G7 FOOD SECURITY WORKING GROUP FINANCIAL REPORT ON … · direct assistance in support of global...

G7 FOOD SECURITY WORKING GROUPFINANCIAL REPORT ON FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

INTRODUCTION

At the 2015 G7 Summit in Elmau, Germany, the G7 announced their commitment to work with partner countries and international actors to aim to lift 500 million people in developing countries out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030 in support of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To support this commitment the G7 also developed its Broad Food Security and Nutrition Development Approach and associated progress indicators.

Some selected indicators (Indicator 1, Indicators 2-1 to 2-6), were developed under Germany’s G7 Presidency in 2015 and were included in the Ise-Shima Progress Report, published under Japan’s G7 Presidency. The G7 Food Security Working Group worked to define the methodology on financial contributions towards food security and nutrition (Indicators 2.7, 3.1 to 3.2) for the following year.

In 2017, the FSWG, under the leadership of the Italian Presidency, published the first annual Financial Report on Food Security and Nutrition building on the work of previous presidencies. The 2017 report presents aggregate data on bilateral and multilateral financial commitments in the food security and nutrition sectors for each G7 member for the year 2015.

CANADIAN PRESIDENCY

This 2018 report is the second annual G7 Financial Report on Food Security and Nutrition and it covers data available up to 2016 inclusively. The 2018 report uses a combination of OECD/DAC validated data for indicators 2.2, 2.4, and 2.5 and self-reported data for indicators 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1, and 3.2. As established in the baseline report, the FSWG agreed to report on gross disbursements at current prices.

This report shows a significant level of commitment of the G7 to food security and nutrition, as demonstrated by the US$10.8 billion disbursed as direct assistance in support of global food security and nutrition in 2016, and US$5.2 billion for agricultural development. Furthermore, the report highlights overall improvements in the level of G7 commitments to several of the indicators from 2015 to 2016.

This report also highlights significant G7 multilateral investments, attesting to the importance of the work of the United Nations Rome Based Agencies as well as other multilateral actors committed to achieving SDG2 by 2030. It also underlines the importance of the broad partnership sought at Elmau.

METHODOLOGY

In an effort to address minor issues identified when compiling the data for the 2017 report and ensure consistency across countries, the FSWG, under the leadership of the Canadian Presidency, made adjustments to several indicators (2.4, 3.1, and 3.2). Of note was the clarification that Earmarked Voluntary Contributions (EVC) to multilateral institutions for 2016 were reported only if this value was not reported through bilateral contributions elsewhere in the report (in order to avoid double-counting).

2

INDICATOR 2.1 DEFINITION

Percentage of G7 member programmes on agriculture and rural development that include objectives and expected results to increase the incomes of smallholder farmersData Source: G7 self-reporting by G7 members

Number of committed G7 agriculture and Rural development programmes (CRS Code 311, 32161, 312,313, 43040) in partner countries with objectives and ex-pected results to increase incomes of smallholders . Divided by Total number of G7 agriculture and Rural development programmes (CRS Code 311, 32161, 312,313, 43040); Multiplied by 100

INDICATOR 2.2

Percentage of resources committed to agriculture that include specif-ic gender objectivesData Source: OECD DAC database (OECD Stat)

Volume of commitments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (i.e. 311, 312, 313) that is targeted at gender equality and women’s empowerment (OECD DAC marker for Gender equality and women’s empowerment 1 or 2), divided by total volume of commitments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (i.e. 311, 312, 313); Multiplied by 100

INDICATOR 2.3

G7 donors’ performance standards for ODA-supported investment instruments are reviewed to be aligned with the VGGT and the Princi-ples for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food SystemsData Source: Self-reporting by G7 members

Performance standards for ODA-supported investment instruments are reviewed to be aligned with the VGGT and the Principles for Responsible Invest-ment in Ag and Food Systems.

INDICATOR 2.4

Percentage of resources committed to agriculture that include climate adaptation and/ or mitigation objectivesData Source: OECD DAC database (OECD stat)

Volume of commitments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (i.e. 311, 312, 313) that is targeted at climate adaptation and / or mitigation (OECD DAC marker climate change adaptation 1 or 2; mitigation 1 or 2) , divided by total volume of commit-ments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (i.e. 311, 312, 313); Multiplied by 100

INDICATOR 2.5

Resources committed to nutrition- specific and nutrition-sensitive interventionsData Source: -Self-reporting based on N4G/SUN tracking of nutrition spending, OECD DAC database (CRS Code 12240)

1.A) Absolute levels of commitments for nutrition-specific interventionsB) Percentage change in commitments for nutrition-specific interventions compared to baseline2. A) Absolute levels of commitments for nutrition-sensitive interventionsB) Percentage change in commitments for nutrition-sensitive interventions compared to baseline (Nutrition-sensitive: methodology applied according to/equivalent with “SUN DONOR NETWORK Methodology and Guidance Note to Track Global Investments in Nutrition”).

