Halving Hunger: Still Possible? Building a rescue package to set the MDGs back on track Brussels Rural Development Briefings Beyond Aid: Financing Agriculture in ACP countries Brussels, 15 th of September 2010 Luca Chinotti, Policy Advisor, Oxfam

Oxfam Briefing Paper: Halving Hunger: Still Possible? Building a rescue package to set the MDGs back on track 2 This report sets out what needs to be done to achieve the MDGs target on hunger by No silver bullet but a mix of effective context-specific policies and adequate investments. Needed: a better global governance, better policies and more and better public investments on food security and agriculture. → Focus of the presentation: investment dimension.

MDGs target on hunger: off-track 3 Even before the food crisis, the international community was not on track to achieve the MDGs target on hunger. In 2010 the MDGs target on hunger is still off-track. The 1996 World Food Summit target is even more off-track. 925 million people — more than the population of the European Union (EU), Canada and the US combined. Another food price crisis may yet happen, as the structural causes are still latent.

Reducing hunger: it can be done 4 There are no excuses. Several countries showed that it is possible to drastically reduce hunger when the right measures are backed up with political commitment and adequate funding. Crucial elements: a twin track approach - investments in smallholders and agriculture, social protection mechanisms and treating and preventing malnutrition.

Why more and better public investment on food security and agriculture is crucial? Wide consensus that lack of investments on food security and agriculture by national governments and donors is one of the structural causes of hunger. There is a strong correlation between investments in agriculture and food security. Developing countries must lead a revitalized global effort to halve hunger by adopting the right policies and plans and increasing their own public investment. But they cannot do it alone: they need developed countries financial support. Aid can make a difference (e.g. Malawi). Aid of food security and agriculture is not just a question of solidarity. Rich countries bear direct responsibility (e.g. because of the impact of their trade and agricultural policies). Furthermore, all countries are legally obliged to protect, respect and enforce the right to food (also trough better policy coherence). 5

How much it will cost to achieve the MDGs target on hunger? More and better investments are necessary but not sufficient to achieve the MDGs target on hunger. Without comprehensive reforms of national and global policies on food, agriculture, trade and climate change, no plan to fight hunger – however ambitious – will succeed. Objective: give an estimate of the scale of needs. Not a constant figure: it will evolve. Applying a principle of shared responsibility, half of these resources should come from international aid and the other half from developing countries. In 2008 donors delivered just a third of what is needed. 6

Donors performance on aid for food security and agriculture: the L’Aquila Initiative $22bn over three years but: -Only around $4bn is new money; -Recycled but also already spent money included. -Accountability report: a step forward but impossible to understand if donors are delivering on their commitments. → A global accountability mechanism should be set up. Donors should also improve the “quality” of their pledges. → L’Aquila Food Security Initiative may be a step in the right direction but is completely inadequate compared to the financial needs ($4bn/3 years vs $37.5bn/year) 7

Donors: who should pay how much? Donors fair share based on capacity: GNI + gap between current spending and the 0.7% aid target. The amount required from the EU would be almost $15bn, far less than the $65bn it spent in 2008 on the most trade-distorting types of agricultural subsidies. Increase should not be made through cuts on aid on other important sectors. How to find funds? 1) Financial Transaction Tax; 2) Phasing out the most trade-distorting types of agricultural subsidies in rich countries or dismantling subsidies and tax exemptions for biofuels (added benefits for food security). 8 Country Capacity (%) ODA required ($m) ODA disbursed in 2008 ($m) United States ,4464,461 European Union ,9501,924 Germany 7.023, Italy 6.323, France 4.242, Spain 3.291, UK 2.611, Netherlands Ireland Japan ,1681,422 Canada 3.852, Australia 2.251,198285

Better aid: the Rome Principles implementation In 2009, all countries agreed to implement 5 principles: 1) Invest in national country-led plans; 2) Improve coordination; 3) Adopt a twin-track approach towards food security; 4) Reinforce multilateralism; 5) Allocate predictable funding through multi-year plans. Donors coordination, support to national/regional plans and alignment with national/regional priorities is still weak. Oxfam research (2009) in three West African countries and even the G8’s Muskoka Accountability Report (2010) showed it. → It is crucial that developing countries lead in the fight against hunger also by developing costed national plans. → Existing coordination mechanisms should be strengthened. → The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) should be empowered to improve coordination and strategic convergence. → Establishment of a global financial coordination mechanism that ensures coordination, coherence with global policy frameworks, alignment with national plans, and identify gaps. New global funds such as GAFSP risks fuelling the current uncoordinated approaches to global hunger 9

Conclusion and recommendations for the MDGs Summit The MDGs target on hunger is completely off-track. The only chance of avoiding failure is a rescue plan. Halving hunger is still possible if: → Developing countries take the lead with the right policies and investments; → Donor countries increase dramatically their aid to agriculture, food security and social protection under nationally and regionally-driven plans; and → The global issues affecting food security are collectively addressed. At the MDGs Review Summit, Heads of State and Government should: → Empower the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to provide the high level political leadership needed to achieve the MDGs hunger target. → Commit Ministers to attend the CFS plenary and ensure they have a strong mandate also to develop a Global Plan against hunger. → Recognize the existence of a financing gap of $75bn. 10

Thanks for you attention 11