THE NEED FOR UK ACTION ON GLOBAL HUNGER - Enough Food IF

23 January 2013THE NEED FOR UK ACTION ON GLOBAL HUNGER1

front cover image: Ouma weeds hercrops in Guidan mOussa, Niger. In 2009,poor rains in the arid country causedwidespread crop failure. Grazingland also dried up, which killedor weakened millions of animalsthat people depend on for theirlivelihoods. By 2010, more than halfthe population had no food reservesleft, and high prices left many peopleunable to buy food. sOme 200,000children needed treatment for severemalnutrition.Save the Children for the IF campaign.image right: A twice-weekly vegetablemarket in the town of Bara Gaon,India. The price of staple foods suchas rice and vegetables have risenthroughout India in recent months.

© OXFAM for the IF campaign.contentS3

executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5introDuction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15The exTenT of hunger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17If There Is enough food for everyone, why so much hunger? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181. a coSt-effective inveStment: small-scale aGriculture and nutritiOn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211.1 The ImporTance of supporTIng susTaInable and small-scale agrIculTure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221.2 The collapse and recovery of aId To agrIculTure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.3 aId for nuTrITIon – neglecTed poTenTIal, neglecTed resulTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251.4 developed counTrIes’ faIr conTrIbuTIons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.5 survIvIng The sTorms – fundIng for clImaTe change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.6 polIcy recommendaTIons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292. reveaLing tax DoDgerS: enaBlinG develOpinG cOuntries tO raiserevenue tO invest in tacklinG hunGer and fOOd security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .312.1 how Tax havens facIlITaTe Tax dodgIng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.2 shInIng a lIghT on Tax havens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342.3 a global rebooT on Tax haven acTIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.4 The uK’s commITmenT To clamp down on Tax dodgIng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.5 polIcy recommendaTIons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393. LanD to groW fooD: ensurinG fair and sustainaBle use Of landsO it cOntriButes tO fOOd and nutritiOn security, GrOwth anddevelOpment that Benefits pOOr peOple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403.1 acquIrIng land, grabbIng land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.2 food should be for eaTIng: The demand for bIofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.3 polIcy recommendaTIons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484. Seeing cLearLy: imprOvinG transparency and citizen participatiOnin decisiOn-makinG tO ensure that puBlic and private investmentsprOmOte fOOd security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494.1 seeIng clearly whaT Is happenIng To land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504.2 seeIng companIes’ acTIons clearly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514.3 seeIng your governmenT’s acTIon clearly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534.4 polIcy recommendaTIons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55concLuSion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56referenceS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57image right: Beatrice Quayee, a cashfOr-wOrkparticipant, transplantsrice in river Gee cOunty, liBeria. cashfOr-wOrkis availaBle frOm mOndaytO saturday, and all wOrkers are paidus$3 per day. wOrk starts at 8am andends at 4pm (Or earlier if the tasks arefinished), with an hOur fOr lunch. thefarmers tend tO their Own fields Oncethe jOBs are cOmplete.4

© OXFAM for the IF campaign.Executive Summary

executive Summary‘the future DepenDS onWhat We Do in the preSent.’(GANDHI)‘We have the meanS; Wehave the capacity toeLiminate hunger from theface of the earth in ourLifetime. We neeD onLy theWiLL.’ (JOHN F. KENNEDy, 1963)all around the world, a quiet andmomentous change is happening –people are lifting themselves out ofpoverty. In the past 10 years morethan 50 million children have startedgoing to school in sub-saharan africa,while deaths from the great killer,measles, have fallen by almost 75 percent. 1 we are some way along oneof the most important roads humanbeings have ever travelled – the roadtowards ending extreme povertyfor everyone, everywhere. we areat a tipping point. we could be thegeneration to ensure every woman,child and man gets a fair chanceat life.There is still, however, a yawninggap. There is enough food in theworld to feed everyone, yet one ineight women, men and children goto bed hungry every night. 2 eachyear, 2.3 million children die frommalnutrition; 3 women are more likelyto go hungry compared to men. Thereis enough food to feed everyone, butthe majority of those going hungryare small-scale farmers. women, whorepresent 60-80 per cent of smallscale farmers, often have their rightsto land denied. 4 There is enough foodfor everyone, but people cannotafford to buy it. food prices haverecently been at their highest indecades and are increasingly volatile;and in developing countries, poorpeople often spend as much as threequarters of their income on food.even in the uK, many hardworkingpeople struggle to find the money tofeed their families, with high foodprices compounding the effects ofthe economic crisis. and our climateis changing, making our global futureincreasingly uncertain.some countries have made enormousstrides towards reducing hunger.The proportion of hungry people inethiopia fell from nearly two thirdsto under half, and in malawi from 45to 23 per cent, in just a decade. 5 butthe world as a whole is failing badly.we promised at the millennium thatby 2015 we would halve hunger, butthere is little prospect of keepingthat promise.by failing now, we are failing futuregenerations: by 2025 nearly a billionyoung people will face povertybecause of the damage done to themnow through hunger and malnutrition.yet, no one need be hungry ormalnourished. getting enough ofthe right food gives people theirfuture and builds the potential for allsocieties to prosper – and there arereal opportunities to make progresstowards eradicating hunger. If weact to ensure small-scale farmers –women and men – can keep hold oftheir land to grow food; if we crackdown on tax dodgers depriving poorcountries of resources to ensurethe right to food; if we work forglobal agreement on new sourcesof climate finance; if all of this isunderpinned by transparency, ruleof law and strong institutions; and ifwe fulfil our existing commitmentsof aid to developing countries andinvest enough of this in agricultureand nutrition – then the world has achance to end the scandal of hunger.6

The uK has a golden opportunity toplay a leading role in making thishappen. while one country cannotdo this alone, in 2013 the uK holdsa plethora of global leadership rolesand can lead by example, by changingsome of its own policies. The uK willbe chairing the g8 meeting and afood and hunger summit, setting theagenda and tone for global action. atthe same time, the world will begin14%OF ALLWOMEN,MEN ANDCHILDRENGO TO BEDHUNGRYEVERYNIGHTto debate a new set of developmentgoals to set the ambition and visionfor the fight against poverty overthe next decade. The uK primeminister is playing a lead role aspanel co-chair advising the secretarygeneralof the united nations onthe successor framework to themillennium development goals. TheuK is also chair of a key forum ontransparency, the open governmentpartnership (ogp). all these positionsthat the uK is holding on the globalstage provide opportunities for actionin 2013: an imperative that mustbe seized.and the uK has the ability tolead, particularly as 2013 is theyear the government will meet itscommitment to fulfil a 43-year-oldglobal promise on aid: the first G8nation ever to do so.global hunger is a crisis. but crisespresent opportunities – and whatopportunity for leadership could bemore compelling than the chance tomake real progress towards endingglobal hunger? we must seize it.The prize of doing so would be huge– both in terms of the differencesmade to the lives of the hundreds ofmillions of people who will tonightgo to bed hungry, and to the globaleconomy. Tackling child malnutritionalone could add us$125bn to theglobal economy each year by 2030.if there iS enoughfooD for everyone,What can be Done toreDuce hunger?... the uK can LeaD theWorLD in meeting ouraiD commitmentSaiD SaveS thouSanDSof LiveS each DayThe uK’s commitment to meetingits promise to spend 0.7 per centof national income on aid is acrucial part of meeting a rangeof development goals, includingtackling hunger and food insecurity.In addition to tackling the structuralcauses of hunger, it is estimatedthat achieving a world free fromhunger would cost us$42.7bn ayear in agricultural investment,while addressing the scourge ofmalnutrition would cost us$10bn.by honouring existing commitmentsto fund agriculture and providinghalf the funding 6 required to tacklemalnutrition, g8 countries couldsupport economic growth through7

investing in small-scale farmers,particularly women, and in child andmaternal nutrition. If all developedcountries met the decades-oldpledge to provide just 0.7 percent of national income in aid, theabove investment would easily beachievable. Significant progressshould be made towards this targetin 2013. The remaining financingneeded to tackle hunger andmalnutrition would be financed bydeveloping countries, from their owntax revenues.The uK government is, laudably,on track to meet its 0.7 per centcommitment in 2013 and it is crucialthat part of this finance is investedin interventions that prevent hungerand malnutrition. however, to ensurethat our national commitment to theworld’s poorest people is sustainedinto the future, it is also importantfor the uK government to enshrine0.7 per cent aid in law without delay.… inveSt in SmaLL-ScaLefarmerStargeting inveStmenttoWarDS Women farmerS,to proviDe them With aSequaL acceSS to reSourceSaS men, couLD reDuce thenumber of hungry peopLeby up to 150 miLLion 7small farms provide food for astaggering one third of the humanrace; over half of the world’sundernourished people live on andwork these farms. 8 Instead of beingsupported, small-scale farmers – bothmen and women – are all too oftenbeing deprived of their livelihoods.This danger is compounded forwomen who already struggle forequal access to land and otherresources. supporting small-scalefarmers is an incredible opportunityto reduce hunger, reduce poverty andincrease productivity. 9In addition to public policies,investment is also important.countries that spend more publicmoney on agriculture tend to reducehunger more. 10 public fundingprovides small-scale farmers withtechnical advice, cheap creditfor better-quality seeds or toolsand access to markets, and allowsthem to get better prepared forwhen weather shocks strike. simplytargeting investment towards womenfarmers to provide them with asequal access to resources as mencould reduce the number of hungrypeople by up to 150 million. 11yet aid to agriculture collapsed inrecent decades, from 17 per centof all aid in 1980 to under four percent in 2006. 12 since then, there havebeen a number of g8 initiatives – forexample, the 2009 l’aquila Initiativeand the 2012 new alliance for foodsecurity and nutrition – but these fallfar short of what is required. To helpreach the ambitious goal of endinghunger by 2025, established by theun secretary-general’s Zero hungerchallenge, we need to take stepstowards closing the 51 per cent gapin country agriculture investmentplans (us$27.43bn), for whichdonors would be responsible for half(us$14.65bn). The uK’s share forsupporting this would be us$662m[£425m] per year, 13 which could comeout of the uK’s aid budget.... inveSt in nutritionthe earning potentiaL ofmaLnouriSheD chiLDrenunDer five iS LiKeLy to bereDuceD by nearLy onequarterright now, children’s lives aroundthe world are being blighted bymalnutrition. by not getting theright nutrition, their developmentis irreversibly stunted. yet weknow what works to stop this:health workers promoting exclusive8

eastfeeding and handwashing;children and pregnant women takingmicronutrient supplements; access toclean water and sanitation; schoolsproviding nutritious food. but likeagriculture, this is an area that hasbeen overlooked in recent decades.a relatively small amount ofinvestment could make a hugedifference in this area. It is estimatedthat some countries lose 2–3 percent of their potential gdp becauseof under-nutrition. 14 recent researchsuggests that children under five whoare malnourished today are likely tosee their earning potential reducedby almost a quarter. 15Just us$10bn a year could providea package of measures to improvenutrition that would reach allmothers and children who need helpin the 36 countries that carry 90 percent of the world’s undernourishedchildren. The countries would payhalf this cost, with donors investingus$5bn. The uK’s share would beunder us$232m [£149m] a year.… finance theaDaptation to cLimatechange that iS maKing itharDer to groW fooDcLimate change couLDhaLve crop yieLDS by 2020in Some african countrieSclimate change is starting to increasethe frequency of extreme weatherevents – from floods to droughts– spreading disease, underminingcrop and livestock production, andaffecting water supplies, and in somecases causing irreversible damage.crop yields from agriculture arelikely to fall dramatically becauseof climate change – by up to halfby 2020 in some african countries,and by up to nearly a third by 2050in parts of asia. 16 further to this,extreme weather events could causeunpredictable food price spikes,disastrous for the poorest people.The global community has promisedmoney to help poor countries dealwith climate change, including toreduce greenhouse gas emissionsand support people to deal with itsimpacts. many governments includingthe uK have said they will contributetheir share, and the global greenclimate fund has been set up. butprogress has been glacial: the fundwas announced over three years agobut is still not up-and-running andhas no finance. Even worse, it looksvery likely that climate finance willdecline from 2013. This is particularlyfoolhardy, as delay now will meanvastly more cost later.Climate finance needs to beadditional to aid, and therefore new‘innovative’ sources of finance havea crucial role to play. a promisingsource for this purpose is carbonpricing of international shipping.… enSure companieS Donot DoDge the tax theyoWe, So that moneythat iS currentLy beingSiphoneD off from poorcountrieS iS inSteaDinveSteD in tacKLinghungertacKLing the corporatetax gap in DeveLopingcountrieS WouLD raiSeenough money to Savea chiLD’S Life every SixminuteS.Public finance is crucial tocombatting hunger, and taxes arethe most important, sustainable andpredictable source of finance for allgovernments including in developingcountries. african countries withbroader tax bases have lower levelsof undernourishment. 17however, multinationals are able toavoid paying taxes due in developingcountries, particularly by using taxhavens, creating artificial corporatestructures to shift profits away9

from the real locations of economicactivity. The sums involved are large.The oecd estimates that developingcountries lose three times more totax havens than they receive in aideach year. 18 This undermines theability of poor country governmentsto lead their own fights againsthunger, and reduces citizens’confidence in their governments’ability to provide for them.dealing with developing countries’corporation tax gap alone could raiseenough public revenues to save thelives of 230 children under the age offive every day. 19Tax haven structures allowunscrupulous companies andindividuals to hide the proceeds ofcorruption or evade tax while thebeneficiary of this fraud is hiddenfrom tax authorities and police.shining a light on this secrecy,through a new transparencyconvention, would help developingcountries to collect tax forinvestment in challenging hunger andto pursue corruption effectively.despite the rhetoric, existinginitiatives to stem tax dodging inthe uK and on the global stage,mediated through recent g8 andg20 meetings, have left the problemlargely untouched. developed anddeveloping countries alike havebecome increasingly vocal on theneed for root and branch reform ofthe international tax system. weneed to reboot international actionagainst tax haven secrecy at the 2013g8, and ensure that the uK puts itsown house in order first, making sureour own tax regime makes it harderfor uK companies and individualsto dodge their due taxes in thedeveloping world.… prevent farmerSfrom being forceDoff their LanDan area of LanD the Sizeof LonDon iS being SoLDor LeaSeD in DeveLopingcountrieS every Six DaySprivate investment in developingcountries has major potential as animportant driver of development,and some companies are doing theright thing in poor countries: such ascreating jobs and training farmers toimprove yields; getting produce tomarket; upholding workers’ rights;respecting rights to land and water;and avoiding overburdening smallscalefarmers with risks. however,as foreign investors do deals on largeamounts of land in poor countries –an area the size of london is beingsold or leased every six days – thesedeals are all too often leading toharmful ‘land grabs’ that are forcingfarmers and communities off theirland. land deals have boomed since2008, when global commodity pricerises made land more profitable.Around a fifth of farmland in Senegaland sierra leone, nearly a third inliberia and over half in cambodiahas been acquired by companies.The speed and scale of growthin large-scale land acquisitions isoutpacing the ability of governmentsto oversee this adequately, leadingto poor people losing out in far toomany cases.The right kind of investment canbenefit small-scale producers, butthe current wave of land dealsis ‘damaging the food security,incomes, livelihoods and environmentfor local people,’ according to a unanalysis. 20 women are particularlyvulnerable, given their lack ofrights to land, unequal voice andrepresentation in decision making.Impacts on women are also likely tobe more severe, being less educatedand having fewer economic assets.shockingly, rather than supportingdomestic food production, aroundtwo thirds of foreign land investorsintend to export everything theyproduce on the land. 21 currently muchland is being left idle as investorswait for the value to increase,planning to resell.This issue needs to be tackled byglobal players. The world bankhas a particular role to play inpreventing irresponsible ‘land grabs’,as it supports much investment inthis area. The uK can use its g8presidency to make progress. It10

the unique opportunityto act on hungerAll this adds up to a global foodsystem of rigged rules and deepinequalities that allows a fewto make billions while leavinghardworking poor farmers –especially women and theirchildren – and vulnerable andordinary people everywhere toface the highest food prices ina generation.markets are part of the solution, butas uK prime minister david cameronhas said, this does not mean ‘a naïvebelief that all government has to dois to step back and let capitalism rip’.making the market work well for allrequires effective government action.Tackling hunger from its veryroots cannot be done through asilver bullet. but 2013 provides animportant opportunity for the uKto take the lead in making changesin four areas – aid, land, tax andtransparency – that would start tomake real inroads into the problem.2013 will not be the end of hunger,but it could be the beginning ofthe end.as the uK prime minister has said:‘It is only when people can get ajob and a voice that they can takecontrol of their own destiny and builda future free from poverty.’ however,a person cannot get to this point ifshe is weakened by constant gnawinghunger, if she falls ill because herbody does not have the nutrients itneeds, if she is spending all she hason healthcare for her undernourishedchildren, if she cannot access theresources she needs to earn moremoney on her land, or if her land istaken away from her. It doesn’t haveto be like this – there is enough foodin the world for everyone. The uKmust act, while the global stage isours – it is the right thing to do, andit is possible. 2013 can be the year wechange the future.the uK can LeaD the WorLD to Start enDinghunger During 2013…… if the uK LeaDS the WorLD to inveSt inSmaLL-ScaLe farmerS, nutrition anD cLimateThe UK government should:a) Ensure the G8 makes stridestowards a world free fromhunger, by:• Mobilising Developmentassistance committee (dac)donors to commit to fundingthe 51 per cent gap in countryagriculture plans, includingthe comprehensive africaagriculture developmentprogramme (caadp), asdetailed in the 2012 g8accountability report(us$27.43bn). donors areresponsible for half of the total(us$14.65bn). donors shouldalso undertake to help supportthe development of newcountry plans for thosecountries yet to get involved,and that no good plan shouldnot be implemented for wantof resources.• Making commitments to supportcountry plans submitted byscaling up nutrition countries(for a package of direct nutritioninterventions) on the scale ofus$5bn per year until 2015.The UK contribution toachieving this should be to:• Fulfil existing commitments tospend 0.7 per cent of nationalincome on aid by 2013 and bringforward legislation in or beforethe 2013 queen’s speech.• Commit to spend at least anadditional us$661.7m per year[£425m] in sustainable small-12

scale agriculture to achievefood security for over 418,500people annually.• Commit to spend US$232.3m[£149m] per year to prevent childand maternal malnutrition in the36 high burden countries.b) Ensure finance is mobilised forclimate adaptation• Push for global agreementon mobilising new sources ofclimate finance, additional toaid, in particular by taking a leadon agreeing the delivery of aneffective and fair internationalshipping mechanism.• Demonstrate commitment toother innovative sources offinance for climate change,and encourage those who havecommitted to mobilising newsources of finance to investthese in tackling climate change.• Agree that 50 per cent of globalclimate finance will be allocatedto adaptation, prioritisingdelivery through direct access –particularly through the greenclimate fund on which the uKhas a board seat.… if the uK LeaDS theWorLD to enabLecountrieS to raiSetax revenue to tacKLehungerThe UK government should:a) Change UK rules to help ensuredeveloping countries receivethe taxes they are due• Introduce a requirement inthe uK’s disclosure of Taxavoidance schemes regulationsfor companies and wealthyindividuals to report their useof tax schemes that impact ondeveloping countries.• When such schemes arerecognised under these orother mechanisms, notifydeveloping countries’ taxauthorities, and assist in therecovery of that tax.b) Take a lead on improving globaltax transparency• Launch a Convention on TaxTransparency at the g8, toreinvigorate the global challengeto tax havens. The conventionwould prevent companies andindividuals from hiding wealth,by initiating a global standard forpublic registration of ownershipof companies and trusts.• Push tax havens to sign theconvention on Tax Transparencyand join the convention thatsupports multilateral exchangeof tax information. commit totaking countermeasures againsttax havens that fail to participateby the end of 2013.• Introduce country-by-countryreporting for all sectors withinthe g8’s jurisdiction and pushfor country-by-country as a newglobal accounting standard.… if the uK LeaDS theWorLD to enSure fairanD SuStainabLe uSeof LanDThe UK government should:a) Work to improve governance oflarge-scale land acquisitions• Push for the World Bankto review the impact of itsfunding of land acquisitionson communities and theenvironment, and change itspolicies to make sure theyprevent land grabs. world banklending involving large-scale landacquisitions should be frozen forsix months to provide space tostart this process.• Put land grabbing on theagenda of the g8; promote g8action to improve governance,transparency and accountabilityin land agreements; and pressfor g20 discussions on this issue.13