INDICATOR 2.6

G7 strategic focus to strengthen linkages between short-, medium- and long-term food security and nutrition support/programmes and to enhance transition between relief and developmentData Source: G7 self-reporting by G7 members

Existence (in G7 members administrations) of a multi-sectoral strategy to strengthen linkages between short- medium- and long-term food security and nutrition support, and its implementation exist or not .

INDICATOR 2.7

G7 governments have provided technical support and/or funding to improve and/or expand capacities to collect, analyze, and/or use food security and nutrition indicators in support of SDG2 targetsData Source: G7 self-reporting by G7 members

Existence of specific programmes/projects aiming at expanding capacities to collect, analyze, and/or use food security and nutrition indicators in support of SDG2 targets.

INDICATOR 3.1

G7 members Direct Assistance for agriculture,fishing, food security and nutritionData Source: G7 self-reporting by G7 members

Absolute disbursement by G7 members dedicated to CRS Codes 311, 313, 32161, 520, 72040, 12240

INDICATOR 3.2

G7 members other assistance with explicit objectives to improve people’s food security and/or nutritionData Source: G7 self-reporting by G7 members

Disbursement by G7 members dedicated to CRS Codes 112, 12220, 12261, 12281, 13020, 140, 16010, 16050, 16062, 210, 23210, 23310, 24030, 24040, 25010, 312, 32165, 32267, 41010, 41030, 43030, 43040, 73010, 74010 with KEYWORDS SEARCH APPROACH (see sheet Indicator 3_Methodology).


C A N A D A

3

INDICATOR 2.1 THRESHOLDS NOTES/REMARKS

146 programmes / 318 programmes

46%

less than 25%25-50%more than 25%

INDICATOR 2.2

MARKER 1:USD million 196.23 / 207.063 = 94.76% MARKER 2:USD million 1.41 / 207.063 = 0.68%

less than 30% with Marker 1 and 230-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (“Principal”)

INDICATOR 2.3

No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles

No review of consistency with VGGT and the PrinciplesReview process started and ongoingReview has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT… and the Principles

INDICATOR 2.4

ADAPTATION 1: USD million 63.18 / 207.06 = 30.51%MITIGATION 2: USD million 132.48 / 207.06 = 63.98%

less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 220-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD million 97.62 (decrease by 10.11%)NUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD million 1,309.73 (increase by 2.96%)

Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015Same level of 2015 Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015

INDICATOR 2.6

Strategy developed and being implemented

No strategyProcess of strategy development ongoingStrategy developed and being implemented

INDICATOR 2.7

No programmes No programmesProgrammes under definitionProgrammes ongoing

INDICATOR 3.1

TOTAL DISBURSEMENT: USD million 484.25

311 = 168.08, 313 = 3.48, 32161 = 6.69, 520 = 41.37, 72040 = 167.01, 12240 = 97.63

INDICATOR 3.2



G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

4


G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

IMPUTED % OF CORE CONTRIBUTIONS TO AGRICULTURE, FOOD SECURITY & NUTRITION

USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 6.74

Earmarked voluntary contributions* 8.74

WFPCore (91%) 17.16


WHOCore (2%) 0.21


UNICEFCore (11%) 1.34


CGIARCore (55%) 4.15


IFADCore (82%) 23.20


WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 7.44

Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)

IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)

Other earmarked voluntary contributions* 119.30

AFDBCore (12%) 9.61


ADBCore (8%) 2.88


IDBCore (2%) 0.28


EBRDCore (2%) 0.00


OTHERSCore

Earmarked voluntary contributions*

MU

LTIL

ATER

AL

*The G7 only reported on Earmarked Voluntary Contributions for 2016 if this value was not captured through bilateral contributions.

C A N A D A

F R A N C E

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

5



79%


213 041 / 445 174) Screening done on AFD projects only, corresponding to 71% of total commitments

INDICATOR 2.2



The denominator used only take into account the project marked (0, 1, 2), projects with no mark empty lines) are not taken into account.

