g8 report 2012

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

1/84

Camp DaviD aCCountability RepoRt

actions, approach and results

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

2/84

G-8 Commitments on HealtH and Food seCurity aCtions, approaCH and results 1

ExEcutivE Summary...............................................................................................................3

chaptEr 1

Food security..............................................................................................................................9

chaptEr 2markets and trade.................................................................................................................27

chaptEr 3

nutrition .....................................................................................................................................33

chaptEr 4global health ...........................................................................................................................45

chaptEr 5

conclusion .................................................................................................................................65

annExES

annex 1: oda Volumes & aid eFFectiVeness .............................................................69

annex 2: health-related g-8 commitments since 2005 ......................................80

annex 3: detailed disbursement updatesFor muskoka commitments ..............................................................................................81

Tabe o Cotets

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

3/84

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

4/84


Camp DaviD aCCountability RepoRtCamp DaviD aCCountability RepoRt

Since 1975, the Group o Eight G-8 has met to discuss and take decisive action on pressing

global challenges. As world leaders committed to achieving results and to the ideals o

transparency and accountability, the G-8 introduced an annual accountability report to mark

the groups progress in implementing agreed-upon actions and commitments.

Among the challenges to which the G-8 has increasingly turned is global economic development:

as an expression o shared humanity and in recognition o the growing interconnectedness o the

world economy and in the contribution o low- and middle-income countries to global economicwell-being. The Millennium Development Goals MDGs introduced clear targets or the world and

encouraged global action, and yet the global ood price crisis o 2007-2008 and the subsequent

economic crisis have demonstrated how ragile development progress can be and how vulnerable

poor people the world over are to economic shocks.

Launched at the G-8 Summit in 2009, the LAquila Food Security Initiative AFSI represents a

shared commitment to act with the scale and urgency needed to help low-income countries

reverse the growing vulnerability o ood and agricultural systems and achieve international

targets to halve hunger and poverty. While global in scope, much o the LAquila eort has ocused

on supporting Arican countries in their eorts to strengthen smallholder armer capacity andbuild ood systems that are more resilient to shocks.

With 2012 marking the end o the three-year nancial pledge period under AFSI, this

accountability report will ocus on the perormance and action o the G-8 in three key areas

related to the initiative: ood security, agricultural markets and trade, and nutrition. Because o

longstanding G-8 commitments to improving global health and the importance o health to

nutrition outcomesparticularly or mothers and inantsthe report also includes a section on

G-8 perormance and actions related to health.

Exectve Smmay

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

5/84

4 G-8 Commitments on HealtH and Food seCurity aCtions, approaCH and results

WhatS nEW?

The Camp David Accountability Report builds upon therecommendations o the Muskoka and Deauville Ac-countability Reports, and adds two tools: rst, a sel-

reported scorecard intended to catalogue indicators oprogress in a specic ocus area; and second, in-depth

reporting tables to give a uller picture o G-8 membersagricultural development and ood security activities in

a set o developing countries, and how well G-8 activitiesare aligned with the plans and priorities o each o thesecountries. This report represents an evolution toward

reporting not only what the G-8 is doing in nancialterms, but how the G-8 is approaching this work using

aid-eectiveness principles to increase its impact.

hoW iS thE G-8 DoinG?

In spite o the constrained global scal environment,

the G-8 is resolute in its commitment to meet globalchallenges. The G-8 is generally on track in realizing the

commitments its leaders have made to ood security andhealth and in increasing the broader eectiveness odevelopment assistance. Although growth in assistance

volumes has slowed with the global economic downturn,G-8 members have already largely met individual targets

or increased aid volumes to Arican countries. Last,improved impact-evaluation capacities are beginning

to track results on the ground, including or women andsmallholder producers. Improved impact evaluation willhelp the G-8 and its partners assess and improve upon

their eorts.

aGriculturE anD FooD SEcurity

As part o the LAquila Food Security Initiative AFSI, lead-ers are committed to increasing assistance or agriculture

and ood security and to taking a comprehensive ap-proach characterized by support or country ownership,eective coordination, the increased use o multilateral

institutions as appropriate, and accountability. Whilenearly one-third o the more than $22 billion pledged at

LAquila was new money, G-8 members are working toadopt the LAquila approach across all o their agricultureand ood security assistance.

The G-8 is making strong progress toward ullling itsnancial pledges under the LAquila Initiative. All G-8

members have either ully committed their LAquilanancial pledges or are on track to commit them by the

end o 2012. Nearly hal o the G-8 members have maderapid progress in disbursing their nancial commitmentsand have ully disbursed their pledges. However, despite

the substantial increases in public-sector unding romthe G-8, other AFSI donors, multilateral development in-

stitutions and developing countries themselves, nationalagriculture investment plans are still underunded by

about hal. While in some cases public nancing couldmore directly support the investment needs identiedin national agriculture investment plans, in almost every

case the private-sector elements o these national plansare disproportionately underunded. This suggests the

urgent need to actively attract private investment to thepriorities identied in national agriculture investment

plans.

Overall, the G-8 has made air progress toward adopting

the LAquila approach in its agriculture and ood securityassistance. The G-8 has made good progress against indi-

cators or supporting country ownership, investments in

science and technology, promoting ood and agriculturaltrade and multilateral engagement, and has made airprogress against indicators or building local capacity andusing a comprehensive approach. The G-8 needs to do

better at targeting women as part o its approach.

FooD commoDity markEtS & traDE

The G-8 actively supports the strengthening o oodcommodity markets and trade because well-unctioningmarkets create opportunities or smallholders to raise

and diversiy their income and contribute to lower andmore stable ood prices. Investing in sound markets is

essential to sel-sustaining private-sector activity in theagriculture and ood sectors, and increasingly the G-8 is

helping to strengthen these markets as part o a compre-hensive approach.

Through eorts to improve agriculture data and supportor processes that have led to voluntary guidelines on

land tenure and principles or responsible agricultureinvestment, the G-8 and its partners are creating better

conditions or private investment in agriculture, strength-

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

6/84



ened markets and increased trade. The G-8 is also provingto be an important champion or public-private part-

nership and helping developing countries mobilize theprivate sector.

nutrition

Global awareness o the importance o nutrition and itsimpact on children and development has grown much

in recent years, and with it, the urgent need to act. Inresponse, the G-8 is elevating the role and importance o

nutrition through leadership, advocacy and action, andis increasingly mainstreaming nutrition as an integralpart o assistance or agriculture and ood security. G-8

members have played a pivotal role in the launch onutrition initiativessuch as the Scaling Up Nutrition

movementat global and national levels, and are invest-ing in a comprehensive set o actions and tools to meet

nutrition needs in partner countries. From 2009 to 2011,the G-8 reports that nancing or nutrition-specic activi-ties increased by 48 percent, to reach $439 million in

2011. For the same period, the G-8 reported that nanc-ing or nutrition-sensitive activities rose by 46 percent, to

reach $2.45 billion in 2011. These gains are signicant, asis the leadership and action o the G-8 to increase aware-

ness, support and momentum or improved nutritionoutcomes. Still, much more needs to be done to helpdeveloping countries meet the MDGs related to nutrition.

hEalth

Through its leadership and ongoing assistance, theG-8 continues to have an enormous positive impact

on improving health and health systems in developingcountries. G-8 members are making steady progress in

aligning health programming with partner-country plans

and priorities and, guided by aid-eectiveness principles,are working with partner countries toward shared resultsand mutual accountability. Central to these eorts hasbeen the role o the G-8 in mobilizing multilateral actors

including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis andMalaria the Global Fund, greater partnership with part-

ner governments as well as the private sector, civil societyand other donors, and an increasing ocus on coordina-

tion across disease-specic eorts. These eorts areessential to transitioning to more sustainable approaches

to health-service delivery or meeting global health chal-lenges. The world now has an opportunity to eradicate a

number o diseases and improve the lives o millions opeople by continuing to support this approach.

The G-8 is well on track to meet its commitments toprovide at least $60 billion to ght inectious diseases

and improve health systems by 2012, to provide at least$5 billion in additional nancing or maternal, newborn

and child health, and to mobilize resources or the GlobalFund. In meeting these and other health commitments,

the G-8 has catalyzed global action and is seeing theseinitiatives deliver: innovative nancing mechanismssupported by the G-8 have raised more than $3.6 billion

since 2006 to help with immunization; the Global Fundhas committed more than $22.6 billion in 150 coun-

tries, providing AIDS treatment to more than 3.3 millionpeople, tuberculosis treatment to more than 8.6 million

and has distributed more than 230 million bed nets toprevent malaria; and, in the 11 years since the Measlesinitiative was established, more than 1 billion children in

over 80 countries have been vaccinated against measlesthrough the Initiative, averting an estimated 9.6 million

measles deaths.

oFFicial DEvElopmEnt aSSiStancE

volumES

At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8 Summit, leaders made na-tional commitments to increase international assistance.

