufficient for the basic needs of more than nine billion humans. Government calculations of future food needs must fully account for both current unfair distribution, and for current food waste. We must look at supply and demand, as well as production. 2.3.2 Grain sufficient for the energy needs of 3.5 billion humans is wasted by the global “livestock” industry (around a billion tonnes each year).8 2.3.3 One third of all food produced for human consumption is wasted (around 1.3 billion tonnes per year) in the supply chain.9 Around one billion humans contribute to food waste by eating excess calories. More is lost as biofuels. 2.3.4 We need to focus on continuing and expanding the existing sustainable production of plant-based food. We need to reduce losses in the food supply chain. We need to ensure that sufficient, culturally appropriate plant-based food reaches the plates of those who need it most. 2.3.5 We need to encourage and support everyone to choose nutritious, varied diets, based on eating plant crops first-hand. Moving to plant-based diets (including for protein) has great potential for climate change reduction and mitigation.10 2.3.6 Human farming of non-human animals is a major source of greenhouse-gas emissions, particularly high warming potential gases such as methane.11 2.3.7 However, methane leaves the atmosphere around 10 times faster than carbon dioxide. Therefore, a rapid move away from animal farming, toward stock-free farming and well-planned plant-based diets, can significantly slow down greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.12 This in turn will give us more time to take decisive, fair actions to deal with the climate and food security crises. 2.3.8 Sustainability, equity and food security are intimately interdependent challenges shared by the Minority and Majority World. Sustainability means, “Enough, for all, forever”.13 2.3.9 The Minority World must make major cuts to our global natural resource use, using all ethical means to rapidly come within the well-demonstrated global environmental and resource limits. We must support fair distribution of resource use to the Majority World. This will support long-term social and economic stability.

2.4 The impact of global and local food shocks and how different countries and/or regions cope with food crises and the role of democracy in increasing food security 2.4.1 Democratic access to fertile land, fresh water, tools and seed stocks, and the skills of stock-free farming and balanced plant-based diets, can enable almost all individuals and communities to secure their own food supply.14 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w94 International Development Committee: Evidence

2.4.2 The Market Garden Britain 2030 (MGB2030) report aims to set out concrete plans speciﬁc to the UK based upon the highly signiﬁcant International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) recommendations.15 2.4.3 The MGB2030 author, Jenny Griggs uses value modes to throw new light on some very old & thorny problems. She describes three “world views”: Pioneers, Prospectors and Settlers (and their approximate prevalence in the British population16). 2.4.4 These “world views” are: 2.4.4.1 Settlers (20%) tend to be socially conservative, preferring trusted channels and known behaviours. They tend to be wary of change, to follow rules, and to seek a lead from authority. 2.4.4.2 Prospectors (40%) tend to focus on making their lives more physically comfortable. They tend to be high energy, fun seeking early adopters but not innovators. They tend to avoid social risks. 2.4.4.3 Pioneers (40%) tend to be society’s “scouts”, testing, innovating and questioning new ideas. They tend to be attracted to “interesting issues”. They may have strong ethical beliefs, seeking to “make the world better place”, striving to be “better people”. They may also have a relaxed outlook, seeking to “do their own thing”. They tend to be at ease with change, and global in outlook. 2.4.5 Many suggested solutions to food insecurity suggested within mainstream political and business circles come from Prospector view-points. Prospectors are often unwilling to explore new avenues with only partial information. 2.4.6 Many suggested solutions to food insecurity based around social justice and agro-ecology come from Pioneer view-points. Pioneers are often comfortable acting from “the precautionary principle”, to address potential future risks. 2.4.7 Democratic solutions to food insecurity will involve people of all different world-views engaging in effective, appropriate collaborative work.

2.5 The role of the international system, including food and agriculture organisations and the G8 and G20, and ways in which collaboration could be improved 2.5.1 The international systems need to provide political will, financial investment, strong legal support and accountability to ensure that people in vulnerable situations can secure their own food supply. 2.5.2 Governments, through the United Nations and other appropriate collaborative bodies, need to set clear, specific, quantified targets. They need to ensure the targets are straightforward to monitor, and that monitoring is both carried out and communicated to citizens. 2.5.3 The international system must explicitly address (in)equality, (un)sustainability and conflict. 2.5.4 Governments must commit to substantial, demonstrably sufficient, specific funding. They must move subsidies away from animal farming toward stock-free agriculture, to support sustainable plant-based diets. 2.5.5 Governments must include sustainable plant-based farming and diets in internationally agreed common visions and goals.

2.6 The best strategies for reducing risk from short term shocks and long term structural factors and for building resilience among the most vulnerable 2.6.1 Animal farming has significant and particular vulnerabilities, for example, to rising costs to feed the animals, to water shortages, and to creating and experiencing disease outbreaks. Animal farming also creates vulnerability, by increasing competition for scarce land, water and energy resources. 2.6.2 Stock-free farms can be virtually self-reliant using techniques such as seed saving, water cycling, and building fertility with “green manures” such as legumes. Regionally appropriate crops can minimise the need for imported water resources.17 2.6.3 The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) identified agro-forestry as “win-win” land use, which can balance production—eg of food, fuel, fibre etc.—with protecting habitats, eco-systems and land amenity value. Combining trees with other perennial and annual crops can help conserve water, soil nutrients and biodiversity, and minimise the need for external inputs. Tree farming is therefore a powerful approach for building resilience into agricultural livelihoods, and helping people in vulnerable situations to secure their own food supply.18 2.6.4 Community-controlled plant agriculture can create resilience. The more farmers and communities are forced to rely upon outside resources, the more risk they face of their food security being undermined and their resilience being reduced. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w95

2.7 The role of the following in increasing food security and the part that DfID should play in: 2.7.1 Competition for land use—including for biofuels, cash crops, livestock or agriculture and the impact of diet choices on food production capacity 2.7.1.1 DfID should take decisive action to put support into stock-free, plant-based agriculture. Communities need financial and training support to become skilled in growing and preparing culturally-appropriate food from plant ingredients. 2.7.1.2 Consuming crops first-hand can significantly reduce competition for land, by making more efficient use of the food which we already produce.

2.7.2 Small holder agriculture and large scale farming 2.7.2.1 DfID should prioritise small stock-free farms as a powerful way to enable individuals, families and communities to secure their own food supply. Large-scale stock-free farming is a useful supplement to community-controlled small holdings.

2.7.3 External interventions—including land deals, corporate investment and donor interventions 2.7.3.1 DfID should invest in training and equipment to enable farmers to make the transition to plant-based farming. DfID should provide leadership, ﬁnancial investment, and strong legal support to enable farmers and communities in the Majority World to maintain control and access to all the fertile land, fresh water, seed, energy and other resources which they need to secure their own food supply.

2.7.4 The private sector 2.7.4.1 DfID, governments, public institutions and the private sector should genuinely submit to being held responsible and accountable for ensuring that both ethics and natural limits are upheld. Their work must be transparent, and seen to be fair. Transparency and reporting, and robust accountability, will allow voters, customers, citizens and others to know the true impacts of their activities. 2.7.4.2 DfID should ensure that outside private interests cannot take control or access to resources away from farmers and communities in the Majority World.

2.7.5 New technologies, including irrigation, and the dissemination and distribution of these, with special reference to small farmers and women 2.7.5.1 DfID should take a truly balanced position, and embrace a wide range of existing, proven stock-free techniques. These widely known methods include crop rotations, green manuring, agro-forestry, composting, encouraging natural predators and so on. Certiﬁed stock-free farmers such as Iain Tolhurst in South Oxfordshire are leading the way in commercially demonstrating and developing these methods. Iain Tolhurst is also delivering and developing training programmes for new stock-free farmers in the Majority World, in Europe and in the UK.

2.7.6 Global policy measures, including monitoring, food stocks, ﬁnancial shock facilities, food, nutrition and agriculture initiatives 2.7.6.1 DfID should focus on supporting people in vulnerable situations to secure access to fertile land, and to access training in plant-based agriculture, nutrition and food preparation.

2.7.7 Food markets, trading, storage and distribution 2.7.7.1 DfID must put in place ﬁnancial incentives and support choice editing for sustainable, equitable plant-based food supply.

2.7.8 The role of commodity funds and major global commodity companies 2.7.8.1 DfID should ensure that commodity funds and companies cannot take control of food and resources away from farmers and communities in the Majority World.

3. Recommendations 3.1 DfID should focus on supporting people in vulnerable situations to secure their own food supply. This can be achieved through protected access to fertile land for farmers and communities in the Majority World, and supporting their training in plant-based agriculture, nutrition and food preparation. 3.2 We can ﬁx the global food system and make great strides toward ending hunger by embracing plant- based farming and food at every stage. December 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w96 International Development Committee: Evidence

References 1 Smith S, Hood S & Baker A, Vegan Diets Explained, Dietetics Today, 2012;38(12):16–18 2 Vegetarian Diets, J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:1266–1282 3 Global Food Security, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/ international-development-committee/news/global-food-security-new-inquiry/ 4 Walsh, S Environmental impact of vegans versus conventional diets in the UK. Birmingham, UK: The Vegan Society; 2009 http://www.vegansociety.com/feature-articles/ Environmental%20impact%20of%20vegans%20versus%20conventional%20diets%20in%20the%20UK.pdf [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 5 Foresight Report: The Future of Food and Farming London, UK, BIS; 2011 http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/ bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11–546-future-of-food-and-farming-report [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 6 United Nations Environment Programme. The environmental food crisis. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP; 2009 http://www.unep.org/publications/search/pub_details_s.asp?ID=4019 [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 7 Olewski, J. Global nitrogen use efficiency: is diet a key? In Agricultural Ecology Research: Its role in delivering sustainable farm systems Aspects of Applied Biology, 2011;109:131–135 8 United Nations Environment Programme. The environmental food crisis. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP; 2009 http://www.unep.org/publications/search/pub_details_s.asp?ID=4019 [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 9 Gustavson J et al. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2011 http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf [accessed 16 Nov 2012] 10 Stehfest E et al. Climate benefits of changing diet, Climatic Change 2009;95:83–102 11 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO; 2006 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 12 Lelieveld J, Crutzen P J and Dentener F J, Changing concentration, lifetime and climate forcing of atmospheric methane Tellus 1998;50B:128–150 13 Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/sustainability/sustain/ [accessed 12 Dec 2012]. 14 Science for a New Age of Agriculture London, UK: Conservative Party 2010 http://www.conservatives.com/ News/News_stories/2010/09/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/taylor-review-agriculture.ashx?dl=true [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 15 Herren H et al. Agriculture at a Crossroads. Executive Summary of the IAASTD Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=doc_library&ItemID=14 [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 16 Rose C and Dade P, Using Values Modes, http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/usingvaluemodes.pdf [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 17 Tolhurst, I Reducing energy use and waste on the farm: A Case Study Energy Action Plan. Manchester, UK: SOS; 2007 http://www.stockfreeorganic.net/category/case-studies/ [accessed 12 Dec 2012] 18 Smith J, Pearce B D and Wolfe M S. A European perspective for developing modern multifunctional agro- forestry systems for sustainable intensification. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2012; 27:323–332

Written evidence submitted by WaterAid 1. Summary 1.1 WaterAid an international organisation working to transform lives by improving access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in the world’s poorest communities. We work with partners in 27 countries in Africa, Asia, Central America and the Paciﬁc region, and inﬂuence decision-makers to maximise our impact. 1.2 This response focuses on the following issue: “The success or otherwise of the global food system in guaranteeing food security and eliminating under-nutrition with particular reference to women, children and other vulnerable groups”.

