The President’s State of the Union address last night contained a lesser announcement of the launching of a US-EU free trade agreement:

“And tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

This idea has been floating for some months, pushed more from the European side than the US. The US and EU are already massive trading partners with mostly low tariffs and few serious trade disputes.  Nonetheless, making a trade marriage of it has hurdles.  The crux of the US-EU deal will be regulatory and ‘behind the border’ issues.  For example, both the US and EU have extensive farm subsidies and have been critical of one another.  Europeans have some regulatory measures that US exporters see as problematic. (Think GMOs.)

The question is—do developing countries have a stake in this?

The answer is—they could.

What if both sides committed to embracing the pro-development trade policies of the other to harmonize and improve the trade opportunities for poor countries?  The US has a handful of “trade preference” programs that offer special access to developing countries, like the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the African Grown and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and regional programs for the Caribbean and Andean countries.  The Europeans have the “Everything But Arms” initiative that offers free export access to least developed countries.

Each side has some pros, and also some cons.  Very broadly, the European program is broader (more products included) and more generous (zero tariffs) than anything the US offers.  But the US programs,  especially AGOA, offer more favorable “rules of origin,” which help poor countries export more complex products like garments, rather than being stuck exporting low-value commodities and products.

Neither the US, nor the EU provide full “duty-free, quota-free” access for all least developed countries (LDCs), which has been a key goal for development advocates in the long-stalled Doha Round trade negotiations.  In fact, LDCs have not seen any of the promised outcomes from the so-called “development round” of the World Trade Organization.  Their request to extend the soon-to-expire exemption to implement intellectual property rules for LDCs has failed to gain support from the US in particular.

If the US and EU want to demonstrate global leadership and do something very positive for the world, they could start by using the trade agreement negotiations to start a “race to the top” in creating economic opportunities for poor countries.

Imagine this:  in a few months, the heads of most of the biggest and most important countries will get together for a couple of days.  A few leaders from developing countries will tag along.  The media will cover the event in detail because…well, because why not?  And for a few hours, a lot of the world’s power and attention will be focused in a single place.

What if I told you that the agenda for the meeting isn’t set, and that the outcomes of the meeting have not yet been decided?  Do you think you might have some ideas?

This is the G8 summit, a traveling carnival that reappears every year.  Leaders of some of the most powerful countries gather to discuss weighty topics.  Sometimes they make big promises.  Sometimes they don’t.

For anti-poverty campaigners, this combination of factors is absolutely irresistible.  Or it might be better to say that ignoring such an opportunity would be absolutely irresponsible.  If you believe in making a difference, advancing a cause, having an impact, changing policies and the world, you really must try to take advantage of the G8 summit—and it’s supporting processes and negotiations—for your mission.

Despite some significant and measurable achievements, the G8 and campaigners at the summit have come under some criticism in recent years.  The argument is that while it’s an enormous public relations event, it has a declining value as a negotiating venue and achievements are only symbolic.  Some argue that a better target is the G20.  Others argue that these summits are all losing (or have long lost) their significance.

But if the G8 and the G20 didn’t exist, would anti-poverty campaigners have to invent them?  There’s just no bigger and better way to get these global issues onto a world stage and put pressure on critical leaders to make commitments and then follow them up.  Done.

On Wednesday a coalition of UK groups, including Oxfam, launched the “Enough food for everyone IF” campaign.  The goal is to push Prime Minister David Cameron “relentlessly and every which way” to take action on hunger with the G8.  The campaign has a platform that includes promoting more foreign assistance, clamping down on tax dodging by big companies, stopping land-grabs, and increasing transparency.

I like this effort.  It’s positive without being pandering.  There are some real asks that aren’t easy, but aren’t completely unreasonable.  It has focus, but there’s enough room for a broad coalition.  (For additional commentary about the campaign, see these posts from Duncan Green of Oxfam UK, David Harewood of Cafod, David McNair of Save the Children UK, Lawrence Haddad of IDS, and Leni Wild of ODI and Sarah Mulley of IPPR.)

What many seem to miss is that if the campaign and this year’s G8 will be a success, the US will have to step up and take a lead.  The issue of food security and agriculture has actually been championed more by the US than other G8 members in the past.  President Obama managed a modest coup by pulling a significant agriculture and food security initiative out of the otherwise embarrassingly disorganized G8 in 2009, hosted by Silvio Berlusconi.

