1

.:: Food Security Analysis Service

SSttrreennggtthheenniinngg EEmmeerrggeennccyy NNeeeeddss AAsssseessssmmeenntt CCaappaacciittyy ((SSEENNAACC))

55tthh SSEENNAACC

AAddvviissoorryy GGrroouupp MMeeeettiinngg RReeppoorrtt::

SSuummmmaarryy ooff MMeeeettiinngg oonn SSttrreennggtthheenniinngg EEmmeerrggeennccyy NNeeeeddss AAsssseessssmmeenntt CCaappaacciittyy iinn WWFFPP

1111--1122 FFeebbrruuaarryy 22000088 RRoommee

2

5th SENAC Advisory Group Meeting Report: Summary of Meeting on Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity in WFP Prepared by: Caroline Chaumont, Food Security Communication Officer, WFP. February 2008 © World Food Programme, Food Security Analysis Service This report was prepared under the umbrella of the “Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity” (SENAC) project. The SENAC project aims to reinforce WFP’s capacity to assess humanitarian needs in the food sector during emergencies and the immediate aftermath through accurate and impartial needs assessments. United Nations World Food Programme Headquarters: Via C.G. Viola 68, Parco de’ Medici, 00148 Rome, Italy Food Security Analysis Service Director: Joyce Luma Tel: +39 06 6513 2168 E-mail: Joyce.Luma@wfp.org SENAC Methodology Specialist: Agnès Dhur Tel: +39 06 6513 3650 E-mail: Agnes.Dhur@wfp.org SENAC Pre-Crisis Information Specialist: Jan Delbaere Tel: +39 06 6513 3256 E-mail: Jan.Delbaere@wfp.org This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

3

5th SENAC Advisory Group Meeting Report ___________________________________________________________ 11-12 February 2008

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................5 I. Background and Purpose of the Meeting...............................................................6 II. Introductory Session – Main achievements of the 3-year SENAC effort..............7 III. Inter-agency initiatives related to assessments ........................................................8

A – Status of the Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) of Food Security ................8 B – IASC Nutrition Cluster - Tri-clusters Initial Rapid Assessment (IRA) tool .......9 C – UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) Task Force on Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation (TF-AME)......................................................................9 D – OCHA Assessment and Classification of Emergencies (ACE) initiative.........10 E – Discussion on the various inter-agency initiatives ............................................11

IV. Remaining challenges and how to address them ...................................................12

A – Introduction: Overview of remaining challenges..............................................12 B – Working groups: summary of discussions ........................................................14

V. The Future of the Advisory group of Experts beyond SENAC ..............................16 Acronyms.....................................................................................................................18 Annex 1: Agenda .........................................................................................................19 Annex 2: List of Participants .......................................................................................22 Annex 3: Main achievements of the 3-year SENAC effort – Full version of the introductory presentation .............................................................................................24 Annex 4: Monitoring report on the Strengthening Emergency needs assessment Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................25 Annex 5: Market analysis Working Group output.......................................................27 Annex 6: Working group on Food Security and Nutrition output ...............................28 Annex 7: Remaining issues..........................................................................................30

5

Report of the 5th Advisory Group Meeting on Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity in WFP (SENAC)

11-12 February 2008, Rome

Executive Summary After three years of efforts to “Strengthen Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity” (SENAC) of WFP, the Advisory Group of Experts (AG) met to take stock of the achievements so far, review remaining challenges and ways to address them, and discuss the future of the AG beyond SENAC. Presentations of inter-agency initiatives related to assessments were also made to the AG to provide the broader background against which SENAC efforts are made. SENAC is due to formally end in July 2008. The following summary is drawn from plenary and working group discussions on these topics.

SENAC has successfully led to a significant improvement of WFP’s needs assessment practices and assessments have become the backbone of WFP operations.

Despite the overall achievements, challenges remain. The main technical challenges are: linking household food security with individual food and nutrition security, improving the relevance of market analysis tools for household food security analysis in emergency assessments, baselines and monitoring systems, and improving risk analysis. In addition, WFP still has to build capacity to conduct high quality food security analyses, in particular at the country level. The link between assessments and programming needs to be strengthened through a better analysis of response options, more timely assessments and enhanced communication of results. A proper food security information system needs to be set up.

The importance of Food Security Analysis is recognized by WFP’s senior management, in particular as the humanitarian community is facing new challenges with the rise in commodity prices and the increased frequency of natural disasters.

The recent surge of food and fuel prices is a concern. There is an overall need to understand the changing dynamics and causes of food insecurity, and livelihoods in this new context.

Concerns were expressed about the proliferation of ongoing assessment-related initiatives in the UN system. Participants were reminded that donors need clear and simple information that can guide decision-making with regard to sector support, clarify the role of these sectors in addressing severe situations, and track the extent of changes in severity over time. The Future of the Advisory Group of Experts beyond SENAC

The AG has directly contributed to SENAC achievements and has generated a much improved, positive dialogue, and reinforced transparency.

