ICAN UK submission to the IDC Inquiry:  The UK Government’s work on achieving SDG2: Zero Hunger

1. This is submission from members of the UK working group of the International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition (ICAN UK), including: Concern Worldwide UK, Action Against Hunger UK, Save the Children UK and the International Rescue Committee UK.

The effectiveness of the FCDO and UK Government’s approach to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2) in countries eligible for Official Development Assistance (ODA).

2. As the global food security picture for the next few years looks especially ominous, preventing famine-like conditions and increased child mortality from acute malnutrition must be a top priority for global leaders.[1] Given the potential that ODA budgets will face tight constraints in 2024, particularly in traditional donor states such as the United Kingdom, it is critical to mobilise resources to implement cost-effective programmes.
3. Furthermore, two million children under five years old die every year from acute malnutrition, otherwise known as wasting. Severe wasting is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths in children under the age of five worldwide and increases the risk of childhood mortality 12-fold among children under five, making it one of the top threats to child wellness and survival globally. Acute malnutrition is also a warning sign of famine and one of the indicators used for famine declarations[2].
4. The UK Government has played an active role in tackling malnutrition since founding the Nutrition for Growth (N4G) initiative, alongside Japan and Brazil, and hosting the first ever Nutrition for Growth Summit in 2013. That summit raised £17 billion to address malnutrition globally. Since then, the UK has been one of the world’s leading donors to nutrition. UK aid for nutrition is well known for being high impact and excellent value for money.[3]
5. The UK’s own commitment at N4G 2013 led to an important increase in its ODA expenditure on nutrition-specific programmes, rising from $56.6 million in 2012 to a peak of $189.6 million in 2017, and from $369.8 million in 2012, peaking in 2020 at $1,018.6 million for nutrition-sensitive spending.[4] Additionally, the Power of Nutrition was launched in April 2015 as a result of a Compact made at the 2013 UK-hosted N4G Summit to tackle undernutrition at scale. The UK government's investment of almost £55m has led to a total project portfolio of US$ 636 million (which includes the entirety of funding from core donors, new donors to nutrition, and ‘leverage’ contributions from partners such as the World Bank and UNICEF) worth of nutrition programming across 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, significantly exceeding 4x leverage for the UK government's investment.

6. At the 2021 Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit, 156 stakeholders and 66 countries made 230 commitments to tackle malnutrition and to advocate for nutrition as a basic human right, amounting to $27 billion[5]. The UK made a late N4G pledge in 2022 of £1.5 billion from 2022-2030. This represents a significant drop in year-to-year spending on nutrition, compared to previous years. The UK government also failed to commit to an impact target, as had previously been in place from 2015-2020.

7. In an independent assessment of its approach, published by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) in 2020, DFID/FCDO was ranked as green/amber, with positive comments around the targeting and reach of programmes. ICAI highlighted that the UK’s Technical Assistance for Nutrition programme has been instrumental in countries adopting nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions.[6]

8. However, the cut to ODA in 2021, had significant impacts on UK Aid to nutrition. In its Stocktake report, ICAN UK found that the UK ODA cut severely affected funding and amount of nutrition programmes, especially nutrition-specific interventions.[7] The cuts have had a disproportionate impact on nutrition, with 2021 disbursements to nutrition-specific investments below 2013 levels, setting progress and leadership back by a decade.

9. This cut to nutrition funding in 2021 seriously affected the possibility of designing, implementing and even continuing existing nutrition projects. With a 57.3% reduction to ODA spending on nutrition-specific projects and a 61.8% reduction in nutrition-sensitive projects in 2021, only 12 new nutrition programmes started receiving funding that year.[8]

10. The ICAN UK Stocktake also concludes that if the UK’s 2021 N4G Commitment is a ceiling, then future years will see further reductions in spending. The UK’s 2021 disbursement of ODA to nutrition was the first since the cuts had been applied. It led to a large decrease in disbursements based on previous years. In 2021, ODA cuts were not evenly applied across portfolios, and nutrition was disproportionately impacted. Yet, the 2021 disbursement was above the average annual spend committed for 2022-2030 at N4G in 2021. This suggests that a further decline in spending is likely unless the UK recommits increased finances at future moments.

11. Unacceptable levels of malnutrition persist throughout the world and key to tackling this is understanding where ODA is best targeted. ODA is a crucial resource for addressing malnutrition and achieving short-, medium-, and long-term nutrition outcomes. To analyse impact effectively, it is important to have the latest data on the FCDO’s aid spending to improve nutrition, with breakdowns by country recipient and sector.[9] We therefore welcome work by the FCDO to make this data readily available.

