Internal Policy Document

Food Security

Date: 3 May 2014

 Food Security Policy Document

Table of Content
0 - Purpose of this document
1 - Defining our strategic intent in food security
2 - Food security policy framework
3 - Towards smart and resilient landscapes with upward potential
4 - Meeting global food demand through sustainable and inclusive value chains
5 - Building the institutional environment to facilitate agricultural growth
6 - Global food security strategy

For quick reading: Chapter 6 - Global food security strategy - offers a wrap-up of the
entire document.

2
 Food Security Policy Document

0 - The purpose of this document: aligning

Solidaridad’s ambition and strategy
Following a drop in global progress towards reducing hunger during the first decade of this
century, food security has once again become a top focus of governments, donors,
development organisations and large private-sector players alike.
• Likewise, an increasing share of Solidaridad’s funding and programmes now also targets
food security. We have capitalised on our wealth of experience with farmer support and
supply chains worldwide, and successfully positioned ourselves as a ‘global transition
manager towards an inclusive economy - that provides food security for all’.
• To date, we have achieved much success here. This despite the fact that:
• Solidaridad does not currently have a global food security strategy
• There are differences in interpretation and approach within Solidaridad (as shown by a
network-wide survey in 2013)
• We do not have a policy document that establishes links between the themes Food
Security, Smart and Sustainable Land Use (SSLU) and More with Less.
• If we are to make even more progress towards our collective ambition, and improve upon
our successes to date, then we must:
1.Define our strategic intent: make it clear what we are trying to accomplish in relation to
Food Security and in relation to our Vision and Mission.
2.Agree upon a common framework and terminology (within which to structure, analyse
and problem-solve the sustainable development challenge)
3.Develop a global food security strategy that reinforces our positioning as global
transition manager towards an inclusive economy
4.Empower and inspire the development of regional food security strategies and
programmes that contribute to the Solidaridad strategic intent.

We can only do this by incorporating everyone’s expertise, knowledge, input and

perspectives. To date, this document has been developed upon that input. And it will require
more.
Our overall goal with this document then is to create a Food Security policy that lays the
groundwork for the MASP 2016-2020 - in which all our interventions, both tactical and
strategic, are aligned to our global ambition.
This is an an internal document for all staff, Network wide.

3
 Food Security Policy Document

1 - Defining our strategic intent in Food Security

Our strategic intent is a distillation of what we are trying to accomplish in Food Security - that
links directly to our vision and mission. This gives us a common focus from which to design
both our strategy and our interventions.
In this context our vision is a world in which ‘all we produce, and all we consume, can sustain
us while respecting the planet, each other and the next generations.’ And our mission is ‘to
ensure the transition to a sustainable and inclusive economy that maximises benefit for all.’

Solidaridad uses the FAO’s definition of food security (World Food Summit, 1996):

“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life”.

Annexe 1 briefly discusses other food security definitions.

Food security of today: no immediate scope for change

Food security today is primarily a ‘poverty’, or ‘access’ problem. Although billions of people
worldwide now have access to affordable food, around one billion people are food and
nutrition insecure (around half in cities, half in rural areas) because they can’t obtain the food
they need. They don’t own land to grow it, they don’t earn the money to buy it or they live in
dysfunctional economies where food is rendered too expensive. As a result, many of the
world’s poor are forced to buy eat or buy food that is nutritionally poor and lacks nutritional
diversity while providing sufficient calories for sustaining life. This is particularly a problem
for children under 5 as it causes stunting.
There is little immediate scope for change. The majority of those who have recently escaped
poverty are Chinese workers who have profited from economic growth and effective
governance. In many countries with less effective government, fighting poverty and hunger
proves to be incredibly difficult. The most recent reports on the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals, for instance, indicate that some regions of the world, such
as sub-Saharan Africa, are seeing little progress, particularly from food insecurity. To alleviate
poverty, comprehensive policies, good governance and longer terms strategic investments
are all required in specific measures.

Food security of tomorrow: the upward potential of food systems

But in the foreseeable future, food security will be an availability problem. This is because
with rapid climate change and increasing resources scarcity, increasing demand due to
population growth and changing consumption patterns, food security will prove even harder
to achieve. If we fail to address sustainability issues, entire food systems will be at risk.
Therefore, there will be an increasing need to adapt existing food systems themselves.
In the face of increasing climatic variability, large-scale monocultures may not prove resilient
enough to keep providing what is needed, while their dependence on increasingly expensive
external inputs may prove unsustainable and self-defeating. Additionally, ecosystem
functions critical to future food systems are being lost due to habitat and biodiversity
destruction. This is why we need to freeze the footprint of our food production. Food systems
are already becoming less resilient.

4
 Food Security Policy Document

Therefore, it is clear that if we are to ensure food security for generations to come, then we
need to move beyond adaptation, stability and resilience, and find new ways to increase the
upward potential of our food systems. If we fail to do so, growing number of people will no
longer have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life.
Increasing the upward potential of food systems requires thinking beyond the dichotomy
between organic and conventional agriculture, which ill serves our creative ability to adapt to
an uncertain future. It is a cliché to state that organic agriculture can’t feed the world. The
real problem is that conventional agriculture cannot feed a world of 9 billion either. Instead,
we need to find radically new solutions.

So what should be our strategic intent?

Solidaridad is certainly not a think-tank for future agriculture. Nor are we positioned directly to
alleviate food insecurity. But we do have a major role to play in the roll-out of new
approaches to agricultural production, processing and distribution that increase food and
supply security in the long run.
As a boundary-spanning global network with a strong track record as a transition manager,
we have a unique value proposition too. We are perfectly positioned to guide and
accommodate strategic investments geared towards an inclusive and sustainable economy
that benefits all. We can set the agenda and facilitate the governance of productive
agricultural landscapes, the design of inclusive business models and the transformation of
supply chains that deliver highest-quality foods worldwide with minimal waste and losses.
Achieving this requires both global leadership and local knowledge. Our strategic
interventions will need to be relevant not just for the stakeholders immediately involved, but
also for society at large.
This will be a massive challenge. Many of our current business partners, who have already
committed to a transformation towards sustainable production and sourcing, base their
decisions primarily on shareholder value and profit. However, the resulting models may not
address the Food Security challenge of tomorrow.
Solving that specific challenge will require an organisation of network managers and ‘policy
entrepreneurs’ who will constantly verify and renew our propositions in collaboration with key
stakeholders. Solidaridad - and all involved stakeholders - need to move beyond ‘business-
as-usual’ at large if we are to serve the future much more than we do at present.

The Solidaridad strategic intent in Food Security

The Solidaridad strategic intent is to contribute to the development of robust, resilient
agricultural food systems that support the livelihoods of farmers and workers and food
security for all.
Solidaridad will focus on the following themes to achieve this:
• Gain investments into smart and resilient landscapes with upward potential
• Accommodate investments in inclusive and sustainable global food systems
• Help build the institutional environment needed to facilitate agricultural growth

5
 Food Security Policy Document

2 - Food Security Policy Framework

Now that we have defined our strategic intent, this chapter introduces the themes upon which
Solidaridad will build its global food security strategy 2016-2020, and lay the groundwork
upon which to build our MASP 2016-2020. This thematic framework combines the various
insights, models and approaches from across the Solidaridad network. It explains ‘why’ we
need to take this approach.