The most prominent remaining and new issues to be addressed and to which the AG could contribute, if it continues, are: market analysis and the impact of prices on food security, risk analysis, measurement of the impact of food security interventions, responses to food insecurity (in particular cash and voucher responses), social safety nets and responses linked to risk reduction and mitigation.

It is likely that WFP will need some advice and guidance in specific areas. WFP will need first to establish priority areas and check existing constraints.

6

I. Background and Purpose of the Meeting WFP’s Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity (SENAC) project is a three-year effort to provide more transparent, credible, accurate, and timely food security assessment and pre-crisis information in emergency situations. SENAC is a major component of WFP’s policy and implementation plan to strengthen emergency needs assessments (ENAs) in four areas: accountability and transparency, methods and guidance, pre-crisis information, and assessment capacities.1 Substantive technical guidance on research, methods and partnerships is provided by an Advisory Group (AG) of experts which meets twice-yearly with WFP headquarters and field staff, the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and FAO (see Annex 1 for the list of participants). The SENAC project started at the end of 2004 and will come to completion towards mid-2008. However, plans have already been made to consolidate the various achievements and continue the efforts beyond the forthcoming end of the project. In this context, the purpose of the 5th AG meeting was to:

1. Take stock of the achievements of the SENAC project; 2. Discuss remaining assessment challenges and how to address them; 3. Discuss the future of the Advisory Group of experts beyond SENAC; 4. Situate WFP assessment efforts within the various, ongoing inter-agency initiatives

related to assessment and, in particular, those with a food security component. The meeting involved sessions in plenary and with four working groups (see Annex 1 for the detailed agenda). The working groups discussed the following issues: Group 1: Linking household food security with nutrition security at individual level in Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) and Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) Group 2: Analyzing the effects of market price rises on household food security and vulnerability – ensuring relevant market analysis to inform household food security analysis in EFSA, CFSVA, and Food Security Monitoring Systems (FSMS) Group 3: Enabling appropriate quality monitoring of EFSA and CFSVA Group 4: Improving risk analysis in CFSVA and EFSA Section II of this report provides a brief summary of the introductory session on SENAC achievements; Section III summarizes the presentations of interagency initiatives related to assessments; Section IV presents the main outstanding issues and conclusions of the Working Groups respectively; Section V summarizes the discussion and conclusions on the future of the AG and next steps.

1 SENAC and related efforts have been funded jointly by WFP and the following donors: the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) and Citigroup Foundation; complementary projects under the Implementation Plan have been funded by the German, Danish, Canadian and French Governments.

7

II. Introductory Session – Main achievements of the 3-year SENAC effort John Aylieff, WFP’s Director a.i. of the Programme Design and Support Division, opened the AG meeting by presenting the main achievements of the Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Implementation Plan (SENAIP), of which the SENAC project is the major component. For the full version of his introductory presentation, please see Annex 3. The main highlights were the following:

SENAC has successfully led to a significant improvement of WFP’s needs assessment practices and assessments have become the backbone of WFP operations. They are routinely used to guide the implementation of WFP’s operations, in particular providing the basis for targeting, beneficiary numbers and total food needs.

The importance of Food Security Analysis is recognized by WFP’s senior management and its role has been clearly acknowledged in the new Strategic Plan (2009-2011)

Despite the overall achievements, challenges remain. The link between assessments and programming is still not strong enough. It has to do with the following issues: the analysis of response options, timeliness of assessments and communication of results.

o The quality of non-food recommendations needs to be improved. An organizational architecture to facilitate multi-sectoral analysis and recommendations and a more strategic approach to partnerships could ensure better quality of non-food recommendations and their implementation. o To ensure the timeliness of assessments, WFP Country Directors will need to better plan and budget for assessments. WFP will need to improve, as well, its tracking system to keep ahead of project cycles and expand and strengthen food security monitoring systems. o Communicating the results of assessments clearly and widely to influence decision-making and justify WFP’s intervention is crucial. Progress on communicating assessment results and ensuring transparency has been made in the last three years. One of the post-SENAIP priorities will be to institutionalize good communication practices.

This strengthened WFP capacity provides a good foundation in the face of new challenges. Climate variability and the rise of commodity and fuel prices are leading to increased vulnerability and may well change the profile of food insecurity. Its exact nature and its impact at household level have yet to be understood.

The priorities WFP will address in the coming months are: i) the remaining gap in country-level assessment capacity, ii) strengthening response analysis, iii) communication.

To provide a single source of direction and guidance and more consistency in data collection and analysis, the former Emergency Needs Assessment Service (ODAN) and the Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit have been merged into a new Food Security Analysis Service at headquarters. It will include a risk analysis pillar, reflecting the need for a stronger link between early warning and food security analysis, in particular in Food Security Monitoring Systems (FSMS). The new Service is part of a newly created Program Design and Support Division. This will provide greater coherence and help to keep abreast of program cycles.

