Policy paper

G7 Food Security Working Group financial report on food security and nutrition for 2021

Published 10 December 2021

Introduction

At the 2015 Summit in Elmau, Germany, the G7 committed to work with partner countries and international actors to aim to lift 500 million people in developing countries out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. To support this commitment the G7 adopted a Broader Food Security and Nutrition Development Approach (in Annex to the Leader’s Declaration) and decided to report annually on progress towards food security and nutrition with a set of agreed indicators. Some of the associated progress indicators already developed under Germany’s G7 Presidency in 2015 were included in the Ise-Shima Progress Report, published under Japan’s G7 Presidency in 2016. The first annual Financial Report on Food Security and Nutrition was published by the Italian Presidency in 2017. Two more reports followed, published by the Canadian Presidency in 2018 and by the French Presidency in 2019.

UK Presidency

G7 countries have shown continuous commitments to increase food security and nutrition: direct assistance from G7 countries for agriculture, fishing, food security, and nutrition rose from USD 8.8 billion in 2015 to USD 10.7 billion in 2019, and the proportion directed towards sub-Saharan African countries jumped from less than half to over 70% (USD 7.4 billion).

In 2021, considering the increase in global food insecurity, exacerbated by the pandemic, the G7 Food Security Working Group, the custodian to the Elmau Commitment which will meet every year until at least 2030,

• agreed principles for improved global food security monitoring and analysis, for better action and response, complementing the G7 Famine Prevention Compact
• added a qualitative assessment to this report of G7-supported interventions to promote sustainable agriculture
• confirmed the need for more support to be targeted at food insecure geographies affected by chronic crises, or by repeated shocks and stresses
• supported work with development finance institutions to better understand and manage physical climate risk, in particular in agriculture investments, and
• supported a process for enhanced contributions from private sector actors towards sustainable food and agriculture-related supply chains.

Several of these workstreams have made good progress in 2021. However, it will take more time and broader processes to achieve these ambitious objectives. We hope that this work will be developed further, broadened out and deepened in the years to come and look forward to supporting progress towards transformation.

Methodology

This report includes data on bilateral and multilateral financial commitments, and disbursements in the food security and nutrition sectors for the years 2018 and 2019, using a combination of OECD/DAC validated data and self-reported data for each of the G7 members. Indicators and a common Financial Reporting Methodology used in this report have been developed throughout the previous G7 presidencies and have been improved every year.

Indicators and definitions

Indicator	Overview	Definition
Indicator 2.1 - smallholder focus	Percentage of G7 member programmes on agriculture and rural development that include objectives and expected results to increase the incomes of smallholder farmers; Data source: self-reporting by G7 members	Number of committed G7 agriculture and Rural development programmes (CRS Code 311, 32161, 312,313, 43040) in partner countries with objectives and expected results to increase incomes of smallholders; divided by total number of G7 agriculture and Rural development programmes (CRS Code 311, 32161, 312,313, 43040); multiplied by 100
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Percentage of resources committed to agriculture that include specific gender objectives; Data source: OECD-DAC database (OECD Stat)	Volume of commitments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (i.e. 311, 312, 313) that is targeted at gender equality and women’s empowerment (OECD DAC marker for Gender equality and women’s empowerment 1 or 2), divided by total volume of commitments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (i.e. 311, 312, 313); Multiplied by 100
Indicator 2.3 - alignment with VGGT and RAI	G7 donors’ performance standards for ODA-supported investment instruments are reviewed to be aligned with the VGGT and the Principles for Responsible Investment (RAI) in Agriculture and Food Systems; Data source: self-reporting by G7 members	Performance standards for ODA-supported investment instruments are reviewed to be aligned with the VGGT and the Principles for Responsible Investment in Ag and Food Systems.
Indicator 2.4 - climate change adaptation and mitigation	Percentage of resources committed to agriculture that include climate adaptation and/ or mitigation objectives; Data source: OECD-DAC database (OECD Stat)	Volume of commitments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (ie 311, 312, 313) that is targeted at climate adaptation and / or mitigation (OECD DAC marker climate change adaptation 1 or 2; mitigation 1 or 2); divided by total volume of commitments dedicated to CRS Code 310 (ie 311, 312, 313); multiplied by 100
Indicator 2.4b – qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture	Short qualitative paragraph setting out progress on Sustainable Agriculture investments based on outcomes such as the 10 Core Performance Criteria & 5 Advanced Criteria of the FAO’s TAPE tool[footnote 1], agreed by G7 FSWG in 2021	-
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Resources committed to nutrition- specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions; Data source: Self-reporting based on N4G/SUN tracking of nutrition spending, OECD DAC database (CRS code 12240)	1. A) Absolute levels of commitments for nutrition-specific interventions; B) Percentage change in commitments for nutrition-specific interventions compared to baseline; 2. A) Absolute levels of commitments for nutrition-sensitive interventions; B) Percentage change in commitments for nutrition-sensitive interventions compared to baseline (Nutrition-sensitive: methodology applied according to/equivalent with “SUN DONOR NETWORK Methodology and Guidance Note to Track Global Investments in Nutrition”).
Indicator 2.6 – humanitarian-development nexus	G7 strategic focus to strengthen linkages between short-, medium- and long-term food security and nutrition support/programmes and to enhance transition between relief and development; Data source: self-reporting by G7 members	Existence (in G7 members administrations) of a multi-sectoral strategy to strengthen linkages between short- medium- and long-term food security and nutrition support, and its implementation exist or not.
Indicator 2.7 – indicators and analysis	G7 governments have provided technical support and/or funding to improve and/or expand capacities to collect, analyse, and/or use food security and nutrition indicators in support of SDG2 targets; Data source: self-reporting by G7 members	Existence of specific programmes/projects aiming at expanding capacities to collect, analyse, and/or use food security and nutrition indicators in support of SDG2 targets.
Indicator 3.1 – direct assistance	G7 members Direct Assistance for agriculture, fishing, food security and nutrition; Data source: self-reporting by G7 members	Absolute disbursement by G7 members dedicated to CRS Codes 311, 313, 32161, 520, 72040, 12240 worldwide; Absolute disbursement by G7 members dedicated to CRS Codes 311, 313, 32161, 520, 72040, 12240 for Sub-Saharan Africa
Indicator 3.2 – other assistance	G7 members other assistance with explicit objectives to improve people’s food security and/or nutrition; Data source: self-reporting by G7 members	Disbursement by G7 members dedicated to CRS Codes 112, 12220, 12261, 12281, 13020, 140, 16010, 16050, 16062, 210, 23210, 23310, 24030, 24040, 25010, 312, 32165, 32267, 41010, 41030, 43030, 43040, 43071, 43072, 43073, 73010, 74010 with keywords search approach

