Search

This study set out to estimate the role of large-scale agricultural investments on household vulnerability to food insecurity in sample communities in Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique based on their adoption of coping strategies. The study used secondary data from the three countries (Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique). The findings of the study revealed that households with members engaged in contract agreements with LSAIs adopted fewer coping strategies and were less food insecure than other households. Contract farming households seemed to cope better during food shortages (based on the marginal effects of the model). In comparison, households with members employed by a LSAI adopted more coping strategies than contract farming households. This might be because households with employed members had smaller numbers of livestock and smaller landholdings. Many LSAIs jobs were seasonal and low-paid, making the household less able to cope with food shortages. The study confirmed that households with more educated heads, smaller households, larger plot sizes and more livestock were less likely to slip into deeper levels of food insecurity should they face adversity. Most employed household heads had migrated from nearby districts. The job opportunities helped migrant workers mediate food insecurity. These results suggest that governments hosting LSAIs can promote plantation and contract farming that protect the land ownership of smallholder farmers, transfer good agricultural practices to improve agricultural production, household incomes and food security of smallholder farmers., African Journal on Land Policy and Geospatial Sciences, Vol 5, No 1: Special Issue - January 2022

As recognised by the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa – 2024 (STISA-2024), science, technology and innovation (STI) offer many opportunities for addressing the main constraints to embracing transformation in Africa. Preparation for the Summit provides an important moment for shaping the region's future and ensuring that the much-needed agriculture-led growth and development agenda can simultaneously deliver on improving nutrition and health, saving lives and curbing public health expenditure on nutrition-related diseases. Yet, the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) and its associated national plans still need to adopt a food systems lens. As food systems need cross-sectoral coordination beyond what CAADP coordination is needed, institutional innovation is essential for Africa to rise to the vision of the AUC Agenda 2063 and the Food Systems Summit's aspirations. This brief seeks to identify the opportunities for African countries to take proactive steps to harness the potential of agriculture and food systems to ensure future food and nutrition security by applying STI solutions. The potential application (including soil quality); b) innovation in the processing and packaging of foods; c) improving human nutrition, health and productivity; d) addressing fragility and instability and e) greater access to information and transparent monitoring and accountability systems. Change will need to be supported by institutional coordination; clear, food safety and health- conscious regulatory environments; greater access to information and transparent monitoring and accountability systems. Mechanisation and digitisation will speed up such transformation and enable more inclusive advancement of food systems. ICT solutions and advances could play a significant role in advancing food systems and addressing inequalities in access to inputs, knowledge and markets. Adaptation through sustainable intensification and agricultural diversification may have to be combined with the creation of off-farm opportunities, both locally and through strengthened rural-urban linkages. Financial support (microfinance, credit, subsidies, loans, insurance, etc.) plays an important role in risk reduction for producers.

International audience; Large-scale agricultural investments (LAIs) transform land use systems worldwide. There is, however, limited understanding about how the common global drivers of land use change induce different forms of agricultural investment and produce different impacts on the ground. This article provides a cross-country comparative analysis of how differences in business models, land use changes, and governance systems explain differences in socio-economic, food security, and environmental impacts of LAIs in Kenya, Madagascar, and Mozambique. It brings together results on these aspects generated in the AFGROLAND project that collected data in a multi-method approach via household surveys, business model surveys, semi-structured household interviews, life-cycle assessments of farm production, analysis of remote-sensing data, key informant interviews, and document analysis. For the present project synthesis, we combined a collaborative expert workshop with a comparative analysis of 16 LAIs. The results show that the LAIs follow four distinctive impact patterns, ranging from widespread adverse impacts to moderate impacts. Results demonstrate how the following conditions influence how the global drivers of land use change translate into different LAIs and different impacts on the ground: labor intensity, prior land use, utilization of land, farm size, type of production, experience in local agriculture, land tenure security, accountability of state and local elites, the mobilization capacity of civil society, expansion of resource frontiers, agricultural intensification, and indirect land use change. The results indicate that commercial agriculture can be a component in sustainable development strategies under certain conditions, but that these strategies will fail without substantial, sustained increases in the economic viability and inclusiveness of smallholder agriculture, land tenure security, agro-ecological land management, and support for broader patterns of endogenous agrarian transformation.