2. Nutrition is not Solely Determined by Food 2.1 The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines three aspects of food security: 2.1.1 Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis. 2.1.2 Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. 2.1.3 Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w97

3.1 Nutrition is dependent on all three, but food use is neglected in responses. In particular, clean water, adequate sanitation and good hygiene are vital to ensuring safe “use” of food and therefore the delivery of nutritional outcome. The global food system alone cannot eradicate under-nutrition. 3.2 This neglect is partly because there is still limited evidence demonstrating these linkages (DFID’s own WASH portfolio review acknowledges this evidence gap). However, a lack of evidence does not mean that there is not a link, and the forthcoming DFID-funded systematic review of the links between WASH and nutrition will gather the existing evidence and identify knowledge gaps. Without pre-empting the review, based on emerging evidence, we would expect a clearer picture of the links and hope that DFID (and the wider development community) will respond to this accordingly by increasing the emphasis on water and sanitation in their food security and nutrition policies. 3.3 The forthcoming review will provide a more comprehensive and robust analysis of the evidence, but WaterAid has identified several indications of the links between WASH and nutrition. 3.4 Direct links between WASH and nutrition: The WHO estimates that 50% of malnutrition is associated with repeated diarrhoea or intestinal nematode infections as a result of unsafe water, inadequate sanitation or insufficient hygiene. 3.4.1 Diarrhoea, largely caused by lack of water, sanitation and hygiene, is the second leading disease cause of death in children under-five globally, and its constant presence in low-income settings contributes significantly to under-nutrition. 3.4.2 Nematode infections such as soil-transmitted helminthiases, caused by lack of sanitation and hygiene, affect around two billion people globally and can lead to diarrhoea, anaemia, protein loss and growth retardation. 3.4.3 Environmental (or tropical) enteropathy is a syndrome causing changes in the small intestine of individuals living in conditions lacking basic sanitary facilities and chronically exposed to faecal contamination. These changes to the intestine can lead to poor absorption of nutrients, stunting in children, and intestinal perforation. 3.5 Indirect links between WASH and nutrition: The time taken to fetch water, and the cost of water purchased from vendors when it is not readily available in the home, impact on the amounts and quality of water consumed as well as on hygiene practices, which in turn impact on nutrition. Additionally, time spent sick with water- borne diseases or collecting water impedes educational attainment, which has a significant impact on health, well-being and poverty over a lifetime and potentially over multiple generations. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Wellcome Trust Thank you for the opportunity to comment on how the global food system can ensure food security. The Wellcome Trust’s strategic plan 2010–20193 includes a new strategic challenge, “Connecting environment, nutrition and health”. This challenge recognises that factors like food security, nutrition and climate have a fundamental connection to health. We are developing our work in this area, including addressing under- and over nutrition by supporting basic, clinical and population level studies as well as supporting research that improves the evidence base to inform policy and address health consequences. The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as “when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food”.194 Globally 1.2 billion people are undernourished and 99% of these live in the developing world, with the majority in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia.195 However, discussion around food security often focuses on ensuring that the population receives sufficient calories, with limited attention to how nutritious this food is. Since these issues are clearly interrelated, any consideration of how the global food system can be adapted to ensure an end to hunger must take into account the importance of ensuring adequate nutrition. As developing countries become wealthier, with rising household incomes and greater access to refined foods, there are trends towards increased consumption of processed foods and those higher in calories, as well as an increase in the quantity of sugar and oil purchased. Combined with more sedentary lifestyles, these dietary changes are leading to increasing levels of obesity. This “nutrition transition” means that for some developing countries, such as India and Mexico, a “double burden” of obesity and under nutrition exists. The increasing prevalence of obesity is leading to the development of a new subset of the population that suffer health problems caused by their excess weight, but also lacking essential nutrients required for good health. This complex relationship means that strategies to address global food security should take into account the need to address the double burden of undernutrition and obesity. Nutritional status has a complex relationship with other health issues, including infectious disease; hygiene and sanitation; animal health; and maternal health. It is therefore important to consider other contributing 193 http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Strategy/index.htm 194 http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/ 195 http://www.scidev.net/en/features/the-challenge-of-improving-nutrition-facts-and-figures-1.html cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w98 International Development Committee: Evidence

“nutrition-sensitive” policy areas when addressing the issue of food and nutrition security including poverty reduction, education, gender inequalities, trade and health. There needs to be a holistic approach to these issues, with a joined up strategy that facilitates collaborations and co-operation with multiple partners. Community engagement is also important as the “most effective polices are those that have recognised and engaged all stakeholders and in particular the poor”.196

There is strong scope for the private sector to play a key role in increasing access to nutritious food. The Trust has been working in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition to develop the “Access to Nutrition Index” (ATNI).197 The aim of ATNI is to identify and encourage best practice in the food industry to improve global nutrition, building on the approach used by the Access to Medicine Index. A core Index, to include both under nutrition and obesity, will consider multinational companies. A further series of “spotlight” indexes will focus on specific countries (India, Mexico, South Africa) and the companies that operate there. ATNI will be launched in early 2013. It is intended that ATNI will act as a tool for companies to benchmark their nutrition practices and serve as an impartial source of information for interested stakeholders, for example investment firms who wish to invest in ethical ventures. Initiatives such as ATNI offer opportunities for the food industry to reflect on the impact they have on nutrition and to identify ways to improve their practices. ATNI is currently seeking further funding to ensure its sustainability in the longer term.

Globally, signiﬁcant funding is committed to supporting food security, however often these funded projects are not evaluated to understand whether nutritional status is maintained or improved.198 It is vital that robust and appropriate systems are put in place to monitor the impact of interventions to evaluate whether a technology or policy is working effectively or not. This information will then enable effective interventions to be appropriately implemented and disseminated to ensure the most efﬁcient use of resources. Where interventions are large-scale and have multiple interrelated goals, such as improving nutrition and poverty alleviation, assessing effectiveness can be complex. Therefore, while randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating interventions, it is important to recognise that other methodologies may sometimes be more appropriate or useful in certain settings. Sir Mark Walport Director Wellcome Trust December 2012

Written evidence submitted by World Vision

World Vision is a child focused Christian relief, development and advocacy organisation dedicated to working with children, their families and communities to overcome poverty and injustice. World Vision is the world’s largest local charity working in 100 countries to improve the lives of 100 million people worldwide. We welcome the opportunity to provide evidence to the Committee on Global Food Security.

1. Despite the international response to the 2008 global food crisis, over two million children199 still die annually because of undernutrition. During the 2008 global food crisis, the international community recognised the grim reality that nearly one billion people faced undernutrition, with women and children being some of the most vulnerable to its detrimental outcomes.200 This crisis showed not only the necessity of international coordination but also the threat that food insecurity posed to the achievement of many of the millennium development goals (MDG), particularly child health and nutrition. The crisis also confirmed that “food assistance” alone was not the solution to global hunger. 1.1 Conversely it is important not to see food security as the only input needed to guarantee the elimination of undernutrition in women, children and other vulnerable groups. Undernutrition should not simply be seen as an outcome of food insecurity, but an outcome of many interlinked determinants including food security. As a recent World Vision report demonstrates, undernutrition is not simply determined by the price of food, but by the quality of diet, the strength of a health system, access to education and access to food markets.201 In addition to ensuring that the global food system is better able to provide equitable access to food, countries need to have unified, well resourced, cross-sectoral national policies and plans to address undernutrition in their context. We therefore recommend that undernutrition is not simply seen 196 Professor Sir Gordon Conway and Professor Jeff Waage, with Sara Delaney (2010). Science and Innovation for Development p.223 197 http://www.accesstonutrition.net/ 198 Corinna Hawkes, Rachel Turner, Jeff Waage (2012). Current and planned research on agriculture for improved nutrition: A mapping and a gap analysis 199 Calculated from UNICEF/WHO figures for child deaths (6.9 million n 2011) and factoring that 35% of under five deaths are nutrition related; Black et al. Maternal and Child Undernutrition 1: “Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences.” The Lancet, Volume 371, Issue 9608, Pages 243–260, 19 January 2008. 200 Oxfam, A Billion Hungry People, (Oxfam Briefing Paper, January 2009) 201 World Vision, The Best Start: Saving Children’s Lives in their First Thousand Days, (World Vision 2011) cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w99

