This document provides a summary of the key findings from a baseline study on building public and political will for agriculture development in Germany. It discusses the state of research on agriculture for food security and nutrition. It notes that while smallholder farmers produce much of the world's food, their work and knowledge remains understudied and under-supported by policies. Effective agricultural development requires integrating smallholders' indigenous knowledge with modern technologies through participatory research that addresses their needs and production environments. Overall agricultural productivity and food security are improved when smallholder farmers are integrated into local and regional markets.

1. Building Public and Political Will
for Agriculture ODA in Germany
Baseline Study under the project

2. 2
Published by
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V.
Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 1
53173 Bonn
Tel. +49 (0)228 2288-0
Fax +49 (0)228 2288-333
info@welthungerhilfe.de
www.welthungerhilfe.de
Author and responsible
Prof. Michael Krawinkel
Editing
Katherin Longwe (Corporate Design)
Production
Carsten Blum
Status
Bonn, July 2014
Imprint
Welthungerhilfe has received numerous awards for
its transparent reporting and the excellent quality of
its information.
The seal of approval of
the German Institute
for Social Issues (DZI)
certifies­Welthungerhilfe‘s
efficient and responsible
handling of the funds
that have been entrusted
to the organisation since
1992.

3. 3
Chapter (each with a summary at the end)
I. State of the art and research findings of agriculture
for food and nutrition security .............................................................................5
II. International policy debates about agriculture
for food and nutrition security ............................................................................13
III. G8-engagements on food security and the role of Germany ....................................20
Annex
Content

4. 4
The focus of the baseline study is on smallholder farmers, although the review cannot hide
the fact that the work and livelihoods of such farmers remain under-addressed by research
and under-improved by policies. FAO has called 2014 the ‘International Year of Family
Farming (IYFF)’: ‘… with the aim to raise the profile of family farming and smallholder
farming­by focusing world attention on its significant role in eradicating hunger and poverty,
providing food security and nutrition, improving livelihoods, managing natural resources,
protecting the environment, and achieving sustainable development, in particular in rural
areas.’1
In view of this statement, the discrepancy between expressed intention on the one
hand and emphasis on technological innovations on the other is remarkable.
1
International Year of Family Farming (IYFF) (2014) http://www.familyfarmingcampaign.net/en/home (last
accessed 2/14/14)

5. 5
1
Chapter
State of the art and research findings
of agriculture for food and nutrition
security
In 2013, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimated
that 12.5% of the world’s population is food insecure; about two billion people suffer from
one or more micronutrient deficiencies; and 1.4 billion people are overweight, of whom
500 million­are obese.2
In order to enhance the nutritional performance of agricultural­
production,­ FAO mentions a need for progress in three main areas: improving food
­availability and accessibility;­improving food diversity; and improving its nutritious value.
An underlying­requirement is to improve sustainabilty.2
There is a wide gap between perspectives on increasing global food production of local
producers­and consumers. Whilst one strongly supported line favours innovation in terms of
technology, seeds, and function of global markets,3
another line favours strengthening local
knowledge, less investment, and building on smallholder farming strategies that respond to
various risks by obtaining resilience through diversity.4
Development of technologies combined with local knowledge requires farmers‘ participation­
in setting up the research agenda. Farmer’s field research should be considered essential
to developing technologies. Progressive measures include linking small-scale farmers to
value­chains through farmer’s organizations, and reducing the role of middlemen in the
trade of both agricultural inputs and products. To be effective, new technologies must
build on traditional­knowledge, giving consideration to new technologies derived from best
practices of other countries (South-South-collaboration). Innovations are to be discussed
with the smallholders in a participatory and enabling way, as has occurred in Ethiopia:
mixed-cropping­of maize and beans is different from teff and lentils/peas, because the
latter require strip cropping, whereas beans and maize seeds are sown together.
The approach to technologies and market integration should focus on their benefit to
smallholders,­because more than 85% of the world’s farms are small (1-2 ha). Whilst they
are under pressure from large business farms many also suffer terribly from low productivity
due to a loss of knowledge of sustainable agricultural practices.
The technology-centred strategy is founded on the Green Revolution of the 1940s to 1960s,
when rice yields were amplified through the introduction and extended use of irrigation,
­fertilizers, pesticides, and improved seeds. With all its great achievements, this revolution­
had a negative human and social impact that often is neglected: It contributed to the growth
of slums around the big cities in Asia, especially on the Indian subcontinent, as the number
of landless people increased. Detrimental effects on the environment get neglected often.
Compared to the focus on technology-based agricultural innovation, the role of smallholder
2
FAO (2013): The State of Food and Agriculture 2013: Food systems for better nutrition. Rome. http://www.
fao.org/publications/sofa/en/ (last accessed 12/21/13).
3
CGIAR (2011) A strategy and results framework for the CGIAR. http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/
handle­/10947/2608/Strategy_and_Results_Framework.pdf?sequence=4 (last accessed Feb. 15, 2014)
4
IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at Crossroads – Global Report. Island Press, Washington D.C.

6. 6
farmers in food production is seriously under-researched. This is not merely due to the fact
that smallholders are widely restricted to subsistence farming and their outputs are difficult
to measure in terms of market share. The primary cause is the lack of research budgeting:
Much less funding has been allocated to research addressing smallholder farming and
local knowledge. An Indian study found competitiveness of small farms on virtually all
parameters­of resource and input use but concluded that this is in itself not sufficient
to break the grip of poverty. The missing elements of support, information symmetry and
finance­are key factors determining the relationship of small producers to the market (Farm
Size, Input Use and Productivity: Understanding Strength and Improving Livelihood of
Smallholders).5
For the purpose of research, even the definition of a smallholder farmer is unclear. Often,
farm size is used for classifying producers at scale. However, there are different dimensions­
of scale: producing low quantities and yields, having little capital or education, and lacking
skills to participate in markets. Gender is an essential dimension as well, because women
are often restricted due to gender discrimination with regard to land rights and financial
­decision-making.­ To improve smallholder’s productivity, gender equality is an essential
­requirement.
Still, smallholder farmers are regarded as the main food producers in Sub-Saharan
­Africa. ­According to FAO, smallholders are crucial to enhancing economic growth, poverty
reduction,­and food security in poor countries where two out of three billion rural people
live in smallholder­households characterized by poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition.­
Still, they generate 40 to 60 per cent of the total rural income through participation in
farm and ­non-farm­­activities. But, farm size continues to decline while the number of
small and ­marginal ­farmers is ­increasing. The expectation that economic growth will cause
more labourers­being absorbed­in the secondary and tertiary sectors, resulting in fewer
remaining farmers consolidating their holdings, does not pan out, e.g. in India. The ­reality
is that the secondary and tertiary sectors are unable to absorb so many employable ­people.
Therefore, policies are necessary to facilitate­the integration of small-scale farmers in
­agricultural market systems. But, extensive land acquisitions – sometimes referred to as
‘direct ­investments’ – reduce the area available for smallholder farming, for pastoralists
grazing their herds, and for fishing.6
According to FAO, policy measures must aim at integrating small-scale agriculture into
markets by strengthening rural off-farm employment and including smallholders in the
­development process.7
Until now, little has been undertaken to link the indigenous
­knowledge of smallholders with modern agricultural technology. Instead, the focus is
­mostly on promoting modern technology among smallholders, while ignoring their specific
5
Chand R, Prasanna PAL, Singh A. Farm Size and Productivity: Understanding the Strengths of Smallholder
and Improving Their Livelihoods. Economic and Political Weekly, 2011; XLVI (26 27)
6
Bruentrup M (2013) Drivers of large-scale land acquisitions and investments – historical trends. In: Future
of Food. Ed. By Albrecht S., Braun R., Heuschkel Z., Marí F., Pippig J. oekom-Pbl., Muenchen.
7
FAO (2010): Policies and institutions to support smallholder agriculture. FAO Committee on Agriculture­
­document COAG/2010/6. Twenty-second Session, Rome, 16–19 June 2010. www.fao.org/docrep/
meeting­/018/k7999e.pdf (last accessed 12/29/13).
1
Chapter