INDICATOR 2.3

Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT


The French agency for development has devel-oped 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.

INDICATOR 2.4

ADAPTATION 1: USD million 214.512 / 421.167 = 51%MITIGATION 2: USD million 247.539 /439.496 = 56%


The denominator used only take into account the project marked (0, 1, 2), projects with no mark (emplty lines) are not taken into account.

INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD million 14.264 (increase by 177.5%)NUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD million 23.671 (increase by 3.2%)


INDICATOR 2.6

Process of strategydevelopment ongoing


311 = 318,275 Million USD; 313 = 0,865 Million USD; 32161 = 1,639 Million USD; 520 = 41,775 Million USD; 72040 = 1,344 Million USD; 12240 = 8,264 Million USD

INDICATOR 2.7


INDICATOR 3.1


311 = 318,275 Million USD; 313 = 0,865 Million USD; 32161 = 1,639 Million USD; 520 = 41,775 Million USD; 72040 = 1,344 Million USD; 12240 = 8,264 Million USD

INDICATOR 3.2



6



USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 26.22


WFPCore (91%) 29.12


WHOCore (2%) 0.48








WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 8.62

Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window) 0.00

IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment) 0.00


AFDBCore (12%) 1.89


ADBCore (8%) 0.00


IDBCore (2%) 0.00


EBRDCore (2%) 0.00


OTHERSCore


MU

LTIL

ATER

AL


F R A N C E

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

G E R M A N Y

7



31%


Limited to programmes funded by BMZ; channel of delivery via GIZ & KfW (not considering support via multilateral channels or non-state actors)

INDICATOR 2.2

MARKER 1:USD 348,349,110 / 397,458,355 = 88% MARKER 2:0%



INDICATOR 2.3

Review has taken place andstandards are aligned withthe VGGT and the Principles


INDICATOR 2.4

ADAPTATION 1: USD 269,751,137 / 362,265,712 = 75%MITIGATION 2: USD 55,871,621 / 362,265,712 = 15%



INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD million 49.134 (decrease by 32%)NUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD million 242.483 (increase by 73%)


INDICATOR 2.6



INDICATOR 2.7


INDICATOR 3.1

TOTAL DISBURSEMENT: USD million 1,537.22

Disbursements dedicated to single CRS codes:311 = 573.68 ; 313 = 4.16 ; 32161= 2.24 ;520 = 370.42 ; 72040 = 568.86 ; 12240 = 18.05Commitments: 1.768,09


G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

8

INDICATOR 3.2

TOTAL DISBURSEMENT: USD million 101.28(1,85% of the total amount disbursed,dedicated to the selected CRS codes)

Reporting on indicator 3.2 varies from last year´s reporting (as well as from BMZ´s internal reporting). For the reporting on 2015 GER used an internal marker which determines for each program spe-cifically if FNS is a main or secondary objective. GER will continue to report nationally with this established and differentiated methodology Commitments accordingly: 222.061

9



USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 15.9


WFPCore (91%) 22.9


WHOCore (2%) 0.48

Earmarked voluntary contributions* 0





IFADCore (82%) 29.4


WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 11.3


IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment) 0

Other earmarked voluntary contributions* 0

AFDBCore (12%) 23.94


ADBCore (8%) 3.03


IDBCore (2%) 0.12


EBRDCore (2%) 0


OTHERSCore


MU

LTIL

ATER

AL


G E R M A N Y

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

I T A L Y

10



34.6%


For the analysis of this indicator, focussing on project specific objectives and expected results, only projects funded by the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation have been considered. Furthermore in 2016, the delivery capacity of theItalian development cooperation was delayed due to the new operational arrangements and mech-anisms required by the Law No. 125 of 11.8.2014, which established, on January 1st, the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation.

INDICATOR 2.2



INDICATOR 2.3

Review process startedand ongoing


In 2016 a review of the performance standard has been started and is still ongoing.

INDICATOR 2.4



INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD million 5.53 (increase by 4.39%)NUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD million 18.78 (decrease by 13.03%)


For the identification of resources committed for “Nutrition Sensitive” interventions, Italy has used the same methodology agreed for Indicator 3.2.

INDICATOR 2.6



Internal regulation of Italian Cooperation define procedures and tools to be used to articulate Italian humanitarian intervention into three phases, including “linking relief and rehabilitation to development”. In 2016 the drafting process of an official strategy has been started and is currently under development.

