Climate smart agriculture (CSA) consists of more than 70 technological and behavioural changes that can help farmers mitigate and build resilience to climate change while generating sustainable yields. Despite this wealth of alternatives, CSA has not been adopted at large enough scales to realise its considerable promise. Studies explaining the lack of progress often cite difficulties farmers face in acquiring information and knowledge as a key barrier to adopting CSA. Others point to policies and institutions that favour resource-intensive agriculture over more sustainable farming practices. Recent work on transforming food systems suggests policies and institutional reforms as well as integration of technical information and experiential knowledge can help overcome these barriers. However, this work sheds limited light on precisely which policy and institutional changes can help farmers convert information and knowledge into acceptable CSA practices. This brief presents four concrete recommendations on which policy and institutional reforms can help farmers translate technical information and experiential knowledge into context-appropriate mixes of CSA options in developing countries.
The Asia Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN) is launching a virtual dialogue series as a precursor for the 7th APAN Forum to build insights on the Forum’s themes and bring together perspectives from across the region on climate adaptation and resilience. Conducted over four weeks, from 19 October to 12 November 2020, the five-part series will cover the APAN Forum’s four thematic streams on: i) Inclusive Resilience; ii) Nature-based Resilience; iii) Economic Sector Resilience, and iv) Community and Local Resilience.
The APAN Forum, the flagship event of APAN since 2010, is the primary regional platform for adaptation practitioners and actors to meet, share their knowledge and experiences, and work together towards finding solutions to address climate change impacts. The Forum is the largest gathering of adaptation practitioners in Asia and the Pacific region.
The 7th APAN Forum, hosted by the Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MoEJ), together with the APAN Secretariat at UNEP’s regional office in Bangkok, will be held virtually on 8-12 March 2021 under the theme Enabling Resilience for All: The Critical Decade to Scale-up Action.
Through a number of key streams, the Forum aims to address capacity building needs and priority issues in the region to accelerate climate adaptation, to report on progress made since the previous Forum, and to magnify current efforts on adaptation while integrating lessons learnt from COVID-19 response and recovery.
About the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN): The APAN, developed and hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2009 under the Global Adaptation Network (GAN), is an open network that strives to equip adaptation actors with adaptation knowledge, build capacity to access technologies and finance, integrate climate change adaptation into policies, and build climate change resilience in Asia and the Pacific region. APAN has established close partnerships with key sub-regional organizations, and has become an important mobilizer for adaptation knowledge in the region. Visit the APAN website here: http://www.asiapacificadapt.net/
For more information about APAN and its upcoming Forum, please contact: apan.secretariat@un.org
For the 4.8 million residents of Ethiopia’s capital city, interruptions to the water supply are nothing new. But in the grip of a pandemic, the latest disruption threw into sharp relief the inequality created by limited and unpredictable access to clean water. Without a treatment or a vaccine, the primary advice to prevent the spread of the coronavirus is regular hand-washing and good hygiene. But this is out of reach for millions of Ethiopians living without sustainable access to clean water, laying bare the critical link between water and public health.
[…]
In the immediate term, it is essential that clean water reaches as many people as possible to enable them to take the basic precautions needed to reduce the risk of infection from the coronavirus. Improving access to water, sanitation, and hygiene systems could bring down the overall global disease burden by 9 percent and reduce the number of deaths to disease by more than 6 percent. This cannot be achieved when more than 840 million people worldwide currently lack basic supply. In the Arab region alone, for example, more than 74 million people are at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 because they lack the facilities to properly wash their hands. Inequality in water access worldwide will shape the course of the pandemic; it must also be a priority in post-coronavirus economic reconstruction.
In Ethiopia, the International Water Management Institute has mobilized trained members of the public, known as parahydrologists, to collect data on household knowledge of the coronavirus and assess how the current access and use of water affects disease mitigation measures. This information will help scientists and public agencies identify, among other things, more effective ways of implementing mitigation measures such as social distancing. This might include finding alternatives to communal water points, where people from several households might gather at the same time and risk spreading the virus.