But what can President Obama deliver this time round?  For now, the newly re-inaugurated President is putting together his team.  Senator Kerry at State Department and Jack Lew at Treasury will both have a hand in the G8 discussions, assuming they are confirmed by the Senate.  President Obama’s key staffer on the G8, National Security Council aide Michael Froman, is strongly rumored to be moving into a new job as the US Trade Representative.  So there’s a lot of uncertainty and movement.

Let’s hope President Obama gets his team in place and his game-plan organized, so we can make something big out of this year’s G8.

Sarah Kalloch’s blog is cross-posted from Women Thrive Worldwide. Oxfam America is working with women’s groups that are actively working on ending violence against women and making links between violence against women and food security. 

World Food Day—October 16—falls right in the middle of Domestic Violence Awareness month. At first the connection between the two might seem tenuous. But as Oxfam’s GROW Campaign eloquently argues, “Hunger isn’t about too many people and too little food. Hunger is about inequality. And women and girls face the greatest inequalities of all”. When women are hungry, they are forced to make impossible choices and take untenable chances that make them vulnerable to violence.

Women grow the majority of the world’s food—and are also the majority of the world’s hungry because of vast inequalities in resources and power. Women farmers in the US still face a “grass ceiling”—denied access to billions in loans from the USDA.  And the situation is worse in developing countries, where women face discrimination in land ownership, lack of education, and little access to the capital, technology, and markets needed to make a living on the land. Women could feed up to 150 million more people if they had the same agricultural resources as men, according to a United Nations report.

But before women feed the world, they must feed themselves and their families—a simple act which exposes them up to violence, rape and abuse.

• In Bangladesh, women in households with lower food security are more at risk for physical and emotional abuse.
• Women in Bostwana who did not have enough to eat were twice as likely to have sold sex and were more likely to report a lack of control in sexual relationships.
• Women displaced by conflict in Darfur face further violence when they go to gather firewood and water.
• When food rations were cut at refugee camps in Tanzania in 2005, the World Food Program warned of an increased violence against women as women ventured further afield to feed their families and tensions rose in hungry households.
• Women from Canada to the Congo who have left abusive relationship or been victims of violence are often left economically vulnerable and food insecure.

This month, join Oxfam’s GROW Campaign and hold a WFD dinner with friends and family. Take time to talk about the amazing culture, community and power of food. Food security is human security. Women feed the world—they deserve the chance to feed their families free of violence.

Megan Whitacre is a former Oxfam America intern and current CHANGE leader. 

Here in the Midwest, we know farmers can get creative to deal with fluctuating prices. But this summer local farmers are turning their feed trough into an ice cream sundae. In Elkhart County, Indiana, one farmer has started to feed his dairy cows ice cream sprinkles, cookies, marshmallows, and gummy bears to give his cows the energy they need to produce milk. And in Reno County, Kansas, another farmer is feeding his cows thousands of pounds of chocolate scraps from a local chocolate factory.

Dairy cows on a US farm. Jacob Silberberg/Oxfam America

This isn’t just a treat to help cows beat the heat; in fact, it shows how US farmers are resorting to extreme measures to deal with the worst drought in 50 years across big corn and soy-producing states in the Midwest. Last year saw similar problems with drought in the US; as climate change endures, farmers in these states will continue to face hardship, and food prices will continue to surge. This year produced one of the smallest corn yields in 6 years, according to the USDA, and has sent food prices soaring worldwide. Meanwhile, last year, the US burned up 40 per cent of our domestic corn crop to make ethanol—pushing corn and other food prices higher. The corn farmers feed their animals is pricier than it ever has been—and sometimes not available at all.  And when feed prices go up, so does the cost for meat, dairy products, and other food that comes from animals.

Unfortunately, poor people don’t have the option of chowing on chocolate all day to dampen the impact of food costs. Worldwide, poor people bear the brunt of high food prices as food becomes an increasingly larger percentage of their budgets. And in countries where food is already scarce, not only do high prices make food aid increasingly necessary for basic survival, high prices also hinder the ability of thousands to break out of poverty as school costs and basic necessities are lost to the price of food. So it’s not just a lull in the fight against poverty. It’s a huge step back.