Themes
The 21st century will see an increased investment in production and supply systems in order
to meet changing demand for food, feed, fuel and fibre and to realise the transition away
from fossil fuels. These investments will have an enormous impact on the business models,
the ecology and technology of land use, and hence on the outcomes for society at large.

Smart and resilient landscapes with upward potential (Chapter 3)

This theme is about agronomy and landscape management

More with less has been a guiding principle in Solidaridad’s programmes and will continue
to bridge the gap between high-input agriculture of the past and low-input agriculture that
generates less externalities. But in the future, smart agronomic practices and ecological
intensification concepts will be guiding new approaches to farming. Efficiencies will
increasingly need to be rooted in the ecosystem and organised on landscape level, because
external inputs (particularly synthetic fertiliser) will be too expensive to produce and
distribute. The same is true for resilience: long-term stability and productivity of production
systems in times of rapid climatic change will require functional and healthy ecosystems.
Investment in agriculture will therefore need to take a landscape approach, taking into
account multiple functions and stakeholders on a level where synergies can be optimally
developed and secured.

Meeting global food demand through sustainable and inclusive value chains
(Chapter 4)
This theme is about inclusive and sustainable trade and investment
Due to increasing and changing food demand, combined with limited upward potential of
domestic food systems and/or ecological crises, notably water, many countries will
increasingly source their food abroad. This will trigger increasing investments in food
systems worldwide.
Although such investments will increase global food supply, the farming and supply-chain
models that will attract investment will decide the fate of millions of peasant and family
farmers, who may or may not be able to integrate their production systems into modern
supply chains and meet (international) market requirements. Inevitably, there will be trade-
offs between, for example, local food security, global demand for luxury products, profitability
and productivity. In order to accommodate investment towards the development of inclusive
business models that generate maximum benefits for society at large, Solidaridad will need
to separate fact from fiction and increase our understanding of the factors that determine the
success of farmers.
Another issue is whether sustainable sourcing will become the norm with increasing pressure
on food prices. We realise that existing sustainability governance mechanisms, such as
Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS), have insufficient scope to further sustainable and

6
 Food Security Policy Document

inclusive practices in many parts of the world today. Solidaridad will need to improve upon
audit systems and voluntary mechanisms and at the same time move beyond in order to
mainstream sustainable, inclusive practices in global sourcing and investment. To do so, we
will need to position ourselves to develop local governance mechanisms and inclusive
business and supply chain models to accommodate investment towards the realisation of
broadly shared goals and an inclusive economy that benefits all.

Building the institutional environment to facilitate agricultural growth (Chapter

5)
This theme is about the institutions needed to facilitate agricultural growth.
Many of the biggest agricultural challenges the world faces will have to be addressed in
countries that lack an effective institutional environment to do so. In developed countries,
policies and institutions have effectively been developed to boost agricultural growth. We
know that rapid change is possible: the Marshall Plan tremendously boosted agricultural
output and enhanced food security in post-war Europe. If we are to achieve our food security
ambitions, it is crucial that we help developing countries to implement enabling policies,
research, extension and (financial) services to make agricultural growth possible.

Main themes
Within this thematic framework are two main themes we specifically need to address. In the
table below and on the following pages is a breakdown of these themes. The third theme,
Building the institutional environment to facilitate agricultural growth, has not been worked
out here since it is a fairly new area for Solidaridad.

A. Current production systems don’t have upward B. The world lacks governance mechanisms to
potential promote sustainable, inclusive food systems

A.1 Increasing stress on A.2 Climate change is B.1 Voluntary Sustainability B.2 The sustainability gap
resources is threatening threatening food security Standards (VSS) have in agri-investments:
food security reached limits in terms of Investment and business
scope, impact and uptake, models are designed nor
and may have negative governed to be inclusive
biases and sustainable

• Land • Expected impacts from • Evidence of the economic, • Our understanding of

climate change environmental impacts of success factors underlying
• Water VSS shows mixed results farm business models,
• Drought and floods including scale, is too
• Fuel and fibre • VSS have limitations in limited
• Rainfall patterns will terms of scope and uptake
• Shortage of synthetic and change • Investment governance in
mineral fertiliser • Commodity and compliance Africa fails to serve local
• Heat and possibly cold focus of VSS may lead to a interests
• Soil degradation bias towards large-scale
• Extreme weather events farmers
• Waste & losses
• Resilience

7
 Food Security Policy Document

A. Current production systems do not have upward potential (they

are not smart and resilient landscapes)
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the expected 2.3 billion extra mouths the
world will have to feed in 2050 require an increase in production by 70%. Land Farming is
already the world's largest industry, employing over one billion people and generating over
one trillion dollars' worth of food annually. It is also a large consumer of resources and chief
contributor to climate change, which is expected to threaten agricultural production in many
parts of the world and reduce resilience of ecosystems globally.
At the same time, there are competing claims on agricultural resources for fuel and fibre
production.
Whether we will manage to sufficiently increase food production in order to feed the world is
uncertain. We know it is possible under given circumstances. But we don’t know whether it is
in worst-case climate-change scenarios. Most importantly, it is not a technical matter, but an
outcome of complex societal and economic developments - strongly influenced by our
political ability to achieve change. Add to this the role of purchase power in an increasingly
free-market economic system and achieving food security looks far from certain.

A. 1 Increasing stress on resources threatens food security

Agricultural land use
Agriculture takes up almost 40% of the world’s land. 78% of this area is used for livestock.
Due to rising wealth and changing consumption patterns in some parts of the world, the land
area used to produce animal products will grow (the some os true for the water footprint of
livestock production - see below). Aquaculture - chiefly in Asian freshwater environments - is
the fastest growing food production system in the world, currently supplying 47% of the
world’s seafood supply.
Water consumption
Human water use has been growing at twice the rate of population increase in the last
century, an illustration of changing consumption patterns. Only 10% of our water
consumption is related to industrial products and only 5% to household use. About 85% of
humanity’s water footprint is in fact related to the consumption of agricultural products,
particularly animal products. Cereals have a much lower footprint, and vegetables even
lower.
The biggest contribution to the total water footprint of all animal products comes from
growing feed, rather than the water the animals drink. Many grain crops are grown
specifically for animal consumption. In the United States, for example, 68% of the grains
produced are used for animal feed. It is not uncommon for animal feed crops, such as alfalfa,
to be irrigated. In water-stressed California, for example, where dairy is the number one
agricultural sector, this is standard practice .
This is why reducing our consumption of animal products is the best way to reduce our water
footprint.

As some of the world’s most important staples (wheat, rice) are competing with other crops
(cotton, sugar cane) for water in water-stressed regions like the Middle East and North Africa,
China, South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the USA, it is clear that within 10-20 years,
significant improvements in water efficiency are needed to maintain or increase current
production levels.

8
 Food Security Policy Document

Without investments in water, the prospects for improving food production and increasing
food security are remote. Irrigated lands are more than twice as productive than rain-fed
cropland. In developing countries, irrigation can increase yields by 100 to 400%. About 50%
to two-thirds of future gains in crop production are expected to cone from irrigation. While
irrigation accounts for 50-80% of food production in Asia, in Africa it is only 10%.
Yet realising this potential is self-defeating if water extraction destroys the ecosystems
needed to replenish sources. This is why catchment-scale planning and landscape design
and management are so important.
Fuelled by inequalities of income distribution, water competition (both within agriculture and
with other sectors, such as industry) is expected to increase the price of staple foods.

