Fo Food for though ght Review of the Dutch food security policy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
fo food for though ght
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Fo Food for though ght Review of the Dutch food security policy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 21, 2022 22 likes •226 views

Fo Food for though ght Review of the Dutch food security policy 2012-2016 Ferko Bodnr, IOB Food Security Exchange Wageningen, 31 May 2018 1 Presen entation o n outline ne 1. Food security, the global challenge 2. Dutch food security

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Fo Food for though ght

Review of the Dutch food security policy 2012-2016

Ferko Bodnár, IOB Food Security Exchange Wageningen, 31 May 2018

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Presen entation o n outline ne

  • 1. Food security, the global challenge
  • 2. Dutch food security policy
  • 3. IOB evaluation methodology

Effects: 4. Smallholder production and income

  • 5. Access to nutritious food
  • 6. Enabling business environment
  • 7. Food security
  • 8. Efficiency
  • 9. Coherence
  • 10. Recommendations

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

1.

  • 1. Food s

d sec ecur urity, t , the he gl global c cha hallenge

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 % population Poverty (<USD 1.90 a day, 2011 PPP; % of world population) Undernourishment (calories, % of population, world) Stunting (% of children under 5, world) Overweight (BMI>25, % of population developing countries)

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Reduce hunger and malnutrition Feed the world beyond 2050

SDG 2.1 end hunger 2030 SDG 2.2 end malnutrition 2030 SDG 2.3 double production and income small- scale farmers SDG 2.4 sustainable food production systems SDG 2.5 agro- biodiversity maintained and accessible Objective 2 access to nutritious food eradicate hunger and malnutrition Objective 1 increased sustainable production (a) inclusive growth ag. sector (b) sustainable food systems Objective 3 enabling business environment Global challenges SDG Dutch food security policy

2.

  • 2. D

Dut utch policy obj bjec ectives and co contribution to to SDG2 G2 and globa bal challeng enges es

4

Implicit principles and assumptions in Dutch policy

  • Emphasis on farmers with potential to produce for the market.
  • Inclusive: directly or indirectly food insecure people will benefit.
  • Improved income will result in improved nutrition.
slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • Reconstruction food security policy
  • Analysis 248 food security activities (2012-2016)
  • Grouping food security activities under 11 ‘impact pathways’:

similar strategy towards a policy objective.

  • 4 country studies:
  • Qualitative, food security programme
  • Quantitative, project impact at farm household level
  • Review project evaluations done by others (Dutch projects)
  • Review broader literature

5

  • 3. IOB E

Evalua uation m n met etho hodo dology

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

farmer income farmer production sustainable production

  • 1. Agric. Research
  • 3. Value Chain Development
  • 4. Natural Resource Mgt
  • 2. Farmer Extension
  • Large impact in

the long term

  • Benefits of a few
  • utweigh the cost
  • f all
  • Crucial link to

research

  • Intensive: OK.
  • Dependence on

government?

  • Varies: from very

positive to nil effect.

  • Link to research and

extension

  • Integrated, farmers

central, most promising

  • Inclusiveness?
  • Balance private – public

interests?

  • More productive

use of land and water.

  • Stability
  • Long term effect ?
  • Little attention in

design, and M&E

  • 4. Fou
  • ur

r pathways t to

  • agri

gricultural p prod

  • duction

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Exampl ple: S Safal, v value c chain d n dev evel elopm pmen ent B Bang nglades desh

Goal: Improving food security of >50.000 dairy, horticulture, and aquaculture farmers Activities: 1. Organise farmers for collective buying and selling. 2. Help in negotiations. 3. Train farmers to increase productivity and quality. 4. 1300 landless to become service providers. 5. Nutritional awareness and knowledge. Effect on income

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2014 2016 land owners farm income per houshold per year (USD) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2014 2016 landless project control

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

consumption of nutritious food nutritional status access to nutritious food

  • 5. Social safety nets
  • 6. nutrition awareness

and behaviour

  • 7. Food fortification
  • 5. Three p

pathways t to better n nutrition

  • Target most

vulnerable

  • Improved food

access and consumption

  • Target most

vulnerable

  • Hygiene and

preparation

  • Mass fortification

cheap, large reach

  • Improved

consumption

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • 10. farmer
  • rganisations
  • 8. rural

roads

  • 11. policy

dialogue

  • 9. land tenure

security

6.

  • 6. Four

ur pa pathways f s for an ena n enabling busi business ss en environment

  • Market

integration

  • Investment in

agriculture

  • Affordable

food

  • Off farm

employment

  • Land rental

market

  • Investment in

agriculture

  • Access inputs

and technology

  • Market access
  • Public policies
  • Private standards
  • Investment in ag.

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

stability in food access and availability food access biological utilisation of food food availability

  • bjective 2

access to nutritious food

  • bjective 1

increase sustainable production eco-efficient land mgt. consumption nutritious food farmer income farmer production water, sanitation, child and health care

7.

  • 7. Contribut

bution to to food

  • od s

securi rity

“… … when en all peo eople, a at all tim imes, h have … acce ccess to … … nutritious food

  • od for
  • r a

a healthy life…” …”

(World Food Summit, 1996)

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

From agricul cultur ural p produc uction n and i nd income e to to improved n nutrition?

Pay day!