• Push for implementation ofall relevant aspects of theun voluntary guidelineson land tenure, and ensurerenegotiation of the principleson responsible agriculturalinvestment at the uncommittee for food securityreflects the fact that goodinvestment must work forpoor communities.b) End support for damagingbiofuels policies• Scrap the UK target to have fiveper cent biofuel in transport fuel.• Lobby for zero land-basedbiofuel to count towards theeu’s 10 per cent renewableenergy in transport target, andfor the true scale of carbonemissions from biofuels to beaccounted for at the eu level,by including ‘indirect land usechange’ in calculations.• Contribute to the expectedeuropean commission (ec)assessment of the social andenvironmental impact of theeuropean biofuels mandateoutside the eu, ensuring itrecognises their impact on foodsecurity and land rights.… if the uK LeaDS theWorLD to be moretranSparent abouttacKLing hungerThe UK government should:a) Corporate accountability• Strengthen the reportingrequirements in the uKcompanies act to includea specific requirement forcompanies to report on thefull range of their social andenvironmental impact, includingtheir human rights impact. backthis up with robust guidanceand enforcement mechanisms toensure companies comply.• Ensure that EU legislation oncorporate reporting includesa specific requirement for thesame reporting.b) Use its G8 presidency toimprove transparency inthe use of land and otherresources to benefitpoor people and supportsustainable, equitable growth• promote action to improvegovernance, transparencyand accountability in landagreements.c) Budget transparency• Encourage all G8 countriesto join the ogp, commit toproviding ‘extensive’ budgetinformation and the higheststandards of citizen participationin budgeting and support, andencourage other countries to dothe same, in particular workingwith the g20 anti-corruptionworking group.• Work with other OGP membersto include a commitment in theopen government declarationfor countries to publish a fullbreakdown of all governmentrevenues (including tax anddevelopment assistance) andexpenditures in a way that isunderstandable and accessibleto all citizens, and to improveon their fiscal transparencyperformance year on year.14

Christian Aid/Felicity Webb for the IF campaign.introDuction15

introDuction‘there iS nothing in thepot. We have no fooD for ameaL. often a pot iS put onthe fire So chiLDren thinKa meaL iS being prepareD.it giveS them hope. if WetoLD them there WaS nofooD they WouLD Startcrying anD there WouLDbe nothing We couLD Do.thiS Way they juSt go toSLeep quietLy.’(ALIOU, mOTHER OFTwO CHILDREN, RURALmAURITANIA, 2007) 25image previouS page: family memBersmunaja kedire, selamawit areGaw andhannah kedire share a meal in addisaBaBa, ethiOpia.all around the world, a quiet andmomentous change is happening –people are lifting themselves out ofpoverty. In the past 10 years morethan 50 million children have startedgoing to school in sub-saharan africa,and deaths from the great killer,measles, have fallen by almost 75per cent. we are a fair way alongone of the most important roadshuman beings have ever travelled– the road towards ending extremepoverty forever, everywhere. we areat a tipping point. we could be thegeneration to ensure that everyonegets a fair chance at life.There is still, though, a greatyawning gap. There is enough foodin the world to feed everyone, yetnearly 900 million women, men andchildren go to bed hungry everynight. and gender inequality meansthat women are more likely to gohungry than men.some countries have made enormousstrides towards reducing hunger.The proportion of hungry people inethiopia fell from nearly two thirdsto under half, and in malawi from45 to 29 per cent, in the decade to2005. getting enough of the rightfood gives people their future andbuilds the potential for all societiesto prosper. but the world as a wholeis failing badly. we promised at themillennium that by 2015 we wouldhalve hunger, but there is littleprospect of keeping that promise.by failing to act now we are failingfuture generations. by 2025 nearly 1billion young people will face povertybecause of the damage done to themnow as children through hunger andmalnutrition.yet no one need be hungry ormalnourished. If we act to ensuresmall-scale farmers – women andmen – can keep hold of their landto grow food; if we crack downon tax dodgers depriving poorcountries of resources to ensurethe right to food; if we work forglobal agreement on new sourcesof climate finance; if all of this isunderpinned by transparency, ruleof law and strong institutions; and ifwe fulfil our existing commitmentsof finance to developing countries –then the world has a chance to endthe scandal of hunger.one country cannot do this alone,but the uK has a golden opportunityto play a leading role to make thishappen. In 2013 the uK holds aplethora of global leadership roles.most importantly, the uK will bechairing the g8 meeting, whichmeans setting the agenda and tone,and the prime minister has alreadycommitted to hold a food and hungersummit in the days leading up to it.The world will also begin to debatea new set of development goals withambition and vision for the nextdecade – and the uK prime ministerwill play a lead role as panel co-chair.The uK is also chair of a key forum ontransparency, the open governmentpartnership. and the uK has a strongtrack record to lead from, being oneof a handful of countries that in 2013will meet the global pledge on aid.global hunger is a crisis. but withcrises there are opportunities – and16

UP TO28%OF ALLCHILDREN INDEVELOPINGCOUNTRIESAREESTIMATEDTO BEUNDERWEIGHTOR STUNTEDhunger is not just about how muchyou eat, but also receiving theessential nutrients to keep youhealthy. even more people – over 2billion – suffer from lack of essentialmicronutrients. 28 undernutrition,coupled with illness, causes 2.3million children to die unnecessarilyevery year. 29 for many of those thatsurvive, long-term undernutritioncauses irreversible damage since thelack of nutritious food, coupled withinfection, impairs their physical andcognitive development. althoughthe number of children under fiveaffected by stunting (those too shortfor their age) has fallen in recentdecades, the number still stands atmore than a quarter of all children. 30hunger is endemic, and the trendsare not positive. while change isin the right direction, it is glaciallyslow. although the proportion of theworld’s people that are hungry hasgone down, the world is off track tomeet the millennium promise to halvehunger by 2015. The absolute numberof hungry people has also gone down,but very slowly.Figure 1: Number of hungrypeople worldwide 31what opportunity for leadership couldbe more compelling than the chanceto make real progress towards endingglobal hunger?the extent of hungerThe world produces more thanenough food for everyone. 26 and yetthe global system by which food isproduced, distributed and consumedis failing to meet the needs of muchof the world’s population. almost 900million people – some 868 million –are hungry. These people live mainlyin sub-saharan africa and south asia,and comprise one in eight of thehuman beings alive today. 27 womencontinue to be more likely to gohungry than men, because of deepgender inequalities.Number of hungry people worldwide1b800m600m400m200m01990/92 1998/2001 2004/06 2007/09Figure 1Year17

The absolute number of hungrypeople living in africa has increasedin recent years, and research by savethe children shows that in 2012, theabsolute number of hungry childrenin the world recently rose for the firsttime in a decade. 32The hunger crisis is not only a humantragedy – it also exerts a massivebrake on economic development.hunger weakens the health, growthand productivity of people andcountries. around 2–3 per cent ofthe national income of a countrycan be lost to undernutrition, 33while undernourished adults earnon average almost 20 per cent lessthan others throughout theirlives. 34 research conducted by theIf campaign suggests hunger iscosting poor countries us$125bna year to 2030.if there iS enoughfooD for everyone,Why So much hunger?In order to take action to address theunacceptably high levels of hunger, weneed to look at the causes of hunger.The majority of the world’s hungrypeople are themselves foodproducers: small-scale farmersworking plots of two hectares orAN AREA THESIZE OFLONDONIS BOUGHT UP EVERY6 DAYSless. 35 small-scale farmers, 60–80per cent of them women, 36 supporta staggering one third of the humanrace. 37 eighty per cent of the world’sundernourished people live in ruralareas, the majority of these onsmall farms. 38 one third of africa’sundernourished children live on smallfarms. 39 and yet, small-scale farmersand particularly women are undersupported and often their land isunder attack.The global land rush is pushingpeople off the land they relied onto grow food and make a living.private investment in agricultureis crucial, but investment at anycost is not acceptable. In the pastdecade, global land sales haverapidly accelerated; in poor countriesinvestors are buying up an area ofland the size of london every sixdays, divesting small-scale farmersof their land in the process.The land acquired in the last decadehas the potential to feed a billionpeople. 40 most land deals happenin countries with the weakestprotection of rural land rights; 41 thedeals are all too often land grabs,with inadequate consultation orcompensation to those affected. and60 per cent of foreign land investorsintend to export everything theyproduce on the land, rather thanmake it available on local markets. 42biofuel projects are a major driver ofland grabs, with 58 per cent of landacquisitions in recent years intendedfor producing crops that could be18

turned into biofuel. They are also asignificant factor behind food pricerises and volatility. an effectiveglobal push to end unsustainable landacquisitions and biofuels policieswould contribute enormously totackling hunger.a lack of transparency meansthat people cannot see what istaking place within the affairsof government and corporationsparticularly, and of those who controlthe food system. opacity preventscitizens from being able to holdto account those with power overtheir food security. If poor peoplewere meaningfully involved in thenegotiations of land deals and hadthe right to say no; if they couldsee where their governments werespending both tax and aid funds; ifthey could hold companies to accountfor all their impacts – then we wouldbe well on the way to empoweringpeople to feed themselves.denied access to their land, peopleare more dependent on volatile foodmarkets. rising food prices, causedin part by land being diverted tofuel, are pushing more people intopoverty and hunger. poor familiesmay spend as much as three quartersof their income on food, which meansthat even small increases in thecost of food can force them to makeagonising choices.since 2000, real food prices oninternational markets have doubled; 43even in the uK, many hardworkingpeople struggle to find the moneyto feed their families. The countriesmost exposed to price volatilityon international markets arethose with the highest burden ofundernutrition. 44 International bodiespredict that food prices are likely toremain high and volatile for the nextdecade, at the very least. 45 oxfamestimates that average export pricesmay double between 2010 and 2030. 46climate change is contributing tohunger by increasing the frequencyof extreme weather events, fromfloods to droughts, spreadingdisease, undermining crop andlivestock production, and affectingFigure 2: The poorer you are, the more of your income goes on food% of income that is spent on foodPoorestwater supplies – all of which affectsmallholder farmers and womensignificantly. As a result of climatechange, crop yields from agricultureare likely to fall by up to half by 2020in some african countries, and byup to nearly a third by 2050 in partsof asia. 47 declining food productionas a result of climate change couldlead to 11–24 million more childrenRichestsources: world bank (gdp), http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.pcap.pp.cd; oecd (food weighting ascomposition of cpI), http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=meI_cpI_weIghTsbeing undernourished by 2050. 48enabling women and men smallholderfarmers around the world to adaptto climate change and continueproducing food is fundamental in thefight against hunger. It is also vital toreduce the vulnerability of women toenvironmental shocks, for example,by increasing their access to educationand employment in other sectors.19

finance is needed in several areas,notably investment in small-scaleagriculture and nutrition: supportingthe world’s small-scale farmers– men and women – is a hugeopportunity to boost food securityand tackle hunger. at the same time,simple things such as promotion ofbreastfeeding and micronutrientsupplements can make a significantdifference to nutrition levels.ability to address the issues that mostconcern them. Tackling the corporatetax gap in developing countries wouldraise enough public revenues to savea child’s life every six minutes. allgovernments need to crack down ontax dodging.But finance does not all have to comefrom donor countries; much of thenecessary investment will come fromdeveloping countries themselvesthrough mobilisation of resourcesat a domestic level: taxes. africancountries that have broader taxbases tend to have lower levels ofhunger. 49 however some companiesare dodging the taxes they owe,which siphons money from poorcountries that could be invested intackling hunger. This underminesthe ability of developing countrygovernments to lead their own fightsagainst hunger, and reduces citizens’confidence in their governments’20

© UNICEF/Pirozzi for the IF campaign1. a coSt-effective inveStment21

1. a coSt-effective inveStment:SmaLL-ScaLe agricuLture anD nutrition‘Seventy per cent ofthe WorLD’S farmerSare Women, but moStprogrammeS that offerfarmerS creDit anDtraining target men. thiS iSunfair anD impracticaL.’(HILLARy CLINTON, USSECRETARy OF STATE, 2009) 50image previouS page: a Girl eats lunchat kOBlema puBlic schOOl, in thevillaGe Of kOBlema in lOfa cOunty,liBeria. the schOOl meals are cOOkedBy the pupils’ mOthers, usinG fOOdprOvided thrOuGh the united natiOnswOrld fOOd prOGramme (wfp).having the money to do things doesnot guarantee success, but little canbe achieved without it. certainlystrong institutions, governanceand transparency are crucial fordevelopment, but in discussion of thiswe sometimes seem to forget justhow little money developing countrieshave to work with: by definition,less than about us$1,000 per personper year in low-income countries, ascompared to more than 30 times thatin most high-income countries.If we want to see hunger eradicated,finance – both domestic andinternational – is essential. almostall countries already raise far morepublic funding themselves throughtaxation than they receive in aid.supporting domestic revenueraising is both a short- and longtermcomplement to aid. we lookat this in more detail in section2; here we address the need formore investment in agriculture andnutrition, and climate finance.1.1 the importanceof SupportingSuStainabLe anD SmaLL-ScaLe agricuLturecountries spending more onagriculture tend to reduce hungermore. for example, all seven africancountries that spent more than 10per cent of their national budgetson agriculture in 2004–07 achievedreductions in the proportion ofhungry people over the past decade.gdp growth originating in agricultureis five times more effective inreducing poverty in low-incomecountries than growth in othersectors; in sub-saharan africa, it is11 times more effective. 51 policiesthat support sustainable, small-scaleagriculture can increase agriculturalgrowth and raise farm productivity.critically, there is an urgent need formuch larger investments in smallscaleagricultural producers. Thetwo countries that have reducedrural poverty the most in recentdecades – china and vietnam – did soby empowering small-scale farmerswith tiny plots of land. appropriateprivate investment has a role toplay, but public funding is vital toincreasing the productivity andincomes of small-scale farmers: forexample, through access to advisory(‘extension’) and credit services andto markets, and through developingagricultural research relevant totheir needs. Investing so thatcommunities are prepared to copewith disasters (such as drought),including through building foodreserves, and social protectionschemes, are also essential. 52women farmers need to be targetedexplicitly for support. currently,women own only one per cent of theland in africa, and receive only sevenper cent of extension services and oneper cent of all agricultural credit. 53simply targeting investment towardswomen farmers to provide them withas equal access to resources as mencould reduce the number of hungrypeople by up to 150 million. 54agricultural policies should promotesustainable agriculture, so that22

farming becomes less input-intensiveand environmentally damaging, andsmall-scale producers can reduceinput costs. 55 growing evidencesuggests that sustainable agricultureincreases yields and builds resilience.The most comprehensive study ofsuch projects found an average yieldincrease of 79 per cent. 56also vital – given that most hungrypeople are farmers – is makingnutrition an explicit objective ofagriculture policies. enabling farmersto grow local staples, fruit andvegetables can increase incomesand make it possible for parents toprovide their children with healthy,nutritious meals. 571.2 the coLLapSe anDrecovery of aiDto agricuLtureIn 2010, the share of dac bilateralaid going to agriculture, forestry andfisheries was 5.7 per cent, comparedto 8.9 per cent for education; 58just us$11 a year for everyundernourished person in the world.It is unknown how much ofthis aid benefits small-scaleproducers, women or men, sinceaid donors including the uK do notdisaggregate their agricultural aidspending in this way.International aid to agriculture hasstill not fully recovered from massivedeclines in recent decades, whichsaw the level collapse from 17 percent of aid in 1980 to just 3.4 percent by 2006. 59 after the 2008 foodprice crisis, g8 countries pledged attheir 2009 summit in l’aquila, Italy towork ‘towards a goal of mobilising’us$22bn for agriculture and foodsecurity within three years. 60 Thiswas an important and very welcomecommitment. The uK committed andspent its £1.1bn l’aquila share during2009–12. 61 overall, however, onlyone fifth of the promised funding hadbeen disbursed by mid-2011. 62a further g8 initiative was made atthe 2012 summit at camp david inthe us, the new alliance for foodand nutrition security, focusedmainly on the private sector. It wasaccompanied by pledges to provideonly us$1.3bn of new public money 63over 10 years – just us$130m a year.we recognise the important rolethat private sector investment playsin agriculture, and applaud the g8goal to lift 50 million people out ofpoverty. but we believe the newalliance, as currently structured,is the wrong global framework toachieve food and nutrition securitythrough sustainable, equitable andresilient small-scale food production.Therefore we would not encouragethe g8 to pursue development of thenew alliance beyond the six vanguardcountries without significantstructural reforms.however, we recognise that theg8 and country governments arecommitted to implementing thenew alliance in those vanguardcountries, and that in order toachieve its stated aims and improvelivelihoods for small-scale farmers,particularly women, significantreforms are necessary – includingimproving accountability mechanismsand ensuring small-scale farmers areinvolved in, and benefit from, theinitiative. further, the new alliancemust be recognised as a complementto, not replacement for, core publicinvestments in the agriculture sectorthat are focused on supporting smallscalefood producers.It has been calculated that anadditional US$42.7bn per yearglobally is needed 64 in agriculturalinvestment to help achieve theambitious goal of zero hunger by2025. This proposal, published by theun food and agriculture organization(fao), is wide-ranging, coveringagriculture, forestry, fishing and ruraldevelopment. The major investmentsare needed in: rural infrastructure;agricultural research; extensionservices; storage, marketing andprocessing; conservation of naturalresources; and expanding ruralinstitutions to promote concessionalfinance and land tenure security. 65Investments must be targeted atwomen in particular. The us$42.7bngoal was welcomed by the uKand other governments when thefao launched the Zero hunger23