7. 7
livelihoods and production environments and aiming only at higher productivity and better
market access for their products.
In recent years, agricultural research and policies have claimed to become ‘nutrition­-
-sensitive’.­ As one slogan goes: ‚from producing tons to supplying nutrients’. But
­‘nutrition-sensitive­agriculture’­still awaits realization, i.e. a focus on nutrition in agriculture
that nurtures­the smallholder farmers and accepts their indigenous knowledge, not seeing
them as part of a problem but as part of the solution. Such a change of paradigm should
also include a valuing­of improved subsistence farming, because most smallholder farmers
need to feed their families­first and only then produce for income-generation.
Smallholders, agricultural productivity, and growth
A number of policies and interventions have been identified for improving productivity and
livelihoods of smallholder farmers: better infrastructure, ensured land tenure, provision­
of and access to education, promotion of gender equality and the reduction of other
inequalities.6­
Still, many smallholders are neglected when it comes to support and research.
Governments can promote the development of smallholders through agricultural research
by integrating their knowledge and abilities and by facilitating partnerships between
­production, processing, and trade. Unfortunately, governments get attracted by well ­funded
agricultural research that usually focus on technology and classical extension. Even the
Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and its research
program leader, the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), tend to emphasize
modern technology and its implementation to the detriment of traditional or indigenous
knowledge. In this perspective, the gaps in agricultural productivity and food security are
seen as lack of conventional agricultural extension.8
The integration of smallholders into local and regional markets contributes to food security­
and nutrition in rural as well as in urban areas. It also creates linkages with the rural ­non-food
economy through additional income of the farmers and purchase of locally ­produced food.2
Several estimates indicate that many countries have not been able to achieve productivity
growth in agriculture. According to FUGLIE, a key driver of agricultural productivity growth
is agricultural research and development (RD). Hence, agricultural RD for staple food
productivity growth has been considered as the most effective means of reducing hunger
and food insecurity.9
But experience proves that RD is most appropriate and effective
8
FARA (2008) Strategic Plan 2007-2016: Enhancing African Agricultural Innovation Capacity, Accra, Ghana.­
9
FUGLIE, K. O. (2012): Productivity Growth and Technology Capital in the Global Agricultural Economy.
In: FUGLIE, K. O.; WANG, S. L. und BALL, V. E. (eds.) (2012): Productivity Growth in agriculture: An
international­Perspective. Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International, 335-368.
1
Chapter

8. 8
when it does not just try to introduce new technologies but rather when it is an interactive
process that includes traditional knowledge and addresses knowledge gaps identified by the
smallholders themselves.
Growth in agriculture has been shown as especially beneficial for the poorest of the poor.
An increase in agricultural GDP reduces extreme poverty more than three times faster
than growth in non-agricultural sectors.10
These effects of agricultural productivity growth
on ­income and poverty are strongest in countries where agriculture forms a large part of
the economy and employs a large share of the labour force.2
A growth in food production­
­significantly reduces the incidence of underweight.11
Several studies have shown that
­sustained income growth (agriculture or other sources) can have a sizeable effect on
reducing­ malnutrition.2
In least-developed countries, agriculture accounts for a mean of
27% of the GDP.12
Until now, few studies only have examined how economic growth influences undernutrition.
One reason for the lack of studies could be the widely accepted assumption that economic
growth will ultimately lead to improved nutrition through higher income and expenditures
for food. However, the link between income growth and nutrition is not clear.13
At early
­stages of development, economic growth helps to reduce the prevalence of undernutrition
and agricultural growth can play a key role. When it comes to a longer-term impact, strategic­
investments into development and specific programs are required in the complementary
sectors of health, education and social security. Economic growth can support nutrition
improvements, but many countries do not follow the typical growth-nutrition pathway. The
questions remain: How can growth contribute to nutrition outcomes, and how can policies
be designed to better leverage growth for nutritional improvements?14
Research should not merely address links between agricultural productivity and food
­security; the effect of seasonality on nutrition outcomes also needs more attention, be-
cause most of the world’s acute hunger and undernutrition occurs in periodical ‘lean’ or
10
CHRISTIAENSEN, L., DEMERY, L. and KUHL, J. (2011): The (evolving) role of agriculture in poverty
­reduction: an empirical perspective. Journal of Development Economics, 96(2): 239–254.
11
HEADEY, D. (2011): Turning economic growth into nutrition-sensitive growth. Conference Paper No. 6.
2020 Conference on Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and Health, 10–12 February, New
­Delhi, India. www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/2020anhconfpaper06.pdf (last accessed 12/22/13).
12
FAO, IFAD and WFP (2012): The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012: Economic growth is necessary­
but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome. www.fao.org/docrep/016/
i3027e/i3027e.pdf (last accessed 12/21/13).
13
FAN, S. and BRZESKA, J. (2012): The Nexus between Agriculture and Nutrition: Do Growth Patterns and
Conditional Factor Matter? In: FAN, S. and PANDYA-LORCH, R. (eds.) (2012): Reshaping Agriculture
for Nutrition and Health, 31-38. www.ifpri.org/publication/reshaping-agriculture-nutrition-and-health (last
accessed 12/28/13).
14
ECKER, O., BREISINGER, C and PAUW, K. (2012): Growth is Good, but Is Not Enough to Improve Nutrition.­
In: FAN, S. and PANDYA-LORCH, R. (eds.) (2012): Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, 47-54.
www.ifpri.org/publication/reshaping-agriculture-nutrition-and-health (last accessed 12/28/13).
1
Chapter

9. 9
15
VAITLA, B., DEVEREUX, S. and SWAN, S.H. (2009): Seasonal hunger: a neglected problem with proven
solutions. PLoS Medicine, 6(6): e1000101.
16
HAWKES, C., FRIEL, S., LOBSTEIN, T. and LANG, T. (2012): Linking agricultural policies with obesity
and non-communicable diseases: a new perspective for a globalizing world. Food Policy, 37(3):343–353.
17
HarvestPlus(2010)StatementonthePotentialBenefitsofBiofortificationontheNutritionalStatusofPopulations.­
www.harvestplus.org/sites/default/files/HarvestPlus_statement_benefits_of_biofortification_­8-17-10.pdf (last
accessed Feb.. 15, 2014)
hunger seasons. During these seasons, the stocks from previous harvests have dwindled,
food prices­are high, and jobs are scarce.15
Therefore, research on food processing and
preservation is mandatory.
Improving food security and nutrition outcomes
In order to improve food security, there must also be emphasis on the distribution ­system
and – even more importantly – on improving the implementation of rural development
­programs. In addition to the promotion of agriculture, a number of non-agricultural
­interventions are necessary for improving nutrition and health outcomes. Those policies
– not primarily directed towards agriculture – are investments in infrastructure, programs
to improve child and maternal nutrition and health, education campaigns on child feeding
practices, child growth monitoring, immunization campaigns, nutrient-supplementation/
fortification programs, and actions to promote gender equality, women’s empowerment, and
reproductive health/family planning.
For the long term, programs are needed that support dietary diversification by increasing­
the understanding of healthy diets. Measures enhancing people’s direct access to fruits,
­vegetables, and animal products are home gardens, small-scale animal husbandry, and
aquaculture based on local conditions and opportunities. Furthermore, investments
in ­programs that improve health and hygiene are preconditions for reducing secondary
malnutrition­(due to illness, infections, and diseases).12
Agricultural policy has changed the environment in which consumers make their food
choices through availability, affordability, and acceptability of food. Those policies have
had both positive and negative implications for people’s overall health. Thus, it is not only
important that agriculture produces ‘healthy’ ingredients; it is also important to consider
how the ingredients are introduced, transformed, distributed, and marketed throughout the
supply chain.16
In recent years, one focus of agricultural research has been the enrichment of (staple) food
crops with micronutrients through breeding and, in some cases, genetic engineering.17
Primarily, this approach is far away from the traditional knowledge of smallholder farmers.
However, the most promising effects have been demonstrated with orange-fleshed sweet
potatoes (OFSP), which are derived from a natural variety in Latin America, from which the
1
Chapter