12. There is a major difference in nutrition-sensitive funding allocation between humanitarian programmes and other key nutrition-sensitive sectors, such as agricultural development, WASH.[10] This gap of funding has been further exacerbated by the UK ODA cut in 2021. For instance, programmes coded as agriculture and food security received US$ 85.8 million in 2019 and only US$ 18 million in 2021.[11] This gap of funding allocated to essential nutrition-sensitive programmes could severely affect the FCDO’s progress in successfully ending all forms of malnutrition by 2030.

13. To make significant progress in tackling the underlying causes of malnutrition, the FCDO should ensure that nutrition objectives are mainstreamed across sectors, where they can have an impact while prioritising those who are the most vulnerable.[12]

14. In the ICAN UK Stocktake report, it has been found that the decrease of nutrition funding in 2021 has however considerably reduced FCDO’s support for nutrition interventions in the most vulnerable and fragile contexts affected by conflicts and the consequences of climate change. For instance, the region of Sub-Saharan Africa received the majority of FCDO’s nutrition ODA between 2019 and 2021, but this decreased by 65% between 2020 and 2021.[13]

15. As malnutrition disproportionately affects women and girls[14], it is crucial that nutrition programmes are gender-sensitive. Tracking nutrition integration across FCDO’s development programmes has proven its effectiveness to measure the gender-sensitivity aspect of nutrition interventions.

16. Moreover, at the last N4G Summit, the FCDO didn’t reiterate its previous commitment to reach more than 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition interventions in the next five years. The assessment made by ICAI in 2020 recommended the UK Government ‘strengthen systems for identifying and reaching the most marginalised women and children within its target groups’.[15] It is therefore essential that the FCDO commits again to the same reaching level, to ensure consistency with its previous achievements and move closer to meet the SDG 2 by 2030.

17. In 2021, FCDO screened its programmes using the OECD DAC gender equality policy maker for the third consecutive year, and resulting data shows that the proportion of FCDO’s nutrition spending marked relevant to gender equality remains consistent.[16]

18. However, despite the great proportion of FCDO’s nutrition-sensitive spending that are gender relevant, a significant gap has been found for nutrition-specific programmes. In 2021, 83% FCDO’s of nutrition-sensitive spending was gender relevant, but only 42% of nutrition-specific spending was gender-relevant, compared to 64% in 2020.[17] Addressing malnutrition in women and girls is therefore a priority to support the commitments of the FCDO Ending Preventable Death approach paper and the Women and Girls Strategy. This means that the FCDO should ensure that nutrition programmes are also gender-sensitive.

Recommendations:

19. Given the disproportionate impact of UK ODA cuts on nutrition, and the future outlook suggesting further reduced spending, the FCDO should increase its financial support to nutrition, and should purposefully target any increases to the ODA budget onto investments in nutrition.

20. The FCDO should reiterate its commitment to reach more than 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition interventions in the next five years.

21. The FCDO should increase nutrition-sensitive spending in key development sectors, in order to move much closer to tackling the underlying causes of malnutrition. Based on previous achievements and best practices from DFID, this has previously included:

o 64% of humanitarian spending to be nutrition-sensitive

o 31% of health spending to be nutrition-sensitive

o 30% of agriculture and food security spending to be nutrition-sensitive

o 27% of social services spending to be nutrition-sensitive

o 23% of WASH spending to be nutrition-sensitive

The FCDO should increase gender policy objectives in nutrition-specific programmes as much as possible.

The way the FCDO assesses its work in tackling hunger and malnutrition and if these measures and markers are adequate.

22. Previous analysis by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) of the UK’s methodology in its self-assessment was broadly positive, noting issues outside of the then DFID’s control as well as areas for improvement for the current FCDO.[18] Throughout the period analysed by ICAI, the UK had a ‘reach commitment’ for nutrition, as it stated its intention to reach 50 million people (children under five, women of childbearing age, and adolescent girls) with nutrition interventions. Since 2021, this reach commitment has not existed, therefore a crucial element of the UK’s assessment is lacking. The reach commitment created an incentive to target interventions on those most at risk of, and impacted by, malnutrition. We urge the UK to adopt a new, ambitious reach commitment to drive focus within the department and allow for stronger scrutiny externally of its efforts.

23. In January 2022, the FCDO registered its N4G pledges in the Nutrition Accountability Framework. The FCDO committed to adopt the OECD DAC Nutrition Policy Marker at programme design phase, and to integrate nutrition objectives across its non-nutrition portfolio. We are pleased that the OECD policy marker for nutrition is now fully implemented, and we encourage the whole department to use it, in order to ensure the integration of nutrition objectives across the FCDO’s development work. We also encourage target setting in key nutritionally relevant sectors, such as agriculture, health, and climate, to drive efforts on nutrition integration and to provide stronger accountability due to prioritised targets.

