their families. In the past decade (Figure 3), it has become an important donor to the Consulta- tive Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). As of June 2011, the Foundation had commited about US$12 billion to agricultural research and development, agricultural policies, and access to market systems, as well as financial services for the poor, water sanitation and hygiene, and policy advocacy. Other philanthropic organizations have also
emerged as major supporters of agricultural devel- opment, poverty alleviation, natural resource management, and risk management. For example, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and the Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust in India are funding activities related to drought proofing, microfinance, and a revival of the Green Revolution. During 2010–11 the Trust allocated US$31 million, of which 75 percent was for rural livelihoods and communities.10 Te How- ard G. Buffet Foundation has funded projects in more than 74 countries, including 32 African coun- tries, on agriculture for nutrition. Tese projects are designed to benefit more than 1.5 million peo- ple by addressing poor crop yields, limited success with livestock, low incomes, and chronic hunger
FIGURE 3 Top 10 donors to the CGIAR, 2000–10
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
Source: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, The CGIAR at 40 and Beyond: Impacts that Matter for the Poor and the Planet (Washington, DC, 2011).
among vulnerable communities. Te Foundation is also supporting global initiatives on conserva- tion agriculture. Similarly, the PepsiCo Foundation (PepsiCo’s philanthropic arm) is developing part- nerships and programs to improve health, environ- ment, and education in underserved regions.
BOX 14
Private Philanthropy and Public Policy Prabhu Pingali, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
T
he rise of private nonprofit organiza- tions during the past fifteen years has
transformed the nature of aid supply in a significant way. By 2011, the philan- thropic sector had added to the number of organizations operating internation- ally and to total aid flows. Although no consolidated statistics exist, it is esti- mated that global private aid doubled between 2004 and 2009. Likewise, at US$52.5 billion in 2009, the value of pri- vate donations to developing countries may well have become comparable in
74
scale to sector-allocated official develop- ment assistance.1 In the agriculture sector, the growth
of philanthropic giving in parallel to the emergence of new bilateral donors— such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS), and Korea— comes at a critical time, when levels of investment in agricultural development remain largely inadequate. The signifi- cant withdrawal of donor support and national government attention to agri- culture in the mid-1980s following the
STEPPING INTO THE GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM
success of the Green Revolution left the global food system in a stagnant state. The resulting stagnation and decline in agricultural productivity growth has been felt throughout most of Africa and South Asia. The international community recently renewed its interest in agricul- ture following the 2007–08 and 2011 food price crises, and the trends in pri- vate and bilateral giving may signal the beginning of a new surge in international agricultural development and, ultimately, in improved food security worldwide.
Millions of US$ United States
World Bank United Kingdom European Commission Canada
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Switzerland Netherlands Japan
Germany
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126