These commitments varied in size, ambition and target

dates. Overall, progress toward these commitments ismixed: G-8 members have largely met commitments to

double aid to Arica, but not all have been able to meettheir individual international assistance targets, including

ocial development assistance ODA targets or someG-8 members. While G-8 members have substantiallyincreased ODA in recent years, more ambitious ODA

targets set by ve G-8 members to deliver developmentassistance at 0.7 percent o gross national income have

seen mixed progress.

In 2011, global ODA volumes reached $133.5 billion, butdecreased in real terms or the rst time in more than adecade. As part o this decline, total G-8 ODA ell in real

terms by almost 1 percent rom 2010. Looking orward,the G-8 rearms its commitment to the worlds poorest

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

7/84


and most vulnerable people. ODA makes a vital contribu-tion to poverty alleviation and to achieving the MDGs

and, with limited ODA growth on the horizon, aid e-ectiveness and the use o aid-eectiveness principles will

play a more prominent role in realizing greater develop-ment impact in the near term.

aiD EFFEctivEnESS

Through the high-level orums on aid eectiveness, theinternational community has agreed on a core set o

eectiveness principles that include country ownership,results-orientation, inclusive development partner-ships and transparency and accountability. The G-8 has

endorsed these principles and denitively incorporatedthem into commitments such as the AFSI and the Mus-

koka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.

While ully implementing these principles will take time,the G-8 and the development community are moving inthis direction. The support or country-owned processes

and plans will be critical. The G-8 has made substantialprogress in building public-private partnerships in the

health sector, and is working with development-partner

countries to do the same in agriculture, nutrition andood security. The G-8 has also made substantial progresstoward untying aid. Some G-8 members have either ullyuntied their aid or have a clear plan or untying additional

aid, and most G-8 members have surpassed the Orga-nization or Economic Cooperation and Developments

Development Assistance Committee OECD-DAC overallweighted average o 86 percent untied aid.

i In this report, unless otherwise noted, reporting is by calendaryear using nancial disbursement in current U.S. currency.

ii In this report, the phrase G-8 members is used to indicate theeight G-8 countries and the European Union. In some instances,commitments are made by G-8 countries only, and are reportedaccordingly.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

8/84



a SnapShot oF G-8 proGrESS aGainSt kEy commitmEntS

AgriCulTurE And FOOd SECuriTY

mz $22 g8 v

aFsi v 99 58 $22 aFsi . a g8 aFsi 2012.

a z v , , .

n g8 90 w w .

m g8 25 .

n g8 v aFsi .

HEAlTH

pv $5 , w v v .

t g8 v .

pv $60 v 2012

t g8 , w v20082010 oda $37 .

mz g F F aids,t m

F 2002 2011, g8 , e u, v $17 , 78 g F.

s g p e iv F 2006 2011, g8 , e u, $2 .

inTErnATiOnAl ASSiSTAnCE

i g8 oda F 2004 2011, g8 oda $31 , ; g8 oda 69 oda oecddac .

F 2011, g8 oda w $92.1 .

g n c . c v z, .

s g8 v v . o w 2010 w 2015 .

g8 oda a g8 v v . F 2004 2010, g8oda a $11.7 , 53 .

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

9/84

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

10/84



Chapte 1: Foo Secty

Ater nearly our decades o steady decline in real

agricultural commodity prices, the cost o ood

began to rise in 2006, increased steadily in 2007, and

shot up so sharply in 2008 that by mid-year, the prices o

some commoditiesincluding staples such as wheat, rice

and maizewere more than double their 2002 price. This

precipitous rise in ood prices drove the number o people

suering rom chronic ood insecurity to over 1 billion or the

rst time in history1 and provoked political and social unrest

in many countries.

Responding to these circumstances, G-8 leaders and other

partners2 at the 2009 LAquila Summit agreed to act with

the scale and urgency needed to achieve sustainable global

ood security and to partner with vulnerable countries and

regions to help them develop and implement their own

ood security strategies and, together, substantially increase

sustained commitments o nancial and technical assistance

to invest in those strategies.

Financial pledges made by the G-8 at LAquila leveraged unds rom non-G-8 countries, so that

donors ultimately agreed to mobilize more than $22 billion over a period o three years, ocused

on sustainable agricultural development, and including over $6.8 billion in new money.3

Recognizing the need or short- and long-term ood security interventions, LAquila partners also

agreed to maintain a strong commitment to ensuring adequate emergency ood aid assistance.

As part o the 2010 Muskoka Accountability Report, G-8 members estimated that about hal o

the LAquila pledge would likely go to agriculture, and the other hal to sectors contributing toagriculture and ood security.4

Commitments made at LAquila importantly extend beyond nancial pledges. Under the LAquila

Joint Statement on Global Food Security,5 signatories agreed to take a comprehensive approach

toward meeting the challenge o global ood insecurity, coordinate more eectively, support

laQuila FooD SEcurity initiativE

We thereore agree to act with the

scale and urgency needed to achievesustainable global ood security. To this

end, we will partner with vulnerablecountries and regions to help them

develop and implement their own

ood security strategies, and, together,

substantially increase sustainedcommitments o nancial and technicalassistance to invest in those strategies.

Our action will be characterized bya comprehensive approach to ood

security, eective coordination, and

support or country-owned processesas well as by the use o multilateral

institutions whenever appropriate.Delivering on our commitments in a

timely and reliable manner, mutual

accountability and a sound policyenvironment are key to this eort.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

11/84


country-owned processes and plans, better engage multilateral institutions, deliver on sustained

commitments and be mutually accountable. These principles, unanimously endorsed as the Rome

Principles or Sustainable Global Food Security at the World Summit on Food Security in 2009 6,

renewed commitments to use aid-eectiveness principles and represent a undamental shit in

the way that donor and partner countries should approach agricultural development. Partners in

the LAquila Food Security Initiative AFSIincluding AFSI donors, partner countries, international

organizations and others2have met semi-annually since 2009 to track progress toward meeting

their nancial pledges and toward their commitment to an approach based on the AFSI/Rome

Principles.

Building upon the work o the 2010 Muskoka Accountability Report MAR and the 2011 Deauville

Accountability Report DAR, this chapter assesses the collective eort o the G-8 and other AFSI

donors toward committing and disbursing AFSI pledges, and toward using an approach based

upon the AFSI/Rome Principles. Complementing this assessment are two new tools: 1 In-depth

tables, completed by AFSI donors, that disaggregate each donors nancial data by partner

country and sector, including examples o programs in-country, metrics used to measure results,

progress to date and narrative examples o how AFSI donors are implementing the AFSI/Rome

Principles; and 2 A G-8 Food and Nutrition Security Scorecard, which provides a ramework

to assess G-8 progress against the AFSI/Rome Principles based on a set o key indicators. The

scorecard uses sel-reporting to assess progress. This chapter also includes preliminary reports

on AFSI eorts in tracking spending on agricultural research or development AR4D and in

managing or development results MDR.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

12/84

G-8 FooD anD nutrition SEcurity ScorEcarD

laq pe: cwed Deee

G See: G8 es g ed wed d se seges d ese s

dg eg d seges d s a, l ae, e ce d as

1 ne id Def u D Se ces

p v w w v.

r: 50% ; yw: 50% ; g: 90% . deto: cv v v .

w

c Eu F Ge1 i2 J rs3 uk4 uSa5

G See: G8 es e deee ss ees d se


t , , v z v w .

r: ; yw: ;g: .deto: t w v ,v , , v, , q

, , . d : z, v, v z v.

w

c Eu F Ge6 i J rs7 uk uSa8

laq pe: Seg cd

G See: G8 es de d se gg, fg d ee e es


p a s Wg w g8 .

r: 50% v ; yw: 5090% v ; g:

90% v .

w

c Eu F Ge9 i J rs10 uk11 uSa12

laq pe: ceese a

G See: G8 es d se gg sss eese w se w

ed/ge jees


p v / .. / v .. v,v v,, v.

r: v 25% ; yw: v + 10% v; g: v

25%. b = v ' l'aq .

w


G See: G8 ees d e ess ed es, ese d sed

ses


e v laq

r: ; yw: v v ;g: , ,v v .

w

c Eu F Ge18 i19 J rs20 uk uSa21

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

13/84


G-8 FooD anD nutrition SEcurity ScorEcarD

laq pe: ceese a

G See: G8 ese eses geee sse d esse ss e d ese

g d sde es


nw v

v v.

