1. Achieving freedom from child hunger and undernutrition: What bilateral partners can contribute
UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition
34th Session, 26 February – 1 March 2007
Poul Engberg-Pedersen
Director-General, Norad
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

2. ”Working Together” is the theme – Some questions on effective implementation
Norway supports the goals of ECHUI and the work of SCN. Our PM co-chaired the UN Reform Panel: Delivering as One
”We all agree” on importance of nutrition for MDGs, according to SCN documents. This is correct and encouraging!
But we have agreed for 30 years – Why have we not been more successful?
Is it due to weak implementation, or lack of resources? Or structural causes?
We do not accept ’mission impossible’
There are many experts on nutrition here – I’ll focus on implementation
Obviously, I do not speak on behalf of all bilaterals
Norway is supportive, still considering best ways of supporting
Side/Page

3. Why is it so difficult in the real world
Why is it so difficult in the real world? Nutrition is embedded in history, culture, power, resources...
ETHIOPIA
Food, conflict, politics
Geography, topography
Age-old food culture, related hygiene
Gender and power
Natural disasters
Yet, amazing cultural coping capacity
BANGLADESH
Population, space and natural resources
Gender, religion and power
Recurrent natural disasters
Closed households with trees, ponds etc. (baris) as health & nutrition hazards, but huge nutrition potential
Side/Page

4. Two supplementary approaches in the UN system, well-tested and with strengths and weaknesses
THE COHESIVE UN-SYSTEM
Advocacy, awareness, resource mobilization in and through ”international nutrition system”
The right to food
Mainstreaming nutrition in all emergency and development activities
One UN...
TARGETED SERVICES
Health, hygiene & nutrition education and promotion
Micronutrient supplement
Household water treatment
Parasite control measures
Household food security
Less than $80 per family
Delivering... (as One UN)
Side/Page

5. Development effectiveness of cooperation: Global goals and targets (MDGs) – National ownership (PRS)
Nutrition is critical to MDGs (#1-#6), but programmes and partners cannot be ’deduced’ from the MDGs
For two decades, development cooperation has moved upstream from projects to policies, budgets and programmes, for reasons of ownership, effectiveness, harmonisation and sustainability
National ownership is critical to food and nutrition programmes, but what is the link from ”national policy frameworks and coordination mechanisms” to the reality of undernutrition in families?
Many bilateral partners are constrained by concentration on three sectors in each country – and nutrition is not one of them…
Agriculture, food production and food distribution have lost out in the attention and resources of bilateral development cooperation
Side/Page

6. What can bilaterals do to close the gap between nutrition reality and implementation models?
Global engagement
Share our own experience with malnutrition, gender inequality, health and nutrition education. This requires involving both development and nutrition expertise, as we do in Norway
Involve ourselves in global normative and regulatory efforts, related to marketing of unhealthy food, intellectual property, etc.
Engage with the ‘new donors’ in the private sector, adopting and supplementing their vertical results-orientation
Promote ‘working together’ as agreeing on goals, strategies, but creating space for division of labour and diversified implementation
Norway: Integrate nutrition with work for MDG4 on child survival
Side/Page

7. What can bilaterals do to close the gap between nutrition reality and implementation models?
National engagement
Targeted services: Support international partners (from UN, civil society, private sector) who can deliver in collaboration with national and local authorities and public and private actors
Policy dialogue: Encourage analysis and debate about nutrition’s foundation in history, culture, power. Politicization may be more effective than ‘policy framework and coordination mechanism’
Seek division of labour among bilaterals, so that at least 1-2 partners are active in nutrition research, policy and operations in each LIC
Contribute to capacity development through links with nutrition expertise in the region and in home country
Side/Page

8. Will such national and international engagement close the gap between nutrition reality and implementation?
Realism about the strength of embedded causes, and about the limitations of both approaches: ‘Cohesive mainstreaming’ and ‘Targeted services’
The two approaches fall short on food production and distribution
Sustainable improvement must build upon existing strengths (such as in Bangladeshi and Ethiopian households and communities)
Specialized partners (UN agencies, civil society organizations) have strengths over bilaterals due to cross-cutting, targeted nature of nutrition problems and solutions
Bilaterals have key roles in providing resources (directly and through all partners), experience, expertise and political pressure for right to food. Resources must reach local levels
There is a need for ECHUI (8 billion $ annually for 100 million families), but also for rising incomes and education levels
Side/Page