A global redesign? Building back better and equitable food systems

Dr Helen Harwatt

Hello, everyone, and a warm welcome to today’s webinar. I’m Helen Harwatt from Chatham House and I’m very happy to be facilitating what I’m sure will be an interesting event and lively discussion. So, just before we move into that, a little bit of housekeeping to go through. So, the webinar is taking place on the record and is being recorded. It’s also being livestreamed, and we have further audience members joining via the Chatham House website. We encourage all of our audience members to tweet using the #CHEvents, and, also, just to note that we will be doing a ‘Q&A’ section, so, please do make use of the ‘Q&A’ function and submit questions throughout the event. We also have a upvote function in there, so do feel free to use that, as well, to indicate to us which topics are of most interest to cover in that session. So, during that session, as well, there is an option to actually ask your question directly to the audience using your microphone, so, do indicate if you would like to do that, as well.

And we’re delighted to be hosting this event today on Rethinking Global Food Systems. We’re actively engaged on this issue at Chatham House. So, for example, the Global Health Programme has been working on ways to foster improved governance, support open election processes and support transparency across major international organisations as part of its second century goal promoting sustainable and inclusive governance. We currently have a programme of ongoing work, focused on the food and agriculture Rome-based agencies, including IFAD, which builds on previous DG election related projects with the FAO, the WHO and the WTO, looking at governance issues. And in the Energy, Environment and Resources Department, we look at the environmental health impacts of food systems, including climate, land, biodiversity and zoonotic diseases, and we also look at trade issues and policy solutions. And just as a recent example of our work, last week we published a paper on biodiversity, we – where we evaluated the impacts of the food system on biodiversity loss globally and identified three levers to achieve food system change. And we laid out a series of recommendations for making the food system reform, a key aspect of the numerous high-level political events, such as the CBD COP15, the UN Food Systems Summit, and the UNFCCC COP26, against the backdrop of the Build Back Better agenda, during what has been termed “the soup year”.

So, I’m delighted to be joined today by three speakers. So, we have Gilbert Houngbo, Michael Kremer and Esther Penunia. And just to give a little bit of a background to the event, so, the format is that we will have Gilbert speak for around ten minutes, where he will lay out his vision and his mandate in his opening statement. Following this, we will have a panel discussion with Michael and Esther, where they will directly respond and we will discuss some of the issues around that, for around 20 minutes, and then we’ll be opening for the last 25 minutes to the audience for the ‘Q&A’. So, do keep those questions coming in as we go through.

So, first of all, I’d like to introduce Gilbert Houngbo, who became the 6th President of the International Food for Agricultural Development in April 2017. Gilbert has more than 30 years’ experience in the public, multilateral and private sectors, including as Deputy Director-General of the International Labour Organization, Prime Minister of the Togolese Republic and a number of Executive level positions at the UN Development Programme, including Director of Finances, Chief of Staff and Assistant Secretary-General. So, Gilbert, we invite you now to lay out your vision for your mandate in the opening statement of up to around ten minutes. It’s over to you, thank you.

Gilbert F. Houngbo

Thank you so much for – and, first of all, let me thank the Chatham House too for organising this session that will allow us to be able to debate with panel members and, as well as responding to questions that the audience may have. So, distinguished colleague, ladies and gentlemen, five years ago, almost day-by-day, I was a candidate for IFAD Presidency, and I did so because of my fundamental belief in a more equitable world, a world without poverty and a world without hunger. And IFAD, for me, is an institution very well placed to contribute to such an ambition. My objective was then, to lead this institution to a place where it could deliver more and deliver better, because clearly, I do believe that IFAD can make a real and lasting contribution to the resilience of rural people and the creation of rural prosperity and sustainable, inclusive and equitable food systems. But I was also aware, four/five years ago, aware that in order for us, in order for IFAD to contribute to the transformation of the rural world, IFAD first has to transform itself. So, for the past four years, I have worked, together with the whole team at IFAD here, to lay the groundwork for IFAD to deliver on a much more ambitious agenda.

So, my first term as IFAD President has been focused on reforms, be it from a financial reform, the operational reform and institutional reforms, to enhance the effectiveness and improvement management, transparency, value for money, gender balance and social dialogue with staff. These changes, oh, today, I consider they are paying off. One important I mention is that the reforms – of the reform has been the decentralisation, when I took over, we had 16% of staff in the field and today we have double, to anywhere between 32 and 35%, because IFAD, we target, you – most of, you know, IFAD target the poorest of the poor community in the poorest country, the last mile, the remotest area. So, you can imagine that serving that community, while keeping 85%, or so, of the staff in headquarters, is not the best strategy. So, we really want us to be closer to the people that we are serving. So, decentralisation has brought us closer to those people and to the people we are serving and the governments that we partner with, and that has allow us to respond faster to their needs. So, being less headquarters centric is also helping IFAD to increase our own visibility and our relevance in-country as a fully-fledged development partner.

