Food security

Maputo Declaration on Agriculture holds Key to ending Famine in Africa

Aug 24th, 2011 6:31 PM UTC
By Dr Sipho Moyo

As I write, the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa continues to worsen. Figures from the UN’s Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) show that the number of people affected by food shortages in Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti has escalated from 10 million to 12.4 million. About 2.3 million of the region’s children are acutely malnourished and the UN Children’s Fund says more than half a million of them are at risk of death without urgent intervention. The United Nations has described the situation as the worst drought the region has seen in 60 years.  As dreadful as this situation already is, the fear is that the worst is yet to come. The Famine Early Warning Systems Network forecasts worsening drought conditions for the coming months, particularly in northern Kenya, which has 3.2 million people who are “food insecure”.

As a mother, my stomach churns when I hear stories of mothers having to choose between which children to drag along with them to refugee camps and which ones they leave behind to die. But this is the reality that many mothers affected by the famine are faced with. And these are the cold facts that face African Heads of State ahead of a conference to raise funds to support the humanitarian relief work convened by the African Union at its headquarters tomorrow.

As the esteemed leaders of our great continent make their way to Addis, I am earnestly hoping and praying that they will seize this opportunity to further demonstrate their commitment to forging African solutions to African problems such as the crisis that faces their fellow Africans at this time of great need.  We at ONE can already acknowledge the ways in which African leaders and their citizens have responded to the crisis so far.  When an 11 year old Ghanaian schoolboy determined to help children facing starvation in Somalia raises more than $500 in a single week I know there is hope.  Then there is the ‘Kenyans for Kenyans’ initiative, where ordinary citizens, contributing as little as 10 Kenyan shillings, pulled together a total of about $4m, and we’re still counting.  The Gift of Givers, all the way from South Africa, loaded 500 tons of food to distribute to the hardest hit in Somalia.  The governments of Sudan, Namibia and South Africa are amongst those that have responded to the call by the UN for funding.  The Kenyan government has generously opened its borders to Somali refugees, arriving daily on its borders by the thousands, even when it’s beyond government’s capacity to manage the crisis. The African Union’s peacekeeping force, AMISOM, is treating an outbreak of measles and other diseases such as malaria and diarrhea in a camp for people displaced from their homes, while the AU Mission is securing both the seaport and the airport in Somalia, thus making it possible to bring in the much-needed humanitarian supplies.  These stories attest to the generous spirit of us as African people and we at ONE are proud of the African engagement.  However, there remains a lot more work to be done. The Horn of Africa drought appeal is only 46 per cent funded, requiring an additional US$1.4billion. As an African citizen nothing would make me more proud than to see all of our African leaders stepping up even more to help our fellow Africans in the Horn of Africa.  Help is needed urgently and desperately.

Next to this immediate and short term agenda item at the AU Heads of State meeting today, should be the closely linked but more medium to long term agenda of accelerating the meeting of their commitments under the Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security to spend 10 percent of national budgets on agriculture development.  In this declaration made during the Second Ordinary Assembly of the African Union in July 2003 in Maputo, African Heads of State and Government reaffirmed the need for ownership of their own development agenda and agreed to achieve 10 percent within five years.  However as of the 2008 deadline, only seven countries are currently meeting the 10 percent agriculture spending target. These countries are Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guinea, Malawi, Mali, Niger, and Senegal.  A number of other countries are making reasonable progress in the right direction. The question we have to answer is not if another season of drought will recur on the continent.  Our experts tell us, it will.  The question is rather, how ready is Africa to deal with the next drought season? With the knowledge that we have, the next drought need not be another humanitarian catastrophe of people dying and being displaced due to hunger. In other words, we need not wait for the next pledging conference to address a predictable recurring problem.  The Maputo declaration gives us as Africans a fair shot at ending famine on the continent once and for all, in the long run.

Our last appeal for the AU agenda is  a more definite plan to deal with the refugee crisis.  An assessment by the World Food programme shows that the Dadaab refugee camp in north-eastern Kenya continues to receive large influxes of refugees mainly from Somalia. Kenya currently has about 447,000 refugees in Dadaab with 1,500 new arrivals every day.  These are not refugees of war as we more often see, but rather they are refugees of famine as they have been described by the World Food Program.  The Kenyan Government deserves commendation for its generosity in hosting these refugees and we thank them.  We hope that plans to open Ifo 2 are on track as this would help ease the congestion at Dadaab.  At the same time we call upon other African nations to consider opening up their borders to the hundreds of thousands of Somali refugees, looking for a place of shelter.