caSe StuDyhoW Support for Women SmaLL-ScaLe farmerScan maKe a Differencemambo shazambura, 28, and herhusband maybin Kalenda, 32, livewith their two children, three-yearoldRichard and five-year-old Marise,in ntambo village, mumbwa district,central Zambia. last year the familyexperienced a particularly badharvest, which was a huge loss sincethe majority of their crop was maize,used both as a staple for householdconsumption and as an importantcash crop.In previous years, the couple dugtheir entire plot with a hand hoe.They are extremely poor and simplycannot afford to hire the oxen orplough needed to prepare theirfields. But digging the land by handwas arduous work that both mamboand her husband undertook formonths at a time, often delaying thecrop and reducing its potential bydenying it essential rainfall early inits growth, and robbing it of the timeConcern/Patrick Bentley for the IF campaign.it needed to mature properly. Theyield from their farm of 2.25 hectareswas usually poor and rarely got themthrough the ‘hunger gap’ periodbetween planting and harvest.last year, the family ran out of foodaltogether and bought extra maizeat the local market to get by. maybinwould go there when he could affordto, maybe once every two months.The family’s ongoing poor diet hadits greatest impact on their youngdaughter. ‘marise was in bad healthand thin – much, much worse thannow. she was very wasted,’ herfather said.mambo was selected to join aconcern farming advice project asa ‘smallholder model farmer’ lastyear; she now teaches 11 others ona weekly basis, advising them onhow to grow more nutrient densecrops like beans and cowpeas. herhusband says he is proud of her,and has learned a lot from his wifeabout the best ways to grow thesecrops. ‘other people are coming,even some that are not part of theprogramme, when they see what weare doing here,’ he says, pointingto the thriving plants in his homegarden that surround their mudhouse on every side. This gives heran important role in the community.however, far more important,says mambo, is the fact that theirdaughter’s health has improved.‘she is doing far better than before,’she says. ‘now when we take her tothe health centre, we can see thather weight is slowly going up and up.she is healthier because she is eatingall of the new foods that we aregrowing. we are not selling these,only keeping for ourselves so thatwe won’t need to go and buy foodat the market.’ her husbandconcludes: ‘a lot of people in ourcommunity are changing theirlifestyle and eating a better diet.we have learned that is importantfor the children and the whole familyto have vitamins and protein.’24

initiative at the rio+20 summit inJune 2012. A first step towardsmeeting this commitment would beto fulfil existing G8 commitmentsby closing the 51 per cent gap incountry agriculture investmentplans (us$27.43bn). If donors wereresponsible for half of the total, theywould deliver us$14.65bn in additionto existing contributions, over thetimescale of these plans.The uK government can meet itsfair share of the global resourcesneeded for agriculture by spendingjust under a sixth of the additionalfunds that will be available when aidis increased to 0.7 per cent of uKnational income. It should providean additional us$661.7m [£425m] ayear. 66 current uK aid to agricultureand rural development is low, ataround us$737m [£462m] in 2010. 671.3 aiD for nutrition –negLecteD potentiaL,negLecteD reSuLtSmalnutrition is not only aconsequence of poverty, but also aroot cause. when children do notget the right nutrients at the start oflife, it causes irreversible damage totheir bodies and brains, to the extentthat is can undermine future earningpotential by as much as 20 per cent.In nigeria, the poorest 20 per centare twice as likely to be malnourishedas the richest 20 per cent. notaddressing this problem inhibitsthe ability of those countries tochallenge inequality. 68simple, direct interventions deliveredto children and their families at riskof undernutrition are well knownand supported by nutrition experts.yet only around a third of currentbasic nutrition spending currentlygoes towards the 13 key nutritioninterventions that The lancetmedical journal has identified asbeneficial to the nutrition and healthof children and mothers.The copenhagen consensus hashighlighted these direct nutritioninterventions as delivering greaterreturns on investment thanany other intervention. yet, asdfId’s 2011 nutrition strategynotes, ‘undernutrition has beensystematically overlooked in settingpriorities for development’. 69 In recentyears, however, political momentumhas grown, via processes like thescaling up nutrition movement. 70 Itis unclear precisely how much donorsare spending on nutrition because ofthe way that spending is, or is not,reported, but it is clear that it is notenough, at between us$300–400mannually. 71 72 The world bank hashighlighted that ‘current investmentsin nutrition are minuscule given themagnitude of the problem’. 73The cost of scaling up the ‘lancetpackage’ of 13 interventions (plus‘fortification’ – the process of addingvitamins and minerals to food) inthe 36 countries that are home to90 per cent of stunted children isestimated to be US$10bn a year by2015 and us$9.8bn a year by 2020. 74shared between developing anddonor governments, this sum is easilyaffordable. It could save 2 millionlives if it was delivered to children inthese 36 countries. 75not only is ending hunger a moralimperative, but such investments alsomake good economic sense. stunting,caused by malnutrition, can reducefuture earning potential by as muchas 23.8 per cent. 76The uK government supports thescaling up nutrition movement andhas played a key role in pushingthe related area of health up theinternational agenda and buildinga constituency for action. 77 TheuK’s nutrition strategy commits itto reach 20 million children underfive during 2011–2015. dfId statesthat ‘since 2010, the uK has morethan doubled resources for tacklingundernutrition’. 78 given the scaleof this problem, this should beincreased.The uK’s share of the donor us$5bnfor nutrition would be us$232m[£149m] a year, easily affordablewithin our existing aid commitment.25

1.4 DeveLopeDcountrieS’ faircontributionSdeveloped countries have a longstandingglobal commitment to aidlevels: to provide 0.7 per cent oftheir national income in aid tothe poorest countries.aid from rich countries stood atus$133bn in 2011, or just 0.32 percent of the income of the donorcountries. This represented a fallof US$3.4bn over 2010. Only fivecountries have met the 0.7 percent target: sweden, luxembourg,norway, denmark and thenetherlands. The uK is due to meetit during 2013, which will make theUK the first G8 country to hit 0.7 percent, putting it in a unique positionto encourage other g8 members tofollow suit. In contrast, on averageg8 countries gave only 0.33 per centof their gnI in aid in 2011. 79aid spent well cannot only help endglobal hunger, it can also save lives,create the conditions for economicgrowth, help secure peace andpromote good governance. 80 a recentdfId-funded Tearfund project inmalawi found that for every us$1invested, communities received atleast US$24 in net benefits to helpthem overcome food insecurity whilebuilding their resilience to droughtand erratic weather. 81 countries insub-saharan africa that received themost aid in the last decade madethe most progress in child well-being.countries receiving large amountsof aid typically reduced childhoodundernutrition by an additional twopercentage points over 10 years,and infant mortality by an additionalfour deaths per 1,000, comparedto countries receiving little aid.replicating this progress acrosssub-saharan africa could prevent2.7 million children from becomingundernourished and save 63,000children’s lives each year. 82aiD anD the uK: hit thetarget anD enShrineit in LaWTo its credit, the uK governmenthas consistently increased its aidspending in recent years, evenat a time of financial crisis andbudget cuts, and is committed toreaching the 0.7 per cent targetin 2013. In volume terms, the uKhas the world’s third largest aidprogramme. spending £8.6bn on aidin 2011, amounting to 0.56 per centof gnI, the uK allocates a higherproportion of its gnI to aid thanany other G8 state, and is the fifthhighest in the eu. 83research by christian aid showsthat in the uK, 0.7 per centamounts to 1.6 pence for everypound of government spending. Ifthe uK reached the target, it couldprovide better nutrition for nearly10 million people, put 15.9 millionmore children in school, providemore than 80 million childrenwith vaccines, and ensure 5.8million births take place in a safeenvironment, saving the lives ofover 50,000 mothers. 84The uK government has one morestep to take on aid: it should ensurethat life-saving aid is protectedand distributed in a consistent,sustainable way by legislating for0.7 per cent gnI to be spent on aidin future parliaments, as all mainparties committed to do in theirmanifestos. legislation is importantsince it would help protect the aidbudget from political jockeyingand increase accountability toparliament and the public, as wellas making a strong statement tointernational partners about theuK’s commitment to aid. 8526

caSe StuDy‘farming iS extremeLy DifficuLt theSe DaySbecauSe of cLimate change.’Tearfund/Layton Thompson for the IF campaign.forty-seven year old folomina fombe,a small-scale farmer with two adultchildren and three grandchildren insouthern malawi, says: ‘The climatehas changed drastically. In the 70s,my parents would plant their maizecrop on october 15. and surely, onthe same day or the next day, therain would fall. The rains wouldcontinue falling throughout thefarming season without dry spellsor droughts.’ she continues: ‘somepeople used to have three granariesof maize because there was so muchharvest in those old days. Thesedays some of our children do noteven know what a maize granarylooks like.’crop yields are falling primarilybecause of changing weather patternsand reduced rainfall. In 2011, thefirst rains came on 25 November. Butthere was no more rain and almostall the maize planted withered duringthe long dry spell.When rains finally came again farmerssourced more seed and replantedtheir maize, hoping that this time therain would continue. but more cropswithered this time than when theyhad originally planted. no maize cropsurvived at all.‘Farming is extremely difficult thesedays because of climate change.maize is not yielding the expectedresults. even cotton is not faring wellas before. we are in a dire situation,’says folomina.one of Tearfund’s partnerorganisations, eagles, is working withcommunities in malawi to help peopleto plant drought-resistant alternativesto maize and to diversify theirlivelihoods. They are also helpingpeople adapt to the changing climateby supporting irrigation farming forthose close enough to a water source,and by promoting afforestation.27

1.5 Surviving theStormS – funDing forcLimate change‘Without action at thegLobaL LeveL to aDDreSScLimate change, We WiLLSee farmerS acroSS africa– anD in many other partSof the WorLD, incLuDing inamerica – forceD to Leavetheir LanD. the reSuLtWiLL be maSS migration,groWing fooD ShortageS,LoSS of SociaL coheSionanD even poLiticaLinStabiLity.’(KOFI ANNAN, FORmER UNSECRETARy-GENERAL, 2011) 86Mobilising sufficient resources tocombat climate change is an essentialpart of any strategy to promote foodand nutrition security. The interfacebetween agriculture and climatechange is also important in a widersense, in that farming itself generatesperhaps a quarter of the emissionsthat contribute to climate change.at climate summits in 2009, 2010and 2011, world leaders committedto provide us$30bn of ‘fast-start’finance for 2010–2012, and us$100bna year by 2020, to help developingcountries adapt to and mitigateclimate change. Large-scale financingis urgently needed from developedcountries, based on responsibilityfor emissions and capacity to pay,and also from new, innovativesources. 87 since climate change needsto be dealt with alongside povertyeradication, climate finance should beadditional to aid budgets, not takenfrom them.little progress has so far been madetowards the us$100bn commitment.Three years after it was first madein copenhagen in 2009, developedcountries have yet to indicate whereany of the money will come from.The european commission (ec) hassaid the eu will provide around athird of this amount, 88 but at theirmost recent meeting, EU financeministers failed to agree increasedsupport for developing countries afterthe end of 2012. The uK governmenthas said that it will contribute its ‘fairshare’ of the us$100bn commitment 89and was among the first developedcountries to commit to providingclimate finance beyond 2012. 90 butthere is a need for clarity on how thegovernment will work with others tohelp mobilise the full amount. 91only three eu countries – the uK,denmark and germany – have sofar agreed to contribute to therunning costs of the new greenclimate fund, the body establishedin december 2010 as the key channelfor developed countries’ climatefinance. 92 progress in making the fundoperational has also been slow. TheUK, one of five G8 countries to siton the fund’s board, has earmarked50 per cent of its climate financefor adaptation, 93 reflecting a globalcommitment to ‘balance’ financingbetween adaptation and mitigation. 94However, globally, financing ofadaptation is receiving less than20 per cent of overall climatefinance – an imbalance that needsto be redressed.The source of climate financing isalso of concern, particularly the factthat most donors, including the uK,are taking their climate finance fromaid budgets in blatant contradictionto their promises – made in the unframework convention on climatechange (unfccc), the bali actionplan and the copenhagen accord– to provide ‘new and additional’resources. 95 Much climate financeis in the form of loans not grants,which adds to developing countries’debts and fails to reflect developedcountries’ historical responsibility forclimate change. for example, in 2011loans constituted 34 per cent of the€2.34bn disbursed by the eu’s fastStart financing. 9628

In the current economic climate thesums needed for climate finance mayappear daunting, but the short-termcost is heavily outweighed by thelong-term savings. 97 according to lordstern’s estimates, investing 1–2 percent of global gdp to tackle climatechange could save us the 5–20 percent of gdp that climate changecould cost if the investment isnot made. 98Since climate finance cannot betaken from aid budgets, governmentpledges of the full amount requiredare unlikely; some of the fundingwill need to come from new,innovative sources. There are a rangeof proposals for these, includingdomestic proposals for carbon taxes,re-direction of subsidies currentlyspent on fossil fuel extraction, theuse of special drawing rights (a formof international reserve currency) anda financial Transaction Tax. 99One promising innovative financingsource that could raise significantclimate finance is carbon pricingfor international shipping; a major– and rapidly growing – source ofgreenhouse gas emissions. 100 The uKgovernment has already welcomedprogress towards establishing aglobal regime for reducing emissionsfrom shipping, suggesting thatcarbon pricing could be part ofthe solution. 101 a world bank reportfor the g20 states that a globallyimplemented charge of us$25per tonne of co2 on fuel used formaritime transport could raise aroundus$25bn a year by 2020. at the sametime, it would reduce the industry’scarbon emissions by five per cent,mainly due to falling fuel demand,while only increasing the cost ofshipping by 0.2 per cent. 1021.6 a coSt-effectiveinveStment – poLicyrecommenDationSDonors must give more andbetter support to sustainablesmall-scale agriculture and childand maternal nutrition.In addition to tackling the structuralcauses of hunger, the level ofinvestment in agricultural and ruraldevelopment needed to achievea world free from hunger by 2025is estimated to cost an additionalus$42.7bn per year. providinglife-saving treatments to 100 percent of target populations in 36countries that carry 90 per cent ofthe burden of undernutrition maycost us$10bn.a) The G8 can make great stridestowards a world free from hungerby mobilising funds for investmentin sustainable small-scaleagriculture and child nutrition.This should include:i) mobilising dac donors tocommit to funding the 51per cent gap in countryagriculture plans, includingcaadp, as detailed in the2012 g8 accountability report(us$27.43bn). donors areresponsible for half of the total($14.65bn). donors should alsoundertake to help support thedevelopment of new countryplans for those countriesyet to get involved, and thatno good plan should not beimplemented for wantof resources.29

ii) making commitments to supportcosted country plans submittedby scaling up nutrition countries(for a package of direct nutritioninterventions) on the scale ofus$5bn per year until 2015.In so doing, governments shouldabide by the rome principles forglobal food security, in particularthe guidance and recommendationsof the committee on world foodsecurity. governments must remaintransparent and accountablein relation to all g8 promises.private sector commitments shouldcontribute to the goal of improvingfood security and undernutritionby supporting sustainable smallscaleproduction in a transparentmanner. These investments mustbe additional to the public sectorcommitments identified above.The uK contribution to achievingthis should be to:iii) Fulfil the existing commitment tospend 0.7 per cent of nationalincome on aid by 2013 andbring forward legislation in orbefore the 2013 queen’s speech.iv) commit to spend at least anadditional US$661.7m [£425m]per year on sustainable smallscaleagriculture to help achievefood security for over 418,500people annually. This representsjust 16.5 per cent of the gap tohit 0.7 per cent.v) commit to spend US$232.3m[£149m] per year to preventundernutrition for children inthe 36 high burden countries.b) Support and promoteagreement on innovative sourcesof climate financeLong-term climate finance promisescannot be met from aid budgets,so other sources must be agreedto help developing countries adaptto climate change and develop ina low carbon way. The uK shoulduse its g8 presidency, along withits participation in the g20 and theunfccc summit at the end of 2013(cop19), to:vi) push for global agreementon mobilising new sources ofclimate finance, additional toaid, in particular by takinga lead (within EU, G20, IMOand other relevant fora) onagreeing the delivery of aneffective and fair internationalshipping mechanism to raiseadditional climate finance ina way that does not burdendeveloping countries with anynet costs.vii) demonstrate commitment tomobilising other innovativesources of finance for climatechange, as outlined in thereport to the un and g20 onclimate finance, and encouragethose who have committedto mobilising new sourcesof finance to invest these intackling climate change.viii) agree that 50 per cent ofglobal climate finance willbe allocated for adaptation,prioritising delivery throughdirect access, with substantivenew and additional publicfinance being disbursed –particularly through the greenclimate fund, on which the uKhas a board seat.30