One of, also, the impact of the reform is interesting to know that last year, for example, our project reached more than 130 million people of – and half of it, or almost half of it, are women. This is a 36% increase in comparison to the 97 million people that we reached in 2016, and that give you another dimension of the impact of the reform. You know, it’s good to also know that every single year, at least 20 million poor people will have increased their annual income by at least 20%, given the work that IFAD is doing, by increasing their productivity, the food security and the nutrition, as well. So, you can see that the target that we set for ourself, in doing those reform, is to create a condition for IFAD to be able to double its impact by 2030, and I’m very confident that we are in the right trajectory for that.

So, looking ahead, what I had in mind is to consolidate, in the coming years, to consolidate these reforms made over the past four years, so that we can, as I was saying a few second earlier, concretise our objective, our ambition, of doubling our impact by 2030. This consolidation will focus on three mutually enforcing areas. Firstly, is the decentralisation, second is the two dedicated investment programme that we are launching, which is the ASAP approach for the climate change for the rural communities, particularly the adaptation side, as well as the private sector, that we really want to step up as well.

Lastly, we also want to pursue our financial innovations, in order to continue widening and broadening our resource base. Specifically, we commit to having, in terms of the decentralisation, the 35%, the 32/35% I mentioned earlier, our game plan is to move to 45% of our global workforce in the field by 2025, while also investing in strengthening operations at the headquarters.

The ASAP approach that I referred to in the private sector, we will directly address two of the greater development challenges of our time, one is climate change and opportunities for youth, by leveraging private sector investment. Our other approach, which is the Adaptation for Small Agriculture Programme Plus, will plug some of the financing gap for climate change adaptation, and this is going to be a central programme for us, because why the total annual climate financing is now around US$½ trillion. Is important to note that only 1.7% reaches the small-scale farmers in developing countries. So, you can understand why we really want to step it up.

Equally important is the IFAD Private Sector Financing Programme, you know, it’s important. IFAD may recall or remind all of us that 80% of the world young people live in developing countries and they are two to three times more likely to be unemployed than the adults and they are also more likely to migrate when they have no opportunities at all. In Africa, alone, for example, 60% of young people live in rural area, so, as a result, this programme for us is specifically focusing on the rural youth and rural entrepreneurship and on developing small and medium-sized rural business.

Finally, in order for us to double IFAD impact by 2030, we need to grow and grow financially, so, the third element is the increased resource mobilisation by capitalising on IFAD’s new credit rating. You know that in last October we did get the AA+ credit rating from both Standard & Poor and Fitch. So, our objective, the – this credit rating opens the possibility for us to expend and diversify our resource base in a way that brings more capital to our programming activities, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable countries, while at the same time, we need, obviously, to preserve the overall quality of our balance sheet of our assets.

A huge financing gap, if I may recall this, threatens the world’s ability to deliver on SDG2 of zero hunger. So, we need to leverage ODA to attract more resources and this, again, what the credit rating will help us to do, the ability to supplement core ODA contribution with non-ODA resources, is essential for IFAD to double its impact, even in these current difficult times.

Precision agriculture is another area demanding more investment. The use of digital technology to access customised agricultural information in real time and the potential to be transformat – that real time information has the potential to be transformational. It has shown its great potential in time when extension workers can not reach farmers and can be even more transformational, if it is taken to scale, because it’s happened already, but we really need to bring precision agriculture in rural area to scale.

Just in closing, it’s important for us to really keep in mind that, for rural people, food is both their sustenance and their livelihoods. We need food system to be equitable and fair, not only fair to food producers, but also fair to processors, as well as everyone along the whole value chain. So, I am convinced that doubling IFAD impact by 2030 is within reach and making sure that marginalised rural girl and women, indigenous people, people with disabilities are part of the value chain, and that will promote agriculture practices that preserve the Earth’s natural resources and protect biodiversity. Those are the global challenge that we are looking forward.