About 690 million people are chronically undernourished, roughly 2 billion experience food insecurity, and around 3 billion people cannot afford enough of the diverse foods needed for a healthy diet, even as all countries of the world have a rising burden on diet-related disease from consumption of unhealthy foods. This research brief aims to extend previous work on diet cost and affordability such as the SOFI 2020 report to address the hidden costs of meal preparation inside the home, after foods are grown or purchased by each household. We start with market prices for the most affordable items with which to prepare a basic meal in 168 countries around the world, then address the cost of switching between pulses and animal protein foods that people may choose, and the costs of switching between raw ingredients and precooked items such as canned beans, tomatoes or fish. To quantify the cost of meal preparation, we focus on fuel use for rural households in East Africa, and consider the cost of the charcoal, gas or electricity required for cooking the least-cost dry pulses in Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. This analysis is just a first step towards measuring the cost and affordability of meal preparation, which depends on many factors such as a household’s kitchen equipment, water and fuel sources, distance to markets, demographic composition and cost of time. Our work on the hidden costs of meal preparation goes beyond market prices of food itself to consider other barriers to consumption of a healthy diet by each household, and complements true cost accounting that takes account of environmental or social externalities from production and distribution of food, as well as the health externalities involved in food consumption. The data shown here reveal that even just the raw ingredients for a basic plate are often unaffordable for the poorest, and the added cost of time and fuel can make such meals prohibitively expensive. Results suggest two main avenues for policy action. First, governments now can and should use the information on the least costly way to meet dietary standards to inform poverty lines and provide targeted assistance to ensure that citizens can acquire safe and nutritious items in sufficient quantities for an active and healthy life, using local- appropriate safety nets. Second, food policies should recognize the hidden costs of meal preparation that often put healthier, more sustainable diets out of reach. Overcoming the hidden barriers to preparation of healthy meals will require support for helpful forms of food processing such as cooking and canning beans, fish, tomatoes or other foods that preserve or even enhance nutritional values, while simultaneously taking action to limit potentially forms of ultra- processing such as excessive levels of added sugar, salt or trans fat and other factors associated with diet-related disease. Actions that support helpful forms of food processing while limiting harmful processing could help households improve diet quality, while also reducing the time burden, respiratory diseases and climate- change consequences of using wood or charcoal for cooking, as well as other inefficient and inequitable aspects of meal preparation. Taken together, food-based safety nets and improvements in the food environment can make healthy diets affordable for all people at all times, to help every country reach global development goals.

The Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) sought to identify priority programmes that could drive agricultural growth, reduce poverty and food insecurity and identify and overcome constraining gaps and contradictions across sectors that constrain food security at the national, regional and local level. Apart from the call for the establishment of comprehensive food security policies, CAADP recognised that policy alignment and coherence across sectors was essential to achieve the food security objectives of national visions and development plans in Africa. However, food security policy is complex due to the multi-sectoral nature of the required actions and the multiple players engaged in the process of programme implementation and coordination. Yet, there is no formal guidance on what constitutes a food security policy. Also, there are variable interpretations of what food security includes. Over time the understanding of food security has changed, evolving as food security crises focus, sharpen and expand our understanding. Moreover, since the drafting of the 2003 CAADP Framework, some significant developments have occurred in the conceptualisation of food security, resulting in the strengthening of the emphasis on nutrition and the broadening of terminology to adopting food and nutrition as a more encompassing focus. This calls for the assessment of national policies to determine if national policies align with this evolving understanding of food security and the changing context of international commitments to reducing food insecurity (such as the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs). In addition, the long-term neglect of African agricultural policy in the period before the implementation of the CAADP agenda and the rapidly changing domestic, regional and international contexts related to agriculture and food systems, call for policy review and revision. This study set out to investigate the extent of food security policy change between 2010 and 2018 in 11 countries actively engaged in the review and revision of their CAADP National Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plans (NAIPs) (informed by the Malabo Declaration) and to understand the extent to which these policy changes cover food security policies per se or food security-related policies in agriculture and nutrition. The study evaluated formal policy change in 11 African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Malawi, Nigeria, Niger and Togo) between 2010 and early 2018 about agriculture, food security and nutrition. We investigated the following research questions: i. What policy change occurred in agriculture, food security and nutrition between 2010 and 2018? ii. How did these changes coincide with international events and changes in the food security context? iii. Do these changes reflect a broader policy goal for food security at the national level? iv. Do the policies reflect a comprehensive understanding of food security? v. What are the implications of the insights gained for the development of the NAIP IIs? The set of countries included in the analysis was limited by the team’s availability and access to NAIP II draft documents sourced through ECOWAS and ReSAKSS. Of the 11 countries, only Benin, Malawi and Niger had signed off the final versions of the NAIPs. The other eight NAIPs were still in draft form. We limited the assessment to episodes of policy change rather than an in-depth analysis of the NAIPs, the policies, strategies and implementation plans for the 11 countries. The work seeks to support the Feed the Future Initiative’s support of national self-sufficiency through country-owned development efforts. The analysis seeks to provide evidence-based policy research to guide the strengthening of national agriculture, food security and nutrition policies and development initiatives. Overall, we found that despite the call from CAADP in both the Maputo, and even more clearly in the Malabo eras, there is little evidence of active policy review, deliberate strategy design and action planning to ensure the implementation of the intended priorities aimed at addressing critical issues such as food security and nutrition to achieve development goals and inclusive growth. A number of international events, the CAADP agenda and the global food price crisis of 2017/8 seem to have had a significant influence in driving policy change and renewal. Four phases of influences are evident from the analysis. The first was between 1993 and 1996 where the World Child Summit and the first International Conference on Nutrition led to many countries developing action plans for nutrition. The second phase (1997 - 2005) was characterised by an emphasis on integrated planning. During this time, the CAADP Maputo Declaration was signed and a number of policies, strategies and plans related to food security and nutrition were developed by the countries investigated. The third phase was between 2006 and 2010 when the world food price crisis drove many revisions of policies strategies and plans. The fourth phase was evident from 2012 and was characterised by attention to nutrition. Many of the recent international and African events played a role in motivating countries to establish food security and nutrition policies. These include the World Health Assembly Targets (WHO, 2012), the London Nutrition for Growth Summit (2013) and the 2014 Second International Conference on Nutrition where the Rome Declaration (FAO, 2014) was signed. The three 2014 Malabo Declarations not only reemphasized CAADP but also placed significant focus on food security and nutrition. Our analysis shows an increasing focus on nutrition at the neglect of other elements of food security. This is reiterated in the outcomes of an analysis of the monitoring and evaluation frameworks of ten of these 11 NAIPs (see Hendriks et al., 2018). We found an absence of sufficient references to and discussion of the role of the international, African and regional and frameworks, as well as constitutional, transversal long-term nation visions and five-year growth and frameworks. We found that surprisingly little agricultural policy change was evident in the period 2010 to August 2018 in the 11 countries reviewed. A striking observation was the differential interpretation of food security itself. Despite being labelled food security or food security and nutrition policies, strategies and plans, many emphasised nutrition at the neglect of a comprehensive reflection of the four core elements of food security (availability, access, nutrition and stability or resilience). This suggests that there may be a limited understanding of the concept and the complex nature of food security. It may also reflect a lack of capacity in the area of food security policy. Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Guinea-Bissau implemented food security and nutrition plans in the early 1990’s. Guinea-Bissau updated this with an agriculture and food security strategy in 2008. Ghana launched a food security and nutrition policy in 2007. Only Malawi has an (outdated 2009) food security policy per se. Benin (2017), Burkina Faso (2013), Liberia (2015) Nigeria (2016) and Togo (2016) introduced or revised their food security/food security and nutrition policies, strategies or plans between 2010 and 2018. Far more nutrition policies, strategies and plans (23) were passed during the period 1993 to 2018, and 12 of these within the period of 2010 – 2018. Nutrition implementation plans predating 2010 were found for all the countries except for Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Liberia and Nigeria. Except for Nigeria, each of these countries has implemented a nutrition policy since the global food price crisis of 2007-2008. Although Nigeria has not passed a nutrition policy, the country launched a nutrition strategy in 2014 and has a relatively well-developed nutrition-sensitive food security and nutrition policy (2016) for the agriculture sector. Ghana passed a nutrition policy in 2015 and Liberia in 2008. Guinea Bissau implemented a nutrition policy and strategy in 2014. Malawi launched a revised nutrition policy and strategy in 2007 and again in 2018. Niger launched a nutrition policy and revised the related implementation plan in 2016. Niger’s innovative 3N strategy (Nigerians Nourishing Nigerians) is an integrated approach to nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Togo has not updated her 1997 nutrition implementation plan with a policy, strategy or plan. The analysis reveals a rather interesting landscape about agriculture, food security and nutrition policy change. Of the 11 countries, only Malawi has an (expired) food security policy per se, but this does not have a corresponding implementation strategy. Nigeria has an agriculture and food security strategy but no policy. Many countries appear to have policies, but these lack corresponding implementation strategies. Many of the strategies and plans were adopted at a high level of government – the Presidency or Cabinet, showing strong commitment. This commitment is reinforced by the establishment of coordination structures for nutrition at the highest level of government but not for other domains, despite the existence of Food Security and Nutrition Councils in some countries. Due to the multi-sectoral nature of the NAIPs and the fact that their ultimate objectives (food security and nutrition) are core elements of national visions and development plans, the custodian of the NAIP should ideally be at a level far higher than a sectoral or line ministry. This can be partially explained by the lack of alignment of the policies assessed with national policy objectives. Six countries’ policy objectives (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia and Malawi) referred to food security and nutrition; two countries (Niger and Togo) to food security; two countries (Niger and Togo) to malnutrition; Benin to food sovereignty; Niger to hunger and Guinea to poverty. Except for Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana NAIPs, all the other country NAIPs appear to align with the goals of the Malabo Declaration. Cote d’Ivoire’s NAIP focuses only on agriculture, neglecting other aspects of food security and making no mention of nutrition. Our findings reveal the complexity of agriculture, food security and nutrition policy contents and emphasise the lack of coherence and poor guidance regarding both what a food security policy should include and cover as well as the lack of guidance and clarification on the role of a policy, an implementation strategy and their concomitant action plans. The increasing emphasis on nutrition at international, African, regional and domestic level, is reflected in the policy-related changes in the 11 countries. However, the increasing dominance of policy attention to nutrition results in food security not (and in some instances no longer) being recognised as a key integrated cross-cutting issue that is fundamental to a significant number of core quality of life matters. Nutrition is being dealt with as a key focus area, distinct from (and not directly related to) the integrated concept of food security and nutrition, yet nutrition is a key component of food security and food security is essential for achieving nutrition goals. There is a huge potential for the NAIP process and documents to stimulate comprehensive and sequenced policy review and reform, resulting in the appropriate updating and alignment of current policy, whilst taking into account the changing environment of agriculture and food systems, as well as both (a) the broader international, African and regional development agenda, and (b) key in country developments. Yet, an uneven approach has been taken by theindividual NAIP drafting teams with regard to the alignment of the NAIPs to the SDGs, Agenda 2063, Malabo Declarations and the CAADP Implementation Guide. By not aligning these documents and the NAIPs, the NAIPs are not mainstreamed and will likely remain parallel to, and compete for funding and other resources with, other government priorities and programmes. The focus and contents of the NAIPs should be aligned to or inform the revision of all other existing national policy, regulatory, strategic and implementation frameworks to align with current international, African and regional frameworks. There is no direct obligation for countries to ensure the necessary changes in their national visions, five-year growth and development strategies and transversal (multi-sectoral) and sectoral policy frameworks, legislation, strategies and implementation plans to fully reflect, incorporate and align with these international, African and regional frameworks. A review of the existing policy and regulatory frameworks should precede the formulation of strategic frameworks. It is interesting to note that although the AU framework does not compel countries to undertake such reviews, the AU’s Biennial Review Mechanism Technical Guide indicator 1.3 compels countries to report on what steps they have taken to review their existing policies and institutional settings (however, indicator 1.3 does not refer specifically to regulatory reviews). It seems that insufficient guidance was provided to the NAIP drafting teams on (a) the definition and understanding of food security and nutrition as concepts and the relationship between agriculture, food insecurity and malnutrition and (b) how to ensure that it is appropriately reflected as one of the core outcomes and elements of the NAIPs. This lack of guidance is likely to affect the constitution of the NAIP drafting teams. It is possible that the teams did not include specialists from areas such as food security and nutrition as well as experts related to governance, public and private finance, monitoring and evaluation, gender and social protection experts. There is an urgent need for intensive training on guiding frameworks such as the SDGs, Agenda 2063, the Malabo Declarations and the NAIP architecture. This requires the compilation of appropriate, up-to-date training materials and training for various groups including the expanded drafting teams and those who will be undertaking the mid-term review of their approved NAIPs. This training should include elements focusing on the proper understanding of key concepts such as sustainable development, food security and nutrition food security, nutrition, as well as international, African and regional frameworks, the specific domestic constitutional framework and national vision, transversal growth and development frameworks or strategies (also referred to as medium term strategic frameworks), sectoral policies, legislation, five-year Strategic Plans (Strategies) and annual implementation (work) plans. In addition, focused training on policy formulation (within the context of governance and policy sequencing) applied to the drafting and review of NAIPs. Resources should be made available for the continuous professional development of a significant cadre of in-country people as well as international experts providing support to the national NAIP drafting and review teams. The NAIP task team managed by ReSAKSS is one of the few conduits that should be tasked with this responsibility, provided that said task team should be capacitated on a regular basis by key experts identified by the AU. Universities and other tertiary institutions in Africa must enhance their curricula by the introduction of compulsory courses focusing on the broader social aspects of development (including, but not limited to, matters related to food security and nutrition).