When all is said and done, and the Horn of Africa remains mired in the humanitarian tragedy of famine which deserves the spotlight of international media attention it is important to remember that it is but one part of the continent.  Let us therefore be mindful not to bundle the whole continent into a hopeless single image of starvation and penury. Let us also remember that despite Africa’s development challenges while many world economies have suffered a backlash in the economic recession that followed the global financial crisis, Africa countries escaped relatively unscathed.  According to the International Monetary Fund sub-Saharan Africa is projected to grow by an average 5.5 percent this year before accelerating to about 6 percent in 2012. Growth will be driven by low and middle income countries such as Ghana and Ethiopia with oil exporters such as Nigeria and Angola lending support. These are phenomenal stories that ought to be told.

Crisis in the Horn of Africa

Jul 19th, 2011 5:22 PM UTC
By Stuart McWilliam

You may have seen the pictures of starving people in the Horn of Africa on your TV screens. We are all asking: how can this be happening again? Parts of Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are facing one of the worst droughts for 60 years, and around 10 million people are desperately in need of food, clean water and basic sanitation. But something can be done. You can add your voice to help make a difference.

Despite the urgency of the situation, most world leaders are responding too slowly. Immediate aid is essential. Yet at the same time we must not let them drop the ball on long term solutions as has too often happened in the past.

Dear World Leaders,

Please urgently provide the full funding that the UN has identified as necessary to help people in the Horn of Africa, and please keep your promises to deliver the long term solutions which could prevent crises like this happening again.

Some people look back to previous droughts and question whether things will ever change. But because of the smart aid that is supporting African leadership, progress really is being made. For example, 87% of people in the world today have enough food to eat and lead healthy lives – up from just 76% in 1970.  And in Ethiopia the number of people malnourished has fallen from 71% in 1992 to 46% now.

But we know how to change things even more: we can help stop starvation now – and stop the causes of starvation.  Firstly, we need to make sure funding is provided to pay for urgent help that will prevent people from dying. Secondly, the promises that world leaders made to invest in long term solutions must be kept, so that the people of this region can feed themselves and will not need food aid in the future.

Thanks for helping us to pressure our governments to save millions of lives – today and tomorrow.

Show your Concern for some of the world’s poorest farmers

May 17th, 2011 10:04 AM UTC
By ONE Partners

With the 2011 G8 summit approaching, our friends at Concern are running a campaign to get more support to some of those who need it most – half a billion farmers who are living in poverty worldwide.

It’s a shocking fact that although enough food is produced globally to feed everyone, there are still close to a billion people going hungry every night. Half of these hungry people struggle daily to feed their families from food grown on small plots of land.

Concern works with poor farmers in 25 developing countries, so we know how hard it is for these farmers, and that with more support things could be different. Most of these farmers are women like Astara (pictured), who grow up to 80% of food in developing countries. With food prices soaring these farmers are amongst the hardest hit.

At the G8 summit in 2009, the UK Government recognised that rising food prices would mean a crisis for poor farmers, and promised to spend £1.1 billion over the next three years to support agriculture and move towards ending hunger for all.

With the May 2011 G8 summit fast approaching, Concern is asking for the support of ONE campaigners in keeping the UK Government’s £1.1 billion hunger promise on the agenda. We’ve set up a really simple online form so you can email your MP to make sure the Government keeps its hunger promise. Click here to email your MP in less than two minutes. Click here to hear the stories of farmers like Astara.

-Natasha Adams, Campaigns and Parliamentary Officer, Concern Worldwide UK

Speculation and food prices

Apr 13th, 2011 6:15 PM UTC
By Sayo Ayodele

During the food crisis of 2008 when the price of food spiraled out of control causing hunger across the developing world, some financial companies posted record profits from betting on the prices of these very commodities.

Now it looks like these speculators are at it again, gambling on global hunger and contributing to spikes and volatility in food prices, actions that might in turn risk another global food crisis.

The number of speculators in financial markets and the complexity of contracts involving food commodities increased dramatically since deregulation in 2000, providing an opportunity for traders to diversify their portfolios.