Next time you see headlines about food prices, bacon shortages, or even crazy stories about chocolate-eating cows, remember those who are being impacted the most. Organizations like Oxfam are taking a stand to address this growing food crisis. Join us by taking action on October 16 for World Food Day, and educate others about how they can help.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes her first visit to South Sudan Friday, making her the highest-ranking US official to visit the world’s newest country. Her trip could not come at a more important time. The UN Security Council gave South Sudan and Sudan until August 2 to move forward with political negotiations and enabling humanitarian access to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, where more than 665,000 people have been internally displaced or severely affected by conflict according to the UN. Both countries are now in violation of this ultimatum, putting them at risk of UN sanctions. In the meantime, civilians on both sides of the border are suffering, including 4.7 million people in South Sudan—half the country’s population—who do not have enough food to eat.

A new borehole drilled by Oxfam in Warrap State, South Sudan. Photo by Noah Gottschalk

The official purpose of the trip—part of a seven-nation tour of Africa—is to “reaffirm U.S. support and encourage progress in negotiations  with Sudan to reach agreement on issues related to security, oil and citizenship.” The US has remained deeply invested, both through ongoing high-level diplomacy and through the provision of significant humanitarian and development assistance, in trying to help South Sudan find its way out of the worst crisis since the end of the two decades’ long civil war. By sending America’s most senior diplomat, however, Washington is signaling its escalating concern as well as its impatience with the slow pace of progress.

In his remarks marking the country’s independence just over one year ago, President Obama expressed his confidence that “the bonds of friendship between South Sudan and the United States will only deepen in the years to come.” But being a true friend means speaking hard truths, and Secretary Clinton must use the opportunity of her visit to express concern with the political developments which are having such a massive humanitarian impact on South Sudanese civilians and putting at risk the hard-won gains of peace.

In December, I watched Secretary Clinton address the International Engagement Conference on South Sudan in Washington. In one of the most frank speeches of the two-day event, she welcomed the new nation to the international stage while clearly outlining the challenges ahead. While lauding the new country on achieving its “quest for peace and dignity”, she urged South Sudan to “move forward”, “leave war behind”, and “finalize [the] hard-won peace”. Her discussions with senior South Sudanese officials in Juba, including President Salva Kiir, will not be easy. As Clinton herself recognized, South Sudan has many reasons to be skeptical of continued diplomacy, and progress depends on a “willing partner in Khartoum”. Nevertheless, both countries have no other option but to end their political and economic crisis through negotiations. By sending this message, Secretary Clinton joins the growing voices in South Sudanese civil society urging the government to make the difficult compromises necessary to stop the spiraling crisis in the immediate term, and over the long run, to enable a brighter future for the people of both Sudan and South Sudan.

For the sorcerers who practice the dark arts of politics, the hot summer months are generally known for their focus on triviality, hyperbole and petty posturing. This “silly season” is marked mostly by frivolous debates over manufactured controversies as voters tune out and cook out in parks and backyards across the country.

So it comes as no surprise that the latest bit of feigned outrage to embroil the United States Department of Agriculture involves an interoffice newsletter recommending that employees consider taking a modest stab at common sense.

Joining the ranks of thousands of companies, restaurants, schools, average Americans and Oprah, a recent newsletter from the USDA made a humble suggestion for its employees to reduce their environmental footprints: Consider eating a meat-free lunch once per week. The agency was referring to “Meatless Monday,” a project of Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Syracuse universities and supported by many other health-related organizations.

Read the full blog at CNN here. 

Credit: Noah Gottschalk

As South Sudan celebrates the first anniversary of its separation from Sudan, the world’s newest nation faces multiple challenges including simmering tensions along the border, the influx of an estimated 165,500 refugees from ongoing conflict in Sudan, inter-communal conflicts, and an economy crippled by the closure of the border and shutdown of oil production. Perhaps most alarming, however, is the escalating food crisis threatening nearly half of the country’s 9.7 million inhabitants according to recent UN estimates. As the government, UN, and NGOs struggle to respond, the country is anticipating the arrival of hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese who are among the last remaining in Sudan and now face an uncertain future back ‘home’. These returnees are triply vulnerable. The already difficult return and reintegration process ahead of them is exacerbated by the economic crisis in South Sudan, while the multiple and overlapping challenges facing the fledgling state means that returnees’ needs are being overshadowed by broader crises. Instead of a joyful homecoming, they face a future of uncertainty as the country marks the anniversary of its political independence with only the certainty that it will remain dependent on foreign assistance for the foreseeable future.

