Evidence submission – IDC inquiry into SDG 2

Dr Graham Long, Kipp Mann Benn, Gabrielle Joyce

UK SDG Data and Policy Hub, Newcastle University[1]

Introduction and summary

This submission addresses the Inquiry’s themes through applying an SDG 2 ‘lens’ to the recently-launched International Development White Paper, in the context of existing UK activity and the wider framework of the SDGs. Given time and length constraints, It does not aim to be comprehensive across all the issues to be considered by the Inquiry. Notably, this submission does not concentrate on the positive impacts of UK aid, or the effects of the fall in aid spending (we assume these themes will be well-covered in other evidence submissions). Amongst other sources, ICAI’s reports[2] and past IDC work[3] are strong accounts of general issues around UK development assistance in this area. 

This evidence submission has two sections. Section 1 takes stock of the context for the new White Paper, focusing on three elements:

(i)                  positioning SDG 2 within the broader SDG agenda

(ii)                 summarising existing UK action and reporting around the SDGs

(iii)               current data on UK international development activity around food and nutrition. 

Section 2 offers a ‘rapid response’ to the White Paper – assessing how the White Paper responds to the context outlined in section 1, before looking at the content around SDG 2 in greater detail. There, we identify three important issues that could be addressed in the Inquiry: first, an absence of commitments on global food markets (SDG targets 2.b and 2.c); second, a lack of emphasis on ‘leaving no one behind’ in White Paper commitments; and third, the complexities of global research partnerships given commitments to equitable partnership, local leadership and voice for the Global South.

Section 1: Context

(i)Positioning SDG 2 – “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” - in the SDGs

SDG 2 is a wide-ranging goal, containing targets on hunger, food security and nutrition as well as sustainability in agriculture, agricultural productivity and livelihoods. It also addresses genetic diversity and benefit sharing from genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and identifies “means of implementation” for achieving these objectives, including increased investment, ensuring the proper functioning of global food commodity markets and eliminating distortions in trade.

The SDGs are interlinked. Current analyses of interlinkages show that SDG 2 is both enabled by, and contributes to, other SDGs. Food and nutrition contributes to poverty alleviation (SDG1) and good health (SDG3). Sustainable agriculture can improve water quality and reinforce the protection of water-related ecosystems (SDG6), whereas unsustainable agriculture risks compounding climate change and water stress, increasing deforestation and increasing the prevalence of waterborne disease.[4] 

Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development - the idea that policies across economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development, domestic and international, are coordinated and mutually supportive - is a key principle of the SDGs in response to these interlinkages.[5] It requires that actors assess the impacts of all policies not just in the terms of ‘here’ and ‘now’, but also ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’. Whilst not the focus of this Inquiry, the UK’s negative spillovers—ways in which the UK’s domestic and trade policies threaten sustainable development elsewhere – should be acknowledged.  The 2023 SDG Index report ranks the UK towards the very worst (142nd of 166 countries) for its global negative impacts.[6]

The SDGs demand a focus on ‘left behind’ populations. Targets in SDG 2 identify specific vulnerable populations – including infants (target 2.1) and older persons, women and girls (2.2), small scale farmers and fishers, and indigenous peoples (2.3). This reflects a more general principle in the 2030 Agenda that reviews of the SDGs -such as this IDC Inquiry – should be “people-centred, gender-sensitive, respect human rights and have a particular focus on the poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind”.[7]

The SDGs are to be realised through inclusive partnership and participation at all scales. They respect, and prioritise support for, countries’ own development policies and priorities. The SDGs represent, in part, the shift in global power between Global North and South and aim to move beyond a ‘donor’ and ‘recipient’ model.[8]

The SDGs are universal, applying in the UK as well as overseas. Though this inquiry is focused on SDG 2 overseas, it should be noted that 7% of UK households were food insecure at the time of most recent reporting: the figure for the North East of England is 10%. 22% of households in receipt of income-related benefits are food insecure (“low” or “very low” food security).[9] The most recent independent analysis of the SDGs in the UK finds that progress in the UK is off-track for SDG 2: of the 5 SDG 2 targets for which data is available, 1 is on track, 2 are considered off track, and 2 are considered seriously off track.[10]

(ii) UK response to the SDGs

Our 2023 reports[11] analysed existing UK reporting and governance around the SDGs just prior to the White Paper. Three findings are especially relevant here:

(1)    We found current FCDO reporting does a poor job of mapping the impacts of UK aid in terms of the SDGs (see, e.g. the FCDO’s 2021-22 Outcome Delivery Plan).[12] Beyond an assertion that the UK is a “leading advocate’” for the SDGs, there are only two mentions of the SDGs in FCDO’s 316-page 2022-23 Annual Report and Accounts.[13]

(2)    UK aid’s synergy with recipient countries’ priorities has been identified by a range of independent reporting as a weak point. The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation’s 2022 UK profile notes that the UK “used country-owned results frameworks and planning tools to a limited extent in 2018, a decline when compared to 2016, and below the DAC average”.[14]  Without alignment and coordination with recipient country strategies and policies, SDG impacts are unlikely to be fully realised (or fully captured in the metrics of National Statistics Services).