President Nikolas Sarkozy has referred to food market speculation as “pillaging” and “extortion”.

Speculators trade ‘derivatives’, contracts that are related to the value of goods but don’t actually involve a physical transfer of goods, in the hopes of profiting from future price movements.  Speculation keeps markets ‘liquid’ and futures markets can potentially help producers protect themselves against changes in value of their goods.

But the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) suggests that the tight link between speculation and price volatility in markets makes it increasingly difficult for producers to use futures markets to actually protect themselves against shocks.  Since speculators trade commodities at prices that rarely reflect actual supply and demand at enormous volumes, they can drive prices up or down at a moment’s notice. High and volatile prices can make big profits for speculators, but can also cause increased poverty.

If just a few speculators can have this great of an effect on global markets, speculation should be regulated to reduce its potentially destabilizing effects on poor countries.

This is why the G-20, led by France, has put the issue at the top of its agenda. Even lobbyists for the French Financial markets have made public their support for regulating the volume of trading that can take place for food commodities and ensuring that speculation doesn’t become excessive.

Creating regulation based on information-sharing and transparency is important for ensuring market stability. Equally important is making sure that developing countries become less vulnerable to agricultural price shocks that are bound to exist even without the activity of speculators. Global leaders need to proactively protect poor producers and poor countries from agricultural price shocks by creating and bolstering safety nets and risk management tools.

Most importantly, donors should fulfill the commitments made at the 2009 G8 L’Aquila Summit towards global food security – providing $20 billion towards agriculture development over 3 years – as an important first step. Donors should provide funding for multi-lateral initiatives like the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) that support country-led agriculture initiatives and have demonstrated positive results.

As the deadline on L’Aquila draws nearer, we should also look to additional leadership from the French-led G20 in the upcoming Cannes Summit, particularly on the issue of regulation in the commodity futures markets.

Hungry for change

Mar 9th, 2011 10:37 AM UTC
By Jack Breslauer

“The problem is no longer that with every pair of hands that comes into the world there comes a hungry stomach. Rather it is that, attached to those hands are sharp elbows.” -Paul A. Samuelson, Nobel Prize winning economist

Tunisia’s Zine ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak both unceremoniously elbowed out of power over the past month, are certainly not the first leaders to suffer the wrath of a population who are appalled by societal conditions and spurred on by the rapidly rising prices and dwindling supplies of basic food staples.

Around the turn of the 18th century in Europe, the abolition of the “assize of bread,” which regulated grain prices, coincided with several years of poor harvests. Prices skyrocketed and hundreds of food riots erupted, causing tremendous commercial and social damage. In February of 1917, widespread riots erupted across New York City after grain prices jumped 30% in a matter of weeks.

More recently, in 2008, spiking prices led to protests in more than 30 countries and the ousting of Haiti’s prime minister. A recent scientific study at the University of Adelaide looked at food riots over the past 40 years, and concluded that, “In low income countries, increases in international food prices lead to a…significant increase in the incidence of anti-government demonstrations, riots and civil conflict.”

Today in the Middle East, prominent leaders and academics, including former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and NYU professor Nouriel Roubini, have explicitly linked the civil unrest to the soaring price of wheat and other commodities. Oxfam reports that, “Protesters in Algeria were heard chanting ‘Give us sugar,’” the price of which has risen to record levels. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have been snapping up large quantities of wheat in the hope that doing so will ensure domestic food security and quell popular anger.

Can we say, then, that the unrest currently unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa is just the latest chapter in the long history of food rioting?

Probably not. While staple foods have become more expensive in most of the world, it is only in one group of countries, characterized by large, angry unemployed youth populations, dangerous levels of poverty, and of course, corrupt and autocratic leaders who become targets of national frustration that unrest has boiled over.

It is fairer to suggest that rapid spikes in food prices, especially those that are viewed as unfair, can provide a trigger or catalyst for whatever political unrest may already be brewing in a country, as this article in Foreign Affairs argues. Despite government subsidy programs, prices for wheat — which is Egypt’s main staple — rose in the country by over 30%  in the months leading up the revolution. In Indonesia it was also a rapid price spike, in fuel rather than food, that escalated the protests that brought down the country’s long-time dictator, Suharto, in 1998.