[…]
The capital is far from alone in this: Some 380 billion cubic meters of wastewater are produced globally every year, yet there is untapped potential to reuse and repurpose even this volume. Within this waste can be found an estimated 16.6 million metric tons of nitrogen, a key nutrient for plant growth and one that is often applied on farms in the form of fertilizer. By extracting this nitrogen, wastewater could be used to help improve soil fertility and offset 13 percent of global agricultural demand for fertilizers. Extracting nutrients and energy from wastewater while mitigating health risks therefore becomes a classic win-win for people and the environment. The adoption of a circular economy, in which new uses are found for waste, helps increase the value of what might otherwise be thrown away, and this can help in financing waste reuse and upcycling. But ultimately this is a public-policy choice—and will require heavy subsidies and investment by the state, working in partnership with consumers and producers.
The Fund’s Origination Facility Supports the Identification of Tropical Peatland and Mangrove Projects for Future Investment from €160 Million Fund.
The Fund’s Origination Facility Supports the Identification of Tropical Peatland and Mangrove Projects for Future Investment from €160 Million Fund
JAKARTA – Forest Carbon announced today that the Dutch Fund for Climate and Development (DCFD) has awarded a €250,000 grant to evaluate new wetland forest restoration projects in Indonesia. The funding will enable Forest Carbon to link its growing pipeline of projects to investment capital from a consortium of investors.
“This grant is a signal of strong support for our company’s proven approach to large-scale tropical forest restoration in Southeast Asia,” said Jeffrey Chatellier, Managing Director of Forest Carbon. “The DCFD is helping us reduce risk to investors and quickly evaluate new opportunities. Our company is in Indonesia because it contains one-third of the world’s peat and mangrove wetlands, offering potential for globally significant climate and ecological impact.”
The Dutch Fund for Climate and Development is managed by a consortium that includes FMO, SNV Netherlands Development Organization, Worldwide Fund for Nature and Climate Fund Managers.
“The DCFD has a mandate to develop large scale landscape restoration projects and make investments in such projects accessible to commercial investors,” said Darren Moens, Capital Raising & Business Development Executive for Climate Fund Managers. “Forest Carbon’s work clearly aligns with our goal of enhancing the health of critical wetland ecosystems through Climate Investor Two.”
SNV is supporting Forest Carbon’s social and environmental assessment activities, to meet investors ESG requirements and to enhance the long-term success of each project. Richard McNally, SNVs lead on climate and business for DFCD, also highlighted the fund’s mandate for a landscape approach to develop synergies between co-located investments.
‘’We are seeking to invest in multiple projects across sectors within each landscape to increase our long-term impact. We are very excited to be working with Forest Carbon to protect some of the most significant ecosystems in Indonesia.”
About the Dutch Fund for Climate and Development
The Dutch Fund for Climate and Development enables private sector investments in projects aimed at climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs has convened the facility which makes available €160 million for a range of climate mitigation and adaptation projects.
About Forest Carbon
Forest Carbon restores degraded tropical forests. The company is a premium restoration project developer in Southeast Asia that delivers benefits for local communities, biodiversity and investors through a proven business model. With offices in Jakarta and Singapore, Forest Carbon has built on a track record of success in the region. The team brings a decade of experience working on the ground, mapping wetlands and assessing below-ground carbon storage, hiring local workers and obtaining community support. Forest Carbon is scaling its approach by investing in technology with the potential to transform the way forest restoration is delivered at scale. http://forestcarbon.com/
About Climate Fund Managers
Climate Fund Managers (CFM) is an investment manager focused on deploying capital, on commercial terms, to mitigate and build resilience to climate change in areas most affected. CFM uses blended finance structuring to attract public and private capital to invest in high-impact sectors in emerging economies. https://climatefundmanagers.com/
About SNV
SNV is a not-for-profit international development organization with a long-term, local presence in over 25 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and a team of 1,300 national and international staff. Focusing on Agriculture, Renewable Energy and WASH, SNV provides practical know-how to make a lasting difference in the lives of people living in poverty by helping them raise incomes and access basic services. SNV uses its extensive on-the-ground track record to apply and adapt its expertise to local contexts. As a trusted partner of local and national governments, SNV invests in market-based approaches and works extensively with the private sector. https://snv.org/
About FMO
FMO is the Dutch development bank supporting companies, projects and financial institutions from developing and emerging markets. It specializes in sectors where its contribution can have the highest long-term impact – financial institutions; energy and agribusiness, and food & water situated in high risk developing countries. In addition, FMO manages a number of specific development funds on behalf of the Dutch government. https://www.fmo.nl/
Policies that affect trade and markets can have consequences for progress in all five action areas under SDG 2.
