Download to read offline
Unlocking territorial development potential to eradicate hunger
The document discusses strategies for eradicating hunger by 2030 by addressing the geographical disparities in food security and nutrition. It emphasizes the importance of understanding territorial dimensions, improving infrastructure, and fostering rural-urban partnerships to enhance food systems and nutritional outcomes. Key recommendations include promoting inclusive governance, leveraging technology, and ensuring equitable investment in rural areas.
More Related Content
Similar to Unlocking territorial development potential to eradicate hunger
![[Challenge:Future] World Wide Food Security Network (WFSN)](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/challengefuture-world-wide-food-security-network-wfsn4697-111115124715-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
More from Réseau de prévention des crises alimentaires (RPCA)
Unlocking territorial development potential to eradicate hunger
- 1. Cotonou, DECEMBER 2017 ANNUALMEETING Unlocking Territorial Development Potential to Eradicate Hunger Vito Cistulli, Food and Agriculture Organization –FAO-
- 2. The challenge oferadicating hunger by 2030 A: 1.2 billion poor B: 815 million food insecure E: 3 billion low quality diets D: 3 million obese diets C: 161 million stunted • Total annual cost of malnutrition in the world : US$ 3 Trillion equivalent to the global agri- food business (5 trillion) • Investing in better nutrition generates economic, social and environmental benefits • Investment decisions require good understanding of the determinants of food security and nutrition levels: • Climate and other environmental challenges • Demographic challenges • Employment challenges • Connectedness challenges • Institutional challenges All of them have a Territorial dimension
- 3. Geography matters: crosscountry but also within country disparities 0 20 40 60 80 100 Côte d'Ivoire 2015 Ghana 2013 Nigeria 2010 Bénin 2015 Niger 2011 Within country disparities of poverty Max Min Average national 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 50 100 150 200 250 GDP/Cap Pop. Density Cross-country correlation Pop. Density and GDP/Cap 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 50 100 150 200 250 Foodsafety Pop. Density Cross-country correlation Pop. density and Food safety
- 4. The case ofBenin • Strong correlation between population density and food security and between population density and poverty 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Foodinsecurity Pop. Density Correlation Pop. Density and Food Insecurity -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Pop.Density Poverty incidence Correlation Pop. Density and Poverty
- 5. All dimensions offood security are geographically sensitive • Food availability: not only domestic production, not only in rural areas and significant differences between rural areas • Access: “the environment in which we live contributes to socioeconomic differences over and above the influence of individual characteristics” • Utilization: importance of non-food inputs of food security and nutrition, whose availability is strongly related to social and geographical factors. • Stability: transaction costs in remote areas affect prices and investments in risk management
- 6. Towards a territorialapproach to FSN
- 7. Skillsandhumancapital Diversificationofincome (non-farmingactivities) Foodproduction Traditional approach to FSN Territories– subnational entities Accessibilityand infrastructure Institutionsatdifferent levelsofgovernment Strengthening the territorial capital endowment Metropolitan areas Rural close to cities Rural remote Integrated multidimensional approach Healthcare Safetynets
- 8. Promoting rural-urban partnerships Matching ..theappropriate scale Including ..the relevant stakeholder Learning ..to be more effective 1. Better understanding of Rur-Urb conditions and interactions 2. Addressing territorial challenges through a functional approach 3. Working towards a common agenda for urban and rural policy 4. Building a enabling environment for R-U partnership 5. Clarifying the partnership objectives and related measures
- 9. Prerequisites for effectiveterritorial approach: the 6 Is model Institutions Capacitydevelopment Inclusion Innovation Infrastructure Information Investments Institutions and inclusion: sectoral approaches still prevailing, local empowerment overlooked • Enhancing strategies and programmes beyond agriculture • Linking social policies with economic growth policies • Promoting multi-level governance systems and partnerships to strengthening horizontal and vertical co-ordination Innovation: technology and social processes need more attention • Put ICT at the service of marginal areas and vulnerable people: bridge the digital divide • Promoting bottom-up social innovation: networking, collective learning knowledge creation Information: territorial information is scarce • Increasing the availability of data and indicators at the local and regional levels to support evidence-based FSN policy. Infrastructure: poor soft and hard infrastructure in rural areas • Poverty incidence and food insecurity tends to be higher in remote areas with difficult access to infrastructure and basic services Investments: private and public investment still biased geographically • Enabling environment for private investments: measures to strengthen land tenure rights, improve access to rural services, etc. • Build infrastructure to connect rural and urban areas • Value the role of small and intermediate cities: the missing middle Policyimplicationsandcountriesengagement
- 10.