10. 10
trait for beta-carotene has been bred into local African varieties. Its introduction into more
than 24,000 households in Mozambique and Uganda has led to a significantly increased
ß-carotene intake.18
Although biofortification approaches have little to do with the realities of smallholder­
­farmers, the OFSP-example indicates that an interactive approach is possible when
­indigenous knowledge about local plant varieties is brought together with modern breeding
concepts.
Instead of such single nutrient approaches to improving human diets much more funding of
research approaches that look into the agrobiodiversity available to local populations is to be
postulated. The high-tech approaches are widely overfunded since the ‘improved varieties’­
are commercial products made with the intention to stimulate trade. In the long run, it
will be crucial to make such crops as public goods available when they eventually should
play a role in food and nutrition security. Regarding agronomy, there are several­options
for increasing micronutrient content of staples through micronutrient-enriched ­fertilizer –
or in some cases simply through lowering the soil-ph.19
Regarding rice ­production, plant
selection,­breeding local varieties for higher nutrient content and changing storage and
cooking methods are nutritionally beneficial, too. Through these options, the zinc content
of low-zinc rice varieties could potentially double and dietary zinc intake could increase
by 64%.20
Again, this nutrition focus is to be linked to traditional farming and indigenous
knowledge regarding agriculture, foods, and diets. Diversity of taste and food preferences is
also to be taken into perspective.
Knowledge, practices and innovations of indigenous peoples and local communities
– i.e. traditional knowledge – as mentioned in the Convention on Biological Diversity in
1992, are in the limelight in UN processes right now: the Nagoya Protocol on Access and
­Benefit-Sharing­regarding genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge is coming
into its political and diplomatic own.21
18
HOTZ, C., LOECHL, C., LUBOWA, A., TUMWINE, J.K., NDEEZI, G., MASAWI, A.N., BAINGANA, R.,
CARRIQUIRY,­A., DE BRAUW, A., MEENAKSHI, J.V. and GILLIGAN, D.O. (2012): Introduction of-­carotene-rich­
orange sweet potato in rural Uganda results in increased vitamin A intakes among children and women and
improved vitamin A status among children. Journal of Nutrition, 142(10): 1871-80.
19
Linehan D.J. (1978) Humic acid and iron uptake by plants. Plant and Soil 50, 663-670.
20
MAYER, A.B., LATHAM, M.C., DUXBURY, J.M., HASSAN, N. and FRONGILLO, E.A. (2011): A food systems­
approach to increase dietary zinc intake in Bangladesh based on an analysis of diet, rice production and
processing. In: THOMPSON, B. and AMOROSO, L. (eds.) (2011): Combating micronutrient deficiencies:
food-based approaches, pp. 254–267. Wallingford, UK, CAB International, and Rome, FAO. www.fao.org/
docrep/013/am027e/am027e00.htm (last accessed 12/29/13).
21
Nagoya Protocol (2010) Article 12. Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources. https://
www.cbd.int/abs/text/articles/default.shtml?sec=abs-12. (last accessed April 3, 2014)
1
Chapter

11. 11
The recently launched, high-ranking UN-Scientific Advisory Board on Sustainable Deve-
lopment includes in its deliberations ‘other systems of knowledge’ as a reference to indi-
genous, traditional, local or cultural knowledge. The multidisciplinary expert panel of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) explicitly seeks
collaboration with local knowledge and expertise.22
Improving agriculture for overcoming poverty
According to Hodinott, the means of improving agricultural productivity of smallholders
operate at the levels of setting, resources, production, and markets and affect health and
nutrition along five pathways:
1. Income generation
2. Crop varieties, farm practices, production methods, and markets
3. The use of time (spent on other income-generating activities, etc.)
4. Saving behaviour
5. Intra-household resource allocation (women earning higher income, how much is spent
on food)23
.
The fact that there are a billion people living in food insecurity and several billion people
are affected by one or more micronutrient deficiencies amounts to specific challenges in
the field of agriculture, nutrition, and health. At the same time, a transition towards caloric
overnutrition is occurring worldwide. Despite much lip service given to the problem, small-
holders in agriculture face great economic and social challenges; and natural resources,
especially water resources, are under stress. As the IAASTD report has shown, all previous
programs and projects that focused on technology rather than on indigenous knowledge
failed to become sustainable. The IAASTD presents the alternative approach by focusing on
participative research and breeding in cooperation between farmers and research institutes.
This group looked at income-generation via keeping parts of the value chain in rural areas
and addressing asymmetries in financial and political power between smallholder farmers
and transnational corporations. The assessment also addresses governance and human
rights issues as well as the active involvement and participation in decision-making through
stakeholder consultations.4
One key problem facing smallholders is that they are numerous
and rarely organized beyond local boundaries.
22
UNEP (2014) Report of the second session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science - Policy
Platform­on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service. http://www.ipbes.net/images/IPBES-2-17%20-%20En.
pdf (last accessed April 3, 2014)
23
HODDINOTT, J. (2012): Agriculture, Health, and Nutrition: Toward Conceptualizing the Linkages. In:
FAN, S. and PANDYA-LORCH, R. (eds.) (2012): Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, 13-20.
Internet:­www.ifpri.org/publication/reshapingagriculture-nutrition-and-health (last accessed 12/28/13).
1
Chapter

12. 12
Smallholders have identified research needs in the areas of land rights and soil degradation,­
agro-ecological diversity, sustainability regarding environmental changes and water
availability,­and integration of technologies into smallholder farming.24
Through inter- and
trans-disciplinary25
collaboration including indigenous as well as modern expert knowledge,
solutions can be developed to meet these challenges, e.g.:
n designing agriculture, nutrition, and solutions to health programs with cross-sector benefits;
n organizing smallholders into institutions of their own which can effectively connect with
the extension, market, services (credit, insurance…) and engage them in the political
systems to have their voices heard;
n linking smallholder food production and decentralized processing;
n promotion of South-South exchanges for farmers in order to facilitate mutual learning for
increasing productivity;
n incorporating nutritional benefits of food products into the value chains of agriculture,
horticulture, animal husbandry, aquaculture production and processing lines and thereby­
also strengthening food sovereignty; and
n increasing consumers’ nutrition literacy and highlighting the consequences of dietary
choices through consumer awareness campaigns.
Summary
The present and recognized state of scientific evidence for meeting food and nutrition­
security challenges is derived mostly from a global instead of a local and regional
perspective. Progress is widely defined through implementation of technologies and
industrial products, i.e. seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides.
Although smallholder farmers are considered as the major food producers in the ­southern
hemisphere, their indigenous knowledge is widely neglected or regarded as a barrier to
innovation. Taking up this knowledge and enabling smallholders to integrate­themselves­
into food value chains is crucial to meet food and nutrition security ­challenges.
Linking the smallholders with functioning local and regional markets in order to make
more food available and accessible to more people and generate income locally is
­regarded a precondition for improving food and nutrition security.
Growth of agricultural markets does not necessarily lead to improved nutrition, but such
an outcome is most likely in low-income countries. With a nutrition transition occurring
in most countries worldwide, diversity in terms of nutrients and food – especially fruit
and vegetables – becomes increasingly important.
24
As reported from the POWA kick-off workshop (Addis Abeba, February 11, 2014).
25
Interdisciplinary: between different scientific disciplines; transdisciplinary: between scientific and lay/
traditional/indigenous ‘disciplines’
1
Chapter

13. 13
International policy debates on agri-
culture for food and nutrition security
The global population is expected to reach approximately nine billion people by 2050.
Given­ the current food demand from the increasingly affluent world population, the
pressure­on farmers worldwide to increase production is at an all-time high. The increase in
population­is often used as an argument for abandoning smallholder farming and focusing
on increasing­productivity of agroindustry farming. But, the capacity of smallholders has
been underestimated, as the present low productivity could be enormously increased by
appropriate support. Second, the global agricultural output already is capable of feeding a
world’s population of this size.
The often quoted Malthusian Assumption26
was rejected long ago, when Karl Marx noted
that the economic and social limits of food production and population growth are much
more narrow that the physical boundaries. These socioeconomic boundaries limit population­
growth and prevent the full exploitation of the physical carrying capacity of the earth.27
Still, millions of people were cast into food insecurity as a result of the 2008 world food
price crisis, that resulted in drastic food price increases in local markets.28,29
The growing
concern over food price volatility and the lack of association between poverty reduction
and nutrition improvement have paved the way for a broad debate over the usefulness
of conventional­policy instruments. Since then, many governments have placed greater
emphasis­on the promotion of agriculture for food and nutrition security.
The world’s estimated 500 million smallholder farms account for 60% of global agriculture
and produce 80% of the food in developing nations; they manage up to 80% of farmland in
Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia; and they account for the largest number of undernourished
people in the world.30
26
Malthus TR (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population: Library of Economics. http://www.econlib.org/
library/Malthus/malPop.html (last accessed April 5, 2014)
27
Gimenez ME (1973) The population issue: Marx vs. Malthus . “Neo-Malthusian emphasis on birth control­
and family planning programs aimed at underdeveloped countries today repeat the same error that Malthus­
committed almost two hundred years ago. There is obviously (i.e., empirically available to common sense
perception) a problem of ‘overpopulation’ in the Third World if by that it is meant that a large proportion
of their population is hungry, jobless, sickly, and dies very young. It also appears obvious that, given the
situation­of economic stagnation of those countries, lowering the birth rate might improve a little their
situation. However, such arguments assumes that both private and public sources of investments whether­
national or foreign are actually spending too much in services for the excessive dependent population­
(i.e., housing hospitals, schools, etc.) and that such funds would be automatically diverted towards
productive­enterprises if population size or, more specifically, if the dependency ration were to decline.
Such assumption­is not only naive but reveals lack of scientific rigor in the analysis of population within
underdeveloped­countries.” J Inst Dev Res, Copenhagen, Denmark.
28
Brinkman, H.-J., de Pee S., Sanogo I., Subran L. and Bloem M.W. (2010) High Food Prices and the Global
Financial Crisis Have Reduced Access to Nutritious Food and Worsened Nutritional Status and Health.
Journal of Nutrition 140(1): 153-161.
29
FAO (2009) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009: Economic crises – Impacts and Lessons
Learned. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
30
IFAD (2012a). Adaption for Smallholder Agriculture Programme („ASAP“). Rome: International Fund for
Agricultural Development.
2
Chapter