The following issues, discussed in Solidaridad’s Water Reference Document, are relevant in
this framework:
• Watershed / catchment degradation and water recharge for other reasons than blue water
use, chiefly changing, less predictable rainfall patterns and distribution worldwide;
deforestation and ecosystem degradation; poor soil and vegetation cover management and
tillage practices.
• Lack of water infiltration and retention on farmland and associated run-off and erosion,
primarily caused by poor soil and vegetation cover management and tillage practices (lack
of organic matter content, overheating and drought, wind erosion. Since 90% of agriculture
is rain-fed, there is a massive opportunity for improvement that precludes increases in
irrigation.
• Large-scale water management issues and disasters, such as large-scale erosion and
landslides (caused by deforestation and/or ecosystem degradation), floods, rising ground-
or surface water tables and more variable rainfall patterns. Such issues tend to require
large-scale infrastructural solutions (drainage, dikes) and (multi-stakeholder) policy and
governance interventions.

Fuel and fibre

Beside the impact of animal feed production on agricultural resources, there are competing
claims from a growing bio-economy.
Availability and access of synthetic and mineral fertiliser
It is estimated that the green revolution saved some one billion poor people from starvation.
Its success provides the best arguments against Malthusian views. Yet, it is doubtful whether
we can replicate the green revolution. And if we could, can we mitigate its externalities?
A classical case of agricultural energy consumption shows that 70% of the total energy
contained in a grain of maize comes from fossil fuels. Since the start of the green revolution,
energy inputs in agriculture increased 50 times compared to traditional agriculture. Feeding
an average person in the developed world costs about 1500 litres of oil equivalents per year.
More than 30% of this energy is used in the manufacture of chemical fertilisers, 19% for the
operation of field machinery and 16% for transport.
These levels of fossil energy consumption are completely unsustainable. Feeding 9 billion
people with conventional agriculture would require 8% of the total world oil reserves, which
would exhaust them in 12 years. This is the intensification trap. Worryingly, any technological
way out should not overlook unknown environmental externalities, in particular the self-
defeating contribution of agriculture to climate change.

9
 Food Security Policy Document

Increasing dependence on herbicides and pesticides, reflecting a positive feedback, is

another undesirable trend. In a world where we need to wean ourselves off expensive
commoditised inputs, we can’t afford ourselves to depend on toxic inputs that reduce the
effectiveness of biological pest control agents rather than promoting them.
Soil degradation
Soil degradation and loss of soil fertility is among the worst sustainability issues we face.
Among causes are the removal of the protective cover to reduce competition for water and
nutrients, compaction and destruction of soil organic matter (eg due to ploughing),
salinisation, acidification, heavy grazing and deforestation.
Multiple sources state that annual costs amount to US$ $) billion annually and that land
degradation affects 40% of the world’s land area.
In Africa, some 70% of farmland has (human-induced) degraded soils. It keeps farmers from
profiting from the benefits of inputs and the potential of new crop varieties, locks them in
poverty and incentivises them to convert natural areas into farmland.
Rehabilitating soils is a major challenge. On degraded soils, crops do not respond to
fertilisers, N-fixing legumes are unable to grow or fix nitrogen and labour productivity is
extremely low.
Research on sandy soils in Zimbabwe indicates that application of 20 tonnes of manure dry
matter per hectare is necessary over more than five years to restore productivity to original
levels. In smallholder systems, this requires at least 20 cows. Therefore, soil rehabilitation or
fertility maintenance cannot rely on manure alone; a combination of approaches will be
needed.
Waste, losses and supply-chain resilience
Dealt with in this chapter since it’s essentially a resources problem.
Due to poor practices and harvesting, storage and transportation, as well as market and
consumer wastage, it is estimated that 30-50% of all produced never reaches the human
stomach. Wastes may occur post harvesting, post processing, and post consumption. In
South East Asia, post-harvest losses of rice can range from 40-80%. In India, 21 million
tonnes of wheat are wasted very year due to poor storage and distribution systems (The
Netherlands produce 1.2 M tonnes of wheat per year).

Efficient food supply chains do not just contribute to people’s access to affordable food, they
also reduce waste and quality deterioration. This is particularly true for high-quality fresh
foods, for which the supply to cities is a huge challenge. As such, by reducing waste, efficient
food chains generate a positive feedback on the production level: less waste means that less
land and resources are required for production.
Efficient supply chains also reward the production of high added-value fresh foods. Food
safety issues also contribute to food waste. Safe and efficient supply chains therefore
contribute to the availability and accessibility of safe, nutritious and affordable food.
Beside efficiency, the resilience of supply chains in the wake of climatic disasters, for
example - is of growing concern for food security in a world with ever longer and more
complex supply chains. However, according to the world economic forum, global spending on
basic infrastructure - transport, power, water and communications - currently amounts to $2.7
trillion a year when it ought to be $3.7 trillion.

10
 Food Security Policy Document

A. 2 Climatic change threatens food security

There are increasingly strong signs that the world is moving towards a global warming
scenario of over 4°C. At the same time, the internationally agreed upper limit of 2°C warming
as compared to 1990 levels is no longer considered safe, nor a achievable, by many
scientists. Everyone agrees that a 4°C or more scenario would be catastrophic, although
some regions may actually benefit.
Expected impacts from climate change
• Drought and floods
• Rainfall patterns will change
• Heat and possibly cold
• Extreme weather events
Agriculture and climate change: mitigation
Briefly explain scope for reduced impacts/mitigation
Resilience: adaptation and stability
Resilience is defined as the ability of a system to recover to the original state upon a
disturbance. This ability is of crucial importance for food security, because it determines the
stability of our food production systems.
The evidence is overwhelming that sudden shifts to a contrasting state appear to occur from
time to time in a wide range of systems. The term regime shift is often used to describe such
radical changes. Regime shifts often seem triggered by a major external impact. For
instance, drought, earthquakes and floods. However, such disturbances may not always be
the complete story. A much trickier aspect is that systems may gradually become increasingly
fragile to the point that even a minor perturbation can trigger a drastic change toward another
state. In this light, habitat and biodiversity loss, large-scale monocultures and inadequate soil
management driven by dependence on external inputs is particularly worrying, even more so
in view of changing climatic conditions.
Such transitions in ecosystems can be understood, predicted and avoided or promoted - and
therefore specific management aiming to increase the resilience of food production systems
is possible.

B. The world lacks governance mechanisms to promote

sustainable, inclusive food systems
Solidaridad believes that its traditional work on sustainable value chains makes a valuable
contribution to food security:
• Increased income of farming families and other stakeholders in value chains
• Improved inclusiveness and social conditions in value chains
• Environmental responsibility and resources efficiency increases sustainability of value
chains, which is a crucial precondition for sustainable food security
• Food safety, as an element of compliance with higher standards in supply chains, is a
precondition for food security.

11
 Food Security Policy Document

The objective of this document and this section is not to showcase the above, but to indicate
the way forward. Therefore, what follows below is:
• B1: A brief assessment of the (food security) impact of VSS in the framework of typical
Solidaridad work in supply chains;
• B2: The sustainability gap in agricultural investments worldwide.