G7 Financial Report on Food Security and Nutrition 2018

Canada

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	64 / 114 = 56%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 192.2 / 213.8 = 89.9%; Marker 2: USD million 9.38/213.8 = 4.4%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3A – alignment with VGGT and RAI	1 star	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 183.5 / 213.8 = 86%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 176 / 213.7 = 82%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 105 = - 3%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 1,081.7 = -15%	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6B – humanitarian-development nexus	1 star	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7C - indicators and analysis	1 star	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 485.4

• 311 = 193.4
• 313 = 1.1
• 32161 = 5.8
• 520 = 14
• 72040 = 166.2
• 12240 = 105

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 236.6

• 311 = 102.1
• 313 = 0.2
• 32161 = 2.3
• 520 = 13.9
• 72040 = 74.2
• 12240 = 43.9

Indicator 3.2^D – other assistance

• USD million 65.1

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	0.0
WFP	Core (91%)	17.6
WHO	Core (2%)	0.2
UNICEF	Core (11%)	1.4
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	23.7
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	7.8
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	10.0
ADB	Core (8%)	2.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.2
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.0
	Total	62.9

^A: Canada does not explicitly review the VGGT or apply the principles in its project implementation

^B: Canada does not have a specific multi-sectoral strategy for linking short, medium and long-term food security interventions, but addresses food security needs indirectly through its comprehensive Feminist International Assistance Policy

^C: Canada does not have specific capacity building programmes for food security indicators, but supports statistical capacity of partner governments through broader programming initiatives

^D: Indirect support through maternal, new-born, child health programs, value-chain development or humanitarian response

France

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	35 / 48 = 72%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 271.3 / 488.3 = 55.5%; Marker 2: USD million 0.9 / 488.3 = 0.2 %; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 21.6 / 525.8 = 4.1%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 134.1 / 525.8 = 25.5%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 13.2 = + 161%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 66.1 = +188%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6 – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7 – indicators and analysis	1 star	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 348.8

• 311 = 292.464
• 313 = 0.921
• 32161 = 1.781
• 520 = 44.825
• 72040 = 2.398
• 12240 = 6.382

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 18.8

• 311 = 79.395
• 313 = 0.897
• 32161 = 0.00
• 520 = 29.185
• 72040 = 0.236
• 12240 = 4.977

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 18.8

Multilateral contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	14.8
WFP	Core (91%)	0.1
WHO	Core (2%)	0.5
UNICEF	Core (11%)	1.4
CGIAR	Core (55%)	1.5
IFAD	Core (82%)	108.0
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	28.5
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)
AFDB	Core (12%)	2.0
ADB	Core (8%)
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)
	Total	156.9

Germany

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1 A – smallholder focus	45 / 75 = 60.0%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 608.4 / 754.1 = 80.7%; Marker 2: USD million 4.9 / 754.1 = 0.6 %; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 547.2 / 754.1 = 72.6%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 157.3/ 754.1 = 20.9%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 46.2 = - 36.4 %; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 260.2 = + 85.4 %; 2 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6B – humanitarian-development nexus	2 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7 C– indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 1498.5

• 311 = 544.363
• 313 = 14.849
• 32161 = 2.08
• 520 = 280.18
• 72040 = 628.078
• 12240 = 28.934

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 556.9

• 311 = 215.453
• 313 = 5.446
• 32161 = 0.242
• 520 = 191.643
• 72040 = 124.564
• 12240 = 19.596

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 138.1

Multilateral contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	23.5
WFP	Core (91%)	30.1
WHO	Core (2%)	0.5
UNICEF	Core (11%)	6.5
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	17.7
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	21.1
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)D	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	5.1
ADB	Core (8%)	0.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.0
Others	African Development Fund (12%)	24.1
	Asian Development Fund (8%)	1.9
	Total	130.5

^A: Limited to programmes funded by BMZ; channel of delivery via GIZ & KfW (not considering support via multilateral channels or non-state actors).

^B: Process ongoing: BMZ strategy on transitional development assistance, including food security as one of several action areas, has been developed and finalized in July 2020.

^C: Programmes ongoing: 1. Since late 2017, GER supports a FAO study in multiple countries to improve the operationalization of the indicator Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W), recently developed by FAO. 2. Furthermore, GER supports the 50*2030 initiative that was launched in 2020. The Programme, implemented by the World Bank, FAO and IFAD, looks to improve country-level data by building strong, nationally representative integrated survey programs that produce high-quality and timely agricultural and rural data. 3. As of January 2020, BMZ implements the global support function of National Information Platforms for Nutrition (NIPN). NIPN, an initiative of the European Commission, provides support to countries for better nutrition information systems enabling countries to improve data analysis for better-informed strategic decisions. The global support function coordinates technical assistance and capacity building of nine platforms worldwide.)

^D: The German contribution to GAFSP is included as bilateral contribution in indicator 3.1.

Italy

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1 A – smallholder focus	460 / 601 = 76.5%, 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 80.5 / 108.7 = 74.1%; Marker 2: USD million 1.9 / 108.7 = 1.8%, 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	2 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 62.9 / 108.7 = 57.9%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 79.8 / 108.7 = 73.4%, 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 7.2 = + 36.0%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 15.6 = -27.6%, 2 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6 – humanitarian-development nexus	2 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7A – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 – direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total Disbursement: USD million 109.0

• 311 = 72.3
• 313 = 1.04
• 32161 = 1.29
• 520 = 3.93
• 72040 = 20.58
• 12240 = 9.88

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 39.6

• 311 = 28.6
• 313 = 0.2
• 32161 = 0.91
• 520 = 2.1
• 72040 = 2.14
• 12240 = 7.8

Indicator 3.2 – other assistance

• USD million 15.8

Multilateral contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	15.2
WFP	Core (91%)	12.9
WHO	Core (2%)	0.3
UNICEF	Core (11%)	0.9
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	6.9
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	7.4
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	N.D.
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	N.D
AFDB	Core (12%)	1.3
ADB	Core (8%)	1.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.3
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.1
OthersB		10.9
	Total	57.0

^A: Programmes ongoing: Italy supports the FAO programme “Global strategy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics” started in 2012 and ongoing in 2018. Italy started consultations on a new initiative and participated in preparatory works for supporting the multi-donor “50x2030 Initiative Data-Smart Agriculture”, implemented by WB-FAO and IFAD.”

^B: This amount is based on EVS to the following organisations: Bioversity, CIHEAM-IAMB, FAO, GDPRD, WFP, UNDP (average 73% of the total EVC contributes to food security and nutrition).

