Interview of the month: Rein Paulsen, Director of the FAO Office of Emergencies and Resilience warns that Ukraine war could create widespread food insecurity

You are the Director of the FAO Office of Emergencies and Resilience. Could you tell us a bit about the work of your office?

The Office of Emergencies and Resilience is essentially responsible for leading and coordinating FAO’s humanitarian and resilience-building efforts in crisis contexts. That involves quite a range of work, including advocacy around the critical role of agriculture in addressing and preventing food crises, supporting FAO’s engagement in key global fora and partnerships (like the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, the Global Network Against Food Crises, the Secretary-General’s High-Level Task Force on Famine Prevention, the Global Food Security Cluster, among others), mobilizing resources for action on the ground, designing resilience-building and humanitarian programmes, communications and outreach on FAO’s activities, operations support, training and ensuring compliance with rules and regulations.

You are a thought leader in your field and you have advocated for a change in the way we provide humanitarian aid. Humanitarian crises are unfolding all over the globe, from droughts to desert locust infestations, natural disasters and wars. How will the need for emergency response evolve in the future?

As levels of global acute food insecurity – recorded by the Global Report on Food Crises – reach record levels, alongside record levels of funding for humanitarian response, it is absolutely clear that we need to rethink how we are addressing crises. That means, first, considering the humanitarian response itself and determining whether interventions are APPROPRIATE to needs. After years and, in some cases, decades of action has our collective response evolved and does it reflect the reality on the ground? For example, we know that on average two-thirds of those experiencing high acute food insecurity are rural people who rely on agriculture as their main means of survival. In many food crisis countries these figures are even higher, such as in South Sudan (up to 95 percent) or Afghanistan (80 percent). Yet, the latest analysis from the Global Network Against Food Crises shows that while funding to the food security sector has been consistently high, within that, allocations to agriculture have significantly decreased, accounting for about 8 percent of funding.

Likewise, greater consideration must be given to the TIMING of response. The agricultural season is unfortunately not dictated by donor budgets or humanitarian programme cycles. Seasons exist – for crop production, for livestock rearing, for fishing, for vegetables – and we either take advantage of them to rapidly increase the availability of NUTRITIOUS food right where it is needed most or we don’t. When choices are made to favour another form of assistance over agriculture at a key moment in the production season, then there is very real risk of rising and long-lasting humanitarian needs well into the future.

Food assistance provided after the worst-case scenario materializes saves lives – and is critical – but unless equal priority is given to investments aimed at rebooting local food production and making agriculture in vulnerable countries more resilient, acute hunger will simply keep growing and food crises multiplying. Agriculture not only offers an immediate means to halt hunger but lays the pathway for resilience-building and out of crisis.

Going beyond simply pressing pause on acute hunger to halting and reversing its progress starts with a humanitarian response that fully incorporates livelihoods interventions and that brings together humanitarian, development, peace and climate actors to tackle the root causes of hunger.

Many food crises are protracted in time, such as those in Yemen and Afghanistan. What does this imply for FAO emergency operations? Are there programmatic implications for your office?

Yes, protracted crises are an excellent example of why we need to address the underlying drivers of food crises at the same time as we meet immediate humanitarian needs. This is why the Office of Emergencies and Resilience focuses on humanitarian response incorporated within a wider perspective of resilience-building and so-called “nexus” approaches that bring together humanitarian, development, peace and climate actions. Nexus approaches are not new and are essentially a recognition there is no straight line from humanitarian response to development interventions, and that these overlap and must often begin at the same time in the same contexts. The “peace part” recognizes that (i) conflict is the main driver of acute hunger; (ii) conflict undermines and reverses development gains; and (iii) humanitarian and development interventions can have conflict impacts. In other words, humanitarian and development interventions should align with and contribute to, or at the very least, not undermine, peace efforts.

