EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 17.10.2018
SWD(2018) 440 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Annexes
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments:
Third biennial report
{COM(2018) 699 final}
Table of Contents
1. ADDITIONAL FIGURES AND EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTION, BY PRIORITY
1.1. An overview of food and nutrition security as part of EU Official Development Assistance (ODA)
1.2. Progress against performance criteria
1.3. Examples of interventions per priority
1.4. Progress towards policy priorities and performance criteria
1.5. EU and Member States’ support to partner countries
2. CASE STUDIES
2.1. EU joint programming in Senegal
2.2. EU joint programming in Laos
2.3. Nepal, Rural Village Water Resources Management Project
3. FURTHER DETAILS ON THE THEMATIC FOCUS
3.1. Climate-resilient approaches
3.2. Nutrition-sensitive agricultural practices
4. METHODOLOGY FOR THE NATIONAL REPORTS AND PROGRAMMES SPREADSHEET DATABASE
Acronyms
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CFS Committee on World Food Security
DeSIRA Development-Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
G7 Group of 7
G20 Group of 20
GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition
GCF Green Climate Fund
GEF Global Environment Facility
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPC Integrated Phase Classification
JP Joint Programming
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
ODA Official Development Assistancec
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SUN Scaling Up Nutrition movement
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WFP World Food Programme
This Staff Working Document (SWD) accompanies the third “Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments”.
The third report highlights the progress the EU and its Member States have achieved towards implementing their common policy to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges 1 . Since its adoption in 2010, the policy framework has guided the EU and its Member States in engaging in international cooperation and development assistance concerning food security. A specific Implementation Plan was adopted in 2013, further detailing commitments in this area. Alongside global and EU development goals and initiatives that have arisen since 2010, the EU and its Member States have again joined forces to report on their activities as a response to their commitments in the 2010 policy and 2013 implementation plan. A first biennial report was issued in 2014, with a second following in 2016. In line with Article 210(2) TFEU, the third report is coordinated by the Commission, with inputs from the following Member States: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom.
1.ADDITIONAL FIGURES AND EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTION, BY PRIORITY
1.1.An overview of food and nutrition security as part of EU Official Development Assistance (ODA)
The countries marked in orange contributed to the third implementation plan report.
|
|
Total ODA In EUR all sectors |
|
Food security ODA in EUR |
||||
|
Donor |
2012 |
2014 |
2016 |
2012 |
2014 |
2016 |
|
|
Austria |
422.712.827 |
483.356.485 |
1.126.128.628 |
|
16.651.992 |
12.879.289 |
24.413.153 |
|
Belgium |
1.149.080.008 |
1.031.111.304 |
1.748.312.955 |
|
158.786.599 |
143.387.169 |
158.847.031 |
|
Czech Republic |
51.686.641 |
47.162.147 |
|||||
|
Denmark |
1.588.122.006 |
1.712.999.254 |
|||||
|
Finland |
623.529.283 |
706.683.922 |
635.951.733 |
|
53.087.053 |
63.732.037 |
46.525.862 |
|
France |
7.319.150.079 |
6.262.409.486 |
7.655.507.118 |
|
362.425.577 |
388.151.346 |
456.245.727 |
|
Germany |
7.946.628.741 |
10.830.852.982 |
20.386.274.876 |
|
613.220.731 |
760.657.517 |
887.441.641 |
|
Greece |
83.490.552 |
34.743.709 |
|||||
|
Ireland |
417.144.747 |
394.478.442 |
386.141.680 |
|
94.009.945 |
89.501.101 |
106.864.399 |
|
Italy |
558.353.060 |
1.099.340.258 |
2.298.935.352 |
|
90.680.023 |
107.287.557 |
83.895.526 |
|
Luxembourg |
217.449.034 |
229.534.749 |
|||||
|
Netherlands |
3.083.975.538 |
3.150.544.328 |
3.017.250.954 |
|
317.625.913 |
317.300.731 |
438.456.366 |
|
Poland |
78.047.081 |
||||||
|
Portugal |
338.529.992 |
219.036.957 |
|||||
|
Slovak Republic |
12.334.949 |
||||||
|
Slovenia |
14.861.684 |
15.234.123 |
|||||
|
Spain |
833.525.053 |
531.757.577 |
2.722.171.197 |
|
|
55.672.264 |
43.327.267 |
|
Sweden |
2.853.599.398 |
3.330.455.847 |
|||||
|
United Kingdom |
6.881.796.463 |
8.922.307.722 |
10.552.422.876 |
|
656.156.719 |
595.964.413 |
729.433.390 |
|
Estonia |
11.307.006 |
||||||
|
Hungary |
22.684.746 |
||||||
|
Lithuania |
4.856.241 |
||||||
|
Romania |
52.641.818 |
||||||
|
EU Institutions |
14.083.076.263 |
13.908.569.962 |
18.813.994.310 |
|
821.742.924 |
1.015.118.912 |
1.224.772.700 |
|
MS non-allocated |
|
|
|
|
181.398.586 |
109.035.374 |
- |
|
Total EU ODA |
48.466.711.370 |
53.092.451.093 |
|||||
|
Total ODA MS and EU reporting |
43.318.972.063 |
47.321.412.468 |
69.343.091.679 |
|
3.365.786.061 |
3.658.687.711 |
4.200.223.062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012 |
2014 |
2016 |
|
Percentage of food and nutrition security in EU total ODA |
7,8% |
7,7% |
6,1% |
||||
|
Percentage of reporting Member States in EU total ODA |
89,4% |
89,1% |
|||||
1.2.Progress against performance criteria
The table shows disbursements, number of programmes and number of countries which received funding per policy priority.
|
Performance criteria |
Number of programmes |
|
|
Support received |
|
Number of Countries |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Year |
2012 |
2014 |
2016 |
|
|
2012 |
2014 |
2016 |
|
|
2012 |
2014 |
2016 |
|
||||||
|
1. Improve smallholders’ resilience and livelihoods |
1,560 |
1,822 |
1,863 |
|
|
2,022 |
2,137 |
2,120 |
|
|
108 |
103 |
108 |
|
||||||
|
2. Support effective governance |
410 |
588 |
632 |
|
|
395 |
535 |
698 |
|
|
84 |
92 |
87 |
|
||||||
|
3. Support regional agriculture and food and nutrition security |
98 |
188 |
228 |
|
|
151 |
191 |
226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
4. Strengthen social protection mechanisms for food and nutrition security |
94 |
102 |
123 |
|
|
209 |
133 |
254 |
|
|
40 |
40 |
44 |
|
||||||
|
5. Enhance nutrition |
278 |
341 |
455 |
|
|
467 |
504 |
638 |
|
|
63 |
64 |
71 |
|
||||||
|
6. Enhance coordination of humanitarian and development actors to increase resilience |
63 |
148 |
161 |
|
|
122 |
159 |
265 |
|
|
18 |
37 |
37 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Of which… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research programmes |
149 |
154 |
463 |
( |
13% |
) |
379 |
300 |
493 |
( |
12% |
) |
|
|
|
69 |
( |
61% |
) |
|
|
Gender sensitive programmes |
|
|
1,878 |
( |
54% |
) |
|
|
2,404 |
( |
57% |
) |
|
|
|
97 |
( |
85% |
) |
|
|
Principal objective |
|
|
155 |
( |
4% |
) |
|
|
171 |
( |
4% |
) |
|
|
|
51 |
( |
45% |
) |
|
|
Significant objective |
|
|
1,723 |
( |
50% |
) |
|
|
2,233 |
( |
53% |
) |
|
|
|
97 |
( |
85% |
) |
|
|
Climate change adaptation programmes |
|
|
1,344 |
( |
39% |
) |
|
|
1,826 |
( |
43% |
) |
|
|
|
95 |
( |
83% |
) |
|
|
Principal objective |
|
|
308 |
( |
9% |
) |
|
|
342 |
( |
8% |
) |
|
|
|
67 |
( |
59% |
) |
|
|
Significant objective |
|
|
1,036 |
( |
30% |
) |
|
|
1,484 |
( |
35% |
) |
|
|
|
91 |
( |
80% |
) |
|
|
Climate change mitigation programmes |
|
|
598 |
( |
17% |
) |
|
|
693 |
( |
16% |
) |
|
|
|
89 |
( |
78% |
) |
|
|
Principal objective |
|
|
82 |
( |
2% |
) |
|
|
75 |
( |
2% |
) |
|
|
|
40 |
( |
35% |
) |
|
|
Significant objective |
|
|
516 |
( |
15% |
) |
|
|
618 |
( |
15% |
) |
|
|
|
86 |
( |
75% |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
2,503 |
3,343 |
3,462 |
|
|
|
|
3,366 |
3,659 |
4,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
1.3.Examples of interventions per priority
|
Priority 1: Improve smallholders' resilience and livelihoods |
|
|
EU institutions (1) |
Support to International Agricultural Research for Development 2013 - CGIAR component |
|
Austria (1) |
Organic Agriculture Support Initiative (OASI) - ADC Co-financing |
|
Belgium (1) |
Programme de Développement Agricole dans les districts de Kwilu et de Kwango (Province Bandundu) |
|
Belgium (2) |
Développement des filières du safran et du palmier dattier dans la région de Souss-Massa-Draa |
|
Finland (1) |
