EU support to sustainable agri-food systems in partner countries 2014-2020

European Commission, Directorate-General for International Partnerships, Engel, P., Slob, A., Laanouni, F., et al., EU support to sustainable agri-food systems in partner countries 2014-2020, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, # 108 p. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2841/563166

This evaluation covers the period 2014-2020 and provides an independent assessment of the performance of EU support to food and nutrition security, sustainable agriculture and fisheries at country, regional and global level. It provides recommendations on how to strengthen the EU’s continued support to the transformation towards sustainable agri-food systems worldwide. 

Six country case studies across Africa, Asia and Latin America were selected to go more in depth in the analysis: Niger, Kenya, Malawi, Cambodia, Colombia, and Haiti. 

In addition, the evaluation team carried out three thematic case studies on key EU partnerships: 

1. a regional case study focusing on the EU-Africa collaboration on research and innovation, 
2. a case study on the engagement of the EU with the Rome Based Agencies (e.g., FAO), and 
3. a case study on EU Member States (Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain).

See: Evaluation of the EU support to sustainable agri-food systems in partner countries 2014-2020 - Volume II: Case Studies # 166 p.

In addition:

• Evaluation of the EU support to sustainable agri-food systems in partner countries 2014-2020 - Response of EU Services # 4 p.
• Evaluation of the EU support to sustainable agri-food systems in partner countries 2014-2020 - Executive Summary # 4 p.

Overall assessment

• The drastic reduction – from EUR 1.250 million to EUR 350 million – in SAFS related funding from the last (2014-2020) to the current MFF (2021-2027) has posed a major challenge. (page 23) 
• The lack of (internal) human resources and continued prioritisation has limited the ability to capitalise on knowledge management and internal lessons learned.  (page 23) 
• The increased strategic importance of food security on global and European political agendas could help reverse the trend of shrinking European budgets explicitly allocated to food and nutrition security. It has proved difficult, however, to maintain a strong coherent agenda for sustainable and inclusive development in a crisis context. (...) Balancing short-term emergency responses with investments in longer-term resilience is a challenging task for policymakers. Nonetheless, the evaluation finds a strong momentum for boosting EU support towards the transformation of agri-food systems in response to unfolding geopolitical and regional food crises outside the EU. (page 8) 
• The outcomes and intermediary impacts of EU contributions have been mostly scattered and tentative. Notably, while the EU supported policy changes and institutional reforms, the intensity, inclusiveness and outcomes of the policy dialogue have differed across countries, with government ownership and follow-up emerging as critical determinants for success. (page 8) 
• EU and EU Member States have not agreed on common objectives, complementary strengths, instruments and modalities, and common indicators to track the outcomes of their ‘loosely coordinated’ actions. (page 9) 
• The EU has played a central role in strengthening research and innovation policies, governance and platforms in Africa for agri-food system transformation. Yet, such support has been overly fragmented in a plethora of strategies and initiatives, while achieving equality between African and European partners has remained problematic. (page 9) 
• Lack of synchronisation of complementary initiatives, or lack of cooperation between implementing partners, often obstruct the timely realisation of synergies intended in EU country portfolios.  (page 10) 
• The monitoring indicators used in the interventions’ results frameworks were too different to aggregate data in a meaningful way at country or cross-country level. The team made an attempt to use data from the EU Results Reporting (RR) database. However, it was not possible to exploit the data because of various limitations, including: i) non-alignment of the indicators used, including non-alignment with the EU Results Framework; ii) lack of baseline value; iii) lack of recent value on the monitoring indicators in a few cases; and iv) ambiguity in possible interpretation of the value being reported in several cases. (page 32)
• Within the framework of this strategic evaluation, it was not possible to aggregate data from project-level sources in a meaningful way to produce a comprehensive overview of outcomes and/or intermediate impacts. However, through case studies, the team collected an illustrative set of examples, or ‘signals’, of how EU support contributed to agri-food system transformation and identified some underlying ‘patterns of effectiveness’ or plausible impact pathways of EU-supported actions. (page 36)
• The EU made small steps but faced many obstacles in the development of a more integrated European approach to SAFS transformation (page 89)