- 11. Many thanks foryour attention!
Editor's Notes
- #3 Food systems: an opportunity for rural transformation: Territorial approach can help lagging behind areas to benefit. A recent, comprehensive and detailed study by McKinsey estimates that since 2004 the global investments in agri-food business sector have grown threefold, to more than USD 100 billion in 2013. In the same period, 100 publicly traded food-and-agribusiness companies around the world increased their total returns by 17% annually, compared with 13% for energy and 10% for information technology. FAO estimates that the value of urban food markets in sub-Saharan Africa will likely increase fourfold between 2010 and 2030, from US$313 billion to US$1 trillion Cost of Undernutrition: 2.1 trillion Cost of obesity: 1.4 trillion Benefit of investments in better nutrition. According to FAO (SOFA 2013) investing US$ 1.25 billion annually in micronutrient supplements, food fortification and biofortification of staple crops for five years would generate annual benefits of US$15.3 billion, a benefit-to-cost ratio of almost 13 to 1
- #4 About three quarters of the world’s poor and food insecure live in rural areas. Many of them depend on agriculture and, more in general, they are mostly found in geographic areas that are disadvantaged, with poor infrastructure, access to markets and services.
- #5 Population density is used as a proxy of rural-urban differences. It allows us to capture the differences between rural and urban areas but also across rural areas with different population densities. The charts show that correlations are positive for both poverty and food security levels.
- #6 Food availability: Availability of food is often associated with agricultural production in rural areas, but in fact it refers to all domestic food production, net imports, food waste and losses, and food stocks and reserves as generated (or lost) along the full length of food value chains. Hence, food production is not restricted to rural areas. At the end of the 90s, 200 million people were said to be employed in urban farming and related enterprises, contributing to the food supply of 800 million urban dwellers (FAO, http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/greenercities/ ). In Africa, 40 percent of urban dwellers are said to be engaged in some sort of agricultural activity. Similar shares can be found in Latina America. An FAO survey conducted in 2013 found that agriculture practiced in urban and peri-urban areas is as high as 40 percent in Cuba. (http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/greenercities/en/GGCLAC/overview.html ). Food access: Availability is not enough to ensure sustainable food security and nutrition. Food access is generally associated with the capacity (entitlements) for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Recent research has shed some light on the spatial factors affecting access to food. A study conducted by Beaulac et al., (2009) concludes that in the USA “Evidence is both abundant and robust enough for us to conclude that Americans living in low-income and minority areas tend to have poor access to healthy food”. Though there is not sufficient evidence to generalize these findings in other countries, the authors point out that “The environment in which we live, work, and play contributes to health and socioeconomic differences in health over and above the influence of individual characteristics”. Utilization: refers to utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met. This brings out the importance of non-food inputs in food security. These needs are as important in the urban areas as in the rural areas. According to Habitat over one billion people live in urban slums with no access to these basic services. A study conducted by Chen and Ravaillon (2007) on rural-urban poverty rates found that the poor urbanized faster and/or that urban poverty decreased slower compared to rural areas. FSN in urban areas is therefore a concern for policy makers. Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual should not risk losing access to food as a consequence of sudden shocks (e.g. an economic or climatic crisis, conflicts) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore refer to both the availability and access dimensions of food security. Both are connected and have a strong spatial dimension. For instance, for those rural locations characterized by high transaction costs in accessing input or agricultural markets, the capacity of the farm households to increase productivity is limited and will affect both the stability of production and farmers’ income. This has important policy implications as even in the presence of new productive technologies in the country, In remote areas suffering from high transaction costs, investments in infrastructure could be more effective than investment in agricultural productivity to reduce food insecurity and poverty. In the urban areas, stability is more related to the capacity of urban dwellers to purchase food. It is therefore more dependent on employment and the variability of food prices. access and in particular to the variability of food prices.
