A Proposal For Global Governance on Food and Agriculture

1. A Proposal For Global Governance on Food and Agriculture Uma Lele, Special Advisor, Swaminathan Foundation World Summit on Food Security Round Table: Implementation of the Reform of Global Governance of Food Security Rome, 16-18 November 2009

2. Unprecedented Recent Challenges • Growing Global Inequalities Among and Within Countries leading to Vulnerabilities • Over 1 billion on < $1.25 a day • Over 2 billion on <2 a day • Food and Energy Price Increases Most Impacting <$2/day • Financial Crisis - Impacting <$2 a day population • Growing Demand for Emergency Assistance • WFP program where D>S of Food • Small ODA of $100 + billion of which • Only $40 Billion in Long Term Development Assistance to All Sectors Of which an estimated $20 Billion reaching intended beneficiaries • $60 Billion on debt forgiveness and emergency assistance • Game Changers— • Climate Change, Demand Shifts due to Bio-fuels, Rise of China, India, Brazil

3. Recent Hopeful Developments Towards Global Food Governance • Emergence of G 20 – • A Canadian Idea showing small countries/voices can prevail • More collegial U.S. Leadership despite decline in US Standing following global financial crisis • Rising China, India and Brazil • Unclear Role of Europe and Japan in the Future? •  $20 Billion Promised for Food and Agriculture • The New Global Food Security Partnership • New USAID Director with Gates Foundation Background in Health and Agricultural • CGIAR Reforms following independent evaluations • Global Forum for Agricultural Research • FAO—Reforms following Independent Evaluation • Ernesto Zodillo Report on Need for Reform of the World Bank

4. Issues Raised by Post WW II Global Governance Experience In the New Context At the Global Level the Need to Balance Efficiency with Legitimacy, Results and Accountability • Voice—of Donors as well as of intended “Beneficiaries” • Representation: • Stakeholder as well as Shareholder Participation, • Europe’s traditionally large role in international organizations to be balanced with the role of Emerging Countries • Accountability— According to Zedillo Report on the World Bank, accountability has been achieved more throughcivil society and think tanks than through Established Governance of International Organizations • Leadership Selection • Qualifications to lead more important than nationality • Legitimacy vs. Shareholder Influences • Agency Issues—international organizations not directly accountable for results to ultimate constituents—i.e., the tax payer in donor countries or the poor in developing countries • Survival more the instinct in International Organizations facing intense competition for resources • Bilateralization of Multilateral Aid • Increased Role of Trust Funds deposited by bilateral assistance • “Backdoor” Exercise of Power of Trust Fund Givers in International organizations • Do Emerging Economies- (Brazil, China and India) have enough stake in Reform of the International Organizations?- • Evaluation Overload—Too much evaluation, too little translation of donor promises into increased ODA levels

5. Lessons From Some Successful Partnerships With Impacts on Millions of Poor • US Role in Taiwan and South Korea’s Development in the 1960s • World Bank’s Contribution to Growth with Distribution in Asia under McNamara in the 1970s • CGIAR in the 1970s and 80s • GAVI—Child Immunization in 1990s • Stop TB -1990s and post 2000 • IPCC—post 2000 • Montreal Protocol—1990s and post 2000 • Amul Dairy 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and post 2000 • Grameen Bank—1980s, 1990s and post 2000 • Seva—1970s, 1980s, 1990s and post 2000 • Small Holder Tea and Coffee—Kenya • Maize Production in Malawi

6. Their Lessons • Clear and Focused objectives • Limited Number of Partners in Governance • Excellence in Leadership and Staffing • Technical/Broadly Shared Solutions • Financing • Demonstrable Results • Increased Organizational and Participant Capability • Country Ownership

7. Issues in Recent Partnerships • Vastly Expanded Agenda—Partnership Overload on Developing countries • Lack of Capacity in Developing Countries to Respond to External Initiatives • Unclear and Unfocused objectives • Governance—Unclear Strategic Role • Unclear Accountabilities • More to Donors than to Developing Country beneficiaries • Insufficient voice, representation and ownership of Developing Countries • Investment Deficit to accompany “Advocacy”.

8. Towards Increased Coherence In Global Governance For Reduced Poverty and Hunger • Lessons • Ensure Limited, Focused and Clear Objectives • Build Capacity from the outset • Develop a Flexible Road Map, Guideposts and Milestones • Bottom up—not top down • Fill Investment Deficit with Long Term Predictable Untied Financing • Ensure Legitimacy, Voice and Ownership in Developing Countries • Assure Highly Qualified Leadership and Staffing • Develop Strong Linkages Among Global, Regional and Local Levels • Achieve Transparency • Develop Accountability Mechanisms from the Outset For Ensuring- • Voice and participation • Developing capacities • Reporting Progress • Impacts

9. Proposal for Partnership for Global Food Security (GFS) • Objective • To achieve, transitory, short term (up to three years) and long term (10 years) food security for one billion poor • Governing Body of No More than 15 Members • WB, FAO, CGIAR, WFP, IFAD, USAID, the Gates Foundation, EU, and one minister of food and agriculture elected by the most affected participating regions/Or Minister each of China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Nigeria, Turkey • Policy Advisory Committee (s) • To develop well coordinated implementable country and regional assistance strategies for a ten year period • Strict Adherence to Paris Declaration: Each donor to provide the needed financial and technical assistance only in support of proposals developed by countries, matched appropriately with domestic resources and endorsed by the GFS Governing Body