INDICATOR 2.7

Programmes ongoing No programmesProgrammes under definitionProgrammes ongoing

Italy supports the FAO programme “Global strat-egy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics” started in 2012 and still ongoing.


G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

11

INDICATOR 3.1


311 =55,98 Million USD; 313 =1,96 Million USD; 32161 =1,77 Million USD; 520 =18,39 Million USD; 72040 = 9,14 Million USD;12240 = 6,00 Million USD

INDICATOR 3.2


This figure is extrapolated from the following codes: 112, 12220, 12261, 12281, 13020, 140, 16010, 16050, 25010, 312, 41010, 41030,43030, 43040, 74010

12



USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 10.71


WFPCore (91%) 8.75


WHOCore (2%) 0.33






IFADCore (82%) 6.40


WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 5.57



Other earmarked voluntary contributions*

AFDBCore (12%) 1.23


ADBCore (8%) 2.02


IDBCore (2%) 0.13


EBRDCore (2%) 0.14


OTHERSCore


MU

LTIL

ATER

AL


I T A L Y

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

J A P A N

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

13



84.6%


Limited to Programmes funded by MOFA, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery and JICA

INDICATOR 2.2

MARKER 1:USD million 276.70 / 684.97= 40.4% MARKER 2:USD million 1.79 / 684.97=0.3%


INDICATOR 2.3

No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles


Japan does not currently screen initiatives against the VGGT and the Principles.

INDICATOR 2.4



Total Adaptation and Mitigation: 36.9% (double counting has been checked)

INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD 0.30 millionNUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD 23.07 million)


Japan is of the view that a consistent method-ology should be used to calculate and report on its nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive commitments in the Elmau Accountability Report and the Global Nutrition Report and has therefore adopted the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Donor Network methodology. To establish the baseline figures for indicator 2.5, Japan used the following methodological approach: 1) For nutrition-specific commitments, Japan used Creditor Reporting System (CRS) purpose code 12240-basic nutrition commitments as reported to the OECD-DAC; and 2) for nutrition-sensitive commitments, Japan used a pre-identified subset of CRS objective codes linked to nutrition-sensitive outcomes (12220, 13020, 14030, 14031, 14032) to identify nutrition sensitive projects. As Japan recognizes these projects as partially nutrition-sensitive, 25% of the total com-mitments under these CRS codes is reported as the nutrition-sensitive commitments. Note: Since Japan didn’t report on nutrition-sensitive commitments last year, the threshold was not calculated for Indicator 2-5 for this year.


14

INDICATOR 2.6



Based on the Cabinet’s decision on the “Devel-opment Cooperation Charter” which includes multi-sectoral strategy, Japan has compiled and been implementing the Country Assistance Policy and the Rolling Plans tailor-made for specific situations of the recipient countries. These Policy and Plans, wherever appropriate, strategically en-compass the short-, mid- and long-term assistance, to ensure seamless assistance for enhancing food security and nutrition.

INDICATOR 2.7


Japan provided technical support for projects aiming at improving agricultural statistics and food security information through international and regional bodies. Japan also offered bilateral technical assistance in this field through JICA.

INDICATOR 3.1


INDICATOR 3.2


Japan is of the view that a consistent methodology should be used to calculate and report on its ex-plicit objectives to improve people’s food security and/or nutrition in the Elmau Accountability Report. To establish the baseline figures for indicator 3.2, Japan used the following methodological approach: Japan used Creditor Reporting System (CRS) purpose codes listed under Definition; a key-word search in the project title and summary with “nutrition” and “food security”.

15



USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 50.58


WFPCore (91%) 4.42


WHOCore (2%) 1.01








WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 1271.56




AFDBCore (12%) 597.36


ADBCore (8%) 1781.68


IDBCore (2%) 171.02


EBRDCore (2%) 51.14


OTHERSCore


MU

LTIL

ATER

AL


J A P A N

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

UNITED KINGDOM

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

16



44.2%


Included: climate resilience programmes (if farmer incomes mentioned); market building programme (if farmer income mentioned); agriculture research programmes (if agriculture productivity men-tioned). Not included: social protection schemes (where beneficiaries are subsistence farmers). Data source = disbursement made in 2016

INDICATOR 2.2



Note: reporting based on disbursements, for consistency with previous year

INDICATOR 2.3



INDICATOR 2.4



Note: reporting based on disbursements, for consistency with previous year

INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD million 111.5 (increase by 21%)NUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD million 693.1 (decrease by 25%)