r: ;yw: w 5

; g: 5 .

w

c Eu F Ge22

i23

J rs24

uk uSa25

G See: G8 es d se gs e es, ese sdes d we


c jv .

r: jv 80% ; yw: jv 80% ;g: jv 80% .

w


laq pe: Egge me

G See: G8 es eege e ess d ss s c iese ps cips

8 ne id Def u D Se cesn gasFp, v v .

r: , ; yw: 2 , ; g: 3 , .n: gaFsp v ww ..

w



t v , z Fao, iFad,

WFp, . c Fs v w r p w v .

r: w z cFs; yw: w

z cFs; g: v z cFs.

w


lAqa Pcpe: Accotabty a Taspaecy

G See: G8 es ee edge ges & e ee ess


. p l'aq

r: 50% ;yw: 50% :g: 100% .

w

aFsi oecddac

c Eu F Ge i J rs uk uSa

. p laq

r: 20% ; yw: 20% 60% ; g:

60% .

c Eu37 F Ge i J rs uk uSa

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

14/84


inDicator 11 g, 19 21 g q 90.5%

w w v .2 i data used or scoring is bilateral and still preliminary or 2011.3 r j w

.4 uk w 76%, w w w v 9

. W w 100%, , Zw, mzq b, w w / .

5

usa , 95% F F s rvw m s w w v 19/20 .

inDicator 26 yw j g vv

.7 r v ,

v mFa v.

8 usa , q w FtF .

inDicator 39 g, 19 21 q 90.5% g v

w w j vw.

10 r cis v .

11 75% u.k. v . i uk v F s/a uk. i p, , aFsi , w w .

12 usa , 95% FtF FtF w v 19/20 .

inDicator 413 b g 2009 53.25 ,

566.4 . t v 2009 w 31% 2010: 658.2 , 2011 810.5 , 2012 757.5 .

14 i , 2011. tw w : oecddac 16010 s ,

520 d v /F aFsi . t v .

15 i 20092011 r 2008 aFsi.

16 u.k. oecddac 72010, 72040 72050 aFsi uk aFsi . uk 08/09.

17 usa Fy 2009 , mcc usaid , Fy 2010 mcc usaid 48% .

inDicator 518 e g.19 i, aFsi , .20 s 2000, r ldc w w

100% q ldc. r . i 2010

w v .

21 usa , .

inDicator 622 g, g 5

v v. e w a F m e r bmbF w s as sv c c c av l msasscal W a s sv c c c a l u Wascal, w ip r c cip k+sz gh, w i c t a ciat d. p gh, w i i t a iita

ba gh w deg F ig gh & c. kg.

23 i , 2011.24 r ormed partnerships or nutrition policy and agriculture research based

on Russian assistance or ood security-related issues.25 usa , 5 w us v, v

, cgiar a nars 2010.

inDicator 726 g, g 18 21 q 85.7% v

jv w .27 s v, w

w i v jv. W v , w .

28 r v v v z w ..

29 uk jv 82% 9/11 , jv 54% 6/11.

30 usa , 80% FtF FtFms 2011 16/20 .

inDicator 831 g iFad w Fao

.32 r w

Fao, cgiar, W b, unccd, WFp, icdo.33 usa , 5 v

gasFp, iFad, Fao, WFp, W b .

inDicator 934 g v r dv

ev a. b v vv w Fao cFs v v v , .

35 t v , r w WFp, Fao W b v w r p w v .

36 usa , v z cFs.

inDicator 1037 t European Union does not report on AFSI disbursements to the OECD-

DAC. The European Union disburses according to schedules agreed upon with

partner governments. While its AFSI pledge was in terms o commitments,E.U. disbursements made over the AFSI pledging period exceed $1.4 billion 1

billion and contribute to the LAquila targets.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

15/84


Financial plEDGES

AFSI Financial Pledges

Fs Commtte

Funds pledged by theG-8 and others at LAquila

have helped to reversethe decades-long decline

in spending on globalagricultural develop-

ment. All G-8 members,and almost all AFSIdonors, are on track to

ully commit unds toward their nancial pledges by theend o 2012.7 As shown in the AFSI Pledge Tracking Table,

10 o 13 AFSI donors have committed the ull amount otheir AFSI pledges representing over 99 percent o the

total pledge.

Fs dsbse

Since AFSI was launched, civil society and non-govern-

mental organizations have suggested that unds dis-

bursedby AFSI donorsnot unds committedis thebetter measure o whether or not donors are meetingtheir nancial pledges. All AFSI members are making

progress on disbursing their AFSI commitments, and AFSIdonors have so ar collectively disbursed 58 percent othe total AFSI pledge.8 Four o 13 AFSI donors Canada,

Italy, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom haveully disbursed their pledges. While Japan has nancially

committed all o its $3 billion pledge and the UnitedStates has committed more than $2.8 billion o its $3.5

billion pledge, Japan has so ar only reported $326 mil-lion9 in disbursements and the United States has so aronly reported $790 million in disbursements against

these nancial commitments.

The varying speed o disbursement by G-8 membersrefects dierences in institutional approaches to pro-

gram nancing. Dierences in institutional approachescan slow disbursements, but they allow G-8 members totailor support to individual national agriculture priori-

ties and plans, and to support critical non-governmentalpartners, ranging rom local civil society organizations

and communities, to the private sector, to international

institutions, to government ministrieseach importantin their own right or achieving sustainable ood security

outcomes. Additionally, in ollowing through on theirAFSI pledges, G-8 members are investing in a broad set

o countries, each with their own diverse circumstancesand readiness in putting orward a technically-sound andcomprehensive national agriculture and ood security

investment plan, developed through an inclusive, multi-stakeholder process. These diering circumstances and

states o readiness have also, in some cases, resulted inslower disbursements.

G-8 reporting o nancial commitments and disburse-

ments toward AFSI pledges has continued to improve,with almost all G-8 members reporting disbursementlevels this year.10

CAADP11

and Other National Agriculture and

Food Security Plans

In addition to the nancial pledges made under the

initiative, AFSI donors have also agreed to align theirassistance behind the Comprehensive Arica AgricultureDevelopment Program CAADP and other regional and

national comprehensive agriculture-investment plansand priorities that have undergone stringent technical

reviews.

Based on a January 2012 inormal assessment o 30publicly-available national ood security strategies andagriculture-investment plans worldwide that have un-

dergone technical reviews, the average nancing gap orthese plans is about 51 percent, with government con-

tributions accounting or 26 percent and development-partner contributions or 23 percent o this total. Within

this set o national plans, the nancing gap or Aricanplans is about 50 percent, with national government con-

tributions accounting or 29 percent and development-partner contributions or 21 percent. For most plans, thelevel o detail or costs and budget requirements was

airly good. However, publicly-available inormation onnancing commitments or plans was limited and gener-

ally lacked detail. The resource gaps or CAADP and simi-lar national agriculture-investment plans suggest that

considerably more needs to be done to mobilize publicand private resources to ully nance these plans.

MAr recommeato:Ongoing monitoring o

nancial disbursements/

allocations o the LAquilanancial commitment will

remain an important part o

[the AFSI] process. pg. 44

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

16/84



Under the Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food

Security, Arican Union member states agreed not onlyto launch CAADP and thereby create national agricultureand ood security plans, but to increase public invest-

ment in agriculture to a minimum o 10 percent o theirnational budgets and to achieve a growth rate o theirnational agricultural sectors o at least 6 percent. Progress

toward meeting these targets varies country-to-country.By 2010, Arican countries, on average, were spending

6.5 percent o their national budgets on agriculture andhad achieved a 6.7 percent agricultural growth rate.12 G-8

members have long been supporters and advocates orCAADP. AFSI and the support o G-8 members has helpedto propel CAADP and similar national agriculture-plan-

ning processes in a number o countries.

trackinG commitmEntS to

thE aFSi/romE principlES:

nEW toolS

In-depth Tables13

This year, AFSI donors are extending

reporting beyond what was reportedin 2010 and 2011, to include country-

level inormation on each donors AFSIinvestments in agricultural develop-

ment, ood security and nutrition. AFSIdonors14 have reported on investmentsin a subset o developing countries that

represent a substantial portion o eachdonors investments in ood security.15

This inormation, presented in in-depthtables, can inorm coordination eorts,

helping to more ully describe thenancing and programmatic landscapein partner countries and across sectors.