Japan

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	828 / 1167 = 71.0%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 829.1 / 1134.8 = 73.1%; Marker 2: USD million 0.2 / 1134.8 = 0.02%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3A – alignment with VGGT and RAI	1 star	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 657.9 / 1134.8= 58.0%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 253.6 / 1134.8 = 22.3%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5B – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 8.5 = + 245.9%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 63.1 = n.a.; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6C– humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7D – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total Disbursement: USD million 629.2

• 311 = 393.7
• 313 = 81.9
• 32161 = 5.3
• 520 = 82.2
• 72040 = 57.6
• 12240 = 8.5

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 196.3

• 311 = 90.2
• 313 = 34.5
• 32161 = 1.0
• 520 = 59.1
• 72040 = 4.5
• 12240 = 7.1

Indicator 3.2^E – other assistance

• USD million 1.6

Multilateral contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	43.9
WFP	Core (91%)	4.9
WHO	Core (2%)	0.9
UNICEF	Core (11%)	2.1
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	11.7
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	17.2
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	21.0
ADB	Core (8%)	43.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.9
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.1
	Total	145.7

^A: Japan does not currently screen initiatives against the VGGT and the Principles

^B: Japan used the following methodological approach for nutrition-sensitive commitments (From the time of reporting for 2016): Japan used a pre-identified subset of CRS objective codes linked to nutrition-sensitive outcomes（12220, 13020, 14030, 14031, 14032, 52010, 72040） to identify nutrition sensitive projects. As Japan recognizes these projects as partially nutrition-sensitive projects, 25% of the total commitments under these CRS codes is reported as the nutrition-sensitive commitments.

^C: Based on the Cabinet’s decision on the “Development Cooperation Charter” which includes multi-sectoral strategy, Japan has compiled and been implementing the Country Assistance Policy and the Rolling Plans tailor-made for specific situations of the recipient countries. These Policy and Plans, wherever appropriate, strategically encompass the short-, mid- and long-term assistance, to ensure seamless assistance for enhancing food security and nutrition.

^D: Japan provided financial support for projects aiming at improving agricultural statistics through international and regional bodies. Japan also offered bilateral technical assistance in this field through JICA.

^E: Japan is of the view that a consistent methodology should be used to calculate and report on its explicit objectives to improve people’s food security and/or nutrition in the Elmau Accountability Report. To establish the baseline figures for indicator 3.2, Japan used the following methodological approach: Japan used Creditor Reporting System (CRS) purpose codes listed under Definition; a key-word search in the project title and summary with “nutrition” and/or “ food security”.

United Kingdom

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1A – smallholder focus	24 / 48 = 50.0%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 162.2 / 427.5 = 37.9%; Marker 2: USD million 0.1/427.5 = 0.01%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	2 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 186.9 / 427.5 = 43.7%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 133.1/427.5 = 31.3%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 159.6 = +96.6%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 728.8 = +0.1%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6 – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7 – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total Disbursement: USD million 981.8

• 311 = 355.7
• 313 = 1.7
• 32161 = 0.0
• 520 = 47.4
• 72040 = 419.1
• 12240 = 158.0

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 551.6

• 311 = 129.9
• 313 = 0.5
• 32161 = 0.0
• 520 = 33.5
• 72040 = 279.9
• 12240 = 107.7

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 244.0

Multilateral contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	14.4
WFP	Core (91%)	48.6
WHO	Core (2%)	1.1
UNICEF	Core (11%)	7.0
CGIAR	Core (55%)	4.4
IFAD	Core (82%)	20.8
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	0.0
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	1.2
ADB	Core (8%)	0.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.0
	Total	97.5

^A: Data from the UK Commercial Agriculture Portfolio Reviews 2018 (CAPR 2018)

United States

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	32 / 67 = 47.8%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 186.9 / 1168.0 = 16.0%; Marker 2: USD million 413.3/1168.0 = 35.4%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3A – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 196.7 / 1168.0 = 16.8%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 204.4/1168.0 = 17.5%; 1 star	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 233.9 = +5.1%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 3134.0 = +30.2%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6B – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7C – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 4502.2

• 311 = 1,021.1
• 313 = 1.2
• 32161 = 1.4
• 520 = 962.7
• 72040 = 2,383.6
• 12240 = 132.2

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 2554.0

• 311 = 474.4
• 313 = 0.4
• 32161 = 1.4
• 520 = 663.1
• 72040 = 1,343.7
• 12240 = 71.0

Indicator 3.2 – other assistance

• USD million 404.2

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	170.8
WFP	Core (91%)	2040.1
WHO	Core (2%)	0.0
UNICEF	Core (11%)	616.8
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	17.1
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	238.2
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	6.9
ADB	Core (8%)	0.05
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)	19.4
	Total	3,109.2

^A: USAID has developed guidelines for responsible land-based investment and piloted use of the Analytical Framework for Land-Based Investment in African Agriculture with private sector firms. In addition, USAID’s PRO-IP and Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment policies align with key VGGT principles. The Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a separate USG development agency, formally adopted the IFC Performance Standards in 2012.

^B: (1) The Global Food Security Strategy (2016-2021) is a whole-of-government strategy to promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition that was launched in 2016 and expires at the end of September 2021. (2) USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025) addresses both direct and underlying causes of malnutrition, and its focus on linking humanitarian assistance with development programming helps build resilience to shocks in vulnerable communities. (3) The U.S. Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan (2016-2021) is an interagency effort to strengthen the impact of the many diverse nutrition investments.

^C: (1) The US Government, through the Global Food Security Strategy/Feed the Future Initiative, has provided technical support and funding to improve and expand capabilities to collect, analyze, and use food security and nutrition indicators in support of SDG2 targets through a number of investments. (2) USAID/Feed the Future co-created the 50x2030 Initiative to Close the Agricultural Data Gap with other bilateral and multilateral donors/development organizations to scale up survey programs and build national data systems capacity. (3) Additionally, beginning in 2018, USAID invested in research designed to generate Earth observations-derived estimates of poverty and of agricultural yields for selected crops for the Feed the Future Zone of Influence. These metrics correspond to SDG target 2.3.

European Union

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1A – smallholder focus	27 / 53 = 50.9%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 1068.2/ 1367.8 = 78.1%; Marker 2: USD million 0.0/1367.8 = 0.0%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3B – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4C – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 196.7 / 1367.8 = 14.4%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 204.4/1367.8 = 14.9%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2
Indicator 2.5D – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 118.7 = +102.0%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 526.0 = -4.0%; 2 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6E – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7F – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 2001.6

• 311 = 889.8
• 313 = 53.5
• 32161 = 19.5
• 520 = 327.9
• 72040 = 620.2
• 12240 = 90.7

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 1124.8

• 311 = 477.3
• 313 = 22.6
• 32161 = 6.4
• 520 = 173.3
• 72040 = 391.7
• 12240 = 53.5

Indicator 3.2^G – other assistance

• USD million 1675.1

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	0.3
WFP	Core (91%)
WHO	Core (2%)
UNICEF	Core (11%)
CGIAR	Core (55%)
IFAD	Core (82%)
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)
AFDB	Core (12%)
ADB	Core (8%)
IDB	Core (2%)
EBRD	Core (2%)
	Total	0.3

^A: Under the relevant DAC sector codes, the EU data present:

Donor agencies: EU Institutions (European Commission, European Development Fund and European Investment Bank).

Geographic coverage: All countries and regions except the EU candidate and potential candidate countries.

