Donors: Financial resources and beyond

1. In the Nutrition Year of Action, 14 governments and seven organisations, including three philanthropies, three multilateral development banks and the European Commission, acting as donors registered 36 commitments comprising 61 goals. To support the fight against malnutrition, 13 donors committed more than US$26.3 billion in financial resources between 2020 and 2030. Six donors committed to having their financial goals reported to the OECD through various mechanisms, including the policy marker on nutrition.
2. Donor goals extended beyond mobilising funding and covered other nutrition actions. Actions aimed at strengthening policy influence and partnerships were seen by donors as key tools to tackle poor diets and malnutrition in low and middle-income countries.
3. More than US$8.2 billion of financial resources were mobilised in response to the impact of Covid-19 on food and health systems. Overall, a fifth (13, 21%) of donor enabling, policy and impact goals were developed in response to the pandemic.

If you would like to know more about any of the terms used in this chapter, you can visit the report glossary.

To support the fight against malnutrition, donors (including governments and organisations such as philanthropies and multilateral development banks), which commit to nutrition actions outside their country of origin, had a key role in the Nutrition Year of Action.^[1] The role of donors is critical to secure increased financial investments for nutrition that have been repeatedly called for and are needed to close the financing gap. Between 2022 and 2030, additional resources in the region of US$10.8 billion per year, on average, are required to achieve four global nutrition targets that are more relevant in low and middle-income countries^[2] (stunting, in children under five years of age, wasting in children under five years of age, anaemia in women of reproductive age, and breastfeeding).^[3] The Nutrition Year of Action was particularly important to mobilise resources, as it was estimated the effects of Covid-19 on the food and health system require US$3.8 billion in additional investments over the period 2022 to 2030. Despite this, official development assistance (ODA) supporting nutrition-specific interventions has recently stalled, remaining at US$0.96 billion in 2018 and 2019, down from US$1.07 billion in 2017.^[4] Yet, donors’ commitments are also important for providing assistance that goes beyond direct financial support, for example facilitating coordination across stakeholders, building partnerships and providing in-country capacity to support country priorities.

Donor engagement at the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit 2021 exceeded that of previous summits. A total of 21 donors registered 36 commitments comprising 61 goals and spanning all five N4G thematic areas. Most donors (19, 90%) were from high-income countries, of which 14 (74%) were governments. The US and Denmark are the only governments to have submitted commitments as a donor and non-donor.^[5] With an average length of just over five years, donor commitments tended to be developed unilaterally, with just five (14%) commitments jointly submitted with other stakeholders (e.g. UN agencies and governments). Most goals registered by donors were categorised as enabling (52, 85%) and sub-categorised as ‘leadership and governance’ (22, 42%) and ‘financial’ (18, 35%). Only six (10%) and three (4.9%) were policy and impact goals, respectively.

Most donor goals were in the low level of the Nutrition Action SMARTness Index (28, 46%), indicating the need to provide more information to ensure trackability and address extensive clarifications during the verification process. While 13 (21%) goals were high in SMARTness, three (5%) were assessed as trackable but require extensive clarifications (upper moderate in SMARTness). The remaining 17 (28%) goals were lower moderate in SMARTness. Looking at the ingredients, commitments obtained lower scores in the Measurable and Achievable dimensions, mainly due to missing information, including the indicators used to track the commitment and the cost associated with their implementation.

In light of the need to secure increased financial investments for nutrition and close the financial gap that has been exacerbated by the effects of Covid-19, this chapter highlights the key role donors had in mobilising financial resources and committing other nutrition actions during the Nutrition Year of Action. It expands on the mobilisation of financial resources from donors and the role that donors had beyond the financial support. It concludes by reviewing donor commitments to support the impacts of Covid-19 on food and health systems.^[6]