Policymakers should recognize they may need to make difficult trade-offs between SDG 2 priorities, or between SDG 2 and other goals.
In 2015, world leaders agreed 17 ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – including SDG 2 on ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture. Policies affecting trade and markets are key to achieving progress, but often require policymakers to take tough decisions on trade-offs.
Recent estimates indicate that nearly 690 million people – or 8.9% of the world’s population – are undernourished. Food systems also face environmental challenges, including poor soil health, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss, poor water management, and pollution. Worse still, the number of people facing severe food insecurity has been rising since 2015, with the economic slowdown among factors exacerbating hunger and malnutrition.
With just ten years to go before the target of ending hunger and malnutrition is due to be reached, and as policymakers consider how best to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, now is an opportune time to review progress – and look at how policies on trade and markets can help.
Five targets spell out areas for action under SDG 2. They cover: 1) ending hunger and ensuring access for all people to safe, sufficient, and nutritious food all year round; 2) ending all forms of malnutrition; 3) doubling the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers; 4) ensuring sustainable food production systems; and 5) maintaining the genetic diversity of seeds, plants, and animals.
Policies that affect trade and markets can have consequences for progress in all five areas. Recognizing this, SDG 2 contains three further targets on means of implementation, two of which focus explicitly on improving how markets function. SDG 2b commits countries to “correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets,” while SDG 2c says they will “adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets.”
Measures that can affect trade and markets include border measures, such as tariffs, export restrictions, and non-tariff measures, and “behind-the-border” domestic support measures, such as input and output subsidies, market price support, and public investment. The same policy measure can have widely varying implications for different SDG targets, depending on whether a country is a net exporter or importer, whether it is a big or small producer or consumer, and depending on how policies are designed and implemented. The consequences of policy measures might also vary over time, both at home and – through their trade impacts – abroad.
It is therefore important to identify areas in which trade-offs may exist between competing policy objectives, and ways in which the SDGs can be pursued. Policymakers should recognize they may need to make difficult trade-offs between SDG 2 priorities, or between SDG 2 and other goals.
For example, cutting tariffs on foodstuffs could help achieve SDG targets 2.1 and 2.2 on ending hunger and malnutrition, by diversifying the supply of healthy food and lowering prices for poor consumers. But producer livelihoods could also be undermined by competition from cheaper imported foods, thereby affecting SDG target 2.3. Without adequate environmental protection, progress on sustainability could be compromised too (SDG target 2.4).
Food export restrictions are another example. When food prices rise, governments sometimes ban or tax exports to suppress domestic price increases, potentially supporting SDG targets 2.1 and 2.2. However, over time, such measures can disincentivize future investment, and can immediately harm poor consumers in food-importing countries, thereby compromising progress on these same SDG targets.
Among domestic support measures, governments often employ input and output subsidies as well as market price support measures to improve agricultural productivity and lower production costs, potentially helping achieve SDG target 2.3. However, these measures can unfairly disadvantage farmers in other countries, result in inefficient allocation of resources, and exacerbate environmental pressures, affecting SDG targets 2.3 and 2.4 as a consequence.
Existing rules on agricultural domestic support at the World Trade Organization (WTO) set no limit on “green box” payments that are considered to cause only minimal trade distortion. These include public investments in infrastructure, storage facilities or rural roads. Government support for research and extension services is also covered – types of investment associated with especially positive outcomes for productivity, nutrition, and food security.
These types of public goods payments represent a “win-win” solution, delivering benefits across multiple SDG 2 targets – and would help deliver on the third means of implementation target. SDG 2a commits countries to “increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks.”
At the WTO, governments took an important step forward at the 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Conference when they agreed to end agricultural export subsidies – identified explicitly as a commitment under SDG 2. Governments should now go beyond this relatively narrow indicator of progress to deliver on the broader target set out in SDG 2b. Doing so could help ensure trade policies contribute to fast-tracking progress on the food and agriculture components of the 2030 Agenda, while also ensuring trade supports the COVID-19 recovery.