AFSI donors believe that making thesetables publicly-available is a helpul step

toward increasing accountability and the transparency o

G-8 commitments. The in-depth tables identiy many othe partner countries in which AFSI donors are investingand provide details about the amount o AFSI assistance,programs implemented, intended objectives, systems

or managing investments and programs and reportingresults, progress to date and evidence that investments

and programs supportcommitments to the

AFSI/Rome Principles.

While G-8 countries

are still in the processo collecting resultsdata or their programs

on the ground, thisaccountability report

summarizes prelimi-nary ndings on where

and how donors aremeeting their pledges.Future accountability

reports can draw rommore complete moni-

MAr recommeato:Beyond the tracking o

nancial commitments, G-8

countries should continue toocus on supporting eorts

to map broader ood security

activities. pg. 45

dAr recommeato:

The G-8 AWG recommendsimproving transparency o its

aid inormation, particularlyby making progress on

publishing inormation on

allocations, expenditure andresults. pg. 56

country invEStmEnt plan FinancinG SummaryGlobal

Vette natoa Acte a

Foo secty Pas

uSd (mos)

glOBAl

% o cost

glOBAl

c p $ 54,305.23 100%

gv kw c $ 14,070.21 26%

dv p kw c $ 12,464.99 23%

o c $ 340.77 1%

Fg G $ 27,429.27 51%

country invEStmEnt plan FinancinG SummaryaFricaVette natoa Acte a

Foo secty Pas

uSd (mos)

AFriCA

% o cost

AFriCA

c p $ 39,065.31 100%

gv kw c $ 11,069.47 29%

dv p kw c $ 8,656.04 21%

o c $ 44.25 0%

Fg G $ 19,295.56 50%

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

17/84


aGriculturE rESEarch For DEvElopmEnt (ar4D)

Continued innovation is needed to increase agriculturalproductivity, improve nutritional outcomes and achieve global

ood security. Innovation is driven, above all, by investmentsin research and development and by the dissemination

o technology. Numerous studies have demonstrated theeectiveness o agricultural research investments. A meta-

analysis o these studies showed that agricultural research

investments yield a 40 percent rate o return,16 higher than anyother development investment.

At its meeting in February 2012, the AFSI group agreed that greater transparency or spending on agricultural researchor development AR4D would improve the ability to monitor progress on the LAquila commitment and contribute to aideectiveness, including the alignment o AR4D investments with priorities identied in national agriculture plans. AFSI ormed

a working group charged with providing up-to-date inormation on AR4D investments as a component o the overall LAquilanancial pledges or the period 2009-2011.

The working group collected data on unding disbursements or agricultural research covered by OECD-DAC CRS code

3118217 or the years 2009-2011, which allows or a comparable accounting across donors. These data do not refect the total

investment in AR4D by the reporting donors, since many report investments in AR4D under other OECD-DAC CRS codes.Although incomplete, in aggregate the data do suggest an upward trend in unding over the three-year period. The ollowing

suggested actions could urther improve the transparency o AR4D investments:

Greater clarity and consensus on OECD-DAC denitions and country reporting guidelines or agricultural research, policysupport, extension and education OECD-DAC CRS codes 31182, 31180, 31166 and 31181 would improve the ability o

donors to report and assess how and where resources are being invested using existing reporting systems. These issuescould be discussed in the DAC Working Party on Statistics.

Comprehensive assessments o agricultural science and technology investments by developing countries are critical to

ensure donor investments complement existing systems and support the national ood security priorities o developing

countries. This can be accomplished most eectively through strengthening support to the Agricultural Science andTechnology Indicators ASTI initiative and supporting eorts by the Global Forum on Agricultural Research GFAR to

oster dialogue with agricultural research partners at the Global Conerence on Agricultural Research or DevelopmentGCARD.

The agricultural research working group o the GCARD can acilitate an inormation exchange on donor agricultural

research priority-setting processes and a dialogue on approaches or examining aid eectiveness. Continuedengagement among donors and other stakeholders is critical to ensure the complementarity o investments and sharing

o best practices and lessons learned.

Investments in AR4D must be strategically allocated to ensure the greatest benet rom these resourceswhethernancial, in-kind or technicalto CAADP and other similar regional and national plans. Acknowledging the signicance

o the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGIAR investments in AR4D, and the strong

donor support or the CGIAR, the CGIAR system should be ully engaged in ongoing discussions o the prioritization,transparency and accountability o AR4D investments.

Investment in and access to education, research,

science and technologies should be substantially

strengthened at the national, regional and

international level.

LAquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security, 2009

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

18/84



manaGinG For DEvElopmEnt rESultS (mFDr) anD rESultS rEportinG

The Paris, Accra and Busan High-Level Fora on Aid Eectiveness have urged theutilization o an MDR model in development agendas: a management strategy that

ocuses on using perormance inormation to improve decision-making, utilizing

practical tools or strategic planning, risk management, progress monitoring andoutcome evaluation. MDR also encompasses a range o principles, including country

ownership, alignment o donors and accountability or development results, which

are all supported by AFSI. At the September 2011 AFSI meeting in Dakar, Senegal,AFSI members agreed to collectively demonstrate, by means o examples in some

partner countries on a voluntary basis, that the provided resources are managed orresults and that the ulllment o nancial and non-nancial commitments leads to

actual results on the ground. In February 2012, the MDR Working Group reportedagreement on a ramework or initial data collection, including agreement on a set o

common indicators to track progress among pilot country populations in agriculture-

sector perormance and poverty and nutritional status.

In itsAFSI MDR Early Harvest Report: The Case o Ghana, the AFSI MDR Working Group,

chaired by Germany, nds an upward trend in ODA and government spending inGhana between 2002 and 2010, with the ODA share or agriculture and ood security also increasing or this period. Donor

alignment with Ghanaian agriculture and ood security priorities is evidenced by the act that more than 85 percent o aid

is refected in the budget o the Ghanaian Ministry o Food and Agriculture MOFA18, exceeding the targets set in the ParisDeclaration on Aid Eectiveness.19 However, Ghanas Medium-Term Agriculture-Sector Investment Plan METASIP is unded

at only 34 percent. Ghana has met the MDG o halving the proportion o people living in poverty, and agricultural productionlevels have increased at an average rate o 3.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, which exceeds Arican and global averages. It

is too early to assess to what degree these gains are at least partially attributable to AFSI.

Stronger implementation o the AFSI/Rome Principles could help overcome remaining challenges like weak interagencycoordination, rising consumer ood prices concomitant with declining producer ood prices excepting major export

commodities like cocoa and weak links between the METASIP results ramework and budget. The AFSI MDR Working Groupwill produce a nal report at the end o 2012 that will include case studies rom Bangladesh, Ghana, Rwanda and Senegal.

dAr recommeato: . . .

G-8 countries should continueto strengthen their monitoring

and evaluation and to ensurethat the ndings guide

policy, program planning and

investment decisions. pg. 56

. . . relevant institutions

[should] intensiy, together

with interested pilot recipientcountries, evaluations o the

impact o international aid.pg. 56

dAr recommeato:The G-8 AWG recommendsrelevant international

institutions and initiatives

to build common setsand/or understanding o

perormance criteria or

multilateral assistance . . . .pg. 56

toring and evaluation dataor example, in-depth tablesand the AFSI Managing or Development Results exer-

ciseto assess donors individual and collective achieve-ments, in partnership with developing countries.

G-8 FooD anD nutrition SEcurity

ScorEcarD

While the in-depth tables provide a deeper look at whatAFSI partners are doing at the country level, the G-8 Food

and Nutrition Security Scorecard provides an overview

o G-8 progress toward committing to the AFSI/RomePrinciples. The scorecard is sel-scored and assesses the

status o G-8 actions against goals associated with each

AFSI/Rome principle, with scores against key indicatorsgraded on a green-yellow-red scale, representing good

progress, air progress or in need o improvement.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

19/84


trackinG commitmEntS to thE

aFSi/romE principlES

The AFSI in-depth tables and G-8 Food and NutritionSecurity Scorecard allow or greater transparency into the

progress measured by AFSI donors against their commit-ment to the AFSI/Rome Principles.

Country-owned Development

The in-depth tables suggest that G-8 and other AFSI

donors are making progress toward their commitment

to support country-owned plans, in that they are align-ing their bilateral unding and programs with partnercountries own national plans. On the scorecard, all AFSI

donors except the United Kingdom have sel-scoredthemselves green on this commitment.20

Despite increased nancing or agriculture rom nationalbudgets and development partners, and ongoing eorts

to align ocial development assistance with country-owned plans, national agriculture and ood security plans

are underunded. For national agriculture and ood secu-rity plans to be ully-unded and implemented, not onlymust developing countries and development partners

continue eorts to align public investments against theseplans, but they must do a great deal more to encourage

public-private partnership and private-sector investmentaround the outlined development priorities.