^B: The standard indicators for blending projects include due diligence reports for projects that affect land and property rights in line with the guidelines.

^C: As above note to indicators 2.1 and 2.2

^D: Nutrition data produced based on the SUN methodology

^E: The EU has a strategy for linking short-, medium- and long-term interventions. In response to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the EEAS “A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU’s external action” (SWD(2017) 226 final and SWD (2017) 227 final), the European Council also adopted several Conclusions on Resilience and the Humanitarian Development Nexus.

^F: EU has extended its ongoing “Food Security Portal” project to continue being a key source for food price monitoring, a real-time early warning system for food crises, statistics training from 2022 onwards on Phase 4:

• the ongoing “National Information Platforms for nutrition” project aims to strengthen capacity to analyse data, to track progress, inform policies and improve programmes for better nutrition

• with FAO, EU supports “Strengthening Food Security Statistics at country level to monitor Target 2.1 of the 2030 Agenda” project with its implementation in 2020-21. A new project is being elaborated with an orientation that FIES be integrated in regular national statistical surveys

• with World Bank, EU supports the 50x2030 Initiative to Close the Agricultural Data Gap through the Food Systems 2030 Multi-Donor Trust Fund to be implemented in 2020-2023; EU contribution is earmarked for the strategic direction “Innovation, Data Platforms and Technology

^G: Data present (USD 1675.1 million), as a result of resources tracking by project documentation, the total sum of the weighted budget amounts of the contracts signed in 2019 to finance food security and sustainable agricultural activities. Humanitarians aid flows not included.

G7 Financial Report on Food Security and Nutrition 2019

Canada

Indicator	Status	Thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	84 / 146 = 59.6%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 213.2/ 255.6 = 83.4%; Marker 2: USD million 32.1/255.6 = 12.6%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3A – alignment with VGGT and RAI	1 star	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 187.2 / 255.5= 73.3%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 103.9 / 255.5 = 40.7%, 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b – qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• guided by the Feminist International Assistance Policy, Canada’s investments in agriculture and food security supported the FAO’s TAPE tool criteria for sustainable agriculture with particular priority on gender equality, increasing productivity and incomes, improving nutrition outcomes and enhancing climate change adaptation. Canada’s investments supported agriculture and food system initiatives that focus on areas where women are more likely to work and can take on strong leadership roles. These initiatives included empowering women farmers in cooperatives and credit unions, strengthening agricultural markets, addressing land degradation and restoring critical ecosystems and productive areas, and supporting smallholder farmers and value-chain workers in adopting innovative and climate-smart approaches. A bilateral example is with the Cooperative Development Foundation of Canada’s INVEST COOP initiative in Indonesia, Malawi, Mongolia and Peru that is improving food security, nutrition and resilience to climate change for smallholder farmers, particularly women. The initiative has increased incomes and improved food security for over 140,300 smallholder farmers. For example, in Indonesia, it has helped seaweed cultivators introduce species that are resistant to climate change and disease, and create more durable eco-floats. In Malawi, farmers have increased yields by adopting improved agriculture practices, including using improved seed varieties, and better soil and water management. In Mongolia, the initiative helped farmers to purchase index-based livestock-insurance products that protected their incomes. In addition, farmers in Peru adopted practices to conserve biodiversity by diversifying and transitioning to organic farming. Multilaterally, Canada provided $70 million to the International Fund for Agricultural Development for climate-smart and gender-responsive agriculture in developing countries, with an emphasis on those in Africa. This investment helped smallholder farmers, especially women, strengthen their resilience to climate change and adopt technologies and practices that help mitigate the carbon footprint of agriculture. Investments in the portfolio during the reporting period were also strong in: increasing water use efficiency, mitigating climate change, and improving soil health.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 66.6 = -38.7%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 857.0 = -32.6%; 1 star	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6B – humanitarian-development nexus	1 star	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7C – indicators and analysis	1 star	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 381.7

• 311 = 136.2
• 313 = 3.4
• 32161 = 3.5
• 520 = 5.00
• 72040 = 166.9
• 12240 = 66.6

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 190.1

• 311 = 82.4
• 313 = 0.8
• 32161 = 1.4
• 520 = 5.0
• 72040 = 77.0
• 12240 = 23.5

Indicator 3.2^D - other assistance

• USD million 52.0

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	20.8
WFP	Core (91%)	17.1
WHO	Core (2%)	0.2
UNICEF	Core (11%)	1.3
CGIAR	Core (55%)	4.1
IFAD	Core (82%)	0.0
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	11.2
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	9.8
ADB	Core (8%)	2.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.3
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.0
	Total	66.9

^A: Canada does not explicitly review the VGGT or apply the principles in its project implementation

^B: Canada does not have a specific multi-sectoral strategy for linking short, medium and long-term food security interventions, but addresses food security needs indirectly through its comprehensive Feminist International Assistance Policy

^C: Canada does not have specific capacity building programmes for food security indicators, but supports statistical capacity of partner governments through broader programming initiatives

^D: Indirect support through maternal, new-born, child health programs, value-chain development or humanitarian response

France

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	46 / 71 = 64.8%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 73.3/ 541.7 = 13.5%; Marker 2: USD million 21.4/541.7 = 4.0%; 1 star	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 317.1/ 255.6 = 58.3%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 273.9/255.6 = 50.4%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b – qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• France supports FAO Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE) indicators which have been developed with the contribution of our French research organisms. TAPE indicators illustrate that agroecology is a holistic and context-specific approach acting on the three dimensions of sustainability: the environmental one as well as the economic and the social ones.
• In its international strategy for food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture (2019-2024) , France promotes agroecology and alignment of its development projects with the Paris agreement, in support of sustainable food systems, with particular emphasis placed on family farmers. Alongside, France also targets in its ODA the structuring of sustainable agri-food value chains to promote the creation of decent jobs in rural areas, with particular attention given to youth and women, as well as the resilience of vulnerable populations. Public investments in agriculture, food security and nutrition is also answering to two general commitments made by France: 50% of its ODA funding volume is gender responsive or sensitive by 2022 (see France’s international strategy on gender equality 2018–2022) and 100% alignment of French development Agency’s financial commitments with the Paris agreement by 2022 (taken in 2017).
• Among other achievements, 2019 French Development Agency’s bilateral commitments allowed to support (i) 246,000 family farms to increase their competitiveness and (ii) 7,200 family farms to perform their transition toward agro ecological systems. In addition, 8.880 million ha will benefit from sustainable management of natural resources programs and 6.974 million ha will benefit from conservation or biodiversity restoration programs.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 25.8 = +410.0%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 66.0 = +188.0%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6 – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7 – indicators and analysis	1 star	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 481.0

• 311 = 353.452
• 313 = 3.874
• 32161 = 50.188
• 520 = 19.795
• 72040 = 12.819
• 12240 = 40.828

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 189.8

• 311 = 95.286
• 313 = 1.191
• 32161 = 49.853
• 520 = 16.006
• 72040 = 3.367
• 12240 = 24.091