8

In the next Questions-and-Answer session the following issues were raised:

Communication of needs to donors: Progress must be made on communication with donors, in particular to meet their information needs and funding cycles. There will be an opportunity to address this issue during the upcoming review of WFP programme funding mechanisms. Lessons can be learned from FEWS NET which has introduced more prediction and forecasting in its food security analysis allowing for a better fit with donor information needs.

WFP’s progress in needs assessments and how it fits within the wider UN family: WFP’s assessments are undertaken in the midst of larger exercises, such as the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP). Donors still tend to look at the CAP as a long shopping list rather than a UN strategy for the country. An additional concern is the possibility of multiple assessments within the IASC Cluster system. Vouchers and cash transfer in WFP: A policy on vouchers and cash transfer is being prepared and will be presented to the October Executive Board. This issue has received a lot of attention recently due to recent commodity price increases. Still, many questions need to be answered on voucher and cash programs, in particular the scaling up of projects. WFP and the NGO community are facing the same challenges. Price increases affect urban areas in particular and WFP will review its experience in urban settings and in cash projects. Financing of assessments: Initially the idea was that assessments would be directly funded by WFP’s Direct Support Costs (core budget). This is however not feasible, especially given the current budget situation. The argument that this would ensure the independence of the assessment team from Country Directors’ (CDs) interference is not valid, as there have been very few cases where CDs tried to influence assessment conclusions. The discussions on the reform of the WFP’s budget categories, which are likely to move away from the “metric tons system” will be an opportunity to address the issue. Local procurement: WFP has been purchasing food locally. This is not a recent shift but rather a trend that started about 15 years ago. WFP receives half of its donor funding in cash and in 2007 around 80 percent of this money was spent to purchase food in developing countries. The portion bought in the least developed countries is more than 50%, an important sum. The problem is that WFP may now be reaching a plateau in its local purchasing efforts. A key question is how to improve local purchase and ensure that purchases leverage development for farmers. WFP is looking into this through the Purchase for Progress initiative.

III. Inter-agency initiatives related to assessments

A – Status of the Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) of Food Security Luca Alinovi, Programme Manager, EC-FAO Food Security Information for Action Programme, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of FAO, gave a brief update on the status of the IPC initiative. A Steering Committee has been set up allowing for greater transparency. There are difficulties in getting all the partners together at a global level. At field level, work is proceeding rather smoothly but countries have their own demands and technical requirements which tend to challenge the idea of standardization. Work is ongoing on the analysis of the “Generally Food Insecure Phase” with the possibility of splitting it into two parts. Activities are proceeding well in East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, DRC, Uganda, and Sudan). In West Africa, work is ongoing in Niger, and discussions are taking place in Burkina Faso, and Central African Republic. Dialogue with government counterparts

9

has started in Southern Africa. An IPC training for the National Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC) will take place in Zimbabwe at the end of February 2008, and may also be organized in Mozambique. The need was noted for a more permanent formal structure at the global level.

B – IASC Nutrition Cluster - Tri-clusters Initial Rapid Assessment (IRA) tool Agnès Dhur, Methodology Specialist for the SENAC initiative, gave a brief presentation of the work of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Nutrition Cluster on assessments. The Nutrition Cluster has 31 members among which seven are UN agencies with NGOs making up half the membership. It includes two working groups, one on Assessments and one on Capacity Building. The Nutrition Cluster initiated the production of an Initial Rapid Assessment (IRA) in the spring of 2007 and subsequently involved the WASH and Health Clusters. The current IRA tool is a 37-page checklist which covers the basic first questions that should be asked in the aftermath of a sudden-onset emergency. Food security is covered in less than one page, a clearly unsatisfactory fact. The IRA tool has been field-tested but in “stable” crisis situations, which is also not satisfactory. Comments were made by WFP and others on these issues. The three Clusters have now started to develop a comprehensive multi-sectoral tool, and similar problems (length, relevance) are anticipated.

The Nutrition Cluster is also reviving the SMART initiative. SMART is an inter-agency effort to standardize methods and tools to support the measurement of mortality rates, acute malnutrition and food security. The food security module is currently based on the Household Economy Approach and remains somewhat controversial. The Cluster is organizing a meeting on 7-9 April to review the whole SMART guidance, with inputs being sought in particular from WFP and FAO.

C – UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) Task Force on Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation (TF-AME) Mark Smulders, Senior Economist at FAO, informed the AG of the recent initiation of activities undertaken by the Task Force. The SCN has existed for the last 35 years and is a community of practice encompassing UN agencies, member governments, NGOs, and the private sector.2 Two years ago, the SCN adopted a new strategic framework and plan of action and created several Task Forces to support the implementation of the plan of action. The TF-AME’s role is to advise the SCN Steering Committee on issues related to assessment, monitoring and evaluation. It has three principles: i) to link food security and nutrition more closely, ii) to improve links between emergency and development contexts and iii) to increase the value and relevance of the work done at global level at country level. The Task Force is currently identifying a set of core indicators, which could be used for assessments, monitoring and evaluation purposes in different development and humanitarian contexts. Further areas of work include: producing a clear description of selected indicators on ‘Fact Sheets’, contributing to rewriting the food security chapter in the Smart guidelines,

2 More detailed information on the SCN and the TF can be found at: www.unsystem.org/scn/Publications/html/task_forces.htm

10

work on stunting as an indicator for the development context, and defining benchmarks of use in the IPC.