Sarah Filbey/Christian Aid for the IF campaign2. reveaLing tax DoDgerS31

2. reveaLing tax DoDgerS:enabLing DeveLoping countrieS to raiSe revenueto inveSt in tacKLing hunger anD fooD inSecurity‘there are too manytax havenS, too manypLaceS Where peopLe anDbuSineSSeS manage toavoiD paying taxeS.’(DAvID CAmERON, UK PRImEmINISTER, NOvEmBER 2012) 103‘juSt aS the DeveLopeDcountrieS have beenintereSteD in tax havenSanD Stopping tax evaSion,We are Saying that manyof the tax havenS… aLSohave monieS of DeveLopingcountrieS.’ (NGOzI OKONJO-IwEALA, NIGERIAN FINANCEmINISTER, 2009.) 104image previouS page: pupils innOrthern Ghana cOllect their schOOllunch, which is prOvided thrOuGhthe GOvernment’s schOOl feedinGprOGramme. Ghana lOses at leastus$36m in taxes thrOuGh its mininGsectOr alOne. if it cOuld cOllect thetaxes it is Owed, it cOuld reach manymOre children in Ghana thrOuGhthis prOGramme.In addition to tackling the underlyingcauses of poverty, public and privatefinance is needed to end hunger andundernutrition. The internationalcommunity is one source. Inaddition, developing countriesneed to be able to raise more taxrevenues, which already finance thelion’s share of public spending invirtually all countries, including mostdeveloping countries.Taxes are the most important,sustainable and predictable sourceof finance for developing countrygovernments. moreover, as theuK government says, ‘governanceappears to be better wheregovernments have to earn theirincomes by taxing a wide range ofcitizens and economic activities...well-managed taxation systems canplay a major role in state building.’ 105effective tax systems are thus oneof the key essential institutionsunderlying successful development.but low-income countries currentlycollect an average of only 13 per centof their gdp in tax revenues,compared to 35 per cent inoecd countries. 106The un estimates that if the world’sleast developed countries raisedat least 20 per cent of their gdpfrom taxes, they could achieve themillennium development goals. 107Indeed, evidence suggests thatafrican countries with higher taxcollections generally have lowerlevels of undernourishment: countriescollecting more than 20 per centof their gdp in tax had an averagelevel of undernourishment of 15 percent during 2005–08, while thosecollecting less than 10 per cent hadan average rate of undernourishmentof 32 per cent. 108however, one serious barrier globallyto countries being able to raise therequired resources is that businessesand individuals are able to hidemoney in tax havens and thus dodgepaying taxes. sometimes this isclearly due to illegal tax evasion;however there is also a grey area (taxavoidance) where the intention of taxlaws is sidestepped.32

‘peopLe rightLy get angryWhen they WorK harDanD pay their taxeS butSee otherS not payingtheir fair Share. SothiS g8 WiLL SeeK tomaintain the momentumgenerateD by the g20 oninformation exchangeanD the Strengtheningof internationaL taxStanDarDS... anD We WiLLWorK With DeveLopingcountrieS to heLp themimprove their abiLity tocoLLect tax too.’(DAvID CAmERON, UK PRImEmINISTER, NOvEmBER 2012)far-reaching action is neededglobally to break open the financialsecrecy of tax havens, and makeit possible for tax authorities toscrutinise the schemes used bytransnational corporations and othersto evade and avoid paying tax indeveloping countries.stopping this huge drain ondeveloping countries’ public financeswill help make it possible, eventually,THE OECDESTIMATESTHAT MONEYLOST BYDEVELOPINGCOUNTRIESTO TAXHAVENSIS UP TOTHREE TIMESTHE GLOBALAID BUDGETfor countries to tackle hunger andundernutrition with their ownresources.2.1 hoW tax havenSfaciLitate tax DoDgingover half of world trade is nowconducted through tax havens, half ofall banking assets are held in offshoreaccounts and one third of foreigndirect investment is channelledthrough these accounts. 109 This secretworld allows vast amounts of moneyto be hidden from public scrutiny,facilitating tax dodging and massivelyreducing revenues that couldpromote development. The oecdestimates that developing countrieslose three times more to tax havensthan they receive in aid eachyear. 110 research by the Tax Justicenetwork estimates that us$21–32tnin financial wealth is being hiddenby rich individuals in tax havens. Ifthe capital gains on this wealth weretaxed at 30 per cent (a typical ratefor developing countries), it wouldgenerate revenues of us$190–280bna year. 111 This overshadows theus$42.7bn estimate required toachieve zero hunger and the us$10bnrequired to address malnutrition.dealing with the ‘corporation taxgap’ in developing countries could,according to research by the Ifcampaign, raise enough publicrevenues to save the lives of 230children under five every day; onechild every six minutes.33

many transnational corporationshave complex corporate structuresinvolving many subsidiaries registeredin tax havens. a survey by ngoTax Justice network of 95 of thelargest quoted companies in theuK, netherlands and france foundthat all but one had subsidiaries intax havens, the most popular beingthe cayman Islands. 112 however, thetide is now turning, and this kind ofbehaviour is increasingly being seenas unacceptable.Tax havens mainly attract businessesfor reasons of low tax rates andfinancial secrecy. Low, or even zero,tax rates provide an obvious incentivefor companies to shift profits out ofthe jurisdictions in which they dobusiness into tax havens. secrecyhelps to undermine the regulations ofother jurisdictions while providing aneffective shield against investigationsinto tax avoidance and evasion.a high proportion of world tradetakes place between companies thatare part of the same multinationalgroup 113 and carry out ‘transferpricing’ transactions. These play animportant role not just in distributinggoods and services between groupcompanies, but also in distributingprofits and tax liabilities. 114 actionaid’sinvestigation into the brewing giantsabmiller showed how one fTse100company, acting perfectly legally,uses inter-company payments toshift an estimated annual £100mof taxable profit from developingcountry subsidiaries, where economicactivity is taking place, into its taxhaven subsidiaries, where it incursmuch lower tax rates. 115Tax havens increase the possibilityof legal (but often still ethicallyquestionable) tax avoidance. Theyalso facilitate ‘illicit capital flight’,which refers to money leavingcountries to evade tax, fromcorruption, from other criminalactivities such as the drugs trade, orfrom illegal pricing mechanisms usedby transnational companies.Illicit capital flight, often facilitatedby tax havens, siphons moneyfrom countries, reducing revenuesfor financing public services. Justover half the money illicitly leavingdeveloping countries every year is theresult of ‘mis-pricing’ by companies. 116christian aid has calculated thatrevenue losses to developingcountries from transfer mis-pricingand false invoicing amount to aroundus$160bn a year. 117 again, theseresources are far greater than thoseneeded to achieve zero hunger, asoutlined in section 1.2.2 Shining a Lighton tax havenSTax dodging thrives when it is hidden.Ending financial secrecy, and ensuringtransparency, would make a greatcontribution to help developingcountries raise more tax revenuesthat could be invested in fightinghunger. consequently, two big issuesneed to be addressed.The first is the lack of informationon assets, income and corporatestructures held in other countries,and particularly in tax havens. Ifthe tax authorities of a developingcountry want to investigate possibleinternational tax evasion, theyneed to be able to get internationalfinancial information about therelevant citizen or company. Thiscan be very difficult, particularlywhere tax havens are involved.There is a multilateral treaty forthis purpose, the convention onmutual administrative assistance inTax matters, which facilitates theexchange of this kind of information.but it will only be really effective iftax havens, as well as developed anddeveloping countries, join it. In thelonger term, more countries may wishto proceed to automatic exchangeof financial information, as happensalready in some circumstances inthe us and in the eu. This could bedone either bilaterally or under themultilateral convention.34

the benefitS of internationaL tax cooperation:tax juStice for timor LeSteThe new nation of Timor leste,one of south-east asia’s poorestbut also most rapidly developingcountries, has been engaged foralmost a decade in a struggle toaccess the books of some australiancompanies that have profited fromTimor leste’s offshore oil and gasdeposits since 2004. In the absenceof a legal framework to accessthe companies’ financial records– which are held in australia – theTimorese government was unableto audit the expenditures anddeductions that the companieswere claiming to reduce theirtaxable profits in Timor Leste. 118It took until 2010 for anarrangement with australia’sTaxation Office to enable Timorleste’s forensic auditors to getinformation on these arrangements.In a single year of auditing alone,the Timorese government hasreportedly recovered us$362min taxes due from australiancompanies, equivalent to nearlyfour times the country’s annualhealth spending. 119 on the basis oftheir findings, the government saysit is now reviewing expendituredeductions in other oil companiesthat may net a further us$3bnin revenue.International tax avoidancearrangements often involvemore than one country, and sointernational cooperation oftenbenefits developed countries too.since the Timor leste investigationbegan, the australian national auditOffice has been looking into theaccuracy of petroleum taxes androyalties declared by companiesoperating in the Timor sea, and isrequesting information from theTimor leste government. 120a second issue relates to the problemof even knowing who is the ultimateowner of a company or trust, calledthe ‘beneficial owner’. Obscurecompany ownership structures thatdisguise the identity of the beneficialowner, usually related to tax havens,can facilitate tax dodging and alsoother illicit activities. even lawenforcement authorities often haveproblems identifying the beneficialowners of assets held by anonymouscompanies and trusts in tax havens. 121a world bank review of 213 bigcorruption cases during 1980–2010found that more than 70 per centrelied on anonymous shell entities.firms registered in the uK and itscrown dependencies and overseasterritories were second on the listbehind the us in providing theseanonymous companies. 122currently, eu states are notrequired under europe-wide antimoneylaundering rules to collectand publish beneficial ownershipinformation on the companies andtrusts in their jurisdiction. 123 even therules that do exist are being ignored:recent research shows that 48 percent of company service providersare willing to ignore rules on settingup shell companies. 124 The financialaction Task force, a consortium ofngos and governments (includingthose of france, germany, Italy,Japan and the uK), has recommendedthat all jurisdictions should rectifythis basic transparency point. 1252.3 a gLobaL reboot ontax haven actionSince the global financial crisis, therehas been much greater scrutiny oftax havens and the tax affairs oftransnational companies. The g20has declared that ‘we are committedto protect our public finances andthe global financial system fromthe risks posed by tax havens andnon-cooperative jurisdictions’. 126It has called on ‘non-cooperativejurisdictions’ (tax havens) to sharemore tax information, leadingto a proliferation of bilateral taxinformation exchange agreements. 12735

The g20 has also worked to openup the multilateral convention forglobal signature, and to considermaking information available on anautomatic basis. 128These moves are welcome, butdo not go far enough in practice.governments and tax havens whoseek the economic benefits of globaltrade should be required to exchangefull information about tax affairs,to enable states to generate greaterrevenues for development.meanwhile, the rest of the world isincreasingly demanding that wealthiercountries stop dragging their feet andtackle tax havens and tax dodging.Indian president pranab mukherjeehas called for the obligatory,global automatic exchange of taxinformation, describing it as ‘one ofthe most effective ways to reduce taxevasion’. 129 India has also called on theg20 to ensure that tax havens jointhis regime. 130 With insufficient actionby the wealthiest countries, othersare starting their own initiatives: 21african countries recently agreed thetext of an african multilateral taxcooperation agreement, providing thelegal tools to pursue tax avoidanceand evasion across borders. 131The uK should use its g8 chair to givenew impetus to action on tax havensat international level, through a newconvention on Tax Transparency,providing a framework for allcountries to cooperate in tackling taxhaven secrecy.2.4 the uK’S commitmentto cLamp DoWn ontax DoDgingThe uK government is in akey position to promote broadinternational action on tax havensand financial secrecy. Indeed, thereis a particular onus on the uK todo so since three british crowndependencies and 14 overseasTerritories, notably the caymanIslands and Jersey, are among theworld’s leading tax havens.The uK government recognisesthat ‘tax avoidance in developingcountries deprives governments ofthe vital income needed to buildand maintain their public services’,and dfId supports projects indeveloping countries to improvetax collection and administration. 132david cameron has publicly criticisedthe way that companies ‘use thecomplexity of the tax and legalsystem to try and endlessly reducetheir tax payments’. 133 as recently asnovember 2012, in a joint statementwith the German finance minister atthe g20, george osborne called for‘concerted international cooperationto strengthen international taxstandards that at the minute maymean international companiescan pay less tax than they wouldotherwise owe’. 134 Treasury ministerdavid gauke has promised moreinternational cooperation againsttax havens. 135 In particular, thegovernment has championed themultilateral convention on mutualadministrative assistance in Taxmatters as a platform for suchcooperation. 136however, these positive words nowneed to be followed by effectiveaction to address the problem oftax havens and tax secrecy, andtheir impacts both at home and indeveloping countries. david cameronhas said that the g8’s approach toglobal injustice cannot be about‘rich countries doing things to poorcountries’. It must be about ‘usputting our own house in orderand helping developing countriesto prosper’. 137 a recent enquiry bythe all-party Internationaldevelopment committee calledon the government to give moreconsideration to the developmentimpact of uK tax policy. 13836

the britiSh pubLic’S vieWof tax avoiDanceclamping down on tax havensand tax avoidance is certainlypopular. a 2012 yougov poll foundthat 79 per cent of the britishpublic believes the governmentis not doing enough to tackle taxavoidance by large companies. 139another 2012 poll revealed that 56per cent believe that tax avoidanceby multinational companies,while legal, is morally wrong, andhalf of people think it should bemade illegal. some 79 per centof people polled say it is too easyfor multinational corporationsin the uK to avoid paying tax.meanwhile 75 per cent believe thatdavid cameron should demandinternational action to tackle taxevasion and avoidance, with only 38per cent saying the government isgenuine in its desire to do so. 140The confederation of britishIndustry has said that it supports‘the end of secrecy jurisdictions’. 141uK businesses like John lewis andmorrisons have also called for acrackdown on tax avoidance bymultinational corporations, to allowdomestic businesses to competeon a level playing field withmultinationals booking profits in taxhavens. as John lewis’ managingdirector says, ‘they will out-investand ultimately out-trade us and thatmeans there will not be the taxbase in the uK’. 142The 2013 budget would be a goodplace to start. uK tax rules –particularly those governing thetaxation of uK taxpayers’ overseasoperations and income – shouldmake it harder, not easier, formultinationals to shift profits out ofdeveloping countries and dodge taxesin other ways.uK tax rules could also help end theblockages preventing developingcountries from obtaining informationabout the tax practices of uKheadquarteredmultinationals, forexample by expanding the uK’s taxdisclosure rules to force companiesand wealthy individuals to disclosetheir participation in a much broaderrange of international tax avoidanceschemes, rather than the verynarrow scope of the current rules.These disclosure rules may havehelped to close down £12.5bn worthof sophisticated uK tax avoidanceschemes since 2004, including two£500m tax avoidance schemes usedby just one high street bank in early2012. 143 Yet the National Audit Officehas said that these rules have not yettackled most of the tax schemes andarrangements currently being used. 144It is time, therefore, that the uK’santi-tax-avoidance toolbox wasstrengthened, both to protect theuK tax base and to shine a light oninternational tax dodging. This couldmake international tax cooperation– a game-changer for developingcountries’ finances – a reality.37

caSe StuDy‘noW i am not thinKing about the fooD to fiLL my peopLe.’with a mischievous smile, samsonnapatia, from ghana, describeshimself as ‘a happy farmer’. eventhough Ghana has made significantprogress on tackling hunger since1990, and is rated one of the globalhunger Index’s 10 best performingcountries, his claim is surprising.many small-scale ghanaian farmersChristian Aid/Antoinette Powell for the IF campaign.struggle to increase pitiful yieldsagainst a background of underinvestmentin agriculture, but visitingSamson’s grain store, which is filledwith an enormous pile of dried maizekernels, it’s easy to see why hemakes it.life wasn’t always like this forsamson. ‘we used to farm plentybut we didn’t know how to applyfertiliser,’ he recalls. ‘we only knewhow to weed and wait for the rain tocome. It wasn’t enough food. we atethree times – morning, afternoonand evening – but they were verysmall meals.’samson’s community of fooshegu isone that has received support fromnorthern presbytery agriculturalsupport. ‘[previously], we didn’tknow the good season for planting.we only waited for the rain to comebut after the training we knewthe exact time we must farm,’ hesays. ‘and then we found out aboutfertiliser too and organic manure. Itis easier than before because you canfarm small but harvest more.’This support has removed samson’sconstant worry that his childrenwould go hungry: ‘now I am notthinking about the food to fillmy people.’The government has ambitiouspolicies and goals to supportsmallholder farmers to increasetheir yields in a sustainable manner.however, so far, their interventionsdo not match these ambitions. moretax revenue could help them improveadvice services for women and menfarmers, supply small-scale irrigationand improve soil quality.‘Tax is vital in helping governmentmeet its responsibilities to itscitizenry. for example, if you takethe agriculture sector improvementplan, these are great plans but itwill need financial resources,’ saysJohn nkaw of christian aid partnersend-ghana.unfortunately ghana currently losesvast sums through tax dodging.Indeed, ghana’s governmentestimates that it loses around us$36mevery year through tax dodging in themining sector alone.If ghana had the means to raise morein taxes by ensuring companies andwealthy individuals paid what theyshould, it would be less dependent onforeign donors, and in better controlof its finances and how it spendsthem. This would include ensuringthat its plans for the agriculturalsector are delivered and even scaledup. but if tax dodging is not tackled,this will remain something of whichghana can only dream. as edwardgyamerah of the ghana revenueauthority says, ‘revenue is fuel thatpropels the engine. so if you don’thave fuel, if you are short of fuel,how can you run your engine?’38

2.5 reveaLing taxDoDgerS - poLicyrecommenDationSThe revenue lost from global taxavoidance and evasion could paymany times over the sums neededto achieve zero hunger. The uK mustact to ensure that uK taxpayers arenot able to avoid paying their duetaxes. Tax avoidance and evasionmust also be tackled throughstepped-up global action to addressfinancial secrecy in tax havens, aprocess which the uK can lead. Twoareas in particular require action:a) Changing UK rules to helpensure developing countriesreceive the taxes they are duei) Introduce a requirement in theuK’s disclosure of Tax avoidanceschemes (doTas) rules in thefinance bill for UK companiesand wealthy individualsto report their use of taxschemes with an impact ondeveloping countries.ii)require that when such schemesare identified under these rules,or under other mechanisms(such as the general anti abuserule), the uK will use its existingpowers under bilateral andmultilateral treaties to notifydeveloping countries’ taxauthorities, and to assist in therecovery of that tax.b) Take steps to gain meaningfulprogress in achieving global taxtransparency, by:iii) Ending tax haven secrecy by2016: tackle global tax havensecrecy once and for all bylaunching a convention on TaxTransparency 145 at the 2013 g8.g8 governments should be thefirst signatories, acknowledgingthat as some of the world’sbiggest economies, they shouldlead in instituting transparencymeasures to prevent companiesand individuals from hidingwealth – such as a globalstandard for registration ofownership of companies andtrusts – and should report ontheir progress by 2014.The g8 should also commit topushing tax havens to sign thisconvention and the multilateralconvention on mutualadministrative assistance in Taxmatters, committing them tosharing critical information onhidden wealth and assets at alllevels of information exchangepermitted under the multilateralconvention; and should takerobust and binding countermeasuresagainst tax havensthat fail to participate in theseinitiatives by the end of 2013.iv) Ending corporate taxpayersecrecy by 2016: introducecountry-by-country reportingfor all sectors within the g8’sown jurisdictions, and pushthe International accountingstandards board (Iasb) to havecountry-by-country reporting asa global accounting standard.39