So, IFAD job is to reach those who are often forgotten, those who are often marginalised, and to give them the tool to enable them to realise their hopes and to live a stronger and more decent and resilient life in their communities. Thank you so much, let me stop here for a moment.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Gilbert. I’d like to move now to the panel discussion, where we’ll spend around 20 minutes with the panel to assess how governments, civil society, the private sector and multilateral organisations can better build resilience and equity into global food systems. So, I’m going to briefly introduce each panellist. So, first of all, we have Esther Penunia, who is the Secretary-General of the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development, a regional farmers’ organisation, and Michael Kremer, who is a University Professor in Economics in the Harris School of Public Policy and is also the Director of the Development Innovation Lab and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Michael, could we come to you first and if you could spend the next few minutes just responding, or adding some main points of discussion, however you would wish to use that time, just to respond to Gilbert’s manifesto there, or whatever other discussion points you feel important to bring up at this point. Michael, over to you.

Professor Michael Kremer

Great, thank you very much. You know, this is an exciting agenda that we’ve just heard and let me just expand a little bit on why I believe it’s so important. You know, the COVID epidemic that we’re living through right now is a reminder of that we need resilient systems, and we’ve seen what’s happened when we’re not resilient to disease shocks. We’ve also seen the importance of innovation, in this case through vaccines, in making sure that we can respond to those shocks. We’ve also seen the importance, and in some cases, the inadequacy, of systems for providing global public goods and for ensuring that innovations reach people equitably.

Now, right now, it’s, in some ways, very hard to think about anything except for COVID-19, but I think the world is vulnerable, not just to these types of health emergencies, but we’re vulnerable to shocks to food emergencies, to food systems, and, you know, we’ve seen that. We’ve seen – we’ve had early warnings. Just like SARS or MERS were early warnings of COVID-19, we’ve had early warnings of threats to our food systems. We’ve seen the food price spikes that have happened, we’ve seen fall armyworm or locusts just in The Horn of Africa, East Africa, alone. We’ve – and as the President just outlined, you know, there’s the looming threat of climate change, which is perhaps the biggest threat out there of all.

The work of IFAD is going to be key to trying to address these challenges and, also, for – I don’t just want to focus on the challenges, but also, taking advantages of new opportunities. You know, just as we face challenges in the future, there are also going to be opportunities. We heard about the discussion of precision agriculture and digital technology is opening up all sorts of new opportunities for the world, but unfortunately, precision agriculture is something that is reaching high-income farmers, but is not necessarily reaching all farmers.

So, this is an ambitious vision that’s been laid out. The goal here is going to be a tough one to meet appropriately. But it’s a necessary goal, but the goal of doubling the impact by 2030 is not going to be easy. It’s good that we’ll need resources for it, the credit rating improvement is good and to be congratulated. The decentralisation on moving more stock to the field is very valuable. I think having some – I think that does need to be complemented with dedicated programmes, as was laid out. You know, adaptation and climate change clearly is something that justifies that. There’s the private sector. The – I do think that one case where some type of centralised funding is valuable is when you’re funding innovation that can be a global public good and that will – where the benefits will reach not just one country, but multiple countries. And I think that’s – and ensuring that that innovation will benefit all, that it will benefit youth, as we heard, the women, indigenous communities, that’s not something that will necessarily happen if left to the market alone. That will require some central global support.

I would – you know, digital agriculture is an area that I’ve worked on, so let me just conclude with that. You know, this is an area where I’ve worked as a Researcher. I think there’s a lot of evidence now of the impact that this can have. Just reading some exciting new papers from a variety of Researchers adding to that evidence base in the past few weeks. I think, as the President said, I think this is a – we have a unique opportunity now in this area. You know, COVID-19 as a crisis, it’s obviously directly affected the ability food systems and the ability of extension workers to go out and work, but this may be a case where, in adapting to the crisis, we can actually set the stage for a direction that we need to go in. Because if we’re going to reach – achieve these goals and reach – and double the number of people reached, we’ll need new cost-effective tools to do so, and digital technologies are one way to do that. They’ll need a lot of work to ensure that they reach everybody, but I think bringing them to scale, as the President said, is going to be an important part of the solution. Thank you.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Michael, and next, if we could invite Esther to spend a few minutes responding to Gilbert’s vision, please. Over to you, Esther.

Estrella ‘Esther’ Penunia

Yes, thank you, Helen, and a pleasant day to everyone. Listening to President Houngbo, I just remembered that last year I, together with other farmers’ organisations all over the world, were in Rome, almost at the same time this year, for the Global Farmers’ Forum Process. I think it was the last travel that most of us had, now, before COVID-19, huh, that travel in Rome. And we know that two years before that, there was a Regional Farmers’ Forum, it was part of the decentralisation process of this Global Farmers’ Forum. And we know, also, that last week, or two weeks ago, you had the Indigenous People’s Farmer – Indigenous People’s Forum.