By some denitions, country-owned characterizes plansthat incorporate input rom stakeholders other than part-

ner governments and donors, such as the private sector,civil society and non-governmental organizations, armer

cooperatives and other citizens groups. Indeed, i agri-cultural development is to be sustainable and successul,

program planning and implementation must extendbeyond government institutions to include these stake-holders. The G-8 Food and Nutrition Security Scorecard

thereore includes an assessment o how G-8 assistancecontributes to development o local capacity to sustain

improvements in ood security. This goal is trackedby the number o local associations, rms, civil society

organizations or local government entities applying newagriculture and ood security-related best practices andtechnologies. As a group, the G-8 has sel-scored next-to-

lowest against this indicator. All G-8 countries except Ja-pan and the United States both green have sel-scored

yellow, meaning that the donors collect data against theindicator but do not disaggregate these data by type o

organization.

Strategic Coordination

The in-depth tables and the scorecard suggest that

the G-8 and other AFSI donors are making progress incoordinating their investments and programs in partnercountries. In addition to meeting with AFSI partners and

various working groups throughout the year, almost allAFSI donors are participating in country-led, donor-co-

ordination working groups. However, without an agreedmeans or measuring impact, it is dicult to determine

how increased donor participation in these workinggroups at the country level is enhancing the impact o

programs under national agriculture plans.

The in-depth tables reveal the large number and geo-

graphic diversity o countries beneting rom AFSIinvestments. AFSI donor investments reported in the

in-depth tables are spread across 42 partner countries.Going orward, it is important to ensure that coordination

continues to be strengthened around support o nationalagriculture and ood security plans in countries where

multiple donors are active, with due consideration toleveraging regional progress through actions in neigh-boring countries.

Comprehensive Approach

The in-depth tables and scorecard suggest that donorsare taking a more comprehensive approach to improving

ood security by providing unding that complementsdirect investments in agricultural development and nutri-tion, and that meets short- and long-term ood security

needs. One indicator or a comprehensive approach onthe scorecard asks whether G-8 members are taking a

twin-track approach o addressing short-term needs,while simultaneously unding medium- and longer-

term development. Most G-8 members have sel-scoredgreen, indicating that they have increased assistance orshort-term ood security needs and longer-term develop-

ment over pre-AFSI levels by more than 25 percent.

The commitment to a comprehensive approach also callsor research investment that generates sustainable and

accessible solutions or smallholder armers, especially

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

20/84



women. According to sel-reporting in the scorecard,almost all G-8 members have ormed research partner-ships to benet smallholder armers and nearly all have

objectives related to women in at least our o ve part-ner countries. However, the G-8 sel-scores lowest on the

scorecard or promoting the participation o armers, es-pecially smallholders and women. Only Canada, Germany

and the United States sel-score green, suggesting thatthe majority o G-8 members could do better at collect-ing sex-disaggregated data and, in some cases, integrat-

ing gender objectives into their work.

The inormation available in the AFSI in-depth tablesallows the opportunity to explore whether the collective

approach o AFSI partners in any one partner coun-try meets the AFSI/Rome Principles o alignment withcountry plans, strategic coordination and adoption o

comprehensive approaches. Vietnam and Mozambiquerepresent two o many examples where G-8 investments

are working together across a range o sectors and arealigned with priorities outlined in national agriculture

and ood security plans.

g-8 Acto: Coty Exampes om the i-epthrepot Tabes

In Vietnam, France is upgrading and modernizingthe management o the Bac Hung Hai irrigation and

drainage system; Canada is investing in irrigation, aswell as agricultural extension services, small-scaleinrastructure to increase household dairy, rice and

cattle production, and climate change resilience; andJapan is using a value-chain approach to improve

irrigation management, transport inrastructureand the post-harvest production and marketing o

agricultural products.

In Mozambique, the United Kingdom invests in

land rights and the sustainable and equitable useo resources and in the Beira Agricultural GrowthCorridor;21 Japan unds the improvement o

transport inrastructure and research capacity orthe Nacala Corridor,22 and implements agricultural

development projects there under the Japan-Brazil-Mozambique Triangular Cooperation on the

Tropical Savanna Agricultural Development Program,aiming to promote sustainable agricultural and ruraldevelopment; Canada has provided support to the

Ministry o Agriculture and other partners in theagriculture and rural development sector, and hasworked to improve agricultural production through

the dissemination o new technologies, improvedmarket linkages, rehabilitation o irrigation schemes,

strengthened armers associations and improvedland management; Italy promotes commercial

agro-livestock and local economic development inManica and Soala provinces by increasing income-generating opportunities or armers amilies,

and associations o producers, manuacturers and

traders, improving the sustainable management onatural resources and strengthening the planningcapacities o local authorities; and the United States

concentrates investments in improved agriculturalproductivity oilseeds, pulses, cashews and ruit andnutrition.

Engaging Multilateral Institutions

The AFSI in-depth tables suggest that AFSI partners aremore likely to co-nance projects with development

nance institutions like the World Bank than they are toco-implement programs with operational and techni-cal agencies like the World Food Program WFP and

the Food and Agriculture Organization FAO. This is notto say that the work o these technical and operational

agencies is unsupported. On the contrary, G-8 memberscontribute to and coordinate with the work o these

technical and operational agencies, and are acting toimprove upon their long-standing cooperation. Forexample, the European Union has signed a statement o

intent with the three Rome-based agencies WFP, FAOand the International Fund or Agricultural Development

IFAD, aiming to improve coordination with them andto continue to capitalize on their technical expertise and

their presence in some o the worlds most challenging

environments. The scorecard underscores this point, withG-8 members all reporting eorts to advance the AFSI/

Rome Principles and country ownership through a num-ber o multilateral institutions and to nance multilateral

mechanisms that support national ood security plans.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

21/84


partnEr country ExamplE: Ethiopia

G8 countries actively collaborate in support o key national agriculture and ood security programs in Ethiopia. The United

States and Canada support Ethiopias Agriculture Growth Program AGP through investments designed to spur agriculturalgrowth, strengthen linkages o smallholder producers to markets, build institutional capacity and improve nutrition and health

care services. The United Kingdom is currently developing a new strategy o assistance to Ethiopia and, as part o this strategy,is exploring ways to support the AGP through parallel systems. Germany, Canada and France provide support to Ethiopias

Sustainable Land Management Program to reduce land degradation in the highland regions, improve agricultural productivity

and increase the resilience o rural populations against the eects o climate change. The European Union also supportsprograms in livestock and agricultural marketing, and implements a range o livelihood-support projects in droughtprone

areas through the European Union Food Facility. Japan recently initiated a program aimed at strengthening the resilience opastoralists. G8 investments are complementary, covering geographically-diverse regions and representing a comprehensive

set o actions intended to reduce vulnerability and promote agricultural productivity or smallholder armers and pastoralists.G-8 members actively participate in relevant donor working groups to help coordinate their work with the EthiopianGovernment and local stakeholders. From 2009 to 2011, the Rural Economic Development and Food Security Working Group

was co-chaired by Canada and the European Union; together with other partnersincluding Italy, which channeled undsthrough the FAO specically or this purposethe working group supported the CAADP process in Ethiopia. This resulted in

the development and revision o an Agriculture Sector Policy and Investment Framework, as well as reviews o the fagship

programs o Ethiopia: the Productive Saety Net Program PSNP, the Sustainable Land Management Program SLMP and theAgricultural Growth Program AGP.

To better align assistance behind national and regional resilience-investment priorities, the Arican Union, the

Intergovernmental Authority on Development IGAD, Italy Chair o the IGAD Partners Forum, the United States, the EuropeanUnion, Germany, Japan and other partners participated in the Joint IGAD Ministerial and High Level Development Partners

Meeting on Drought Resilience in the Horn o Arica in April 2012. There, participating governments and institutions agreedto orm the Global Partnership Alliance or Drought Resilience and Growth and an associated Regional Development Partners

Group to mobilize and align resources behind a common ramework or action to strengthen resilience in the Horn o Arica

and to coordinate their eorts within IGADs Regional Platorm.