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 4.8

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	19.4
WFP	Core (91%)	1.1
WHO	Core (2%)	0.5
UNICEF	Core (11%)	1.4
CGIAR	Core (55%)	1.5
IFAD	Core (82%)	149.0
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	10.1
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)
AFDB	Core (12%)	3.1
ADB	Core (8%)
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.0
	Total	186.2

Germany

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.1A – smallholder focus	50 / 98 = 51.0%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 1045.9/ 1480.0 = 70.7%; Marker 2: USD million 9.0/1480.0 = 0.6%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 1160.0/ 1480.0 = 78.4%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 543.4/1480.0 = 36.7%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b - qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• In recent years, Germany has continuously increased its political and financial engagement regarding investments in sustainable agriculture, including agroecological approaches and organic farming. Bilaterally, the number of projects promoting systemic changes based on ecological principles, the reduction and substitution of harmful inputs and the integration of agroecological practices have increased. These projects encompass climate considerations, biodiversity and natural resource designation. At the same time, they promote sustainable and innovative supply chains and support rising productivity and farm income, addressing marginalized groups such as small-holders, female farmers and youth. Future investments in sustainable agriculture and rural development should strengthen the promotion of integrated landscape approaches as well as climate resilient and low-emission pathways.
• At the international level, soil protection and combating land degradation have been instrumental to counterbalance the loss of ecosystem services in agro-ecological systems. As host state of the UNCCD and as its largest donor, Germany advocates for and contributes to achieving land degradation neutrality (SDG 15.3). In 2019, it allocated more than 1 billion USD of bilateral ODA to combat land degradation worldwide. Germany also supported the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative and the GEO-LDN Initiative to inform sustainable land use decisions and investments.
• This engagement is also reflected in the Special Initiative “One World – No Hunger”. For instance, the global programme “Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security” contributed to 261,490 hectares of soil protected and soil health rehabilitated in order to enable resumption of productive as well a sustainable agriculture in seven countries. Adopting innovative methods and technologies to prevent erosion and increase soil fertility, smallholder farmers achieve an average of 36 per cent higher yields, resulting in improved food security for almost 1 million people. 161,622 smallholders have been trained in these methods.
• The Green Innovation Centres, another programme of the Special Initiative “One World – No Hunger”, promoted sustainable agriculture, e.g. via good agricultural practice trainings, organic farming and agro-forestry initiatives, and climate-intelligent innovations. From 2014 to 2019, the programme contributed to improved productivity in supported value chains (+26%) and to a significant increase in farmers’ income (+91%) via technical or organizational innovations while conserving the environment. Although innovations in sustainable agriculture have the potential to bridge trade-offs between economic and environmental targets, experience shows this requires time.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 101.4 = +39.4%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 162.5 = +15.8%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6B – humanitarian-development nexus	2 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7C – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD mission 1604.7

• 311 = 567.742
• 313 = 26.994
• 32161 = 0.687
• 520 = 299.123
• 72040 = 655.111
• 12240 = 55.071

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 587.8

• 311 - 233.389
• 313 = 10.993
• 32161 = 0.36
• 520 = 182.357
• 72040 = 148.49
• 12240 = 12.247

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 172.2

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	23.5
WFP	Core (91%)	28.5
WHO	Core (2%)	0.5
UNICEF	Core (11%)	7.4
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	17.4
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	13.3
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	1.6
ADB	Core (8%)	0.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.0
Others	African Development Fund (12%)	22.9
	Asian Development Fund (8%)	1.8
	Total	116.9

^A: Limited to programmes funded by BMZ; channel of delivery via GIZ & KfW (not considering support via multilateral channels or non-state actors)

^B: Process ongoing: BMZ strategy on transitional development assistance, including food security as one of several action areas, has been developed and finalized in July 2020.

^C: Programmes ongoing (1. Since late 2017, GER supports a FAO study in multiple countries to improve the operationalization of the indicator Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W), recently developed by FAO. 2. Furthermore, GER supports the 50*2030 initiative that was launched in 2020. The Programme, implemented by the World Bank, FAO and IFAD, looks to improve country-level data by building strong, nationally representative integrated survey programs that produce high-quality and timely agricultural and rural data. 3. As of January 2020, BMZ implements the global support function of National Information Platforms for Nutrition (NIPN). NIPN, an initiative of the European Commission, provides support to countries for better nutrition information systems enabling countries to improve data analysis for better-informed strategic decisions. The global support function coordinates technical assistance and capacity building of nine platforms worldwide.)

Italy

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	391 / 464 = 84.3%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 39.5 / 66.4 = 59.6%; Marker 2: USD million 2.6 / 66.4 = 3.9%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	2 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 37.2 / 66.4 = 56.1%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 43.3 / 66.4 = 65.2%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b - qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• The “Three-year Programming and Policy Planning Document for 2019-2021” sets out strategic guidelines for Italian Development Cooperation and highlights approaches that shall guide Italy’s intervention in all the domains related to UN 2030 Agenda. As for agriculture, food security and rural development, the Document recommends that initiatives shall aim to “strengthen supply chains and agri-food systems, targeting small farmers, enhancing the role and skills of women. Cooperation activities will be focused on the adoption of agro-ecological models, on the promotion of techniques and practices of cultivation, transformation and sustainable consumption, on the qualitative and quantitative improvement of productions, on the increase of profit margins for small producers, strengthening their association in order to foster responsible investment”.
• In this framework, in 2019 Italy supported several agro-ecology and sustainable farming programmes in most of the 22 priority Countries for Italy: Burkina Faso, Senegal, Niger, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Sud Sudan, Mozambique, Lebanon, Palestine Cuba, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tunisia.
• With reference to the 15 Criteria, in 2019 Italy invested around 12,2 M USD in more than 120 programmes. Among other areas, actions have been mainly focused on: improving efficiency of the value chains for added value, ensuring decent work condition, facilitating access to market for food products and productivity for better income, increasing resilience to climate change in rural areas, promoting and protecting biodiversity, soil and water management, ensuring food security and proper nutrition, women empowerment and youth employment.
• In this context, among initiatives addressing one or more performance/advanced criteria funded by the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, it is worth mentioning the promotion in Ethiopia of the development of local value chains in Oromia, supporting 15.800 beneficiaries. Actions focused on the phases of production and postharvest of horticulture and durum wheat value chains, guarantying an increase of the productivity, boosting nutrition, and fostering dietary diversity through a wide range of activities including the promotion of practices for food security and diet diversification at community level. In Palestine, AICS supported communities of shepherds and their families, in securing their land rights and increasing productivity guaranteeing new opportunities of incomes for women. In Niger, the Italian Cooperation promoted the increase and diversification of agro-sylvo-pastoral production in the High Environmental and Social Risk Zones with the adoption of agro-practices and supported the rehabilitation of degraded lands, targeting around 120.000 rural people.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 8.9 = +62.2%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 24.5 = +13.5%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6 – humanitarian-development nexus	2 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7A – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 81.0