- #10 Institutions and inclusion Increasing the effectiveness of multi-level governance and inclusive operational mechanisms. Intended as a situation where “experts from several tiers of government share the task of making regulations and forming policy, usually in conjunction with relevant interest groups.” (Hague and Harrop: 2007: 282), multi-level governance has a vertical (multiple layer of territorial levels) and horizontal (inter-sectoral and inter-actor at the same level). The vertical dimension is on the top of the agenda of all the countries studied. All of them have engaged, for instance, in more or less deep decentralization reforms. At the horizontal level some attempts have been made to establish inter-ministerial and inter-sectoral committees to better coordinate food security actions. In practice, however, results have been mixed and, with few exceptions, food security interventions have still a very strong sectoral focus, especially at the local level. Moreover, most of the efforts have been placed on reforming the government structure, while the role of non-government actors (private sector, rural organizations, civil society associations, etc.) and their empowerment, especially of the most vulnerable groups (Box 2), to access and better participate in the political market is generally overlooked. Innovation Promoting and building on innovation, including local innovation processes: A lot remains to be done for marginalized areas to reap the benefits of technological advances. Some studies show that technology adoption among poor farmers is relatively slow (FAO, 2015), and that development gaps between more prosperous and disadvantaged populations tend to persist through a “digital divide”, which risks taking a similar geographic expression to other structural development gaps. Such observations point to the need to make technology locally adapted, promoting innovation based on local needs and incorporating local knowledge. These “softer” facets of innovation, which stress the importance of networking, knowledge transfer, social processes, and governance systems for building social innovation capacity and for fostering collective learning knowledge creation, and application (Morgan 1997), have become much more mainstream in the understanding of rural development processes and dynamics. Rural development policies more frequently combine these types of “soft innovation” with more traditional forms of “hard innovation”, typically directed towards the promotion of infrastructure, such as telecommunications links (broadband) and transport facilities. Bottom-up social innovations that are based on the capacity of local communities to share knowledge, value local entrepreneurship, and develop social networks and social capital – all of which will help local communities to develop new knowledge, ideas and projects that are culturally acceptable, environmentally sustainable and technically feasible. The innovative capacity of local communities is directly related to the level of participation of the local communities in the decision-making process. Investments Public investment to trigger private investments. To promote private investments, there is a need to: 1. put in place a range of policies designed to ensure that small-scale producers are able to participate fully in meeting urban food demands. Measures to strengthen land tenure rights, ensure equitable value chain development, or improve access to rural services and rural finance in particular are but a few options; 2. build up the necessary infrastructure to connect rural areas and urban markets – in many developing countries the lack of rural roads, electrical power grids, storage facilities, and refrigerated transportation systems is a major bottleneck for farmers seeking to take advantage of urban demand for fresh fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy. 3. including smaller cities spread-out in the country can play a crucial role in structural and rural transformations, by strengthening rural–urban linkages, creating higher demand for goods, services and food, and generating employment that leads to poverty reduction. Indeed, although future population increases will be greater in larger cities and megacities, in 2030 the majority of the urban population, globally and in all developing regions, will continue to be found in intermediate and smaller cities with populations of 1 million or less; and 80 percent of those people will live in urban areas with fewer than 500 000 inhabitants (UN DESA PD, 2014b).
- #11 Joint initiative started in 2010 to combine efforts based on comparative strengths: FAO (national networks in the area of FNS and rural poverty, information, methodologies and capacity development for FNS) OECD (knowledge generation, New Rural Paradigm, territorial/rural policy reviews and dialogue) UNCDF (local governance, local public financial management, policy dialogue and advocacy) Develop and apply TA for FSN: (a) knowledge generation; (b) piloting of innovative policies; (c) capacity development/learning processes