Farmers' Clubs for wealth creation among smallholder farmers in Mozambique |
|
France (1) |
Recherches scientifiques et techniques autour du développement des pays du sud |
|
France (2) |
CONTRIBU° FINCT 2è PHASE WSDP |
|
France (3) |
PROGRAMME D'APPUI AU PILIERIIPLAN VERT |
|
Germany (1) |
Lending for African Farming/LAFCO |
|
Ireland (1) |
Value chain Development: Improving Livelihoods of smallholders and pastoral: Incr income & improve livelihoods of approx18k cocoa smallholder farmers |
|
Italy (1) |
Drought Resilience and Sustainable Livelihoods Programme -Drslp |
|
Netherlands (1) |
DSO Food Security - NICHE&NFP |
|
Spain (1) |
African Fund for Agriculture (AAF) |
|
UK (1) |
Support to the Private Sector Fund of the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme. |
|
Priority 2: Support effective governance |
|
|
EU institutions (1) |
Contrat de réforme sectorielle en appui « au secteur de Sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle et développement agricole durable » au Nige |
|
EU institutions (2) |
Programme d'appui aux politiques publiques de gestion des ressources en eau pour le développement rural et agricole |
|
EU institutions (3) |
Contrat de Réforme Sectoriel Appui Budgétaire au Programme d'Appui du Foncier Rural Côte d'Ivoire |
|
Austria (1) |
Multi actor program supporting entrepreneurship of young girls and boys in the agro-sylvo-pastoral sector in 4 regions of Burkina Faso |
|
Belgium (1) |
Développement economique durable et gestion stratégique des ressources naturelles dans les régions de Apurímac, Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Junín et Pasco |
|
Finland (1) |
FINBOL; Improved Capacity to Provide Services for Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change |
|
France (1) |
ORGANISATION PRODUCTEUR AGRI FAMILIAL DU |
|
Germany (1) |
Forest and Environment Programme |
|
Ireland (1) |
Civil Society Programme Funding: 1 Key government and private sector actors use evidence from the programme to adapt and improve service delivery to |
|
Italy (1) |
Italian technical assistance to the agrarian reform program - iarcdsp - expert fund |
|
Netherlands (1) |
Blue Gold Program |
|
Spain (1) |
14-CO1-293/VETERMON/Honduras/2,5m €/Fortalecimiento de las capacidades |
|
UK (1) |
Land certification and adminstration support to the Government- Financial Aid |
|
Priority 3: Support regional agriculture and Food and Nutrition Security policies |
|
|
EU institutions (1) |
Appui à l’opérationnalisation du « Système Régional intégré d’Information Agricole » ECOAGRIS du programme d'appui au stockage de sécuri |
|
EU institutions (2) |
Soutien au Plan Régional de lutte et de contrôle des mouches des fruits en Afrique de l'Ouest |
|
Belgium (1) |
Strengthening integrated adaptation planning and implementation in Southern Africa smallholder agricultural systems to support food security |
|
Finland (1) |
Impacts of climate change on ecosystems in Eastern Africa |
|
France (1) |
MODERNISATION POLITIQUE IRRIGATION |
|
Germany (1) |
Global Crop Diversity Trust |
|
Italy (1) |
Regional. Drought mitigation caused by el Nino in Souther Africa |
|
Netherlands (1) |
IUCN SUSTAIN-AFRICA&DAWCA |
|
Spain (1) |
Men and women promoting equality in Yanaccma - Kjari Warmi Kuska Risun |
|
UK (1) |
DFID support to the World Bank to promote regional dialogue and support work in 3 river basins and 1 landscape |
|
Priority 4: Strengthen social protection mechanisms for food and nutrition security |
|
|
EU institutions (1) |
Building Resilience through Social Safety Nets in Somalia |
|
EU institutions (2) |
Index Based Livestock Insurance |
|
Belgium (1) |
Programme de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition dans 6 districts de la province de Gaza: intervention du PAM |
|
Finland (1) |
Social Protection II |
|
France (1) |
DEV SANITAIRE ET SOCIAL PHASE II A MOPTI |
|
Germany (1) |
Social Protection of the Ultra-Poor III |
|
Germany (2) |
Strengthening of Resilence against Hunger Crisis in Guatemala |
|
Ireland (1) |
Productive Safety Nets Programme: Social Protection: HQ1508-PSNP Payment for 2016, €10.4 M |
|
Spain (1) |
Acción contra el Hambre - Senegal - Holistic support programme for food and nutritional resilience. |
|
UK (1) |
Support to poor households via provision of cash transfersfor improving food security and increasing childrens attendance at school/health facilities. |
|
Priority 5: Enhance nutrition |
|
|
EU institutions (1) |
Partnership for Improved Nutrition in Nepal (Poshanka Lagi Hatemalo) |
|
Austria (1) |
Integrated Programme for the health of women and children in far Western Nepal |
|
Belgium (1) |
Programme de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition dans 6 districts de la province de Gaza: intervention FAO |
|
Belgium (2) |
ONG Protos - Programme 2014-2016 Bénin: Accès à et gestion de l'eau et l'assainissement au Bénin |
|
Finland (1) |
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Western Nepal Completion Phase |
|
France (1) |
Facilité nutrition RCA |
|
Germany (1) |
Support for malnourished children and drought affected households in Ethiopia |
|
Ireland (1) |
NATIONAL NUTRITION PROGRAMME: Nutrition: Reducing Child Under Nutrition in Sierra Leone2016 Tranche 11 to UNICEF |
|
Italy (1) |
Improvement of food security and women empowerment in the Province of Boulgou |
|
Netherlands (1) |
PSNP Fase 3 |
|
Spain (1) |
Treball Solidari - Guatemala - Indigenous women from Solola, San Jose Chacaya and Santa Lucia Utatlan working to reduce malnutrition. |
|
UK (1) |
Provincial Health and Nutrition Programme - Financial Aid Punjab |
|
Priority 6: Enhance coordination of humanitarian and development actors to increase resilience |
|
|
EU institutions (1) |
Strengthening the resilience for food and nutrition security of crisis affected people and their host communities in Syria |
|
Austria (1) |
Contribution to the Community Resilience and Development Programme (CRDP) for Area C and East Jerusalem |
|
Belgium (1) |
Renforcement de la résilience des populations affectées par les crises à travers la relance des activités pastorales dans les régions du Nord Mali |
|
Germany (1) |
PRRO 200572 Food and Nutrition Assitance for Relief a. Recovery, Supporting Transition a.Enhancing Capabilities to Ensure Sustainable Hunger Solutions |
|
Italy (1) |
Voluntary contribution to WFP Programme Food Assistance to Vulnerable Syrian Population in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq , Turkey and Egypt |
|
Italy (2) |
From the water to the market: a great challenge for the small farmers and the women producing milk products in the West Bank |
|
Netherlands (1) |
Hydroponic agriculture Jordan |
|
UK (1) |
Sudan Humanitarian and Resilience programme in Kassala - UN agencies |
1.4.Progress towards policy priorities and performance criteria
Improving smallholders’ resilience and livelihoods (policy priority 1) continues to receive the majority of attention, showing that support to small-scale farming and livelihoods is a central part of the EU and its Member States’ development cooperation in agriculture and food security. Food and nutrition security have become even more prioritized in Germany’s development cooperation through its One World – No Hunger initiative. Around a third of Germany’s disbursements in food and nutrition security and rural development are channeled through the One World – No Hunger initiative. In 2016, German development cooperation was supporting agricultural and rural development and/or food and nutrition security programmes in over 81 countries. This is but one example where the EU is demonstrating that it is keeping food and nutrition security at the forefront of the global and national agenda to support the implementation of the SDGs. Finland has implemented several regional food security research programmes jointly with partner country universities and research institutes. In addition, France carries out many projects concerning rural transformation and contributes to youth employment or employability, such as the Resilac programme in Chad, Burkina Faso and Benin. Austria also is increasingly supporting the creation of decent jobs in rural areas – particularly for women and youth – and promotes a nexus approach to food and nutrition security, addressing the interlinkages and possible trade-offs between water, energy and food security.