Judgment criteria food security:

  • Availability: +
  • Access: +
  • Stability: ?
  • Utilisation: +/-
  • Inclusiveness: +/-

Nutrition effects agric. development (Value chain development in particular)

  • Type of product? (nutritious?)
  • Who are the producers? (women?)
  • What market? (informal?)
  • Who are the consumers? (BoP?)

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Months adequate food access:

8 9 10 11 12 2014 2016 land owners 8 9 10 11 12 2014 2016 landless project control

Exampl ple: S Safal, v value c chain d n dev evel elopm pmen ent B Bang nglades desh

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • 8. E

Effici cienc ency

1. Costs – benefits, or cost effectiveness

  • Quantified benefits?
  • Safal: benefits farmers exceed project costs.

2. Little evidence of synergy:

  • Innovations scaled up in large programmes?
  • Cascape and AGP in Ethiopia

3. Public private partnerships:

  • Leverage private sector finance and knowledge, potential large reach.
  • Conditions to assure additionality and inclusiveness?

4. Operational and management costs

  • High fragmentation (248 activities); geographical and organisational isolation.

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

partner country Dutch food security programme MASP needs local population national policy Dutch policies food security policy

  • ther dev.

policies EU policies embassy- managed centrally- managed

  • ther donors

C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 7 C 6 C 5

9.

  • 9. Coherenc

ence

C5. Improve coherence within Dutch food security programme C6. Improve coherence between food security and other policies  Important role for Dutch embassies

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

11.

  • 11. Reco

commendations

1. Flexible approach: small innovations and large scale programmes. 2. Distinguish farmers types: stepping up, stepping out, hanging in. 3. Food system approach: from production to consumption. 4. Value chain approach for sustainability challenges. 5. Fewer activities. 6. Quantify benefits, to steer for efficiency. 7. Study conditions for additionality PPP; enabling environment. 8. Create more synergy between food security activities 9. Address multiple constraints and divide tasks

  • 10. Give Dutch embassies a larger role for a coherent programme.

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

40-50% net food consumers; most income form off-farm work and remittances 3-15% regularly selling; 20-30% occasionally selling into markets 1-2% Commercial farmers

Recommenda endation 2 n 2: D Disting ngui uish sh differen ent types pes o

  • f farmer

ers

  • 1. Stepping up

Farmers with potential to produce for the market. Commercially viable. Interesting for value chain development.

  • 2. Stepping out

Farmers (children of) that find employment outside smallholder farming (agro sector, other sectors). Private sector development, education.

  • 3. Hanging in

Subsistence farmers with little commercial potential and few options

  • f other employment. Focus on

production and nutrition, rather than income.

(Andrew Dorward, 2009)

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Recommenda endation 3: 3: Food s d system ems a s app pproach ( (1) 1)

Food insecurity analysis 1. Who and where are food insecure consumers? 2. Characteristics food insecurity? (availability, access, stability, utilisation) Food system analysis 3. Where do food insecure people currently get their food from? 4. What does the food system look like? (production, market) Food security strategy 5. How can food systems be improved? Role for nut. sens. agriculture? 6. How to assure that food insecure people benefit, directly or indirectly

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Food consumption Household food production (food/cash, diversity, nutritional value, $value) Farm income Food purchase Food sales Food availability Food prices Farm gate prices Food consumption Income

Consuming household Producing household Market (processing, trade)

Agricultural development Market development

  • A. Direct effects on farm households
  • B. Indirect effects on all households

Income Nutrition awareness

Recommenda endation 3 3 Food s d system ems a app pproach ( (2) 2)

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Private sector development Value chain development Employment for youth

New Policy Note ‘Int. trade and dev. cooperation’, 18 May 2018 Example: integrated programme around cities in the Sahel

Recommenda endation 6: 6: Syner ergy bet etwee een activ ivit itie ies

Climate Water Agriculture Food

Combine SDGs ‘Co-location’: one project does not have to do all, coordinate (Marie Ruel) 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • Half the IOB evaluation team: Rob Kuijpers
  • Four evaluation teams for the country studies:
  • Bangladesh: Jan Joost Kessler (Aidenvironment),

Philip de Jong (APE), a.o.

  • Ethiopia: Pernille Sorensen (Ecorys), Erwin Bulte

(WUR), a.o,

  • Rwanda: Chris Elbers (AIID), Bas Warmenhoven

(PWC), a.o.

  • Uganda: Menno Pradan (AIID), Bas Warmenhoven

(PWC), a.o

  • IOB colleagues: Ruerd Ruben, Wendy Asbeek

Brusse, Antonie de Kemp, Henri Jorritsma, Rita Tesselaar, Jan Bade;

  • Reference group: Ken Giller and Inge Brouwer

(WUR), Koen Hendriks MoFinance), Johan Gatsonides and Hans Brand (EZ/LNV), Marcel Vernooij, Robert Jan Scheer, Jeroen Rijniers, Bert Vermaat, Hannah Thijmes (MoForeign Affairs)

  • WUR students nutrition: Anita Bake, Malou

van Meijl

  • Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters (KIT), support since

the systematic review;

  • F&BKP organising this event: Nicole Metz,

Vanessa Nigten, Malou van Meijl, and several

  • thers…

Tha hank nk y you,

and s nd so many othe hers:

20

Photo: Laurent Umans