• 311 = 57.39
• 313 = 0.81
• 32161 = 1.58
• 520 = 0.72
• 72040 = 12.74
• 12240 = 7.8

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 42.3

• 311 = 30.42
• 313 = 0.22
• 32161 = 1.37
• 520 = 0.31
• 72040 = 3.28
• 12240 = 6.73

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 25.0

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	14.6
WFP	Core (91%)	11.9
WHO	Core (2%)	0.3
UNICEF	Core (11%)	0.7
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	12.7
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	8.5
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	N.D.
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	N.D.
AFDB	Core (12%)	N.D.
ADB	Core (8%)	1.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.2
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.1
OthersB		11.7
	Total	61.7

^A: “Programmes ongoing – Italy supports the multi-donor “50x2030 Initiative Data-Smart Agriculture” implemented by WB-FAO and IFAD, started and ongoing in 2019. “

^B: This amout is based on EVS to the following organisations: Bioversity, CIHEAM-IAMB, FAO, GDPRD, IFAD, WFP, UfM, UNDP (average 68% of the total EVC contributes to food security and nutrition)

Japan

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	1605 / 2029 = 79.1%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 308.7 / 642.2 = 48.7%; Marker 2: USD million 0.2 / 642.2 = 0.03%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3A – alignment with VGGT and RAI	2 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 58.9 / 642.2 = 9.2%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 26.5 / 642.2 = 4.1%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b - qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• In 2019, Japan made good progress on each of TAPE Criteria through its agriculture investments. According to the SDG Global Indicators publicized by Japan, the total amount of ODA disbursements by Japan to the agricultural sector in 2019 recorded the highest in the past five years.
• For example, Japan makes contribution to the development of agriculture, which plays an important role in economic growth to achieve food security and poverty eradication in developing countries, especially in Africa. Japan supports research and spread of production techniques for NERICA (New Rice for Africa), which is a hybrid of Asian and African rice, as well as supports for increasing productivity of rice under The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).
• From 2008 to 2018, Japan implemented The Coalition for African Rice Development Advancement of Rice Cultivation in Africa (CARD) Phase 1, which aimed to increase rice production in sub-Saharan Africa area from 14 million tons to 28 million tons. This plan was a success and realized to double the amount of rice production to 28 million tons. Furthermore, at TICAD 7 in 2019, Japan announced the launch of CARD Phase 2, with the aim of further doubling rice production in sub-Saharan Africa (from the 2018 target of 28 million tons to 56 million tons by 2030). Under the CARD Phase 2, the number of countries where the project will be implemented will increase from 23 to 32, and the RICE (Resilience, Industrialization, Competitiveness, Empowerment) approach, which includes efforts to improve the quality of home-grown rice, will be adopted.
• Japan is strengthening its efforts to make productivity improvement of rice through such measures. We are confident that these will lead to the realization of sustainable agriculture.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5B – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 19.1 = +674.4%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 84.7 = na; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6C – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7D – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 873.4

• 311 = 481.33
• 313 = 186.47
• 32161 = 6.56
• 520 = 80.87
• 72040 = 99.13
• 12240 = 19.05

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 223.1

• 311 = 94.60
• 313 = 26.47
• 32161 = 1.49
• 520 = 59.52
• 72040 = 36.27
• 12240 = 4.71

Indicator 3.2^E - other assistance

• USD million 7.6

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	42.9
WFP	Core (91%)	4.4
WHO	Core (2%)	0.9
UNICEF	Core (11%)	2.1
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.4
IFAD	Core (82%)	11.7
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	24.1
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	14.4
ADB	Core (8%)	38.6
IDB	Core (2%)	0.9
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.1
	Total	140.6

^A: Japan does not currently screen initiatives against the VGGT and the Principles.

^B: Japan used the following methodological approach for nutrition-sensitive commitments (From the time of reporting for 2016): Japan used a pre-identified subset of CRS objective codes linked to nutrition-sensitive outcomes（12220, 13020, 14030, 14031, 14032, 52010, 72040） to identify nutrition sensitive projects. As Japan recognizes these projects as partially nutrition-sensitive projects, 25% of the total commitments under these CRS codes is reported as the nutrition-sensitive commitments.

^C: Based on the Cabinet’s decision on the “Development Cooperation Charter” which includes multi-sectoral strategy, Japan has compiled and been implementing the Country Assistance Policy and the Rolling Plans tailor-made for specific situations of the recipient countries. These Policy and Plans, wherever appropriate, strategically encompass the short-, mid- and long-term assistance, to ensure seamless assistance for enhancing food security and nutrition.

^D: Japan provided financial support for projects aiming at improving agricultural statistics through international and regional bodies. Japan also offered bilateral technical assistance in this field through JICA.

^E: Japan is of the view that a consistent methodology should be used to calculate and report on its explicit objectives to improve people’s food security and/or nutrition in the Elmau Accountability Report. To establish the baseline figures for indicator 3.2, Japan used the following methodological approach: Japan used Creditor Reporting System (CRS) purpose codes listed under Definition; a key-word search in the project title and summary with “nutrition” and/or “ food security”.

United Kingdom

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.1A – smallholder focus	20 / 42 = 47.6%; 2 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 114.4 / 475.7 = 24.1%; Marker 2: USD million 0.0 / 475.7 = 0.0%; 1 star	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3 – alignment with VGGT and RAI	2 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 286.7 / 475.7 = 60.3%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 159.8 / 475.7 = 33.6%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b - qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• UK FCDO’s Official Development Assistance agricultural investment programmes are achieving many of the 10 Core Performance Criteria & 5 Advanced Criteria of the FAO’s TAPE tool.
• FCDO programming and policy work have sought to drive uptake of climate-smart practices appropriate to local contexts, while delivering other economic development priorities, alongside improved food security. This includes work through the Global Agricultural and Food Security Platform (GAFSP), the Adaptation to Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP), and other programmes in FCDO’s commercial agriculture portfolio as described below.
• The FCDO’s 2020 Commercial Agriculture Portfolio Review (CAPR) confirms that FCDO programmes have strengthened value chains and built resilience through market linkages for climate-smart agribusinesses. Programmes made important contributions to women’s economic empowerment; increasing productivity; improving access to land tenure; and more jobs and incomes. Several programmes also made strong progress on food and nutrition security. On climate, analysis by the CGIAR’s Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security^B, showed that the changes in farmers’ practices supported by FCDO programmes enhance production while reducing emissions. These reductions are commonly due to soil carbon sequestration as a result of manure addition, minimum tillage, crop rotation or reduced burning. Further qualitative evidence on sustainable agriculture impact is provided in the UK’s International Climate Finance 2019 Results report. Between 2011/12 and 2018/19, across all ICF programmes, 57 million people were directly supported to cope with climate change. Analysis of 2019 data confirms that FCDO’s agriculture portfolio has contributed substantially towards these results, through interventions such as drought resilient crops, irrigation systems and agricultural extension.
• The FCDO’s 2019 portfolio had only a modest focus on nature and biodiversity; in 2021, the UK committed to spend at least £3 billion of ICF on nature over a five-year period. We will report on the delivery of this commitment and more generally on biodiversity and regenerative agriculture from next year.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5E – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 166.6 = +105.0%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 872.7 = +19.9%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6 – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7 – indicators and analysis	2 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 1065.0