Moreover, since 2016, the EU and its Member States have been developing an initiative called Development-Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture (DeSIRA). DeSIRA is about placing science more centrally in development cooperation in agriculture, in particular, with a view to foster innovation for increased impact. It is also about building-up in-country research capacities for innovation, within national agriculture knowledge and innovation systems. DeSIRA will commence operations in 2018 and aims at fostering stronger coordination of strategies. It will particularly be based on collaborative activities between a number of EU Member States (France, Germany, Italy and Spain) and all interested partners in order to combine financial resources and human expertise leveraging increased and joint responses. This new injection of energy into research and innovation exemplifies a response to Council recommendations two years ago. The EU is also implementing Research and Innovation Actions on Food Systems in Africa, with funding allocated under the Horizon 2020 programme and through the African Union Grant Scheme under the EU-Africa Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture.
More and more emphasis has been put on enhancing mechanisms to boost responsible private sector engagement, by the EU and all Member States. The Netherlands focuses on private sector development and job creation, where an emphasis is placed on farming as a business and the need to support financial services. Finland has developed new instruments for enhancing private sector investment in inclusive development. The UK has published its Economic Development Strategy for ODA, including support to smallholders’ role in commercial agriculture. This is also why supporting effective governance (policy priority 2) remains a key area of support for the EU and its Member States with a strong emphasis on supporting responsible governance of land tenure, particularly at country level. In pursuit of this commitment, the UK has created the Land: Enhancing Governance for Economic Development (LEGEND) programme to work with key multinationals, financial investors and others to drive responsible land investment, and support the take up of responsible investment practices by companies and provide a unique contribution towards improved knowledge and practice as a global public good. France has developed an ex-ante evaluation grid for agricultural investment projects that are link to land holding and based on recommendations from the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests and the Committee on world Food Security.
Through the new Consensus, the EU and its Member States have signed up to ensuring that public or private investment in sustainable agriculture must be responsible, inclusive and for the benefit of local populations. The EU and its Member States continue to promote responsible investment in agriculture, through various land initiatives as well as through the Global Donor Platform on Rural Development where land governance issues are key. Furthermore, the EU and its Member States are fervent supporters of partner-owned initiatives such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). African countries are supported by the EU and its Member States in making progress on their commitments towards the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods. Earlier in 2018, African partner countries presented results and a monitoring and reporting mechanism for holding themselves accountable to commitments on agriculture and food security.
This also shows how support for regional agriculture and food and nutrition security (policy priority 3), has been gradually increasing over the past years, such as, for example, through support to regional fisheries programmes and further support build capacity for regional sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures. In 2017, the EU and Pacific countries launched the Pacific-EU Marine Partnership (PEUMP) at the Our Ocean Conference in Malta. The EU took an active political role at the 13th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP 13). Several initiatives e.g. on scaling-up sustainable land management, particularly through evergreen agriculture, were launched in 2017 in support of the UNCCD agenda and of the Great Green Wall Initiative.
While support to strengthen social protection mechanisms for food and nutrition security (policy priority 4) saw a drop in disbursements in the last report, this report is able to demonstrate a substantial increase in support (EUR 121 million more), as well as the number of programmes and countries where EU and/or Member State partnerships are thriving.
Through strengthening a joint multi-sectoral approach to tackling undernutrition (policy priority 5), as recommended by the Council, efforts continued, steadily since 2014, to foster collaboration to promote country-level commitment and leadership, and to promote accountability of the EU and Member States support at country and global level. Together with Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France the EU, continues to play an active role in the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement. There has been substantial progress towards the UK’s commitment to improve nutrition for 50 million people by 2020: from 2015 to 2017, support reached 26.3 million children under 5, women of childbearing age and adolescent girls through nutrition-related programmes. Finland is actively participating in donor coordination activities at global and EU level and in partner countries. Likewise, the Netherlands has been increasing investments in food and nutrition security by promoting, for example, nutrition in agricultural activities and agriculture in nutrition activities. Ireland has been a founding member and avid supporter of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement Secretariat to strengthen mutual accountability across 60 developing partner countries and three states in India together with donors, UN organisations, international financial institutions, civil society and business organisations.
By enhancing coordination of humanitarian and development actors to increase resilience (policy priority 6) support has increased by EUR 107 million compared to 2014. The Global Report on Food Crises 2018 indicating that nearly 124 million people were in a food crisis situation and demonstrating the need for tackling the drivers of food insecurity. In line with the EU’s Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy and with Member State activities in operationalizing the humanitarian, development and peace nexus, the EU works jointly with other partners such as FAO, WFP, UNICEF, IFPRI, USAID, and African Regional Institutions in the Global Network against Food Crises on joint analysis and coordinated responses. The Commission, plus bilateral support including from the UK, helped successfully develop IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) chronic phase measures for evidence-based strategic decision-making.
