How can social protection contribute to food security and nutrition in West Africa?
Welcome to the first Food Security and Nutrition Forum discussion dedicated to West Africa.
West Africa and more specifically the Sahel region, faces increasingly frequent food crisis which affect a growing number of areas and people. It is established fact that promoting broad-based economic growth is essential for development in general. However the benefits of such growth do not necessarily reach the poorest segment of society and therefore direct interventions are needed to target the socially and economically deprived groups. As highlighted by FAO’s State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013, social protection has a role to play in reducing hunger and increase economic growth. In this context, creating and strengthening social protection systems is considered as a way forward for governments and their partners in development to contribute to food security and nutrition.
Social protection has many definitions and may take many forms. A generally agreed definition for social protection is the support provided in the form of income or benefits to the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded in society with the aim of enhancing capacity to protect themselves against social and economic shocks and risks.
It is believed that when the right policies and targeting is done, social protection mechanisms, including safety nets, can protect the most disadvantaged and reduce social, economic and cultural inequalities which increase their resilience regarding food security and nutrition. However, in implementation of social protection for the under-privileged in society, West African governments face considerable demands that force them to focus on immediate solutions to poverty because of the large number of poor and vulnerable people in the various countries in the region.
Social protection has been given increased attention in Africa, with interventions taking many forms ranging from cash transfers, child allowances, food aid, subsidies to goods purchased (including agricultural inputs) to health and unemployment insurances.
Social protection may be seen as primarily a national issue but the (sub)-regional institutions have important roles to play in defining a direction and in monitoring progress towards agreed social protection targets. The (sub)-regional levels may also have the needed capacity to support with national policy-making processes and for harmonization. Regional initiatives such as the African Union’s Social Policy Framework (2008), recognizes a minimum social package, and the ECOWAS Hunger Free Initiative includes strategies to combine social protection and agriculture. With increase in population and drift in urbanization, coupled with high levels of poverty and faster economic growth in most African countries, demands for social protection are likely to rise.
Some countries in Africa, such as Malawi, Ethiopia, and South Africa demonstrated the positive impact of social protection schemes on food security and nutrition. In West Africa, there are pilot initiatives in Burkina Faso, Guinea, Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, Togo (among others). Lessons learnt on coverage, sustainability, institutionalization and impacts may be drawn from these initiatives.
We invite you to take part in this discussion and share your experience and knowledge on this topic. Below are some guiding questions. Feel free to answer one or more of these.
- What is your understanding of social protection? How these programmes can address West African countries’ needs?
- What social protection programmes or interventions are taking place in your country? What are the challenges – weaknesses and limitations of these interventions? How do you think they could be addressed? Please give concrete recommendations to address them. Any success story in addressing these challenges?
- How social protection initiatives should be implemented so that they increase agricultural production and productivity, and improve food security and nutrition?
- What are the roles for government, civil society organizations, private sector, academics and other development partners? Suggest ways to ensure better governance for fostering linkages between social protection, food security and nutrition and agriculture.
The facilitators:
Anna Antwi
Al Hassan Cissé
- Read 42 contributions
Dear Colleagues:
- Communities followed sustainable agri ‘Culture’ in their areas to produce nutritious food, mostly for their own needs.
- Conversion to mono crops, with a focus on farm management, was done by the colonial rulers, for serving their political and commercial interests.
- Increasing conversion each year to commercial crops like cotton, tea, coffee, jute, rubber, sugarcane, etc., resulted in less production by the small holders of nutritious food for their own and their country’s needs (decrease in purchasing power), leading to scarcity and famine like conditions
- Increased cost of production, taxes and the reducing prices for commodities (green revolution techs) produced also reduced producers’ access to nutritious food and net income.
- Post independence, senior scientists sent for advanced education abroad, mostly specializing in green revolution (GR) technologies – loosing focus on sustainable integrated agriculture systems of the local areas
- GR tech increased productivity for about a decade, with production plateau and decreasing in some cases whilst cost of production and requirement of water increased each year
- Agricultural and Education System (ARES), Central & State Government agri depts. were and are staffed by scientists, mostly specialists, responsible for policies.