In the Nutrition Year of Action, 14 donors registered 18 ‘financial’ goals (as part of 16 commitments) and pledged more than US$26.3 billion in the effort to end malnutrition.^[7] On average, donors pledged US$0.47 billion per year throughout the length of the commitments (3–10 years).^[8] Even though the total amount is likely to be an underestimation since one ‘financial’ goal registered did not include enough information to determine the total amount of the contribution, the amount is still below the US$0.96 billion of ODA supporting nutrition-specific interventions that were disbursed in 2019.^[9] Nonetheless, this is the largest overall amount of any previous N4G summits, following the mobilisation of US$23 billion at the first N4G summit 2013 in London. Donor governments provided the largest contribution, with more than US$18.4 billion (70% of the total), followed by donor organisations with US$7.8 billion (Figure 6.1). All but three donor governments have submitted at least one ‘financial’ goal. Donor governments are represented (in order of contribution) by the US (US$11 billion, 60% of the total pledged by donor governments), Japan (US$2.8 billion, 15%), the UK (US$1.9 billion, 10%), Ireland (US$0.95 billion, 5%), Germany (US$0.69 billion, 3.8%), the Netherlands (US$0.47 billion, 2.6%), Canada (US$0.39 billion, 2.1%), France (US$0.22 billion, 1.2%)^[10] and Slovenia (US$0.01 million, <0.1%). Donor organisations include the European Commission (US$3 billion, 38% of the total pledged by donor organisations), the World Bank Group (US$2.5 billion, 32%), the African Development Bank (US$1.35, 17%), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (US$0.92 billion, 12%), and King Philanthropies (US$0.1 billion, 1.3%). One third of ‘financial’ goals (6, 33%, amounting to US$19.7 billion) were ‘financial commitments’ (i.e. with a legal decision to fund) while eight (44%, US$5.9 billion) were ‘financial disbursements’ (actual expenditure). The remaining four ‘financial’ goals, totalling US$0.69 billion, did not specify the nature of the financial commitment. The focus of the ‘financial’ goals is different across donor stakeholders. Donor organisation ‘financial’ goals tended to focus on investment in nutrition programmes, while those submitted by donor governments included budget allocation to nutrition (7, 54%) and investment in nutrition programmes (6, 46%).

The SMARTness Index of the ‘financial’ goals follows a different pattern compared with the overall donor goals. Most ‘financial’ goals (7, 39%) were lower moderate in SMARTness (i.e. they are not trackable but require minimal clarifications). One third (6, 33%) were high (trackable and requiring minimal clarifications). The remaining were low (4, 22%, not trackable and requiring extensive clarifications), and only one was upper moderate (trackable but requiring extensive clarifications). Looking at the ingredients composing the SMARTness score, more clarity and information were required to identify the baseline and target level of indicators, the total costs, and the funding mechanism. Seven (39%) ‘financial’ goals registered by donor governments (Japan, UK, Ireland, Germany and Canada) and donor organisations (European Commission and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) are expected to be reported to the OECD through various mechanisms, including the OECD Development Assistance Committee policy marker on nutrition (a tracking initiative designed to improve the identification, reporting and monitoring of multisectoral and cross-cutting nutrition activities).^[11] A ‘financial’ goal submitted by the Netherlands is expected to be tracked through a ministerial development aid portal, while The World Bank will report to the International Development Association (IDA). Eight (44%) ‘financial’ goals that were part of donor government commitments and two (11%) that were part of donor organisation commitments did not provide details of a reporting mechanism in the original submission.

The ‘financial’ goals committed to funding both nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions. Two (11%) ‘financial’ goals were designed to address nutrition-specific interventions, for a total of US$1.7 billion. Four (22%) ‘financial’ goals pledged US$3.1 billion to both nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive projects. The remaining 12 (67%) ‘financial’ goals did not specify the scope of the interventions. Most ‘financial’ goals (12, 67 %) had a global target, with four goals (22%) targeting multiple countries, one (6%) with a national focus, and one (6%) with a subnational focus. With 14 (78%) goals focusing on the overall population, three goals (17%) targeted pregnant and lactating women and children under five years of age. The remaining one goal (6%) had no population targets.

Donor commitments extended beyond ‘financial’ goals, covering other enabling goals as well as policy and impact actions (Figure 6.2). Most goals were enabling (52, 85%), of which 22 (42%) aimed to support political leadership and good governance, for example by supporting global (e.g. UN Food System and Scaling Up Nutrition) and regional (e.g. Asia Health and Wellbeing Initiative and Africa Health and Wellbeing Initiative) initiatives to strengthen policy influence, engagement and partnerships. These can support the formation of multisectoral working groups or strengthen partnerships to advance the adoption of nutrition-sensitive programmes (e.g. promotion of food fortification, provision of school meals, and prioritising nutrition projects that integrate gender equality). Enabling goals that were ‘research, monitoring and data’ (10, 19%) included support for collecting better nutrition data, conducting regional training and providing technical assistance to design and implement nutrition interventions. Donors pledged to improve monitoring and evaluation processes and increase the use and availability of data. Two (4%) ‘operational’ goals focused on providing technical assistance and building national capacity.