* * *
This article, written by Jonathan Hepburn, Senior Policy Advisor, IISD, and Georgios Mermigkas, Economist, Markets and Trade Division, FAO, is based on a longer publication by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO), ‘Trade and Sustainable Development Goal 2: Policy Options and their Trade-Offs.’
Submitted by Julia Barrott | published 10th Apr 2020 | last updated 22nd Jun 2020
Introduction
Local communities use and manage forests throughout the world for subsistence, trade and cultural purposes. In Southeast Asia, close to 140 million people generate livelihoods from forests.
Forest management practices have evolved over time to meet the changing needs of local people, the markets for forest products and a range of political interests. Social forestry offers an alternative form of forest management. It is an approach that balances the needs of local people with multiple external interests.
The Knowledge Tree is an online platform allowing practitioners to easily navigate a rich source of knowledge about social forestry practices in Southeast Asia based on the context, interests and needs. It provides ideas, concepts, evidence and tools to help users to better understand the context in which social forestry operates, and to tailor effective, efficient and equitable (3E) social forestry to a specific context. The resources provided through the Knowledge Tree reflect over 15 years work on social forestry in the region.
The Knowledge Tree is an initiative of the ASEAN-Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change (ASFCC), a 10-year collaboration to boost social forestry in ASEAN member states to address the linked challenges of food insecurity, poverty and climate change. It builds on a compilation of intelligence gathered by the ASEAN Working Group on Social Forestry since 2005.
The Knowledge Tree will help practitioners design, implement and evaluate social forestry. Users include:
Government technical officials who want to design more effective, efficient and equitable social forestry programs
Civil society and non-government organizations facilitating, developing and implementing social forestry programs
Researchers interested in case studies and lessons learned on social forestry in Southeast Asia
Funding agencies assessing feasibility and evaluating effectiveness, efficiency and equality of social forestry programs
How the Knowledge Tree is organized
The Knowledge Tree is designed for national government officials, civil society, social forestry researchers and funding agencies. It consists of three parts: an introduction, six contexts/real-life challenges and a toolbox.
Contexts / Real-world Challenges
Six contexts discuss the conditions that need to be considered during the design and implementation phases of social forestry:
Local aspirations – Understanding and responding to the aspirations of local people
Rights and tenure– Achieving recognition of land tenure and rights to use forests
Forest potentials– Identifying and making best use of the forest’s potential to serve multiple uses
Each context includes an introduction and set of questions as a checklist to help users tailor the 3E criteria to the specific context, and provides guidance, lessons learned, how-to tools and examples of approaches that can be used to set up the building blocks for effective, efficient and equitable social forestry. This guidance is based on published materials, practitioner’s experiences and lessons learned from local practices.
Toolbox
The toolbox provides easy access to an array of relevant resources including approaches and tools developed or promoted by partners. It is a toolbox from which users can pick appropriate tools and adopt and adapt them as needed.
Important note: This Knowledge Tree is a work in progress. Additions, comments and contributions are always welcome.
Contexts included in the Knowledge Tree. Checklist questions, guidance, lessons learned, and a rich base of approaches, methods and examples are provided for each.
Routledge Studies in Climate Justice will comprise monographs and edited collections addressing cutting-edge questions in the growing field of climate justice. Contributions will be sought on a range of topics, including climate justice and international development, intersectionality and climate inequality, climate governance and policy, gender and climate change, climate migration and displacement, health and well-being, climate justice activism, pedagogy and participation, and urban climate justice.
Series Editor: Tahseen Jafry is Professor of Climate Justice and Director of The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
If you are interested in submitting a proposal, please contact Annabelle Harris, Editor for Environment and Sustainability: Annabelle.Harris@tandf.co.uk
Editorial Board Michael Mikulewicz is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University. Harriet Ingle is a Researcher at The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University. Sennan Matter is a Researcher at The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University. Neil James Crawford is a Researcher at The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University.
by Emily Lawrence, director of sustainable investing for the institutional sales group, and Sharee Zlatkova, investment associate for sustainable investing
In addition to the significant toll taken on human health and well-being, the scale of the economic impacts stemming from the COVID-19 crisis has also been stunning. We must acknowledge that the health and well-being of our financial system is inextricably linked to a healthy, engaged global society and workforce. Our investment thesis acknowledges that ESG issues are business issues; when managed well, these factors can position a company for success. When managed poorly, they can lead to negative externalities that can result in reputational and financial risk, and that has been borne out during the market downturn.