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the European Union, in collaboration with other donors, also support

the Food Security Program FSP, which is an integral part o the Country Investment Plan. The FSP oers six months o publicworks employment opportunity to over 7 million chronically ood-insecure people in rural areas o six regions. The FSP also

provides these arm amilies with access to agricultural extension services, with improved inputs and markets being developed

in key value chains including honey, livestock and cereal crops. The FSP productively invests the labor o these 7 million peopleand contributes to agricultural productivity and growth. For example, the FSP public works build check dams and water-

harvesting structures, arm-to-market roads and bridges and address underlying causes through activities such as watershedrehabilitation. The armers in the communities are then able to produce more with the extension advice and inputs that they

access through the program

G-8 support is helping to improve ood security and resilience in Ethiopia. In mid-2011 to early 2012, the Horn o Aricaexperienced its worst drought in 60 years; yet, the scale o the humanitarian disaster, while tragic, was not the worst the region

had experienced in 60 years. Government-led eorts with donor support to improve the resilience o smallholder subsistence

armers and pastoralists in the Horn o Arica improved the ood security status o millions o people who were better ableto cope with the eects o the drought and, as a result, did not need emergency assistance during the acute phase o the

drought. While we cannot yet credit specic G8 eorts with specic outcomes in the Horn o Arica, the new data oered inthe indepth tables help illuminate the types o programs receiving G8 investment in countries like Ethiopia that contribute to

drought preparedness and resilience.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

22/84



Accountability and Transparency

The G-8 has improved transparency around its commit-

ments through the introduction o an annual account-ability report at Muskoka. The evolution o the report to

include the AFSI in-depth tables and the G-8 Food andNutrition Security Scorecard, and the eorts o the AFSIMDR, are indication o the commitment o the G-8 to

greater transparency and accountability. The AFSI in-depth tables show that AFSI donors are developing indi-

cators to measure and report on progress at the countrylevel data on these indicators are still being collected,

which will be a welcome complement to the evolving seto assessment tools used or the accountability report.

Among G-8 members, the European Union uses itsResults Oriented Monitoring System to annually review asignicant number o E.U.-unded projects, with reviews

made available to project stakeholders. So ar, only theUnited States has developed a publicly-available results

ramework that links indicators with specic objectivesand goals.

FinDinGS

The G-8 is making good progress toward meeting itsnancial pledges to ood security. All G-8 members

have either ully committed their LAquila-pledgedunds or are on track to commit them by the endo 2012. For AFSI G-8 donors in the aggregate, only

about 1 percent o the AFSI pledges are uncommitted,while 25 percent o the pledge period remains. Nearly

58 percent o the AFSI unds are disbursed.

Developing countries are owning their agriculture

and ood security plans, in that, on average, thesegovernments are providing the largest resource

share to nancing these plans. According to inormaldata collected, developing-country governments areproviding, on average, 26 percent o the nancing

resources or plans. The average nancing shareattributed to donors is 23 percent globally.

Despite signicant increases in public-sector undingor agriculture and ood security made by developing

countries, the G-8 and AFSI partners and multilateraldevelopment institutions, reporting suggests that

national agriculture and ood security plans areunderunded by about hal.

Private-sector-appropriate elements o national

agriculture and ood security plans remaindisproportionately underunded, suggesting the

urgent need to attract private investment to thepriorities identied in these plans.

Overall, the G-8 has made air progress towardadopting the AFSI/Rome Principles. The G-8 has madegood progress toward supporting country ownership,

investments in science and technology, promotingood and agricultural trade and multilateral

engagement; and has made air progress toward

developing indicators or building local capacityand using a comprehensive approach. The G-8acknowledges the need to better target women aspart o its approach.

Eotes

1 In 2010, this number dropped slightly to 925 million, due partlyto some stabilization in ood prices SOFI 2010 http://www.ao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pd. Due to an ongoingrevision o the methods it uses to calculate numbers o ood-insecure and malnourished individuals, the Food and Agriculture

Organization did not report a number or 2011.2 Non-G-8 AFSI signatories include pledge donors underlined:

Algeria, Angola, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, India,Indonesia, Libya Presidency o the AU, Mexico, The Netherlands,Nigeria, China, Republic o Korea, Senegal, Spain, South Arica,Turkey, AU Commission, FAO, IEA, IFAD, ILO, IMF, OECD, UNHLTF,WFP, World Bank, WTO, AGRA, CGIAR, Global Donor Platorm orRural Development and GFAR.

3 Additional to previously-planned expenditures and representingspending plans above the baseline.

4 As part o the Muskoka Accountability Report, G-8 membersestimated that just over hal o the total G-8 pledge would go toagriculture, with the other hal going to agriculture- and oodsecurity-related activities, including transport and storage 22percent, development ood aid 8 percent, rural development4 percent, nutrition 3 percent, saety nets 2 percent andother activities 8 percent. G-8 members also estimatedthat assistance would go to multilateral institutions throughvoluntary core contributions, trust unds and earmarks 10percent.

5 http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/LAquila_Joint_Statement_on_Global_Food_Security%5B1%5D,0.pd.

6 tp://tp.ao.org/docrep/ao/Meeting/018/k6050e.pd.

7 The United States is on track to committing the remaining 23percent o its pledge by the end o FY 2012.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

23/84


8 Looking exclusively at G-8 AFSI donors, the G-8 has disbursed49 percent o its total $15.2 billion pledge; the European Unionhas not reported its disbursements and thus was not included ineither the disbursement or total G-8 pledge calculation.

9 This amount only includes Japans disbursements or 2010.

10 The European Union disburses according to schedules agreedupon with partner governments. While its AFSI pledge was interms o commitments, E. U. disbursements made over the AFSIpledging period are signicant and contribute to the LAquilagoals.

11 Under the auspices o the Comprehensive Arica AgricultureDevelopment Program CAADP o the New Partnership or

Aricas Development NEPAD and the Arican Union AU, 30countries have completed their CAADP consultation processesand have signed compacts with the main stakeholder groups. Othese countries, 23 have developed detailed Country InvestmentPlans and conducted preliminary costing and nancing analyses.The Country Investment Plans are designed with the objectiveo spurring signicant agriculture sector growth CAADP goalo 6 percent annual growth to benet smallholder armers andreducing rural poverty across the continent, with a particularocus on women. These plans will be nanced by targetallocations o 10 percent o national budgets to agriculture, inaddition to contributions rom donors, the private sector and, insome cases, non-governmental organizations.

12 http://www.resakss.org/.

13 The in-depth tables are available with the online version o the

Camp David Accountability Report.

14 In-depth tables were submitted by Canada, the EuropeanUnion, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, the UnitedKingdom and the United States. Russia, Australia and TheNetherlands did not submit in-depth tables.

15 The number o partner countries on which donors reportedin-depth inormation was determined by the donor governmentitsel, i.e., the term signicant was donor-dened. Partner-country investments reported in in-depth tables account or40 percent o the total pledge or the countries that providedtables; multilateral and other aligned investments are alsoreported in the tables under Other.

16 Alston, J., C. Chan-Kang, M. Marra, P. Pardey, T. Wyatt, A Meta-Analysis o Rates o Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede

Herculem? IFPRI Research Report 113, Washington, DC, 2000.17 OECD-DAC CRS code 31182 Agricultural Research is dened

as: plant breeding, physiology, genetic resources, ecology,taxonomy, disease control, agricultural bio-technology;including livestock research animal health, breeding andgenetics, nutrition, physiology.

18 One o the Paris Declaration PD targets or alignment is that atleast 85 percent o aid fows are aligned on national priorities.

This indicator was calculated as the ratio o: agricultural budgetsupport disbursed by donors to agricultural aid allocations orGhanas Ministry o Food and Agriculture as specied in thenational budget or the same years. The ratios were ound toexceed the 85 percent PD target, indicating that agricultural aidis well aligned with priorities o Ghanas Ministry o Food andAgriculture.

19 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pd.

20 U.K. programs in South Sudan and Zimbabwe rom 2009 to 2011were not directly connected to country-owned ood securitystrategies as such national strategy did not yet exist. In Nigeriathe Department or International Development DFID programis currently developing a new agricultural program which will

be aligned with the Federal Ministry o Agriculture and RuralDevelopments Agricultural Transormation Agenda ATA. TheUnited Kingdom also invests in non-Arican country-ownedplans outside o the CAADP system.

21 The BAGC is an innovative public-private partnership launchedin early 2010 that aims to create new rural jobs and raisesmallholder arm incomes through coordinated investmentin agribusinesses and smallholder outgrower schemes. It issupported by the Government o Mozambique, the Allianceor a Green Revolution in Arica AGRA, the United Kingdom,the Norwegian Government, the World Economic Forum, theHewlett Foundation, the NEPAD Business Foundation and YaraInternational. BAGC will use donor resources to leverage largevolumes o socially- and environmentally-responsible privateinvestment to the agriculture sector, which will reduce poverty,

achieve value or money and ensure long-term sustainability.22 The objectives o the Nacala Road Corridor Project, which alls

within the Southern Arican Development Communitys SADCpriority projects in the NEPAD-STAP program, are to i provideMalawi, Zambia and the interior o Mozambique with roadtransport linkage to the port o Nacala and improve transportservices through reduction in transport and delay costs atborder crossings; ii improve sustainability o investments bycontrolling axle loads; and iii improve the accessibility o thecommunities in the zone o infuence to markets and socialservices and contribute to the reduction o poverty.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

24/84

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

25/84


notes, By doo:

AuSTrAliA:

a gaFsp . i v .

i ,a , ..,

WFp $140 , w .

t , , v b w . t 2012/13 v f ww a p.

t 2012 2013.