D – OCHA Assessment and Classification of Emergencies (ACE) initiative Alexis Hoskins, OCHA Senior Adviser, presented the recently launched OCHA initiative on Assessments and Classification of Emergencies (ACE). One element of the ACE was launched in response to the discussions at the 4th AG meeting on the numerous assessment-related initiatives that have been launched since 2003 to answer the call for improved evidence-based assessment and for impartiality and transparency in the ways that humanitarian funding is currently allocated. She noted that recent evaluations have highlighted continued problems in needs assessment practice, particularly in three main areas: i) lack of standard ways to measure needs across different contexts, ii) excessive fragmentation, and (iii) over-assessment of communities due to a lack of coordination between agencies. While the Clusters/Agencies are responsible for developing methods and conducting assessments, OCHA’s mandate includes the facilitation of more harmonized and consolidated approaches to assess vulnerability levels and develop appropriate responses. This includes coordinating assessments, promoting comparability, collating and sharing information (Humanitarian Information and Communication Systems-HICS), providing information management support, and facilitating strategic, cross-sectoral analysis (Needs Analysis Framework-NAF). Consequently the Inter-Agency Standing Committee has requested OCHA to: • map existing initiatives to identify opportunities to improve comparability and promote

synergies; • develop a “commonly agreed, overarching framework for needs assessment”; • identify links between assessment and information management activities; and • pilot a common humanitarian classification system. Current status of the ACE: A first inter-agency meeting was held on January 30, 2008. The purpose was to discuss the goals of, and obtain initial information for, the mapping exercise, list indicators used, discuss the plan to develop a core set of indicators, identify the analytical frameworks in use and obtain initial views on classifying emergencies. Many of the participating organizations indicated that they struggle with linking information throughout the “assessment continuum”, which covers pre-crisis vulnerability analysis and preparedness, post-crisis assessment (both immediate and longer-term) and performance monitoring. They also have had difficulties arriving at a common, shared understanding of the impacts of crises. Therefore, efforts facilitated by OCHA to improve these linkages and comparability were broadly supported. The next steps are to: i) circulate the mapping paper including options for improving synergies; and ii) identify focal points for future work, including the analytical framework. Several options for the work on the analytical framework were discussed at the IASC meeting: i) using the Tri-cluster Initial Rapid Assessment (IRA) multi-sectoral data collection/analysis as a basis, ii) building on the Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) system, or iii) using common databases to link information across time (assessment through monitoring). In the longer term, OCHA would also explore the interest of agencies in developing, and piloting a model for a common humanitarian classification system.

11

E – Discussion on the various inter-agency initiatives A number of issues were discussed, including: Concerns about the proliferation of assessment-related initiatives: It would be informative to assess the complementarity of these initiatives and review how many of these initiatives are tested and applied on the ground and will include related capacity-building activities, versus being limited to the development of tools. In particular, there is a need to better link the efforts on health, nutrition, water and sanitation and food security as these ‘sectors’ all play a role in the underlying causes of food insecurity. A question was raised regarding whether to support capacity-building on only the most developed existing methods rather than new methods, at least until they are tested under actual emergency conditions. Decision-making and donors:

Donors need clear and simple information that can guide decision-making as to which sectors they should support, based on the role of these sectors in reducing the severity of a situation and on the extent of changes in severity over time.

Indicators and tools:

The difficulty with standardizing indicators and tools is that they still need to provide each agency/organization with the information they individually need. It may be better to aim at harmonization rather than standardization.

Integrated Phase Classification:

Ensuring comparability of results and of severity levels is the IPC’s main challenge. Ensuring that the IPC is carried out by a partnership of UN agencies, NGOs and governments is the best approach to avoid the politicization of the process and ensure comparability across regions. At the moment, the IPC is used by some governments to justify the prioritization of needs between regions (e.g. India).

Setting a threshold to trigger intervention is important. A remaining question is: what key elements of “humanitarian crisis” are not currently reflected by the IPC, and could be incorporated in a common humanitarian classification approach.

Recent surge of market food and fuel prices:

FEWS NET questioned whether the humanitarian community had the necessary tools in place to analyze quickly the changing nature of food insecurity. There is a need to understand better the dynamics and causes of food insecurity, and livelihoods in this new context.

Predicting changes in international markets and understanding them, let alone national and local markets and household interaction with them, is difficult. The tools available may be too static and not capable of sufficiently capturing these changes. The idea of developing scenarios of price rise impact on different livelihood groups was presented as a possible option.