as an issue of food insecurity, but that food insecurity is seen as one of the many determinants of poor nutritional status. 2. Fragile and conflict affected countries are some of the furthest from achieving the MDGs and should be a serious concern for the UK Government.202 The combination of conflict, resource scarcity, marginalisation, and economic instability increase factors that aggravate levels of child undernutrition in these contexts. Fragile contexts are prone to frequent crises or “protracted crisis”203 and include some of the world’s hardest places, especially for children.204 They often lack resources, community capacity or cohesiveness and political will to deal with significant issues affecting the population. According to the World Bank, people in fragile and conflict affected areas are two times less likely to have enough food than those in other developing countries.205 They are three times less likely to be able to send their children to school, twice as likely to see their children die before the age of five and more than twice as likely to lack clean water. 2.1 It is no coincidence that the Failed States Index’s top five fragile contexts (Somalia, Chad, Sudan, DRC and Haiti) also have some of the highest rates of hunger, child undernutrition and child mortality.206 The limited systems, structures and resources required to target undernutrition in some of the most fragile contexts challenge the ability of their governments to improve child nutrition internally. Responses to undernutrition in these contexts must be holistic, both meeting the humanitarian need and developing some of the systems and structures that will provide long term solutions to the undernutrition in their countries. However, often because the humanitarian need is most evident, acute issues (including acute malnutrition), overshadow chronic issues, despite the increasingly common donor rhetoric of “resilience”. 2.2 Though fragile contexts experience significant levels of child stunting, it is questionable how they will benefit from the coordination and accountability offered through movements like Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement if they are not signing on to them. Currently, most fragile states (defined by OECD or World Bank criteria) are not participating in the SUN dialogue and the main actors continue to address undernutrition through mechanisms appropriate for emergency responses (which may or may not be appropriate to address chronic issues). Vulnerable people in these contexts, especially pregnant women and children, risk being left behind if funding and policy priorities in these countries continue to focus on the “acute” problem without looking to holistically tackle child undernutrition. 2.3 Currently, DFID’s Position Paper on Nutrition207 does highlight specific countries of focus, but the focus in fragile states is on humanitarian assistance. These countries need support that gets to the root of both acute and chronic undernutrition in humanitarian, transitional and development contexts. We believe that it is important for DFID to recognise the specific needs of very fragile context in their strategies and targets to address food security and nutrition. Therefore, we recommend that the UK government outline their strategy and targets to specifically address undernutrition responses in fragile contexts in both their bilateral country programmes and through relevant multilateral agencies. In addition, we recommend that the UK use the G8 meetings in 2013, including and especially the hunger summit, to generate greater international support to tackle the specific and challenging contexts in fragile and conflict affected states. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by WWF-UK A. Summary 1. Natural resources and ecosystems provide the platform for agricultural production, supplying both the genetic material for crops and livestock and other vital services such as pollination, water regulation, pest control and soil fertility. 2. The current food system is unsustainable; it is failing poor people and damaging ecosystems and habitats. We need to redesign the food and agriculture system to deliver better nutrition, poverty reduction, safeguard biodiversity and ensure the planet can support future generations. 202 World Bank, World Development Report 2011, (World Bank, 2011) http://wdr2011.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/WDR2011_ Overview.pdf 203 Defined as “recurrent natural disasters and/or conflict, longevity of food crises, breakdown of livelihoods and insufficient institutional capacity to react to the crises” 204 FAO (2010). “The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Addressing Food Security in Protracted Crisis”, Rome: FAO; World Bank (2011), “Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries. Harmonized List of Fragile Situations FY11”, http://web.worldbank.org/ WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/STRATEGIES/EXTLICUS/ 0,,contentMDK:22230573~menuPK:6434002~pagePK:64171531~piPK:64171507~theSitePK:511778,00.html, accessed 4 August, 2011. 205 World Bank, “World Development Report 2011” 206 WFP (2011), “Interactive Hunger Map 2011: Fighting Hunger World Wide”, http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/ documents/communications/wfp229328.pdf; UNICEF (2011), “State of the World’s Children 2011—Statistics”, http://www.unicef.org/sowc2011/statistics.php, accessed 4 Aug, 2011; Failed States Index 2011 207 DFID, Scaling Up Nutrition: The UK’s Position Paper on Undernutrition, (DFID, September 2011) cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w100 International Development Committee: Evidence

3. Setting agriculture on a more sustainable footing is a challenge internationally in the 21st century. We need to ensure that the production of food and energy does not damage irretrievably the environment on which we all depend. Sustainable agriculture requires meeting the food, fuel, and ﬁbre needs of the human population whilst ensuring the maintenance of ecosystems and the protection of biodiversity. 4. Agricultural policy, investments and practice need to be informed by analysis of a) ecological carrying capacity, including water resource availability, b) the potential impact on ecosystem services, such as soil formation and water regulation, c) the potential impacts on human populations who depend on those ecosystem services, and d) impacts of and on climate change. A particular focus is needed on poor people who often depend directly on ecosystem services and natural resources to meet their basic needs and to construct their livelihoods.

B. Introduction 5. WWF-UK welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the IDC inquiry on food security. WWF has extensive experience in the management of natural resources and making the environment work for the poor. WWF-UK is the UK arm of the WWF global network, the world’s leading environmental organisation, with over 5,000 staff in over 100 countries. We work in partnership with local communities, civil society organisations, governments, multinational agencies and the private sector on the issues of fresh water, biodiversity, climate change, forests, marine, sustainable consumption, infrastructure and energy.

C. The Global Food System and Food Security 6. Extremes of hunger and obesity, and high levels of food waste, illustrate the inequality and inefficiency in the food system and demonstrate that it is not insufficient overall global food production and supply that is driving food insecurity. 7. Food security encompasses four dimensions: food availability, access, utilisation and stability. An emphasis on availability or supply has led to the assumption that we need to produce more food, but improvements in other aspects of the food system would lead to increased food security and be better for the environment, for instance reducing post-harvest losses. Food security impacts on all areas of human wellbeing, particularly health. More than one billion people are undernourished worldwide.i At the same time 1.6 billion people are overweight or obese.ii In the United States and UK approximately 30% of all food ends up as waste.iii 8. Is increasing agricultural production the answer to food insecurity? In 2009 the FAO estimated that, based on a “business as usual” scenario, the world may need to increase food production by 70% by 2050 to meet predicted consumption patterns.iv However, the FAO itself recognises that “increasing production is not sufficient to achieve food security. It must be complemented by policies to enhance access by fighting poverty, especially in rural areas, as well as effective safety net programmes”208 and has acknowledged that such an increase in food production would have major undesirable impacts including those on land use, water and biodiversity. Faced with these prospects, WWF believes the correct approach is to treat increasing production globally as a last resort. There must be greater emphasis on tackling the inherent problems of the food system, loss and waste, distribution, women’s rights, smallholder productivity and consumption. If these are addressed, the FAO confirms that agricultural production209 may not need to increase significantly. 9. The UK Government’s Foresight report into Food and Farming Futures concluded that the world’s food production systemsv are unsustainable. WWF-UK endorses the findings of the report and urges the UK government to act on the recommendations of the report. The authors identified the following as key challenges for policy makers: — balancing future demand and supply sustainably—to ensure that food supplies are affordable; — ensuring that there is adequate stability in food supplies—and protecting the most vulnerable from the volatility that does occur; — achieving global access to food and ending hunger; — managing the contribution of the food system to the mitigation of climate change; and — maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services while feeding the world.

The role of seafood (fisheries and aquaculture) in the global food system 10. Fisheries are a vital part of food security, but overexploitation of these resources remains a serious threat to food security worldwide. Many species of fish are rich in micronutrients, especially the smaller fish that are most accessible to people living in poverty. The consumption of fish can address “micronutrient deficiency”. The seasonal availability of fish in rural communities is often different from that of crops and therefore the harvest of fish can help to reduce seasonal vulnerability. 11. World seafood production reached 128 million tonnes in 2011 and continues to increase faster than the rate of population growth, supplying over four billion people with about 15% of their annual animal protein 208 They have now downgraded this prediction suggest we might need to produce a maximum of 60% more food by 2050. 209 The Economist Conference Feeding the World in 2050 Geneva, Switzerland, 8 February 2012 Keynote Address by José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w101

intake. In low income, food-deficient countries, fisheries make up 22% of animal protein consumption. In coastal areas and around major river systems the dependence on fish is usually higher.vi The livelihoods of 12% of the world’s population depend directly or indirectly on seafood production. Seafood products are the most traded of food commodities worth $109 billion in 2010.vii 12. Almost 30% of wild fish stocks are overexploited and 57% are fully exploited.viii Overexploitation has negative ecological consequences and impacts fish production, with social and economic implications. To increase the contribution of marine fisheries to the food security and to the economies and well-being of coastal communities, effective management plans need to be put in place to rebuild overexploited stocks. Legal efforts to enforce tighter controls on the fishing industry are increasing globally with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) being the main target as well as controls on trade. The activities of fleets working in the distant waters compete with the artisanal or local fleets that are dependent upon the resource for their livelihoods. Strict control on these activities and this industry is imperative. Certification of fisheries by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is contributing to the goal of a global sustainable food system. 13. The continued increase in the supply of seafood is due mainly to the growth of aquaculture which is set to overtake capture fisheries as the largest source of seafood. Aquaculture production continues to grow faster than any other form of animal based foodix Disease, escaped fish and pollution from chemicals and waste products as well as deforestation to allow for freshwater species and shrimp production are all problems associated with aquaculture. Certification of aquaculture by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) is a key contribution to achieving a sustainable food system.

D. Implications of Global Trends for Food Security Climate Change 14. Climate change is already having an impact on food security, particularly in poor countries.Itisthe poorest people and the poorest countries that are experiencing the earliest and most severe impacts from climate change and are least resilient to the effects. With the World Bank predicting more than 3°C of global warming, climate change threatens to undermine, and even reverse, progress made to date on poverty reduction and development.x 15. Food production and availability is being impacted by altered hydrological cycles and rainfall patterns. Rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, soil acidification or salinity and flooding will hit hardest in the mega-deltas, which are important areas for food production.xi Climate change is predicted to make wet areas wetter and arid areas dryer, resulting in flooding and drought conditions posing challenges to sustaining food production regimes. Increasingly rapid movement of both plant and animal diseases is also linked to climate change. Examples include: viruses such as foot and mouth, bluetongue, avian influenza; plant diseases such as those spread by whiteflies; and pests such as diamond back moth.xii Climate change also threatens food security by damaging the livelihoods of the poor and reducing their ability to purchase or secure food. Climate impacts can reduce or even wipe out food production in a local area driving up prices and pricing the poor out of the food market. 16. The agricultural sector is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Worldwide, agriculture is responsible for about a third of these emissions,xiii including emissions from deforestation caused by agricultural encroachment.xiv Emissions from agriculture are expected to increase considerably unless action is taken.xv The livestock sector in particular is a major contributor to climate change.xvi

Changing diets and consumption patterns 17. From an environmental and food security perspective, the increase in the adoption of a “Western diet” is worrying. Historically, increased household income has generally correlated with an increase in demand for energy, water, livestock products and processed food. Diets that are high in livestock products and processed foods have a larger environmental impact as they require higher inputs of resources. Increased demand for meat places higher demands for water, crop and rangeland area. For example, in 1985 Chinese people ate, on average, 20kg of meat; this year, they will eat around 50kg. This difference translates into 390km3 (1km3 is 1 trillion litres) of water, almost as much as total water use in Europe.xvii 18. There is a direct correlation between a transition to a “Western diet” and an increase in diet-related ill- health and the associated social, economic and environmental costs. The costs of the health and environmental impacts of a transition to Western diets will hinder human and social development.

Water security 19. Reliable, safe and sufﬁcient water is vital for both food production and poverty reduction. Rivers, lakes and aquifers are the main sources of our freshwater. In many places these systems are over exploited due to a lack of or weak holistic policy for managing water resources. Agriculture uses approximately 70% of global water supplies, while the global demand for fresh water is projected to increase by over 30% by 2030.xviii In developing countries 85% of freshwater withdrawals are for agriculture, mainly for irrigation.xix Lack of water is already a threat to farmers’ livelihoods and contributes to political instability. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w102 International Development Committee: Evidence

20. We face a future in which water resources are increasingly constrained, with subsequent impacts on food production. The “Green Revolution” of the 1970s doubled production of many food crops but trebled water consumptionxx and depleted aquifers and water reserves. Future increases in food production will be taking place in the context of increasing water scarcity. 21. Globally there needs to be a better system for assessing and managing water risk. Patterns of international trade and consumption inﬂuence the use and availability of water. Water is used to produce goods which are traded internationally and these products contribute to the “virtual water” budget of the importing country.xxi Developed countries, including the UK, import many products with a high “virtual water” content or water footprint, often from products produced in water-scarce developing countries,xxii for example cotton products. Because of this, agriculture cannot be seen solely as a local issue; patterns of global trade and consumption are connected with the impacts of agriculture on both ecosystems and poorer populations. The UK’s own food security partly depends on better water management in countries from which we source food imports.

Ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss 22. Natural resources and natural ecosystems provide the platform for agricultural production, supplying the genetic source material for crops and livestock, and other vital services such as pollination, water regulation, pest control and maintaining soil fertility.xxiii The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reports that over 60% of ecosystem services are degraded and used unsustainably, with the natural resources critical for livelihood security for the world’s poorest in rapid decline.xxiv This decline has implications for the sustainability and resilience of agricultural systems.xxv In many areas agriculture has become increasingly precarious as soil erosion has increased and soil fertility declined, while productivity has been affected by changes in rainfall. 23. Biodiversity provides the genetic stock for crop and livestock breeds as well as for many other products (such as timber, medicines, fisheries, textiles). Biodiversity loss contributes to disrupting agriculture and decreasing fish stocks, both vital food supplies. It is estimated that about three-quarters of the genetic diversity found in agricultural crops has been lost in the last century alone.xxvi Industrial livestock farming has only five key animal species (cattle, chickens, pigs, sheep and goats) and about 100 breeds account for almost all commercial meat and dairy production. Small-scale farmers and pastoralists maintain 40 livestock species and around 7,600 breeds that contribute to biodiversity and resilience as well as maintaining jobs and food production.xxvii 24. Agriculture often drives land use change which leads to biodiversity loss.xxviii Inappropriate agriculture has contributed to underground water depletion, agrochemical pollution, soil exhaustion, and global climate change.xxix Conversion of natural habitats for production of food, timber, fibre, feed and fuel has been a main driver of biodiversity loss.xxx Worldwide agriculture occupies 38% of the ice free land surface.xxxi Agriculture has led to the clearance or conversion 70% of the grassland, 50% of the savannah, 45% of the temperate deciduous forest, and 27% of the tropical forest biome.xxxii

E. Strategies for Reducing Risk 25. Resilience and adaptation: debates about the future of the global food system tend to fall into two camps: one focusing on sustainability and the environment, the other on food security and hunger. A truly resilient food system will encompass both. The world needs food systems that deliver a range of economic, environmental and social goals, while being resilient to risks and disruptions. More sustainable and resilient food systems are likely to be based on a deeper understanding of biology and ecology, on working with natural processes as much as possible, on limiting use of external fossil fuel-based inputs, and on maintaining species diversity. 26. Resilience must operate at multiple scales, from the farm or fishing boat, to a global trading system. Adaptive capacity will be important; food systems that are diverse and flexible are more likely to have the adaptive capacity that will be needed to overcome the challenges of the coming decades. 27. Green’ agriculture and fisheries would be more productive, less polluting and would create more jobs.xxxiii The World Bank estimates that the transition to sustainable fisheries management alone could generate $50 billion more in global GDP each year. xxxiv The Bank also estimates that agriculture is twice as effective at reducing poverty as growth in other parts of the economy.xxxv A 21st century revolution in agriculture and fisheries management, that in particular included smallholders, would also be a tool for poverty alleviation.

F. Role DFID should Play 28. Smallholder agriculture: Globally 450 million small farms directly support nearly two billion people. Smallholders have not been a focus for donors and policymakers in recent decades. Trade liberalisation has led to the elimination of agricultural extension services, to provide knowledge and technology transfer, where they are needed most. As well as being central to food security and poverty reduction, small farms can contribute to protecting valuable ecosystem services, limiting land conversion, and both mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts.xxxvi The potential of smallholder farmers to contribute to sustainable agriculture would be increased by targeted support. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w103

29. Recommendations—supporting smallholders: Support should be provided for measures that maximise the potential contribution of the millions of small farmers in developing countries to food security, environmental protection, and climate adaptation. Access to markets, sharing knowledge and information, along with technological assistance, could increase the productivity of small holders. Land rights and sustainable access to land and water are central to improving food security. Shorter commodity chains would benefit smallholders, as would the inclusion of smallholders in roundtable and certification schemes. Specific recommendations include: (a) Agricultural extension services that encourage the application of low-external-input management practices such as integrated pest management, minimum-tillage farming, and drip irrigation could increase productivity of small farmers and benefit the environment. (b) Increased availability of appropriate seeds, technology, small scale credit, water storage, and other infrastructure. (c) Policy and market incentives, which help farmers to adopt or continue sustainable methods of agricultural production. (d) Broader access to land, water, and natural resources, including clearer tenure and the formal recognition of communal or customary rights when appropriate. (e) Expanded direct participation in the various policy, planning and governance processes that affect small farmers. 30. Food markets: In Africa smallholder productivity still underpins food security generally with low yield per unit acre. Yields are dependent on environmental factors, such as soil and climate, and the use of inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides. These inputs have become more expensive in recent years. The gap between current and potential yields is considerable. Closing this gap requires a favorable climate and appropriate use of fertilisers, pesticides and water as well as access to markets and credit and investment in infrastructure. There is potential to increase yield globally, however, this is linked to higher prices for farmers, which may reduce access to food for some consumers, particularly the urban poor. Reducing costs through better food marketing infrastructure and improving markets so that the rent taken by brokers is smaller could increase prices for farmers without an overall increase in the cost of food to consumers. 31. Recommendation on food markets: DFID should avoid focusing on industrial farming in the developing world but look at improving yields, access to markets and inputs of small scale farmers. 32. Land and water use planning: There is an urgent need for better land and water use planning. Agricultural production for food and energy (both small and large scale) needs to sit alongside infrastructure, industry, conservation, tourism and other uses. Analysis of potential climate impacts needs to be incorporated into land and water use planning and decisions about future agricultural investments. Agriculture should be planned according to water availability; a catchment approach is important for securing ecosystem health and stability; maintaining river and aquifer flows to downstream users is crucial; and agriculture design needs to take into account the needs of other water users. Safeguards to protect the rights of subsistence farmers, smallholders and hunter gatherers are needed where land is increasingly valuable for energy and food crops. 33. Recommendations on land and water use planning: (a) DFID should integrate better land and water use planning in their projects and programmes. (b) The UK Government should continue to support investment in The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid-Tropics (ICRISAT) working on improving the productivity of rain-fed agriculture and directed to improve the resilience and productivity of small and medium sized farms. 34. Sustaining ecosystem services: Productive agriculture is underpinned by the availability of soil, water and biodiversity. For long term food and energy security agricultural systems must be sustainable. Global limits are being breached in respect of the carbon and nitrogen cycles and of biodiversity with unpredictable system- wide consequences.xxxvii Proposed agricultural investments need to be informed by analysis of: (a) ecological carrying capacity, including water resource availability; (b) the potential impact on ecosystem services; (c) the potential impacts on human populations who use those ecosystem services; and (d) impacts of and on climate change. Particular emphasis needs to be placed on potential impacts on poor people who often depend directly on ecosystem services and natural resources for their basic needs and livelihoods. 35. Recommendation on ecosystem services: DFID should ensure that its projects and programmes in the agricultural sector protect ecosystem services, and should promote the role of ecosystem services with key stakeholders. 36. Consumption-production-development links: The role of consumption in the UK in driving unsustainable agricultural production systems around the world should be assessed and addressed. The UK import of food from the developing world can provide economic benefits but may be a driver of damaging land-use and production practices often with a move away from traditional food systems. It is important to ensure that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w104 International Development Committee: Evidence

policies that support sustainable agriculture are not undermined by policies in other areas such as trade. The existing Common Agricultural Policy needs to be reformed so it supports a transition to sustainable agriculture, shifting payments from subsidy entitlements towards payments for public goods and environmental services.xxxviii 37. Recommendation on consumption-production-development links: DFID should work with the EU and across Whitehall to ensure policy coherence, for example ensuring that procurement policies are sustainable, and that environment and development policies are integrated. 38. Private sector: the private sector is a central player in solving problems of hunger and food security. For example there is a need for capital to invest in systems of food storage and transfer that result in less food being wasted. Private sector can support solutions that result in less food waste, with beneﬁts to both producers and consumers. 39. Recommendation on the private sector: DFID should build up a set of case studies that indicate how private sector contributions can aid the achievement of food security and poverty reduction. They should develop best practice recommendations for private sector actors engaged in food issues in developing countries, and be prepared to intervene when companies act inappropriately.

G. Conclusion 40. Any food and farming strategy should now be based on securing the basic human rights to adequate food and good health, while at the same time reducing the global and local environmental impacts of the food we produce and consume. It should not be premised on a continuation of the status quo with widespread hunger, ill-health associated with poor diets and increasing environmental degradation. The underlying causes of inequalities in the food system, such as unfair trade and subsidy systems, need to be addressed to ensure food security for the poor, and to promote sustainable agriculture. December 2012

References i Why No Thought for Food? A UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Global Food Security January 2010 http://www.ukcds.org.uk/_assets/file/publications/why-no-food-for-thought.pdf ii http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/ iii UNEP (2009). The environmental food crisis—The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment http://www.unep.org/pdf/FoodCrisis_lores.pdf iv FA0 (2009). How to feed the world by 2050—http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_ paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf v Foresight. 2011. The future of food and farming: challenges and choices for global sustainability. Final project report. London, The Government Office for Science. 208 pp. vi http://www.mrag.co.uk/Documents/PolicyBrief3_Food_Security.pdf vii FAO (2012). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2012. viii FAO (2012). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2012 ix OECD—FAO Agricultural Outlook: Chapter on Fish Projections 2012–21 x Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided, a Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November 2012. http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_ warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf xi Why No Thought for Food? A UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Global Food Security January 2010 http://www.ukcds.org.uk/_assets/file/publications/why-no-food-for-thought.pdf xii Why No Thought for Food? A UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Global Food Security January 2010 http://www.ukcds.org.uk/_assets/file/publications/why-no-food-for-thought.pdf xiii Audsley, E et al (2009). How Low Can We Go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for reduction by 2050. Cranfield University/ WWF UK. xiv The World bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087–1192111580172/WDROver2008- ENG.pdf xv Garnett, T (2008). “Cooking up a storm—Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate” http://www.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/CuaS_web.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w105