B.1 - VSS have limitations in terms of impact, scope and uptake,

and may have negative biases
We have achieved a lot through the implementation of VSS. At the same time, we know we
have to improve upon existing VSS and look beyond in order to address the challenges of
the future.
What follows is a very brief analysis of the impact, scope, uptake and biases of VSS. A
SWOT will be developed to provide an in-depth analysis, to be included in an update of this
document.
B.1.1 - Evidence of the impacts of VSS shows mixed results
VSS have convening power, and as such play a positive role in market transformation. To the
extent that they increase the sustainability of production systems and farming practices and
improve the livelihoods of farmers and workers, they contribute to food security. In practice,
however, evidence of positive impacts are limited, as is the potential uptake.
The study Building a roadmap to sustainability in agro-commodity production by
AidEnvironment, IIED and NewForesight summarises the following impacts:
• Evidence points to increased farmer productivity, market access and moderate
improvements in net incomes from involvement in VSS. However, these improvements do
not easily and necessarily lead to poverty reduction of smallholders.
• Evidence indicates that certification leads to adoption of more environmentally benign
practices. It is plausible that these practices will lead to improved ecosystem quality and
biodiversity, but the evidence in this point is inadequate
• Some evidence pints to improvements in working and living conditions, but the impacts are
highly specific to farming systems and locations, making generalisations difficult.
• The impact of VSS on livelihoods tends to be positive, through factors such as food supply,
land security, health and education.
Although international trade in food products effectively exploits local competitive
advantages, making food production more efficient and cheaper for many, some research
questions whether traditional commodities from developing countries such as coffee, tea,
cocoa, sugar, tobacco or cotton have improved the food and nutrition security of people in
producing countries. Both the focus on export cash crops and competition with more efficient
food production in developed countries has contributed to a reduction of agricultural output
and increased dependence on imports in many developing countries, with negative
consequences at times of price spikes. This situation is exacerbated by agricultural subsidies
in food exporting countries.
Some research demonstrates (e.g., see Royal Tropical Institute policy brief 1 October 2012)
that exports have limited potential to contribute to farm income, and therefore food security.

12
 Food Security Policy Document

B.1.2 - VSS have limitations in terms of scope and uptake

Current market shares of VSS-compliant commodities range between 2% (soy) and 29%
(coffee). Assuming that VSS make an important contribution to realising full sector
sustainability and improved livelihoods, there is a need to develop strategies for scaling up.
At the same time, because VSS and good agricultural practices tend to have a single-
commodity focus and don’t address rotation- and landscape- or ecosystem-level issues, they
offer little scope to address the combined challenges of resources, resilience, climate change
and productivity. They do not address root causes of sustainability problems and are
sometimes merely about ticking the boxes. In this respect, the singe-commodity focus is “old
economy”.
B.1.3 - Commodity and compliance focus of VSS may lead to a bias towards large-
scale farmers
If standards are too generic and insensitive to production systems, their implementation may
be difficult or undesirable. If a standard is endorsed by an important part of the market, but
difficult to implement in many production systems, as is the case with Aquaculture
Stewardship Council standard for shrimp, it may drive investment in large-scale integrated
farms and reduce the market access of original farmers. This does not imply that the former
are producing more sustainably than the latter, whileit negatively affects livelihoods.

B.2 Investment and business models are designed nor governed to

be inclusive and sustainable
The coming decades will see a lot of agricultural growth. We fear that the world lacks the
governance mechanisms to guide these investments towards sustainability and
inclusiveness.
With regard to inclusiveness, a key question is how investment will affect existing farmers,
who are predominantly smallholder family farmers. Section B.2.1 tries to separate fact from
fiction about small-scale versus large-scale farmers, concluding that neither is necessarily
better – and that depending on context, both may merit investment.
Section B.2.2 provides evidence of problematic large-scale investments in Africa, illustrating
the governance gap in agricultural investments, resulting in undesirable outcomes.
B.2.1 - Understanding the success factors underlying farm business models.
In most parts of the world, agriculture is dominated by family farmers. Most of these are
operated by smallholders: 2.5 billion people are involved in full-time or part-time agriculture,
managing an estimated 500M small farms and producing four-fifths of the developing world’s
food.
The reasons for the prevalence of family farming in agriculture and their ability to meet future
food demand has been much debated. For Solidaridad, it’s clear that supporting smallholders
is a way to directly ensure their food security. However, it’s not clear whether smallholder
agriculture is the best way to meet future food demand in ways that are economically viable
and environmentally efficient. Nevertheless, smallholders have a central place in our work.
For example, “Number of small-scale producers that have adopted (certified) sustainable
practices” is the first KPI of the strategic pillar “Producer Support” in all our programmes.

13
 Food Security Policy Document

As a first step towards understanding the potential contribution of smallholders to global

(food) supply and food security, the paper “Solidaridad, smallholders and farm scale” has
been elaborated (to be annexed).
Scale & economic viability

On one end of the spectrum, “miniaturisation” of farms in Asia but particularly in Africa is
problematic. Although small farms are able to achieve a very high productivity, there is a
lower threshold for the viability of small-scale farms, below which the farm unit cannot
support a family. Decreasing farm sizes in Africa - from 2.4 to 2.16 ha on average over the
last decade - are associated with a vicious cycle of poverty, food insecurity and resources
degradation: smallholder farms are home to about half of the world’s undernourished people.
Despite these depressing numbers, they produce four-fifths of the developing world’s food.

On the other side of the spectrum, large-scale farms are often thought to be more
economically viable. However, economies of scale are few in agriculture and only significant
in a number of production systems, such as those of sugar cane, livestock (beef), flowers
and tobacco. It is true that large-scale farms tend to have better access to technology. But
this is not a recipe for success per se. For instance, El Tejar, which used to be the world’s
largest farm company with more than 300.000 ha of land, was forced to reduced the area
under cultivation to 30.000 ha due to economic problems. And some Dutch dairy farmers
have in recent times over-invested: with slumping milk prices, the financing costs of their
high-tech expansion has proven unsustainable.
Resilience: farmer by default, or choice?
Farmers demonstrate varying degrees of resilience in the face of hardship. One explanation
for the high prevalence of family farmers in agriculture is that dedicated farmers are more
willing and able to deal with hardship. Long-time family farmers tend to be willing to accept
lower returns on labour and capital investment, whereas commercial farmers who have
chosen a capital-intensive strategy tend to drop out of farming when they become insolvent.

Indeed, farmers’ motivation is key to their resilience. Many small-scale farmers in developing
countries are farmers by default, not by choice. Many of them are likely to leave agriculture
as soon as there are alternatives.
On balance
Family farmers, with their intimate knowledge of local soil and climate, their advantages in
supervision of labour, their flexibility to adjust labour supply to varying and unpredictable
demand, and their resilience in the face of hardship, clearly contribute to global food security.
Their independence from shareholders may also be an advantage.
However, large swaths of smallholders do not have the potential and/or willingness to
develop economically viable and efficient agricultural enterprises. Investing in them is not
likely to be an effective way to contribute to food security beyond their communities.
Solidaridad should carefully balance the need to protect local livelihoods with the need to put
agricultural resources to effective use. Agricultural models to be adopted in a specific
environment and market, and with a specific goal in mind, will very much depend on the local
context, including costs of land, labour and capital, but also the opportunities provided by the
off-farm economy. In each of these contexts, we need to increase our understanding of
factors underlying successful farming models.