Internal institutional organisation 

(page 22-23)

• F3 interacts with other DGs in charge of policy making (i.e., MARE, ENV, and SANTE) but has not necessarily the means to influence these policies (its expertise is outsourced, addressing ad hoc requests, with little joint strategic decision-making, lack of time to react due to tight interservice consultation deadlines, etc.).
• F3 receives the programmes proposals too late to properly react on them.
• There is no common Theory of Change across units working in silos. A potentially missed opportunity to strengthen (internal) incentives is the vetoed contribution by the EU to the establishment of a SAFS marker. 
• The drastic reduction – from EUR 1.250 million to EUR 350 million – in SAFS related funding from the last (2014-2020) to the current MFF (2021-2027) has posed another major challenge. The lack of (internal) human resources and continued prioritisation has limited the ability to capitalise on knowledge management and internal lessons learned.
•  Several respondents voiced a need to support EUDs more on political economy issues. 
•  The EU supports and maintains many of the food security organisations as a key donor, but navigation and building coordinated action takes time and capacity. 
• Within DG INTPA, R&I is isolated in a single unit, with little input from other thematic units on R&I prioritisation, programming, and implementation. Human resources shortages, less in terms of headcount than in terms of time, are evident both at EU HQ and in EUDs, where there is pressure to develop and implement projects and programmes rather than to develop and share an EU strategic vision.
• There is fragmentation within DG INTPA, in addition to which, programmes have sometimes performed disappointingly at country level due to lack of EUD time or interest . Some characterise the relationships between the different thematic units of DG INTPA’s unit F3 as disconnected, fragmented. Other thematic units, apart from the one where R&I is housed formally and the nutrition sector, do not influence the decisions around prioritisation, programming and implementation of R&I. Knowledge management and learning systems between DG INTPA/F3 and EUDs are challenged by human resource constraints. (page 46)

The Heads of Agriculture and Rural Development (HARD) group 

• HARD meetings focus mainly on global events and global initiatives, EC communications and strategies, specific studies, and progress reports. From the second half of 2020 the UNFSS is the most important item on the agenda. The agenda is perceived to be overburdened with too many topics and too many documents that are shared late. In addition, interlocutors felt that new important related political initiatives are insufficiently grasped. 
• They also indicate that differing views expressed by DG INTPA and by EUDs are not discussed. (page 42) 
• In interviews, no EU MS mentioned a form of joint EU follow-up to the UNFSS, and the EC is not perceived to play a facilitating or leadership role. (page 43) 
• This could be a forum for policy alignment and coordination on sustainable agri-food systems. However, currently, it does not ensure real dialogue or strategic discussion. Additionally, formal consultation mechanisms between the sustainable agri-food systems and fisheries unit at the Directorate-General for International Partnerships (F3) and other Directorates are experienced as rigid and mostly limited to individual consultations of thematic or geographic specialists on specific text proposals and documents. 
• EU Delegations indicate a lack of capacity and time to upgrade their coordinating role in country partnerships to a more political and strategic one. (page 10) 

Global and regional agri-food systems governance

• The EU support is fragmented and there is a profusion of strategies, dialogues, platforms, and initiatives. There are far more bilateral than regional partnerships, in part because donors fear losing visibility in multilateral partnerships. (page 37)
• SAFS-related European policies, regulations, programming, and funding of R&I are overly fragmented. They reflect the broader architecture of food systems-related institutions, public, non-governmental and private sector stakeholders, research organisations, platforms and governance processes which so far has evolved without a clear food system framing. Differences in EU MS approaches to SAFS persist and a more integrated EU approach cannot yet be identified in practice.  (page 37)

