21 December 2017
Brief Focuses on Effective Investments to Achieve SDG Target 2.1
Peter Luethi, Biovision Foundation
story highlights

The brief draws from a literature review of studies that explored two categories of policy interventions.

The authors recommend that policy makers should focus on ensuring that interventions are designed and implemented with the specific context in mind, and not on finding the "right" intervention.

December 2017: Research by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) found that it would cost US$11 billion per year on top of current public spending, between 2015 and 2030, to achieve SDG target 2.1 (by 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round). This follow-up brief identifies which policies could most efficiently deliver the SDG target.

Authored by Livia Bizikova, Stefan Jungcurt, Kieran McDougal and Carin Smaller of IISD, the brief focuses on policy options related to two categories of interventions: support to farmers, through fertilizers and seeds, research and development, and extensions services; and rural development, such as electricity, education, and storage. The brief draws from a literature review of studies that explored these two categories of policy interventions.

The research found that “almost 70 per cent of the 87 interventions studied were found to have a positive impact on food security.” It indicates that the specific context and the implementation of the intervention was more important than the type of intervention for delivering a positive impact.

The authors recommend that policy makers should focus on ensuring that interventions are designed and implemented with the specific context in mind, and not on finding the “right” intervention. The authors note that, for example, input subsidies were effective where farmers had access to productive assets such as land, machinery and irrigation. Likewise, improvements in market access and value chains increased the availability and quality of food, “especially when they focused on a diversity of locally consumed crops.” And collaboration with the community, directly addressing food security, and taking other community challenges into account were important determinants for whether investments in extension services were successful. [Publication: Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security][Publication: Ending Hunger: What Would it Cost?]

related posts