xvi IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at the cross roads, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/ Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf xvii The Economist (8 April 2009). Better management can help solve growing water problem http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3559 xviii Why No Thought for Food? A UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Global Food Security January 2010 http://www.ukcds.org.uk/_assets/file/publications/why-no-food-for-thought.pdf xix IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at the cross roads, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/ Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf xx Why No Thought for Food? A UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Global Food Security January 2010 http://www.ukcds.org.uk/_assets/file/publications/why-no-food-for-thought.pdf xxi http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/understanding_water_risk.pdf xxii http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/uk_waterfootprint_v2.pdf xxiii UNEP (2009). The environmental food crisis—The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment http://www.unep.org/pdf/FoodCrisis_lores.pdf; WWF International (2010) Hot House Brief on Biodiversity and Agriculture xxiv Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.765.aspx.pdf xxv IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at the cross roads, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/ Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf xxvi FAO 2004 cited in WWF International (2010). Hot House Brief on Biodiversity and Agriculture xxvii FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2009) The roles of small-scale livestock keepers in the development, use and conservation of livestock resources. Rome: FAO, ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/ meeting/017/ak525e.pdf and (2007), The state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome: FAO ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1250e/a1250e.pdf xxviii IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at the cross roads, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/ Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf xxix The World bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087–1192111580172/WDROver2008- ENG.pdf xxx Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.765.aspx.pdf xxxi Food and Agriculture Organization (June 2006). Rome: FAO Statistics Division xxxii Ramankutty, N & Foley, J A Estimating historical changes in global land cover: croplands from 1700 to 1992. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997–1027 (1999). xxxiii UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. www.unep.org/greeneconomy, UNEP xxxiv World Bank (2009). The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform. Washington xxxv http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546–1171488994713/ 3455847–1192738003272/Brief_AgPovRedctn_web.pdf xxxvi WWF-MPO (2009). Smallholder Agriculture and the Environment in a Changing Global Context http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_mpo_smallholder_ag_policy_brief.pdf xxxvii http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/ thenineplanetaryboundaries.4.1fe8f33123572b59ab80007039.html xxxviii http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/proposal_new_common_agricultural_policy.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w106 International Development Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Business Action for Africa SMALLHOLDERS AND INCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL VALUE CHAINS 1. Summary 1.1 Many factors conspire to keep average productivity on Africa’s small farms low and farmers lacking food security. Agricultural value chains provide one route to overcoming some of these constraints. Through participation in inclusive supply chains, smallholder farmers can gain access to critical inputs and a guaranteed market for their output. For companies, establishing reliable supply chains represents a core business investment rather than CSR or corporate philanthropy, which creates strong incentives to make them successful and sustainable. 1.2 Agricultural value chains have the potential not only to help smallholders increase their output and income; but also to play a key role in improving food security at the household level through facilitating improved on-farm consumption and access to more nutritious foods. 1.3 Inclusive agricultural value chains are complex and ensuring that they deliver beneﬁts to both farmers and businesses is a challenge. They are not a feasible option for all smallholders: poorer and more marginalised are less likely to be able to participate and will require different support mechanisms. 1.4 Nevertheless case study evidence is building of successful inclusive supply chains. The experience of Business Action for Africa members—including CDC, SABMiller, Diageo and Unilever—demonstrate how inclusive supply chains can provide opportunities to large numbers of farmers. 1.5 Lessons are being learnt about the key elements of success. Inclusive supply chains work best when farmers are organised into efﬁcient, representative and well-governed groups; when there are fair returns at each step in the chain; and when strong partnerships are established between farmers, intermediaries and buyers. NGOs can be effective implementation partners, providing training, extension and capacity building. Donors and the international development community can provide essential support through co-investment or funding for pilots. National governments have a critical role to play in creating a supportive enabling business environment, and should increase their investment in rural infrastructure, rural public services and agricultural research. 1.6 There does not need to be a tension between supporting medium to large commercial agriculture and smallholder farmers. Larger businesses create economies of scale and outgrower opportunities, and smallholders are an inevitable and productive part of the system. There is no trade off between the two and support is needed for both if either is to thrive. 1.7 Transformative partnerships are needed to scale up these individual success stories. Support is needed for multi-stakeholder partnerships that can facilitate this scaling-up, such as Grow Africa. Business has a key role to play in these partnerships.

2. Business Action for Africa 2.1 Business Action for Africa is an international network of businesses and development partners working together for Africa’s future. Business Action for Africa is led by a board of multinational corporations, DFID, CDC and the International Business Leaders Forum. Business Action for Africa partners work together in three areas: — Advocate: We advocate for the policies needed to drive growth and wealth creation for poor people in Africa, and to facilitate business engagement in tackling development issues. — Act: We catalyse business-to-business partnerships to drive action on business issues that matter for development, and development issues that matter for business. — Share: We facilitate practical, how-to knowledge sharing between practitioners committed to harnessing the power of business for development impact. 2.2 More information is available at www.businessactionforafrica.org.

3. Key Arguments 3.1 Smallholders face many challenges; agricultural value chains can provide a route to overcoming some of them — Smallholders are critical players in the drive to ensure global food security, due to their numbers and their central role in food production and stewardship of increasingly scarce natural resources. Although smallholder development has the potential to make a signiﬁcant contribution to increased agricultural output in Africa, average productivity on the majority of Africa’s small farms currently lags far behind other regions.210 Sustainably increasing their productivity should be an urgent priority. 210 Wiggins (2009) Can the smallholder model deliver poverty reduction and food security for a rapidly growing population in Africa? Paper presented to FAO Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050, available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/ 012/ak982e/ak982e00.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w107

— African smallholders face many challenges that limit their capacity to increase farm output, including a lack of secure rights to the land, forests and fishing waters they depend on; lack of access to high quality, affordable inputs such as seeds, fertiliser and pest control; weak rural infrastructure leading to high transport costs; and insufficient support from research and agricultural extension services. Smallholders typically lack access to credit and other financial services; while rapid and dramatic changes in both export and domestic markets are making them increasingly inaccessible to most small-scale producers, despite strong growth in demand in these markets. Added to this are the challenges associated with climate change, including a greater frequency of the extreme weather events that smallholders are particularly vulnerable to such as droughts and floods; and increasing competition for natural resources, especially water and land.

— Women farmers, who constitute the majority of smallholders in Africa, face even greater obstacles, including highly insecure land tenure and a lack of representation in farmer groups. Given the same access as men to agricultural resources, women farmers can be just as productive, which would translate into a 2.5–4% increase in agricultural output in the developing world and as much as a 100–150 million reduction in the number of undernourished people.211

— Increased investment in small farms needs to come, ﬁrst and foremost, from farmers themselves. However, insecure tenure over their land makes many farmers reluctant to invest in costly productivity-enhancing assets (such as labour-saving equipment or new variants of seeds); while they often also lack access to credit to fund such investment.

— One route to overcoming these constraints is through integration into agricultural value chains. Multinational and domestic commodity buyers are increasingly looking to smallholder farmers to source their raw materials. This is driven to an extent by growing consumer awareness and preference for ethically sourced products.212 But other commercial drivers are at work as well: in the face of growing demand, increasing competition for resources from emerging producers and climate change-related concerns about water supply, among others, inclusive supply chains involving smallholder producers can provide these buyers with the stable, secure and sustainable long-term sources of raw materials that are so critical to their continued growth and success.

— Becoming part of domestic or international corporate supply chains not only provides farmers with a guaranteed buyer for some or all of their output, but they typically also gain access to quality inputs such as high-yielding seeds and fertiliser, training and technical advice, and, in many cases, some form of ﬁnancing.213 For companies, establishing reliable long-term supply chains represents a core business investment rather than CSR or corporate philanthropy, which creates strong incentives to make them successful and sustainable.

3.2 Agricultural value chains can help improve household food security

— Agricultural value chains have the potential not only to help smallholders increase their output and income through integration into inclusive supply chains; but also to play a key role in improving food security at the household level through facilitating improved on-farm consumption and access to more nutritious foods.

— Businesses can increase the supply of, and demand for, more nutritious products along the value chain through three pathways: developing fortiﬁed staple foods and condiments; creating local access to more nutritious food and dietary diversity for producers and farming communities; and providing targeted nutrition for infants and mothers during the critical ﬁrst 1,000 days, which can help prevent stunting and support development.

— Business can contribute to better nutrition by embedding nutrition into the full range of products, processes and services, thus creating value for both the business and society. Opportunities exist at various stages in the value chain, for example through developing and supplying inputs that improve the nutritional quality and diversity of crops; reducing wastage and integrating nutrient preservation during post-harvest storage and transportation; increasing access to markets to boost producer incomes; and making nutritious food and beverages more affordable and desirable by utilising marketing capabilities. 211 FAO (2011) The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–2011—Women in Agriculture, Closing the gender gap for development, available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e00.htm 212 Dalberg (2012) Catalyzing Smallholder Agricultural Finance, available at http://dalberg.com/documents/Catalyzing_ Smallholder_Ag_Finance.pdf 213 The Dalberg report describes the various agricultural value chain ﬁnancing models in some detail. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w108 International Development Committee: Evidence

3.3 Inclusive supply chains are complex; and less accessible to poorer farmers — Inclusive agricultural supply chains are complex and ensuring that they deliver benefits to both farmers and businesses is a challenge. The extent to which farmers share in the value generated by the chain depends on their ownership (for example of land or processing facilities); voice (the ability to influence key decisions); risk (including production and market risk); and reward (the sharing of economic cost and benefits).214 — An extensive review of inclusive agricultural value chain arrangements concluded that no one model is perfect: what works best for smallholders while still being attractive to investors is very much context-specific, and is contingent on tenure, policy, culture, history as well as on biophysical and demographic considerations.215 — It is also worth noting that not all smallholders are capable of becoming commercial farmers in supply chains to urban or export markets or processers. Smallholders who participate in such inclusive value chains tend to be the wealthier and better-connected farmers who own more land or other productive assets, and who are often already organised into farmer groups. Estimates suggest that only around 10% of smallholders currently participate in farmer organisations, and only a fraction of these engage in corporate value chains.216 For the majority of smallholders, selling into local markets and supplementing farm income with off-farm work (or social transfers for the poorest) provide better routes to improved livelihoods and incomes.217 Treating all smallholders as one homogenous group can lead to problems in targeting.

3.4 Inclusive supply chains in action: some examples — A number of members of Business Action for Africa specifically target smallholder producers in their agricultural supply chains. For SABMiller, one of the world’s largest brewers, sourcing raw materials from smallholders helps to maximise economic benefits while reducing import and distribution costs, and allows the company to balance the commercial advantages associated with its scale with the benefits of supporting local communities. In 2012, over 32,000 farmers were included in SABMiller’s smallholder programmes in Africa, India and Latin America, while its local sourcing programmes also supported around 100,000 direct farming jobs. — Another major multinational brewing company, Diageo, has committed to growing its regional sourcing of agricultural inputs to 70% by 2015. For Diageo, the business case is built around the fact that increased local sourcing will enable it to benefit from a more secure local supply tailored to local needs, while buying inputs in local currency also allows the company to hedge against foreign exchange risks. — In another example, CDC, the UK government-owned development finance institution and member of Business Action for Africa, is facilitating smallholders’ access to markets through its investment in an African agribusiness that operates an integrated value chain comprising procurement, processing, warehousing, transportation, distribution and merchandising. Export Trading Group (ETG) procured and distributed nearly 1.4 million metric tons of 25 different commodities during 2011–2012, and 80% of its Africa-originated stock was procured from smallholder farmers. — Unilever has been piloting a number of initiatives with smallholder farmers to scale up certification and connect new sources of raw materials from smallholders into their supply chain. The company has announced a goal of engaging with at least 500,000 smallholder farmers in its supply network. Unilever aims to help farmers improve their agricultural practices, thus enabling them to become more competitive and improve the quality of their livelihoods.