One example of this programming is FAO’s efforts to strengthen resilience in the Karamoja cluster – over the last decade, and through multiple projects, FAO has provided holistic support to the same communities to facilitate cross-border sharing of pastoral resources and coordination of livestock movement. This has involved a range of activities. For example, humanitarian livelihoods response in the form of agricultural inputs, livestock treatments, destocking and cash. Alongside longer-term approaches to building more resilient food systems through fodder and feed production, rehabilitating water catchments, strengthening milk value chains, enhancing early warning systems and climate information and engaging communities in investment and policy decisions. A major success has been the engagement of national and regional governments and authorities in establishing transhumance protocols. For local communities, the impacts have been significant and lasting. The reduction of conflicts along the border has enabled traders to cross the border between Kenya and Uganda more frequently, and safely, thus significantly increasing cross-border trade in livestock, grains and other commodities. The improved cross-border collaboration and coordination also enabled the governments of Turkana County in Kenya and those of the Moroto and Kotido districts in Uganda to develop a joint drought response that included vaccination and mass veterinary treatment of livestock, as well as the vaccination of infants, which further promoted the peaceful coexistence between the Turkana and Karamojong peoples.

We understand that partnership is a key factor for responding to complex crises. How does FAO address the partnership and coordination aspect of food crises response?

Ending hunger is possible, even in the most complex contexts. But doing so requires political commitment, adequate resources and importantly – strong and creative partnerships at all levels and with key constituencies to deliver change. While we have many successful examples of nexus-type approaches, there are many challenges ahead. In particular, ensuring implementation on the scale needed to make a lasting impact on acute hunger. FAO sees partnerships as being key to overcoming these challenges – and in particular the Global Network Against Food Crises. The Global Network was set up by FAO, WFP and the EU during the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit but in the last few years its work has accelerated. The vision underpinning the Global Network Against Food Crises is to bring together partners across the spectrum of interventions to prevent and respond to food crises, incorporating humanitarian and development actions and linking to other sectors, including peace. Alongside global leadership in data and analysis around acute food insecurity and resilience, the Global Network is building consensus and leading country-level dialogues, supporting policy-making and investment to address food crises.

The latest crisis your office has had to deal with is undoubtedly the war in Ukraine. We know that FAO is staying and delivering. FAO is working with national and international partners under difficult conditions. However, the war is quickly unfolding and reaching a larger part of the country. What are the major challenges you are facing on the ground?

FAO is deeply concerned about the food security situation in Ukraine. The war has already caused extensive damage and loss of life in key population centres, spread across rural areas, and sparked massive displacement. It remains extremely difficult to predict the evolution of the war and its effect on lives, livelihoods, food security and nutrition. An immediate and worrying finding is that food shortages are expected immediately or in the next three months in over 40 percent of oblasts surveyed. Right now, the biggest challenges are access to vulnerable people due to the volatility of the situation on the ground. In addition, fuel availability is a major challenge to both food production and supply chains. Just one-fifth of agribusinesses surveyed by the government last week indicated that they had sufficient fuel to plant this spring. Thus, distributing the seeds procured will be complicated and we are working with partners and the government to find solutions. The operational environment is very dynamic, but with more resources we can quickly expand to reach all those targeted under our appeal. Of the 52 partners in the Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster that FAO is co-leading, just one – FAO – is involved in agricultural livelihoods assistance at present. In addition to increased resources, more partners are needed to reach all those requiring assistance.

To what extent are FAO interventions able to limit the damage caused by the war?

FAO’s immediate priority is to enable smallholders to plant vegetables and potatoes for spring and minimize disruptions to food supplies. However, the situation right now remains extremely fluid. FAO has already begun needs assessments to monitor the changing situation on the ground in terms of agriculture impacts, food prices, etc. These data will help inform and reshape our interventions as the situation progresses. In addition, FAO is working with the Government to plan and prepare for the eventual recovery and rebuilding of Ukraine’s agriculture sector. Beyond Ukraine, FAO is advocating for greater investment in food production closest to where it is needed most to offset the impacts of the war in countries already experiencing food crises.