CAnAdA:

c aFsi v dac 031100s v v .

c v iFad, cgiar W b gasFp.

c v 2008/9 2010/11; a13, 2012.

t aFsi + c aFsi w 311.

EurOPEAn uniOn:

e w $304 w , v .

o 1 e.u. F F 200911, 450 w 2009.

FrAnCE:

t F F s s g p

a, F s n, 2008.

V c iFad, Fao, oie W o a h, W b, cgiar, WFp. a v ad v v . ov v, ngo .

gErMAnY:

a g $3 v .

t , . t w . i w v , w .

m c dv F a: 2010,2011 2012 v.

b c dv F a: v 2010, 2011 2012 q .

d v laq.

t v , , v.

d v crs 43040 w v.

t 2011 2012 .

iTAlY:

2011 v. c

m F a . m v Fao, iFad, cgiar, WFp,

ciheam, iao, unccd. c v v , w v, uniceF, Who, undp .

d v e tF.

c t & s 210 aFsi, w o 30% v w140 v 410 50% v v v.

JAPAn:

J us$ 3 311 210. bw

v . 2011 v.

b F312, F 313, n 12240, . .

t , . t w .

i w w J .

t t aFsi + J w v .

nETHErlAndS:

t n v , oda 10% w . a j

, w v , w v .

t f w dac/crs .., e . n v crs ,.. , ngo, v v .

t t aFsi + n w v .

ruSSiA:

i w r , 2009 laq, $191

. i , , $330 v 20092011, w v.

r WFp, W b F p c, r r, icdo. rv Fao, cgiar. b a, lv/v v, F a/F s dv,a .

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

26/84


SPAin:

t s f p m laq, v 1 hlm F s a, m, J 2009.

t s w 20092012 dv m p,

10% oda 2012. t 2.2 1.7 20092011.

e W b g a F s p.

t t aFsi + s v .

SWEdEn:

F v , v .

t t aFsi + sw v .

uniTEd KingdOM:

t v

2011/12 m 6, 2012, w w 2011/12 . m 2011/12 , v. F 2011/12w v 2013.

m 2010/11 v, w j vaFsi , 2009/10 v 2010/11.

V W b, a dv b, adv b, Fao, iFad, cgiar u.n. . e e c.

t u.k. aFsi + dac c 12240 n, 31210 F p a 31220F dv, w w u.k. .

uniTEd STATES:

u.s. Fy 201012 o 2009 s 2012.laq v j u.s. c z . d u.s .c , Fy 2010 laq v 2010 Fy 2011 v s

2011. t Fy 2012 usaid J 2012.

a f Fy 2010 Fy 2011 m 8, 2012 u.s. gv laq . p w , jv u.s. v v, F F. t v u.s. gv v oecddac .

a F F , $93.5 Fy 2010 $81.7 Fy 2011, u s w laq .

t u s v , $684 dac v Fy 2010 $881 Fy 2011.

hwv, u s w laq.

F v f v v Fy2010 Fy 2011, m v v . i u.s. , v v Fao, iFad, uniceF; , , b c. t u s v z V c , u s w u.s. laq.

t aFsi + w jv F F, w u.s.

laq w u.s. laq .., v , , v / .

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

27/84

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

28/84



Chapte 2: Makets a Tae

responding to the 2007-2008 global ood price

crisis, the 2008 G-8 Summit in Hokkaido-Toyako

called or a range o collective actions to increase

global ood security. Underlying these actions was a

recognition that a well-unctioning agricultural and

ood market and trade system is essential or global

ood security. In the area o trade and markets, thesummit called or the urgent and successul conclusion

o an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced Doha

Round, the removal o ood export trade restrictions

and the development o open and ecient agricultural

and ood markets.

Over the ollowing year, a G-8 ood security experts group elaborated on these commitments,

reporting back to the G-8 with amplied recommendations and ndings. In addition to reiterating

the messages o Hokkaido-Toyako, the experts group noted the importance o rejecting

protectionism, encouraging the development o integrated agricultural markets, supporting

a rules-based system or international agricultural trade, making signicant improvements in

womens and smallholder armers access to markets, and continuing G-8 support to strengthen the

capacity o developing countries to participate in and implement international trade agreements.

Well-unctioning commodity markets and trade create

opportunities or smallholders to raise and diversiy

their incomes, and contribute to lower and more stable

ood prices. Investing in sound markets is essential to

sel-sustaining private-sector activity in the agriculture

and ood sectors.

The 2009 LAquila Summit reinorced the commitment

o the G-8 to strengthening ood and agricultural

markets and trade by identiying increased and open

agricultural trade fows and ecient markets as part o

its comprehensive approach to supporting agriculture

and global ood security. Leaders at the summit

hokkaiDo-toyako markEt & traDE

commitmEntS

The urgent and successul conclusion o an

ambitious, comprehensive and balanced DohaRound.

The removal o export restrictions and the

introduction at the WTO o stricter disciplinesto curb such policies, particularly as they hinder

humanitarian purchases o ood commodities.

The development o open and ecient

agricultural and ood markets and themonitoring o the unctioning o such markets

by relevant agencies.

laQuila markEt & traDE commitmEn tS

National and regional strategies that promote

the participation o armersespeciallysmallholders and womenin community,

domestic, regional and international markets.

The commitment to open markets and the

rejection o protectionism.

The monitoring and analysis o actors

potentially aecting commodity price volatility.

The reduction o agricultural trade distortions

and restraint in imposing new barriers totrade and investment, or in imposing WTO-

inconsistent measures, to stimulate exports.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

29/84


also repeated the call or an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced conclusion to the Doha

Development Round.

Linking trade and markets to the LAquila Summits denitive pledge to substantially increase

investment in agriculture, leaders committed to supporting national and regional agricultural

strategies that increase armers access to markets, support open ood and agricultural markets,

monitor and analyze actors aecting commodity price volatility and reduce agricultural trade

distortions.

In addition, leaders at the LAquila Summit linked these commitments in trade and marketdevelopment to urther commitments to improve access to inormation, promote enabling

business environments and increase investment in rural inrastructure.

collEctivE actionS

Since the Hokkaido-Toyako and LAquila Summits, a num-ber o signicant collective initiatives have been under-

taken to promote ood security through market devel-opment and open trade. In many cases, these initiatives

have been launched through the support o the G-20 orthe United Nations, but their endorsement by the G-8,

coupled with $22 billion in public investment in agricul-ture and rural development through the LAquila Food Se-curity Initiative AFSI, is helping to ensure their successul

contributions to global ood security and nutrition.

The Agricultural Market Inormation System AMIS,launched in Rome in September 2011, provides a

platorm or sharing agricultural data and improving itsquality, reliability, accuracy, timeliness and comparabil-ity, particularly regarding the production, consumption

and stock levels o wheat, rice, maize and soybeans.Housed at the Food and Agriculture Organization FAO

in Rome, AMIS combines data rom the G-20 and at least

seven other major agricultural producing and consumingcountries. This pooled inormation will promote greatermarket eciency and mitigate uture commodity pricevolatility.

The 2011 Cannes G-20 Summit took a rst step toward

meeting the collective commitments o both the G-8and G-20 to end the use o restrictions and extraordinary

taxes on the export o ood. At Cannes, the G-20 agreedthat ood purchased or non-commercial humanitarian

purposes by the World Food Program WFP would not

be subject to export restrictions or extraordinary taxes.Sel-reporting rom the Food and Nutrition Security

Scorecard shows that all G-8 members have either elimi-nated restrictions and extraordinary taxes or humanitar-ian ood aid, or that they were never introduced. While

the G-20 commitment represents a positive development

that will ease constraints on humanitarian ood deliveries,it leaves the preponderance o global ood trade subjectto the harmul eects o ood export restrictions. Eorts

will thereore need to continue in the G-8 to press or theelimination o such policies.

The expected endorsement in May 2012 o the Volun-tary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance o the

Tenure o Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context oNational Food Security, conducted through the United

collEctivE actionS For markEtS & traDE

Sharing agricultural data on production, consumption

and stocks through AMIS.