It will be years before academics and commentators fully understand how and why protest has erupted so vigorously and (continues to grow) in the Middle East and North Africa. One thing is certain, however: investing in agriculture and ensuring the food security of all of the world’s people is as much a national security issue as it is a humanitarian one.

Hungry people make mobs. Smart people can stop the mobs before they start.

Feb 3rd, 2011 12:14 PM UTC
By Emily Alpert

Food prices are high again. In December 2010, prices according the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s measurement of a group of food commodities soared higher than the peak of the 2008 food prices. While new figures have not been released, reports are abound that prices for staple foods in developing countries like rice and wheat are climbing and the suspicious absence of rioting is starting to reverse. Riots in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Yemen and Pakistan might just be the start for a tumultuous year. But whilst these riots were not triggered by high food prices – high food prices certainly only add to citizens’ gripes with their governments.

There are a number of factors at play: Adverse weather is driving grim grain projections in South America and the US, increasing demands for biofuels made from food crops, oil surpassing $100 a barrel for the first time since October 2008, expectations that Russia’s export bans will be extended beyond 2011 and that others are starting to hoard or panic-buy. All this suggests that prices will continue to climb. And while the G20 debates the role of financial speculation in influencing food prices more hungry people could take to the streets.

But more importantly, hungry people don’t need to be hungry. Hunger is a symptom of poverty. First of all, there’s enough food in this world to feed everyone, it’s just not equitably distributed.  Where food may be available, many people also just don’t have the money to buy enough to eat.  Those that farm for a living often don’t have the resources to grow enough to sell to afford basic necessities, including food. Matter of fact, most people who experience hunger don’t have enough money to buy food, rather than that there isn’t enough food for them to eat.  So, it’s not just about staving off hunger, but also promoting better nutrition where people are less vulnerable to disease and infection, and building rural economies. So addressing the root cause of poverty will help solve the hunger problem along with many others.

Yet, “we” seem fixated on the causes of high and rising food prices and debating what to do about them, rather than enabling poor people’s economic development so that their pocketbooks can handle the ups and downs in food prices. Whether these high prices are here for the short or long-term, it pushes people into poverty and makes it just that much harder for others to climb out. In dire cases, particularly for children, it can lead to under-nutrition that has irreversible life-time consequences and even lead to death.

So let’s put a little less effort into trying to point a finger at one price driver – be it climate change, biofuels, trade measures, financial speculation or just good old supply and demand – and put a little more effort in trying to do something about it. The food crisis in 2008 promoted global leaders to commit $22.5 billion to invest in agriculture and food security, a third of which was additional to existing aid budgets, but nearly 3 years later, what have they done? According to the donors themselves, without any third-party verification, they had disbursed only $6.5 billion of the $22.5 in April 2010. And now? It’s unclear. Especially with respect to European donors who haven’t been very forthcoming about their aid budgets for agriculture as of yet. And in the US, budget debates are very worrying. In a worst case scenario, budgets for the Feed the Future Initiative will drop dramatically and the funding that the US pledged to the Global Food Security and Agriculture Program, a newly created multilateral fund for agriculture, could disappear.

Though, one thing we do know is that Africa hasn’t been hit as hard this time around by high prices – at least not yet. Why? Well, the World Bank says that greater investments in agriculture that improve productivity so that African countries don’t rely so much on imported food have helped cushion the blow. Well, how do you like that? Investments in agriculture help poor countries deal with high food prices. Donors, national governments and private sector…are you listening? Smart investments in agriculture are what we need more of. While issues such as the impact of climate change on food productivity, or the behaviours of financial speculators will need to be addressed; we cannot ignore that no matter what, we need to invest in agriculture, in poor countries, and help the poorest of the poor if we’re going to reduce poverty and hunger.

New Year’s Resolutions for Africa – What can rich countries do this year to help reduce poverty in sub-Saharan Africa?

Jan 10th, 2011 10:46 AM UTC
By Laura Kelly

In the ONE office, we’ve been talking about our new year’s resolutions – and our thoughts turned to resolutions that the international community could make to help Africa. Here are some of our suggestions:

Help Africa gain more from trade. Most G8 and even G20 countries offer special access to their markets for exports from the poorest countries. These could be improved through changes such as removing tariffs, expanding the range of products covered and simplifying and harmonizing trade rules. Increasing Africa’s share of world trade by only 1% of 2009 levels would be worth around $150 billion a year.