So, I would like to start with this, because the Farmers’ Forum and the Indigenous People’s Forum are, we think, is a very clear manifestation of IFAD to work in partnership with its, what they call, beneficiaries in their projects, but what we want to be called as partners and active actors in the work for promoting sustainable food systems. So, what do we mean by sustainable food systems? It’s a food system that is empowering to the most marginalised sectors of the – of a country or of the world, the sector who produces the food that we – that the whole world eats and the sector who has the most potential to really upscale sustainable innovations and the necessary support, the necessary assistance, to develop their own potentials and harness their full capabilities.

So, in sustainable food systems we have heard so much about innovations, and what – innovations and many game changing solutions, but I would like to really dwell on one thing that I think – we think can strategically transform our food systems, it’s that partnership. It’s the strategy for partnering with organisations of farmers, of fishers, of pastor release, of women, of indigenous peoples, who will upscale, who will innovate and upscale food systems, and IFAD, you’re doing good work on that already. So, for example, in our part of the world, in Asia, we have a partnership with IFAD. It’s called the Asia-Pacific Farmers’ Programme. Right now, we received grants from IFAD to build our capacities, to manage our own organisations and to provide economic services. We have also received from IFAD a grant for – called ARISE, which is, basically, an emergency and resiliency fund, so that we can respond to the challenges brought about by COVID to our member family farmers.

In the field, in some of your projects, we have seen the partnership between the IFAD country portfolio projects and the farmers’ organisations, like in Cambodia, when our member organisation was a support – was a service provider in conducting financial literacy programmes to the farm – to the target participants of IFAD project. And in Laos, for example, you are supervising a GAFSP funded project, and you have entered into a partnership with our member there and even inviting them to be part of the Steering Committee.

So, what does partnership mean for us? Partnerships, for us, means not only being beneficiaries of IFAD projects, whether it – these are loans or grants, but it’s, basically, us as equal co-partner in the design, in the implementation and in the monitoring and in the evaluation of the IFAD funded projects, and basically, all – hopefully, in all projects that receive – for exam – that are part of the development assistance. Because being active partners will propel us to organise ourselves, for example, to think through what we can present to the government and to the development partners, in terms of our solutions, our game changing ideas. It will also propel us to build our capacities to really make you see that we will be capable of also implementing that this – the solutions and innovations that we take. So, in terms of, for example, innovations in agriculture, like farmers to be considered also as Scientists and as Researchers in a participatory action research approach in agriculture innovations and experiments, in the field of really developing and implementing projects, it’s, basically, for example, we can – at the idea level, we are part of the governance structure of our financial instruments, for example. Or that you are developing, like ASAP 2, or being able to advise, for example, now, the IFAD, in terms of the country portfolio that they are making, by making consultations at the ground level, following your COSOP strategy.

So, partnership, also, that talks about clearly sitting together and planning, designing projects that will be good, no, on the ground, and including women and including youth in this discussion. So, I hope that these world partnerships with farmers, with indigenous peoples, and when we say farmers, women and youth, pastor release, fishers, no, I think this – we hope that this will be a key strategy in empowering, also, farmers and in – to promote sustainable food systems. So, that is all for my side for now. Thank you, Helen.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Esther, and thank you also for your contributions. There’s many interesting points there that you’ve all brought up, but first of all, I just wondered if, Gilbert, would you like to directly respond to any of the points raised by Michael and Esther so far?

Gilbert F. Houngbo

No, maybe very quick – if I start from what – where Esther left it. Clearly, I want to recognise that need to move from a beneficiary approach, to a partner approach. So, quite frankly, I want to thank Esther. Very often, I’m telling my people that in a lot of discussions that we have from time-to-time with Esther and her team, we always get the good ideas out of that and this is one of it that you can make sure that I’m going to pursue on that. We start that discussion, the, what I call the agency dimension, the ownership and dimension. The sustainability of our action, it really depend a lot on the ownership by who we are serving on that. So, this is really why – and to see how she put it very squarely in the centre of – or intervention is something that I will certainly come back in moving forward in implementing our three key points that I lay down in my introductory remarks.