1.5.EU and Member States’ support to partner countries
|
Country |
Austria |
Belgium |
EU Institutions |
Finland |
France |
Germany |
Ireland |
Italy |
Netherlands |
Spain |
United Kingdom |
Sum of Amount 2016 |
Number of donors |
Average per donor |
|
Afghanistan |
|
|
38.174.770 |
10.000.000 |
14.379.110 |
6.665.376 |
350.000 |
388.518 |
1.601.465 |
|
7.783.976 |
79.343.214 |
8 |
9.917.902 |
|
Albania |
135.830 |
1.750.000 |
6.221.204 |
1.183.350 |
9.290.384 |
4 |
2.322.596 |
|||||||
|
Algeria |
|
1.157.892 |
4.653.220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.811.112 |
2 |
2.905.556 |
|
Angola |
|
|
116.760 |
327.642 |
|
714.611 |
|
398.195 |
|
|
|
1.557.208 |
4 |
389.302 |
|
Argentina |
|
|
598.610 |
|
147.000 |
1.139.786 |
|
|
|
|
|
1.885.396 |
3 |
628.465 |
|
Armenia |
869.005 |
|
10.421.120 |
|
10.500.000 |
15.423.259 |
|
|
|
|
|
37.213.384 |
4 |
9.303.346 |
|
Azerbaijan |
|
|
749.730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
749.730 |
1 |
749.730 |
|
Bangladesh |
|
|
4.768.740 |
191.189 |
|
7.228.486 |
526.381 |
116.383 |
14.918.320 |
|
8.846.881 |
36.596.380 |
7 |
5.228.054 |
|
Belize |
|
|
4.239.500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.239.500 |
1 |
4.239.500 |
|
Benin |
|
6.775.892 |
598.350 |
|
1.911.000 |
19.516.167 |
|
|
10.814.714 |
|
|
39.616.123 |
5 |
7.923.225 |
|
Bhutan |
140.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140.000 |
1 |
140.000 |
|
Bolivia |
|
10.436.348 |
10.725.320 |
240.315 |
536.000 |
9.209.336 |
|
1.553.587 |
|
2.242.592 |
|
34.943.498 |
7 |
4.991.928 |
|
Botswana |
|
|
|
|
113.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
113.000 |
1 |
113.000 |
|
Brazil |
|
797.547 |
1.655.190 |
|
6.122.000 |
10.096.762 |
|
1.277.000 |
|
232.703 |
1.940.572 |
22.121.774 |
7 |
3.160.253 |
|
Burkina Faso |
1.472.500 |
3.937.931 |
7.282.950 |
|
6.708.000 |
17.878.704 |
|
1.793.742 |
|
223.700 |
|
39.297.527 |
7 |
5.613.932 |
|
Burundi |
|
19.969.853 |
7.335.830 |
134.645 |
|
13.553.934 |
560.000 |
|
17.763.456 |
|
|
59.317.719 |
6 |
9.886.286 |
|
Cabo Verde |
|
|
|
|
601.000 |
458.529 |
|
261.105 |
|
|
|
1.320.634 |
3 |
440.211 |
|
Cambodia |
|
244.636 |
6.539.020 |
|
3.989.000 |
14.068.923 |
|
112.457 |
|
|
|
24.954.036 |
5 |
4.990.807 |
|
Cameroon |
|
695.708 |
22.491.150 |
|
7.469.000 |
9.797.334 |
|
|
|
|
|
40.453.192 |
4 |
10.113.298 |
|
Central African Republic |
|
|
7.533.840 |
|
1.938.000 |
1.199.973 |
|
|
|
|
|
10.671.813 |
3 |
3.557.271 |
|
Chad |
|
|
12.425.540 |
|
4.432.000 |
1.199.806 |
307.034 |
|
|
|
|
18.364.380 |
4 |
4.591.095 |
|
Chile |
|
|
|
|
|
137.296 |
|
|
|
|
1.387.385 |
1.524.681 |
2 |
762.340 |
|
China |
|
601.668 |
989.750 |
|
113.000 |
3.728.372 |
|
|
|
|
3.220.155 |
8.652.946 |
5 |
1.730.589 |
|
Colombia |
|
137.448 |
11.983.970 |
|
1.086.000 |
2.730.865 |
|
|
3.298.243 |
|
316.282 |
19.552.809 |
6 |
3.258.801 |
|
Comoros |
|
|
|
|
1.928.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.928.000 |
1 |
1.928.000 |
|
Congo, Rep. |
|
|
1.575.520 |
|
614.000 |
|
|
175.397 |
|
|
|
2.364.917 |
3 |
788.306 |
|
Costa Rica |
|
|
|
|
1.630.000 |
432.402 |
|
|
|
|
|
2.062.402 |
2 |
1.031.201 |
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
|
|
15.011.740 |
|
746.000 |
6.913.236 |
|
110.889 |
|
|
|
22.781.865 |
4 |
5.695.466 |
|
Cuba |
|
704.046 |
6.776.360 |
|
534.000 |
105.198 |
|
375.815 |
|
1.438.952 |
|
9.934.371 |
6 |
1.655.728 |
|
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
|
25.588.703 |
4.918.660 |
|
400.000 |
13.775.809 |
750.000 |
783.061 |
|
107.992 |
6.530.707 |
52.854.931 |
8 |
6.606.866 |
|
Djibouti |
|
|
1.433.230 |
|
500.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.933.230 |
2 |
966.615 |
|
Dominica |
|
|
1.919.640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.919.640 |
1 |
1.919.640 |
|
Dominican Republic |
|
|
4.049.490 |
|
1.845.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.894.490 |
2 |
2.947.245 |
|
Ecuador |
|
5.619.252 |
820.230 |
|
|
2.507.232 |
|
|
|
2.101.795 |
|
11.048.509 |
4 |
2.762.127 |
|
Egypt |
|
|
1.656.080 |
|
19.300.000 |
32.189.310 |
|
880.763 |
|
|
|
54.026.153 |
4 |
13.506.538 |
|
El Salvador |
|
1.207.570 |
696.180 |
|
140.000 |
111.498 |
|
|
|
364.314 |
|
2.519.562 |
5 |
503.912 |
|
Eritrea |
|
|
9.095.300 |
|
|
|
110.000 |
|
|
|
|
9.205.300 |
2 |
4.602.650 |
|
Ethiopia |
3.275.336 |
302.803 |
61.918.950 |
3.109.973 |
4.027.000 |
44.085.064 |
16.763.179 |
10.624.594 |
36.846.235 |
2.900.000 |
115.329.230 |
299.182.364 |
11 |
27.198.397 |
|
Fiji |
|
|
5.543.110 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.543.110 |
1 |
5.543.110 |
|
Gabon |
|
|
|
|
6.837.000 |
|
|
208.866 |
|
|
|
7.045.866 |
2 |
3.522.933 |
|
Gambia |
|
|
1.993.950 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.993.950 |
1 |
1.993.950 |
|
Georgia |
2.777.500 |
|
14.137.310 |
|
|
105.498 |
|
|
|
|
|
17.020.308 |
3 |
5.673.436 |
|
Ghana |
149.474 |
2.194.381 |
1.385.640 |
|
3.706.000 |
6.919.730 |
|
|
2.203.499 |
221.676 |
3.230.555 |
20.010.955 |
8 |
2.501.369 |
|
Guatemala |
|
2.317.963 |
|
101.681 |
|
2.563.846 |
439.769 |
165.512 |
|
2.659.871 |
|
8.248.642 |
6 |
1.374.774 |
|
Guinea |
|
774.317 |
2.019.890 |
|
1.245.587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.039.794 |
3 |
1.346.598 |
|
Guinea-Bissau |
|
321.995 |
6.073.050 |
|
|
|
|
277.012 |
|
|
|
6.672.057 |
3 |
2.224.019 |
|
Guyana |
|
|
27.450.140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27.450.140 |
1 |
27.450.140 |
|
Haiti |
|
1.631.434 |
6.834.060 |
|
4.704.740 |
3.486.191 |
589.110 |
|
|
620.496 |
|
17.866.031 |
6 |
2.977.672 |
|
Honduras |
|
329.428 |
16.031.940 |
|
|
846.135 |
473.230 |
149.721 |
|
1.907.500 |
|
19.737.954 |
6 |
3.289.659 |
|
India |
|
|
1.223.260 |
395.947 |
|
17.146.303 |
|
100.000 |
|
|
35.529.090 |
54.394.600 |
5 |
10.878.920 |
|
Indonesia |
|
1.444.654 |
871.930 |
102.297 |
118.000 |
7.127.463 |
|
|
2.906.599 |
|
|
12.570.943 |
6 |
2.095.157 |
|
Iraq |
|
|
|
|
|
499.990 |
|
7.220.999 |
|
|
|
7.720.989 |
2 |
3.860.494 |
|
Jamaica |
|
698.065 |
7.657.930 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.355.995 |
2 |
4.177.998 |
|
Jordan |
|
|
626.170 |
|
232.000 |
10.989.239 |
|
100.000 |
4.470.832 |
|
|
16.418.240 |
5 |
3.283.648 |
|
Kazakhstan |
|
|
453.190 |
|
189.000 |
739.264 |
|
|
|
|
|
1.381.454 |
3 |
460.485 |
|
Kenya |
|
|
32.993.940 |
5.142.550 |
3.543.000 |
24.078.674 |
1.260.107 |
748.457 |
9.478.711 |
|
31.264.938 |
108.510.377 |
8 |
13.563.797 |
|
Korea, Dem. Rep. |
|
|
4.649.000 |
187.524 |
|
470.041 |
256.000 |
|
|
|
|
5.562.565 |
4 |
1.390.641 |
|
Kyrgyzstan |
|
|
2.914.270 |
480.000 |
|
8.309.861 |
|
|
|
|
|
11.704.131 |
3 |
3.901.377 |
|
Laos |
|
145.233 |
2.138.260 |
|
3.123.000 |
11.672.069 |
|
|
|
|
|
17.078.562 |
4 |
4.269.641 |
|
Lebanon |
|
|
5.176.460 |
|
1.305.000 |
2.381.721 |
|
2.962.682 |
6.479.639 |
|
|
18.305.502 |
5 |
3.661.100 |
|
Lesotho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
903.119 |
903.119 |
1 |
903.119 |
|
Liberia |
|
|
774.280 |
|
|
445.888 |
427.500 |
|
|
|
|
1.647.668 |
3 |
549.223 |
|
Libya |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.100.000 |
|
|
|
1.100.000 |