14. 14
In recent years, smallholder farmers were recognized by the EU as possessing the ­greatest
potential for increasing agricultural production whilst preserving the environment in
­low-income­ countries.31
Still, for investments into family-based agriculture, the institutional­
costs must be reduced and access to production factors simplified.
One approach to improving food and nutrition security is to establish the legal right to
adequate­food, which has been approved by the governments through the World Food
Summit.­Voluntary guidelines have been developed and successfully negotiated for its
­implementation. This rights-based approach to nutrition also supports food sovereignty as
a right of producers and consumers.32
In recent years, international policy debates about agriculture for food and nutrition ­focused
on a number of issues, such as
n hunger, food insecurity, and poverty;
n global environmental change, incl. climate change, desertification, and greenhouse gas
emissions;
n use of agricultural products for bioenergy;
n the effect of financial markets on food prices and (free) trade policies; and
n large scale acquisitions of and investments in arable land (‘land grabbing’).
Each of these topics gained public attention during the food price crisis, to varying ­degrees.
Sometimes civil society organizations were able to mount a ‘public voice’; ­sometimes
scientists­and experts called for political attention. One major and prominent attempt to
­integrate most of the issues and the related challenges has been the International­Assessment­
of Agricultural Science for Technology and Development (IAASTD).4
This ­document has
been widely debated, as it put forward not only the challenge of sustainability­but also
focused its recommendation on low-input smallholder agriculture rather than high-input
agroindustry.
Besides expert arguments, those of lobbying groups of agrochemical and seed companies­can
be found. The interests of those companies are evident through the opening of new markets
for their products. The policy interests are more diverse: in countries where the agricultural­
sector contributes a large share of the GNP, governments rely on taxing agricultural­products
and on consumer’s ability to meet their nutritional needs and preferences.­Governments of
countries with vast infertile and non-arable land are eager to run agro-industrial farms in
other countries, e.g. China and Saudi Arabia.33
This development creates an environmental
reality for smallholder agriculture that differs from the many smallholder-friendly policy
statements made by governments and intergovernmental organizations.
31
ECC (2010) European Commission Communication on an EU policy framework to assist developing
countries­in addressing food security challenges, Bruxelles, 31.03.2010.
32
DeSchutterO(2009)Promotionandprotectionofallhumanrights,civilpolitical,economic,socialandcultural
rights, including the right to development. http://www.wunrn.com/news/2009/02_09/02_23_09/022309_
special_files/SR%20Food%20Report%20to%20UN%202009.pdf (last accessed April 3, 2014)
33
Von Braun J and Meinzen R. (2009) “lean season” by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risks
and Opportunities. IFPRI Policy Brief 13, Washington, D.C. www.ifpri.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/bp013­
Table01.pdf (last accessed Feb. 15, 2014)
2
Chapter

15. 15
34
IPCC (2007) Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
35
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). (2012). Avoiding future famines: Strengthening the
ecological­foundation of food security through sustainable food systems. Nairobi: UNEP.
36
Besides its effects on agriculture GEC also impacts on the health environment (e.g. the spread of diseases
due to water scarcity) and the caring capacity of the families when the workload in farming and gardening
increases and less time is available for feeding infants, sick and old people.
37
Neely, C. and Fynn, A. (2011). Critical choices for crop and livestock production systems that enhance
productivity and build ecosystem resilience. SOLAW Background Thematic Report TR11. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
38
World Bank. (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for development. World Bank:
Washington,­ DC.
Global environmental change (GEC)
One overarching challenge for agriculture is the global environmental change as it affects­
countries and populations worldwide. Its impact depends upon the setting. Affluent
industrialized­countries have greater potential to protect their populations from alterations
in food production. In low-income countries, GEC affects populations much more directly
and with much greater impact on food and nutrition security, sometimes jeopardizing the
main source of income.
We use the term GEC to describe the process involving terrestrial and non-terrestrial,
­man-made­­and natural changes affecting climate, air, soils, water, as well as interactions of
these four dimensions. The challenge created by GEC has a particularly negative impact on
smallholder farmers, who are forced to carry heavy costs resulting from changing physical
and socio-economic landscapes as patterns of droughts, floods and tropical storms have
become increasingly unpredictable. Effects of land degradation and loss of biodiversity
have a negative impact on the rural population‘s income sources.34
GEC affects inhabitants of the most vulnerable and marginal landscapes (e.g. deserts,
hillsides, and floodplains), who are often smallholder farmers, female heads of household
and/or indigenous people. To earn a living, they rely completely on scarce resources, while
the more fertile areas that are less affected by GEC get increasingly assigned to commercial­
farming,­bioenergy, and monoculture production. Therefore, smallholder farmers are
affected­most severely by GEC because they lack secure tenure and resource rights. The
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Report35
illustrates how the global ecosystem
is threatened by the loss of biodiversity and overexploitation of natural resources – thereby
creating greater food insecurity.36
Exploitation of resources through agriculture occurs in forms of excessive use, over-­
extraction and inappropriate management (of water, soil, and biodiversity). Unseen
­dimensions of groundwater contamination, pollution of surface water and greenhouse gas
­emissions ­hinder the ecosystem’s capacity to generate sustainable yields and to resist
shocks and ­climate pressures37
. Contrary to common assumptions, smallholder farmers
cannot be blamed for these negative impacts of agriculture (causing erosion on their hillside­
fields, destroying old grown tropical forests, etc.).
Developed countries‘ trade policies, along with fossil fuel and other subsidies, have induced­
overproduction in rich countries and depressed world prices.38
This overproduction is not
oriented toward sustainability but toward quick and high returns of investments. When
2
Chapter

16. 16
surplus products are exported from industrialized to developing countries, they are more
likely to destroy local markets than to help to feed those in greatest need because low prices
remove all economic incentives and income from farmers who are producing at real and
unsubsidized cost.
Due to land degradation, approximately 5-12 million ha have been lost in developing
countries­ annually.39
SSA is the most affected region because its per capita food production­
continues to decline, leaving more than a third of the region’s population food insecure.40­
Lack of appropriate policy measures for supplementary use of soil amendments and
conservation­practices have led to this declining per capita food production and a further
increase of food insecurity. A narrow focus on farm output and income has contributed to
this development as microeconomic gain taken priority over resilience through diversity,
composting, agroforestry, and agroecology – all of which are part of traditional farming by
smallholders in Africa.4
In 2013, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) released the report
‚Smallholders, food security, and the environment‘,41
attempting to bridge the gap between­
policy makers and smallholder farmers. It includes a number of practical solutions for
sustainable­agriculture with smallholders as major stakeholders. Their involvement is cru-
cial for sustainable agriculture.
Farm- and community-based mechanisms are required for building a sustainable landscape­
approach for development. Policy barriers to sustainable agriculture must be amended
in order to attract smallholders to invest in sustainability. Market-based mechanisms
with appropriate­incentives for smallholders are required, such as removal of subsidies
on unsustainable­fertilizers and the introduction of subsidies in favour of soil and water
conservation.­Green certification schemes will give smallholders a competitive advantage in
new niche markets at local, regional, and international levels.25
Another vital aspect – aside from the organization of mutual learning processes that
tap into traditional knowledge – is the establishment of productive exchange between
­science-based­insights and the knowledge of smallholders with little formal education. The
aim of this communication process is not just distribution of expert knowledge but enabling
smallholders­to make informed choices about technologies and their application within the
local environment. This goal is not merely to increase productivity in the short term, but
also to target sustainable use of resources and food production.
39
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). (1999). Soil Degradation: A Threat to Developing-
Country Food Security by 2020?, Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper. Washington,
D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
40
Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A.G. and Kaltenborn, B.P.,
eds. (2009). The environmental food crisis: The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP
Rapid Response Assessment. Arendal, Norway: GRID-Arendal, UNEP.
41
IFAD. (2013). Smallholders, food security, and the environment. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural
Development.
2
Chapter