24. We welcome the launch of the UK’s new White Paper which is wide-ranging and comprehensive and addresses the drivers of world hunger such as climate change, conflict and gender inequality. However, geopolitical interests still play an oversized role in determining ODA allocation which, coupled with multiple changes of political leadership, has meant a constantly changing set of ODA priorities that do not fit with a needs-based approach.

25. The merger of DFID and the FCO has worsened ODA transparency, oversight, and accountability. DFID ranked highly in the International Aid Transparency Index (IATI), but the FCDO has recently dropped seven places to 16th in the IATI ranking, meaning there was no UK agency in the ‘Very Good’ category for the first time since the Index began.[19] The lack of data (performance, beneficiaries, finances) limits accountability and the department’s capacity to make the changes needed to improve the quality and effectiveness of ODA spending.
26. The FCDO must consistently build accountability to the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), environmental and human development objectives into all public contracts and take a coherent cross government approach to addressing development challenges. All programmes should have accountability mechanisms built in, this means ensuring multilateral agencies are accountable to their operational partners and the governments and communities they support

27. The FCDO has improved IATI data sharing and stated that they hope to have all data from recent years publicly available soon, improving transparency and annual reports. However, there are further opportunities to make the UK’s current approach more effective.

Recommendations: 

28. The FCDO’s heads of teams should ensure that their programmes integrate nutrition objectives in projects related to climate change, health, economic development, agriculture, education and WASH. This includes:

o Using the OECD policy marker on nutrition,

o Implement available guidance and toolkits and provide training to enable the increase in nutrition sensitivity across sectors,

o Implement ICAI recommendation suggesting all commercial agriculture programmes and investments to be monitored for nutritional outcomes.

The FCDO or other Government departments’ work with other country donors and multilaterally to work on achieving SDG 2 and food security.

29. By hosting the first Nutrition for Growth Summit in 2013, the UK Government has built upon its mobilising power, to encourage head of states, donors and multi stakeholders to make financial and political pledges to tackle malnutrition by 2030. The Summit enabled widespread commitments from a range of actors, helping to raise £17 billion to combat malnutrition.[20]

30. In November 2023, the UK, partnered with the UAE and Somalia, hosted the Food Security  Summit, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). The summit was effective at gathering governments, international organisations, scientists, NGOs and the private sector. The FCDO must consider how it will continue to drive forward global action on this agenda in 2024, alongside increased UK resources.

31. The FCDO recognises the need for the localisation of ODA delivery partners, but progress is needed to operationalise this commitment, so that local and national partners in countries in crisis have greater decision-making power and autonomy to achieve SDG 2 and food security. This includes increasing the direct access of local and national partners to funding and reducing reliance on multilateral agencies. Donors should learn from each other on how to best reduce the bureaucratic and risk burden on partners and increase their autonomy in decision making.

32. The UK should use its position as a major donor to the UN and World Bank to increase their effectiveness in addressing food and nutrition insecurity. Notably, the UK should prioritise enhancing independent oversight of UN agencies to ensure efficient and impactful humanitarian protection and support.

33. Over 85% of people experiencing crisis or worse level food insecurity live in conflict affected countries.[21] The new White Paper’s dedicated chapter on conflict and food security is therefore welcome. Taking diplomatic action on conflict as the leading underlying driver of hunger and failure to reach SDG2 is vital and we welcome the White Papers commitments on this front. To deliver on the White Paper’s ambition though requires building or re-building expert capacities in embassies, high commissions and at HQ level. Geopolitical tensions are threatening to diminish the influence of international forums like the UN Security Council, leading to an era of impunity with growing disregard for human rights and humanitarian law. The UK must play a role in holding states accountable for violations. Historically, DFID has effectively responded to breaches, prompting states to amend their behaviour, such as reinstating humanitarian access unlawfully denied.

The FCDO’s work on achieving food security over the short, medium, and long-term including its work on food systems, climate resilience, and agricultural sustainability.

34. When properly funded and implemented, UK ODA can play a transformative role in achieving food security through agriculture by investing in working with local expertise and promoting agro-ecological farming methods that minimise environmental damage and the dependence of farmers on expensive inputs. The right to land of vulnerable groups and their food and nutrition security must also always be considered in adaptation measures to avoid maladaptation and adverse impacts on vulnerable communities.

35. Given the impact of climate change on nutrition outcomes, ensuring that climate change adaptation programmes are nutrition-sensitive is paramount for tackling a major cause of malnutrition. Between 2010 and 2021, 17% of FCDO’s programmes with International Climate Financing (ICF) spend were also nutrition related, but only 5% of FCDO’s ICF spend contained nutrition objectives in 2021.[22] The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) has recommended that the FCDO ensures that all agriculture programmes and investments are monitored for nutritional outcomes and have an integral focus on climate change.[23]

Recommendations:

36. The FCDO should increase funding for nutrition programmes that are climate-sensitive, and integrate more nutrition-sensitive objectives into climate change projects.