Feeding hunger and insecurity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. The global response to high food prices: what is being done?been committed by donors. The mobilised loansand grants are being used to support local farmersboost staple food production by purchasingfarming inputs and distributing seed among otheractivities. IFAD technical support is also trying toimprove the sustainability of agricultural practices(UN 2008b).United Nations Children’s FundIn April 2008, executive director, Ann Venemann,announced that UNICEF (2008a) is closely monitoringthe nutrition situation and the impact onfood price increases on women and children.UNICEF’s priority in the current climate of highand volatile food prices is to assist children thatare already malnourished, and prevent the nutritionsituation of affected populations from worsening(UNICEF 2008a).The agency has allocated an additional US$50million to programmes in 41 developing countrieswhere malnutrition poses a serious threatto children and other vulnerable groups (ALNAP2008). UNICEF in Mozambique, for example,was allocated an additional US$3 million in anattempt to scale-up nutrition programmes andcater for the increased needs of children in a climateof high food prices (UNICEF 2008c). Newnutrition programmes to provide supplementaryfeeding to under-fives were established in centraland southern Somalia where high global foodprices compounded the devastating effects of regionaldrought and worsening conflict (UNICEF2008d).Coordination between the agencies of the UnitedNations in the design of interventions to mitigatethe effects of high food prices is of primary importance.The overlaps between WFP and FAO andFAO and IFAD must be addressed. This is not tosay, as has been suggested by DfID in the past(International Development Committee 2008),that WFP should focus on immediate needs andhumanitarian assistance, leaving FAO to addressmore long-term food security and malnutrition. Theneed to bridge the lasting divide between relief anddevelopment takes precedence here, but to havethe various UN agencies competing for the sameresources and addressing the same needs is inefficientand constrains progress.A single agenda must be set. In this light, the absenceof UNICEF from the global debates surroundinghigh and volatile global food prices is disturbing.The principle UN body concerned with childmalnutrition, UNICEF’s experience and expertisewill be vital in designing an effective and comprehensiveresponse to the global hunger crisis.5.1.4 The International FinancialInstitutionsThe influence and budgets of the international financialinstitutions (IFIs) make them powerful actorsin the response to high and volatile globalfood prices. Of immediate importance is the abilityof these institutions to provide soft loans to stabiliseeconomies suffering from declining terms-oftradeand scale-up social protection for vulnerablecitizens in areas hit hard by high and volatile foodprices. The World Bank and International MonetaryFund have the power to act as a buffer to thelasting effects of high food prices on poverty anddevelopment.World BankThe World Bank (also known by the formal title ofthe International Bank for Reconstruction and Development)launched rapid needs assessments in40 developing countries and earmarked US$1.2billion for a newly established Global Food ResponseProgramme (not to be confused with theGlobal Partnership) to “provide rapid assistance tothe most fragile, poor and heavily-impacted countries”.The first US$ 200 million has been set asidefor grants to the world’s poorest states and is currentlybeing distributed. Further loans of valuesbetween US$100 million and US$200 million weresupplied to hard-hit nations like Bangladesh andBurundi. In the long-run, the Bank has agreed toboost support to agriculture from US$4 billion toUS$6 billion and double lending to agriculture in42ACF International NetworkFeeding Hunger and Insecurity
5. The global response to high food prices: what is being done?Africa to US$800 million in 2009. Investment loanshave been provided for purchasing agricultural inputs,funding safety nets and compensating forrevenues lost from reducing taxes.Molina and Muchhala (2008) insist the signs aregood. Under the Global Food Response Programme,new operations have been providedmostly as grants with only light conditions attached.Additional funds supplied to existing Bankloans have no additional conditionality, thoughconditions attached to the initial loan remain withoutthe possibility of waiver. Investment loanshave no conditionality, but have ridged directivesfor procurement and sometimes contain suggestedchanges for government policy. However, theremay