17. 17
Farmer field schools42
, rural radios, and mobile telecommunication devices43,44
have been
developed as means to increase the efficacy of agricultural extension services. However,­
­participatory approaches should take precedence over the unidirectional top-down ­approach.
Participatory education requires a different attitude towards the indigenous knowledge of
smallholders, with the aim of empowering them to integrate modern technologies into
­traditional approaches.
The role of women in managing biodiversity for improved food and nutrition security ­cannot
be overemphasized: In Rwanda – as one example – bean varieties selected by female
­farmers were 64-89% more productive than varieties selected by scientists.45
Improved land management for grazing and/or pasture increases soil carbon content and
leads to greater productivity. In case of restricted land availability, grazing can be ­minimized
by rotational field use and/or its combination with stall-feeding based on ­fodder crops. This
also enhances livestock productivity. With 40% of global land utilized as rangelands,­herders­
and pastoralists have a huge impact on soil carbon sequestration.22 There are between
100 and 200 million pastoral farmers around the world covering 5,000 million hectares of
rangelands, which amounts to 30% of stored world carbon stocks.46
Expertise­of women is
a widely underused resource for promoting food and nutrition ­security: ­Women ­traditionally
have the role of livestock keepers, income generators, natural resource ­stewards, and ser-
vice providers.47
The broadest assessment of sustainable agricultural approaches in developing countries to
date is based on a study of 286 initiatives in 57 poor countries, covering 12.6 million farms
on 37 million hectares. According to this study, virtually all these initiatives have increased
productivity, while improving the supply of critical environmental services.48
Healthy and diverse farmlands maintain good soil quality, increase biodiversity and foster
greater climate resilience for smallholders. Mixing traditional farming methods with new
technologies has great advantages an d should be widely adopted. Addressing policies that
suppress the livelihoods of smallholders will accelerate the application of multi-beneficial
approaches.
42
FAO. (2008). Farmer field schools on land and water management in Africa. Proceedings of an international­
workshop in Jinja, Uganda, 24-29 April 2006. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
43
Bhavnani, A., Chiu, R.W.W., Janakiram, S., Silarszky, P. and Bhatia, D. (2008). The role of mobile phones­
in sustainable rural poverty reduction. Washington, DC: ICT Policy Division, Global Information and
Communications­Department (GICT), World Bank.
44
Munyua, H. (2000). Information and communication technologies for rural development and food security:­
Lessons from field experiences in developing countries. Rome: Sustainable Development, Food and
Agriculture­Organization of the United Nations.
45
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2006). Food security and agricultural development in Sub-
Sahara­Africa — building a case for more public support. Rome, FAO, p. 122.
46
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). (2010). Thematic paper on Livestock and Climate
Change. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development.
47
Flintan, F. (2008). Women’s Empowerment in Pastoral Societies II. International Union for Conservation
of Nature, World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism, Global Environment Facility and United Nations
Development Programme.
48
Pretty, J., A. D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R.E. Hine, F.W.T. Penning de Vries, and J.I.L. Morison. (2006).
Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environment Science and
­Technology, 40(4):1114-1119.
2
Chapter

18. 18
Ineffective land management policies and the lack of access to secure and varied markets­for
poor rural farmers have a negative impact on climate resilient agriculture. The contributions­
of smallholders toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and increased water
availability (in upper watersheds or aquifers in plains) are often ignored.22
With deficient
land access and tenure rights, there‘s no incentive for smallholders to invest in long-term
land usage.
The second challenge linking industrialized and developing countries is that of limited
fossil fuel reserves. These fuels are prerequisite for industrialized agriculture, and become
more expensive with increasing oil prices. This made the use of agriculture for energy
production attractive to industrialized countries, and in developing countries, too, as their
energy needs and high biofuel production increased.
Biofuel production
The emerging interest in biofuel production as an investment creates serious concerns
­regarding food and nutrition security, as the income thus generated may not be sufficient to
make families food secure. In addition, smallholder farmers with insecure land tenure are
extremely vulnerable to land grabs by wealthy biofuel producers49
.
Political assumptions that biofuel plants grown on marginal lands would make effective use
of idle resources overlook the fact that smallholder farmers use marginal lands for herding
or crop rotation. Smallholders using the land on a permanent basis are also at risk as they
may get driven to sell under pressure. Often, land owned by the government is allocated
to biofuel investors.50
When biofuel production becomes more profitable, there is a huge
threat of conversion of fertile land to biofuel crop production.51
Many African countries have no clear policies on land tenure and responsible investment.
For example, in Tanzania biofuel production has increased the demand for arable land
and water, whilst there is neither a sufficient law protecting farmers against land grabbing­
for biofuel production nor is there sufficient compensation offered to those affected. The
World Bank already forecasts conflicts over water resources in the drier regions of Africa.52
Following­decreased food production, food prices will rise, causing further food insecurity­to
the poor.53
Current biofuel policies in the OECD-countries have contributed to the tightening­
of food supplies and rising food prices and will undoubtedly have a large impact on world
food availability.54
49
Cotula, L., Dyer, N., Vermeulen, S. (2008). Fuelling Exclusion?: The Biofuels Boom and Poor People‘s
Access to Land. IIED, FAO.
50
Raswant, V., Hart, N., Romano, M. (2008). Biofuel expansion: challenges, risks and opportunities for
rural poor people. How the poor can benefit from this emerging opportunity.
51
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon
debt. Science, 319 (5867), 1235-1238.
52
Cushion, E., Whiteman, A., and Dieterle, G. 2009. Bioenergy development: issues and impacts for poverty
and natural resource management Report. World Bank: Washington, DC.
53
Lian Pin Koh and Jaboury Ghazoul. (2008). Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: understanding the conflicts
and finding opportunities. Biological Conservation, 141, (10), 2450–60.
54
De Gorter, H., Drabik, D., Just, D. R. 2013. Biofuel Policies and Food Grain Commodity Prices 2006-
2012: All Boom and No Bust?. AgBioForum: 16 (1): 1-13.
2
Chapter

19. 19
Still, there are positive experiences, such as in Brazil, where – aside from agroindustrial
biofuel production – ‘self-determined and decentralized small-scale production of biomass
is an important part of energy sovereignty for family farms.’55
Agro-food-Transnational Corporations (AF-TNC)
One major change in the field of agricultural policy and markets is the rise of Agro-Food-
Transnational Corporations, which aim at owning or controlling as much as possible of the
value chain for food products. These chains encompass agroindustrial production, transport,­
processing, and trade. They have been observed as working in a similar manner as the
textile­ industry: reducing production costs and maximizing profits for the ­companies.56
­Although such companies claim to support smallholders, they choose smallholders as
­partners ­because they become easily dependent on this type of trade and enter the field
of commercial farming with all risks of unpredictable climate and productivity and no
­safeguards.
In general, those companies create further pressure on smallholder’s food production whilst
responsible policies must become oriented toward a moral imperative for global food and
nutrition security.
Summary
Policy debates on agriculture for food and nutrition security have had different
focuses­in recent years: Topics included hunger, food insecurity, and poverty, global
environmental­change, including climate change, desertification, and greenhouse gas
emissions, use of agricultural products for bioenergy production, dependence of food
prices on financial market interventions, free trade policies, and overtrading as well
as appropriation of arable land by large enterprises and foreign governments. There is
a lack of coherence between policies for food and nutrition security on one side and
unregulated trade as well as financial speculation.
Smallholder farmers in particular – of whom the majority are women – often are referred­to in
programs and policy statements but are usually left out when it comes­to implementation­
and funding of programs for reducing workload and increasing productivity.­
Instead, it is the ‘big players’ – the agrochemical industries and the established crop-bound­
agricultural research institutes (CGIAR) – that are generously funded. This ­approach is
based on the expectation that new technologies can be commercialized for the benefit
of ‘donor’ economies.
For advocacy, the focus on food and nutrition security, on global environmental change,
and on biofuel issues is especially relevant as the latter two topics affect public and
political debates in low-income as well as in rich countries. The same holds true for
gender issues.
55
Schönardie PA (2013) Family farming in the context of energy production from biomass in Brazil: stalemate­
or potential for sustainable energy and food sovereignty? In: Future of Food. Ed. By Albrecht S., Braun R.,
Heuschkel Z., Agro-food, Marí F, Pippig J.. oekom-Pbl., Muenchen.
56
McCullough E.B., Pingali, P.I., Stanoulis KG (Ed.) (2008) The transformation of Agri-Food-Systems.
Globalization,­Supply Chains, and Smallholder Farmers. Earthscan Pbl., London.
2
Chapter