In the context of market price rise, the assessment of urban food insecurity is a challenge; Response analysis is particularly difficult.

Forecasting, scenario and response analysis:

Looking only at the severity of a situation is not sufficient. The causality patterns and the impact on future livelihoods must also be ascertained; the development of scenarios was offered as a means of fostering this effort.

12

There may be a risk of becoming enmeshed in the technical detail of assessment methodologies and losing sight of the bigger picture.

For WFP, the challenges are tackling responses to shocks which require longer-term interventions, and determining the extent to which institutional analysis is feasible within its assessments.

IV. Remaining challenges and how to address them

A – Introduction: Overview of remaining challenges Joyce Luma, WFP Food Security Analysis Service Chief, introduced the session. The objective of SENAC was to have by end-2007 an adequate capacity to undertake accurate, transparent and timely assessments of food security needs in emergencies. See Annex 4. The following improvements were made:

Transparency and accountability: in 2007, 93 percent of EMOP and PRRO operations were supported by ENA/VAM assessments. All reports were publicly available. Sixty-one percent of the reports went through a quality review system.

Methodology and guidance: The EFSA Handbook and the CFSVA guidelines are being methodologically improved. Guidance is available on specific topics such as market analysis or data analysis. Draft FSMS guidelines will also be prepared.

Pre-crisis information: As of February 2008, 16 food security baselines in priority emergency countries had been implemented. Support has been provided to 13 Food Security Monitoring Systems.

Capacity building: As of February 2008, 1840 staff had been trained in food security assessment since the beginning of the SENAC project of whom 56% were WFP staff and 44 % were partner staff.

While substantive progress has been made and the quality of WFP’s food security analysis has significantly improved, challenges remain. Management challenges:

Field level capacities: WFP needs to maintain a cadre of assessment officers with advanced skills in EFSA, CFSVA and markets analysis. In particular, the Country Offices need to have the capacity to conduct initial assessments, and to communicate assessment findings effectively. The issues of retention of staff in a context of high mobility and attrition, and the difficulty to releasing experienced officers to provide support and training outside of their duty stations need to be addressed.

Setting up a coherent food security information system (FSMS). Elements exist but need to be aligned and strengthened. More focus should be put on links with Monitoring and Evaluation. One of the key issues is that capacities at field level are weak and overstretched.

Process challenges:

Standard food security classification system in assessments: Technical challenges concerning indicators, thresholds and availability of data remain. The feasibility for ensuring broad–based consultation when EFSAs are carried out, in the context of an acute

13

emergency, is questioned. The lack of trained WFP and partner staff on this type of classification is also an issue.

Technical challenges:

Intra-household issues and linking household food security with individual food and nutrition security: work still needs to be done on the indicators, and the implications of the sources of information, the sampling and expertise for the data collection and analysis. Seasonality and timing are still issues to consider, as well as the limits of analytical skills in EFSA and CFSVA teams

Improving the relevance of market analysis tools for household food security analysis in EFSA, CFSVA and FSMS: the key set of tools for undertaking market analysis in the context of EFSA, CFSVA and FSMS needs to be determined; progress is necessary to assess and monitor the impacts of food and fuel price increases on household food security.

Ensuring appropriate quality monitoring of assessments: refinement of the criteria to

judge quality of EFSA and CFSVA is needed. Questions remain on the sustainability of the current quality monitoring system, the responsibility for monitoring and the feasibility of post-factum evaluations of the assumptions and conclusions of EFSAs.

Improving risk analysis in CFSVA and EFSA: the approach currently proposed in the

CFSVAs needs to be validated. The assessment of “relative” risk versus “absolute” risk is still an issue. Bases for risk analysis in EFSA need to be determined.

The following issues were raised during a Questions-and-Answers session: Staff attrition:

WFP works with local partners and institutions as much as possible. Under SENAC hundreds of partner staff members were trained and efforts were made to train national staff members who are generally less subject to transfer. However, a better mechanism needs to be in place to improve synergy between partners at the country level, perhaps in the form of a formal charter.

A promising project is under way in Southern Africa to build skills in the region through the Center of Excellence of the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

WFP has specific information needs at specific times in a program cycle which can make it difficult to use the findings from assessments carried out by local partners.

Adapting a program during its cycle:

Analysis is required to check whether a response is still the right response, during its implementation.

There is a need for “adaptive programming”: WFP should be more responsive to situation changes during the life-cycle of a program and adapt consequently. This issue can be addressed through results-based management.

NGOs challenges:

WFP and NGOs face very similar challenges. Additional challenges that NGO representatives mentioned include the need to look more broadly at economic or livelihood security, to make the link between emergency and development situations, and to be more effective at advocacy with donors.