3.5 Lessons are being learnt about what works — As experience with inclusive agricultural value chains grows, a number of lessons can be extracted about factors that contribute to the success of these projects. First, farmer aggregation into groups is essential—dealing with individual farmers would raise the transaction costs to unsustainable levels. Special steps should be taken to ensure that such groups are effective, by means of capacity building where appropriate; representative (for example, that they include women or other marginalised farmers); and governed in a fair and transparent way. 214 Vermeulen and Cotula (2010) ) Making the most of agricultural investment: A survey of business models that provide opportunities for smallholders, IIED, FAO and IFAD, available at http://www.ifad.org/pub/land/agri_investment.pdf 215 Vermeulen and Cotula (2010) describe the various models of collaboration in some detail, provide examples of different models in practice, analyse their strengths and weaknesses and assess value sharing potential. 216 Dalberg (2012) 217 Wiggins S (2011) “Supporting Small Scale Farming” in Island nation or global citizen? Solving the food crisis by helping small scale farmers, World Vision Australia Policy Report, available at http://www.worldvision.com.au/Libraries/Reports_policy_ Island_nation_2011/Island_Nation_2011.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w109

— Second, agreements need to be carefully designed to ensure fair returns at every step in the value chain. Farmers are typically in a weak bargaining position: they may be completely dependent on the buyer for inputs, credit and the like, and often lack access to information about prices. In the worst cases, farmers could end up bearing all the risks or losing control over some of their assets. Farmer groups have an important role to play in helping negotiate fair terms and monitoring adherence to those terms.

— Third, partnerships are key, and partners need to focus on their respective core strengths. In most inclusive supply chain agreements there is a role for intermediaries such as NGOs, which may be contracted in to facilitate the formation of farmer groups, help with training and capacity building, and provide technical advice and extension services. SABMiller’s Mozambican subsidy worked with IFDC, an international organisation assisting farmers across Africa, to provide extension services and help with capacity building; while Unilever often works with several implementing partners, each focusing on its area of core strength to enhance the overall success of the project.

— There is also a role for donors and international development agencies, for example to co-invest in pilot projects to help reduce the risk born by companies in the early stages while trying to prove the business case; to provide research and technical expertise, or to help offset some of the R&D cost of testing new models; to help fund the marketing and outreach to farmers; or to help cover the costs of aggregating and strengthening the capacity of famers. In the examples listed above, SABMiller beneﬁted from co-investment through the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF), which helped strengthen the business cases underpinning their investment.

— National governments have a crucial role to play in creating the right enabling environment for business, including small and medium-sized businesses, many of which may be participating in the value chain as intermediaries providing cleaning, processing, packing or transporting services. In addition to ensuring a supportive investment climate for business, governments should scale up public spending on rural public services such as health, education and water and sanitation; and rural infrastructure such as roads, energy and irrigation.218 Public investment in agricultural research has also repeatedly been shown to be an essential prerequisite for agricultural development, and increased investment in this public good should be strongly encouraged and supported.

— Strengthening the rural investment climate will beneﬁt not only those farmers and businesses participating in agricultural value chains but will underpin broader rural development. This is a goal worth pursuing: agricultural growth has been shown to have at least double the poverty- reducing effect of growth generated in other sectors. In Rwanda and Kenya, agriculture’s poverty-reducing impact has recently been found to be as much as three to four times greater than non-agricultural growth.219

— The experiences shared here by members of Business Action for Africa suggest that there is no need to choose to support either smallholder farmers or commercial agriculture. In practice, many large multinational and domestic businesses that source from smallholders does so in combination with working with medium and large commercial operations. Larger businesses create economies of scale and outgrower opportunities and smallholders are an inevitable and productive part of the system. There is no trade off between the two and support is needed for both if either is to thrive.

3.6 Going to scale: the need for transformative partnerships

— While there the number of examples are growing where individual companies have succeeded in integrating smallholders into their supply chains, delivering beneﬁts both to the business and the farmers, these individual successes need to be taken to scale if the challenge of global food security is to be effectively addressed. A number of international partnerships have been created to help achieve this scaling-up. Grow Africa is a multi-stakeholder partnership, co-ordinated by the African Union, NEPAD and the World Economic Forum, that exists to accelerate investments into African agriculture, and to help ensure that these deliver on their promise of sustainable and inclusive growth. It connects governments, businesses, investors, farmers and development partners, in order to advance ambitious agricultural partnership initiatives. 218 Wiggins (2011) 219 Diao et al (eds) (2012) Strategies and Priorities for African Agriculture—Economywide Perspectives from Country Studies, IFPRI Issue Brief 73, available at http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/ﬁles/publications/oc73.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w110 International Development Committee: Evidence

— One example of a Grow Africa initiative is the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), an inclusive, multi-stakeholder partnership created to rapidly develop the region’s agricultural potential. Launched at WEF Africa in 2010, SAGCOT is a public-private partnership that aims to boost agricultural productivity in Tanzania and the wider region, and thereby achieve the country’s agricultural strategy. SAGCOT will promote “clusters” of proﬁtable agricultural farming and services businesses, with major beneﬁts for smallholder farmers and local communities. SAGCOT aims to catalyse private investment of US$2.1 billion over a 20-year period, alongside public sector commitments of US$1.3 billion, so helping to deliver rapid and sustainable agricultural growth.

Recommendations To further unlock business’ contribution through agricultural value chains, Business Action for Africa recommends that DFID: — Encourage more multinational commodities businesses to establish inclusive supply chains incorporating smallholder farmers in Africa, by showcasing success and developing practical guidelines for helping ensure such arrangements deliver fair returns to farmers as well as buyers. — Continue to support the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF) and provide other forms of incentives such as co-investment to help address high initial risk associated with establishing inclusive agricultural supply chains. — Encourage governments to provide a strong enabling environment for business, including small businesses, and to direct more public funds towards agricultural research, rural infrastructure and rural public services in support of agricultural development. — Facilitate scaling-up through transformational partnerships, including through continued support for multi-stakeholder initiatives aimed at accelerating investment in Africa’s agriculture sector such as Grow Africa. 17 April 2013

Written evidence submitted by ONE 1. ONE is a global grassroots advocacy and campaigning organisation committed to the ﬁght against extreme poverty and preventable disease, particularly in Africa. Cofounded by Bono and other campaigners, and backed by 3 million members, ONE is nonpartisan and works closely with African activists and policy makers. 2. In 2012, ONE launched a new global agriculture campaign: “THRIVE: Food. Farming. Future.” This multi-year campaign calls on African leaders, donor governments and the private sector to play their full part in tackling the root causes of hunger and extreme poverty. We have calculated that investments in long-term agriculture and nutrition plans in 30 poor countries can help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty and 15 million children escape the devastating effects of malnutrition. 3. In March 2013, we launched our latest agriculture report, “A Growing Opportunity: Measuring Investments in African Agriculture”220. The report assessed whether African leaders and donors had met their commitments to agriculture and food security and had seized the opportunity to set African agriculture on the path to deliver its poverty-reducing potential. We looked at 19 African countries with signed, reviewed national agriculture investment plans and assessed progress on their commitments to reduce poverty, invest in agriculture, and include citizens in decision-making. The report also looked at eight donors and evaluated the quantity and quality of agriculture assistance, with special attention to their commitment to support country ownership. This submission will summarise the report’s ﬁndings and the recommendations for the UK government.

Introduction 4. Sub-Saharan African agriculture could and should be thriving. According to the World Bank, the region has the right conditions to feed itself: enough fertile farmland, enough water and enough favourable climates.221 According to the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), the Africa Progress Panel and others, Africa has the potential not only to feed itself, but also to become a major food supplier for the rest of the world. 5. Unlocking Africa’s agriculture potential would also unlock its development. Farming is Africa’s predominant livelihood: more than two-thirds of Africans depend on agriculture for their incomes. Investing in agriculture is one of the single best ways to reduce poverty in Africa. According to World Bank analysis, growth in the agriculture sector is 2.5 times as effective at reducing poverty as growth in other sectors.222 220 http://www.one.org/growingopportunity 221 The World Bank, 2012 “Africa Can Help Feed Africa: Removing barriers to regional trade in food staples.” http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRICA/Resources/Africa-Can-Feed-Africa-Report.pdf 222 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546–1171488994713/3455847–1192738003272/Brief_ AgPovRedctn_web.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w111

6. Yet Africa is far from realising this potential. For too long, Africa’s agriculture sector has been neglected. African governments failed over many decades to invest adequately in the agriculture sector and to create a policy and regulatory environment in which smallholder farmers could ﬂourish. Compared to a sharp rise in domestic spending in Asia, public spending on agriculture in Africa stayed stagnant and low throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Meanwhile, donor assistance to agriculture was slashed 72% between 1988 and 2003.

7. As a result, Africa’s cereal crop yields today are nearly as low as they were several decades ago, and just a fraction of those in Latin America and South Asia. Today, Africa is a net food buyer, looking outside the continent to feed its growing and urbanising population. Facing poor infrastructure, expensive fertilizer, poor access to extension and ﬁnancial services, unreliable and unpredictable markets, inadequate use of technology, and limited land security, Africa’s smallholder farmers have been left unable to produce enough food to feed their families and unable to sell surplus to markets to generate income.

Bold Commitments from African Leaders and the G8

8. In 2003, African leaders took a ﬁrst step towards reversing decades of neglect with a bold commitment to increasing investments in agriculture. Through the Maputo Declaration at the July 2003 African Union summit, African heads of state made a historic promise to their people: to allocate 10% of national budgets to agriculture and seek 6% annual agricultural growth by 2008. With the Maputo commitments, African leaders pledged to reverse the underinvestment that had held the agriculture sector back for so long.

9. In addition, reafﬁrming the need for ownership of their own development agenda, leaders in the African Union also adopted the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) to be implemented by member states systematically to eliminate hunger and reduce poverty through agriculture. An entirely African-led and African-owned programme, CAADP addresses policy and capacity issues across the entire agriculture sector in Africa. CAADP is premised on country ownership, with plans leveraging the resources, leadership and input of Africans. As of January 2013, 19 countries have signed CAADP compacts and held their business meetings, launching solid, costed and technically-reviewed plans to accelerate agricultural development.223

10. Following this leadership from African countries, donors stepped up their own commitments to agriculture and food security. In 2009, in the aftermath of a sharp spike in food prices, donors pledged to act with “scale” and “urgency” to achieve global food security. At the 2009 G8 summit in L’Aquila, G8 donors pledged $22 billion over three years to support sustainable agriculture and food security. They also agreed to a set of principles to deliver more effective and strategic assistance, including commitments to invest in country-led plans and provide predictable long-term ﬁnancing and strategic coordination.