20. 20
G8-engagements on food security and
the role of Germany
German government policy on global food security has bilateral and multilateral elements.
Whilst bilateral cooperation is assigned to the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation­
and Development (BMZ), multilateral cooperation, especially with FAO, is handled by
the Federal Ministry of Nutrition and Agriculture (BMEL). BMZ has a clear focus on rural
­development and agriculture, including support for the CGIAR. BMEL is more oriented
towards agriculture, food, and nutrition, including food safety. The cooperation between
the ministries in the field of food security and nutrition is a challenge, as representatives of
different political parties have led the two ministries in the last decade. The present study
first focuses on available program and report information and then reflects the impact on
smallholder farmers and their organizations.
Timeline of conferences and high-level government meetings concerning Global
Food Security
April 2008: High Level Task Force (HLTF) on Global Food Security was established­
June 2008: High Level Conference on World Food Security, FAO, Rome
(“Declaration­on World Food Security”)
July 2008: G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit, Japan (“Leaders Statement on Global
Food Security”)
January 2009: High Level Meeting on Food Security for All, Madrid
June 2009: G8 L’Aquila Summit, Italy (“L’Aquila Food Security Initiative”)
November 2009: World Summit on Food Security, FAO, Rome (“Rome Principles”)
June 2010: G8 Muskoka Summit, Canada
June 2011: G8 Deauville Summit, France
November 2011: G20 Cannes Summit, France (“Action Plan on Food Price Volatility
and Agriculture”)
May 2012: 38th Session of the Committee on World Food Security (“The Voluntary­
Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land,
Fisheries­and Forests in the Context of National Food Security”)
June 2012: G8 Camp David Summit, United States (“New Alliance for Food
­ Security and Nutrition”)
October 2012: 39th Session of the CFS (“Global Strategic Framework for Food
­Security and Nutrition”)
June 2013: High-Level Meeting on Global Nutrition and Growth, London (“Global
Nutrition for Growth Compact”)
June 2013: G8 Lough Erne Summit, United Kingdom
3
Chapter

21. 21
In April 200857
, under the leadership of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the High
Level­Task Force (HLTF) on the Global Food Security Crisis was established. Its intention­
has been to ensure coherent, coordinated and effective work on Global Food Security
among UN agencies58
. In July 2008 the HTLF produced a cross-sectoral Comprehensive­
Framework­for Action (CFA), focusing on a global response to the global food crisis and
­investment in ­agriculture in a coordinated and consistent manner. The Updated CFA (UCFA)
was published­in September 2010, including principles on human rights, gender, ecological­
sustainability and nutrition.
In June 2008, a High-Level Conference took place in Rome, chaired by the FAO, in which the
delegates adopted a “Declaration on World Food Security”. At that time, Official­Development­
Assistance (ODA) and investment in agriculture had continuously declined,­and G8 leaders
pledged to spare no effort to ensure global food security through promoting­sustainable
agriculture.­The members agreed to establish short, medium, and long-term actions­to
erase hunger and ensure food for all. That same year, food prices peaked. A G8 Experts­
Group on Global Food Security was given the tasks of supervising the implementation­of
G8 commitments, supporting the HLTF, cooperating with other interested­parties, forming­a
“Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security”59
(GPAFS) and reporting its progress­
at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila.
Since 2009 the G20 also has addressed Global Food Security. Food Price Volatility was
one of the main topics at the 2011 G20 summit in Cannes. The G20 agriculture ministers
drafted the “Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture”. At the G8 summit in
L’Aquila (Italy), 26 nations and 14 international organisations initiated the “L’Aquila Food
Security Initiative” (AFSI). They agreed on a comprehensive and coordinated approach to
supporting partner countries in food security measures, rural development, and agricultural
interventions. Donors made financial commitments in the amount of $22.2 billion over a
period of three years (2010-2012), including $6.8 billion, beyond their previously planned
disbursements. To prevent critique on the deployment of financial means, transparency
and accountability were given great attention throughout AFSI. An overview of targets and
achievements shows:
57
For the timing of the various conferences and plans see timeline in the annex.
58
The HLTF’s goal is “to ensure that all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and
healthy life.”
59
The Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security (GPAFS) is focussed on providing a response to
the high food prices and more broadly towards the sustenance of food security and agriculture.
3
Chapter

22. 22
Commitment I: Reversing the decline in investment
By the end of the AFSI period in December 2012, all G8 members had fully committed­
their pledged funds. Because many donors pledged their minimum, ultimately 106
per cent of the original $22.24 billion was committed. A total of $16.4 billion (74%)
of the committed­funds had been disbursed by April 2013. Hence, the major objective­
of “reversing­the decline­of investment in agriculture and improving food security” was
achieved.­In accordance­with their commitments, the G8 have also been engaged in
programs­for improving­agricultural productivity and food security in a sustainable manner,­
e.g. development­of infrastructure,­sharing of best practices for irrigation, advancing
techniques­for management, and improving­food storage facilities, access to market and
trade opportunities.
Commitment II: Supporting country-led and regional processes
According to the Lough Erne Accountability Report, this commitment was met, too. Even
before AFSI was launched, G8 members had been supporting country-led and regional­
processes­through bilateral development assistance programs such as joint-donor­assistance­
strategies, multi-donor pooled funds, budget support, program-based and ­sector-wide
­approaches. Bilateral investments were aligned with country-owned agriculture­and food
­security investment plans. The Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme­
(CAADP) is one such major regional process supported by G8. It is an ­African-owned­
­initiative with the aim of enhancing agricultural productivity across the continent. It was
organised within the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), the African
­Union strategic­framework for pan-African socio-economic development. CAADP works on
­boosting the productivity of African agriculture across the continent. Due to the long-term
collaboration of G8 and other donors with CAADP, a harmonisation of donor support took
place and led to the creation of the CAADP Multi-donor Trust Fund (MDTF), which acts as
a mechanism for channelling financial support for CAADP processes and investments. In
L’Aquila, G8 leaders also committed themselves to promoting the Principles of Responsible
Agricultural Investment (RAI), designed to facilitate sustainable private investment in food
security, nutrition, agriculture, and rural development.
Commitment III: Supporting the reform of international agricultural and food security
­architecture and establishing a global partnership
At the L’Aquila Summit, G8 countries also launched the Global Partnership on Agriculture,­
Food Security and Nutrition (GPAFSN) in order to maintain the global focus on food security,­
create an expert network and administer the sharing of best practices. Another mechanism
supported by G8 is the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (GDPRD), created in
2003 to improve the quality of development assistance in agriculture, rural development,
and food security.
3
Chapter

23. 23
Additional addressees of G8 support are
n The Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN), the UN food and nutrition policy
harmonisation­forum. Its mandate is to promote cooperation among UN agencies and
partner organisations in support of community, national, regional, and international
efforts­to end malnutrition in all of its forms in this generation.
n The Committee on World Food Security (CFS), the UN forum for reviewing policies
concerning­world food. It is the most inclusive international and intergovernmental­
platform­for all relevant stakeholders to work together to ensure food security and
nutrition.­
n The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the global
partnership­that unites organisations engaged in research toward achieving a food secure
future. CGIAR research is dedicated to reducing rural poverty, increasing food security,
improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring more sustainable management of
natural resources.
n The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), helping to improve its effectiveness and
efficiency.
In order to ensure transparency and accountability of AFSI, a Managing for Development
Results (Madre) task force was established under German leadership. Since 2010, the
G8 have produced annual AFSI Accountability Reports tracking the progress of each
donor’s financial commitments. Since 2012, the report includes funding and activities by
partner-countries­(“in-depth tables”) and assesses how far these activities also align with
­non-financial­­commitments. Civil society organisations have welcomed this ­improvement in
transparency and accountability. In order to assess the impact of AFSI, members ­agreed to
“collectively demonstrate, by means of examples in some partner countries on a voluntary­
basis, that the provided resources are managed for results and that the fulfilment­ of
­financial and non-financial commitments leads to actual results on the ground.” Therefore,­
case ­studies were conducted in the partner countries of Bangladesh, Ghana, Rwanda and
Senegal, led by Germany and IFPRI. Processes and mechanisms for using Madre were
put in place, such as monitoring frameworks and sector working groups. In all case ­study
­countries, the monitoring revealed significant achievements in several areas, including ­rapid
food production and progress in poverty reduction, as well as declines in child ­malnutrition
and undernourishment. AFSI is expected to contribute to those positive trends in the
future. Overall limited availability of data, time delays, and the complexity of attributing
impacts to inputs make it difficult for the initiative to report on results globally.
In 2013 at the Lough Erne Summit, G8 members concluded that the L’Aquila
commitments­had been fully met. Nevertheless, monitoring of disbursements continues. As
a ­non-governmental­organization noted: ‘[C]ommitments on agriculture were disappointing.­
­According to the UN, support to small farmers provides the single biggest opportunity to
reduce hunger and poverty and to increase productivity. The 8 June (2013) was another
missed opportunity to invest in those who feed a third of the world’s population.’60
60
CAFOOD (2013) ‘10 days of action on hunger: what‘s been achieved?’ http://www.cafod.org.uk/News/
Campaigning-news/Action-on-hunger-achievements (last accessed Feb. 15, 2014)
3
Chapter

