Estimates for G7 spending on food security and nutrition range between USD 3.8 billion to USD 54 billion depending on the definition adopted.  

In 2015, the G7 committed to lifting 500 million people out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030. Yet, since 2015, the number of people affected by hunger has risen by nearly 150 million; from 589 million in 2015 to 735 million in 2022. To reverse this alarming trend, world leaders and international organizations must intensify their efforts and make substantial longer-term investments to address the fundamentals of hunger and poverty. If they fail to do so, hunger will not be eliminated by 2030. 

To work effectively, governments must know how much they spend on food security and nutrition, but tracking this spending is difficult. Although governments and international institutions agree on the definitions for food security and nutrition and use a shared database to track aid, they lack a common framework to measure official development assistance (ODA) for food security and nutrition. As a result, estimates on how much ODA is spent on food security and nutrition vary significantly. This creates confusion and undermines efforts to eradicate hunger and achieve global development goals. 

Different groups use different measures of financing for food security and nutrition giving very different estimates and creating a great deal of confusion   

The lack of a common framework for defining and tracking official development assistance (ODA) for food security and nutrition is a major obstacle to eliminating global hunger. Different organizations, including donor countries, multilateral institutions, and research groups, all use their own definitions of ODA for food security and nutrition. This results in drastically different estimates of how much aid is actually going towards food security and nutrition efforts, where that aid is directed, what specific areas the aid targets, and whether progress is being made towards achieving the goal of zero hunger. 

For example, estimates of G7 countries' contributions to food security and nutrition in 2022 ranged from as little as USD 3.8 billion to USD 54 billion in 2022, depending on the definition used. These competing definitions are all derived from the same OECD database where donors record disbursements, but each group picks and chooses which purpose codes to include in their definition of aid for food security and nutrition based on their own criteria. 

The G7 itself tracks its financial efforts using multiple indicators, with one based on 27 purpose codes directly related to agriculture, fishing, food security and nutrition, and another scanning a wider range of codes for keywords related to food security and nutrition. Meanwhile, the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative used 31 codes to monitor disbursements for food security after the 2009 food crisis, and the European Commission's definition covers 74 purpose codes. 

Due to the range of ways to estimate spending on food security and nutrition, there is substantial variation in the estimates of G7 contributions; from USD 3.8 billion to USD 54 billion in 2022 (see Figure 1). This is deeply problematic as no one knows how much money is being given, where it is being given to, or what it is being spent on. This hinders the effective use of aid.

Figure 1. Comparisons of the G7 member states disbursements of ODA grants according to different definitions, 2007 - 2021  

Adapted from FAO and Shamba Centre for Food & Climate. (forthcoming). Towards a common definition of aid for food security and nutrition. Background note. Rome

 The lack of consensus on how to define ODA for food security and nutrition creates confusion around how much aid each donor has actually provided or each recipient country has received. Figure 2 illustrates how using different criteria results in different answers to an apparently straightforward question: who is the largest donor of ODA grants food security and nutrition? The answer is either the United States, based on eight definitions or Germany based on five definitions. This lack of clarity significantly undermines understanding of the effectiveness of current efforts and the additional investments needed to address rising hunger levels. 

Figure 2. Comparison of the G7 member states disbursements of ODA grants for food security and nutrition depending on the definition adopted (2020)    

Adapted from FAO and Shamba Centre for Food & Climate. (forthcoming). Towards a common definition of aid for food security and nutrition. Background note. Rome

The absence of a standard framework makes it impossible to tackle hunger effectively. Establishing a coherent, evidence-based system to monitor funding flows is crucial for donors, recipients, researchers, and advocates alike to provide aid effectively. 

Proposed solution  

Uncertainty in the volume of ODA spending poses an enormous obstacle to the goal of eliminating hunger, but it is one to which there is a solution. We are building a platform to analyse, monitor, and track ODA resources to food security and nutrition. The Food Security and Nutrition Aid Tracker will offer a comprehensive and analytical overview of the ODA flows that have an impact on food security and nutrition, as well as examining the extent to which existing spending patterns are aligned with scientific evidence on how to end hunger. Better analysis, monitoring and tracking of resources in the system will ultimately enable better evidence-based decisions to select the highest priority countries, the most effective intervention areas, and the scale of resources needed. The tracker will sweep away some of the uncertainty around financing for food security and nutrition and contribute towards the more effective use of resources towards ending hunger. 

The development of the Food Security and Nutrition Aid Tracker is based on two research papers produced by Shamba Centre and the FAO: 

1. One provides an in-depth analysis of the challenges in defining Official Development Assistance (ODA) for agriculture and food security. 

2. The second reviews existing aid trackers. 

The Shamba Centre and the FAO have also consulted extensively with representatives from donor agencies and international organizations and is taking two complementary steps to advance this work. First, Shamba Centre and the FAO are writing a paper that outlines the proposed Food Security and Nutrition Aid Tracker, explaining its purpose and methodology. At the same time, Shamba Centre and the FAO will present a prototype of the Food Security and Nutrition Aid Tracker to stakeholders to receive specific feedback on its use, design, and functionality. 

Lifting people out of by 2030 remains a daunting task. Nevertheless, there are grounds for hope. We already have a shared database to track aid.  What is urgently needed is a way to better understand how to use that data to greatest effect. Tools like the Food Security and Nutrition Aid Tracker will not only help donors and international organizations better understand the scope of the problem; they will make it possible to target ODA more effectively for food security and nutrition – and will contribute to the eradication of hunger and malnutrition.