Sven Torfinn/Panos Pictures/ActionAid for the IF campaign403. LanD to groW fooD

3. LanD to groW fooD:enSuring fair anD SuStainabLe uSe of LanD So it contributeS to fooDSecurity, groWth anD DeveLopment that benefitS poor peopLe‘LanD acquiSitionS are areaLity. We can’t WiShthem aWay, but We haveto finD a proper Way ofLimiting them. it appearS tobe LiKe the WiLD WeSt anDWe neeD a Sheriff anD LaWin pLace.’(JOSé GRAzIANO DA SILvA,DIRECTOR GENERAL OFTHE FAO, 2012)image previouS page: eliza namuruand her sister-in-law cristina namuruharvest rice in mlaviwa villaGe, in thephalOmBe district Of malawi. partlydue tO risinG fOOd prices wOrldwide,the develOpinG wOrld’s aGriculturalsectOr is receivinG mOre and mOreattentiOn, after years Of neGlect.nGOs cOntinue tO lOBBy fOr BetterGOvernment pOlicies that will BOOstsmall-scale farmers’ capacity, tOmake them self-sufficient and aBle tOBenefit frOm hiGh crOp prices whenthey sell their surplus.agricultural investment in developingcountries is vital and the right kindof investment can play a positiverole in reducing hunger, increasingfarm productivity and providingjobs in a more prosperous ruraleconomy. however, if investment isnot well regulated and conductedtransparently, it can have theopposite effect. The last few yearshave seen a massive rise in landpurchases in developing countries.as the acquisition of large tractsof land gathers pace, evidence ismounting that communities arepaying an unacceptably high price forsuch investment: they lose their landand therefore their ability to growfood; they may also be forced to payhigher prices for local food. each ofthese impacts can exacerbate hunger.land acquisitions for biofuels areparticularly to blame here; andwith a certain irony, in these casescrops that could have been eaten byhungry people are burned in petroltanks instead.If companies ignore or underminerights to land of small-scaleproducers, they reinforce the powerrelations that keep people poor. landinvestments need to be much betterregulated and governed.3.1 acquiring LanD,grabbing LanDsmall-scale producers clearly needland to produce food. accordingto the fao, access to resources,especially land, influenced the degreeto which households with comparableincomes coped with the 2008 foodprice spike, with higher food priceshitting landless households hardest. 146for example, oxfam research showsthat access to land and gardens hasbeen a key source of resilience forPacific Island households in the wakeof the global economic crisis. 147however, ownership of land ischanging fast. between 2001 and2010, 203 million hectares of landaround the world have been underconsideration or negotiation in largescaleland acquisitions. 148 oxfamestimates that the land area soldoff in the past decade amounts toeight times the size of the uK – thisis enough to feed a billion people,more than the number who go to bedhungry every night. 149 Around one fifthof farmland in senegal and sierraleone, more than 30 per cent inliberia and over half in cambodia hasbeen acquired by companies. 150all too often, large-scale landacquisitions constitute land grabs(see box overleaf). whether or nota land acquisition is a ‘land grab’depends on the facts of the case,specifically whether or not it wasconcluded with the participation orconsent of affected communities, andso it is difficult to get a sense of thescale of land acquisitions gone badbeyond counting up existing disputes.lack of systemic data does not meanthat land grabs are not happening:communities may not speak up out offear, because they don’t understandthe process, or because they can’tafford representation, among otherreasons. however, it is clear thatthe poorer the recognition of rural41

land rights is in a country, the morelikely it is to host land deals, 151 whichsuggests that many land deals areactually land grabs.The current wave of land grabs isoften displacing farmers from theirland with little compensation, or elseviolating their human rights. 152 privateinvestment in land can sometimesbenefit small-scale producers – butall too often, investors fail to deliveron promised compensation and jobcreation, and skewed power relationsin negotiations over access to landoften lead to a bad deal for the localcommunities. 153 a recent expertreport for the UN finds that ‘largescale investment is damaging thefood security, incomes, livelihoodsand environment for local people’. Itcontinues by saying that the rights ofwomen, minority ethnic communitiesand indigenous people are particularlyat risk. 154 a dfId report notes that‘new research on the global rush foragricultural land shows how smallscalefarmer livelihoods and rights areincreasingly at risk as land deals ignorelocal tenure rights and marginalisethe tirana DecLarationon LanD grabSThe International land coalition(Ilc) consists of 116 organisations,from community groups to ngosto the world bank. at its assemblyin Tirana, albania in may 2011,the ILC denounced and definedland grabbing:we denounce all forms of landgrabbing, whether international ornational. we denounce local-levelland grabs, particularly by powerfullocal elites, within communitiesor among family members. wedenounce large-scale land grabbing,which has accelerated hugelyover the past three years, andwhich we define as acquisitions orconcessions that are one or more ofthe following:(i) in violation of human rights,particularly the equal rightsof women;poor farmers and pastoralists’. 156and a world bank report has saidthat ‘many investments... failedto live up to expectations and,(ii) not based on free, prior,instead of generating sustainableand informed consent ofbenefits, contributed to asset lossthe affected land users;and left local people worse off thanthey would have been without the(iii) not based on a thoroughinvestment. In fact, even thoughassessment, or are in disregard an effort was made to cover a wideof, social, economic andspectrum of situations, case studiesenvironmental impacts,confirm that in many cases benefitsincluding the way theywere lower than anticipated or didare gendered;not materialize at all’. 157(iv) not based on transparentcontracts that specify clear andbinding commitments aboutactivities, employment, andbenefits-sharing;(v) not based on effectivedemocratic planning,independent oversight, andmeaningful participation. 155Two-thirds of land deals by foreigninvestors are in countries with aserious hunger problem. yet, preciouslittle of this land is being used to feedpeople in those countries or goinginto local markets. rather, aroundtwo thirds of foreign land investorsin developing countries intend toexport everything they produce onthe land. 158 at the moment much ofthe land acquired is being left idle;research suggests that 80 per centof land projects are undeveloped,and only 20 per cent have begunactual farming. 15942

The international community hasfailed to act on this wave of landgrabs. This conflicts strongly withthe spirit of intergovernmentalcommitments made in the g8’sl’aquila food security Initiative andthe comprehensive africa agriculturedevelopment programme (caadp),which support the role of small-scalewomen and men producers in tacklinghunger. 160 The uK government hassaid very little about the dangersposed by land grabs, though it hasstarted to acknowledge the need toaddress the issue, including throughits g8 presidency. 161The level of risk associated withlarge-scale land acquisitions isunacceptable, and the potentialconsequences for people’s livelihoodsirreversible. and yet the internationalcommunity’s responses to the globalland rush have been largely weak anduncoordinated, with the exception ofthe important step taken in may 2012,when governments, in consultationwith civil society and private sectorrepresentatives, agreed on a setof voluntary guidelines on theresponsible governance of Tenureof land (see box, right).The voluntary guidelines pave theway for much-needed reforms to landgovernance: for example promotingequal rights for women in securingland title and encouraging states toensure that poor people get legalhelp during land disputes. The keynow is to ensure that governmentsimplement them in a processinvolving all relevant stakeholders,especially the most marginalised. 162If they do, many of the problemsassociated with land grabs will beavoided. but efforts to implementthe voluntary guidelines shouldnot be undermined by fast-trackingprinciples related to responsibleinvestment in land. The world bankprinciples for responsible agriculturalinvestment are grossly inadequate,and it is crucial that participatoryrenegotiation of the principles onresponsible agricultural investment(raI) at the un committee on worldFood Security (CFS) reflect the factthat good investment must work forpoor communities.voLuntary guiDeLineS on the governance of tenure:Key principLeS 163States should:• recognise and respect alllegitimate tenure rights and thepeople who hold them• safeguard legitimate tenurerights against threats• promote and facilitate theenjoyment of legitimatetenure rights• provide access to justice whentenure rights are infringed upon• prevent tenure disputes, violentconflicts and opportunities forcorruption.The world bank’s private sector arm,the Ifc, is the world’s key standardsetter for investors, and the adviceand support that the world bank andother donors give to a country canbe fundamental in equipping thatcountry to ensure that investment in• Non-state actors (includingbusiness enterprises) havea responsibility to respecthuman rights and legitimatetenure rights. The principlesof implementation include:human dignity, nondiscrimination,equity andjustice, gender equality, holisticand sustainable approaches,consultation and participation,rule of law, transparency,accountability, and continuousimprovement.land benefits communities. However,to date, efforts to cut red tape forbusiness have been privileged overefforts to protect the rights of smallscalefarmers. since 2008 alone, 21formal complaints have been broughtto the bank by communities affected43

y bank investments, which they sayhave violated their land rights. In thepast the world bank has chosen tofreeze lending when poor standardshave caused dispossession andsuffering. It needs to do so again,to provide the space to implementreforms and to send a clear signal toinvestors and governments that therisks associated with large-scale landdeals are unacceptable.3.2 fooD ShouLD be foreating: the DemanDfor biofueLS‘moSt firSt generationbiofueLS are neitherenvironmentaLLy efficientnor coSt-effective WaySto reDuce greenhouSegaS emiSSionS, anD theDemanD they pLace onLanD iS DeStabiLiSingWorLD fooD SuppLy anDincreaSing priceS.’ (PAULPOLmAN, CHIEF ExECUTIvE OFUNILEvER AND CHAIRmAN OFTHE B20 TASKFORCE ON FOODSECURITy, 2012) 164almost all biofuels are fuels made onan industrial scale from agriculturalcrops: for example, maize, wheat,sugar cane and oil seeds. They havebeen put forward as a solution toclimate change, energy security andrural development – but this view isdisastrously mistaken.The increasing production of biofuels,driven by government mandatesand market distorting subsidies, isdepriving small-scale producers ofaccess to land by fuelling land grabsand contributing to rising world foodprices. It is happening rapidly andon a massive scale. urgent attentionmust be given to ending damagingbiofuel policies.crops that could be used for biofuelsare estimated to be responsible foraround 58 per cent of global landacquisitions in recent years and fortwo-thirds of the land acquired inafrica. 165 The land used to produce eubiofuels in 2008 was enough to feed127 million people. 166 crops burnedas biofuels in the uK are enough tofeed 10 million people every year. 167but small-scale producers have beendisplaced from their land as a resultof biofuel projects in countries suchas Tanzania, guatemala, Indonesia,brazil and colombia, as documentedby ngos. 168 scarce water resourcesare also being diverted from otheruses to biofuels production incountries like mozambique andKenya. 169 Women are often firstaffected, especially when they donot have legal titles to the landthey farm – land often identifiedby governments and investors as‘available’ for biofuel production. 170moreover, the commercial stimulusto meeting eu biofuel targets by2020 means the land needed togrow biofuel crops is being acquiredquickly. doing land deals properlytakes time, often more time thanbiofuel companies have, whichmakes land deals for biofuelsinherently risky.The increasing global demand forbiofuels is pushing food prices higherand higher, 171 by reducing the amountof land available for growing foodand by diverting crops to biofuel use.The fao estimates that the 2007-08food price spike contributed to aneight per cent rise in the number ofundernourished people in africa. 172demand for biofuels was estimated toaccount for around 30 per cent of thisprice spike. 173In 2009, a study suggested thatachieving a 10 per cent biofuels sharein transport fuel globally by 2020could raise world food prices so muchthat an extra 140 million peoplecould be at risk of hunger. 174 evidenceof the contribution of biofuel policiesto rising and increasingly volatile foodprices on international markets is socompelling that it led 10 internationalbodies – including the Internationalmonetary fund, the world bank, thefao and uncTad – to recommend in2011 that g20 governments abolishbiofuel mandates and subsidies. 175This pattern of increasing foodprices is set to continue. researchcommissioned by the ec shows thatby 2020 the use of eu biodiesel (fuelmade from palm or rapeseed oil)could push oil seed prices up by as44

much as 20 per cent, vegetable oilsby as much as 36 per cent, and maizeand wheat by as much as 22 per centand 13 per cent respectively. 176 oiland cereals are key foods for poorpeople. and as biofuel productiondisplaces local, national and regionalfood production, it has an impacton prices that is not captured in themodelling of effects on internationalprices. The force of these price riseswill hit at a time when local food58%OF GLOBALLANDACQUISITIONSIN RECENTYEARS HAVEBEEN TOPRODUCECROPS THATCOULD BEUSED FORBIOFUELS.THIS REDUCESTHE LANDAVAILABLE TOGROW FOODmarkets will be affected by largetracts of land themselves being takenover for biofuel production.despite fuelling land grabs and foodprice rises, biofuel production hasmassively increased. between 2000and 2010, global biofuel productionrose from 16 billion to 100 billionlitres; it is heavily concentrated inthe us, brazil and the eu. 177 by 2021,the fao and oecd estimate that 14per cent of world maize production,16 per cent of vegetable oil and 34per cent of sugar will be used toproduce biofuels. 178The biofuels boom is being drivenby government subsidies andmandates (targets) aimed, laudablybut mistakenly, at mitigating climatechange. global subsidies for biofuelprogrammes amounted to aroundus$22bn in 2010 – more than those towind power (us$18bn) or solar power(us$12bn). 179 The amount is morethan twice the level of agriculturalaid to developing countries. suchsubsidies are set to more than doubleby 2020. 180The eu’s biofuels mandate,established in 2009, commits eugovernments to source 10 per centof their transport energy fromrenewable sources by 2020; theyare set to meet this target almostexclusively using biofuels madefrom food crops. 181 as a result of thistarget, all 27 eu governments haveintroduced biofuel mandates, whichby 2011 ranged from 2.5 per cent incyprus to seven per cent in france. 182another piece of eu legislation – thefuel quality directive – requiresfuel suppliers to reduce their carbon‘intensity’ by six per cent by 2020,and thus also encourages the useof crop-based biofuels. In october2012, however, the ec proposed achange in policy to the effect thatfood crop-based biofuels could countfor only five per cent of the transportfuel target. 183In the uK, concerns regardingthe sustainability of biofuels haveprompted the government to restrictits biofuels target. The renewableTransport fuels obligation (rTfo)requires fuel suppliers to ensure thatroad transport fuel includes four anda half per cent biofuels in 2012 andfive per cent in 2013 and beyond. 184The principal rationale for promotingbiofuels is that they reducegreenhouse gas emissions comparedto using fossil fuels. yet ‘there islittle evidence that the majority ofcurrent policies associated with firstgeneration biofuels contribute to45

climate change mitigation’, in thewords of the un’s high level panel ofexperts. 185 Indeed, biofuels can resultin more greenhouse gas emissionsthan conventional petrol and diesel,as suggested in studies by the eu’sJoint research centre, 186 the uKgovernment’s advisory committee onclimate change 187 and the Institutefor european environmental policy. 188The problem at the root of theeu’s biofuels mandate is that whengreenhouse gas emissions frombiofuel production are calculated,they do not take into account theextent to which this displacesagricultural production onto forests,peat lands and grasslands, all ofwhich are high carbon stores – knownas Indirect land use change (Iluc).studies suggest that Iluc drivenby the eu’s biofuel mandate couldconvert up to 69,000km 2 of naturalecosystems into cropland by 2020,releasing 27–56 million tonnes ofextra co2 per year; this is equivalentto putting 12–26 million extra carson european roads. 189 yet, in october2012, the EC specifically rejectedcalls to include Iluc in emissioncalculations and as part of the eu’ssustainability criteria for biofuels. 190some ‘second generation’ biofuels(that is, those manufactured fromenergy crops, agricultural residuesor waste) could provide significantgreenhouse gas reductions comparedto fossil fuels. however, this isfar from guaranteed since secondgeneration feedstocks might still beproduced on land that could be usedfor growing food or else remove, forexample, straw that protects soilfrom erosion and keeps carbon andnutrients in the ground. 191 moreover,many second generation biofuelstechnologies are a long way frombecoming commercially available:International energy associationprojections show conventionalbiofuels to be predominant up to2050. 192 more research and politicalwill needs to be applied to promotealternatives to biofuels. analysis byactionaid suggests that the uK, forexample, could meet its renewabletransport energy commitmentswithout using current land-basedbiofuels, or indeed any land-basedcrops or trees, by using smallquantities of sustainable advancedgeneration biofuels from wastesand residues, other wastes such ascooking oil and tallow, and electricvehicles from renewable sources. 193The eu’s renewable energy directive,which contains the 10 per centtransport fuel target, requires thecommission to prepare a biennialreport on the social impacts of itsbiofuels policy. The first of thesereports was due by the end of2012. 194 when the renewable energydirective comes up for review in2014, eu governments have theopportunity to press for the abolitionof the 10 per cent renewable energyin transport fuel target that drivesbiofuels demand, which theymust seize. 195meanwhile, on 17 october 2012, theeuropean commission published aproposal to cap, at five per cent,the amount of food crops that canbe used to meet the europeantargets for renewable energy intransport. while the commission’sacknowledgement of the negativesocial and environmental impacts ofeu biofuels mandates is welcome, thecurrent cap does not go far enough.In fact, at that level it would still beincentivising burning enough food tofeed tens of millions of people.It now falls on the europeanparliament and the council ofministers to ensure that the cap isbrought down to zero per cent andcovers all land-based biofuels. It iscompletely unacceptable that we areburning food in our petrol tanks whilepoor families go hungry and millionsare being pushed off their land.46

caSe StuDy‘thiS jatropha project haS ruineD my Life.i have nothing noW.’This is the story of 34-year-old yayadiallo*, who agreed to plant thebiofuel crop jatropha on her farm insenegal. The foreign company hassince left the area but she is stillsuffering from the consequences ofthe jatropha project.‘when the jatropha project camehere... men, women and the youngwere involved in the project and wewere paid three dollars a day. wewere asked to grow jatropha on ourfarms. I planted jatropha on my farmwhere I used to grow groundnuts.In previous years my harvests weregood; I used to have 1,100kg ofgroundnuts. with these groundnuts,I cooked for my family and sold therest to be able to buy school suppliesfor my children. but when I grewjatropha, my groundnut productiondecreased to 300kg. now, I am facinga lot of difficulties, My children andI are hungry and I don’t have moneyto buy them school supplies. eventhe small grocery shop that I openedis closed now; I sold all the groceriesand used the money to buy food,but this was not enough for me tosurvive. I am still supported by mybrothers and sisters.‘This project has ruined my life.I have nothing now, and [food]prices are so high, I cannot affordto buy rice or maize to eat withmy children.’since yaya gave this testimony toactionaid, yaya’s son did not enrol inschool in october 2012 because shedid not have the money to supporthis education.*This is not her real nameActionAid for the IF campaign47