24. 24
Still, the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative has somehow helped to catalyse a global focus
on food and nutrition security for a couple of years. The achievements of AFSI as assessed
by the governments themselves are to be counterchecked with field reports and the voices
of those in food insecure regions. Here, few independent evaluations exist because the
target populations and their governments don‘t want to jeopardize continuous support by
criticising the ‘donors’.
A positive example from Niger61
Funding: $57.69 million (2010-2012) from Germany
Programs: “Programme LUCOP”:62
Rural development, productive farming, resource­
management, climate change, agricultural irrigation, productivity
promotion,­capacity building, sector political support, regional planning,
community development.
Promotion of food security project: Provision of funding for grain purchase,
monitoring and evaluation support, technical advice, rural infrastructure.
Objective: “Supporting LUCOP beneficiary groups to improve use of natural
agricultural­resources, productive farming, capacity building, and support
of community­development” by 2011. Target group is small farmers in the
regions of Agadez, Tahoua and Tillabéri.
Indicators: The indicators are relative to the complete and individual phases of the
component and program aims. Verification is done through internal and
external­monitoring and evaluation (e.g. baseline surveys, interviews,
interim­studies, surveys, etc.)
Specific indicators include: increased household income, increased ­farming
production, and establishment of cereal banks.
Progress: n More than 142,000 ha of land were reclaimed for sustainable manage-
ment, and several rural markets and roads were built.
n About 8,000 farmers were able to use the available production resources­
more effectively and thus generate higher revenues.
n Fora and user agreements have helped to resolve the conflicts between
farmers and pastoralists and have contributed to conflict prevention.
n Overall, the improvement of production conditions and skills led to an
increase of family income within the target group and substantial con-
tributions to food security of the target group have been made.
n The impact of the measures is reviewed annually by independent
consultants­and results in increased satisfaction of up to 95% of
­surveyed target group members.
61
Copied from the 2012 German In-Depth Table, Camp David Accountability Report. http://www.usaid.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/1868/GermanyInDepthTables.pdf (last accessed April 14,2014)
62
„Lutte contre la pauvrete“ or “Fight against Poverty“
3
Chapter

25. 25
The “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition”
At the Camp David Summit in 2012, G8 and African leaders committed to the “New
­Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition” (New Alliance). At first, six African countries
­contracted a partnership with G8 and private investors: Tanzania, Ghana, Ethiopia, Ivory
Coast, Burkina Faso, and Mozambique, all countries with a high vulnerability to hunger
crises. Donor countries have committed almost $4 billion for the period 2012 to 2015,
to support Country Investment Plans and New Alliance goals in the six countries. More
than 80 African and global private companies have committed to making investments,
although­it must be noted that these commitments are not binding. The New Alliance
aims at raising­50 million people out of poverty by 2022 through private investments in
agriculture,­improvement­of agricultural productivity, and reduction of risks for investors.
Considering the Millennium Development Goals, the question arises as to why such targets
have not been met much earlier. Now, in 2013/14, instead of trying to figure out why these
goals will not be achieved in Subsahara Africa, new goals are being set.63
Whilst the MDGs
had a definitive impact on the political debate and paved the way for progress towards food
security in some countries, ignorance about smallholder farmers and their organizations,
especially in Africa, must be considered as a reason for failure.
The website of the “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition” fails to fully explain­
whether­the aims include “reduction of risks for investors” and “help[ing] facilitate global­
trade by opening up new markets for U.S. goods and services”.64
The question as to
whether­countries are bound to an investment agreement that makes their new rulings
and legislations­subject to investor/state arbitration procedures remains unanswered, as
well. As other trade agreements indicate, this conflict resolution mechanism occurs outside
national­jurisdiction and hinders national parliaments from passing new (and unexpected
by investors)­legislation on, for instance, human rights and environmental safeguards.
Commitments of the New Alliance
“We commit to launch a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition to accelerate the
flow of private capital to African agriculture, take to scale new technologies and other
innovations­that can increase sustainable agricultural productivity, and reduce the risk borne­
by vulnerable­economies and communities. This New Alliance aims at lifting 50 million­
people out of poverty over the next decade. It is guided by a collective commitment­to invest
in credible, comprehensive, and country-owned plans, develop new tools to mobilize­private
capital, spur and scale innovation, manage risk, and engage and leverage the capacity of
private sector partners – from women and smallholder farmers, entrepreneurs­to domestic
and international companies”.65
63
UNECA/AUC (2013) Report on progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Africa. http://
www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/document_files/report-on-progress-in-achieving-the-mdgs-in-africa.pdf
(Last accessed April 5, 2014)
64
Feed the Future – Partnering for Impact. http://www.feedthefuture.gov/partnership#/partnering-for-impact
(last accessed April 5, 2014).
65
New Alliance Project. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/18/fact-sheet-g-8-action-food-
security-and-nutrition (last accessed Feb. 15, 2014)
3
Chapter

26. 26
In June 2013, at the Lough Erne Summit, the New Alliance was extended by partnerships­
concluded with Malawi, Nigeria and Benin. A recent Cooperation Framework was signed
with Senegal in December 2013. One and a half years after the launching, some ­progress
in the promotion of responsible private sector investment in African agriculture has been
reported,­ in addition to existing efforts supporting CAADP’s agricultural transformation­
agenda. Related­to its specific tasks, the New Alliance contributes to each country’s CAADP-
facilitated dialogue between its government, the private sector, development partners,­and
civil society with the aim to identify and to remove key constraints to responsible investment­
in agriculture­and has developed Cooperation Frameworks for each of the 10 New Alliance
partner countries. These Cooperation Frameworks include a couple of policy commitments
to be implemented by specific deadlines in 2012 and 2013. At the country level, the
implementation of multi-stakeholder dialogues and the establishment of clear leaderships
have been time-consuming. Progress has been demonstrated in capacity, priorities, and
events across partner countries.
In 2012, more than 80 companies committed themselves to make investments in the
original­six partner countries. A progress review undertaken by Grow Africa66
in March-April
2013 reveals the following progress in company investment plans:
n All are underway with internal approvals and 94% are proceeding with external prepa­
rations (market research, field visits, partnership negotiations, stakeholder consultations)­
n 61% are in the pilot phase, initial on-the-ground progress awaiting scale-up; and 40%
are in the investment phase; operational activity moving to scale. Investments include­
a multiplicity of business models: joint ventures between multinational and local
companies;­ public-private partnerships; and partnerships between private companies
and NGOs. New models involving smallholder farmers are being generated.
Impact on smallholder farmers
Though it is too soon to evaluate the impact of investments of the New Alliance in 2012,
early results reported to ‘Grow Africa’ appear promising for smallholder farmers:
n More than $60 million were invested in activities that incorporate smallholders into
commercial, market-based activities.
n About 270,000 metric tonnes of commodities coming from partner countries – the vast
majority from smallholder farmers – and the equivalent of around $300 million in sales
from these farmers were fed into the market system.
n Nearly 800,000 smallholders benefited from a mix of training, service provision, and
market access.67
66
Grow Africa is the Africa Agriculture Growth and Investment Taskforce’s partnership platform, established
by NEPAD. It aims to accelerate investments and transformative change in African agriculture, based on
national priorities and supporting CAADP.
67
See page 26: The African Cashew Initiative
3
Chapter