One point on that Professor Kremer made, which, of course, I meant to say, for that point that I fully agree with, one point that he puts very squarely a theme is meant to be important, we look at that. One is innovation, the second one is the whole resource, and the resource comes back to the gap we have, in terms of achieving the SDG2. So, I’m making the name of the innovation, because for me, the innovation, on one hand, we need to look at it from technology perspective, as I talk about – I keep talking about it that unless we, you know, unless we raise the productivity of our small-scale producers, we will not be effective in helping them doubling their income, as required by the SDG2.3 So, the productivity is quite critical, in my view, both the productivity of the productive resources, equipment, and the productivity of the farmers themselves, as an individual. So, for that, I think the use of technology is going to be essential.

On the flipside, I see, also, the innovation in our financial products, our ability to come with – obviously, the credit rating is a step, but is far, far from being sufficient for us to solve the resource gap issue. So, we will like to be also innovative in creating different financing instrument that would be responding to the condition of our partners that we are serving, and will also innovative product that will help us, also, mobilising and the resource out there to complement our poor resources. Is important to keep it in mind that today ODA has been surpassed by even the remittances, for example, or the Foreign Director investment, the FDI, in the low-income countries. So, the financial innovation is going to be important. So, that – I want to leave that to the necessity for us to looking at ways to increase the – to resource mobilisation, particularly as related to the rural community.

My first points, when we talk about a resilience that Michael referred to, what comes to my mind, as I was saying earlier this morning in another meeting, today we’re talking about COVID, which is a really big challenge for all of us. Yes, and there maybe was a tsunami in the foreign part of the world. Tomorrow we don’t know, but very likely, we will have other crisis, so, developing the resilience as a global thing is going to be essential. What I’m leading at, also, is that when I look at the rural community and I want to insist on the rural transformation, so, to transform that rural for the community to have a decent life, it takes more than just fighting against food insecurity. It has to be a total approach. Food insecurity had to be a part of it, but also, health education, security, are all as a – you know, my dream is to have this community where it’s really decent to live, but you don’t have that much. I mean, I grew up in those communities, so, you know, you don’t have that much to envy the city. The city will always be attractive, and we will always have youngsters leaving the rural area for the city, that one is very clear, but the more we will be able to create those conditions, the better it will be for us all. Over.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Brilliant, thank you. So, we have around 20 minutes left. Unless Michael or Esther have any comments to make back to Gilbert, I think we should move onto the ‘Q&A’, ‘cause we have quite a number of questions coming in already. Do either of you want to come in now? No, okay, brilliant. So, we’re going to move to the ‘Q&A’ and first of all, we have one for Michael. So, “In regards to Michael’s point about a “centralised promotion of innovation as a means of securing economic and social inclusion for the marginalised youth and women demographics,” what specific measures would be effective in this centralised assistance? Would this involve promotion of entrepreneurship, increased access to seed and equity capital, making education for young people more conducive to innovation, or other measures?” Michael, over to you.

Professor Michael Kremer

Well, first, let me clarify. I think, you know, decentralisation, I’m broadly very supportive of the decentralisation agenda. There are some things that are global public goods that are difficult to find at the country level and, in particular, those are things that are promoting innovation. So, if it’s – if – that could be adopted, you now, widely across many places, so – because, you know, an individual country budget might not be able to take a – invest in something risky, where the payoff would be much broader.

Let me give you an example and, you know, let me – I’ll pick up here on something that Esther said, you know, or a couple of things that Esther said. Yeah, Esther pointed out the importance of bringing in farmers as active participants in research, for example. Well, there are a lot of exciting ideas about there – out there about citizen science, about how to involve farmers in the agricultural research process, but we also need to find ways to integrate that in with existing scientific efforts. Now, that’s something that we require – that requires methodological developments and we also may want to figure out how to do some of that digitally, as well, because if you want to bring in large numbers of farmers communicating co-operatively with each other, they could co-operate over social networks to do that. But that all requires some developments and testing of new ideas, farmer feedback of that. Now, if you work out how to do that in one country, that’s something that benefits – you know, we’ll have some failures along the road, but the benefits, if we can succeed, is something that could be scaled up across many countries. So, that requires not necessarily – it doesn’t mean that you have everything run in a top-down manner, but it does mean you need some central global funds to invest in it, and then fund a bunch of different decentralised efforts to try at, and then, in each one – but then, ask for careful reporting and monitoring and evaluation, so people can learn from each other.