Nutrition specific baseline (2015) = US$ 92.4m. Nutrition sensitive baseline (2015) = US$ 928.3m Note: reporting based on disbursements, for consistency with previous year Note baseline year = 2015 (previous year’s reporting baseline year = 2014)

INDICATOR 2.6



INDICATOR 2.7


Examples include: Improving Statistics for Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Dev’t [GB-1-202931] and Global Open Data for Agricul-ture and Nutrition (GODAN) [GB-1-203202]

INDICATOR 3.1


311: US$ 382.46m, 313: US$ 1.75m, 32161: US$ 0.05m, 520: US$ 47.77m, 72040: US$ 409.58m, 12240: US$ 154.39m


17

INDICATOR 3.2


This figure is extrapolated from the following codes: 11220, 12220, 13020, 14010, 14015, 14020, 14021, 14030, 14031, 14032, 14081, 16010, 16062, 25010, 41010, 41030, 43040, 73010, 74010.

18



USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 11.20


WFPCore (91%) 49.12


WHOCore (2%) 0.72








WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 22.19


IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)


AFDBCore (12%) 35.63


ADBCore (8%) 5.40


IDBCore (2%) 0.00


EBRDCore (2%) 0.00


OTHERSCore


MU

LTIL

ATER

AL


UNITED KINGDOM

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

UNITED STATES

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

19



36.8%


Included are USAID missions that report results in 2016 for the following standard indicators: smallholder incremental sales generated; micro, small, and medium enterprises, including farmers, received agricultural-related credit; contracts existed between smallholder farmers and market channels. Total programmes are calculated as the number of USAID missions reporting results any agricultural related indicators.

INDICATOR 2.2

MARKER 1:USD million 452.254 / 1,174.387 = 38.5 % MARKER 2:USD million 288.942 / 1,174.387 = 24.6 %


INDICATOR 2.3



USAID has developed performance standards that align with the VGGT and the Principles for Responsible Investments in Ag and Food Systems, but they are not in place at this time.

INDICATOR 2.4

ADAPTATION 1: USD million 350.363 / 1,174.387 = 29.8 %MITIGATION 2: USD million 364.682 / 1,174.387 = 31.1 %


INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD 282,056,157 (20.2% increase)NUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD 3,300,997,889 (25.7% increase)


In the 2017 G7 Financial Report on Food Security and Nutrition, the United States inadvertently reported incorrect data for indicator 2.5. The data reported included spending only from the U.S. Agency for International Development instead of the total for the entire U.S. government. The corrected numbers below were used in the calcu-lation of the percentage increase reported in the 2018 Report. Nutrition Sensitive - 2,627,008,442 Nutrition Specific - 234,612,986

INDICATOR 2.6



The US published it’s strategy in 2014: USAID Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy 2014-2025

INDICATOR 2.7


US is supporting capacity building through the AGRIS program with FAO.


20

INDICATOR 3.1


311= 1360.13; 313= 8.361; 32161= 6.071; 520= 553.531; 72040= 2076.44; 12240= 139.272

INDICATOR 3.2


112: 454.524; 12220: 100.941; 12261: 3.768; 13020: 191.18; 140: 90.086; 16010: 16.596; 210: 2.033; 23210: 0.003; 23310: ; 24030: ; 24040: 2.997; 25010: 113.428; 312: 0.537; 41010: 8.335; 41030: 64.026; 43030: 0.078; 43040: 0.307; 74010: 7.855; Other*: 1719.302;

21



USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 25.776


WFPCore (91%) **


WHOCore (2%) 0.858




CGIARCore (55%) **


IFADCore (82%) 16.342


WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 28.341


IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment) **


AFDBCore (12%) 25.174


ADBCore (8%) 8.846


IDBCore (2%) 2.040


EBRDCore (2%) 0.20


OTHERSCore


MU

LTIL

ATER

AL

*The G7 only reported on Earmarked Voluntary Contributions for 2016 if this value was not captured through bilateral contributions.** The data reported in this section of the table does not reflect total U.S. contributions to these organizations. U.S. contributions to these organizations are partially captured in the bilateral section of the table.