EU partnership with the RBAs

1. EU funding to FAO, a recognised international convenor for agri-food policy and institutional reforms, public goods, capacity development, and strengthened information systems, totalled USD 1,6 billion between 2014 and 2021 . 
2. EU has been WFP’s single largest contributor, with funding amounting to USD 4,72 billion. 
3. EU contributions to IFAD amounted to USD 1,7 billion for the period, including USD 300 million of EC funding . In 2018, EU-IFAD dialogue was revamped to improve smallholders’ capacities, rural agri-food businesses, and research and innovation

• EU and RBA have provided demand-driven à la carte support via FIRST, NIPN, DESIRA, INFORMED, and PRO-ACT multi-country programmes. (...)  Interviews and review documentation point to the need to maintain and build on this momentum by further articulating these flagship programmes and their contribution to a broad political economy analysis nurturing EU Delegations’ policy dialogue. SAFS analysis and foresight need to be further improved; so far these do not necessarily address the long-term processes leading to policy reforms and capacity strengthening for sustainable transformation of agri-food systems. (page 39)
• The rise of UN and corporate influence on food systems is well documented. As is the tentative bypassing of CFS structures and questioning CFS High-Level Panel of Experts’ authority. (page 39)
• The continuation of overly transactional and “projectised” forms of EU support, certainly in comparison with other donors, stood in the way of moving towards a more strategic EU-RBA partnership. (page 42)

EU-Africa Research and Innovation (R&I) Partnership

• The main guiding policy that frames EU support to global research and innovation is the 2021 EC Communication Global Approach to Research and Innovation, with DG RTD in the lead to implement. It highlights EU support to food systems and soil health as priority areas for EU global support to agricultural research. (page 43) 
• There is need for DG INTPA to be actively involved itself in the EU-Africa R&I partnership on FNSSA. (page 40) 
• The lack of a mechanism to track the progress of R&I-related projects implemented at EUD level back to HQ limits the ability of DG INTPA/F3 to gather insights on outcomes and achievements and draw lessons from country experiences. (page 46) 
• It is too early to tell if DeSIRA country-level actions will be able to fulfil high expectations. The scarcity of human resources at EUD level, the focus on directly managed projects and the sometimes disappointing follow-up of national research agendas have been signalled as bottlenecks. Initially a mechanism for knowledge sharing and feedback between EUDs and headquarters was lacking but has been put in place (DeSIRA-Lift). (page 46) 
• The new AU-EU International Research Consortium (IRC) is meant to become the long-term bi-continental platform for research and innovation, connecting existing structures, such as regional and sub-regional organisations or partnerships on R&I with the aim of increasing their coherence and impact. The AU-EU IRC zero draft identifies the absence of coordination infrastructure and lack of knowledge management mechanisms and frameworks on food-related R&I as the premise of the need to be addressed by the IRC. Yet the zero draft lacks a thorough analysis of already existing platforms, nor does it elaborate upon the opportunities for seeking synergies with and between existing platforms and initiatives. Such an incomplete assessment is unfortunate, since singling out the lack of platforms and initiatives as the reason for weak implementation of FNSSA goals risks ignoring other structural constraints that may impede already existing initiatives from achieving joint EU-Africa objectives.(page 41) 
•  In the preparations of the upcoming Food Systems Partnership, part of Horizon Europe, DG INTPA’s engagement has been weak . A closer engagement of INTPA is an important way to foster science and innovation capacity in Africa through DG RTD instruments. A representative of a knowledge institute reported that, for instance, a stronger connection of the Horizon Food Systems Partnership to the global agenda on food systems transformation. (page 45) 
• A lack of resources is also mentioned as one reason for DG INTPA’s limited involvement in the Food Systems Partnership. And may have a bearing on EU’s limited visibility among the EU MS in engaging various UN Food Systems Coalitions. Several EU MS interviewees viewed DG INTPA as being very inward-looking. (page 45) 