be limited space for national governments toimplement endogenous agricultural policy.International Monetary FundThe International Monetary Fund (IMF) producedthe most comprehensive assessment of the likelymacroeconomic consequences of rising foodprices in a study covering 146 countries. IMF prescriptionswere strongly neo-liberal, urging statesto eliminate market interventions, such as subsidies,and protect citizens from the resulting impacton livelihoods by investing in social safety nets(Eurodad 2008). The Fund also provided financialsupport to a number of low-income countries, inthe form of grants to reduce gaps in the balance ofpayments. Additional assistance was made availablethrough the Poverty Reduction and GrowthFacility – the IMF’s low-interest lending facility.The Exogenous Shocks Facility, created in 2005to provide rapid and accessible support followingsudden exogenous shocks, has also been employedfor the first time since it was established(Molina and Muchhala 2008).Worryingly, IMF Chief Strauss-Kahn persuadedleaders at the G8 that “inflation should be the topconcern of policymakers confronted by higherfood and fuel prices”. It is of grave concern to ActionAgainst Hunger that food security and nutritionare not considered the principle priority. Furthercriticisms have emerged in work by Eurodad(2008) and Molina and Muchhala (2008).The IMF has only increased lending to existing‘customers’.Conditionality on the fiscal deficit has beenloosened to allow national governments toincrease spending on food. This is unlikelyto signify a permanent change in lendingstrategies.The Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF) wasnot employed quickly enough – delayed fromJune to mid-September.Only the first quarter of funds from the ESFcarry no conditionality. Additional borrowing issubject to the same guidelines as loans givenby the World Bank’s Poverty Reduction andGrowth Facility.The privileged position of the World Bank and IMFshould be exploited, both institutions must make agreater effort to support government interventions,in the South, that protect vulnerable households,while advising against those that will do furtherdamage.5.2 National ResponsesThe popular focus on WFP, the CFA, the HLTFand other similar institutions is distractingattention from the role of national governmentsin developing countries. National and localresponses to the high and volatile global foodprices are often absent in recent discussions. Yet,threats to economic and political security meantthat national governments were far more reactiveto the rising food prices than the internationaldevelopment community – figure 5.3 overleafcategorises the interventions made in early 2008by 104 countries. While governments have beenmore sensitive to the demands of those affectedthan donor institutions, many of the countriesmost affected had neither the finance nor theACF International Network Feeding Hunger and Insecurity 43
Page 3:
Feeding Hunger and InsecurityField
Page 6 and 7: Executive SummaryKey MessagesThe cr
Page 8: executive summarybuffers and greate
Page 11 and 12: List of FiguresFigure 1.1Figure 1.2
Page 13 and 14: List of AbbreviationsACFCARCFACFSCR
Page 15 and 16: © ACF / S. Hauenstein Swan1. Intro
Page 17 and 18: 1. IntroductionFigure 1.2: Map depi
Page 19 and 20: © ACF / S. Hauenstein Swan2. What
Page 21 and 22: 2. what caused the global food pric
Page 23 and 24: 2. what caused the global food pric
Page 25: © Julien Goldstein3. Households in
Page 28: 3. households in crisis: who loses?
Page 31 and 32: 3. households in crisis: who loses?
Page 33: 3. households in crisis: who loses?
Page 36 and 37: 3. households in crisis: who loses?
Page 38 and 39: 4. The Hunger Crisis:4. What Happen
Page 40 and 41: 4. the hunger crisis: what happens
Page 50 and 51: 5. the global response to high Food
Page 52 and 53: 5. The global response to high food
Page 66 and 67: 6. What More is Needed?The global f
Page 68 and 69: 6. what more is needed?non-food nee
Page 70 and 71: 6. what more is needed?Box 7: Hunge
Page 72 and 73: 6. what more is needed?Box 8: Malaw
Page 74 and 75: 6. what more is needed?Table 6.3: T
Page 76 and 77: 6. what more is needed?and local in
Page 78 and 79: 7. ConclusionData from Ethiopia sho
Page 80 and 81: ReferencesAbebe, Y., Stoecker B.J.,
Page 82 and 83: Referencesable at: http://www.iht.c
Page 84 and 85: AnnexesAnnex 1: Real international
Page 86 and 87: annexesAnnex 5: Percentage househol
Page 88 and 89: annexesAnnex 7: Harriss’ typology
Page 90 and 91: A HUNGER WATCH PUBLICATIONhunger Wa
Page 92: ACF INTERNATIONAL NETWORKSiège d
show all

Feeding hunger and insecurity

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?