‘Leadership and governance’ and ‘research, monitoring and data’ goals (combined, 32, 62%) have significant room to improve the formulation and clarity. With more than half of these goals with low SMARTness (18, 56%), the verification process provides stakeholders with the opportunity to make goals trackable and consistent. A quarter of these goals (8, 25%) were lower moderate, requiring additional information to make it trackable but with minimal clarifications overall. Tracking the progress of these goals will benefit from additional information and clarification about the baseline and target level of indicator, monitoring and evaluation plan (Measurable dimension) and total costs, funding mechanism, and the amount secured (Achievable dimension). Finally, six goals (19%) were high in SMARTness, having been assessed as trackable and requiring minimal clarifications.

Policy and impact goals represented a small fraction of all donor goals (6, 10%, and 3, 4.9%, respectively). Policy goals were mainly ‘food supply chain’ (e.g. improving the diffusion of food fortification) and ‘nutrition care services’ (e.g. supporting the implementation of breastfeeding programmes). Impact goals included the implementation of stunting and wasting programmes. Policy and impact goals were associated with commitments predominantly aligned with maternal, infant and young child nutrition global targets.

With a fifth of donor goals (13, 21%) developed to address nutrition impacts of Covid-19, donors were at the front line in tackling the unprecedented challenges brought by the pandemic (Figure 6.3). Despite the worldwide distribution of vaccines and a greater understanding of the spread of the disease, the Covid-19 pandemic's prolonged health and economic repercussions are likely to continue to have an impact on food systems and nutrition.^[12] Between 83 and 132 million people have been estimated to experience food insecurity as a direct impact of Covid-19.^[13] As the pandemic progressed and the effects evolved, donors committed to more than US$8 billion (31% of the total amount committed) to fund nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive programmes that address the consequences of Covid-19 on the food and health system. In addition, donors committed to financial assistance to support international efforts (e.g. the World Health Organization) and partnerships (e.g. Scaling Up Nutrition) aimed at tackling global nutrition issues also related to Covid-19.

Donor efforts to reverse the effects of Covid-19 went beyond financial commitments and extended to other enabling goals. Donors committed to strengthening collaborations and developing partnerships with international organisations. They also committed to reinforcing multisectoral approaches and improving internal reporting mechanisms. Among the policy goals (6, 10%), all those that were ‘food supply chain’ (2, 33%) were developed in response to Covid-19. These focused on intensifying and expanding support for large-scale food fortification through the food system.

In the Nutrition Year of Action, donor governments and organisations pledged more than US$26.3 billion (US$0.47 billion on average per year throughout the length of the commitments) in the effort to end malnutrition. With a focus on maternal, infant and young child nutrition global targets, this is the largest aggregated amount of all N4G summits. The role of donors extended beyond ‘financial’ goals; they registered other enabling goals as well as policy and impact nutrition actions. This provided assistance to recipient countries, for example by facilitating coordination across stakeholders, building partnerships and providing in-country capacity. With almost a quarter of goals developed to address nutrition impacts related to Covid-19, donors were at the front line in tackling the unprecedented challenges brought by the pandemic.

1. A larger range of governments and organisations, functioning in donor capacities, should pledge more resources in order to achieve undernutrition targets by 2030. More should also use tracking tools (e.g. OECD Development Assistance Committee policy marker on nutrition) to strengthen accountability and monitor progress. In the Nutrition Year of Action, there have been significant financial pledges from donors, but larger efforts to mobilise catalytic innovative finance and increase domestic revenues are needed to achieve nutrition targets.
2. The role of donors should continue to go even further beyond financial commitments. With a range of enabling, policy and impact goals, donor governments and organisations can play a key role at the regional and global levels in enhancing coordination across stakeholders, building partnerships and supporting capacity development and research.
3. Donors should play a key role in supporting governments in times of crisis. Covid-19 and the consequences of the war in Ukraine have exacerbated the vulnerability of food and health systems worldwide, in particular in low and middle-income countries. Mobilising new resources without compromising other priorities, as well as boosting non-financial commitments, is key to increasing in-country preparedness and response to needs.