National agri-food systems governance

• Strategically integrating multiple interventions towards common objectives remains a huge challenge. Synchronisation of different instruments, programmes and projects can be challenging. EUD staff time is scarce and working in silos is institutionally embedded. (page 47) 
• Programmes focusing on enhancing economic opportunities in agricultural value chains may address issues of inclusiveness and specifically target women and youth while ignoring climate and sustainability concerns to a large extent. A comprehensive assessment of the drivers (and blockers) of agri-food system transformation seems mostly lacking. (page 47) 
• While the EU consistently supports agricultural research and innovation activities and their linkages with farmers, advisory and extension services, their engagement with food processing and the international climate change debate could be strengthened. (...) The evaluation identified few linkages with energy, and animal welfare sectors. (page 47) 
• To a limited extent, the EU is contributing to improving smallholders access to markets, agribusiness activities, healthy diets, and finance (page 54) 
• Joint priority setting and joint programming is introduced to a limited extent. Some opportunities for shared political economy analysis may have been missed.(...) In the often-volatile political landscape, that characterises the governance of agri-food systems, the EU develops a judicious approach to deal with shifting and at times adverse, domestic political interests in the host country as well as sometimes diverging trade and development interests of EU MS, and international private sector. (page 54) 

Given the shared competencies in SAFS-related policy areas, the EU and EU MS would have to agree on common objectives, complementary strengths, instruments and modalities, and common indicators by which to track the outcomes of ‘loosely coordinated’ actions. And decide to base their support on joint assessments of possible food system scenarios, recognising the drivers of agri-food system transformation and linkages between different relevant policy areas.(page 54) 

• In Kenya,  the food security and resilience focal sector became one for ‘Job creation and resilience (...) This support is likely to improve the living standard of those communities but does not help progress towards the commercialisation of farming and the expansion of agro-processing. (page 48) . (...) Very few examples exist of synergies between EU interventions, such as other programmes making use of agricultural research done by KALRO. (...) Moreover, the Agriculture and Rural Development section staff is very busy with planning and implementing the high volume of support, leaving limited time for cooperation with others. (...) As staff members are each responsible for several programmes, managing these through identification and formulation, approval, contracting, contacts with implementing agencies, field visits including meetings with county officials and beneficiaries, monitoring, reporting, organising Mid-Term Evaluations or final evaluations, etc. takes up most of their time. (page 51)
• In Niger, EDF projects contributed to a range of objectives such as sustainable agro-pastoral intensification, improved water access for smallholders, strengthened institutional capacity at decentralised level, or improved nutrition, with very limited attention to value chains. (page 48) 
• In Malawi, EU-funded FNSSA interventions are well aligned with national priorities. (...) The EDF-funded programmes contributed to a range of objectives such as increasing and diversifying agricultural production; improving women and children’s dietary intake; supporting commercialisation and value addition of smallholders’  production; improving farmers and MSMEs’ access to finance; rehabilitating and improving rural transport infrastructure; improving the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities through the participatory management of forests; and mainstreaming climate change into agricultural and land management practices. (page 49) [But]the programmes lack a common approach, workplan or vision integrating contributing institutions, and the complex design and fragmented implementation have resulted in limited progress. (page 50)
• In Colombia private stakeholders have expressed concerns about potential changes in policies and directives following the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy that could significantly impact important export-oriented agri-food industries. A concrete example is the potential prohibition of the use of the fungicide Mancoceb in the banana value chain. (page 52)

Promotion of SAFS agenda

The EU faced important challenges in supporting the promotion of a SAFS agenda at country level .The EU must deal with conflicting policies and interests at country level. At country level, conflicting policies and interests constitute obstacles to EU efforts of promoting SAFS. 