3.3 LanD to groWfooD – poLicyrecommenDationSa) Improve governance oflarge-scale land acquisitionsThe UK should use its financial andpolitical influence, including in theg8 and g20, to improve governanceof large-scale land acquisitions indeveloping countries, includingensuring both men and women’srights to land and to participate indecision-making that affects them.It should:i) push for the World Bankto review the impactof its funding (direct orindirect) of land acquisitionson communities and theenvironment; and to changebank policies to make surethat they prevent land grabs,including through social andenvironmental safeguardsand investment-climate policyadvice. world bank lendinginvolving large-scale landacquisitions should be frozen forsix months to provide the spaceto start this process.ii) Put land grabbing on theagenda of the G8, andpromote G8 action to improvegovernance, transparencyand accountability in landagreements. given the potentialfor increased pressures onnatural resources to seriouslyundermine sustainable andinclusive growth, it should alsopress for G20 discussions toaddress this.iii) push for implementation ofall relevant aspects of thevoluntary guidelines on landtenure and ensure that therenegotiation of the principleson responsible agriculturalinvestment (RAI) at thecommittee on world foodSecurity (CFS) reflect the factthat good investment must workfor poor communities.b) End support for damagingbiofuels policiesThe uK should also take stepstowards abolishing the uK and eu’sdistorting biofuel mandates, whichrepresent one of the most significantdrivers of food price increasesand large-scale land acquisitions.concretely, the uK should in 2013:iv) end its use of land basedbiofuels, scrapping therenewable transport fuelobligation and insteadpromoting only genuinelysustainable renewable transportenergy sources such as:domestic biofuels from wastes,residues and by-products, andelectric vehicles powered bydecarbonised and renewableelectricity (not biomass).v) In the context of the existingec proposal on biofuels policy,ensure zero land-based biofuelscan be counted towards eu fuelquality and renewable energytargets and lobby for the truescale of carbon emissions tobe accounted for by including‘Indirect land use change’(Iluc) in emission savingscalculations.vi) Contribute to the ecassessment of the social andenvironmental impact of the eubiofuels mandate outside the eu,ensuring the EC recognises thefull impact of biofuels on foodsecurity and land rights.48

4. Seeing cLearLyimproving tranSparency anD citizen participation in DeciSion-maKingto enSure that pubLic anD private inveStmentS promote fooD Security‘Different actorS –inveStorS, government,LocaL peopLe – enter thenegotiationS With highLyaSymmetric informationanD poWer. conSequentLy,LocaL peopLe uSuaLLy LoSeout, anD governmentSLoSe both revenueS anDopportunitieS to achieveLong-term benefitS fortheir popuLationS.’(HIGH LEvEL PANEL OFExPERTS ON FOOD SECURITyAND NUTRITION, COmmITTEEON wORLD FOOD SECURITy,2011) 196image previouS page: in 2006, ukreGisteredcOmpany sun BiOfuelsltd BeGan clearinG land inkisarawe, tanzania, tO estaBlish an8,200-hectare BiOfuel plantatiOn andreplant a BiOfuel crOp, jatrOpha. thelOcal cOmmunity received nOne Ofthe prOmised investment in terms Ofclinics and schOOls, and few werecOmpensated fOr land they lOst.the cOmpany went intO administratiOnin auGust 2011.policy decisions and investmentdeals impacting on the livelihoodsof millions of small-scale producersare regularly taken behind closeddoors, without their participationor even their being informed onhow they will be affected. a newinternational drive to end hungerrequires greater transparency in keyareas of government and corporateactivity. It needs these powerfulactors to be held more accountablefor their operations, and for citizensto participate more in the designand implementation of policies orprojects that affect them.citizens, both men and women, musthave greater access to informationon land and natural resourcesinvestments in ways they can makeuse of. and government budgetsneed to be opened up to greaterpublic input and scrutiny. Increasedtransparency, accountabilityand participation will help makegovernments more accountableto people locally, nationally andinternationally.ensuring that companies are heldto account for their activities – byaffected communities and by theirinvestors – is equally vital, giventheir major role in the global foodsystem, in current land investmentsand as sources of public revenue.companies have more informationabout citizens than ever, but citizenshave little reliable information aboutthe impact of company operations ontheir communities and rights. greatertransparency in companies’ financialreporting, and on their social andenvironmental impacts, should helpinvestors, consumers and citizensto challenge or engage with foodcompanies to help address problems.Improved corporate reporting is alsoimportant for businesses themselvesto evaluate the impact of theirdecisions more effectively and take along-term view of the financial, socialand environmental sustainability oftheir business models.4.1 Seeing cLearLy WhatiS happening to LanDas we saw in section 3, currentland investments often amount to‘land grabs’, displacing small-scaleproducers from their land anddeepening hunger. Transparency isnot an end in itself, but the secrecythat cloaks many land deals is one ofthe most disturbing characteristics ofthe global land rush.lack of transparency and consultationis a fundamental problem in manylarge-scale land acquisitions.negotiations between company andgovernment, and often local leaders,can take place behind closed doorsand provide little or no informationeven on who is actually financing ormanaging a land investment or on thecontracts signed, even after projectsbegin. 197 neither do legal regimesin the home states of transnationalcorporations require full transparencywith respect to land investments indeveloping countries. 198 governmentsoften fail to ensure that affectedrights-holders are even at the50

negotiating table, never mindempowering them to be strongplayers. where local communitiesare consulted, the process tendsto bypass women, even in caseswhere their (primary and secondary)land use rights are affected, oftensince women have no formal landownership rights. 199lack of transparency prevents localcommunities from knowing who isacquiring their land and for whatpurpose. It makes it harder forpeople to assess the impacts ontheir lives and food security, gainfair compensation for their losses,and find out to whom they canappeal. It can also foster corruption.Furthermore, the benefits of theinvestment – which could includenew jobs, spin-off businesses andtax revenues – are difficult to assessand guarantee when there is nocontract or revenue disclosure. 200affected communities need supportto know what information they areentitled to, and how to access anduse it without fear of reprisal. 201greater transparency and citizenparticipation in land acquisitionswill help maximise the benefits forsmall-scale producers and minimisethe costs.4.2 Seeing companieS’actionS cLearLywithin the global food system,considerable power is concentratedin a small number of multinationalcorporations controlling foodproduction, trading, processing,retail and more. Such firms can playan important role in contributing tofood security, but the concentrationof power makes transparencyand accountability all the moreimportant. These companies shouldbe required to provide public reportson the full range of their impacts,positive and negative, on social,environmental and human rightsissues. greater transparency in thisarea would enable investors andcitizens to engage with companies toaddress any shortcomings, and allowthem greater choice in supportingcompanies that are performing well.In the uK, the 2006 companiesact does require directors of mostmedium and large uK companiesto ‘have regard’ to their impactson employees, relationships withsuppliers, customers and theenvironment. companies have toprovide information to shareholderson these areas ‘to the extentnecessary for an understanding ofthe development, performance orposition of the company’s business’. 202The act was an important stepchangein reporting, in that it expectscompanies to provide informationon a wide range of social andenvironmental matters. 203 however,it is not working well as a mechanismof accountability, either for investorsor for producers and consumers. asthe corporate responsibility coalition(core) has shown, the companyreporting requirements are toovague, while a lack of good guidanceand weak enforcement also meanthat the act is not yet deliveringhigh-quality analysis of companies’environmental and social policies. 204one critical gap in the act is that itdoes not explicitly require companiesto report on their human rightsimpacts. human rights (including theright to food) can be conceived asbeing covered by the act’s referenceto ‘social and community issues’,but human rights deserve a specificmention since the impacts can begreat, and clarity is needed onwhat is expected of companies intheir reporting. citing human rightsimpacts in the reformed legislationwould provide that clarity and wouldmake company reporting moreconsistent and reliable. an increasingnumber of international initiatives,such as the guiding principlesdeveloped by professor John ruggie,the un special representative onhuman rights and business, regardhuman rights reporting as a keypart of corporate due diligence.uK investors have recognised thisand in 2011 launched the corporatesustainability reporting coalition,calling on governments globallyto develop an international policyframework on corporate sustainabilityreporting, involving ‘national51

egulations mandating the integrationof material sustainability issues(that is, their economic and socialimpacts) in companies’ financial andnarrative reporting in annual reportand accounts’. 205at the time of writing, the uKgovernment has taken encouragingsteps. a commitment to amendreporting requirements of the90%OF GLOBALTRADE INGRAIN ISCONTROLLEDBY FIVECOMPANIESCompanies Act led first to a nationalconsultation, then in late october2012 to a set of draft legislativeproposals that would enshrine theneed for companies to report onhuman rights issues. The act is onschedule to be updated in april 2013,with the legislation fully operationalby october of the same year. Itis vital that the department forbusiness, Innovation and skills seesthis through, with final legislationthat requires companies to reporton human rights impacts, androbust guidance and enforcementmechanisms to ensure companiesthen comply. action in the uK wouldcover not only major food retail andproducer groups but also the fullrange of companies that have animpact on the food system.at the same time, the europeanunion is beginning to look atcompanies’ social and environmentalreporting, highlighting the need toaddress company transparency onsocial and environmental issues fromthe point of view of all stakeholders.as the world’s largest single marketand key trading bloc for developingcountries, similar action at eu levelwould potentially cover some ofthe world’s most significant foodgroups and biotech firms, and makepossible a long-term approach toensuring that companies’ impact onthe food system is positive. The eu’sown draft proposals on corporatereporting are expected shortly. TheuK can play a vital role in shapingthe final EU reforms so that theyrequire companies to report on theirsocial, environmental and humanrights impacts and they are enforcedeffectively, with clear guidancefor companies.citizens in most countries havevery limited ability to scrutiniseindividual companies effectively, andtherefore to hold them to account.even basic company information,such as rudimentary accounts orownership structures, is often lackingin many developing countries, andmany companies refuse to disclosethis information. The Internationaldevelopment select committee ofthe uK parliament recently calledon dfId to stress to developingcountries’ revenue authorities theimportance of making corporateaccounts available to the publicand to encourage the oecd andother standard-setting fora torequire the filing of public statutoryaccounts in all jurisdictions. It alsocalled on the Treasury to presscrown dependencies to meetthese standards. 20652

4.3 Seeing yourgovernment’S actionScLearLycitizens in developing countriesoften have little information on whatgovernments are spending their moneyon. detailed agriculture budgets, forexample, are often not available,especially at regional or district level,meaning that small-scale producersdo not know what support they canexpect or are entitled to, and haveno way to hold the government toaccount if the finance does not arrive.Transparency in governmentbudgets 207 enables citizens tosee where money is being spentand helps to ensure that the bestinvestments are made to promotefood and nutrition security. budgettransparency also promotesdevelopment by reducing corruptionand holding the government toaccount for its spending. accordingto the IMF, fiscal transparency – aspart of good governance – is key tosustaining macroeconomic stabilityand growth. 208 yet few governmentshave transparent budgets: accordingto the open budget Index, 74 out of94 countries surveyed fail to meetbasic standards of transparencyand accountability; 40 countries failto provide any meaningful budgetinformation at all; and only sevenprovide extensive information. 209In order for budget transparency toprovide benefits, countries need topublish all key budget documents,consult with citizens and parliamentat key points in the budget cycle, andprovide a comprehensive breakdownof all government expenditures andrevenues, including tax and aid.This budget information needs tobe accessible and comprehensible tothe public through initiatives suchas a citizens’ budget (a non-technicaland simplified version of the budgetin everyday language) and opendata portals.budget transparency should alsoinclude not just the revenuescollected and spent, but alsorevenues forgone by governmentsthrough, for example, the provisionof tax incentives and exemptions tolarge companies or individuals. manydeveloping countries forgo significantsums in tax revenues every yearby offering large tax concessionsto companies, including foreigninvestors, often with little or nodebate or information provided to thepublic. countries in east africa, forexample, are losing up to us$2.8bn ayear from such tax incentives. 210Through the global Initiative forfiscal Transparency, 211 the Imf andother international actors are seekingto develop principles and guidelinesfor fiscal transparency that improvethe status quo. progress is alsocurrently being made through theopen government partnership 212(ogp) and the g20 anti-corruptionworking group. 213 Through the ogp,established in 2011, the uK andmore than 50 other developed anddeveloping country governments havesigned up to the open governmentdeclaration, which commits themto: ‘increasing our efforts tosystematically collect and publishdata on government spending andperformance for essential publicservices and activities…’ 214progress has already been made intransparency related to citizens’budgets and open data portals withnational and local budgets. 215 but theopen government declaration focusesonly on some aspects of expendituretransparency and does not includerevenue transparency, which is neededto follow the money all the way.The uK government has been chairof the ogp since september 2012and has an opportunity to set anambitious agenda for deepening fiscaltransparency and its contributionto development. The governmenthas shown leadership in the ogp,being one of the eight foundinggovernments, but the current uKvision for its role as co-chair in 2012–13 lacks ambition, 216 and risks missingan important opportunity to movethe transparency agenda forward.The government should fulfil Davidcameron’s assertion that transparencyis an essential part of a golden threadof successful development. 21753

caSe StuDyhoW improveD tranSparency can heLp to enDhunger anD unDernutrition.The mexican subsidios al campo(‘farm subsidies’) project illustrateshow improved transparency ingovernment budgets and publicspending can help to end hunger andundernutrition 218 by contributing toimproved public services, reducingcorruption and re-directing resourcesto poor communities. 219In mexico, agricultural subsidieswere the central part of a policyprogramme the government putinto place to alleviate the adverseeffects of trade liberalisation onpoor farmers. however, low-incomefarmers were not benefiting fromthe subsidy programme. but inthe absence of hard evidence andengagement from the media andother opinion-formers, there waslittle incentive for the governmentto make changes to the way itimplemented its policies.within the subsidios al campoproject, citizens work with academicsand technical experts to use mexico’sfreedom of Information laws toobtain official data on the recipientsof agricultural subsidies. The projectdiscloses data, analyses the subsidyinformation and uses it to advocatefor changes in rural policy in mexico.subsidios al campo’s public databasedetails the amount of moneyreceived by individual recipients,as well as aggregate informationby municipality, state or region. Itshowed a concentration of subsidyrecipients in the wealthiest 10 percent of farmers. It also found thatthe top 10 per cent of beneficiariesreceived, on average, 16,000 pesosper year; the bottom 80 per cent,964 pesos per year.The project helped to establishmaximum and minimum limits forfarm subsidies and reinforced callsfrom congress for cleaning up therecipient list, introducing a singleidentification number for producersand enforcing the operating rulesmore forcefully. congress also calledon the two ministers of agricultureto testify before committeesfollowing revelations of the subsidiosal campo information.54

at the 2011 g20 meeting in cannes,the g20’s anti-corruption workinggroup, which has been chaired by theuK, committed itself to ‘publish theirbudgets in a timely, comprehensiveand reliable way, ensuring thatthe content is accessible andunderstandable to the generalpublic’. 220 limited progress has beenmade and countries have reaffirmedtheir commitment for the 2013–14work plan. 221 much more needs tobe done.not all g20 or g8 countries havejoined the ogp or shown theircommitment to budget transparencyor accountability to their citizensfor the use of revenues. by joiningthe ogp, and providing ‘extensiveinformation’, 222 publishing all relevantbudget documents, producingcitizens’ budgets and establishingbetter ways for civil society toparticipate in budget processes, g8governments would show leadershipon anti-corruption and transparencyand support developing countries instrengthening the rule of law.4.4 SeeingcLearLy – poLicyrecommenDationSThe uK should use its g8 presidencyto show leadership on goodgovernance, transparency andaccountability. To achieve thisit should:a) Improve transparency so thatcompanies can be held to accountfor their actions in the foodsystem. The UK should:i) strengthen the reportingrequirements in the 2006 uKcompanies act to include aspecific requirement forcompanies to report on the fullrange of their social andenvironmental impact, includingtheir human rights impacts.This needs to be backed upwith robust guidance andenforcement mechanisms toensure companies comply.ii) Take a strong position ineu discussions to ensurethat european legislation oncorporate reporting includesa specific requirement forcompanies to report on thefull range of their social andenvironmental impact, includingtheir human rights impacts.again this needs to be backedup with robust guidance and asystem for enforcement.b) Use its G8 presidency toimprove transparency to ensurethe use of land and naturalresources benefits poor peopleand supports sustainable,equitable growth.iii) promote action to improvegovernance, transparency andaccountability in landagreements.c) Help ensure citizens indeveloping countries can holdtheir governments to account foruse of revenues. The UK should:iv) encourage all g8 countriesto join the ogp, committo providing ‘extensive’budget information and thehighest standards of citizenparticipation in budgeting andsupport, and encourage othercountries to do the same, inparticular working with the g20anti-corruption working group.v) work with other ogp membersto include a commitment in theopen government declarationfor countries to publish a fullbreakdown of all governmentrevenues (including tax anddevelopment assistance) andexpenditures in a way that isunderstandable and accessibleto all citizens, and to improveon their fiscal transparencyperformance year on year.55