I recently traveled to South Sudan, where I had a chance to speak with some of the newly arriving returnees. They told me about their journey and about their friends and relatives still on the way. In Wau, I spoke to returnees unloading their possessions from a train that had just arrived from Sudan. They described the economic and political pressures to leave Sudan, including the loss of Sudanese citizenship, and the difficult, 18-day train journey ‘home’. A tall Dinka woman wearing a brightly-colored Sudanese tobe and a black ski cap eloquently described her journey from a South Sudanese area of Khartoum all the way to Wau. She had never been to South Sudan and spoke Dinka with noticeable difficulty. Like many others I spoke with, she had little idea of what she would do in South Sudan. Her husband had returned many months earlier, but she had no means of finding him after her mobile phone, which contained his contact details, was stolen. A short while later, a shy 17 year old boy told me how he had come to South Sudan alone, and had no idea where to go and no way of finding friends or relatives. He was coming to the station whenever a new train of returnees arrived in the hopes of running into someone he knew who might be able to help him.

Such stories of people trying to establish a new life in an unfamiliar and challenging new environment were common throughout the years between the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 and the referendum on the future of South Sudan in 2011. In that six year period, the return of Southern Sudanese was a political imperative for the Government of Southern Sudan and hundreds of thousands returned from Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, the Republic of Sudan, Egypt, and further afield with significant attention and financial support from the government and the international community. Events since then, however, have created an environment where the needs of returnees have been overshadowed. Nevertheless, tens of thousands of South Sudanese continue to return. Once their journey is over, they join nearly a million recent returnees struggling to find their feet in a land that is technically at peace but still very much in crisis.

Despite South Sudan’s huge potential and abundant natural resources, half a century of marginalization and conflict has left the country severely impoverished, with extremely low literacy rates, high levels of displacement, and woefully inadequate infrastructure and public services. Although the seven years since the signing of the CPA enabled greater efforts to address these fundamental issues, investment has fallen short of needs. In the year since South Sudan gained its independence, however, the country risks backsliding  in the face of an economic outlook and austerity measures that slashed budgets for almost all social services. At the same time, politicized tribal conflict, ongoing militia activity, and conflict along the border with Sudan threaten the physical safety of civilians across South Sudan. For returnees, this means returning to a volatile and potentially dangerous independent homeland with only minimal support.

Reintegration and absorption capacity within South Sudan is already extremely limited. The disproportionate focus on the physical return of displaced southerners over their reintegration which characterized the CPA period continues today, and as a result many thousands of returnees are still awaiting assistance and access to land.

Those reintegration efforts that do exist tend to be heavily focused on return to rural areas, with far too little attention on either the link between rural livelihoods and constraints on access to land, or on return to urban areas. Returnees who do not want to settle in rural areas—either because they are uncomfortable with a rural lifestyle, lack connections to those ‘areas of origin’, or because those areas lack basic services—regularly face difficulty in acquiring land in towns. This is for multiple reasons, including government policies which seek to avoid overcrowding of towns, particularly state capitals. The scarcity of job opportunities in urban areas and insufficient programming to target returnees seeking to live in towns, particularly in places like Kuajok and Aweil, have the potential to leave large numbers of recent returnees without any means of sustainably supporting themselves and their families. The Government of South Sudan has a policy that commits it to providing basic services and assistance to returnees. But its ability to deliver is now in question under the austerity budget. Therefore, the government must urgently revisit and outline its reintegration plan, with both humanitarian and development actors involved, to assess the ability to support new arrivals and provide resolution to outstanding issues, such as land distribution, for those returnees already in South Sudan.

More broadly, the oil shutdown in South Sudan brings into critical focus the need for South Sudan to diversify its economy, and particularly to  develop its full agricultural potential for the benefit of all South Sudanese, including returnees. Ultimately, South Sudan must escape cyclical food insecurity and dependence on emergency food aid. It needs to support vibrant markets and a diverse economy, while building a social safety net. For this to become a reality, the international community must continue to pursue all channels to support negotiated solutions to the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan and the resolution of the outstanding CPA issues. Without real peace, there can be no full humanitarian access, durable solutions for Sudanese refugees, or the sustainable development solutions necessary to build a resilient and self-sufficient South Sudan.