14
 Food Security Policy Document

B.2.2 - Investment governance in Africa fails to serve local interests

The concentration of revenues within processing and distribution has long kept
agribusinesses from directly participating in agricultural production. However, there is a rising
investor demand for farmland, which may partly reflect a vertical integration trend tin the
sector and partly the attractiveness of the agricultural and biofuel sectors in the context of the
global financial crisis.
Agricultural investments in Africa - where food insecurity is widespread - often fail to respect
tenure regimes and are often located in areas of high ecological value. Although there is a
lack of empirical research, such investments are often associated with rising food and
income insecurity due to loss of access to housing, farmland, and common property
resources such as water, pasture, and forst products.
Local governments are often incentivised to invite large-scale investment, yet ill equipped to
accommodate them properly.
Numerous case studies from Africa presented by G. Schoneveld show that large-scale
investments in the studied countries are unable to effectively reconcile environmental
conservation, social equity, and economic objectives in a manner that respects basic human
rights. Strikingly, outcomes did not seem to be affected by differences in legal provisions
guiding investments. Codes of Conduct
Sustainable and responsible agricultural investments are only achievable through
substantive institutional reforms. Civil Society Organisations may play and important role in
offering a window for contestation and in helping to accommodate investment in a
responsible way.

15
 Food Security Policy Document

3 – Towards smart and resilient landscapes with

upward potential
This chapter introduces ecological intensification as a way to produce more food while
reducing dependence on inputs and negative environmental impacts. It also introduces smart
and resilient landscapes as support of functional biodiversity for i) agricultural production, ii)
sustainable management of natural resources and wildlife and iii) provision of ecological
services (e.g. regulation of water dynamics or pest populations)
Technically, we should be speaking of smart agro-ecosystems with upward potential,
because both are about developing principles of agro-ecology applied at multiple levels of
the agro-ecosystem (field, farm, landscape, territory).
However, because landscape patterns - shaped by resource utilisation priorities and
demographic shifts - have a strong influence on the functioning of agro-ecosystems, and
because landscapes are a tangible, physical management units that we can easily relate to
in our work, we have chosen smart and resilient landscapes with upward potential as the
overarching theme for agricultural programmes.
The same applies to the choice for ecological intensification as the guiding theme on field
and farm level. It is less abstract than agro-ecology, and reflects the ambition to intensify
agricultural production in the South. This ambition is reinforced by the upward potential we
believe should be organised on landscape level, just as smart refers to the smart use of the
natural functionalities that ecosystems offer.

3.1 - More with less as a transitional approach towards more

intensive agriculture
More with less has been a key communication concept in Solidaridad’s programmes,
providing a simple way to communicate the need to close the yield gap while reducing
dependence on external inputs and environmental impacts.
However, more-with-less thinking alone does not lead the way to the future, because it does
not provide a solutions to increase productivity on a large scale in a future of resources
scarcity and climate change. For that, we need radically different ways of thinking.
More with less, involving smart use of inputs such as synthetic and mineral fertilisers, is a
way to leverage the transition towards smarter, less input-dependent but inherently more
complex forms of farming that build on agro-ecological principles. Leverage is needed,
because many farmers worldwide currently lack the professionalism and capital to make that
transition.
Professionalisation of farmers and farmer groups - a precondition to both productivity and
sustainability improvements - is a multi-layered challenge that involves governance,
accountability, marketing, traceability and.. capital. This means that projects take time and
need to manage their ambitions.
From this perspective, a more with less approach, making smart use of the relatively easy
practices of conventional agriculture, is a way to leverage the transition towards the agro-
ecological practices described in this chapter.

16
 Food Security Policy Document

3.2 - Ecological intensification on field and farm

Food production can increase and at the same time be sustainable through the ecological
intensification of current agriculture, making intensive and smart use of the natural
functionalities that ecosystems offer.
Ecologically intensive farming makes use of ecological functions to sustain agro-ecosystem
productivity. Biological diversity, but also cultural and management diversity, play a major role
through their impact on dynamic system properties such as stability, resilience and
adaptation. This contradicts the widespread idea that to increase primary productivity it is
necessary to simplify the natural system. For diversity to be effective, however, it must be
organised in a very precise way.
For this reason, ecological intensification is relatively complex, knowledge intensive and
dependent on solid agronomic management. In one example from the highlands of western
Kenya, researcher-managed control plots without fertiliser but planted at the right time,
weeded often, with the right plant spacing and certified local cultivars, yielded more than
farmer managed fields with or without fertiliser. In fact, proper agronomic management of
control plots without fertiliser has led to double maize yields.

Within the framework of “good old agronomy”, ecological intensification depends on a

number of interconnected cultural practices to which is often referred by overlapping
concepts, such as integrated soil fertility management, conservation agriculture, organic
farming, crop diversification, or crop-livestock integration.
The design of such systems is based on the application of the following ecological principles:
1. Enhance recycling of biomass and optimising nutrient availability and balancing nutrient
flow.
2. Securing favourable soil conditions for plant growth, particularly by managing organic
matter and enhancing soil biotic activity.

17
 Food Security Policy Document

3. Minimising losses due to flows of solar radiation, air and water by way of microclimate
management, water harvesting and soil management through increased soil cover and soil
organic matter.
4. Species and genetic diversification of the agro-ecosystem in time and space (including
crop rotations and intercrops).
5. Enhance beneficial biological interactions and synergisms within landscapes, thus
resulting in the promotion of key ecological processes and services.
For the sake of clarity, we have translated these overlapping concepts and principles to a
number of key (cultural) practices upon which to build our farmer support programmes:

• minimal soil disturbance

• mulching
• (crop) diversification (rotation, intercrops, agro-forestry, cover- and green manure crops)
• biological N-fixation
• crop-livestock integration
The deployment of these practices, whether in the framework of a landscape approach or
isolated on field or farm level, will typically serve multiple goals. For example, the application
of a number of the above-mentioned practices to improve and manage soil quality can both
result in greater nutrient and water efficiency. Indeed, because 90% of agricultural water use
is green (rain fed), optimal water retention and infiltration through better managed soils is a
key strategy towards increased water efficiency and reduced blue water use in agriculture.
At the end of this chapter, a number of examples of ecological intensification and/or
landscape approaches are provided.

3.2.1 - Detoxification
Solidaridad aims to reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides through its programmes,
both as a matter of efficiency and in response to concerns with regard to harmfulness and
positive feedback mechanisms, leading to decreasing effectiveness, increased use and
hence more harm to biodiversity.
In natural vegetation, species-specific pathogens and herbivore insects greatly increase plant
species diversity and composition through a phenomenon called negative density
dependence. It describes the dependence of species’ performance and survival on low
densities in species diverse communities. Fungal pathogens in particular stabilise species’
populations on low densities - when individuals have a low risk of infection. This is because
under such circumstances species-specific pathogens can attack less efficiently.
Indeed, conversely, fungicides and pesticides drastically reduce negative density
dependence, allowing species to occur in high densities. This is the model used in modern
agriculture.
A two-fold strategy for reduced pesticide use stems from this: increased species diversity and
introduction of natural enemies. The former requires a landscape approach because scale is
required in order to accommodate a high level of species diversity. This is particularly true in
commercial agriculture, which depends on specialisation and a certain scale.

18
 Food Security Policy Document

3.3 - A Landscape approach to investment and land-use governance

We have chosen to provide a thematic introduction to landscape approaches here and to
address the instruments and mechanisms in the following chapter. What follows has been
adapted from draft the SSLU ref doc and complemented.