1 |
1.100.000 |
|
Madagascar |
|
1.056.338 |
17.267.910 |
|
5.730.000 |
4.605.891 |
|
|
|
|
114.369 |
28.774.507 |
5 |
5.754.901 |
|
Malawi |
|
3.032.091 |
35.212.670 |
229.601 |
|
18.334.486 |
9.161.395 |
101.427 |
|
|
22.850.166 |
88.921.836 |
7 |
12.703.119 |
|
Malaysia |
|
|
|
|
|
352.768 |
|
|
|
|
|
352.768 |
1 |
352.768 |
|
Mali |
|
6.702.998 |
33.437.520 |
109.158 |
7.709.000 |
25.019.458 |
|
|
5.532.085 |
2.421.988 |
|
80.932.207 |
7 |
11.561.744 |
|
Mauritania |
|
|
5.387.330 |
127.500 |
237.000 |
4.138.037 |
|
1.496.287 |
|
1.740.354 |
|
13.126.508 |
6 |
2.187.751 |
|
Mauritius |
|
|
790.000 |
|
126.501 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
916.501 |
2 |
458.251 |
|
Mexico |
|
|
2.000.000 |
|
640.000 |
130.198 |
|
|
|
756.848 |
2.085.795 |
5.612.840 |
5 |
1.122.568 |
|
Mongolia |
|
|
|
|
|
649.168 |
|
|
|
|
|
649.168 |
1 |
649.168 |
|
Morocco |
|
6.163.921 |
15.324.080 |
|
56.274.000 |
5.507.416 |
|
|
|
|
|
83.269.417 |
4 |
20.817.354 |
|
Mozambique |
900.000 |
7.515.574 |
22.887.450 |
3.214.294 |
847.000 |
17.761.971 |
2.816.737 |
216.037 |
7.300.184 |
1.559.662 |
10.439.448 |
75.458.356 |
11 |
6.859.851 |
|
Myanmar |
|
|
33.362.330 |
1.000.000 |
1.375.000 |
5.843.265 |
|
651.320 |
|
|
34.172.066 |
76.403.981 |
6 |
12.733.997 |
|
Namibia |
|
|
2.168.520 |
418.129 |
|
8.512.964 |
|
|
|
|
|
11.099.613 |
3 |
3.699.871 |
|
Nepal |
100.000 |
|
14.107.150 |
8.962.553 |
|
5.660.277 |
|
|
|
|
5.253.089 |
34.083.068 |
5 |
6.816.614 |
|
Nicaragua |
|
1.592.210 |
9.262.100 |
220.892 |
132.000 |
4.477.424 |
270.183 |
|
|
152.317 |
|
16.107.126 |
7 |
2.301.018 |
|
Niger |
|
4.513.402 |
56.658.200 |
|
8.404.531 |
8.612.987 |
699.192 |
169.464 |
|
1.215.962 |
|
80.273.738 |
7 |
11.467.677 |
|
Nigeria |
|
|
32.355.960 |
|
5.330.000 |
1.566.228 |
|
|
|
|
21.959.897 |
61.212.086 |
4 |
15.303.021 |
|
Pakistan |
|
|
6.498.780 |
|
|
6.729.059 |
364.451 |
128.667 |
|
|
37.244.069 |
50.965.026 |
5 |
10.193.005 |
|
Papua New Guinea |
|
|
906.150 |
|
|
109.998 |
|
|
|
|
|
1.016.148 |
2 |
508.074 |
|
Paraguay |
100.000 |
|
358.730 |
|
|
957.984 |
|
|
|
626.949 |
|
2.043.663 |
4 |
510.916 |
|
Peru |
|
10.140.299 |
3.680.840 |
290.178 |
9.688.000 |
4.773.590 |
|
205.301 |
|
3.877.074 |
108.723 |
32.764.005 |
8 |
4.095.501 |
|
Philippines |
|
2.467.821 |
771.630 |
|
260.000 |
3.526.976 |
|
243.721 |
|
300.000 |
529.768 |
8.099.916 |
7 |
1.157.131 |
|
Rwanda |
|
3.245.681 |
54.744.640 |
|
|
|
1.081.451 |
262.111 |
39.874.891 |
240.000 |
16.217.156 |
115.665.930 |
7 |
16.523.704 |
|
Saint Lucia |
|
|
1.800.460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.800.460 |
1 |
1.800.460 |
|
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |
|
|
1.528.540 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.528.540 |
1 |
1.528.540 |
|
Senegal |
577.353 |
5.877.667 |
34.298.140 |
171.302 |
16.968.000 |
1.175.727 |
|
3.922.985 |
2.316.010 |
2.573.336 |
|
67.880.520 |
9 |
7.542.280 |
|
Serbia |
135.830 |
|
770.700 |
|
|
1.147.140 |
|
|
|
|
|
2.053.670 |
3 |
684.557 |
|
Sierra Leone |
|
|
2.609.250 |
|
|
895.044 |
2.817.874 |
|
|
164.682 |
1.352.870 |
7.839.721 |
5 |
1.567.944 |
|
Somalia |
|
|
11.997.720 |
259.011 |
|
9.403.907 |
175.000 |
417.038 |
|
|
6.563.568 |
28.816.244 |
6 |
4.802.707 |
|
South Africa |
|
1.229.639 |
671.100 |
|
709.000 |
2.129.342 |
|
|
296.215 |
|
|
5.035.295 |
5 |
1.007.059 |
|
South Sudan |
162.500 |
|
21.146.230 |
|
|
28.090.042 |
315.183 |
1.500.000 |
1.917.951 |
|
8.256.732 |
61.388.638 |
7 |
8.769.805 |
|
Sri Lanka |
|
|
7.115.750 |
155.149 |
|
102.364 |
|
107.425 |
|
|
|
7.480.688 |
4 |
1.870.172 |
|
Sudan |
|
|
13.075.310 |
|
385.000 |
10.270.862 |
409.278 |
2.662.788 |
|
|
10.219.620 |
37.022.858 |
6 |
6.170.476 |
|
Suriname |
|
|
3.337.670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.337.670 |
1 |
3.337.670 |
|
Swaziland |
|
|
5.635.170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.635.170 |
1 |
5.635.170 |
|
Syrian Arab Republic |
|
|
3.164.600 |
|
|
|
|
1.000.000 |
|
|
|
4.164.600 |
2 |
2.082.300 |
|
Tajikistan |
|
|
4.736.320 |
|
|
4.782.494 |
|
|
|
|
2.651.996 |
12.170.810 |
3 |
4.056.937 |
|
Tanzania |
|
5.966.114 |
4.495.830 |
|
12.000.000 |
11.672.686 |
6.507.587 |
200.000 |
|
|
48.485.179 |
89.327.396 |
7 |
12.761.057 |
|
Thailand |
|
|
575.080 |
|
2.375.000 |
996.409 |
|
|
|
|
337.326 |
4.283.815 |
4 |
1.070.954 |
|
Timor-Leste |
|
|
3.896.390 |
|
|
1.237.175 |
|
|
|
|
|
5.133.565 |
2 |
2.566.782 |
|
Togo |
|
208.722 |
135.520 |
|
3.151.000 |
3.948.369 |
|
110.892 |
|
|
|
7.554.503 |
5 |
1.510.901 |
|
Tunisia |
|
|
13.537.020 |
184.515 |
6.290.817 |
8.269.463 |
|
5.631.550 |
|
|
|
33.913.365 |
5 |
6.782.673 |
|
Turkmenistan |
|
|
689.200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
689.200 |
1 |
689.200 |
|
Uganda |
4.996.687 |
1.652.618 |
1.548.670 |
448.806 |
292.000 |
13.102.814 |
974.113 |
619.565 |
12.507.601 |
|
20.372.557 |
56.515.431 |
10 |
5.651.543 |
|
Ukraine |
450.000 |
|
3.100.350 |
|
|
2.121.619 |
|
|
|
|
|
5.671.969 |
3 |
1.890.656 |
|
Uzbekistan |
|
|
3.155.880 |
|
|
314.901 |
|
|
|
|
|
3.470.781 |
2 |
1.735.390 |
|
Vanuatu |
|
|
|
|
197.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
197.000 |
1 |
197.000 |
|
Viet Nam |
|
4.011.061 |
270.880 |
|
9.941.000 |
3.976.256 |
4.560.000 |
143.659 |
|
|
1.461.636 |
24.364.492 |
7 |
3.480.642 |
|
West Bank and Gaza Strip |
2.750.000 |
|
4.310.010 |
|
3.004.000 |
1.479.736 |
|
1.333.809 |
4.727.703 |
2.468.898 |
|
20.074.155 |
7 |
2.867.736 |
|
Yemen |
|
|
24.926.600 |
|
|
2.651.457 |
|
|
|
|
|
27.578.057 |
2 |
13.789.028 |
|
Zambia |
|
|
23.992.030 |
3.264.070 |
27.996.000 |
4.893.757 |
3.555.473 |
301.608 |
|
|
17.867.900 |
81.870.837 |
7 |
11.695.834 |
|
Zimbabwe |
|
|
20.298.070 |
|
610.000 |
5.092.269 |
935.816 |
|
|
172.367 |
26.339.876 |
53.448.399 |
6 |
8.908.066 |
|
Sum of Amount 2016 |
18.992.015 |
153.410.923 |
969.853.000 |
39.468.921 |
297.383.286 |
583.894.361 |
57.456.043 |
54.493.759 |
185.254.352 |
33.292.028 |
511.166.696 |
2.904.665.384 |
2.CASE STUDIES
2.1.EU joint programming in Senegal
Since 2013, the EU and its Member States present in Senegal have been engaged in joint programming. The second joint programming document covering the period 2018-2023 in line with the Plan for an Emerging Senegal (PES) was recently endorsed. The joint analysis showed that, despite some positive achievements in the fight against malnutrition in the past years, the issue remains a major concern in the country: the prevalence of stunting of children under 5 years was 17.1% in 2015. Based on the current trend in stunting (yearly reduction rate of 2.37%), as well as population growth, the number of stunted children will not be significantly reduced by 2025 and the target of the World Health Assembly (WHA) of reducing the number of stunted children by 40% by 2025 would not be reached.
The joint programming process tackles these challenges by focusing on the inter-dependence between nutrition, food security and agriculture, particularly in rural areas. The EU, France, Italy and Spain namely work jointly in the area of ensuring food security and the fight against malnutrition.