International audience

The 2014 Malabo Declaration is an ambitious call to action with the vision of dramatically transforming agricultural growth and development in Africa. In the Declaration, African leaders approved seven commitments that include recommitting to the principles and values of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and ensuring mutual accountability to results and impact through a continental-level Biennial Review (ReSAKSS 2018). The CAADP was initiated through the 2003 Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa (AU 2003), and sought to achieve Millennium Development Goal one (MDG-1) to halve the turn of the century levels of extreme poverty and hunger by 2015 (AU 2003). The Maputo Declaration on CAADP sets broad targets of 6 percent annual growth in agricultural gross domestic product, and allocation of at least 10 percent of public expenditures to the agricultural sector. In 2013, after a decade of implementation, demand for more clarity was expressed by African Union (AU) Member States and stakeholders in terms of further elaboration and refinement of the CAADP targets, and assessment of technical efficacies and political feasibilities for success in agricultural transformation (AU 2018). As a result, AU Heads of State and Government adopted the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation (Doc. Assembly/AU/2(XXIII)) in June 2014 in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea. The Malabo Declaration sets the Africa 2025 Vision for Agriculture which is implemented within the Framework of CAADP as a vehicle to implement and achieve the First Ten Year Implementation Plan of Africa’s Agenda 2063 (AU 2018). The seven Malabo Commitments were translated into seven thematic areas of performance: (i) recommitting to the principles and values of the CAADP Process; (ii) enhancing investment finance in agriculture; (iii) ending hunger in Africa by 2025; (iv) reducing poverty by half, by 2025, through inclusive agricultural growth and transformation; (v) boosting intra-African trade in agricultural commodities and services; (vi) enhancing resilience of livelihoods and production systems to climate variability and other related risks; and (vii) strengthening mutual accountability to actions and results. African countries are currently in the process of reviewing and refining their National Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plans (NAFSIPs). The first NAFSIPs sought to support the achievement of MDG1. The revised NAFSIPs (II) will support the achievement of the Malabo commitments that align with the Sustainable Development Goals. Commitment 2 of Malabo aligns with SDG2 that seeks to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The Malabo Declaration on Nutrition Security through Inclusive Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Africa targets are: i. Ending hunger by 2025; ii. Ending child stunting and bringing down stunting to 10 % and underweight to 5% by 2025; and iii. Continuing dialogue and strengthening advocacy in support of improved nutrition. The first two targets offer benchmarks and impact indicators for the NAFSIPs. However, up-todate data are not always available in each country. The attached sheets offer summaries of the currently available indicators and data on food security in 20 priority countries. These data can assist countries in identifying indicators for use in monitoring and evaluation systems for the NAFSIPs.

KEY FINDINGS • The frank self-assessment of the LASIP I recognizes that the LASIP I was not fully implemented and did not have the impact necessary to lift the country out of lingering poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. • The August 2017 draft LASIP II recognizes that a myriad of policies and strategies exist but have not been able to address these challenges • Recent crises have severely affected the implementation of the LASIP I, with the context not very different to prior to 2010. • It is recommended that the LASIP I be revised to align with the Malabo and SDG 2 commitments and updated to address current changes rather than starting with a new (unfocussed) set of activities • While the component on food security and nutrition contains some commendable proposed interventions, it is unfocussed and not linked to the other components in ways that will ensure delivery on national, Malabo and SDG 2 targets. • Much of the LASIP II draft reads as an annual work plan rather than a strategic set of priorities that will focus delivery on important, well-coordinated multi-sectoral actions. • The governance structures needs strengthening to ensure coordination and delivery.

KEY FINDINGS It is essential that NAIPs: • Establish the pathways to change and link these to impact indicators; • Align and consider international, African and regional instruments and declarations as well as domestic priorities; • Establish appropriate technical and political structures that avoid duplication and complexity; and • Ensure that clear coordination, supervision, monitoring, evaluation and reporting structures and frameworks are set out in a coherent and integrated manner. Key messages regarding the zero draft of the Nigeria NAIP2: • There is a disconnect between the APP, Agriculture Food and Nutrition Security Strategy and the NAIP2. • The zero draft NAIP2 is intended to be the implementation plan for the APP. The Agriculture Food and Nutrition Security Strategy is intended to be the food security pillar of the APP but is not included in the design of the NAIP2. • The conceptual framework, governance and implementation modalities and monitoring and evaluation sections would benefit from significant revision to align these with internal purposes and to the Malabo commitments and indicators. • Benchmarks, pathways to change and appropriate indicators for monitoring and achieving progress on the Malabo commitments are missing. • The elements on food security, nutrition, and gender are inadequate to achieve the CAADP Malabo commitments and contribute to the achievement of the ERGP and the APP.