11. In 2012, G8 leaders at the G8 Camp David summit launched the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, building on the work of Grow Africa. A partnership of the G8, private companies and national governments, the New Alliance set an ambitious goal of lifting 50 million people out of poverty over ten years. Companies have agreed to invest in countries that have committed to make policy and regulatory reforms to enable more investment and agriculture productivity. Through the New Alliance, more than 60 private companies, half from Africa, have committed more than $4 billion.

Accountability

12. Teeing up for this critical year, our A Growing Opportunity report holds governments accountable to their commitments on agriculture and food security. A major addition to this year’s report, building on ONE’s 2011 report—Agriculture Accountability: Holding Donors to Their L’Aquila Promises224—is our coverage of African governments’ efforts to invest in their own agricultural development. We looked at the 19 African countries with vetted, signed national agriculture investment plans, developed through CAADP. For each of these countries, we looked at progress on their commitments to reduce poverty, to spend 10% of national expenditures on agriculture, to implement national plans, and to include citizens in decision making.

13. We then assessed donors’ delivery of their L’Aquila commitments. This year, we looked at eight donors (Canada, European Union, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, United Kingdom and the United States) and evaluated the quantity and quality of their agriculture assistance. We look at four different indicators of country ownership of national agriculture plans, from inclusion of non-state actors to donor support for these plans. For African governments, we look at whether budgetary and programme information was available to citizens and whether a country’s national agriculture plan included a structure for the participation of non-state actors. We also included case studies from Benin, Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania, to help illustrate the concept of country ownership and its impact on the CAADP national process. Finally, given that this year is a turning point for both African and donor governments, we offer some targeted recommendations on how to improve commitments to agriculture and food security. 223 Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Tanzania and Mauritania. 224 http://www.one.org/c/international/hottopic/3923/ cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w112 International Development Committee: Evidence

Key Findings 14. The key findings in our report were: (1) African leadership, backed by donor support, is leading to real progress in agriculture growth, poverty reduction, and reorganising agriculture. A decade ago, African leaders put CAADP in place. Twenty-four countries have signed technically-vetted national agriculture plans and another six countries have started the process. Eight of the 19 countries with agriculture plans reviewed in the report are on track to meet the Millennium Development Goal 1A of halving extreme poverty by 2015. At least 13 have had 6% growth in the agriculture sector. (2) Countries are off track in meeting their own commitments for financial investment in agriculture. Only four of the 19 countries examined have met their Maputo target of spending 10% of their national budget on agriculture, and two more are close behind. Alarmingly, nine countries have decreased investment in agriculture. The deficit from the Maputo commitments amounts to $4.4 billion in 2011 across these 19 countries. African leaders, in partnership with donors, must take urgent action to fill the shortfall in their funding commitments. (3) Although donor countries have met their $22 billion L’Aquila funding commitments, only half of the pledges have been paid out. Donor support for CAADP and country-owned plans are off track. The share of donor support which is allocated to countries with country-led, costed agriculture plans has been low. Donors should prioritise such countries for funding. Currently there is a 50% shortfall in funding for these African-owned agriculture plans. Donors must act with urgency to do their share in filling the financing gap of national agricultural investment plans, including by meeting the target of $1.425 billion in funding for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme (GAFSP). (4) African governments need to increase transparency and do more to open their books to citizens. At least half of the African countries assessed did not have transparent agriculture budget documents. To enable their citizens to follow the money and monitor the services and results are delivered, all countries should publish and make available easy-to-understand and accurate citizen’s budgets that disaggregate the entire sector’s budget by programme. (5) Financing focused on women producers and nutrition outcomes is inadequate. Nearly half of the plans do not have gender-disaggregated outcome indicators at all that specifically focus on women, and only three had all of its indicators gender-disaggregated. Moreover, many plans did make a start at emphasising nutritional outcomes. All but one analysed include some reference to nutrition, and 12 contain time-bound and measurable nutritional outcome objectives, more plans should have a nutritional component.

UK Government 15. Although the UK’s has exceeded its L’Aquila commitment ($1.72 billion commitment; $1.87 billion disbursed), DFID’s agriculture spending as a share of its total official development spending (2.18%) is currently the lowest amongst the G7 and EU institutions. The UK has recently confirmed that it will increase its development assistance to 0.7% of GNI, which could present an opportunity to address this gap and mobilise additional resources for the agriculture sector. With the exception of its response to the food price crisis of 2008, DFID does not have a central, overarching food-security strategy. This remains the decentralised responsibility of country-level advisors. 16. DFID aligns with country priorities and provides two-thirds of its agriculture support through sector budget support. DFID is one of the largest donors to the CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund, with $11.6 million contribution as of May 2012. However, just 11% of the UK’s aid to agriculture goes to low-income countries with costed, reviewed agriculture investment plans, including those developed through the CAADP process. 17. DFID should increase its agriculture assistance and help fill the funding gap in national agriculture investment plans. This could be done through additional contributions to GAFSP and the CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund, and/or by increasing bilateral agriculture support to countries with agriculture investment plans.

Looking Ahead: Recommendations for the 2013 G8 Summit and “Nutrition for Growth” Event 18. The G8 Summit in Lough Erne and the related Nutrition for Growth event in London in June 2013 presents a historic opportunity for G8 leaders to contribute to African governments’ goals of lifting millions from poverty and preventing chronic malnutrition. Leaders should deliver on past promises made at previous G8 Summits and at the same time back African agriculture plans with the resources needed. Doing so would deliver a shared development vision deﬁned by accountability, transparency, economic empowerment and partnership between governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector. 19. The June meetings, held just months before the start of the African Union’s “Year of Agriculture”, provide an important platform for the G8 to help African governments realise the promise of the AU’s CAADP programme. The G8 has made repeated promises to support CAADP and African-owned agriculture plans. Yet country investment plans have only secured about 62% of their required ﬁnancing, and many donors contribute only a small fraction of their agriculture assistance to low-income countries with country investment plans. To cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w113

do their share in filling the financing gap of national agricultural investment plans, alongside African governments and the private sector, donors should fully fund GAFSP, the multilateral vehicle that addresses the underfunding of country and regional agriculture investment plans. G8 donors and additional partners should make new funding commitments to help complete the current $1.425 billion financing round, leveraging the 1:2 matching pledge from the US (up to $475 million). 20. Donors can also support CAADP and the implementation of agriculture plans by contributing to the CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund, which provides direct support for many CAADP activities and builds its institutional capacity. Where bilateral assistance is preferred, donors should work with the CAADP secretariat and national stakeholder platforms to identify gaps in country investment plan funding. 21. Finally, G8 donors should support the efforts to enhance CAADP for the next ten years of agriculture. Specifically, the G8 should endorse the inclusion of a stronger focus on nutritional outcomes in national agriculture investment plans and through GAFSP. As the primary multilateral vehicle to fund CAADP plans, GAFSP has an important role to play in reaching the goals set out by African governments in their investment plans, including nutritional outcomes. This may require enhancing the links between plans’ agriculture programmes and their overarching nutritional outcomes. The G8 can also improve poverty reduction and nutritional outcomes by expanding the New Alliance, thereby increasing the sustainability of agricultural sector growth. Donors should strive to improve the quantity and quality of nutrition-sensitive agriculture investments, aiming to improve and measure its impacts on micronutrient deficiencies, stunting, and other health indicators. April 2013

Written evidence submitted by Dr Dolf te Lintelo, Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies 1. Globally, levels of hunger and undernutrition remain unacceptably high. Hunger affects about 870 million people (FAO 2012). That means one in eight people do not get enough food to be healthy and lead an active life. Undernutrition affects one in every four children under five years of age worldwide and a third of those living in developing countries. It contributes to 2.6 million deaths of children under five each year—one third of the global total. Progress towards reducing hunger and undernutrition has been highly variable across countries and regions. Many developing countries have benefited from substantial economic growth during the last two decades, but growth alone is not sufficient to rapidly accelerate the reduction of hunger and malnutrition. The poor need to benefit from this economic growth in order for them to improve the quantity and quality of their diets through additional income. Governments need to target additional resources at public goods such as health and sanitation services. Furthermore, strong and high level political commitment is essential to prioritise the fight against hunger and malnutrition (FAO, 2012). 2. Global hotspots of hunger and undernutrition in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have witnessed substantial and sustained economic growth. Such growth, managed well, can widen tax and public investment bases, to offer clear potential for governments to address the two scourges of hunger and undernutrition. Internationally, we know what kind of public interventions work, and we also know that these investments are simply good economics. So, the resources available for action are bigger than ever and we know what interventions can best address these. We can therefore identify which governments are putting in place measures that can greatly reduce hunger and undernutrition. 3. The Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index (HANCI) has been produced by the Institute of Development Studies’ (IDS) through funding by Irish Aid and as part of a Department for International Development (DfID) Accountable Grant. HANCI was officially launched in April 2013 and it will: — Rank governments on their political commitment to tackling hunger and undernutrition. — Provide greater transparency and public accountability by measuring what governments achieve and where they fail in addressing hunger and undernutrition. — Highlight the success stories and also areas for improvement. — Support civil society in their efforts to ensure greater political commitment towards accelerating the reduction of hunger and undernutrition. — Assess whether improved levels of political commitment lead to an actual reduction in levels of hunger and undernutrition. The following section of evidence sets out some of the key initial findings from the HANCI, that we hope will help inform the select committee’s work on this inquiry.

HANCI Initial Key Findings 4. Political commitment needs to be expressed through practical government action in order to make signiﬁcant progress towards reducing hunger and undernutrition. A good example is Guatemala, which performs best in 2012 for both hunger and nutrition on the HANCI. While the hunger and undernutrition situation in Guatemala is “alarming” and much remains to be done, the Government of Guatemala is cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w114 International Development Committee: Evidence