Be transparent! In order for aid to be effective, it needs to be accountable – both to the citizens whose taxes are being spent and also to those countries who are beneficiaries. By reporting on aid spending in a timely manner and in a method compatible with recipient country budget and planning systems, aid-dependent countries can better allocate their own spending and be more effective.

Save the lives of 4 million children. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) needs additional funding beginning in 2011 so that exciting new vaccines for the 2 biggest disease killers of children (pneumonia and diarrhoea) can make it to the children who need them most. With adequate funding, GAVI estimates that it along with its partners can save nearly 4 million lives in the next 5 years. Donors should provide this funding at the June pledging conference in London and should also follow through on commitments they made in 2010 to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

Maximize Africa’s benefits from its natural resources. In 2011, natural resource wealth – worth ten times the value of aid to Africa – needs to be better channelled for economic and social development. This starts with making the companies that extract natural resources more transparent. Countries that have oil and mining companies listed on their stock exchanges should legislate to make those companies publish all payments made by those companies to governments. This can help civil society in Africa to hold their governments accountable for the revenue received. The US has already led the way on this. Europe should follow suit as soon as possible.

Help prevent another food crisis. Donors committed $22 billion to invest in agriculture to prevent another food crisis and help reduce poverty at the 2009 L’Aquila G8. Nearly 2 years later, only a small amount of this money has been delivered, and another food crisis is looming on the horizon. It’s imperative that donors deliver this increased spending on agriculture and improve the quality of the aid. As part of these efforts, donors must at minimum fulfil their pledges to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme (GAFSP) and directly invest in African-led Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Plan (CAADP) compacts.

We’d love to hear your ideas for resolutions!

High food prices, but no crisis? Hmmm…

Jan 7th, 2011 6:26 PM UTC
By Emily Alpert

Over the last 6 months, we have been watching global food prices climb, raising concerns of another food crisis that would again push millions in to poverty. In late November 2010 food prices were just 10% lower than at the height of the global food crisis in mid-2008. Experts at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) held a meeting to assess the situation. Their conclusion? No, not another food crisis, just high prices. Now prices have actually surpassed even the highest levels reached in 2008. The FAO food price index that measures baskets of major grains, meats, dairy, oils and sugar reached 215 points this week – the highest ever level since they began monitoring food prices in 1990. Yet, the FAO still says it’s not a crisis. How can this be? What’s different this time around? And is a full-blown crisis just around the corner?

So let’s take a step back for a second. If we think about what all the factors that caused the 2008 food crisis…

1. bad weather and low yields, or less food on the market -according to the law of supply and demand, the less there is of an item, the more it costs
2. wealthier consumers in developing countries like China and India buying more meat and dairy products (in case you don’t know, most cows and chicken eat grains, not grass, so the more meat the world eats, the more grains and water we need to grow food for animals)
3. rising oil prices – not only does higher prices at the gas pump mean higher transportation costs to ship food, but most farmers use fertilizers that are produced with natural gas or coal and prices of these base products are affected by the price of oil making it more expensive for farmers to grow food
4. using food crops for fuel – many countries – especially the US and EU – require certain amounts of energy sources to come from biofuels. The bigger these mandates get, the more food we use in our fuel tanks instead of our bellies
5. excessive speculation – there are few regulations on the behaviours of investors in food markets and the more they bet in the market on food, the higher they can drive prices
6. low levels of investment in agriculture - investment in agriculture, including donor aid , while recently on the rise in response to the 2008 food crisis, is still insufficient to help poor countries grow more food and respond to market and weather shocks

…not much has changed. Weather disasters – like flooding in Australia and warmer temperatures and fewer rains in South America, caused by La Nina – are reducing crop yields and could get worse according to some meteorologists. Consumers in developing countries are still demanding higher value foods. Oil prices have reached about US$95 a barrel, not nearly as high as they were during the height of the crises pushing US$150/barrel, but they could get higher – some say maybe even more than double over the next few decades. Rich countries are still blending millions of tonnes of food crops like corn and oilseeds into their fuel supplies to reduce dependence on oil imports. International regulations on investor behaviour in food markets are still very limited. Global aid to agriculture remains only about a quarter of its peak in the mid 1980’s.