Beyond joint programming, EU cooperation in Senegal provides an example of how the EU and its Member States improve the efficiency and coherence of their work by following a concrete division of labour, even turning this into effective "joint implementation". To illustrate, the Spanish Cooperation Agency (AECID) implements a EUR 9 million project named YELLITAARE in the local language, under the EU 'Emergency Trust Fund for Stability and the Fight against the Root Causes of Irregular Migration and the Displaced Persons in Africa'. This project reinforces the efforts of the Nutrition Enhancement Program (PRN) led by the Government, which particularly aims at supporting the resilience of local populations, providing them with access to basic services and improving their living conditions in 48 communes in the North of Senegal, whose population is about 1,060,000 people. Another example is the Natanguee (modern) farms programme 2 that is implemented by both the Spanish (AECID) and Italian (AICS) Cooperation Agencies for a total of EUR 20 million. The general objective of this programme is to improve the living conditions of the rural populations and, hence, to reduce illegal emigration. The programme will contribute to job creation in regions most susceptible to emigration through land development by Natanguee farms and by the technical support and training of farmers.
2.2.EU joint programming in Laos
Joint Programming in Laos was launched in 2012 and resulted in a Joint Transition Strategy for the period 2014-2015. Following this first phase, the EU and the seven Member States present in Laos plus Switzerland (an EU+ group) endorsed the European joint programming for Lao People's Democratic Republic 2016-2020. Nutrition figures as one of the strategy's seven priority sectors, in which the EU is working jointly, mainly with France, Germany and Switzerland. The joint analysis clearly showed the key challenge of food, once obtained, being utilised and providing adequate nutrition in Laos, with 44% of children under five stunted, 27% underweight and 6% wasted in 2012. The joint strategy, being aligned to the Government's actions in the nutrition sector, aims to provide a coherent EU+ response to this challenge while reducing overlapping and fragmented interventions. It uniquely identifies nutrition as one of the seven sectors on which European partners put specific focus in their joint actions.
Given the strong interlinkage between nutrition as a cross-cutting issue and other sectors, the joint analysis in the areas agriculture, health and education also looked at the sectors through a nutrition lens. The joint programming document for the Lao PDR seeks to support SDG 2. Concretely, the EU+ focuses on strengthening nutrition governance and boosting nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive support. As co-convenor of the Development Partners Group on Food and Nutrition Security, the EU is given a clear opportunity to influence and steer policy dialogue in close collaboration with all development partners.
Joint programming in Laos is an excellent example of how the EU+ supports Laos' nutrition policy and ensures the significance of nutrition throughout other sectors. To illustrate this, the EU and France are jointly supporting priority interventions around nutrition-sensitive value chains and nutrition-sensitive rural advisory services, while the EU and Germany are jointly supporting investments in clean drinking water infrastructure.
2.3.Nepal, Rural Village Water Resources Management Project
Rural Village Water Resources Management Project was started in 2006, with joint funding from the Governments of Finland and Nepal. Phase II of the Project was completed in February 2016 and Phase III implementation period was started in March 2016 and will continue until 2022. Rural Village Water Resources Management project, Phase II (RVWRMP II) is a water resources management project which in addition to water supply and sanitation supports community-based irrigation, micro-hydro power, improved cooking stoves and water mills, number of environmental improvements as well as sustainable livelihoods and institutional capacity building activities. The purpose of RVWRMP II is ‘to achieve improved well-being and reduced poverty in project VDCs through sustainable management of their water resources’. Ten Districts of Far and Mid-Western Development Regions of Nepal have implemented RVWRMP II under Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development/DoLIDAR to facilitate basic services to 113 remote VDCs with a total population of 555,000 including but not limited to:
·Domestic water supply as per national standards for 144,000 beneficiaries
·Basic sanitation, including household toilets for 358,000 beneficiaries
·Irrigation for 28,000 beneficiaries
·Electricity through micro-hydro power for 41,000 beneficiaries
·Improved cooking stoves for 67,000 beneficiaries
·Basic livelihoods through home garden management for 164,000 beneficiaries
The original beneficiary target of the project was surpassed by 77% and the revised target (set after MidTerm Review and an increase of investment funds) by 36%. 112 out of 113 VDCs are already declared Open Defecation Free (ODF) according to the standards of the National Sanitation and Hygiene Master Plan (NSHMP). The water supply coverage in the VDCs, where the work has already concluded, is 99%. The well-being in the VDCs has improved: the available data collected from VDC Health Posts indicate a decrease of 53% in the number of low-weight children and a decrease of 26% in the occurrence of waterborne diseases after four years. In both cases there is clearly a declining trend, which is likely to continue. All the major stakeholders have appreciated and assumed ownership of the process, which is clearly indicated in their contributions to project budget: Users contributed 4%, GON 35% and GOF 15% more than budgeted in the project document. Only the local governments (DDCs and VDCs) could not contribute fully their share, but their contributions increased towards the end of the phase. The positive development is that much bigger share of the total budget went directly to the investments than planned. The expenditure of the Project is 12% higher than planned, whereas the investments are 26 % higher than planned.
The average direct costs of gravity water supply is 4,750 NPR (40.20 EUR) per capita. The unit cost is reasonable considering the remoteness of the VDCs. Most of them do not have road access, therefore portering of supplies is required, which increased the cost and time taken for scheme completion. Also, the project area is scarcely populated and the scheme size is small: the average scheme has 340 beneficiaries (60 households). Additional costs and trouble were caused by bandhas (strikes combined with road blocks) of both local and national nature, landslides and floods, which made many remote areas inaccessible for long periods. RVWRMP did not apply unit cost ceilings.
3.FURTHER DETAILS ON THE THEMATIC FOCUS
3.1.Climate-resilient approaches
The EU and its Member States recognise that agriculture is one of the sectors most seriously affected by climate change. The EU promotes an agricultural development that serves multiple purposes of improving the natural resource base and the environment, tackles climate change, as well as increasing land and labour productivity and boosting food supply. This also has a win-win effect in creating income and decent employment opportunities in developing countries. In 2014, 38% of all support to food and nutrition security (including agriculture) contributed to climate change adaptation. In 2016, this has risen to 43%.
Germany enhances climate mainstreaming in its existing agricultural development programmes and promotes specific adaptation and mitigation measures in the agriculture sector, such as, for example, support to climate change adaptation in agricultural development in Africa (CAADP). This goes hand-in-hand with support for partner Nationally Determined Contributions and monitoring, reporting and verification to the UNFCCC. Finland is a significant supporter of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and supports mitigation of and adaptation to climate change at all levels: from international policy making to individual projects at grass-root level. In addition to climate-specific actions, all development cooperation supported by Finland must be climate proof and climate smart.
France remains dedicated to fulfil the Paris Agreement and has launched the Adapt’Action project to support African countries, LDCs and SIDS in seeking technical assistance for the institutional, methodological and operational implementation of their NDCs in the fight against climate change. Half of its development cooperation must go to projects having climate co-benefits and France adopts four main climate-resilient approaches in agricultural development: sustainable management of natural resources, agroecological intensification for family farming, sustainable planning of rural areas and risk management. Austria aims to integrate climate change issues in all programmes and projects and supports the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions, cultivation of drought-resistant plants, and efficient irrigation schemes.
Italy integrates climate-resilient approaches in its programmes, for example through the development of irrigation and water sectors as well as strengthening the resilience of rural communities. The Netherlands invests in millions of family farms and provides advice, information, technologies and infrastructure support, for example, enabling them to become more resilient to climate stresses and shocks.
The United Kingdom places agriculture as one of the priority sectors for support from the UK’s International Climate Fund; support from the fund emphasises climate-smart agriculture and promotes programmes that improve farmers’ incomes, build resilience to climate change, and reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture, including emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, support by a number of Member States, including the UK, to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) helped climate-sensitive interventions across GAFSP’s projects and public sector funds. Ireland invests in programmes to promote and expand sustainable agricultural practices worldwide; this includes support to conservation agriculture, agroforestry and research for greater climate resilience. Together with many other Member States and the EU, Ireland also strongly supports research and learning on climate-resilient agricultural practices, namely through the CGIAR and research programmes.
Currently Ireland’s Climate and Development Learning Platform seeks to enhance the climate adaptation impact of its programming in key partner countries. To date, the Platform has undertaken research and capacity building to strengthen work on cookstoves in Malawi, enhanced the technical rigour and gender targeting of Climate Smart Agriculture Programmes in Ethiopia and Zambia, and built climate adaptive capacity into social protection programming in Mozambique, helping them to align with local adaptation planning.