• 311 = 389.8504897
• 313 = 2.946225522
• 32161 = 0
• 520 = 90.62415023
• 72040 = 414.9250819
• 12240 = 166.6395097

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 587.8

• 311 = 127.1909469
• 313 = 0.884017112
• 32161 = 0
• 520 = 76.24826265
• 72040 = 269.8734524
• 12240 = 113.6015642

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 184.7

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	16.9
WFP	Core (91%)	46.5
WHO	Core (2%)	1.2
UNICEF	Core (11%)	6.7
CGIAR	Core (55%)	23.2
IFAD	Core (82%)	24.5
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	0.0
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	0.0
ADB	Core (8%)	0.0
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.0
	Total	118.9

^A: Data from the UK Commercial Agriculture Portfolio Reviews 2018 (CAPR 2020)

^B: Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), 2020. “Climate change impacts of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s (FCDO) commercial agriculture portfolio

United States

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.1 – smallholder focus	13 / 60 = 21.7%; 1 star	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2 – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 437.4 / 939.0 = 46.6%; Marker 2: USD million 122.1 / 939.0 = 13.0%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3A – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4 – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 263.7 / 939.0 = 28.1%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 175.1 / 939.0 = 18.6%; 1 star	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b - qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• the United States government (USG) achieved substantial progress in several key areas of sustainable agricultural and economic development with a range of programs, such as the Feed the Future Initiative, which focuses development efforts in low income countries. The measured impacts of this USG initiative cover many of the performance criteria utilized by the FAO’s TAPE tool. The initiative supports research and development of climate-smart agricultural practices and helps countries boost agriculture-led growth, one of the most effective tools countries have to lift people out of hunger and poverty. In addition to boosting productivity, Feed the Future helps countries strengthen markets, encourage investment, develop sound policies, and get research and technology into the hands of farmers. As a result of Feed the Future investments, nearly 10 million smallholder producers, managing over 9 million hectares, utilized improved technologies and practices that increased productivity, increased incomes, and improved the nutritional status of children under five years of age. The initiative also supported activities and partnerships to improve soil health and water use efficiency in focus countries where agricultural production is highly vulnerable to climate change. Illustrative activities include land capability mapping and development of best management practices that improve agriculture water management (e.g., terracing, fertilizer micro-dosing) in partnership with host country governments and international development donors. Feed the Future also prioritized the empowerment of local citizens to address the climate challenges to food security their countries face by providing food security training for hundreds of thousands of people, over two-thirds of whom were women, and included more than a thousand people receiving academic degrees, nearly half of whom were women.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5 – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 167.6 = -24.7%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 4046.6 = +68.1%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6B – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7C – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1 - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 4758.7

• 311 = 915.2
• 313 = 0.3
• 32161 = 0.7
• 520 = 549.7
• 72040 = 3150.2
• 12240 = 142.6

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million: USD million 2772.1

• 311 = 417.8
• 313 = 0.1
• 32161 = 0.6
• 520 = 335.3
• 72040 = 1953.2
• 12240 = 65.1

Indicator 3.2 - other assistance

• USD million 204.3

Multilateral Contributions	Imputed % of Core Contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	164.7
WFP	Core (91%)	2330.7
WHO	Core (2%)	0.0
UNICEF	Core (11%)	479.3
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.0
IFAD	Core (82%)	54.1
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	696.2
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.0
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.0
AFDB	Core (12%)	3.9
ADB	Core (8%)	0.1
IDB	Core (2%)	0.0
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.7
	Total	3,729.7

^A: USAID has developed guidelines for responsible land-based investment and piloted use of the Analytical Framework for Land-Based Investment in African Agriculture with private sector firms. In addition, USAID’s PRO-IP and Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment policies align with key VGGT principles. The Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a separate USG development agency, formally adopted the IFC Performance Standards in 2012.

^B: (1) The Global Food Security Strategy (2016-2021) is a whole-of-government strategy to promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition that was launched in 2016 and expires at the end of September 2021; USAID is leading an interagency effort to refresh and extend the multiyear strategy. (2) USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025) addresses both direct and underlying causes of malnutrition, and its focus on linking humanitarian assistance with development programming helps build resilience to shocks in vulnerable communities. (3) The U.S. Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan (2016-2021) is an interagency effort to strengthen the impact of the many diverse nutrition investments. (4) The Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis Strategy (2012-2021) expanded from seven (7) to fourteen (14) target countries in 2019.

^C: (1) The US Government, through the Global Food Security Strategy/Feed the Future Initiative, has provided technical support and funding to improve and expand capabilities to collect, analyze, and use food security and nutrition indicators in support of SDG2 targets through a number of investments. (2) USAID/Feed the Future co-created the 50x2030 Initiative to Close the Agricultural Data Gap with other bilateral and multilateral donors/development organizations to scale up survey programs and build national data systems capacity. (3) Additionally, beginning in 2018, USAID continues to invest in research designed to generate Earth observations-derived estimates of poverty and of agricultural yields for selected crops for the Feed the Future Zone of Influence. These metrics correspond to SDG target 2.3.

European Union

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.1A – smallholder focus	34 / 57 = 59.6% ; 3 stars	1 star - less than 25%; 2 stars - 25-50%; 3 stars - more than 50%
Indicator 2.2B – gender focus	Marker 1: USD million 695.0/ 795.5 = 87.4%; Marker 2: USD million 60.1/795.5 = 7.6%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 30% with Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 30-50% with Marker 1 and 2, with more than 0% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’); 3 stars - more than 50% with Marker 1 and 2, with at least 5% with Marker 2 (‘‘Principal’’)
Indicator 2.3C – alignment with VGGT and RAI	3 stars	1 star - No review of consistency with VGGT and the Principles; 2 stars - Review process started and ongoing; 3 stars - Review has taken place and standards are aligned with the VGGT….and the Principles
Indicator 2.4D – climate change adaptation and mitigation	Adaptation 1+2: USD million 658.4/ 795.5 = 82.8%; Mitigation 1+2: USD million 390.8/795.5 = 49.1%; 3 stars	1 star - less than 20% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 2 stars - 20-40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2; 3 stars - more than 40% with Adaptation and/ or Mitigation Marker 1 and 2