(3)    The UK’s governance for the SDGs is currently weak. Using the metric for policy coherence in SDG governance developed by the UN Environment Programme for indicator 17.14.1 of the SDGs, the UK scores 41/80 (51%). The UK lacks a national governance mechanism for regular SDG coordination; a mechanism for assessing and addressing issues in terms of the contribution of a policy to sustainable development, including transboundary elements; and a monitoring and evaluation framework for policy coherence for sustainable development.

(iii) Current data on UK food and nutrition activity

UK data is available for a key global SDG 2 indicator - Indicator 2.a.2 - Total official flows (official development assistance plus other official flows) to the agriculture sector. Though currently reported on the ONS platform for the UK, this data is no longer updated due to ONS’ decision to discontinue SDG reporting and so will gradually become out-of-date. On 2021 figures, the UK’s development assistance to agriculture is under a third of what it was at the time the SDGs were agreed.  The total flow of assistance to agriculture peaked in 2015 at £299m. It fluctuated between 2015-2020 before falling dramatically to £190m in the context of the pandemic in 2020, and then fell further to £90.7m in 2021.

With the G7’s Food and Nutrition Working Group[15] identified as a key vehicle for cooperation on food security, the latest available data is from the 2022 Financial Report on Food and Nutrition.[16] The UK’s country profile highlights some areas where the UK receives a “one star” rating (the best rating is “three star”). In light of reporting on the “leave no one behind” principle, only 25.3% of the UK’s Food Security and Nutrition assistance maps to the G7’s gender marker 1. In terms of the focus of UK development assistance, the proportion of the UK’s aid that is “nutrition specific” has fallen by 25% (whilst the proportion marked as “nutrition sensitive” has increased).

Other sources of data come from particular UK initiatives and partnerships across agriculture and nutrition. The data on FCDO’s Commercial Agricuture Portfolio (CAP), for example, shows similar trends: fewer programmes (32 in 2022, versus 42 in 2020), and a far lower combined budget (from £2.8bn in 2020 to £1.7bn in 2022).[17]

Analysis in the context of CAP echoes findings from the G7 report about the gender-sensitivity of UK assistance to agriculture. The 2022 CAP Review by CASA (Commercial Agriculture for Smallholders and Agribusiness) finds that “newer programmes are less responsive to gender considerations and some programmes have not maintained a deliberate strategy to promote women’s participation once they start”. CASA’s review also notes limitations around data and reporting: “FCDO should address the quality and availability of data, in particular the use of global standard measurement approaches for key metrics (such as jobs created or emissions mitigated), to enable aggregation and comparison across programmes.”[18]

Section 2: The 2023 International Development White Paper

The White Paper and the SDGs – an overview

Given this context, there is clearly scope for a stronger UK government engagement with the SDGs, including SDG 2. In response, the White Paper is indeed far more aligned to the SDGs than previous International Development strategies (from this point, references to the White Paper use that document’s paragraph numbers where possible).

In alignment with core principles of the SDGs, the White Paper offers a new emphasis on listening, partnership, and local leadership. UK “country partnerships will focus on supporting countries’ own plans” (p14) with a strong commitment to locally-led development (2.17-2.18). There is also a commitment to “championing the voices of low and middle income countries” (4.5). The White Paper also recommits to “leaving no one behind” (2.3).

Though the White Paper is aligned to the Goals of the SDGs throughout, and makes some reference in discussion to impacts across different areas, it is not clear whether it addresses interlinkages between these areas carefully enough. The overall organisation of the White Paper is ‘light touch’. The outline at the beginning is brief, and there is no summary or conclusion that might bring the core areas together and discuss how they synergise. SDG 2’s agenda of hunger and nutrition sits under core area 5, alongside conflict prevention. But the content of other closely linked SDGs such as health, water and social protection sit under core area 4, “Ensuring opportunities for all”.

The White Paper offers a large number of commitments – an estimate would be 180 to 230, depending on how they are counted – signposted at the end of longer discussions of the areas.[19] The next step should be to (i)order these commitments in short, medium and long term time horizons, (ii)identify the organisations and entities responsible for delivery and (iii)establish a process for following up and reviewing progress. Without these further steps, the coherence of the White Paper as an approach to international development policy is hard to gauge.

Policy Coherence across the whole of government is not addressed in the White Paper, which is (understandably) focused instead on FCDO’s international development and diplomatic activity. Though it mentions “delivering through the UK government” (p132), and references the “whole-of-government” at the start (1.30), there is little activity mentioned beyond the FCDO and little detail on cross-government coordination. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury are both mentioned once in the report but, overall, the contributions of different departments are not tracked or linked to different commitments. In the context of SDG2 specifically, we could find no mention of the Department for Science Innovation and Technology, Department for Business and Trade, or DEFRA. 