Mitigating Risks with ESG
Our observations of the way companies are responding to this systemic distress highlights the importance of integrating ESG (environmental, social and governance) analytics into the investment process. Investors can integrate ESG data to create a more holistic view of risks and opportunities — resulting in more informed investment decisions and resilient portfolios during times of market downturn. One example of this is ESG funds compared to non-ESG funds in the first quarter. According to a study done by Morningstar, 70% of sustainable equity funds ranked in the top halves of their categories and 44% ranked in the best performing quartile.
This observation on ESG outperformance can be seen across asset classes. Take for example the global developed equity index MSCI World Index versus the MSCI ESG World Leaders Index. MSCI designed the ESG index family to leverage ESG risk ratings to provide relatively low tracking error and broad market exposure. The series launched in late 2007, and during its life cycle has largely performed in line with the world benchmark. The World Leaders index outperformed its cap-weighted parent by 1.1% in the first half of the year, which was 84% driven by the security selection during this time period. This index’s performance was particularly strong during the significant volatility seen during the first quarter. Exhibit 1 outlines that relative performance.
Looking into the drivers of the outperformance, we group the securities by their individual environmental, social and governance scores into three categories of leaders, average and laggards. Not surprisingly, the ESG leaders minus laggards are positive across all three metrics, with the spread in governance the largest at nearly 6%. Companies that lead the pack on the social dimension outperformed their laggard counterparts by 4.4%, an interesting indicator underscoring the adept way the leader companies respond to their stakeholders.
How ESG Performed in Emerging Markets
Similarly, within emerging markets equities, the MSCI ESG Emerging Markets Leaders Index outperformed the MSCI World Index by 2.5% through the first six months of the year, half of which was driven by the security selection. Again, performance shown in Exhibit 2 during the middle of the first quarter, at the height of the volatility, speaks for itself.
Similar Results for Bonds and ESG
Within the fixed income asset class, similar results were observed across the various markets between the ESG leaders and laggards. Using the MSCI ESG scores for the investment-grade and high-yield constituents with our proprietary U.S. municipal sustainability rating, we see consistently stronger performance of the issuers which exhibit more robust ESG profiles.
In addition to stronger returns by the ESG leaders, they also traded at tighter spreads during the market stress, even though there is only a loose correlation between ESG profiles and credit ratings. As a risk control asset, these characteristics are important factors for investors looking for consistency in downside mitigation, another interesting proof statement for our sustainable investing philosophy. For more insight into our approach to sustainable fixed income, see the blog What Happened with ESG and Quality in Bond Market Turmoil.
Responding to Change
As investors respond to the systemic risks presented by the coronavirus, there is no doubt that this crisis has brought to light questions regarding the management of workers’ health and safety, employee financial security, supply chain disruptions and risk management protocols.
In the act of advising on how to respond during this crisis, the United Nation’s Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI) and United Nations Global Compact both released guidance for investors and businesses to consider as responsible investors and ethical business leaders. One of the immediate actions PRI encourages investors to do is engage with companies who are failing their crisis management. This means talking to companies who are failing to protect worker’s either by not providing a clean and safe work environment, protective equipment, or unfair sick leave. As active owners, in our own discussions with companies we try to make sure that employee and contractor health and safety and robust governance of sustainability issues are among their highest priorities. We discuss with companies how they are managing these risks as well as understanding the targets and improvements they are trying to achieve.
ESG for Today and the Long-Term
The market stress brought on by the COVID-19 crisis has changed the investment landscape, and investors are responding by allocating further to sustainable investing strategies. By evaluating and engaging on issuers’ ESG characteristics, investors not only mitigate portfolio risk but also contribute to promoting the health of the market overall. We observe a growing cohort of investors acknowledging the relevance and materiality of ESG characteristics to the investment management process, and we anticipate that the events surrounding COVID-19 will act as a catalyst, drawing more investors to adopt this philosophy as a means of promoting long term value creation in their portfolios.