undertaking the following key actions that are likely to accelerate improvements in hunger and undernutrition outcomes: — It has ensured a high level of access to drinking water (92% of the population). — It has ensured good levels of access to improved sanitation (78%). — It has promoted complementary feeding practices, and ensured that over nine out of ten pregnant women are visited by a skilled birth attendant at least once before delivery. — It has invested substantially in health, and has a separate nutrition budget line to make its spending accountable to all. — It has put in place a Zero Hunger Plan that aims to reduce chronic malnutrition in children under 5 years of age by 10% in 2016. — It has ensured that public policy is informed by robust and up-to-date evidence on nutrition statuses. — It has established a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism that is regionally recognised as an example of good practice. When committed government action is lacking, progress towards hunger and undernutrition reduction is likely to be severely limited. This is exemplified by the case of Guinea Bissau which scores lowest on the HANCI in terms of commitment to hunger and undernutrition reduction. As with Guatemala, the Global Hunger Index considers the situation in Guinea Bissau to be “alarming”. However the contrast between the two governments’ approaches is marked. Guinea Bissau has for instance: — not invested in agriculture, despite a commitment to invest 10% of its budgets in agriculture (as part of the African Union’s Maputo Declaration); — failed to set aside budgets for nutrition; — not sufficiently strengthened its nutrition policies by instituting coordination mechanisms and establishing time bound nutrition targets; and — not sufficiently strengthened citizens’ rights to social security, and enhanced very weak economic rights for women. 5. Economic growth has not necessarily led to governments tackling hunger and undernutrition. Sub- Saharan Africa and South Asia are global hotspots of hunger and undernutrition, despite many countries within these regions having achieved substantial and sustained economic growth over the last decade. So while governments have greater resources to address hunger and undernutrition, progress has been either too slow (eg South Asia) or stagnating (sub-Saharan Africa). Economic growth alone is not sufficient. Newly generated wealth needs to reinvested in the human capital necessary to sustain growth, notably in interventions that address hunger and undernutrition, and in the effective and accessible (public or private) provisioning of essential public goods such as health and sanitation services. 6. The political commitment levels of the global rising economic powers, including the BRICS nations, vary substantially. South Africa performs strongly on hunger commitment, and only averagely on nutrition commitment. Brazil and Indonesia perform well overall, and they have seen stunting rates decline by over 20% in the last two decades. China does well in terms of hunger commitment, though less strongly on nutrition commitment. India’s commitment ranking is lowest within the group of BRICS, even though its hunger and nutrition situation is the most serious. Within Sub-Saharan Africa, some of its smaller economic powers (Malawi and Madagascar) are now leading the charge against hunger and undernutrition, leaving traditional powerhouses (South Africa, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, Angola) in their wake. 7. Low wealth in a country does not necessarily imply low levels of political commitment. Our data shows that in cases where there are serious hunger and nutrition challenges, low aggregate and per capita wealth in a country does not mean that governments are simply unable to act on hunger and undernutrition. For instance, Angola and Malawi both have an “alarming” and Guinea Bissau a “serious” hunger status (IFPRI, 2012). Out of these three countries, Malawi has by far the lowest Gross National Income per capita ($870), as compared to Guinea Bissau ($1240) and Angola ($5230). Yet, Malawi ranks second on the HANCI, while Angola and Guinea Bissau languish at the bottom of the league table. Similarly, India’s child stunting rates are on a par with Guatemala. India’s has a higher GNI per head of $4390 in comparison to Guatemala’s $3590. 8. Countries’ commitment to hunger reduction does not tally with their commitment to improving nutrition. In fact, we found a low correlation between the two. This is demonstrated by the divergent performance of countries such as Nepal, South Africa and Mali on the two sub-indices. — Nepal ranks number three for nutrition commitment, but ranks only 34th (out of 45 countries) for hunger reduction commitment. — Peru ranks 2nd highest for hunger reduction commitment, 11th for nutrition commitment. — The Gambia ranks 24th for hunger commitment, 8th for nutrition commitment. — Mali ranks 5th on hunger commitment and 29th on nutrition commitment. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w115

— South Africa shows 2nd highest commitment levels for hunger reduction, though ranks 23rd for nutrition commitment. April 2013

Further written evidence submitted by ActionAid About us ActionAid is an international NGO working in 45 countries worldwide, and our positions and recommendations reﬂect the experiences of our staff and partners in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe. Drawing on ActionAid’s long experience of promoting food rights, this submission highlights in particular our concerns and recommendations on the impact of biofuels on global food security.

Biofuels Links to Hunger ActionAid UK is concerned about the impacts of EU and UK biofuels mandates on hunger. These past weeks the committee has received a lot of evidence to support these concerns: — Biofuels production increases food prices: Recent modelling of the impact of the EU’s biofuels targets on food prices suggests that, by 2020, it could increase oilseed prices by up to 20%, vegetable oil prices by as much as 36%, maize by as much as 22%, sugar by as much as 21% and wheat by as much as 13%.225 Indeed according to the World Bank, OECD, WTO, IFPRI, IMF and ﬁve other UN food agencies: “prices are substantially higher than they would be if no biofuels were produced.”226 These effects on prices are particularly alarming for developing countries where people spend up to 80% of their income on food. — Biofuels production leads to land and resources grabs: ActionAid’s research of European biofuel activities in Africa between 2009–13 documents 98 biofuel projects covering six million hectares of land.227 The biggest investors of biofuels in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are from the UK (30 projects), Italy (18) and Germany (8), and the average size of European investments is 68,000 hectares (ha). Many have the explicit aim to supply European markets. — Biofuels production leads to competition between crops for food and crops for fuel: Current annual UK consumption of food crops to produce fuel is enough to feed 10 million people for a year. The equivalent ﬁgure for the EU is 127 million people.228 If all countries in the world consumed 10% biofuels in all transport fuels by 2020, this would absorb 26% of global crop production.229 Some 65% of domestic EU vegetable oils (mainly rapeseed), 40% of US maize and 50% of Brazilian sugar cane now goes to biofuels.230 It is widely acknowledged that current biofuels policies in the UK and the EU are contributing to food insecurity globally yet as of 2013–14, as much as 5% of road transport fuel in the UK will come from biofuels following the government’s implementation of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation.231

The Rationale for Biofuels: Does it still hold? Biofuels policy mandates were adopted with the best of intentions—as a solution to combat climate change and secure Europe’s energy independence. Yet with new evidence a few years into their implementation, most leading organisations agree that their green potentials are now highly questionable and that they distort dramatically the food system. This evidence should encourage Members States to find solutions to abandon biofuels mandates obligations and work harder on alternatives. Indeed: — Biofuels mandates harm the environment: There is growing evidence that biofuels are in fact not needed to meet many of the EU stated objectives on GHG emissions.232 It has also turned out that many types of biofuels currently in use are not actually better for the environment than the fossil fuels that they were meant to replace. The total net GHG emissions from biofuels could be as much as 56 million tonnes of extra CO2 per year, the equivalent of an extra 12 to 26 million cars on Europe’s roads by 2020.233 — First generation biofuels are not the only answer to energy security: 225 OECD-FAO, 2011, Agricultural Outlook 2011–20. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/newsroom/docs/Outlookflyer.pdf 226 World Bank et al, 2011. Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses. http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/pricevolatilityinfoodandagriculturalmarketspolicyresponses.htm 227 Adding Fuel to the Flame, Actionaid, 2013, http://www.actionaid.org/eu/publications/adding-fuel-flame 228 Oxfam, The Hunger Grains, September 2012, p16. 229 HLPE, 2013. Op cit. Page 1 of Executive Summary 230 OECD-FAO, 2012. Agricultural Outlook 2012–21. Page 90 231 https://www.gov.uk/renewable-transport-fuels-obligation 232 “Sustainable alternatives to land based biofuels”, Greenpeace et al, http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2013/CE- Delft-Report/ 233 “Driving to Destruction”, http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/driving_to_destruction_nov_2010.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

Ev w116 International Development Committee: Evidence

— The UK should focus its research on biofuels that do not require any land for their production and do not have food price impacts, mainly those produced from wastes and residues. — Advanced biofuels are widely recognised as being the biofuels most likely to dominate markets after 2020. Specifically, the likes of advanced biofuels produced by amongst others sewage sludge, animal manure and the biomass fraction of municipal and industrial waste have an environmentally sustainable profile; they are worth further research and assessment for their social impacts, especially outside of the EU. — There are other alternatives too: some renewable technologies have less dubious environmental credentials, including solar, wind and hydro power. — EU countries should also focus on reducing energy demand through improved energy efficiency and increased use of electricity in road and rail transport.

Renewable Energies: A Future Market Concerns over the unsustainability of biofuels are shared with other organisations, including companies such as Unilever, Nestle and Carrefour. This was demonstrated at the G20 meeting in Mexico last year when the B20 called for the “removal of subsidies for ﬁrst-generation biofuels. Biofuel mandates should be evaluated regarding their impact on global food security priorities.”234 Furthermore, the unsustainability of biofuels policies will harm markets as biofuels producers will be forced to reduce their production. We already see today that the UK is reluctant to increase its own targets on biofuels due to serious environmental concerns. The UK should provide certainty to the renewable industry by already orienting it to sustainable type of energies that we need to develop. The UK could be at the forefront of alternatives to biofuels as well as the production of advanced biofuels that will dominate the bioenergy markets in the future.

What Role has the UK Played so far? The government is hosting a Hunger Summit on 8 June as part of its G8 Presidency. The Prime Minister has this year pledged to tackle the root causes of hunger and poverty. Despite being a root cause of poverty, the government does not currently plan to acknowledge the impact that the use of food for fuel plays in creating hunger at its 8 June event. This would be an ideal moment to draw attention to this issue and the need for change. The UK is a member of the EU Energy and Environment Councils where it can influence European policy on biofuels. In recent EU negotiations, the UK has taken a very progressive position on so-called ILUC factors—a carbon accounting methodology which would ensure that all greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels consumption are accounted for recognition of their real impact on the environment. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has also been very clear in the European Council that the EU got it wrong when drafting the Renewable Energy Directive back in 2008–09.235 However the UK has chosen not to address the food versus food conflict in its positioning in EU negotiations. Nor does it seem to be pushing on developing alternatives to harmful biofuels. The European Commission had proposed a 5% cap on food based biofuels across the EU as a recognition that there is a conflict between food and fuel, creating some upper limit to how much damage biofuels would be allowed to cause global food security. But the lack of intervention from the UK here has played down the conflict between food and fuel—while ultimately the UK and DFID in particular should be championing this issue. EU meetings in early June are critical to future policy on biofuels. The UK government must take a vocal leadership role in these meeting to ensure that the Commission’s 5% cap is accepted by Member States as part of a trajectory towards no food being used as fuel in the EU.

Final Recommendations We welcome the committee’s concerns over the impacts of biofuels mandates on hunger, and its interests in practical recommendations for the government. While we acknowledge the need to develop solutions to combat climate change and new types of energy, we also remain convinced that energy choices are a political decision. It is possible to reach our environmental and energy independence goals through sustainable means. Proper investment in truly renewable sources of energy in the UK combined with improved energy efﬁciency and subsequent reductions in energy demand, could lead the UK to comfortably end its use of food and land based biofuels. We recommend that the committee should: — Urge the UK government to champion this issue at the Hunger Summit and the G8 it will host in June, encouraging other countries to recognise and address the impact of biofuels on hunger. 234 “B20 Task Force Recommendations on Food Security,” released in early 2012 ahead of the G20 meeting in Mexico. 235 Ministers hostile to biofuels limit, European Voice 21 March 2013, http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/march/ministers- hostile-to-biofuel-limit/76749.aspx cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [31-05-2013 17:17] Job: 027171 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/027171/027171_w034_027388_w015_michelle_GFS 26B ActionAid.xml

International Development Committee: Evidence Ev w117

— Urge DFID to push for the UK and the EU to end the use of food as fuel and DFID to ensure that the UK government support a cap no higher than 5% of food based fuel at European Council negotiations—particularly the forthcoming EU Energy Council meeting on 6 June. — Urge the UK government to maintain its current call for binding ILUC factors and proactively encourage other countries in the EU to do the same. — Urge the UK government to invest more heavily in renewable energy sources that do not cause food insecurity or land grabs. 16 April 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 06/2013 027171 19585