Read more about what Oxfam is doing in Sudan and South Sudan.

Judy Beals is the Campaigns Director at Oxfam America.

In the past six weeks, world leaders met not once, not twice, but three times to discuss and deliver global solutions to global challenges. The G8, the G20 and Rio+20 received scant media attention during this election year dominated by domestic issues. And while global summits generally deliver more snooze than sizzle, they continue to matter, bringing together heads of state to discuss and, at least potentially, to bring global attention, resources and commitment to the world’s poorest.

With nearly a billion people hungry (including 18 million people in West Africa facing a massive unfolding food crisis), increasingly erratic weather, and a weak global economy, the need for shared solutions to shared problems could not be greater. But world leaders failed to rise to the challenge.

Oxfam stunt before the G8

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 10

G8 Leaders look lost looking for food security—signs for shortcuts and silver bullets distract them from the path. Photo: Oxfam America.

As host to the G8—or Group of 8—the US was perhaps best positioned to deliver substantial commitments, especially since President Obama had put global food security squarely on the agenda. But meeting in the secluded Camp David, Maryland, the world’s largest industrialized economies passed the buck. Instead, the G8 tried to fill the gap of their broken promises with a private sector initiative that simply cannot tackle the complex challenges of food insecurity. Only the US recommitted itself to an important initiative started three years ago at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila. On the bright side, some commitments were made to replenish the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), a multi-donor plan that invests in developing country agriculture.

The G20—the group of the world’s 20 major economies—arguably delivered even less. Still relatively new, the G20 has been meeting at the head of state level since 2008 to discuss key issues in the global economy and to promote “strong, sustainable and balanced growth.” Despite opportunities this year to address drivers of food crises—including commodity price volatility and increased demand for biofuels—G20 leaders assembled in Los Cabos, Mexico were unable to move beyond internal disagreement over how to fix the Eurozone. The one bright spot was movement plugging the leak on hundreds of millions of dollars that drain out of poor countries into tax havens every year.

Coming 20 years after the first Earth Summit, Rio+20s ambitions were high to tackle ending poverty and achieving prosperity for all while living within the earth’s limits of fresh water, clean air, and fertile land. While the verdict on action by heads of state at Rio is rightly dismal—there too, at least if you looked hard enough, were glimmers of hope. UN General Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Zero Hunger Challenge was a welcome ray of hope. Even business leaders produced at least a few positive initiatives at the Corporate Sustainability Forum and the Business Action for Sustainable Development.

Overall, shockingly inadequate outcomes, given the scale and urgency of the challenges? Yes. But I bring a different view. We know that solutions DO exist—to bring about a small-scale agricultural revolution that can feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit this earth by 2050 without destroying the planet; to bring about a green energy revolution; to bring about a more just and sustainable global economy that benefits all of us.

What we face is something we CAN change: political will. And while there wasn’t anywhere near enough of it at Camp David, Los Cabos, or Rio, the growing insistence of civil society, north and south, especially young people, was undeniable.

Our supporters were there. People signed the G8 petition we delivered to President Obama, urging him to launch an ambitious food security partnership with small-scale farmers. Nearly half a million supporters tuned in for our G8 Twitter Town Hall, #G8chat . Before the G20 summit Oxfam supporters helped spread the word about what was at stake.Throughout the summits, our Twitter followers tweeted and retweeted via #DearG8, #TweetG20, and #Rioplus20 about progress (or lack thereof) that leaders were making on our key issues.

Our supporters became part of something that is gaining steam—a new awakening to citizen power—standing up, speaking loudly and clearly for our future. Social media is part of it, but members of our Oxfamily went further—holding events, signing petitions, making phone calls, speaking directly with elected officials, and insisting that their voices be heard.

And that’s exactly what we need to keep doing—building political will—holding leaders accountable and making sure the glitz of summits is matched by real commitments for poor people. GROWing a movement in the present, for now and for the future, like no other the world has ever seen. You can help us do that—by asking your friends, families and social networks to join our GROW campaign—by continuing to stand up, take action, and make your voices heard.

So here’s to summits attempted and at least partially scaled. We have mountains still to climb. Looking forward to our journey together.