concLuSion‘of courSe i feeL hungry. ifeeL hungry untiL i becomeWeaK. When i’m hungry, ifpoSSibLe, i prepare a brothfor mySeLf anD my KiDS –otherWiSe We DrinK SomeWater anD We SLeep.’(ADJITTI mAHAmAT, 40, CHAD,DURING THE 2012 DROUGHTAND FOOD CRISIS) 223development is working. morechildren are in school, fewerchildren die young and fewerfamilies are in absolute poverty.but the international communityhas not made enough impact onhunger. hunger is unnecessary andunacceptable in the modern world,and the extent of it – the fact thatone in eight human beings go hungry– is nothing short of shocking.There is enough food in the worldfor everyone, yet not everyone hasenough food. our food system allowsa few to make billions whilst leavinghardworking small-scale farmersvulnerable and ordinary people facingthe highest food prices in history.acting to end hunger is theresponsibility of people everywhere.The g8 group of rich countries, to itscredit, clearly shares this ambitionand accepts its share of responsibility,having created two hunger initiativesin recent years, and having said asrecently as 2011 that ‘the solutionsto end hunger must be found in theimmediate time frame’. 224The g20 – the slightly larger groupingof powerful countries, which includesall the g8 countries – has alsoproactively supported many of ourproposed solutions to hunger. forexample, a 2012 g20 report said:‘g20 governments should commit toinvest in sustainable approaches toproductivity growth in their domesticagriculture sectors with particularattention to smallholder farmers.’other governments also agree. forexample, Irish Taoiseach enda Kennyhas said: ‘our shared humanity meanswe live in a continuous present. It isvital that through remembering andhonouring the victims of our owngreat hunger that we strive to ensurefood, dignity, opportunity... humanityitself… for all peoples in all partsof the world where starvation andundernutrition exist.’hunger is complicated. but the goodnews is that action to ensure poorpeople can eat is within our grasp.2013 provides a unique opportunityfor the uK to lead the world inmaking changes in four areas thatwould start to make inroads into theproblem: investment, land, tax andtransparency. 2013 will not be theend of hunger, but it could be thebeginning of the end.The food and hunger summithosted by the uK prime ministerand the g8 lough erne summit bothprovide unique opportunities forthe uK to make historic progresstowards challenging the hungerthat is crippling whole communitiesand societies. by showing globalleadership, it is a unique opportunityto reshape the development agendato one that not only addresses thecauses of poverty but also ensuresan enabling environment for growthand prosperity.as the uK prime minister has said: ‘Itis only when people can get a job anda voice that they can take controlof their own destiny and a build afuture free from poverty.’ a personcannot, though, get to this point ifshe is weakened by constant gnawinghunger; if she falls ill because herbody does not have the nutrients itneeds; if she is spending all she hason healthcare for her undernourishedchildren.It doesn’t have to be like this – thereis enough food in the world foreveryone. The uK has an opportunityto act to end global hunger: anopportunity that will not be repeateduntil the lives of millions morewomen, men and children havebeen ruined by hunger. we mustact, while the global stage is ours:it is the right thing to do, and it ispossible. 2013 can be the year wechange the future.56

eferenceS1 world health organization (who), measles fact sheet 286, who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ [accessed 17 december 2012].2 food and agriculture organization of the united nations (fao), The state of Food Insecurity inthe World, 2012, p8 and p55.3 save the children, A Life Free From Hunger, 2012, p7: based on a calculation that 35 per cent ofchild deaths are attributable to undernutrition (r black et al, ‘maternal and child undernutrition:global and regional exposures and health consequences,’ The Lancet, January 2008, pp243–60),with 7.6 million child deaths in 2010 (unIcef, Levels and Trends in Child Mortality, 2011).4 International assessment of agricultural Knowledge, science and Technology for development(IaasTd), Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis report, 2009, p3.5 fao, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012, pp46–47, fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e.pdf6 To calculate each DAC country’s fair share of the global figure, we take account of eachdac country’s total gnI as a proportion of all dac countries’ gnI (capacity) and their currentperformance on spending 0.7 per cent of gnI as oda, compared with overall dac countries’performance. The index gives more weight to the 0.7 per cent commitment (7/10) than to gnI(3/10). based on this calculation, the uK fair share is 3.1 per cent of dac donors’ responsibilities:ie. an additional us$661.7m (in 2009 prices) per year. This converts to £425m per year: only 16.5per cent of additional oda needed for the uK to reach 0.7 per cent.7 fao, The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11 – Women in Agriculture: Closing the gender gapin development, fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf8 IaasTd, Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global report, april 2008, p2; p sanchez et al, HalvingHunger: It can be done, millennium project, un development programme, new york, 2005.9 fao, The State of Food and Agriculture 2012 – Investing in agriculture for a better future, fao.org/docrep/017/i3028e/i3028e.pdf10 see note 9.11 one estimate is that less than 10 per cent of all agricultural aid from donors has an explicitgender focus (J ashby et al, Investing in Women as Drivers of Agricultural Growth, world bank,IFAD and FAO, 2009, p1). OECD figures say that in 2008–09, three per cent of aid to agriculturaland rural development had gender equality as a ‘principal objective’, with 38 per cent as a‘significant’ objective. Source: OECD, DAC, Aid to Agriculture and Rural Development,december 2011.12 for calculations see m curtis, The Crisis in Agricultural Aid, september 2008; based on oecd,creditor reporting system [accessed 16 may 2008].13 see note 6.14 world bank, Repositioning Nutrition as Central to Development: A strategy for large-scaleaction, directions in development, Ibrd/world bank, 2006, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/nuTrITIon/resources/281846-1131636806329/nutritionstrategy.pdf15 J hoddinott, m rosegrant and m Torero, Hunger and Malnutrition, global copenhagenconsensus challenge paper, version 9, april 2012, www.copenhagenconsensus.com/admin/public/dwsdownload.aspx?file=%2ffiles%2ffiler%2fcc12+papers%2fhunger+and+malnutrition.pdf16 Intergovernmental panel on climate change, ‘summary for policymakers’, in m parry et al(eds), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of WorkingGroup III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,pp7–22; d lobell et al, ‘prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030’,Programme on Food Security and the Environment Policy Brief, 2008.17 a waris and m Kohonen, ‘building taxation to achieve the millennium development goals inafrica’, paper presented at essex university, July 2011, p13.18 a gurria, ‘The global dodgers’, the Guardian, 27 november 2008, http://bit.ly/naryb819 This estimate has been made by combining available tax revenue data from all developingcountries and the smallest (most conservative) of the tax gap estimates compiled by four revenueauthorities. This suggests that a typical corporation tax gap is some 20 per cent of corporationtax take, which is also consistent with, firstly, the proportion of profit-shifting in specificmultinational groups whose developing world tax avoidance we have investigated; and, secondly,the corporation tax loss from transfer pricing abuses in developing countries estimated by pwcfor the EC. This ‘tax gap’ figure has been combined with coefficients derived from a regressionanalysis of the relationship between government revenues (including tax and aid) and under-five57

mortality, to determine the likely impact of increased tax revenues on under-five mortality acrossall developing countries, assuming that current spending patterns continue. full details of thiscalculation are available on request.20 high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition, Land Tenure and InternationalInvestments in Agriculture, fao, 2011.21 w anseeuw et al, Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South: Analyticalreport based on the Land Matrix Database, cde/cIrad/gIga, bern/montpellier/hamburg, 2012.22 w anseeuw et al, Land Rights and the Rush for Land: Findings of the Global CommercialPressures on Land Research Project, January 2012, p25, http://landportal.info/area/global;actionaid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, april 2012, p18.23 International energy agency, Technology Roadmap: Biofuels for transport, paris, 2011.24 Based on the Department for Transport’s official figures on progress towards the RTFO in2010–11, Office for National Statistics population figures. Also based on WHO recommendedaverage calorie intake of 2,240 and an assumption that one can extract the same amount ofenergy from a crop when using it as food as when using it for energy.25 oxfam International, Double-Edged Prices – Lessons from the food price crisis: 10 actionsdeveloping countries should take, Oxfam Briefing Paper 121, 2008, oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp121-double-edged-prices-lessons-from-food-price-crisis-0810.pdf26 fao, Feeding the World, Eradicating Hunger, background paper, world food summit, rome,16–18 november 2009.27 see note 2, p9.28 Ibid, p23; world bank, Repositioning Nutrition as Central for Development, 2006; worldhealth organization/world food programme/unIcef, Preventing and Controlling MicronutrientDeficiencies in Populations Affected by an Emergency, 2007.29 see note 3.30 unIcef/who/world bank, Information Sheet: Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates, 2012.31 see note 27.32 save the children uK, The Child Development Index: Progress, challenges and inequality, 2012,savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Child_Development_Index_2012_UK_low_res.pdf33 s horton, ‘opportunities for investments in low income asia’, Asian Development Review, 1999,pp246–73; World Bank, Scaling Up Nutrition: What will it cost?, 2010.34 S Grantham-McGregor et al, ‘Development potential in the first five years for children indeveloping countries’, The Lancet (369), 2007, pp60–70.35 we refer to small-scale producers in this report as meaning smallholder farmers, pastoralistsand fisherfolk. Smallholder farmers are understood to be those with two hectares or less.36 see note 8, p2.37 International fund for agricultural development, ‘food prices: smallholder farmers can be partof the solution’, ifad.org/operations/food/farmer.htm38 pedro sanchez et al, Halving Hunger: It can be done, millennium project, un developmentprogramme, new york, 2005.39 p hazell et al, The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth, IfprI, 2007, p1.40 oxfam, Our Land, Our Lives: Time out on the global land rush, http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/our-land-our-lives-time-out-on-the-global-land-rush-24673141 see r arezki, K deininger and h selod, What Drives the Global Land Rush? Imf working paper,wp/11/251, 2011, www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11251.pdf; K deininger et al, RisingGlobal Interest in Farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits?, world bank, 2011,siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/ESW_Sept7_final_final.pdf42 see note 21.43 fao committee on commodity problems, Medium-Term Outlook for Agricultural CommodityMarkets: Trends and emerging issues, may 2012, para 1.58

44 save the children, A High Price to Pay, october 2012.45 oecd-fao, Agricultural Outlook 2011–2020.46 d willenbockel, Exploring Food Price Scenarios Towards 2030 with a Global Multi-RegionModel, 2011, oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/rr-exploring-food-price-scenarios-010611-en.pdf. These food price scenarios are based on trend prices projected by a model, rather thanon actual observed prices. The model projects long-term food price trends, insulated fromthe impact of volatility, such as the food price spikes of 2007–08 and 2010–11. It takes themost comprehensive dataset available from 2004 and combines this with a series of assumptionsabout population growth and agricultural productivity; it then models what could happento food prices between 2010 and 2030 if data changes in line with our assumptions. The reasonmodelled rather than observed prices are used is that food prices can fluctuate within a givenyear. comparing long-run projections for 2030 with temporary observed price peaks in 2010 wouldresult in misleading conclusions about the direction of the long-term crop price trends.47 see note 16.48 m rosengrant, ‘The perfect storm: food security and nutrition under climate change’,Symposia Brief, november 2010; IfprI, Climate Change: Impact on agriculture and costsof adaptation, 2009.49 see note 17, p13.50 hillary clinton, ‘attacking hunger at its roots’, Huffington Post, June 2011, huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/attacking-hunger-at-its-r_b_214351.html]51 see note 27, p28.52 oxfam, Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices: The costs of feeding a warming world, september2012, p10.53 un millennium project, Halving Hunger: It can be done, undp, 2005, p5; un, EmpoweringWomen: The key to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, International women’s daybackgrounder, 2003, un.org; centre for land, economy and rights of women, MainstreamingGender in Agricultural Programmes Within the Context of NEPAD’s Strategy on Agriculture andRural Development, nairobi, 2006, p4.54 see note 7.55 see, for example, un human rights council, Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur onthe Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, 20 december 2010; ben hobbs and sophie powell, HealthyHarvests: The benefits of sustainable agriculture in Africa and Asia, christian aid, september 2011.56 J pretty, Agroecological Approaches to Agricultural Development, background paper for theworld development report 2008, p3.57 dfId, Scaling Up Nutrition: The UK’s position paper on undernutrition, september 2011, p13.58 oecd, crs database. figures are in constant 2010 prices. data extracted 23 november 2012.59 for calculations see m curtis, The Crisis in Agricultural Aid, september 2008; based on oecd,creditor reporting system [accessed 16 may 2008].60 g8, ‘l’aquila joint statement on global food security’, 10 July 2009, www.g8italia2009.it.following this announcement, fao director-general Jacques diouf said: ‘This is what fao hadbeen preaching for years without success.’; ‘fao welcomes g8 food security initiative’, 10 July2009, fao.org61 see note 57, p25.62 Twenty-two per cent, according to the g8 deauville declaration of may 2011, para 60; save thechildren, A Life Free From Hunger, 2012, p73. The uK government said it had already disbursed 80per cent and expected to meet its commitment. canada had disbursed nearly 90 per cent of theus$1bn it pledged. The usa has appropriated 90 per cent of its us$3.5bn pledge and disbursementis ongoing.63 see ‘camp david’s strong success on food and nutrition’, www.g8.utoronto.ca/evaluations/2012campdavid/kirton-food.html64 J schmidhuber and J bruinsma, ‘Investing towards a world free from hunger: loweringvulnerability and enhancing resilience’, in a prakash (ed), Safeguarding Food Security in VolatileGlobal Markets, fao, 2011.65 Ibid.59

66 see note 6.67 Calculation from OECD CRS database for UK aid to agriculture, forestry and fishing, and ruraldevelopment, gross disbursements in constant 2010 prices.68 save the children, Born Equal: How reducing inequality could give our children a better future,2012, savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/Born_Equal.pdf69 see note 57, p8.70 scalingupnutrition.org71 save the children, A Life Free From Hunger, 2012, p72.72 Ibid.73 s horton et al, Scaling Up Nutrition: How much will it cost? world bank, 2010, p24.74 action contre le faim/Institute of development studies, Aid For Nutrition: Using innovativefinancing to end undernutrition, undated, p13. These figures are based on estimates by the Worldbank in 2010 of us$11.8bn a year, of which us$10.8bn needed to be raised from public resources.see s horton et al, Scaling up Nutrition: How much will it cost? world bank, 2010, p24.75 ‘maternal and child undernutrition’, special series, The Lancet, January 2008.76 J hoddinott, The Consequences of Early Childhood Growth Failure Over The Life Course,mimeo, International food policy research Institute, washington dc, 2011.77 See: ‘Nutrition’, dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/Key-Issues/Food-and-nutrition/Nutrition; Save thechildren, Child Survival: What the UK government must do in 2010, 2010, p2.78 See ‘Against African malnutrition’, dfid.gov.uk/get-involved/your-campaigns79 This is the figure for the G8 states minus Russia. See ‘Annex Tables and Charts’, atDevelopment: Aid to developi ng countries falls because of global recession, oecd, 4 april 2012.80 see for example bond/uK aid network, Reaching 0.7%: Five reasons to deliver and legislate oninternational aid, June 2012.81 Tearfund, Investing in Communities: The benefits and costs of building resilience for foodsecurity in Malawi, november 2010.82 odI/save the children/unIcef, Progress in Child Well-being: Building on what works, 2012, p10.83 Figures from DFID: dfid.gov.uk/News/Press-releases/2012/Provisional-UK-Official-Developmentassistance-as-a-proportion-of-gross-national-Income-2011/;concord, AidWatch 2012, p2.84 ‘demand to drop aid 0.7 per cent a “betrayal” says christian aid’, 29 march 2012, christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/March-2012/demand-drop-aid-0.7-per-cent-betrayal-sayschristian-aid.aspx85 see note 80.86 Kofi Annan, speech delivered in 2011, kofiannanfoundation.org/newsroom/speeches/2011/11/food-security-global-challenge87 oxfam, The UNFCCC Work Programme on Long-term Finance, august 2012, p4.88 european commission, Scaling Up International Climate Finance After 2012, staff workingdocument, april 2011, pp7–8.89 ed davey, speech to chatham house, 11 July 2012, decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/sos_climaction/sos_climaction.aspx90 see ‘The uK’s International climate fund’, decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/international/icf/icf.aspx; cafod and Tearfund, Quick Off The Blocks?: UK adaptation finance and integratedplanning, 2012, p10.91 This is not to mention the quality of uK aid. see cafod and Tearfund, Quick Off The Blocks?:UK adaptation finance and integrated planning, 2012, p3.92 concord, AidWatch 2012, p29.93 International climate fund, Implementation Plan 2011-12 to 2014-15: Technical Paper, p3.94 see cafod and Tearfund, Quick Off The Blocks?: UK adaptation finance and integratedplanning, 2012, p9.60