Commitment to end export restrictions andextraordinary taxes on humanitarian ood aid.

Support or the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible

Governance o Tenure o Land, Fisheries and Forests.

Support or the consultation process o the Principles o

Responsible Agricultural Investment.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

30/84



Nations Committee on World Food Security, representsanother important collective action that holds promiseor improved markets or ood production. Inadequate

land tenure law has been a undamental impediment todevelopment and agricultural investment by small- and

large-scale producers in many countries. Adoption andimplementation o the Voluntary Guidelines by these

countries can lead to their emergence as more ecientand productive ood producers, and can thus contributeto global ood security.

Drated by a set o international organizations at the

request o the G-8, and complementary to the VoluntaryGuidelines, the Principles o Responsible Agricultural In-

vestment PRAI, derived rom the 2009 G-8 Summit andendorsed by the G-8 and the G-20, is a urther mecha-nism to encourage agricultural investment, serving as a

guide or responsible practices by both governments andinvestors to ensure sustainable agricultural practices and

development models that promote the interests o localpeople, including women and smallholder armers. G-8

members and other parties remain engaged in a processleading to a broad-based outcome on responsible agri-cultural investment based on PRAI in the Committee on

World Food Security, supporting parallel, ongoing relatedwork by international organizations.

bilatEral actionS

Through bilateral and regional cooperation programs,G-8 members have advanced a number o initiatives

to oster trade and strengthen market development.These include programs that acilitate access to broader

national and international markets or smallholder arm-ers and rural entrepreneurs, especially women; programs

that work with national governments to improve policiesand enable environments to support agricultural trade

and investment; programs that increase the access oagricultural producers and rural entrepreneurs to nanceor trade; and programs that promote the development

o regional markets. Many o these programs are imple-mented in cooperation with other donorsincluding

public-private partnershipsand all aim to align withpriorities established by the beneting countries. Despiteincreasing bilateral assistance to strengthening local, na-

tional and regional markets and trade, we have not seen

the infux o private-sector investment needed to result inrapid growth in markets and trade.

g-8 Acto: Exampes o Maket Access oSmahoe Fames a ra Etepees

Canadas Agriculture Sector Supply Chains project in

Mali increases womens access to markets throughincreased production and marketing capacity o

womens groups working in agriculture supply chains.With the aim o bringing an additional 21,000 tonso agricultural goods to market, the project has

acilitated investment in women-owned businessesand increased nancial returns or women-owned

cooperatives. Canadas Market-Based Solutions orImproved Livelihoods project in Ethiopia aims to

increase the incomes o 6,500 households engagedin rice production using a value-chain approach. Theproject aims to increase competitiveness through

capacity-building and the strengthening o linkagesamong key actors including input suppliers, armers,

processors and marketers. In Senegal, CanadasAgricultural Market Development Program improves

distribution systems and inrastructure and builds the

capacity o export-oriented organizations. Since 2002, the European Union has enabled small

cotton producers in Mali to compete in global marketsby supporting niche production and marketing o

organic Fair Trade Mali Cotton. The initiative hashelped producers organize in cooperatives with

a special ocus on empowering womenwhoconstitute 30 percent o the cotton armersand

has helped establish a local body, the MouvementBiologique Malien MOBIOM, to ensure production

standards and strengthen member cooperativesaccess to national and international markets.

Germany, in cooperation with the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation and private enterprises, supportsthe Competitive Arican Cotton Initiative and the

marketing o the Cotton made in Arica label.Through this program, 325,000 cotton smallholder

armers and their amilies in Benin, Burkina Faso,Ivory Coast, Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia have

increased their income rom cotton by 30 to 40percent. Similarly, in cooperation with the Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation and private enterprises,

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

31/84


Germany supports the Arican Cashew Initiativein Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Ghana andMozambique. The initiative has trained 204,000

armers who benet rom better market accessthrough a direct link with processors and exporters.

Improved market inormation, better quality andhigher production under the program have led to an

average annual income increase o $70 per armer,and the development o local processing has created2,700 jobs, 75 percent o which are held by women.

Japans Small Holder Horticulture Empowerment

Project in Kenya, whose scaled-up second phaseis being implemented, helps small-scale armersincrease their income by changing their priorities

rom producing rst and marketing second tomaking eorts to produce marketable and better-

quality crops. The project addresses womens rolein arming and arm management and encouragesa changed relationship between men and women

within the household rom one arm manager andone arm laborer to an equal arm management

partner. As a result o the project, the average incomeo 2,500 household armers 122 armer groups has

doubled. Japan also supports the Coalition or AricanRice Development CARD, aimed at doubling rice

production in Arican countries over 10 years by 2018.CARD unctions as the platorm or the collectiveaction o all stakeholders, including donors, research

institutions, non-governmental organizationsand private institutions. The CARD initiative has

demonstrated the importance o recognizing therelative advantage o each stakeholder and the

coordination to maximize investment impact, ratherthan rigidly dening limited approaches or assistanceschemes.

In cooperation with non-G-8 donors, The United

Kingdom unds the Making Markets Work or the PoorM4P program, which improves access to marketsor the worlds poorest people, acilitating economic

growth, wealth creation and income generationthrough private-sector development. Focusing

on the development o producer-to-consumersystems, M4P has applications in Bangladesh, Nigeriaand elsewhere. In sub-Saharan Arica, the United

Kingdoms Food Retail Industry Challenge Fund

helps producers o ruits and vegetables gain directaccess to European markets. The und connectsArican growers with global retailers in partnerships

that remove blockages to market access and inormsEuropean shoppers that their purchases benet poor

armers. The program is active in 11 sub-Saharancountries, in product chains including coee, tea,

a chocolate drink, resh produce, berries, juice andsmoothies, fowers, tilapia and vanilla.

Italys Agricultural Value Chains in Oromia projectis increasing the productivity and quality o two

traditional products in Ethiopiadurum wheat andwild coeeand improving opportunities or privateinvestment. The project introduced new cropping and

post-harvest practices, and is building the marketingcapacity o key stakeholders, research, extension and

regulatory institutions, and armers organizations. Theproject is establishing new business links betweenarmers associations and the pasta industry, helping

meet demand rom local pasta makers. Twenty-sevencooperatives and ve armers unions10,000 armers

in allbenet and contribute to economic growthand development through the project. In 2011,

ourteen o the participating cooperatives producedabout 9,000 quintals o high-protein wheat, and the

production target in 2016 is a hal-million quintals.The Oromia Regional Agricultural Research Instituteprovides technical support to stakeholders and ast

assessment o grain quality, and promotes new seed-certication schemes.

A key pillar o the U.S. Feed the Future Initiative isincreasing market access or smallholder armers.

Through this initiative, the United States has increasedthe value o incremental sales collected at the arm

level in 2011 by over $81.6 million; the value ocommodities exported as a result o U.S. assistance

through this initiative is nearly $650 million. Aspecic example o these programs is Ethiopian meatexports. USAID programs designed to increase the

productivity and competitiveness o the dairy sectorhave helped to increase Ethiopian meat and live-

animal exports by 72 percent, and milk productionand sales among USAID-assisted producers increasedby $1.2 million between 2010 and 2011.

7/30/2019 G8 Report 2012

32/84



g-8 Acto: Exampes o Foste EabEvomets o Acta Tae a ivestmet

Germanys Private-Sector Development Program inKenya and Market-Oriented Agriculture Program in

Ghana both ocus on enabling small- and medium-sized agricultural producers and ood processorsto better integrate into national and international

markets. In addition to working with producers andprivate-sector associations, the programs include

cooperation with governments to improve political,legal, administrative and inrastructural rameworks to

oster agricultural investment. Through the U.S. Feed the Future initiative, the United

States is working with countries to identiy andaddress policy bottlenecks to agricultural production,trade and investment. As a way to promote trade in

West Arica, USAID has been supporting eorts toreduce bribes at border crossings. In 2011, this work

contributed to a reduction in bribes along tradecorridors between Ghana, Burkina Faso and Benin,

including reductions o 70 percent on the Techiman-Kantchari maize corridor, 40 percent on the Kantchari-Accra onion corridor and 15 percent on the Fada

Ngourma-Parakou livestock corridor.

g-8 Acto: Exampes o Tae Face

Launched in 2011, Germanys Arica Agriculture Tradeand Investment Fund provides investment nanceor agricultural value chains, including support or

trade development. The und provides risk capitaltailored to the conditions o the particular value chain

supported, while aiming to achieve developmentimpacts o poverty reduction, job creation and

increases in productivity, production and quality.

Renewed in 2009 at a level o 30 million or

g8 report 2012

Documents