And, you know, and just to make this a little bit more concrete, so, this isn’t really citizen science, but, you know, just, you know, we’re in the middle of hiring season in academics and I just saw a wonderful paper from someone from Pakistan, looking at an effort to use farmers to communicate with each other to hold government more accountable. They linked up the farmers, so they could give ratings, like Yelp ratings, to the Veterinarians who were doing artificial insemination. And some of them were doing a not very good job, they wouldn’t keep the liquid nitrogen there, the semen wouldn’t be – wouldn’t – would no longer work. Others were doing a good job. Well, suddenly, when farmers can communicate, who’s doing a good job and who’s not to each other, well, then, the Veterinarians, the good Veterinarians get more calls, the bad ones realise they’d better up their game a little bit. So, I think – now, that take – that was – this was done in Pakistan, but this same approach could be used all over the world. So, supporting many efforts like this is, I think, exactly the type of thing that IFAD, you know, can do and should do more of and, you know, we need more resources for.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Michael, and I think Camilla wanted to come in on that, as well. Camilla, if you’re there, feel free to come in. No, sorry, okay, Camilla has not – Camilla has chosen not to respond, okay. So, our next question, so “To Build Back Better,” this comes from a Nick Siegler, “To Build Back Better needs a radical changing in eating habits, both in the developing world and elsewhere, yet none of the speakers have mentioned consumption or consumers. What changes in consumption habits are necessary to build better food systems?” And let’s go with Esther, did you want to take a shot at this one?

Estrella ‘Esther’ Penunia

Yes, thank you for that question. So, of course, there must be a change in the consumption of food, you know. We have to go to healthy and nutritious diets. In developing countries, we can say that in the most remote areas, for example, who are not so much affected by commercial advertisements about food, food shops like that, or fast food, so, we can see that they are still more into their traditional staples, which are, we can say, traditional crops, which can still be very healthy and nutritious, you know, like millet and sorghum. In the science world these are called forgotten foods or neglected and underutilised crops, no. But, you know, poverty, in many developing countries, are compelling, are forcing people to eat less healthy and nutritious food.

Like, for example, in the Philippines, we have cases of diab – so, we have so many cases of diabetes, no, diabetes, and diabetes, we have – we were thinking, oh, it’s a disease of the rich people, no, the rich people. But no, it’s – now it’s a disease of also the poor people. Why? Because we don’t have much food, so we eat a lot of rice, with a little fish, we eat a lot of rice and our – we eat lots of white rice, which has lost its nutrients, or we will just buy the instant Pancit Canton noodles and add some vegetables and one Pancit Canton will be shared by a family of five people. So, our diets have – has not become that healthy. Then coupled with in that for the lower and mid – for the middle and upper classes, so the massive influx or proliferation of advertisements for fast food and junk food, so, they tend to buy more of these foods when they have the money.

So, I think that the eating habits in our countries, in the developing countries, should be changed by, really, an awareness, a massive awareness raising of that these foods, although they have a connotation that these are foods eaten by the poor, are actually very healthy and that we should continue to eat all these vegetables that are just planted in the backyard, no. So, eat these and then also have this awareness that many – some of the foods, especially the fast foods, are not healthy at all, no, and therefore, you should not crave for it every day. So, the education should start from the children and, in fact, from the mothers themselves, because it’s the mothers who prepare this food for the – for their children. So, I think IFAD and many other development partners have now gone to nutrition as a component, for example, in their development projects and they are including nutrition classes for women and children and then are really trying to in – out – make the women aware about the nutritional or the healthy – health benefits of these foods. Back to you, Helen.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Esther, and I wondered, Michael, if I could bring you in on this, as well? I mean, obviously, there’s the convergence of the literature on the need for high-income countries, especially, to go towards a more plant-based or plant-rich diet profile. I wondered if you had any views on other instruments that might be different to the ones that Esther laid out and to help, sort of, tackle that end of the spectrum around consumption?

Professor Michael Kremer

Sure. Well, let me refer to another recent paper. This is a paper from Chile. Chile just recently introduced a food labelling system and you’ve just saw a recent evaluation of this, suggesting that it was to give consumers more information and to make that information more salient for consumers. And, you know, they suggest – the evidence is that this is, indeed, leading to improvements, and not just directly through the effect on the consumers, but also because the manufacturers were changing their manufacturing techniques to qualify to label appropriately, and in the process, they were making the foods more healthy for people. But I think we, you know, we do need to address, as the materials outline, both the challenges of undernutrition and the challenges of obesity, and that’s going to be, you know, that’s going to be an important part for the future.