A “landscape approach” means taking both a geographical and socio-economic approach to

managing the land, water and forest resources that form the foundation – the natural capital –
for meeting the goals of food security.
The bottom line is that we cannot meet increasing demand for food while adapting to climate
change and resources scarcity without protecting and enhancing the ecosystem functions
provided by natural habitats. By taking into account the inter-actions between land use and
ecosystem functions, rather than isolating or degrading them, we are better able to maximise
productivity, improve livelihoods, and reduce negative environmental impacts.
The need to optimise ecosystem functions in synergy with land use requires design,
collaboration between stakeholders and appropriate governance. Al landscape approach
brings these together, combining a multi-stakeholder approach and an integrated approach
to the management of land, water, habitats and agricultural investments. As such, a
landscape approach has the potential to address the full range of critical functions for both
provision of food, fibre, energy and livelihoods and healthy ecosystems.
A landscape approach might involve restoring degraded parts of the landscape (for example
through restoration of degraded or saline lands, reforestation, erosion control, flood
management); enhancing productivity on the most fertile land; integrating different production
systems such as livestock, crops, and trees into the same landscape; deliberately creating a
mosaic between production systems and natural vegetation in order to reduce pest
incidence; watershed management; and including local communities in the design and
implementation of the landscape approach.
There is no universal recipe for applying a landscape approach. The multi-stakeholder
process is crucial, since a landscape approach requires design and governance on a level
that concerns numerous stakeholders which may not be accustomed to working together. A
landscape approach is also highly contextual for both socio-economic and ecological
reasons; what you actually do depends on where you are.
The governance component of a landscape approach is also of crucial importance, since it
represents an opportunity to tackle structural problems that cannot be solved on company or
farm level. As, such, the landscape approach is an answer to more narrow or isolated
sustainability measures, such as training farmers in good agricultural practices; the
establishment of baseline sustainability standards, often through roundtables; sourcing and
procurement policies; and certified third-party production.
The landscape approach offers obvious potential for the design of new, more inclusive
business models by incorporating all stakeholders involved in and affected by investments. It
also provides opportunities for a broader understanding and increase of sustainability - well
beyond the narrow focus on for example CO2, explicit in many assessments of
environmental sustainability.

19
 Food Security Policy Document

4 - Meeting global food demand through sustainable

and inclusive value chains
This chapter focusses on mechanisms to achieve inclusiveness and sustainability in global
value chains.
It outlines new ideas about ways to ensure sustainability in global sourcing and investment,
with a focus on Food Security. They will need to be worked out on REC level.
There is considerable overlap. For example, most of the interventions considered in this
chapter could fit in a landscape approach, but may also be referred to as ‘beyond
certification’.

4.1 - Scope for inclusive, comprehensive VSS

The key question here is: how can we ensure that VSS contribute to food security?
One solution is to develop a food security check to be conducted whenever Solidaridad
implements VSS programmes, and to ensure food security by design. This is best done on
REC level.
Important focus areas are:
• Inclusiveness. For example, in the SAFAL food security programme in Bangladesh,
Solidaridad is piloting the organic Naturland standard because it is easy to implement for
farmers. At the same time, it does dictate the much needed compliance with international
standards in supply chains. The choice for a Naturland pilot is an example of a product-
market combination developed to ensure smallholder inclusion and hence food security:
with retailers in Germany, Switzerland and France very interested in organic shrimp, and
Bangladeshi shrimp are essentially organic until they leave the pond. A next step would be
too reduce the costs of the Internal Control Systems and move one level up – for example,
from farm to group or landscape level.
• Production systems and crop rotations. Too often, a singular commodity focus – as dictated
by standards – fails to address rotation- ecosystem- and landscape-level challenges thus
doesn’t capitalise opportunities. In Kenyan horticulture projects, for example, extension
towards implementation of Global GAP standards has been very successful in cash crops,
but in other (rotational) crops its business as usual. This means that rotations are not
optimised, landscapes are not optimally used, soil management isn’t integrated, bad
practices may persist and ultimately that harvests of food crops are suboptimal.

Mechanisms to address the above are for example:

• Supply chain transformation programmes:
• All-in-one certification:
• Jurisdictional approaches:

4.2 – Beyond certification and good agricultural practices: towards

new ways to increase sustainability of value chains
Partly in the framework of landscape approaches a wide range of mechanisms is being
discussed and piloted. The initiatives go beyond what we consider a landscape approach per
se; some of the examples we have seen do not focus on landscapes, but rather on supply

20
 Food Security Policy Document

chains or investment policy. What these initiatives have in common is their multi-stakeholder
character and tailored design. For this reason, we have chosen to brand these new ideas
“accommodating investment: designing inclusive and sustainable investment programmes”.
We also believe this to be more distinctive than using the term landscape approach.

4.2.1 – Accommodating investment: designing inclusive and sustainable

investment programmes
Partnerships between CSOs, investors, local farmers and (local) government have the
potential to address a wide range of issues, including food security and related issues, such
as climate change, water management, tenure, etc. Together they can ensure that
investments have positive outcomes on multiple counts and all stakeholders. This is
particularly important in view of the limited role of VSS in guiding investments and the
common failure of legal frameworks and governance to ensure minimal standards are met. In
such a way, partnerships and/or multi-stakeholder initiatives can address disputes about land
rights, land conversion, labour conditions, shared risk in sourcing areas, and design,
planning and management of land use.
We have decided to present examples in two categories, below:
• Accommodating investment through private-sector partnerships that address food security
by design. These partnerships aim to increase inclusiveness and sustainability of value
chains and often have multiple objectives.
• Accommodating investment through
It is obvious that CSOs increasingly partner with both the private and public sectors in the
same framework. However, we have split the subject of accommodating investment into two
categories because there is a challenge – and opportunity – for Solidaridad RECs to
strengthen their ties with governments. This both implies actively influencing policies, but
also becoming a first-choice partner.
Engagement with governments is particularly important in landscape approaches, in which
government will need to play a critical role from a planning perspective, and adopt the
approach. In this respect we need to clarify what role Solidaridad will play, whether it is as
the primary facilitator of the approach, or in an advocacy role or implementing the approach
at a landscape level. In any case, our role will much differ between regions in view of widely
varying capacities of government.
Another challenge are the business models to support multi-stakeholder inititives, including
landscape initiatives. However, tailored landscape-level solutions may be small as compared
to international convening and certification schemes. Existing business models of
stakeholders (government programmes, cooperatives, investors, subsidies) could be part of
the solution, as well as tax incentives and market incentives such as payment for ecosystem
services.

4.2.2 – Accommodating investment: examples of inclusive and sustainable

investment programmes with private-sector partners
• REC SSEA explicitly mentions the aim to invest in such partnerships. Examples from the
network are:
• Food gardens in TSB sugar plantations (Lesotho): instead of using smallholders plots (of
workers) for sugarcane production, the plots are used as food gardens. This reduces cash
income from sugarcane, but enhances food security and hence workers’ health.

21
 Food Security Policy Document

• Inclusive, integrated supply chains in aquaculture: In Bangladesh, the SAFAL programme is

piloting a partnership with an intensive shrimp producer and smallholder farmers. The
large-scale farmer receives support from Solidaridad to implement the ASC standard; in
turn, the farmer provides crucial inputs, extension and market access to smallholders. By
working through the larger company’s supply chain, the farmers achieve economies of
scale otherwise unthinkable and are (patrly) subjected to the same supply-chain standards.
• FOSEK, East Africa: this is an excellent example of food security by design in coffee. In
partnership with Nestle, Solidaridad helps farmers to integrate dairy and horticulture in their
farming systems and market their produce. This has direct positive outcomes on soil
fertility, food security, income and security of coffee supply.
• Solidaridad is increasingly looking at domestic markets and private-sector partners in
domestic markets. Domestic markets are growing, increasingly urbanised and funded with
increasing FDI flows, much of which goes to food processing and retail. Not only do these
investments offer potential for an increase in agricultural production and income, but also
for sustainability and improved food safety (which in turn contributes to food security). For
this reason, the SAFAL programme in Bangladesh is looking to partner with local retail
companies. Another excellent examples are the Lestari and Trustea programmes in
respectively Indonesia and India, respectively, although strictly speaking these are
certification schemes.

