C1.1. L'Aquila Food Security Initiative
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•275 views
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie C1.1. L'Aquila Food Security Initiative
Ähnlich wie C1.1. L'Aquila Food Security Initiative (20)
Mehr von GCARD Conferences
Mehr von GCARD Conferences (20)
C1.1. L'Aquila Food Security Initiative
- 1. L’Aquila Food Security Initiative Jonathan Shrier U.S. Special Representative for Global Food Security (acting)
- 2. L’Aquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security • Donors pledged to mobilize over $22 billion over 3 years • All signatories committed to “do business differently”: • Align behind country-led processes and plans, • Pursue comprehensive approaches, • Strengthen strategic coordination, • Leverage multilateral institutions, and • Deliver on sustained and accountable commitments.
- 3. Progress to Date: Financial Commitment In May 2012, AFSI donors reported having together committed 99% and disbursed 58% of aggregate AFSI $22.2 billion pledge.
- 4. Progress to Date: AFSI/Rome Principles In 2012, AFSI donors began reporting on investments at the country level, illustrating alignment with the Rome Principles and increasing transparency.
- 5. AFSI Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) • Sub-set of AFSI participants, convened by United States, is investigating ways to provide improve information on AFSI participants’ AR4D investments, working with and through existing processes (OECD, ASTI, etc.). • Greater transparency for AR4D investments will • Enable monitoring of L’Aquila pledge to “substantially strengthen” investments in AR4D • Contribute to aid effectiveness, including alignment of AR4D investments with priorities in country-owned plans
- 6. AFSI Managing for Development Results (MfDR) • A sub-set of AFSI participants, led by Germany and IFPRI, is investigating the impact of AFSI funds spent in Bangladesh, Ghana, Rwanda, and Senegal, as shown by reductions in poverty and stunting in these countries. • They will examine how funds deployed there are managed for development results (i.e., development results inform decision-making on resource use).
- 7. By December 2012 AFSI will produce: • Updates on progress toward meeting financial and non- financial commitments • MfDR Final Report, answering three questions based on case studies: 1. Are AFSI funds aligned to partner countries’ food security strategies and investment plans? 2. Are AFSI funds managed for development results? 3. Has food security increased as AFSI-pledged funds are spent?
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Over forty donor and partner country governments, international organizations, and civil society organizations endorsed AFSI.Since 2009, representatives of these governments and organizations meet twice annually to track progress in fulfilling the $22 billion in funding donors pledged for food security at L’Aquila, and to discuss ways in which we are doing agricultural development differently.Meetings among these representatives are coordinated by country in the presidency of the G8. The first AFSI meeting of 2012 was held in Washington, DC in February 2012 and the second AFSI meeting of 2012 will be held in Maputo, Mozambique in December.
- In December 2012, donors will update these numbers. We expect donors to have fully committed their AFSI pledges and to have disbursed significantly more than 58% of their AFSI pledges.As of May 2012, four AFSI donors had disbursed the entire amount of their AFSI pledges: Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK.
- All AFSI donors have provided information on their funds committed (and/or disbursed) annually since 2010. For the first time, in May 2012, AFSI donors (10 of 13 donors) provided information on their AFSI investments at the country level.The publication of this information alongside the Camp David Accountability Report in May represented a significant step toward meeting donors’ pledge to accountability and transparency. AFSI’s civil society partners concluded that the Camp David Accountability Report improved upon past reports by expanding the analysis from AFSI financial commitments to non-financial commitments. (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/189889.pdf and in-depth tables at: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/2012g8/index.htm) For the December 2012 AFSI meeting, AFSI donors will provide updates on progress toward meeting their financial commitments in the “pledge tracker” table, and their non-financial commitments in the “in-depth tables.”
- “Investment in and access to education, research, science and technologies should be substantially strengthened at the national, regional and international level.”–L’Aquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security, 2009The working group collected data on funds disbursed for AR4D (under OECD-DAC CRS code 31182) between 2009-2011, allowing comparison across donors. Although incomplete, the data suggest an upward trend in funding for AR4D across 2009-2011.OECD-DAC CRS code 31182 (Agricultural Research) is defined as: plant breeding, physiology, genetic resources, ecology, taxonomy, disease control, agricultural bio-technology; including livestock research (animal health, breeding and genetics, nutrition, physiology).Data collected by do not reflect the totalinvestment in AR4D by the reporting donors, since many report investments in AR4D under other OECD-DAC CRS codes.To further improve the transparency of AR4Dinvestments, the group suggested:Greater clarity and consensus on definitionsComprehensive assessments by developing countriesContinued engagement among donorsStrategic allocation of AR4D investments for maximum benefit1. Greater clarity and consensus on OECD-DAC definitions and country reporting guidelines for agricultural research, policysupport, extension and education (OECD-DAC CRS codes 31182, 31180, 31166 and 31181) would improve the ability ofdonors to assess how and where resources are being invested using existing reporting systems. These issuescould be discussed in the DAC Working Party on Statistics.2. Comprehensive assessments of agricultural science and technology investments by developing countries are critical toEnsure that donor investments complement existing systems and support the national food security priorities of developingcountries. This can be accomplished most effectively through strengthening support to the Agricultural Science andTechnology Indicators (ASTI) initiative and supporting efforts by the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) tofoster dialogue with agricultural research partners at the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development(GCARD).3. Continued engagement among donors and other stakeholders is critical to ensure the complementarity of investments and sharingof best practices and lessons learned. The agricultural research working group of the GCARD can facilitate an information exchange on donor agricultural research priority-setting processes and a dialogue on approaches for examining aid effectiveness.4. Investments in AR4D must be strategically allocated to ensure the greatest benefit from these resources—whetherfinancial, in-kind or technical—to CAADP and other similar regional and national plans. Acknowledging the significanceof the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) investments in AR4D, and the strongdonor support for the CGIAR, the CGIAR system should be fully engaged in ongoing discussions of the prioritization,transparency and accountability of AR4D investments.
- AFSI MfDR sub-group was formed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2010.
- For the December 2012 AFSI meeting, AFSI donors will provide updates on progress toward meeting their financial commitments in the “pledge tracker” table, and their non-financial commitments in the “in-depth tables.”The final MfDR report will address these three things (in the slide), in addition to considering partner countries’ capacities for collection and analysis of agricultural data, andthe extent to which stakeholders (donors governments, partner country governments, civil society organizations, international organizations) are sharing with each other the data they collect on the results achieved through their investments.We expect that the results of the MfDR Final Report will highlight best practices in resource use, informing donor activity in partner countries going forward.All of this information will be publicly available to – and used by, we hope! – the agricultural development community.