Indicator 2.4b - qualitative paragraph on sustainable agriculture

• In 2019, more than half of EU funding dedicated to Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FNSSA) was classified as contributing to Sustainable Agriculture (820.74 MEUR), while 84.1% of EU actions contributed to inclusive growth, ensuring gender mainstreaming and/or focusing on smallholders and rural poor for increased opportunities for income and employment (1,342.6 MEUR).
• Overall, in the FNSSA sector, more than half of the funding mobilised in 2019 concerned programmes which contributed to climate change adaptation as a main or significant objective and just over a third of FNSSA funding contributed to climate change mitigation. 25% of contracted funds in FNSSA had a main or significant objective contributing to protect biodiversity.
• As a result of a G7 declaration to strengthen support to agricultural research for the poor (Elmau, 2015), the DeSIRA initiative (Development Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture) was launched in 2018 with the intention to bring more science into development action and therefore link more effectively research and innovation in FNSSA. The initiative aims to reconcile agriculture with the challenges of climate change and environmental degradation, including biodiversity loss. In this respect, the commitment of 138.5 MEUR made in 2018 resulted in the launch of 31 projects in 2019 to support a number of country & regional actions in a variety of geo-thematic clusters.
• In 2019, the EU, committed an additional amount of 95.5 MEUR to the DeSIRA initiative, of which 42.8% were dedicated to projects supporting agro-ecological intensification. Main projects under this thematic area are implemented in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Rwanda and Kenya), Asia (Bangladesh, South East Asia), Latin America (Cuba and Colombia).
• The EU is furthermore a Steering Committee member and contributor to Transformative Partnership Platform on Agro-ecology. Taking into consideration the criteria of the FAO’s TAPE tool, the EU is also conducting an internal portfolio analysis on Agro-ecology in EU programmes looking back at the period 2014-2020.
• In terms of results, the 2020 Annual Report on the implementation of the EU external actions in 2019 that with EU support:
  • 10,132,000 smallholders were reached by interventions aimed to increase their sustainable production, access to markets and/or security of land, out of which 912 000 were food insecure;
  • sustainable management practices have been introduced on 2,331,000 ha of agricultural and pastoral ecosystems.

Indicator	Status	thresholds
Indicator 2.5E – nutrition focus	Nutrition specific: USD million 243.0 = +313.4%; Nutrition sensitive: USD million 454.7 = -17.0%; 3 stars	1 star - Decrease in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015; 2 stars - Same level of 2015; 3 stars - Increase in commitments by 10% or more with respect to 2015
Indicator 2.6F – humanitarian-development nexus	3 stars	1 star - No strategy; 2 stars - Process of strategy development ongoing; 3 stars - Strategy developed and being implemented
Indicator 2.7G – indicators and analysis	3 stars	1 star - No programmes; 2 stars - Programmes under definition; 3 stars - Programmes ongoing

Indicator 3.1^H - direct assistance

Worldwide (CRS Code = USD million): total disbursement: USD million 1465.7

• 311 = 843.1
• 313 = 39.6
• 32161 = 18.0
• 520 = 87.3
• 72040 = 371.0
• 12240 = 106.7

Sub-Saharan Africa (CRS Code = USD million): USD million 824.1

• 311 = 478.0
• 313 = 13.1
• 32161 = 10.4
• 520 = 43.9
• 72040 = 232.8
• 12240 = 45.8

Indicator 3.2^I - other assistance

• USD million 1607.1

Multilateral contributions	Imputed % of core contributions to Agriculture, Food Security & Nutrition	USD million
FAO	Core (92%)	0.34
WFP	Core (91%)	0.00
WHO	Core (2%)	0.00
UNICEF	Core (11%)	0.00
CGIAR	Core (55%)	0.00
IFAD	Core (82%)	0.00
World Bank Group	WB Core (2%)	0.00
	Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Public Sector Window)	0.00
	IFC (Private Sector Window and Agribusiness Investment)	0.00
AFDB	Core (12%)	0.00
ADB	Core (8%)	0.00
IDB	Core (2%)	0.00
EBRD	Core (2%)	0.00
	Total	0.3

^A: Under the relevant DAC sector codes, the EU data present:

• donor agencies: EU Institutions (European Commission and European Development Fund) and European Investment Bank
• aid flow: gross bilateral ODA grants and ODA loans commitments
• geographic coverage: All countries and regions except the EU candidate and potential candidate countries

^B: Under the relevant DAC sector codes, the EU data present:

• donor agencies: EU Institutions (European Commission and European Development Fund) and European Investment Bank
• aid flow: gross bilateral ODA grants and ODA loans commitments

^C: `The standard indicators for blending projects include due diligence reports for projects that affect land and property rights in line with the guidelines. Approved in 2018, the multi-year global project, mainly focusing on the African continent, “Promoting responsible governance of investments in land” supports government authorities to administer and guide investments in land in accordance with established legislation and by respecting internationally recognised principles such as the VGGT and the RAI.

^D: Under the relevant DAC sector codes, the EU data present:

• donor agencies: EU Institutions (European Commission and European Development Fund) and European Investment Bank
• aid flow: gross bilateral ODA grants and ODA loans commitments

^E: Nutrition data produced based on the SUN methodology

^F: The EU has a strategy for linking short, medium and long term interventions. In response to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the EEAS “A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU’s external action” (SWD(2017) 226 final and SWD (2017) 227 final), the European Council adopted several Conclusions on Resilience and the Humanitarian Development Nexus.

^G: EU has extended its ongoing “Food Security Portal” project to continue being a key source for food price monitoring, a real-time early warning system for food crises, statistics training from 2022 onwards on Phase 4;

• the ongoing “National Information Platforms for nutrition” project aims to strengthen capacity to analyse data, to track progress, inform policies and improve programmes for better nutrition
• with FAO, EU supports “Strengthening Food Security Statistics at country level to monitor Target 2.1 of the 2030 Agenda” project with its implementation in 2020-21. A new project is being elaborated with an orientation that FIES be integrated in regular national statistical surveys
• with World Bank, EU supports the 50x2030 Initiative to Close the Agricultural Data Gap through the Food Systems 2030 Multi-Donor Trust Fund to be implemented in 2020-2023; EU contribution is earmarked for the strategic direction “Innovation, Data Platforms and Technology”

^H: Under the relevant DAC sector codes, the EU data present:

Donor agencies: EU Institutions (European Commission and European Development Fund) and European Investment Bank. Sub-Saharan Africa countries are the main beneficiary of global projects that could be disaggregated at country and region levels at this stage.

^I: Data (USD 1607.1 million) present, as a result of resources tracking by project documentation, the total sum of the weighted budget amounts of the contracts signed in 2019 to finance food security and sustainable agricultural activities. Humanitarians aid flows are not included.

1. 1) Secure land tenure, 2) Increased productivity, 3) Increased income, 4) Added value, 5) Decreased exposure to pesticides, 6) Increased dietary diversity, 7) Women’s Empowerment, 8) Increased youth employment, 9) Increased agricultural bio-diversity, 10) Improved soil health, 11) Increased resilience, 12) Improved Food Security & Nutrition, 13) Decent Work, 14) Increased water use efficiency & decreased water pollution, and 15) Climate change mitigation ↩