3.2.Nutrition-sensitive agricultural practices
Current trends from recent analysis show that malnutrition rates remain alarming: 88% of countries face a serious burden. Worldwide, stunting is declining too slowly while the problems of overweight and obesity continue to rise. Globally, approximately 155 million children under five suffer from stunting. In 2016, nearly 52 million children under five were wasted. There are nearly 41 million overweight children globally (an increase of 11 million since 2000). Africa and Asia continue to bear the brunt of all forms of child malnutrition. Nutrition-specific interventions are needed but will only reduce stunting by 20%. The biggest impact comes from nutrition-sensitive interventions, including nutrition-sensitive agricultural practices, tackling malnutrition root causes.
Nutrition-sensitive agriculture is an approach that seeks to ensure the production of a variety of affordable, nutritious, culturally appropriate and safe foods in adequate quantity and quality to meet the dietary requirements of populations in a sustainable manner. The EU and Member States are working jointly on: the design of nutrition-sensitive agricultural policies and strategies which place women at the core of these policies in countries with high levels of stunting; the implementation of national nutrition-sensitive policies and strategies by enhancing skills and know-how; the monitoring of programmes, including by incorporating dietary diversity indicators as well as affordability indicators; and on stronger evidence for cost-effective approaches for returns on nutrition investments in the agriculture sector.
In 2015, the German G7 Presidency successfully advocated for a more comprehensive understanding and a multisectoral approach to achieve food and nutrition security, which was formulated in the Summit Declaration as the “Broader Food Security and Nutrition Development Approach”. At its 2016 “Policies against Hunger” conference, Germany hosted an array of stakeholders to discuss sustainable food systems that promote healthy diets and good nutrition. The Promotion of nutrition-sensitive potato value chains in East Africa aims at increasing agricultural production and income as well as diet diversity by promoting the potato value chain in combination with nutrition education, inter-ministerial linkages between the health and agriculture ministries, training of village-based Community Health workers and nutrition community dialogues. Furthermore, the Affordable nutritious foods for women (ANF4W) programme aims to increase micronutrient intake of women of reproductive age through collaborating with the private sector in Bangladesh, Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania. Smallholder farmers and small- to medium-sized enterprises are supported to introduce innovative food fortification approaches. Social marketing and nutrition communication campaigns accompany the interventions, leading to improved nutrition knowledge and access to nutritious foods for women of reproductive age.
Finland supported nutrition-sensitive agriculture practices through home-garden components of rural development projects in countries where a comprehensive approach in developing livelihoods in communities is taken. Similarly, Austria coordinates closely with other stakeholders and works tightly with national and local partners to promote family farming, home gardens and homestead food at household and community level as well as sustainable production practices such as organic agriculture, sustainable pasture management and integrated pest management. For the Netherlands, nutrition-sensitive agriculture is supported by broadening nutrition activities to include local diversification and by focussing on nutrient-rich forms of agriculture. For example, in Bangladesh, the Netherlands is supporting an integrated approach to tackling constraints across the value chain and improve food and nutrition security.
France developed a nutrition roadmap (2016-2020) to improve the way it is addressing nutrition in humanitarian and development programs and strategies by 2020. It focuses on eight target countries and activities include both nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific programmes, helping countries to address nutrition in policies as well as awareness raising. For example, from 2016 disbursements to food aid programmes, 42% were nutrition-specific and 14% nutrition-sensitive. Italy has been supporting inclusive and sustainable value chain development in a number of countries seeking to enhance the socio-economic empowerment of women and improve the nutrition and dietary diversity of vulnerable populations.
The UK has continued to support global action and leadership on nutrition, including with the launch of a nutrition position paper which was published in October 2017. The UK has provided support to a number of programmes which engage with the private sector in order to improve nutrition-sensitive agricultural practices. Ireland’s focus on undernutrition combines both nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific approaches, in line with the SUN movement for multisectoral policies, coordination and programming. Ireland has been supporting research into the linkages between wasting and stunting and pushing for better integration of nutrition into the resilience approach. Support for nutrition-sensitive agriculture is also provided to the CGIAR.
With regards to the public private space, on-going support to Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) by Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany focusses on improvements in nutrition outcomes for the poor in low and middle-income countries through market based solutions in the food system,
The second progress report in response to the EU Action Plan on Nutrition was published in August 2017. There has been a three-fold increase in the EU’s funding commitments to nutrition since 2014. In countries in which nutrition security is an EU focal sector, the number of non-stunted children has been increasing steadily since 2012 to 2017, from 114 million to 135 million, which is crucial for the developmental and economic prospects of these countries. The second progress report of the European Commission's Action Plan on Nutrition was published in August 2017. 3 There has been a three-fold increase in the Commission’s funding commitments to nutrition since 2014.
4.METHODOLOGY FOR THE NATIONAL REPORTS AND PROGRAMMES SPREADSHEET DATABASE
Revised guidelines to prepare the third National Reports on implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments
I) INTRODUCTION
The third EU report will provide again a consolidated assessment of the EU and Member States’ (MS) performance on the six food and nutrition security policy priorities set out in the Implementation Plan. It will also provide an assessment of how their collective performance went about delivering on these policy priorities, and the level of coherence, complementarity and coordination. Such an assessment will be based on a quantitative assessment of food and nutrition security interventions informed by an analysis of the distribution of the total investments, as well as a qualitative assessment of how well the EU and MS are working together at national, regional and global levels. This report will show how the EU progresses in delivering commitments since the 2014 and 2016 reports.
It needs to reflect the recommendations for further improvements as per the Council Conclusions of 20 June 2016 4 , which propose:
·making EU and MS commitment more explicit in terms of reporting results on agriculture, food and nutrition security;
·indicating how the EU contribution improves the lives of stunted children and small-holder farmers (of whom at least 50% are women), coordinating with EU MS to propose common indicators and efficient methodologies that could facilitate the aggregation of results towards the relevant SDGs, in particular SDG2;
·developing baseline-data on the level of stakeholder involvement and application of integrated, climate resilient approaches and nutrition sensitive agricultural practices across the EU and MS programmes;
·encouraging the EU and its MS to work together to accelerate farmers' access to innovation and strengthen partnerships between European and partner research institutions for long term effectiveness;
·encouraging further work on Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) and Joint Programming.
II) GUIDANCE ON COMPLETING THE NATIONAL REPORT
This national report should be made up of 3 sections proceeded by a summary of no more than 1 page that provides an overview of the headline results and the main lessons learned.
Section 1: Overview of MS expenditure on projects and programmes relevant to food and nutrition security broken down across the 6 policy priorities and analysis;
Section 2: Update of MS's Strategic Priorities for food & nutrition security (global, regional and country level), which includes a general assessment and an assessment of coordination and complementarity of joint work in three countries (to be confirmed);
Section 3: Examples of outcomes presented in the form of case studies and/or results already reported through the indicators defined in respective corporate results frameworks (if available).
Section 1: Distribution of Investments
This first section provides a summary of the main findings from the disbursements you have entered in the spreadsheet according to the six priorities defined. The completed spreadsheet will serve as the main supporting Annex to this report. (See guidance below on how to complete the spreadsheet.)
Based on the data you entered in the spreadsheet, and in order to provide a visual overview of the distribution of investments your MS made in 2016, we have maintained the graphics facility. Once you have entered all the data in the spreadsheet, press the refresh button. This will automatically create a chart showing the distribution of disbursements broken down among the 6 priority areas as well as a chart showing the distribution of disbursements across geographical areas. These graphs will help you outline the basic characteristics of the portfolio’s distribution.
Section 2: Member States' strategic priorities
In this section you are requested, if necessary, to provide an update of your strategic priorities on food and nutrition security, rural development, migration and youth unemployment and how these are aligned with the recent European Consensus on Development.
It provides you with the opportunity to highlight different ways of how you approach implementation not adequately captured in Section 1 and/or which cut across specific interventions. Furthermore, we would like to know what actions and events you have taken with regard to the implementation of the overall findings and recommendations outlines in the second report (Cf. section 6 of the last report) and on joint programming
In addition, following the Council's request, we ask you to report on the following themes:
1) climate resilient approaches in agriculture,
2) nutrition-sensitive agricultural practices.
We propose that you report on the achievements of these themes (your policy commitments, description of the type of support, beneficiaries reached).
On joint programming and joint implementation processes, the idea is to focus this time in the text on results of case studies (covering 3 countries – to be selected in January), which recently made significant progress in joint programming, including in our themes. These case studies will be guided by the Commission and interested MS. You are also requested to provide for these selected countries a brief assessment regarding your perception of the coordination and complementarity between your country and other MS.