4.2.3 – Accommodating investment: examples of inclusive and sustainable

investment programmes with public-sector partners
Listed here are examples in which government stakeholders are lead players and/or target
group.
Examples of issues/themes that are addressed by these initiatives are:
• baseline farming standards
• extension services
• land-use planning
• land tenure rights
• Water resources management
• regulations and standards
• Tax incentives for multi-stakeholder collaboration, including landscape approaches, for
certifying products or crop rotations, for implementing REDD, and for meeting particular
government regulations or standards
• infrastructure and social services
Examples from the Network are:
• Oil palm investment and resettlement programme Reforma Agraria in the Amazon: The
Brazilian government has granted ADM permission to build a mill on the condition that re-
settlers manage 25% of the land. Under this agreement, local settlers obtain 30 ha of land
for food production, forestry and oil palms (1:1:1). Solidaridad ensures that smallholder
palm production is productive and effectively supplied to the mill.
• Compliance in REC SA: to be provided by Jeroen D

22
 Food Security Policy Document

• Other good (FS) policy influencing examples?

4.3 - Efficient and resilient supply chains

Food waste is a massive problem that can effectively be reframed as a resources problem:
what isn’t wasted does not have to be produced in the first place. Beyond immediate supply-
chain challenges, there is structural underinvestment in infrastructure worldwide: some 3
trillion is needed annually to maintain all sorts of infrastructure, yet there is a gap of 30%
(check source: Economist). In view of climate change and associated risks of natural
disasters, this will become a key issue in food supply chains.
The questions is if and how Solidaridad can help increase the efficiency of supply chains. An
example is per-urban agriculture and high-end urban supply chains focusing on fresh foods.

23
 Food Security Policy Document

5 - Building the institutional environment to facilitate

agricultural growth
As described in chapter two, whether we will manage to sufficiently increase food production
in order to feed the world is uncertain is not a technical matter, but an outcome of complex
societal and economic developments - strongly influenced by our political ability to achieve
change.
Many of the biggest agricultural challenges the world faces will have to be addressed in
countries that lack an effective institutional environment to do so. In developed countries,
policies and institutions have effectively been developed to boost agricultural growth. If we
are to achieve our food security ambitions, it is crucial that we help developing countries to
implement enabling policies, research, extension and (financial) services to make agricultural
growth possible.
To be developed:

Enabling policies
Landscape management
Investment laws and policies
• Promote a level playing field
• Assist investors with implementing sustainability policies
• Identify and pilot alternative livelihood options
• Support local spatial planning and justice systems

Research and extension

Knowledge and expertise centers
• Support innovation on farm
• Test new business models
• Disseminate new practices
• Link farmers to science and research

Services
business models for rural services
• Fill the yield gap
• Link service provision to credits or crop insurance
• Develop local service sector
• Self-assessment benchmark and development systems, such as Rural Horizons

24
 Food Security Policy Document

Finance
• Develop (commercial) farm services and access to finance
• De-risking rural investment to shift from grants to loans and equity
• Build on mutual credit schemes
• Organise social venture capital

25
 Food Security Policy Document

6 - Towards a food security strategy 2016-2020

There is a lot of confusion about what strategy is. According to some, strategy is all about
choices: which are the leading market dynamics and which activities should the organisation
develop to respond to them?
Strategy is not about everyday decisions, but addresses key questions:
• What is the uniqueness of our organisation, seen from the perspective of our customers
and target groups?
• What makes us excel, and what makes us better than competitors?
One way of looking at this is that strategy is essentially about the question what an
organisation shouldn’t do. It requires focus and a clear idea where not to venture. Strategic
choices should thus lead to a unique position in the market, and organisation processes
should be targeted at achieving this.
The most common pitfall is growth. Many organisations will deviate from strategic objectives
when growth opportunities emerge. This can lead to reduced profitability and confusion
among donors and customers.
Food security is a particularly complex and confusing subject. During the elaboration of this
policy document, we have received widely varying and sometimes contradictory ideas.
Indeed, we have a lot of choices to make.
This policy document has identified our body of work in sustainability as both our biggest
asset and a crucial contribution to food security. This provides an opportunity to achieve
focus in our global efforts towards contributing to food security.
At the same time, our REC structure offers the possibility to develop regional strategies that
may diverge from the global course, but are clear and relevant - and focussed - in the local
context.

Wrap-up
Today, food security is a poverty - or access - problem. We produce enough food to feed the
world, but about 1 billion people can’t afford to buy sufficient, safe and nutritious food that
meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
This is why many stress that food security is not about producing more food. But in the
future, we will have a food availability problem. According to the FAO, we will need to
produce 70% more to feed a growing world population and meet rapidly changing
consumption patterns. At the same time, we have to face the combined challenges of climate
change, resources scarcity, lack of resilience of large-scale monocultures and competing
forms of land use. We will therefore need to increase the upward potential of our food
systems and reduce agriculture’s footprint in order for growth not to be self-defeating.
Of course, we are dedicated to fighting poverty. But many of the poorest - and therefore most
food insecure people - are out of the reach of our programmes. We will need to reach them
through our work in food systems - by doing what we do best. This is a strategic choice.
We have therefore prioritised sustainability in this food security document. Sustainability is
not just the core of our work, it’s also a precondition for food security. This is where we have
made an impact and where we will continue to make an even greater impact. But whereas
much of our sustainability work has been about implementing standards and introducing

26
 Food Security Policy Document

good agricultural practices, we realise that we have to look beyond our traditional supply-
chain work to address the ever bigger challenges of the future.
This realisation is reflected in our choice for themes one and two. Because VSS and good
agricultural practices tend to have a single-commodity focus and don’t address rotation- and
ecosystem-level issues, we need a new toolkit to address the combined challenges of
resources, resilience, climate change and productivity. Theme one is precisely about that: it
looks at ways to increase the upward potential of agro-ecosystems while at the same time
contributing to a reduced global footprint of agriculture.
Theme two is about our traditional strength: sustainable and inclusive value chains. We need
to go build on our success in VSS to achieve scale and impact, but we also realise that the
global push for agricultural growth will not be governed by certification schemes. The first
inspiring examples from the Network show that there is an opportunity for Solidaridad to help
accommodate investment towards a sustainable and inclusive economy in innovative new
ways.
The third theme is both new and in full development. If we are to achieve our food security
ambitions, it is crucial that we help developing countries to implement enabling policies,
research, extension and (financial) services to make agricultural growth possible. Building
the institutional environment to facilitate agricultural growth is a challenge that will determine
the scope for productivity increases.

Triple A food security narrative

The Triple A food security narrative has proven a useful framework to communicate our food
security strategy. We have used it to capture the analysis and theory of change of this policy
document, below.