Learn more about sustainable investing at Northern Trust Asset Management.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION. For Asia-Pacific markets, this information is directed to institutional, professional and wholesale clients or investors only and should not be relied upon by retail clients or investors. The information is not intended for distribution or use by any person in any jurisdiction where such distribution would be contrary to local law or regulation. Northern Trust and its affiliates may have positions in and may effect transactions in the markets, contracts and related investments different than described in this information. This information is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, and its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. Information does not constitute a recommendation of any investment strategy, is not intended as investment advice and does not take into account all the circumstances of each investor. Opinions and forecasts discussed are those of the author, do not necessarily reflect the views of Northern Trust and are subject to change without notice.
This report is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, an offer, solicitation or recommendation with respect to any transaction and should not be treated as legal advice, investment advice or tax advice. Recipients should not rely upon this information as a substitute for obtaining specific legal or tax advice from their own professional legal or tax advisors. Information is subject to change based on market or other conditions.
Forward-looking statements and assumptions are Northern Trust’s current estimates or expectations of future events or future results based upon proprietary research and should not be construed as an estimate or promise of results that a portfolio may achieve. Actual results could differ materially from the results indicated by this information.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Performance returns and the principal value of an investment will fluctuate. Performance returns contained herein are subject to revision by Northern Trust. Comparative indices shown are provided as an indication of the performance of a particular segment of the capital markets and/or alternative strategies in general. Index performance returns do not reflect any management fees, transaction costs or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly in any index. Gross performance returns contained herein include reinvestment of dividends and other earnings, transaction costs, and all fees and expenses other than investment management fees, unless indicated otherwise.
Northern Trust Asset Management is composed of Northern Trust Investments, Inc. Northern Trust Global Investments Limited, Northern Trust Fund Managers (Ireland) Limited, Northern Trust Global Investments Japan, K.K, NT Global Advisors Inc., 50 South Capital Advisors, LLC and investment personnel of The Northern Trust Company of Hong Kong Limited, Belvedere Advisors, LLC and The Northern Trust Company.
Image captionThe WFP says it provided assistance to almost 100 million people last year
The 2020 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).
The agency was given the prize for its efforts to combat hunger and improve conditions for peace.
The WFP, the 101st winner of a prize now worth 10m Swedish krona ($1.1m; £875,000), said it was “deeply humbled” to have won.
Some 107 organisations and 211 individuals were nominated for the award this year.
WFP head David Beasley told the BBC’s Newshour he was in shock following the announcement.
“I was literally for the first time in my life without words,” he said.
“To receive this award is a recognition to the men and women at the World Food Programme who put their lives on the line every day for the struggling, suffering people around the world. So I hope this is a signal and a message that the World Food Programme is a role model and that we all have got to do more.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was among those to congratulate the group.
“If there is a deserving organisation then this is certainly one of them. The people there do incredible work helping others and therefore I am very pleased about the awarding of this Nobel Peace Prize,” she said.
The World Health Organization and climate activist Greta Thunberg were among the favourites to win this year.
Under the Nobel Foundation’s rules, nomination shortlists are not allowed to be published for 50 years, and the organisation says any speculation ahead of the announcement is “sheer guesswork”.
What did the Nobel Committee say?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said the WFP was declared winner of the prestigious award “for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict”.
Chairwoman Berit Reiss-Andersen said that with this year’s award the committee wanted to “turn the eyes of the world to the millions of people who suffer from or face the threat of hunger”.
“The World Food Programme plays a key role in multilateral co-operation in making food security an instrument of peace,” she told a news conference in Oslo.
Image captionBerit Reiss-Andersen announced the winner in Oslo
The committee said Covid-19 had further boosted the importance of the group.
“The coronavirus pandemic has contributed to a strong upsurge in the number of victims of hunger in the world,” it wrote in a statement.
“In the face of the pandemic, the World Food Programme has demonstrated an impressive ability to intensify its efforts.”
The UN agency delivers food assistance to countries around the world. The group says it provided assistance to close to 100 million people in 88 countries last year who were victims of acute food insecurity and hunger.
The agency was established in 1961, following calls from former US President Dwight D Eisenhower for “a workable scheme” to be devised for providing food aid through the UN system.
Months after it was created, it responded to a major earthquake in northern Iran, delivering wheat, sugar and tea to survivors.