You know, again, just, you know, one way that we can be using – trying to promote resilience on the undernutrition side of this using the technologies, is, you know, we can move towards a system where we can rapidly identify where problem – where shocks are hitting, where droughts are hitting. If you look at, for example, what India’s been able to do with its national identity system, on giving – they can – you can now have systems, or – where you could identify why the people are living, the farmers are living, who are being hit by shocks, and you could target the food or other benefits to them in a way that’s very responsive. So, you know, Mexico, for example, has a system of providing dairy subsidies. There are pluses and minuses of such, but – such systems, but you could target those to the people who need it in a very responsive way. So, I think finding ways that we can have adaptive, resilient programmes for social protection, and in particular on the food and nutrition side, is going to be an important challenge, going forward.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Michael, and next we have a question from Osman Dar, who’s going to actually ask this one live. Osman, are you there?

Osman Dar

Hi, thanks for some really interesting insights so far. We’ve had controversy at the recent WTO DG election, with a stalemate over the appointment of the winner because of one member state’s objections. That deadlock was finally broken last week. Gilbert, are UN agencies and other multilateral agencies transparent and accountable enough in their election and leadership processes and do you feel that more needs to be done in the food and agriculture space, specifically? And I’m thinking about, you know, the Rome-based agencies that deal with food and agriculture. I know it’s a tough question, but please, we’d like your insights and thought on this.

Gilbert F. Houngbo

May I go ahead?

Dr Helen Harwatt

Gilbert, yes, please.

Gilbert F. Houngbo

Yeah, thank you so much. As you said, yes, it’s a tough question, but I fundamentally believe that the experience that we have here in IFAD appointment processes four years ago and what we’re doing this year, including what Chatham House is doing, quite frankly, I believe is the way forward. I remember four years ago, when we were eight or nine candidate, if I recall, and the hearing process has been quite – very open and very driven, substantive – substance driven. Quite frankly, I don’t know if I will have been elected four years ago, if it was not substance driven, unless it’s [inaudible – 52:11]. So, although in the multilateral, lessons should be pragmatic, you just cannot totally exclude political interference, positive or negative, but we – multilateral is also political. So, for me to have the policy – the political, the politic involve, is not what’s surprised me or worries me most, but if the politics involvement is not the only consideration, if the substantive driven trying to find the right person on that, I think is the way forward.

To be honest, if today, I have to be very clear here, if today I can change a lot of things between IFAD and – or other institutions, I’m not even so sure that we should continue with the principle of a country having to propose a candidate. I, too, believe that when their candidacies let people go and get one or two, or maybe even a consortium of three, top hiring firm, or what have you, going through some kind of independent process to come with a number, I don’t know, three to five, and then bring that to the member states to continue grilling them, excuse my language, and interviewing them, before the election. So, there are a lot of thing that I think we could do to improve the system.

Obviously, there are cases that you will always have some exceptions. I mean, I’m not expert in WTO, but I think that WTO, the importance of consensus-based is something not to, you know, ignore, given that it’s – we’re talking, essentially, about negotiations which are quite – very difficult subject. One can understand some peculiarity to what I am saying. So, I’m not saying that that should apply 100% to everybody, but that should be the guiding principle or maybe the rules, then you have exceptions just to confirm the rule. Over.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Gilbert, and moving onto another question now, which I think covers a couple of interesting aspects that we’ve touched on briefly in the contribution so far. So, Siobhan Franklin is asking what the panel’s thoughts are on “promoting a longer-term view regarding pragmatic approaches?” Her experience is that “the limited short-term approach has been driven or forced on emerging markets by donor funders, which doesn’t seem to work for the long-term outcomes and impacts that we want to generate with regards to food security.” So, I think there’s probably a couple of interesting aspects there, if anyone would like to make a start on that one, Michael or Esther?

Professor Michael Kremer

Esther, do you want to go ahead?

Estrella ‘Esther’ Penunia

Okay, so, I agree with, I’m sorry, I didn’t get your name, but I agree with you and your comment, so that’s – that we should be thinking of development activities in the more longer-term approach, five years, even ten years, and then breaking down into, like, more short-term, like, one year or two years. What we are, a farmers’ organisation and we have been a recipient of several grants and many of the grants that we had were very short-term, like six months, or one year. So, it’s very difficult, because it’s very difficult, in terms of sustainability, because it’s always – all – we’re always like, also, being in the subsistence level, no. We are always concerned with how to move forward with our steps, with our ambition, or our vision. So, it is really very good that if donor – if development partners can really partner, for example, with farmers’ organisations in the longer-term, and that’s why with IFAD we are happy, because there is a partnership with farmers’ organisations more, like five years of IFAD and with EU, and with SDC there are partnerships that go until five years. And they are – we are compelled, we are motivated to make our own strategic plan, our own vision and mission, and that these longer-term projects are – we have to make – we have to align, no, these longer-term projects to our vision and mission, so that we – it could be sustainable.