SDG 2 within the White Paper

There are four commitments (“we will…”) under the section on food security in core area 5 that address the ambitions of SDG 2. Overall, discussion and relevant ambition relating to SDG targets 2.1 (hunger), 2.2 (nutrition), 2.3 (agricultural productivity) and 2.4 (sustainable food production) is present. Scientific partnerships around the use of agricultural genetic resources (2.5) are identified as a key means through which the UK can support achievement of 2.1-2.4. Investment in agriculture (2.a) is promised. The language in the commitments promises little, perhaps, in terms of direct development assistance. The four commitments are to “mobilise… “inspire…” “champion…” and “invest….” by “…delivering new science partnerships”.

Reinforcing the need to consider SDG interlinkages, commitments elsewhere in the White Paper – e.g. 5.29 on land rights; 5.30 on “reforming global markets for forest and agricultural commodities, reducing deforestation”; 5.31 on “sustainable and resilient agriculture”; 5.32 “produce food sustainably and tackle water insecurity” are also important to assessing the approach to food security and nutrition. 6.76 addresses water security, highlighting “the linkages between water, health, energy and food”. 8.14 addresses the role of climate prediction “to support millions of poor farmers” and 8.16 the role of satellite data and AI to “respond pre-emptively to extreme weather events”.

In terms of coverage of SDG2, three sets of issues are worth highlighting for further consideration in the Inquiry:

First, there are no specific commitments addressing targets 2.b and 2.c on the global food system beyond the mention of reforming food markets (in 5.30) in the context of reducing deforestation. SDG target 2.b commits countries to “correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets” and 2.c to “adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets”. Market distortions are mentioned in the discussion of food crises and their causes, (7.67) however, we could find no resulting commitments that clearly mapped against these SDG targets – e.g. around addressing volatility, speculation, or protectionism. In terms of the approach to finance, blended investment within current market systems is the key model. AgDevCo, highlighted as an example of UK-supported agricultural finance, explicitly aims to “build a profitable investment portfolio”.[20]

The inquiry could consider which specific reforms of global food markets to address 2.b and 2.c would be appropriate objectives for the UK.

Second, themes around “leaving no one behind” are present in the discussion section, but not in the commitments. 7.73 mentions “the most vulnerable”; 7.76 notes the “rural poor” as a disadvantaged population; 7.78 specifies “demand—driven research focused on the needs of the lowest income rural communities “; 7.79 indicates that “development investment should be increased and provided in a way that works for SMEs and smallholder farmers”; 7.68 identifies women and girls as a specific population of concern. In regard to particular populations, only 7.75, identifying the imperative of “increased action” on child nutrition, is reflected in a matching commitment (7.83). Whilst mobilising investment is a theme in two of the commitments, objectives addressing specific populations, e.g. around lowering the cost of credit, or concessional finance arrangements for small farmers[21] are absent.

The inquiry could consider what a stronger engagement with ‘left behind’ populations would look like in the commitments on food and nutrition.

Third, In the context of accountability (7.74), partnership and local leadership, the emphasis on research partnerships where the UK has “competitive advantage” (7.77) is worth highlighting. SDG 2.5 commits to “promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources”. In line with SDG 2.5, the UK needs to be transparent about the distribution of benefits that arise between the UK and low-income countries. CGIAR is identified as a key conduit for UK work (referenced 9 times in the text). It should be noted that “The role of CGIAR is to deliver new agricultural technologies that support food security and growth in developing countries with spillover benefits for the UK” (emphasis added).[22] The vision for the role of UK research here is “win-win” for the UK, with the contribution to international public goods sitting alongside commercialisation opportunities and, potentially, protection of intellectual property.

The question of whether benefits across these domains are equitably shared is critical in assessing these research partnerships as a model, and this could be considered by the Inquiry.

Given wider objectives in the White Paper of raising the voice of low-income countries and ensuring equitable partnerships, the emphasis on a new UK-CGIAR partnership (7.78)[23] as a key conduit for UK work on food and nutrition should be highlighted. A new report (November 24 2023, commissioned by CGIAR) on the governance of CGIAR highlights problems in these respects. This report flags potential difficulties around the effectiveness of CGIAR governance as it tries to transition to a new “one CGIAR” governance model. Specific concerns are raised that the host countries of CGIAR institutes – almost wholly in the Global South – were not adequately “considered, consulted, or heard”. The report goes on to note: “this subsequently embedded the sense that the integration process has been top-down, funder-driven, and at the “expense” of Global South stakeholders”.[24] In its conclusion, the CGIAR report reflects a concern raised by stakeholders it surveyed that “there is a sense that the Global North funder-heavy composition… does not provide sufficient space for Global South governments.”[25] Consideration should be given to what genuine local leadership means in the context of research partnerships – how there could be “a greater role for the poorest stakeholders at each step” of the research-to-impact chain.[26]

The Inquiry could consider how norms of equitable partnership, local leadership and representation of low-income countries should be reflected in science partnerships for food and nutrition.