Since then, it has gone on to respond to natural disasters and conflicts around the world, including:
Yemen: The WFP says its emergency response in conflict-torn Yemen is its biggest anywhere. It aims to support about 13 million people but has faced a number of challenges. It has accused local leaders of diverting food away from vulnerable people. This year it has warned that it is facing a major funding shortfall, with some donors stopping aid over concerns that deliveries were being obstructed
Afghanistan: The WFP says its “overarching goal” is to support the country in tackling hunger in a way that contributes to peace. But it says that decades of “complex and protracted conflicts” have created difficulties. There have been instances of the group suspending food aid deliveries to certain areas because of attacks
South Sudan: The agency has been supporting people through both conflict and famine. In addition to a years-long civil war, it says a collapsing economy, reduced crop production and dependence on imports means many are unable to access sufficient nutritious food. In 2014, one of its staff members was abducted at gunpoint.
However, the organisation has not been free of controversy.
In a WFP internal survey last year, at least 28 employees said they had experienced rape or sexual assault while working at the agency. More than 640 others said they were either victims of or had witnessed sexual harassment. Mr Beasley told the Associated Press news agency at the time he was “making hard choices to bring change”.
Former US President Barack Obama won the prize in 2009, for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”.
Other notable winners include former US President Jimmy Carter (2002); child education activist Malala Yousafzai (shared 2014); the European Union (2012); the United Nations and its secretary-general at the time, Kofi Annan, (shared 2001); and Mother Teresa (1979).
What’s the background?
The Nobel Prize is one of the world’s most important awards.
It was started in accordance with the will of Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel, with the first awards handed out in 1901.
Nobel Prizes are awarded in several categories to people “who have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” in the previous 12 months.
The recipient of each Nobel Prize receives three things:
A Nobel diploma, each of which is a unique work of art
A Nobel medal
A cash prize, which is split between winners when there is more than one. They have to deliver a lecture to receive the money
There have been some years when the prize has not been awarded – mostly during the two world wars.
Nobel Foundation rules state if nobody deserves the prize in a particular category, it is not awarded and its prize money is kept for the following year.
The third and final round of consultations will take place from 19-27 October.
During this time, the facilitators will hold confidential consultations with WTO members, asking delegations to express a single preference.
Based on these preferences, the facilitators “will deliver their assessment on which of the two candidates is most likely to command a consensus of the membership” and become the seventh WTO Director-General.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has announced that Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (Nigeria) and Yoo Myung-hee (Republic of Korea) will advance to the third and final round of the selection process to determine who will succeed Roberto Azevêdo as the next World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General. This result “creates an historic precedent” because it assures that the next Director-General will be the first woman to lead the WTO.
WTO General Council Chair David Walker (New Zealand), with Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body Dacio Castillo (Honduras) and Chair of the Trade Policy Review Body Harald Aspelund (Iceland), conducted confidential consultations with members from 24 September to 6 October, during which each delegation was asked a single question: “What are your preferences?” Members then submitted their two preferences to the “troika” of facilitators. Addressing a Heads of Delegation meeting on 8 October, Walker said the two candidates had secured “the broadest and deepest support from the membership.”
Walker said the third and final round of consultations will take place from 19-27 October “to afford members sufficient time to prepare their positions.” During this time, the troika will hold confidential consultations with WTO members, asking delegations to express a single preference. Based on these preferences, the facilitators “will deliver their assessment on which of the two candidates is most likely to command a consensus of the membership” and become the seventh WTO Director-General. The troika will then present their recommendation to the General Council for a formal decision.
On 14 May 2020, Roberto Azevêdo (Brazil) announced that he would step down from his post on 31 August. The first phase of the 2020 Director-General selection process, during which eight countries nominated candidates for the position, commenced on 8 June and concluded on 8 July.
The second phase of the selection process, in which the candidates “make themselves known to members,” concluded on 7 September 2020, and the third phase began.
As per a 31 July decision by the General Council, the third and final phase of the selection process consists of three stages of consultations. Following the first stage, the field of candidates was reduced from eight to five. In reducing the field of candidates from five to two, WTO members have concluded the second round of consultations.
The third stage of consultations “is expected to yield a final consensus candidate.” According to the procedures for the Director-General selection process, adopted by WTO members in 2002, the key consideration in determining which candidate is likely to achieve consensus is the “breadth of support” each candidate receives from members. [WTO Press Release]