What if world leaders had an opportunity to set the world on track towards a sustainable future, uniting development and environment efforts, but nobody really knew it? That’s the situation Secretary Clinton is facing as she sets out to lead the US delegation at the Rio+20 Summit next week.

While the world still produces more than enough food to feed everyone, there are more hungry people today than twenty years ago. Photo: Sokunthea Chor/Oxfam America

Since the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992, progress towards achieving sustainable global development without exceeding ecological limits has stalled. While the world still produces more than enough food to feed everyone, there are more hungry people today than twenty years ago. Eighty percent of people live in areas with high levels of threats to water security, including 3.4 billion people in the most severe threat category. Globally, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 36 percent between 1992 and 2008, from around 22 to just over 30 gigatonnes.

It is vital that governments, and the US, in particular, demonstrate resolve at Rio+20 to get things back on track. While we know that binding agreements won’t be achieved or new significant sources of financing agreed to, governments can make progress towards addressing a series of critical development and environmental priorities. Here are three concrete outcomes that Secretary Clinton could help achieve at the summit:

1. Commit to establish a single set of ‘global development goals’ to guide development efforts of all countries in the post-2015 period that brings together environmental and social themes. These would build off the current UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

2. Develop high-level, time-bound goals towards achieving a sustainable, resilient, and equitable food system that provides sufficient, nutritious food for all through fair shares of limited natural resources, including land and water, along with a safe climate.

3. Provide concrete pledges of technical and financial support to developing countries to deliver sustainable energy access that puts poor people first and help cut greenhouse gas pollution, and a rapid phase-out of environmentally and socially harmful energy subsidies.

Oxfam is part of a large and growing movement of inspired citizens who are choosing to build an economy that serves the people and preserves the environment. We need the US government to support and lead the way towards this vision by re-focusing economic development so that poverty can be eradicated and economic growth no longer depends on rising volumes of natural resources.

On behalf of the Obama administration, Secretary Clinton can help jumpstart this shift and provide the leadership needed to secure broad-based international consensus around this agenda in Rio. Maybe if she does, more people will start to take notice.

Victoria Marzilli is Oxfam America’s new media specialist.

As the G8 Summit came to a close, we had a bit of a surprise twist in the outcome. There was more movement on food security than we expected and day one of the summit was focused almost solely on that issue, a rarity in recent G8 history. The increased attention was due in part to the stirring outcry from anti-hunger and poverty activists all over the world.

In the weeks before the Summit, Oxfam supporters contributed to the nearly three thousand #DearG8 tweets, keeping the pressure on G8 leaders to help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty. Our supporters sent thousands of letters to President Obama, to reiterate that message. We also held two media “stunts” during the week of the summit, bringing activists dressed as the G8 leaders to the White House, and then outside the Reagan Building where President Obama unveiled his “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition”.

In his pre-G8 speech at the Chicago Council Symposium, and again in his closing remarks, he mentioned the G8 will set a new goal of helping 50 million men, women, and children lift themselves out of poverty through country-led agriculture plans. Since 500 million small farms in developing countries support nearly 2 billion people, supporting those farmers means that their families can earn an income, get an education, and thrive. The goal is spot-on, but the way to achieve that goal doesn’t add up.  Though fulfilling their L’Aquila pledges (which were $7.3 billion per year through 2012), the G8 failed to renew their commitments. Instead, they’ve invited the private sector to pledge $3 billion over 10 years in a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. This is a shrinking response to a growing problem and, even if companies deliver, it still represents 96% decrease in investment from previous public funding levels. At a time when more than 18 million people across West Africa are facing a massive food crisis, we need to recognize that the scale of the problem requires a serious investment that matches the plans from people on the ground. After all, aren’t the world’s small-scale farmers who sell their goods in local markets part of the private sector, too?

On the bright side, G8 countries have made additional pledges of $1.2 billion to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). Read more about GAFSP here: http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp. We’re happy to see this important mechanism for country ownership get the funding it deserves.

While it’s reassuring that our leaders are making food security a global priority, we must make sure that we hold them accountable to match the scale of the need and listen to what people in developing countries really need.

Though fulfilling their L’Aquila pledges (which were $7.3 billion per year through 2012), the G8 failed to renew their commitments. Photo: Victoria Marzilli/Oxfam.