And what we’re also doing, as part of, like, adaptation and resilience in the short-term projects, is we have this strategic plan, as a farmers’ organisation, and then, when we get short-term contracts, short-term projects, like six months or one year, we have to make sure that we can find this kind of activity in our overall strategic plan, so we know what it can contribute. It’s very difficult for farmers’ organisations to get into longer-term projects, because in – for the past years, there is very low credibility among with our – credibility with farmers’ organisations as recipients of bigger grants, so, we also thank our development partners, like IFAD, to – that helps us – that gives us our grants to build our capacities as a professional, as a trustworthy and a credible and legitimate organisation, build our capacities to partner, for example, with government, for the other light agriculture programmes that they have. So, back to you, Helen.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Great, thank you, Esther. Michael?

Professor Michael Kremer

Sure, yeah, I, you know, I very much agree that we need a long-term approach and I think that’s particularly important for innovation and, you know, let me give another example of – and this would be an example of a programme that was developed by BRAC on Bangladesh, initially. This is the Graduation Approach. This is to address fundamental food security issues for the most disadvantaged people, the poorest of the poor. They thought, okay, our microfinance programmes are not reaching these people, we need something else, and they developed a programme in which the – an asset, typically a livestock asset, would be provided. There would also be income support, there’d be trading, there’d be various types of support, all done by this – by BRAC, an organisation from Bangladesh.

Now, what they did, instead of just giving short-term support for this, there was funding to very carefully evaluate this and test the approach, and this has now been followed for – from quite some period of time, and we’ve seen tremendous results from this. Farmers are moving out of absolute poverty and there seems to be a long-term escape from a poverty trap. And this has now been adapted for many other countries and it’s also been tested in other countries, in India, in Ethiopia, Uganda, and the results are coming back similarly in these other places. So, this – you know, the evaluation, the careful evaluation, the development of the new approach, that’s something that can’t be done quickly and, you know – but it’s essential to getting the full potential of this, and now we have something that governments are adopting themselves, for example, in India, and is really reaching millions of people. So, I think this is – I think building in careful assessment and evaluation, iteration of new approaches, is vital, and that does require a long-term commitment.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Michael, and we’re actually already up to our hour mark, which is unbelievable. It’s gone so quickly and there’s still so many interesting issues, I feel, that we’re yet to dis – that – to discuss, including one question that raised the topic of a “Paris style agreement for food systems,” which I would’ve loved to have gotten into. Gilbert, did you want to just come in for one last remark before we close the session today? It looks like you wanted to say something then.

Gilbert F. Houngbo

Yeah, but I just want to, very quickly, really come back on this long-term approach, which is vital and to endorse the point made by Esther and Michael, and this exactly what IFAD is about. At the same token, I believe that message, we need that message to also go more often to the taxpayers, because they are the taxpayer that, in theory, will be financing ODA and the activity we are carrying out. What is happening, and we know it, Michael noted that very well, as well as Esther, it’s still always, everything being equal, relatively easier to mobilise resources when we have short-term crisis, a humanitarian or alike, than to mobilise the resources for the long-term development and lasting and sustainable activity. So, we really need to make sure that those long-term results, or the principle of investing in long-term, it’s also been understood by – on the taxpayers, and again, I’m – I – and my last point is that the Paris Agreement, I wish we had time to get into that, and this is also some – one of the elements. I was in Paris three weeks, or four weeks ago now, with One Planet Summit, where it’s going to be essential for us to see the linkage between the Paris Agreement in agriculture in general, and the adaptation in the rural community, as well. Over.

Dr Helen Harwatt

Thank you, Gilbert, and thank you to Esther and Michael, as well, for a really interesting discussion today. And thanks to everyone for participating as well, and these issues, as I mentioned at the beginning, are issues that we’re actively working on and engaged on at Chatham House. So, do keep abreast of our work by looking and checking on our website and also, for social media updates. And thanks again, everybody, have a great rest of your day wherever you are. Goodbye.

Professor Michael Kremer

Bye, thank you.

Gilbert F. Houngbo

Thank you so much. Goodbye to all.

Estrella ‘Esther’ Penunia

Bye, bye, thank you…

Professor Michael Kremer

Bye.

Estrella ‘Esther’ Penunia

…so much. Goodbye to all, bye, bye.

Professor Michael Kremer

Goodbye.