Section 3: Results reporting through selected Case Studies and/or existing corporate reporting systems
This section is your opportunity to provide details on your achievements in terms of the selected topics
Remembering that Results is a collective term covering Outputs, Outcome and Impact, (OECD/DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management), this year’s report will again focus on: a) Outputs – the reach or number of individuals, households, communities and institutions your agency has supported); and b) Outcome – the responses to and immediate benefits among these groups from using the support. In addition we propose to use impact assessment.
Accordingly, we propose that we present our results in three ways:
1. The achievements in the two themes (see above) from your individual reporting systems, if possible illustrated by impact assessments or any other kind of information available.
2.Information on results.
·If available, results from your corporate results reporting for 2016 related to food and nutrition security achievements,
·If available, on the number of beneficiaries (undernourished people, resp. smallholder farm(er)s) reached, including, if possible, explanations of who (men, women, children and smallholders) were reached, where (the countries) and with what type of action,
·2016 reports on progress made against your nutrition commitments prepared for SUN and GNR for MS reporting on this.
3. Case studies. Individual case studies of the two selected themes will be used again to complement the information on beneficiaries reached. The evidence base to inform the case studies will come from evaluations. Please could you indicate all your evaluations available which show outcome related information such as behavioural changes of mothers and children under five resp. smallholder farmers (i.e., using the services and products made available through the donors’ programmes) and the direct benefits they realise. The Commission will collate the relevant evaluations that are considered robust by the relevant MS evaluation departments or programmes. We will then decide together on the evaluations that will provide the evidence with which to inform 2-3 case studies. These case studies will be prepared by the Commission.
In addition as per Council Conclusions, the Commission proposes to work on establishing common indicators and baseline-data for the selected themes of this report. For this we kindly ask you to share your priority indicators of the themes and to select from COM's list of indicators and examples of results chains, indicators which would represent your priorities.
III) GUIDANCE ON COMPLETING THE SPREADSHEET
EuropeAid proposes to keep the OECD/DAC reporting as the other possibility - IATI reporting - is not used by all MS as yet. The final 2016 data will be only published by OECD in December, but EuropeAid would like to propose that you make the data submitted to OECD available to the Commission as soon as possible.
On the methodology, EuropeAid proposes to make a first selection of programmes for each MS. Through this approach the number of programmes to be screened by each MS will be reduced. Our estimation shows that this reduction can range from 10% to 75% of the number of programmes compared to 2012, depending on the MS.
A two-pronged approach is proposed.
I.For the 10 MS who participated in the 2016 report: share with EuropeAid the 2016 OECD-DAC CRS plus (Creditor Reporting System) file reported to OECD.
EuropeAid will check which 2016 programmes were already in the 2014 spreadsheet database, and will allocate the programmes according to the six priorities following the 2014 classification.
II.For the programmes which were not in the 2014 spreadsheet database, EuropeAid will pre-select the programmes which have one of a list of 76 OECD-DAC CRS codes proposed by EuropeAid.
This list of the 2016 report (see table 2) has remained
EuropeAid will send back 3 different databases of programmes to each MS:
·Database 1: Programmes which were already in the 2014 database, and for which EuropeAid proposes a priority.
·Database 2: New programmes (not in the 2014 database), related to one of the 76 DAC codes.
·Database 3: Programmes with a DAC code not related to food security.
MS will then be asked for
·Database 1: to verify the Commission's analysis.
·Database 2: each MS needs to identify the food and nutrition security programmes, and apply the guidance on completing the spreadsheets below.
For the purpose of the exercise, please include only those programmes/projects:
A. which have a particular focus on food and nutrition security (by being specifically designed to improve FNS, or by having specific FNS objectives or activities), and/or
B. which clearly fall within one or more of the four pillars of food security – food availability, access to food, utilisation of food and stability, and/or
C. which clearly fall within the definition of ‘food and nutrition security’: “Food and nutrition security exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to food, which is consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences, and is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services and care, allowing for a healthy and active life.”
Core contributions at multilateral level to a range of UN agencies, funds and programmes, such as UNICEF and UNDP, should be excluded as it would be difficult to allocate a proportion of this funding to food and nutrition security. You should include only those contributions to these agencies that specifically target food and nutrition security as stated above (points A, B and C). With regards to the Rome based agencies, please report in the same way as for DAC reporting.
Administrative and overhead costs including salaries and travel-related costs, are part of the projects and should be reported on.
Please bear in mind that all data you report on must be official 2016 DAC data, which means the financial disbursements you reported to the OECD DAC in 2016.
Filling in the spreadsheet step by step:
Please remember to enter the name of your MS, the date of completion, the contact person and the reporting system (by disbursement) on the top left of the excel sheet.
1.Column A: List your relevant food and nutrition security projects and programmes on the first column "projects or programmes".
2.Column B: Select the relevant CRS Code corresponding to the project entered. If you do not use Euros, please enter the equivalent amount in Euros using the April 2016 OECD exchange rate available here: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=169#
3.Column C: In case no CRS Code is applicable to your project, please explain in a few words what your project entails.
4.Column D: Enter the financial amount disbursed for that activity in 2016.
5.Column E: Specify for each project or programme the corresponding policy priority using the scroll down menu. There are 6 to choose from. (Tip: You will need to print out and read the summary description of all projects or programmes to help you complete the rest of the columns).
6.Column F: Choose the relevant level of intervention: national, regional or global using the scroll down menu.
7.Column G: Choose the relevant region or country using the scroll down menu.
8.Column H: This column will be filled in automatically based on your choices in column G and H. This column will serve to create a chart showing the distribution of disbursement across geographical area.
9.Column I: will enable you to make any additional comments or remarks you may have.
Proposed List of DAC CRS codes potentially related to food security
|
DAC CRS code and description |
DAC CRS code and description |
|
11330- Vocational training |
31181- Agricultural education/training |
|
11420- Higher education |
31182- Agriculture research |
|
12110- Health policy and administrative management |
31191- Agricultural services |
|
12220- Basic health care |
31192- Plant and post-harvest protection and pest control |
|
12240- Basic nutrition |
31193- Agricultural financial services |
|
13020- Reproductive healthcare |
31194- Agricultural co-operatives |
|
14010- Water sector policy and administrative management |
31195- Livestock/veterinary services |
|
14015- Water resources conservation (including data collection) |
31210- Forestry policy and administrative management |
|
14020- Water supply and sanitation - large systems |
31220- Forestry development |
|
14021- Water supply - large systems |
312291- Forestry services |
|
14022- Sanitation - large systems |
31282- Forestry research |
|
14030- Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation |
31291- Forestry services |
|
14031- Basic drinking water supply |
31310- Fishing policy and administrative management |
|
14032- Basic sanitation |
31320- Fishery development |
|
14040- River basins’ development |
31381- Fishery education/training |
|
15110- Public sector policy and administrative management |
31382- Fishery research |
|
15112- Decentralisation and support to subnational government |
31391- Fishery services |
|
15150- Democratic participation and Civil society |
32110- Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) development |
|
15160- Human rights |
32130- Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) development |
|
15170- Women’s equality organisations and institutions |
32161- Agro-industries |
|
16010- Social/ welfare services |
32182- Technological research and development |
|
16050- Multisector aid for basic social services |
33110- Trade policy and administrative management |
|
16062- Statistical capacity building |
33120- Trade facilitation |
|
21020- Road transport |
33150- Trade-related adjustment |
|
24030- Formal sector financial intermediaries |
41010- Environmental policy and administrative management |
|
24040- Informal/semi-formal financial intermediaries |
41030- Bio-diversity |
|
25010- Business support services and institutions |
41081- Environmental education/ training |
|
31110- Agricultural policy and administrative management |
41082- Environmental research |
|
31120- Agricultural development |
43010- Multisector aid |
|
31130- Agricultural land resources |
43040- Rural development |
|
31140- Agricultural water resources |
43050- Non-agricultural alternative development |
|
31150- Agricultural inputs |
43081- Multisector education/training |
|
31161- Food crop production |
43082- Research/scientific institutions |
|
31162- Industrial crops/export crops |
51010- General budget support |
|
31163- Livestock |
52010- Food aid/Food security programmes |
|
31164- Agrarian reform |
91010- Administrative costs |
|
31165- Agricultural alternative development |
99810- Sectors not specified |
|
31166- Agricultural extension |
NA |
An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges, COM(2010)127.
PACERSEN Projet d’Appui à la réduction de la migration à travers la Création d’Emplois Ruraux au Sénégal, par la mise en place de fermes agricoles villageoises et individuelles.
10392/16