14

B – Working groups: summary of discussions To address the main remaining technical challenges identified by WFP, the plenary session broke into four working groups to discuss the following themes: Enabling appropriate quality monitoring of EFSA and CFSVA, Linking household food security analysis with market analysis, Linking household food security with nutrition security at individual level in EFSA and CFSVA, and Improving risk analysis in CFSVA and EFSA. Enabling appropriate quality monitoring of EFSA and CFSVA: The group looked at the Quality Monitoring Checklist developed by WFP to review EFSA reports. The quality is judged on the basis of whether the main requirements indicated by the EFSA handbook (1st version) have been met. The existing checklist was found to be a good tool, but it could be improved in several ways: a clearer and more logical flow, more emphasis on response options, and more room for comments. Judging the relevance of the information for decision making by non-WFP organizations and donors is also one way to look into quality. Measuring accuracy of assessments is still a problem but it is only one element of quality. WFP is working on this issue and is reviewing three EFSAs to find a way to measure their accuracy. The idea is to work on developing a scoring system. Accuracy involves confidence in the data used. Transparency on the sources of information is crucial. The reliability of data should also be judged. Linking household food security analysis with market analysis

Under the SENAC project, several market analysis tools have been developed and several workshops provided a forum for discussions to exchange lessons learned and experience and get guidance on the best way forward. The last workshop on market analysis, Partnerships in Market Analysis for Food Security (Johannesburg, 11-13 December 2007), was an opportunity to bring together the various players in this field and discuss the application of market tools, capacity building needs and plans for further research and possible partnerships. The need to continue - and institutionalize - work in this thematic area was raised several times.

The group discussed the market analysis outputs that need to be produced to best inform food security analysis. The questions that need to be answered are: what is the impact of the shock on supply, demand, markets and prices in the three key markets that need to be looked at? An analysis of government policies and actions is needed as is an analysis of response options. However the level and sophistication of the answers differ according to the type and timeframe of the assessment. In an initial assessment, the number of tools used and the extent of the analyses are limited. The rapid and in-depth assessments differ largely in the depth of the analysis. Most tools developed by WFP could be applied in various degrees of thoroughness. Food Security Monitoring Systems should focus on prices. See Annex 3 for the different questions to answer and tools to use for different types of assessments.

During the discussions, it was stressed that an economist should be “embedded” in the CFSVA team. Raising managers’ and donors’ awareness of market issues is crucial. The recent food and fuel price increase has sparked interest in the need for market analysis. In addition market analysis is needed for the WFP Purchase for Progress initiative, for cash/vouchers programs and to understand the impact of price increases on households. In terms of capacity, WFP needs economists with advanced skills, but also non-specialist staff with a minimally-acceptable understanding of markets.

15

Linking household food security with nutrition security at individual level in EFSA and CFSVA To ensure that household food security is analysed with regard to individual nutrition security in an EFSA and a CFSA the following questions need to be answered: i) what is the problem, ii) what do we know about the underlying causes? iii) where are these individuals located?, iv) what are the characteristics of the households in which they live? v) what contextual factors are important for understanding the nature of the problem and its underlying causes? (See the reporting template in Annex 4). The core indicators needed to understand these problems are stunting, wasting and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC). For a CFSVA, the Body Mass Index (BMI) and micronutrient status are useful. To understand the underlying causes, information on the proximate determinants of nutritional status: food (including new WHO indicators of complementary feeding), care practices and health is needed. The correlation between household food security status and household members’ nutrition status is often weak. There is a need to improve links between household food security status and overall household characteristics, including health and care dimensions. It is also important to understand context, in particular the community resources, cultural habits and seasonality factors. Improving risk analysis in CFSVA and EFSA The group discussions were triggered by a presentation of the current methodology for risk analysis. The general objectives of a CFSVA are the following: to provide i) an understanding of hazards, and the vulnerability and resilience of the population to better guide monitoring and mitigation strategies and enable a more informed ESFA scenario building and response analysis, ii) specific parameters for EFSA scenario building, and iii) clear guidance on identification of the food insecure and vulnerable for counting. Remarkable progress has been made with regard to risk analysis. There is clarity and consistency in the measure of outcomes. However there is still a need for more coherence and linkages between CFSVA, FSMS and EFSA on key measurements, e.g. assets, livelihood strategies, consumption. More emphasis should be put on measuring and understanding resilience (e.g. reserves, social networks/ social capital, livelihood diversity / stability, social services access). Information on health shocks should also be included in risk analysis and scenarios. There is an opportunity to strengthen market shock analysis and ensure that CFSVAs contain needed information. The following general recommendations were made:

Form multi-disciplinary teams for CFSVA Prepare for the increasing need for urban risk analysis: use the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) and other such sources for inputs and preparations

FAO, WFP and FEWS NET should collaborate on specific case studies such as Burundi and Gaza;

Recalibrate baselines after a shock; Improve use of multiple methods assessment through a country demonstration: Household Economy Approach, CFSVA and others.