UNITED STATES

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

EUROPEAN UNION

22



52%


Out of the total 62 programmes with relevant codes, 19% are in Neighbourhood countries. Out of the 32 programmes targeting smallholders, 3% are in Neighbourhood countries. Can also be expressed as 50% which are on smallholders and not in Europe (neighbourhood), and 2% which are on smallholders and in Europe (neighbourhood).

INDICATOR 2.2

MARKER 1:USD million 1,591 / 1,806 = 88% MARKER 2:USD million 0.001 / 1,806 = 0%


Out of the total 1,806 million USD with relevant codes, 19% are in Neighbourhood countries. Out of the 1,591 million USD on gender sensitive pro-grammes (marker 1), 12% are in Neighbourhoodcountries. Can also be expressed as 71% which are gender sensitive (marker 1) and not in Europe (neighbourhood), and 11% which are gender sensi-tive (marker 1) and in Europe (neighbourhood).No programme marked as 2 is in Neighbourhood.

INDICATOR 2.3

Review has taken place andstandards are aligned with the VGGT


The EU has developed the Value chain for Devel-opment (VCA4D) analysis, which determines the interventions on value chain and private sector development. The methodology takes into account also the use of land and water rights reference to the need of considering the VGGTs, transparencyand consultation, compensation. In addition, the Commission developed guidance note to accompany the Application Form For Blending Facilities in 2015, which have been in application since 2016. They help ensuring coherence with the Policy objectives of the Facility and EU Policies, and clarifying the additionally of EU contributions in blending operations (e.g. social and environ-mental aspects).

INDICATOR 2.4

ADAPTATION 1: USD million 1,589 / 1,806 = 88%MITIGATION 2: USD million 690 / 1,806 = 38%


Out of the total 1,806 million USD with relevant codes, 19% are in Neighbourhood countries. ADAP-TATION: Out of the 1,589 million USD contributing to climate change adaptation, 12% are in Neigh-bourhood countries. (Can also be expressed as 77% which are contributing to CC adaptation and not in Europe (neighbourhood), and 11% which are on CC adaptation and in Europe (neighbourhood)). MITIGATION: Out of the 690 million USD contribut-ing to climate change mitigation, 32% are in Neigh-bourhood countries. (Can also be expressed as 26% which are contributing to CC adaptation and not in Europe (neighbourhood), and 12% which are on CC adaptation and in Europe (neighbourhood).

INDICATOR 2.5

NUTRITION SPECIFIC: USD million 185 (increase by 215%)NUTRITION SENSITIVE: USD million 802 (increase by 46%)



G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

23

INDICATOR 2.6



The Global Network for Food Insecurity Risk Reduction and Food Crises Response launched in May 2016 with a specific allocation of EUR 539 million, of which EUR 241 million are dedicated to long–term development actions and EUR 298 million to humanitarian aid. In addition, the Global analysis report of food and nutrition security situation in food crisis hotspots was published in March 2016 providing a global overview of the food insecurity situation due to different crises and natural disasters.

INDICATOR 2.7


The INFORMED programme (Information for Nutrition, Food Security and Resilience for Decision Making) aims to build the technical and institution-al capacities of national and regional institutions to guarantee regular, timely information as well as evidence-based analysis regarding food security, nutrition and resilience situation in pronecrisis countries. The European Commission is also supporting the National Information Platforms for Nutrition (NIPN), an initiative that aims at improving data analysis to better inform strategic decisions towards preventing malnutrition. In addition, the Global analysis report of food and nutrition secu-rity situation in food crisis hotspots was published in March 2016.

INDICATOR 3.1


Out of which 1,537.00 million USD through bilateral and 845.43 million USD through multilateral. Out of the total 2,382.44 USD millions, 23% are in Neighbourhood countries.

INDICATOR 3.2


Out of which 300.33 million USD through bilateral and 139.29 million USD through multilateral. Out of the total 439.62 million USD, 1% correspond to Neighbourhood countries.

24



USD MILLION

FAOCore (92%) 0


WFPCore (91%) 0


WHOCore (2%) 0




CGIARCore (55%) 0


IFADCore (82%) 0


WORLD BANKGROUP

WB Core (2%) 0


IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment) 0


AFDBCore (12%) 0


ADBCore (8%) 0


IDBCore (2%) 0


EBRDCore (2%) 0


OTHERSCore


MU

LTIL

ATER

AL


EUROPEAN UNION

G7 COUNTRY FLAGS

+

Date post:	02-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

G7 FOOD SECURITY WORKING GROUP FINANCIAL REPORT ON … · direct assistance in support of global...

Documents