…yet, we haven’t witnessed riots breaking out across the developing world. In 2008, riots erupted in 33 countries and hundreds died. Governments too for the most part haven’t reacted by imposing restrictions on exports (which further limit supplies on the market and drives up prices). Local and regional prices too seem to be more insulated from global prices due to better harvests in poorer countries. Some increase in price could improve incomes for farmers in a position to take advantage of price movements.  Further, the biggest price hikes are happening in certain commodities – such as corn, meat, oils and sugar – but not in others like rice and wheat that are two of the most critical crops for food security in poor countries. Whereas in 2008 prices for all major crops skyrocketed. For instance, rice is trading at about US$535 per tonne today versus more than US$1,000 in mid 2008.

So, does this mean the coast is clear? Can we just wash our hands of this and assume that people have just learned to cope with higher food prices? Probably not.

Global food supplies are tight. More major disruptions could push prices up even higher. OPEC has said they are comfortable with oil priced at US$100 per barrel. And if we listen to some of our development partners such as ActionAid – they’re hearing a slightly different story from the ground. Prices are getting higher for people. Maybe local prices aren’t high enough to push millions into poverty and bring them to the streets, but this is definitely cause for serious concern.

As we keep a vigilant eye on the issue here at ONE, we will continue to advocate for policies that will help keep global prices at affordable levels for consumers and producers – especially in view of the French G20 where President Sarkozy vows to curb food price volatility. We will also continue to hold donors accountable to their commitments made at the 2009 G8 L’Aquila Summit to increase spending on aid to agriculture and improve the way it’s delivered to help countries recover from and build resilience to future shocks and spur economic growth.

Keeping promises on agriculture – does Feed the Future represent a new way forward?

Nov 30th, 2010 1:01 PM UTC
By Laura Kelly

The 2008 food price rises sparked a renewed focus on agriculture and food security and gave rise to the G8 L’Aquila Food Security Initiative. Now two years on, food prices are creeping up again but what have the G8 delivered in terms of more and better aid to agriculture? There is a mixed picture across countries and ONE has been lobbying to try and hold the G8 to account for the commitments they made.

Perhaps the most interesting case is the US which has developed the flagship ‘Feed the Future Initiative’. This is the result of multiple rounds of consultations across US government agencies, private sector and NGOs. It’s recently been referred to as US foreign aid reform in action. If it succeeds, more US foreign aid will be scrutinized for promoting country ownership and adopting a comprehensive and cross -government approach. Currently US foreign aid in to agriculture is delivered by upwards of 15 federal agencies and an untold number of contractors and non-profits. Getting these efforts better aligned, working towards the same strategic purposes and coordinating better at country level will be a boon for making US aid more effective, but also better at meeting real local needs.

But what if these reforms fail and resources are not forthcoming? Budgetary pressures and the increasingly polarised political debates are spilling over foreign assistance. Feed the Future, for all its merits, has also moved at a snail’s pace. It took nearly two years into the Administration to appoint an Administrator for USAID and unveil the long-awaited initiative. Though positive results beginning to emerge from the programme, for example in improving soils and water management in Rwanda or helping women navigate the value chain for shallots, it’s unlikely to be fast enough for Congress.

Funding for Feed the Future is in jeopardy of being cut to just two-thirds of the President’s Request of $1.7 billion for 2011. Most at risk is funding for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). Until a new budget is approved the 2010 budget just rolls over and as GAFSP had no funding this would mean no funding going forward either – or at least until a new budget bill is passed. ONE has run two public campaigns in the US to get supporters to contact their congressional representatives to support the Feed the Future Initiative. Along with NGO partners it’s also organized events to raise the profile of agriculture and its importance for development in Africa with Congresspeople.

While the picture is erring on bleak for the US delivering on its financial commitments to the L’Aquila Initiative, the US certainly deserves praise for working towards meeting the now so called, Rome Principles on aid effectiveness in agriculture. The US have sought to work through country-led processes and held multi-stakeholder consultations on national strategies. They’re also working multilaterally through the GAFSP, so it’s hard to say they’re not trying hard to deliver.