Accessibility
Today, food security is a poverty - or access - problem. We produce enough food to feed the
world, but about 1 billion people can’t afford to buy sufficient, safe and nutritious food that
meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
We are dedicated to fighting poverty. But many of the poorest - and therefore most food
insecure people - are out of the reach of our programmes. We will need to reach them
through our work in food systems.

Availability
In the future, we will also have a food availability problem. We have to face the combined
challenges of a growing world population and meet rapidly changing consumption patterns,
climate change, resources scarcity, lack of resilience of large-scale monocultures and
competing forms of land use. We will therefore need to increase the upward potential of our
food systems and reduce agriculture’s footprint in order for growth not to be self-defeating.
Because VSS and good agricultural practices don’t address ecosystem management, we
need a new toolkit to address the combined challenges of resources, resilience, climate
change and productivity. This toolkit combines agronomy, landscape approaches, innovative
sustainability mechanisms and enabling institutions.
Solidaridad will follow a three-fold strategy to achieve this:
• Gain investments into smart and resilient landscapes with upward potential

27
 Food Security Policy Document

• Accommodate investments in inclusive and sustainable global food systems

• Help build the institutional environment needed to facilitate agricultural growth
Affordability
If we fail to produce more sustainably, food will become more expensive as demand
increases. In an inclusive economy, enabling policies will help increase the availability of
affordable food and reduce inequality in order to ensure that more people have physical and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life.

Priorities
• We realise that we already do much to enhance food security. All our sustainability has the
intention to contribute to improved food security for all. Instead of reframing ourselves as a
global food security player, we should reframe our work in global value chains as food
security work by highlighting our contributions and future ambitions.
• At the same time, we realise that our global commodity programmes – in particularly the
traditional certification programmes – have a too narrow focus to address issues that
threaten food security and develop solutions where opportunities exist, such as on
landscape level. Therefore, it is priority that Global Commodity Teams review global
commodity programmes from the food security perspective. They should take into account
important donor frameworks, such as the Dutch food security policy intervention logic and
result chains.
• In line with the above point, there is a particular need to evaluate the food security impact
of our sustainability instruments, particularly VSS. To this effect a SWOT analysis will be
conducted.
• We realise that food security is a container term. Strategies to achieve food security will
differ widely across regions. Therefore, there is a need to assess food security priorities
and opportunities by each REC, taking into account donor and government policies.
• We will need to develop the instruments to accommodate investments towards more
inclusive and sustainable value chains, including landscape approaches. The key question
here is: how do we help ensure that future investments in agricultural contribute to an
inclusive and sustainable economy? It is recommended that an international Network
workshop is organised to this effect.
• We need to develop a strategy to help build the institutional environment needed to
facilitate agricultural growth.
• This is an internal document. As a separate exercise, we will need to distill a strong
narrative about our immediate current and potential contributions to the Dutch food security
policy intervention logic and result chains.
• There are many issues linked to food security that we will not be working on. We need to
write these down. Some, such as efficient and resilient global supply chains, are subject of
debate within the Network

28
 Food Security Policy Document

Goals
We should request the EBOD to rephrase the strategic intent in food security, as described in
the beginning of this policy document, based on its policy orientations and strategic
opportunities (including the Dutch food security policy framework)

Plan - how to achieve goals

Knowledge development
Partnerships

29
 Food Security Policy Document

ANNEXE

Annexe 1: Food Security Definitions

Food security is a human condition that results from complex interactions between
biophysical factors, production factors, supply chains, economics, politics, culture and other
social factors. As a result, it is hard to define. It is even harder to devise a strategy that
contributes to the improvement of food security. With the aim to support strategic choices,
this chapter provides an overview of food security definitions, Solidaridad’s current role, food
security impact areas that our work contributes to and the development context relevant to
food security.

1.1 Defining Food Security

1.1.1 - Food security
In most definitions, food security comprises not only food availability, but also access to food
access and food use. In other words, it goes beyond the production of sufficient food.
A well-known definition of FS was formulated by the FAO (World Food Summit, 1996):

“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life”.

The World Health Organisation defines three facets of food security: food availability, food
access, and food use.
• Food availability is having available sufficient quantities of food on a consistent basis.
• Food access is having sufficient resources, both economic and physical, to obtain
appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
• Food use or utilisation is the appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and
care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.
The FAO adds a fourth facet: the stability of the first three dimensions of food security over
time.

1.1.2 - Nutrition security

According to some organisations, nutrition security is a key element of food security, or we
should even use the term nutrition security rather than food security. Nutrition refers to the
process from the choice and consumption of food up to its effects on health and wellbeing of
individuals. In the following definition, the nutritional component is added through the words
adequate, quality, safety, acceptability.

“Food security is achieved, if adequate food (quantity, quality, safety, socio-cultural

acceptability) is available and accessible for and satisfactorily utilised by all individuals at all
times to live a healthy and happy life.”

UNICEF states: Under-nutrition is both a consequence and a cause of poverty. Childhood

under-nutrition makes learning more difficult and ill health more likely, which hinders a child’s

30
 Food Security Policy Document

capacity to secure a job as an adult, and the cycle of generational poverty and under-
nutrition continues.
All together, the most widely used descriptions of food security involve Availability,
Accessibility (including affordability), Stability and Utilisation.

Annexe 2 - Solidaridad Food Security Programmes

From the network the statement was made twice that all our projects are about food security,
both from the perspective of socioeconomic development at farmer level, improving
purchasing power (Accessibility) and from the perspective of making more efficiently
produced and sustainable food available for the World (Availability and Accessibility
(efficient)).
However, some consider certain projects specifically as food security projects. Herewith an
overview of Solidaridad projects that are seen as food security and/or funded by food
security facilities.

Country Funding Description Budget

Bangladesh NL Embassy Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security and linkages programme 12m €
(SAFaL) in SW Bangladesh, focussing on aquaculture, dairy and
horticulture. Themes: sustainable agriculture, efficient supply
chains, food safety, domestic and export market development,
PPPs in supply-chain development
Kenya NL Embassy Six business cases in horticulture, primarily focussed on the 2m€
national market, partly for export. Improving inputs, GAP,
productivity and efficiency, post- harvest management.
Ghana NL Embassy Palm oil programme. Improving GAP, resilience. RSPO complient.
Local market supply.
Ghana NL Embassy Cocoa programme.
Ghana Agentschap Maiz production in Northern Ghana.
NL/Wienco
Kenya/ Agentschap Optimizing intercropping coffee with food crops. Improving access 9,2m €
Ethiopia NL/Nestlé to inputs, GAP, post-harvest handling and local chain for
+others foodcrops. Nutricional training.

Mozambique/ Agentschap Optimizing intercropping cotton with food crops. Improving access
Zambia NL/Olam to inputs, GAP, post-harvest handling and local chain for
foodcrops.

China FSP Soyfarmer support to improve GAP, productivity, RTRS benchmark 0,15m €
and enhancing Chinese market demand for sustainable soy.
Honduras and FSP/private Two projects within Central American palm oil programme. 3,9m €
Guatemala partners Producer support, GAP, productivity, efficiency , RSPO
certification, chain commitments.

Mexico FSP/private ? 1m€

partners
Nicaragua FSP/private Competitive meat and dairy through sustainable intensification and 0,85m€
partners specialized market access.

Mexico Norad Climate smart agriculture in coffee, including GAP and improving 1,3m€
productivity and resilience.

Table - FS project overview. Suggestion: use Solidaridad result areas in table

31