- Focus was to meet the supply side (top down) when the need was more for the demand side (bottom up smallholder needs)
- Production cost increased due to dependence on external inputs and hybrid/ GM/ BT seeds for implementing Green Revolution technologies, oil crisis, etc., further reducing net incomes, access to low cost nutritious food, resulting in rural hunger, malnutrition, poverty, debt, suicides and climate change
HISTORY:
Communities followed integrated agriculture system of their area to produce nutritious food for their own needs and at little or no cost, before the arrival of their colonial rulers, For serving their political and commercial interests, farms were converted to produce mono crops importing agro chemical inputs, converting more and more land for commercial crops like cotton, tea, coffee, jute, rubber, sugarcane, etc., reducing the land for production of nutritious food by the smallholder producer communities for their own needs. Policies, rules and regulations focused on commercial mono crops,, resulting in the decrease of purchasing power, taxing rural producers, increasing cost of production also resulted in the decrease of farm produce prices and the producers’ net incomes. The resulting decrease in smallholder farm production and availability of nutritious food, leading to scarcity and famine like conditions during the world wars and also after independence (early 1960 in India).
After many countries became independent from colonial rule, large sums of money were made available as aid for development of agriculture by the erstwhile colonial powers as well as the USA, with subtle conditions attached, eg., USAID made provisions to give scientists grants for advanced studies in the land grant universities of the USA, where the curricula focuses on mechanized industrial GR agriculture (most farms being over 100 hectares), training them as specialists, with little or no knowledge about the integrated low cost agriculture of the local areas in their country and sustainable in the long term for the smallholder producers. Most returned with PHD’s and thus on their return were given the responsibility to replicate the industrial agriculture models with AID funds, pursuing commercial mono crops, primarily to keep down the world prices of agricultural commodities, like rice, wheat, maize, cotton, rubber, tea, coffee, etc, loosing focus on producing nutritious food, good agriculture and management practices (GAP).
The agri policies of the Indian government, post independence, continued to serve the commercial interest of the North (Europe/ USA/ Canada/ Australia), rather than the bottom up knowledge and management needs of smallholder friendly, integrated agriculture systems of each area for their long term sustainability primarily producing nutritious food to meet their own needs and that of the increasing rural populations in the vicinity, The continuing focus on commercial crops lead to shortages, scarcity and famine like conditions in the sixties, creating a panic among policy makers. By now, in addition to the agriculture research & education systems (ARES), most Central and State Government positions in agriculture were filled by Scientists, mostly specialists, opening the flood gates for conventional agri technologies being forced on all farmers, as official extension programmes and schemes (subsidies) of the Government, especially in the irrigated areas of the country. The use of agro chemicals on rich soils built over centuries, did increase productivity for a decade, temporarily solving the immediate problem of shortages by meeting supply side but ignoring the demand side of access to good management to produce nutritious food needs of the rural producer communities.
However, in about ten years there was enough evidence documented that the GR productivity had plateau and decreasing in some areas, requiring increasing quantities and higher prices for fertilizer, seed and water each year. Added to this was the global oil crisis since the 70’s, resulting in the huge increase in the costs of imports, transportation, production of agro chemicals, etc., making conventional farming unviable and forcing governments to subsidise production of external inputs. In spite of subsidies, the purchasing power (mono crops) and net incomes of farmers, especially smallholder producer communities reduced each year (often below cost of production, waste, etc., due to un abling policies), resulting in rural hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and climate change.
UN agencies have taken the initiative over the last 5 years to support holistic solutions for the long term sustainability of over 2 billion hungry, malnourished, poor, deep in debt rural producer communities, with UNCTAD’s TER of September 18, 2013, taking the ARES, World Bank, etc., head on, urgently calling for a ‘Paradigm shift in agriculture’. attached.
>> VERSION FRANÇAISE CI-DESSOUS <<
Please find enclosed a useful report of a seminar held at the ILO on social protection as a catalyst for food security and the right to adequate food
It wanted to contribute to the recommendation made by the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to further integrate food security and nutrition issues within the social protection floors.
It brought together participants from UN, member states, civil society organisations, researchers.
The report looks at the opportunities and constraints of SP, at social protection floors as a catalyst for food security and identifies recommendations for future work.
Je vous prie de trouver en pièce jointe un rapport utile d'un séminaire tenu à l’OIT sur la protection sociale comme catalyseur pour la sécurité alimentaire et le droit à une alimentation adéquate (en anglais).
Le séminaire avait pour objectif de contribuer aux recommandations du comité sur la sécurité alimentaire mondiale (CFS) pour mieux intégrer la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition dans les programmes de protection sociale.
Ce séminaire a rassemblé des participants des Nations Unies, des pays membres, de la société civile et du monde de la recherche.
Le rapport étudie les opportunités et contraintes de la protection sociale, le rôle de la protection sociale minimale comme catalyseur pour améliorer la sécurité alimentaire et identifie des recommandations pour la suite des travaux.
This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.