To date, no other L’Aquila Food Security Initiative donor has so clearly articulated how it will meet the Rome principles. Perhaps, foreign aid in the US has greater hurdles to overcome in aid decision-making and delivery processes than other donors, but they have made real strides to demonstrate country-ownership. What about direct budget support, you might ask? Well, in theory budget support should ensure a multi-stakeholder process and a demand focus but its by no means guaranteed.

As donors are nearly one and a half years into a three year commitment, they should be doing more to demonstrate they are delivering on their financial and qualitative commitments. For starters, DFID and all other donors who made multi-lateral pledges at L’Aquila commitments could allocate at least a portion of these to the GAFSP. Second, donors should identify how they intend to meet the Rome Principles. The Muskoka G8 Accountability Report, while a step in the right direction, left a lot to be desired both in terms of quantity and quality. Hopefully DFID can begin to lead the charge amongst its European counterparts to do better against the promises made at L’Aquila.

Thirsty for food

Oct 15th, 2010 5:11 PM UTC
By Emily Alpert

This post is part of our contribution to Change.org’s Blog Action Day 2010, an annual event that unites the world’s bloggers with the goal of sparking discussion and collective action. This year, more than 3,000 bloggers are writing about water, a global issue that affects everyone.

It’s really hot today and I’m thirsty. Would you pour me an ice-cold glass of food?

Sounds absurd, I know, but achieving a number of development goals –- meeting global food security needs and building better futures (essentially, eradicating poverty) — has a lot to do with water for food. That is, availability and access to clean water for poor people in rural areas that rely on agriculture for their employment, food, nutrition and health.

Growing food requires a lot of water. Globally, agricultural production uses 70 percent of the world’s fresh water. Last time I checked, that’s HUGE, especially when you start to think about water scarcity in regions like the Middle East and parts of sub-Saharan Africa. These places suffer from exponential population growth and quickly changing climates leading to erratic and more violent weather patterns and events.

Already 1.2 billion people face physical water scarcity and 1.6 billion lack adequate access to water. So, the sheer number of people in the world now, plus the 3 billion projected to share the planet and its resources by 2050, definitely adds to the pressure. How are we going to feed, bathe, clothe and employ ourselves as our needs just continue to grow and grow?

By most accounts, it doesn’t have to be a doom and gloom scenario, but it requires that we get smart about how we use water, how we invest in agriculture and how we ensure fair and adequate access to water. So what can we do? Oftentimes, some of the first responses on how to grow more food is to use more water. To a certain point, the more rain you get, the healthier your soils and the more food you can produce.

About 40 percent of the world’s farmland is irrigated, mainly in China, India, the Middle East and the southwest United States -– places where it’s really hot and dry. The rest is rain-fed agriculture. But do we have enough water to irrigate all or even the majority of the world’s farmland? Probably not, if we want to be able to use water for municipal and industrial uses, too. Though investing in small-scale and drip irrigation in rural areas, particularly in Africa, could have tremendous benefits, the potential for improving productivity are enormous.

For instance, in Burkina Faso, a country in West Africa, small-scale irrigation projects and better water management practices helped almost 7,000 small-scale farmers in some regions double their rice yields and their incomes.

Let’s not forget the enormous impact that climate change will have on all of these massively complicated challenges. Most of the world’s poor farmers rely on rain-fed agriculture, and more than 50 percent of our food is grown under rain-fed conditions. As climate change affects how much rain falls, when it falls and where it falls, millions of smallholder farmers are at risk of failed harvests without better-risk management tools, water, soil, land management practices and adaptation to new these new conditions. Climate change could reduce yields in parts of Africa by 50 percent as early as 2020 – that’s only 10 years away!

But what about all the social aspects of access to water? Particularly in rural areas, for women who dominate the number of smallholder farmers in Africa. Improving governance and rights around access to water and other farming inputs in many places will be just as important as investing in the infrastructure and the technology to bringing the water closer to communities and their farms. When women get the same access to resources as men, their productivity is shown to increase by 20 percent. Women on average invest up to 90 percent of their earnings on their families. So, improving women’s growing and earning potential with better access to water can help feed and educate generations to come.

So, let’s not let poor farmers become thirstier for food. Let’s make smart investments now -– in agriculture, in water resource management, in governance, in women’s access –- and eradicate poverty and food insecurity before the food and climate crises get worse with less water for more people.