• In Kenya, Netherlands and Ireland aimed to introduce potato seed and acquire certification but met with hostility from the National Potato Council against imported varieties, leading to fierce competition between promoters of the new varieties and foreign as well as national promoters of local varieties; unfortunately happening against the backdrop of acute shortages of potato seed during the planting season.  (page 57)
•  In Malawi, where a comprehensive approach was rolled out, programmes are not based on comprehensive agri-food system assessments, nor have results frameworks been developed that allow tracking progress on (sub)system-level indicators. Planning and implementation continue without sufficient and widely shared insight into the different and sometimes competing interests of the multiple stakeholders involved, limiting understanding of the drivers and barriers to agri-food system transformation. (page 58)
• In Haiti, government trade policies have long benefited large food importers instead of local food producers, while EU-support attempted to foster sustainable smallholder production.  (page 57)
• In Colombia, unique challenges were faced in maintaining coherence between development objectives relating to sustainable and inclusive development and climate change and the practices of European companies.  (page 57)

Recommendations / Lessons (extracts)

• The EU should enhance its contributions to sustainable food system governance at national, regional, and global level through a clearer common approach.(page 103)  
• Maintain a clear strategic focus at country and regional level on the most vulnerable food system actors, namely, small producers, women, youth and small and medium-sized enterprises. (page 10)  
• Support joint agri-food systems’ assessments and strengthening the use of foresight and scenario studies and political economy analyses. This would enable the joint identification of the most promising entry points for supporting sustainable agri-food system-level changes. (page 11) 
• Learn from the broad range of bottom-up programming instruments (page 11) 
• Agri-food system stakeholders are, to an overwhelming degree, private operators acting within the prevailing regulatory, financial, marketing, and quality support space, and subject to its constraints. A characteristic of most business ecosystems today is that some entrepreneurs do better than others in gaining access to enabling resources. Generally, remote, small-scale, resource-poor entrepreneurs find it more difficult, even if they are innovative. Therefore, the EU must tailor its support to meet the needs of smallholders, women, youth, MSMEs and start-ups for a fair chance to meaningfully participate in and benefit from the transformation of SAFS.  (page 94) 
• DG INTPA should work with line DGs and other European partners – including EU MS and European financial institutions – to develop a framework for external action support to SAFS shared by all European actors involved in external action that would lay out their common ambitions as well as set core targets and indicators allowing joint monitoring of investments in SAFS and results. (page 103) 
• Graduation frameworks may help to define practical pathways for adjusting support mechanisms in line with gradual improvements in the livelihoods of vulnerable groups participating in agri-food system transformation.   (page 94) 
• In preparation for support to SAFS transformation, assessments should therefore focus on system-level understanding to identify the drivers of and constraints to transformation. These would include a political economy analysis to identify winners and losers are if current unsustainable trends continue, and how vulnerable groups can be supported to develop more sustainable practices. (page 95) 
• So far, EU support to agri-food systems has been concentrated at the lower ends of the food value chain. Much transformational potential can be gained by strengthening the linkages with and support along the entire value chain to rural and urban food processors, retailers, and consumers. The EU (DG INTPA and EEAS/EUDs) should strengthen its support for local and national MSMEs along the entire food value chain. (page 103) 
• The EU should act at various levels to ensure that a ‘One EU’ approach is operationalised to support transformation towards more sustainable agri-food systems. (...) The EU should develop a common understanding of context-specific challenges and opportunities at country and regional level  (page 104) 
• The EU should continue to invest strongly in articulating, orienting, and strengthening agri-food knowledge and innovation systems. (...)  DG INTPA and EUDs should capitalise more systematically upon and learn from relevant local, national, and international initiatives and mobilise the strengths of public, private and civil society partners for sustainable agri-food system transformation. Joint, systemic and coupled learning and innovation is key to developing effective food system transformation pathways.  (page 105) 
• So far, little attention and resources have been dedicated to documenting and learning from support interventions that were considered effective in supporting food system stakeholders in achieving sustainable agri-food system outcomes. DG INTPA should invite the HARD group to strengthen its capacity to capitalise upon and learn from the broad range of bottom-up programming instruments already developed by EU partners both inside and outside Europe.  (page 105) 
• In particular, DG INTPA and EUDs are to further develop space for knowledge sharing, operational research, and on-the-job learning from Team Europe initiatives for agri-food system transformation. (page 105)