16

Specific recommendations made were:

Harmonize risk maps with other initiatives: IPC, FEWS NET; Perform sensitivity analysis of hazards effects on key food security outcomes, including severity, temporality in analysis and reporting within confidence bands;

Identify specific assets that identify the vulnerable for targeting purposes; Better incorporate seasonal and cyclical hazard trends into risk analysis, scenarios and forecasting (for example, missing food entitlements by quarter and by risk group);

Need for data series that allow assessment of asset depletion/change in relation to shock exposure;

Risk analysis can be modeled with continuous data. Essential CFSVA elements for market shock analysis: The elements should be the same as for the EFSA market shock analysis, including:

food sources: main staple food purchased/own production and less preferred foods purchased;

consumption patterns: share of main staple in total consumption (e.g. rice and of alternative staple food by livelihood and wealth group);

income sources: share of household income derived from main cash crop by livelihood group.

V. The Future of the Advisory group of Experts beyond SENAC The purpose of the session was to reflect on the work, benefits and shortcomings of the AG in the previous three years and to discuss the need to continue the group, and if so what should be its format and focus. There was a consensus on the fact that the AG was very beneficial to WFP and its partners. It created a unique network of experts and generated a much improved positive dialogue, reinforcing transparency and leading to a better understanding of WFP. It reinforced coordination between agencies and provided a platform for a real partnership where tools and ideas were shared. It helped members understand that they face the same challenges as well. Through the AG, WFP was able to benefit from “independent intelligent assets”. It was recognized that the AG is a very unique group that brought a lot of credibility to the SENAC process and was helpful in bringing WFP management’s attention to specific issues. Overall, the AG directly contributed to the SENAC achievements and the improvement of assessments. However, there was some confusion with the mandate of the group and the exact role of the AG members, in particular on the level of the advice required (i.e. guidance on the “big picture” issues or technical input). It was also felt that the AG should have been more strategically engaged with the field. There are several issues that still need to be addressed to strengthen WFP food security assessments and analyses (see Annex 7 for an extensive list of the remaining issues as mentioned by the participants at the meeting). The most prominently mentioned were:

market analysis and the impact of prices on food security, risk analysis, measurement of the impact of food security interventions, responses to food insecurity, in particular cash and voucher responses, social safety nets, and responses linked to risk reduction and mitigation.

17

Way forward: No decision was taken during the AG meeting as to whether or not the group will continue, or what its format and mandate might be. WFP will carefully look at the list of issues provided, establish its list of needs and priorities taking budgetary constraints into account, and take a decision on that basis. It is likely that WFP will need advice and guidance on specific need areas such as urban food insecurity, the Purchase for Progress initiative and in areas which naturally follow from the work done during the SENAC project such as market analysis and cash/voucher responses.

18

Acronyms ACE Assessment and Classification of Emergencies AG Advisory Group of Experts CAP/NAF Consolidated Appeal Process/Needs Analysis Framework CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis EFSA Emergency Food Security Assessment EMOP Emergency Operation ENA Emergency Needs Assessment FEWS NET Famine Early Warning Systems Network FSMS Food Security Monitoring System HIC Humanitarian Information Center IDS Institute of Development Studies IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification LSMS Living Standards Measurement Survey (World Bank) ODAN Emergency Needs Assessment Service ODI Overseas Development Institute PRC Project Review Committee PRRO Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation SCN UN Standing Committee on Nutrition SENAC Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity in WFP SENAIP Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Implementation Plan TF-AME Task Force on Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping WASH Water and Sanitation cluster

19

Annex 1: Agenda Advisory Group of Experts meeting, 11-12 February 2008

Time Session Focus of the session Hand-outs (mostly electronic/CD-rom)

Monday 11 February

8h45-10h00 Main achievements of the 3-year SENAC effort

Presentations (1 or 2) - (20-30 mn) Discussion - (30-40 mn)

• Summary of main outputs (see hand-out) • Organizational changes within WFP

• WFP and ODA organigrams • Main SENAC outputs (methods,

capacities, pre-crisis, accountability) • Updated matrix of last AG meeting • Revised EFSA Handbook (preliminary

draft) • Latest 2-3 EFSA reports • Latest 2-3 CFSVA reports • Facilitator’s Toolkit • Distance Learning package • WFP Evaluation of SENAC • ODI study on links with decision-making

10h00-13h00 Inter-agency initiatives related to assessments

10h00-10h30 Status of IPC (FAO presentation) (5-10 mn) - Discussion (20-25 mn) Multi-agency IPC initiative • IPC Updated Technical Manual

• IPC Steering Committee minutes 10h30-11h00 Coffee break 11h00-11h20 Status of tri-Clusters’ assessment work (by UNICEF, tbc)

(5-10 mn) - Discussion (10-15 mn) Clusters’ assessment tools and guidance • Nut, Wash and Shelter Clusters’ Initial Rapid Assessment Tool (last draft)

11h20-11h40 Status of Health and Nutrition Tracking Service (HNTS) (by WHO, tbc) (5-10 mn) - Discussion (10-15 mn)