95 oxfam, Climate Finance Post-Copenhagen: The $100bn questions, may 2010, p3.96 see note 92, p28.97 seee note 95, p1.98 cited by, for example, the then secretary of state for International development andrewmitchell, speech at willis re, 17 april 2012.99 see oxfam, The UNFCCC Work Programme on Long-term Finance, august 2012; Tearfund,Innovative Sources of Climate Finance, June 2011; actionaid, Don’t Cop Out: Compensatefor climate chaos, november 2011; christian aid, The Political Economy of Climate Finance,september 2010.100 Imo, Second IMO GHG Study 2009, cited in oxfam and wwf, Out of the Bunker: Time for afair deal on shipping emissions, september 2011, p2.101 reply to ngo letter on the european commission consultation on including maritimetransport emissions in the eu’s greenhouse gas reduction commitment, from geoffrey souter,dfT, 3 may 2012; letter from the secretary of state for energy and climate change, ed davey, toTearfund, 16 april 2012.102 world bank, Mobilizing Climate Finance, prepared at the request of the g20 financeministers, 6 october 2011. see also european commission staff working paper accompanying thecommunication on ‘stepping up climate finance’.103 david cameron, speech on g8 in northern Ireland, 20 november 2012, www. number10.gov.uk/news/transcript-g8-northern-ireland/104 ngozi okonjo-Iweala: interview with abc news, 14 september 2009, abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/2684786.htm105 DFID, ‘Do taxes help make better governments?’, 9 January 2009, dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/research-and-evidence/case-studies/research-case-studies/2009/Taxes-and-government/106 house of commons, International development committee, Tax in Developing Countries:Increasing resources for development, fourth report of session 2012–13, 16 July 2012, p5.107 undp, What Will It Take to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals? – An internationalassessment, June 2010, p26. civil society organisations have shown that countries collecting morethan 20 per cent of gdp will meet most millennium development goal targets; fiona chipunza,‘Taxation and mdgs editorial,’ Africa Tax Justice Spotlight, Tax Justice network africa, 2010;matti Kohonen, ‘Tax Justice is the missing ingredient in achieving mdgs’, Africa Tax JusticeSpotlight, Tax Justice network africa, 2010.108 see note 17.109 n shaxson, Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the men who stole the world, 2010.110 see note 18.111 Tax Justice network, Estimating the Price of Offshore, July 2012.112 Tax Justice network, Where On Earth Are You?: Major corporations and tax havens, april2009, p1.113 J neighbour, ‘Transfer pricing: Keeping it at arm’s length’, OECD Observer 230, January 2002.114 actionaid, written evidence to house of commons, International development committee,Tax in Developing Countries: Increasing resources for development, fourth report of session2012–13, 16 July 2012, ev 57.115 actionaid, Calling Time: Why SABMiller should stop dodging taxes in Africa, november 2010,actionaid.org.uk/102671/calling_time_the_research.html116 D Kar and S Freitas, ‘Illicit financial flows from developing countries over the decade ending2009’, Global Financial Integrity, December 2011, iffdec2011.gfintegrity.org117 This calculation is based on figures for trade mispricing and false invoicing only. Christian Aid,Death and Taxes: The true toll of tax dodging, may 2008, p2.118 australia does not have a full double Taxation agreement or Tax Information exchangeagreement with Timor leste.119 australian broadcasting corporation (abc), Four Corners: Taxing times in Timor, programmebroadcast 1 october 2012, transcript at abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/09/27/3599022.61

htm?site=darwin. Health spending statistics taken from 2010 figures produced by the World Healthorganization, who.int/countries/tls/en/ [accessed 27 october 2010].120 australian broadcasting corporation (abc), Four Corners: Taxing times in Timor, programmebroadcast 1 october 2012, transcript at abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/09/27/3599022.htm?site=darwin121 World Bank/UN Office on Drugs and Crime, The Puppet Masters: How the corrupt uselegal structures to hide stolen assets and what to do about it, 2011, star.worldbank.org/star/publication/puppet-masters122 Ibid.123 See letter from NGOs on beneficial ownership to Commissioner Barnier, 6 June 2012.124 see p2 of www.eduardomorgan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/global-shell-games_cgppcover_Jersey.pdf125 See ‘Beneficial ownership’, financialtaskforce.org/issues/beneficial-ownership/; Globalwitness, undue diligence: How Banks Do Business With Corrupt Regimes, march 2009.126 cannes g20 summit final declaration, 4 november 2011, para 35.127 actionaid, Addicted to Tax Havens: The secret life of the FTSE 100, october 2011, p7.128 Christian Aid, ‘G20 renews the fight against tax haven secrecy’, November 2011,christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/november-2011/g20-renews-the-fight-against-taxhaven-secrecy.aspx129 ‘India presses for automatic exchange of tax info at g20’, Times of India, 21 april 2012.130 ‘g20: India to press for transparency in tax haven functioning’, Times of India,18 february 2011.131 ‘Twenty one African countries finalise Mutual Assistance Agreement in collecting taxes,’african Tax administration forum, 2 august 2012.132 A Grice, ‘British firms attacked for routine use of tax havens’, The Independent, 11 october 2011.133 a goodhall, ‘large companies should pay “a fair tax rate”, says cameron’, Tax Journal, 6January 2012.134 ‘uK and germany agree tax crackdown on multinational companies’, the Guardian, 5november 2012, guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/uk-germany-tax-crackdown-multinationals135 david gauke, speech, 9 september 2011, hm-treasury.gov.uk/speech_xst_090911.htm136 david gauke, house of commons, Hansard, 3 november 2011, c733w; development ministerstephen o’brien has said: ‘The government strongly support improvements in international taxinformation exchange to help all countries, including developing countries, tackle tax evasionand avoidance. The work of the global forum on Tax Transparency and exchange of Information,which the uK fully supports and which developing countries are being encouraged to join, isparticularly important in this respect. In addition, one of the Government’s first acts on cominginto office was to sign up to a new international protocol strengthening the Organisation foreconomic co-operation and development (oecd)/council of europe convention on mutualadministrative assistance in Tax matters.’ house of commons, Hansard, 18 october 2011, c910w.137 David Cameron, ‘A G8 meeting that goes back to first principles’, EUobserver,21 november 2012.138 see note 106.139 actionaid, Collateral Damage: How government plans to water down UK anti-tax haven rulescould cost developing countries – and the UK – billions, march 2012, p1.140 ‘majority of british adults say tax avoidance is “morally wrong”’, christian aid, 16 august2012, christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/august-2012/british-adults-tax-avoidancemorally-wrong.aspx141 ‘CBI backs end to financial secrecy, as MPs investigate tax dodging’, Christian Aid, 27 February2012, christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/February-2012/cbi-backs-end-financial-secrecymps-investigate-tax-dodging.aspx142 ‘John lewis seeks multinationals tax probe’, Reuters, 14 november 2012, uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/14/uk-britain-tax-johnlewis-iduKbre8ad1vh2012111462

143 ‘Tax avoidance schemes closed’, hmrc, 27 february 2012; oecd, Tackling Aggressive TaxPlanning Through Improved Reporting and Disclosure: Report on disclosure initiatives, february2011, p17; ‘government to tighten net round cowboy tax advisers’, hmT press release, 23 July 2012.144 National Audit Office, Tax Avoidance: Tackling marketed avoidance schemes, 21 november 2012.145 a comparable legal instrument has been mooted by, for example, the norwegian government.norwegian ministry of foreign affairs, Tax Havens and Development: Report from the governmentcommission on capital flight from poor countries, 2009, p107.146 fao, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008: High food prices and food security –poor households worst hit, 2008.147 s feeny, The Impact of the Global Economic Crisis on the Pacific Region, oxfam australia andoxfam new Zealand, 2010.148 International land coalition, Land Rights and the Rush for Land, 2011.149 oxfam, Our Land, Our Lives: Time out on the global land rush, 4 october 2012, p2.150 r wild, Biofuels and land grabs in Senegal, 22 november 2011; ‘sierra leone: local resistancegrows as investors snap up land’, 11 april 2012; oakland Institute, Understanding Land InvestmentDeals in Africa – Country report: Sierra Leone, 2011; oxfam, Our Land, Our Lives: Time out on theglobal land rush, 4 october 2012, p2.151 K deininger and d byerlee, Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it yield sustainable andequitable benefits?, world bank, 2011.152 see, for example, oxfam, Our Land, Our Lives: Time out on the global land rush,4 october 2012; oxfam, Land and Power: The growing scandal surrounding the new waveof investments in land, september 2011; actionaid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the socialimpacts of EU biofuels policies, april 2012; various reports by the oakland Institute and graInand farmlandgrab.org153 Ibid.154 high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition, Land Tenure and InternationalInvestments in Agriculture, fao, 2011.155 International land coalition, Tirana Declaration: Securing land access for the poor intimes of intensified natural resources competition, 2011, landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tiranadeclaration156 ‘Check the fine print on land deals, conference participants urge’, DFID, 6 May 2011.157 see note 151, p45.158 see note 21.159 see note 151.160 oxfam, Land and Power: The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments inland, september 2011, p12.161 no mentions of large-scale land acquisitions or land grabs could be found in a review of dfIdministers’ speeches [conducted on 10 october 2012].162 at the same time, the guidelines need to be improved, since they are only voluntary, do notoppose as a matter of principle land grabbing, and fail to recognise the principle of free, priorand informed consent for those affected, except for indigenous poor communities. actionaid,A Brief Introduction to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure ofLand, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, June 2012; actionaid, TheFinal Adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines on Tenure of Land, Forest and Fisheries, 21 may 2012;graIn, Responsible Farmland Investing?: Current efforts to regulate land grabs will make thingsworse, august 2012, p2, p5.163 fao, Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure, At a Glance, 2012, p6. for a fullversion see fao, Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheriesand Forests in the Context of National Food Security, 2012.164 ft.com/cms/s/0/6cd499bc-2cbc-11e2-a95d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2fqofo5v8165 see note 22.166 oxfam, The Hunger Grains, september 2012, p16.167 see note 24.63

168 actionaid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, april2012; oxfam, The Hunger Grains, september 2012; actionaid, Meals Per Gallon: The impact ofindustrial biofuels on people and global hunger, January 2010.169 actionaid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, april 2012.170 action aid, Fuelling Evictions: Community Cost of EU Biofuels Boom: Dakatcha Woodlands,Kenya, may 2011; w anseeuw et al, Land Rights and the Rush for Land – Findings of the GlobalCommercial Pressures on Land Project, January 2012.171 for an overview of the different drivers of high and volatile prices on agricultural markets,see: hlpe, Price Volatility and Food Security: A report by the High Level Panel of Experts onFood Security and Nutrition, fao, 2011. a recent fao report notes: ‘expansion of biofuels that isunpredicted, or so rapid that it outpaces the ability of the economy to accommodate it, reducescarryover stocks of grains and oilseeds, raises food price levels and increases the threat of furtherprice spikes in response to any unforeseen short-run disturbance’. see ‘overview’ in a prakash(ed), Safeguarding Food Security in Volatile Global Markets, fao, 2011, p16.172 fao.org/news/story/en/item/92495/icode/173 IfprI estimates that increased biofuel demand has contributed 30 per cent of the increasein cereal prices; some other estimates are even higher. a study for the world bank notes thatthe increase in biofuels production from grains and oilseeds in the us and the eu was ‘themost important’ factor in contributing to high food prices. see: IfprI, ‘high food prices: Thewhat, who, and how of proposed policy actions’, Policy Brief, may 2008, p3. The world bank hasestimated 65 per cent: see d mitchell, A Note on Rising Food Prices, policy research workingpaper, world bank, July 2008, p16, cited in fao, Soaring Food Prices: Facts, perspectives, impactsand actions required, June 2008; oxfam, Another Inconvenient Truth, 2008.174 International Institute for applied systems analysis, Biofuels and Food Security: Implicationsof an accelerated biofuels production, 2009.175 fao et al, Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy responses, 2011.176 fonseca et al, 2010, http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=3439177 International energy agency, Technology Roadmap: Biofuels for transport, paris, 2011.178 oecd/fao, Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021, 2012, p95.179 I gerasimchuk et al, State of Play on Biofuel Subsidies: Are policies ready to shift?, IIsd,June 2012, p7.180 oxfam, Growing a Better Future: Food justice in a resource-constrained world, July 2011,p47, citing Iea, World Energy Outlook 2010, which estimates that support for biofuels in 2009 wasUS$20bn, the bulk of it in the US and EU. This figure is projected to rise to US$45bn by 2020 andus$65bn by 2035.181 In 2010, member states submitted action plans outlining how they would meet this 10 percent target. It became clear that over 88 per cent of the 10 per cent target is to be met throughso-called first generation biofuels. ActionAid, Fuel for Thought: Addressing the social impacts ofEU biofuels policies, april 2012, p1.182 see note 166, p5.183 ‘biofuels: eu weakens proposals to reduce indirect climate impact’, Reuters, 17 october 2012.184 friends of the earth and actionaid, The Bad Business of Biofuels, february 2012, p1. Innovember 2005, the uK announced the introduction of the renewable Transport fuel obligation(rTfo), stating that, together with fuel duty incentives, it would be the country’s primarymechanism to deliver the objectives set forth in the ec’s biofuels directive. The two principaleu directives for increasing biofuel usage that uK policy attempts to take into account are:the renewable energy directive (red) and the fuel quality directive (fqd). The rTfo obligessuppliers of fossil fuels (if they supply over 450,000 litres of petroleum per annum) to certify thata specified percentage of the road fuels they supply in the UK market include renewable fuels.as well as requiring fuel suppliers to meet targets relating to the volumes of biofuels supplied,the rTfo requires companies to provide reports on the carbon and sustainability (c&s) of thebiofuels. c charles and p wooders, Biofuels – At What Cost: Mandating ethanol and biodieselconsumption in the United Kingdom, IIsd, January 2012, p15.185 high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition, Food Security and ClimateChange, fao, June 2012, p13.186 l marelli et al, ‘estimate of ghg emissions from global land use change scenarios’, JointResearch Centre Technical Notes, 2011.64

187 committee on climate change, Bioenergy Review, december 2011.188 c bowyer, Anticipated Indirect Land Use Change Associated with Expanded Use of Biofuelsand Bioliquids in the EU: An analysis of the national renewable energy action plans, Institute foreuropean environmental policy, march 2011; friends of the earth and actionaid, The Bad Businessof Biofuels, february 2012, p2. see also atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf189 The number of additional cars on the road is calculated by dividing the additional ghgemissions from Iluc on an annualised basis by the estimated level of emissions per car in 2020. Thelatter is calculated based on the assumption that on average, cars will produce 170gco2e/km in2020 and travel 13,000km per year. This equates to 2.21tco2e per car per year. These calculationsare based on established scenarios for future car use in europe. see actionaid, Fuel for Thought:Addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, april 2012, p31. see also Anticipated IndirectLand Use Change Associated with Expanded Use of Biofuels and Bioliquids in the EU: An Analysisof the National Renewable Energy Action Plans, Ieep; oxfam, The Hunger Grains, september 2012,p7; friends of the earth and actionaid, The Bad Business of Biofuels, february 2012, p2.190 see note 183.191 george monbiot, ‘must the poor go hungry just so the rich can drive?’, the Guardian, 13august 2012.192 Iea, World Energy Outlook 2010.193 The government watchdog, the committee on climate change, has suggested that a 15 percent reduction in transport co2 could be made by 2020 through such measures as greater fuelefficiency in vehicles and campaigns to get people walking, cycling and using public transportmore: committee on climate change, Meeting the Carbon Budgets – 2012 progress report toParliament, chapter 5, pp176–187; actionaid’s analysis is that to meet the government’s rTfotarget, 25 per cent of the renewable energy in transport fuel could come from the use of existingdomestic wastes, such as used cooking oil and tallow, 35 per cent from electric vehicles poweredby renewable electricity, and the balance from sustainable (and domestic) advanced biofuels suchas other wastes and residues. actionaid, Alternatives to Biofuels: Renewable energy in transportwithout crop based biofuels, october 2012.194 see: ‘directive 2009/28/ec of the european parliament and of the council of 23 april 2009on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, and amending and subsequentlyrepealing directives 2001/77/ec and 2003/30/ec (Text with eea relevance)’, cited in oxfam, TheHunger Grains, september 2012, p7.195 see note 166, p7.196 Land Tenure and International Investments in Agriculture: A Report by the High Level Panelof Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, rome, 2011:hlpe, principal observation 13, p10.197 global witness, International land coalition and The oakland Institute, Dealing WithDisclosure: Improving transparency in decision-making over large-scale land acquisitions,allocations and investments, april 2012; oxfam, Land and Power: The growing scandal surroundingthe new wave of investments in land, september 2011, p23.198 see note 160, pp31–32.199 see note 160, p23.200 see note 160, pp31–32.201 recommendations for how to provide support to communities in this process includeglobal witness, International land coalition and The oakland Institute, Dealing with Disclosure:Improving transparency in decision-making over large-scale land acquisitions, allocations andinvestments, april 2012, www.globalwitness.org/library/dealing-disclosure202 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents, sections 172 and 417.203 core, The Reporting of Non-Financial Information in Annual Reports by the FTSE100,2010, pp3–4.204 core, Simply Put: Towards an effective UK regime for environmental and social reporting bycompanies, may 2011, pp4–5.205 ‘aviva convenes a corporate sustainability reporting coalition’, 20 september 2011, aviva.com/corporate-responsibility/programme-updates/13023/. The coalition’s ‘global framework oncorporate sustainability reporting’ outlines four key principles: 1. Transparency 2. accountability3. responsibility 4. Incentives.65

206 see note 106, p12.207 budget transparency relates to the timely and regular release of detailed, reliable informationon the country’s budget by the government, throughout the different phases of the budget cycle,so that the public can hold government accountable for how it handles public resources.208 ‘How does the IMF encourage greater fiscal transparency?’, IMF factsheet, November 1 2012,www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/fiscal.htm209 see http://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2010_full_report-english.pdf; http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/open-budget-survey/rankings-key-findings/key-findings/210 see Tax Justice network and actionaid International, Tax Incentives in East Africa: A race tothe bottom?, June 2012. The countries are uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and rwanda.211 fiscaltransparency.net212 opengovpartnership.org213 http://www.g20.org/index.php/en/anticorruption214 open government partnership, Open Government Declaration, www.opengovpartnership.org/open-government-declaration216 ‘open government partnership – UK co-chair vision’, cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-government-partnership-uk-co-chair-vision217 number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-speech-on-family-planning218 This case study is drawn directly from g m cejudo, Evidence for Change: The case of Subsidiosal Campo in Mexico, Ibp study no. 6, July 2012.219 dfid.gov.uk/R4D/PDF/Outputs/Mis_SPC/60827_DPRGaventaMcGee_Preprint.pdf220 First Monitoring Report of the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, november 2011, g20civil.com/documents/final_g20_anti-corruption_working_group_progress_report.pdf221 g20mexico.org/images/stories/docs/canalsherpas/anticorrup/01actionplan1.pdf222 according to the open budget Index scores, which would be a score of 81–100.223 oxfam, Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices: The costs of feeding a warming world, september2012, oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/20120905-ib-extreme-weather-extreme-prices-en.pdf224 g8 france 2011, Deauville Accountability Report: G8 commitments on health and foodsecurity – State of delivery and results, may 2011, p1.215 open government partnership, ‘revealed: Top ten commitments to open government asrepresentatives from 73 countries gather in brasilia’, opengovpartnership.org/news/revealed-topten-commitments-open-government-representatives-73-countries-gather-brasilia66

memberS of the if campaign67

RainbowDevelopmentIn Africa69

ACKNOwLEDGEmENTSconsultantsmark curtis and anna Thomas.policy coordinatorsclare coffey and lucia fry (actionaid).production coordinatorsbarry Johnston and sol oyuela (christian aid). edited by Tomi ajayi,art direction by gavin micklethwaite, design by Katy abbott (christian aid).contributorsActionAid: beverley duckworth, mike lewis, Zohra moosa, Tim rice, melanie ward.Bond: glen Tarman.CAFOD: dominic goggins.Christian Aid: sol oyuela, alex prats, Joseph stead.Concern: ana ramirez.Oxfam: ruth Kelly, max lawson, monique mikhail, Kathleen spencer chapman.Save the Children: brendan cox, liam crosby, leah Kreitzman, david mcnair.Tearfund: sam barker, graham cox, richard weaver.UNICEF UK: gavin crowden.with special thanks to other individuals from several agencies who providedsupport, feedback and other input.designed, print managed and edited by the christian aidcommunications division on behalf of the if campaign.

hunger: the ShocKing truththe WorLD haS enough fooD for everyone, yetnot everyone haS enough fooD to Live.one in eight people on this planet are living with the pain of hunger. morethan 2 million children die every year because they can’t get enough to eat,and millions more face a life of lost potential, stunting and pain. and yet ourplanet provides enough food for everyone. It’s unfair, it’s unjust, and thetruth is – it’s totally preventable.enoughfoodif.org