27. 27
From the perspective of the New Alliance, the picture appears much more satisfying than
from the perspective of smallholder farmers and their organizations in food insecure regions.
As the funded interventions are driven by technology promotion rather than by support for
existing local knowledge, there is a gap in the perception of achievements and successes.
The smallholder’s organization La Via Campesina illustrates this gap:68
We demand public policies to support sustainable peasant and family farm agriculture:
n Implement genuine agrarian reform, put an end to “land grabbing”, and respect our
land and territories.
n Reorient agricultural research and extension systems to support farmer-to-farmer
agroecological innovation and sharing managed by farmer organizations as the
keystone­to up-scaling agroecology.
n Change the way agronomists are trained. Agroecology and social science must play a
central role in curricula, which should emphasize respect for farmer knowledge and
the importance of farmer organizations.
n Broad implementation of Food Sovereignty policies like the protection of national
markets from dumping, hoarding and speculation by corporations, and systems to
guarantee fair prices for peasant food production.
n Support peasant seed systems and repeal anti-peasant seed laws.
n Reorient public sector food procurement to give priority to ecological peasant
production­and fair prices.
n Support farm-to-city direct marketing of ecological production through farmers’
markets,­linking rural and urban cooperatives, etc.
n End subsidies for agrochemicals, and ban toxic pesticides and GMOs.
n Break-up and prohibit national and global corporate agrifood monopolies and
oligopolies­that capture and distort policies to their own profit-taking ends, at the
expense of farmers and consumers alike.
The role of Germany
Since 2009, after the AFSI was launched, food security and rural development have been
experiencing a certain revival in German ODA. This is reflected by the increase of annual
financial support to €700 million and the presence of the theme in international agendas.
Nevertheless, the evaluation of programmes rather focuses on the input side, while little is
known about the impact on the smallholder farmers targeted.
68
La Via Campesina (2010) Sustainable Peasant and Family Farm Agriculture Can Feed the World. Jakarta.
http://viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/en/paper6-EN-FINAL.pdf (last accessed Feb. 15, 2014)
3
Chapter

28. 28
At the 2009 G8 Summit in L’Aquila, the German government pledged to contribute­
$3 ­billion for food security, rural development, and sustainable agriculture within the AFSI
period (2010 to 2012). The German government met its financial commitment in full and
became one of the biggest AFSI donors. The amount pledged to AFSI represented roughly
11% of the total BMZ budget. About 45% of the financial resources for rural development­
went to African countries. Documentation of the degree to which smallholder farmers
benefited­from this support is not available.
By the time the Lough Erne Accountability Report was released in 2013, Germany had
made commitments towards 22 partner countries. Furthermore, Germany took over the
leadership­for a working group on Managing for Development Results and contributed
to capacity building and training of the NEPAD Secretariat. Despite those engagements,
Germany’s ODA in 2012 was $12.9 million, down 8.2% from 2011.
In 2013, Germany has taken the lead on the New Alliance cooperation Agreement with
Benin, where 12% of households (972,000 people) are experiencing food and nutrition
insecurity and 13.2% (1,048,000 people) are at risk.
In 2013, BMZ presented its concept on rural development and food security.69
The
respective­task force set up in 2012 by various divisions of the ministry, KfW and GIZ
focuses on:
n improving the strategic orientation, integration, and control of the ministry’s development­
policy instruments, aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of food security and rural
development;­
n shaping the international development policy agenda and enhancing coordination with
multilateral organisations;
n improving cooperation with private enterprises, civil society, and the research community,­
and promoting coherence with development activities implemented by other German
ministries;­and
n revising the strategic guidelines for German development policy in the food security sector.­
Further initiatives related to food security are the “EU Policy Framework to Assist Developing­
Countries in Addressing Food Security Challenges” and the recently launched “Global
Nutrition­for Growth Compact 2013”.
As mentioned in the individual paragraphs it remains unclear to what extent the commitments­
of the German Federal Government reach the smallholder farmer and improve their ability
to increase productivity for subsistence and commercial food production.
69
Ernährungssicherung – Strategische Orientierung für die deutsche Entwicklungspolitik; Positionspapier;
BMZ-Strategiepapier 11:2013e African Cashew Initiative
3
Chapter

29. 29
‘A positive sample project: The African Cashew Initiative (ACI)’:
The GIZ70
has been supporting the African cashew nut industry in the process of
restructuring­and achieving an international standard of competitiveness. The project­
aims at boosting the cashew value chain in the five partner countries: Benin, Burkina­
Faso, Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Mozambique. At the initiation of the project in 2009,
productivity was negligible. Within three years, the following measures had been
implemented:­
n Training materials were developed and 800 trainers equipped to train more than
240,000 farmers (1/3 of them women) in cultivation methods and good agricultural
practice. Farmers were also trained to develop an entrepreneurial basis.
n 75,000 farmers have formed cooperatives that were trained in organisation, bulk
selling, sales negotiation, and certification. The cooperatives run 32 nurseries. …
n In collaboration with the NGO TechnoServe, 20 local processing companies were
­advised on funding, business planning, appropriate mechanisation, employee
­training, and workplace equipment.
n GIZ and local banks developed funding instruments for processing companies.
n GIZ also supports the trade in cashew nuts throughout the value chain, ensuring that
farmers’ financial interests are respected. …
n In 2012, there is significant improvement in the quality of cashew nuts produced by
smallholder farmers.
n In 2011, smallholder income is $5 million higher than in 2009 . In 2013, income
is expected to be $20 million higher. The product price for cooperative farmers has
risen by 10%, due to a better basis for negotiations.
n The 20 cashew processing companies increased their annual capacity to more than
29,000 tonnes. In 2011, they employed more than 3,500 people, with 74% being
women.
n In cooperation with farmers and research institutes, crops with five to eight times
more yield have been identified and are now developed and promoted further.
n Networks connect all people involved in the value chain.
70
With funds from BMZ, the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation, and various private sector companies
3
Chapter

30. 30
71
Brandt W. (1980) North-South: A Programme for Survival – Report of the Independent Commission­
on ­International Development Issues. Cited after: Quilligan JB (2002) The Brandt Equation – 21st
Century­ Blueprint for the New Global Economy. Philadephia, USA. htttp://www.brandt21forum.info/
BrandtEquation_19-Sept04.pdf (Last accessed April 5, 2014)
Future ODA for food security must be focused on smallholders not just as recipients of
information­and technology but also as partners for development based on their own
knowledge­and experiences.
Greater investments in agriculture can have a major impact on diverse foods from sustained­
ecosystems and can greatly improve the livelihoods of smallholders: Experience from recent­
decades indicates that new technologies, hybrid seeds, and biofortification alone will not
achieve global food and nutrition security. The moral imperative for global food and nutrition­
security requires a political rather than an economic approach, or as the Brandt-Report put
it more than three decades ago: ‘One must avoid the persistent confusion of growth with
development, and we strongly emphasize that the prime objective of development is to lead
to self-fulfilment and creative partnership in the use of a nation’s productive forces and its
full human potential.’71
Summary
As a participant in G8 and G20 programmes, the German Federal Government has
­accepted responsibility for agricultural development for global food and nutrition
security.­It has shown accountability regarding its commitments.
The previous trend of lowering ODA for agricultural development for global food and
­nutrition security has been reversed, although total ODA is far from the target of 0.7%
of the GNP set earlier and achieved by several European countries (≥0.7%: Sweden,­
­Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). Agricultural ODA is far from being
­adequately budgeted and is even less oriented towards smallholder farmers than before.
Up to now, the focus on smallholder farmers in German ODA is – with some exceptions­
(see the ‘African Cashew Initiative’) – more on paper than in reality. Often, the ­so-called
private sector refers to big enterprises and multinational companies rather than to
smallholder farmers, their cooperatives, and small- and medium-sized business in
partner­ countries.
The integration of agriculture, nutrition, and health – as suggested by scientists and
­experts – is not yet evident in the implementation of German ODA for agriculture,
­despite the use of the term ‘nutrition-sensitive agriculture’.
German engagement towards food and nutrition security is only partly directed ­towards
enabling food sovereignty and supporting sustainable use of local resources. Too much
emphasis is placed on technologies based on agroindustrial approaches, given the
­stated concern for smallholder farmers.
3
Chapter

31. A4Bro-BLSt-GB-28/14
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V., IBAN DE15 3705 0198 0000 0011 15, BIC C0LSDE33
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V., Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 1, 53173 Bonn, Tel. +49 (0)228 2288-0, Fax +49 (0)228 2288-333, www.welthungerhilfe.de