Health & Nut. Tracking System (HNTS)

11h40-12h00 Status of Assessment & Classification initiative (ACE) (OCHA presentation) (5-10 mn) – Discussion (10-15 mn)

Assessment and Classification of Emergencies (ACE) • OCHA Assessment and Classification of

Emergencies (ACE) note

12h00-12h20 Status of SCN Task Force on Assessment, Monitoring &Evaluation (by FAO/WFP) (5-10 mn) – Discussion (10-15 mn)

SCN Task Force on Assessment, Monitoring & Evaluation

• SCN TF-AME draft Areas of Work • SCN TF-AME draft inventory of food

security indicators

20

Time Session Focus of the session Hand-outs (mostly electronic/CD-rom)

12h20-12h40 Status of NGOs assessment and response initiatives (by an NGO, tbc) (5-10 mn) – Discussion (10-15 mn)

NGOs assessment & programming collaboration (e.g. cash)

12h40-13h00 Plenary discussion on the various initiatives (20 mn)

13h00-14h30 Lunch

14h30-17h30 Remaining challenges and how to address them

14h30-15h30 Introduction of the various challenges (20 mn) Discussion on non-technical challenges (40 mn)

• Main technical challenges (for subsequent Working Group in-depth discussion)

• Non-technical challenges

15h30-16h00 Coffee break

16h00-17h30

Working Groups: individual discussions on technical challenges: WG1 - Linking household food security with nutrition security at individual level in EFSA and CFSVA WG2 – Analysing the effects of market price rises on household food security and vulnerability - Ensuring relevant market analysis to inform household food security analysis in EFSA, CFSVA, FSMS WG3 - Enabling appropriate quality monitoring of EFSA and CFSVA WG4 - Improving risks analysis in CFSVA and EFSA

Expected results: WG1 - Essential analytical outputs expected from EFSA and CFSVA to better link household food security and individual nutrition security WG2- Essential analytical outputs expected from EFSA, CFSVA and FSMS to improve the relevance of market analysis for household food security, particularly with regard to the impact of market food and fuel price rises WG3- Criteria for judging EFSA and CFSVA quality and modalities of applying them WG4- Essential data and steps to analyse risks in CFSVA and EFSA

• Background notes for each Woking Group

• WG No.1 - Guidance Note on

“Strengthening Rapid Food and Nutrition Security Assessments”

• WG No.2 - Guidance for Market Shock

Response Analysis • WG No.2 - Power Point presentation on

market price rise analysis • WG No.3 - Quality Monitoring

Checklists EFSA and JAM • WG No.3 - Draft Quality Monitoring

Checklist Sheet for CFSVA • WG No.3 - ToRs for accuracy study

21

Time Session Focus of the session Hand-outs (mostly electronic/CD-rom)

Tuesday 12 February

9h00-12h30 Remaining assessment challenges and how to address them (continued) - WGs / plenary

9h00-10h00 Working Groups individual discussions (continued and wrap-up)

10h00-10h30 Plenary: Working Group restitutions (5-10 mn each) Discussions (15-20 mn each)

10h30-11h00 Coffee break

11h00-12h30 Plenary: Working Groups restitutions (5-10 mn each) Discussions (15-20 mn each)

12h30-14h00 Lunch

14h30-17h00 Future of the Advisory Group of Experts beyond SENAC Phase III

14h30-15h30

• Introduction and discussion: ‘positives’/’negatives’ of the SENAC AG process (30 mn)

• Identification of priority topics for continued advice to

WFP and other agencies in 2008 and beyond, on technical and non-technical issues (30 mn)

• ‘Positives’ and ‘negatives’ of the SENAC AG process 2005-08

• Priority topics for continued advice • Structures and mechanisms to provide advice

on these topics

15h30-16h00 Coffee break

16h00-17h00 • Most appropriate structures and mechanisms to provide the necessary expert advice

17h00-17h30 Wrap-up and next steps

22

Annex 2: List of Participants3

1. Jeffrey Klenk - Facilitator 2. Nancy Mock (Tulane University) 3. John Hoddinott (IFPRI) 4. Cynthia Donovan (Michigan States University) 5. Gary Eilerts (USAID/FEWSNET) 6. Brian Bacon (USAID) 7. Phumzile Mdladla (Chemonics/FEWSNET) 8. Michael O’Donnell (Save the Children-UK) 9. James Darcy (ODI) 10. Lili Mohiddin (OXFAM-UK) 11. Nanna Skau (ECHO) 12. Paul Dorosh (WORLD BANK) 13. Thierre Negre (EC Delegation to the Holy See & the UN organizations Rome) 14. Manuel Veiga (EC Joint Research Center) 15. Hanna Mattinen (EuronAid/Action Contre la Faim) 16. Alexis Hoskins (OCHA) 17. Stephen Devereux (Institute of Development Studies) 18. Henri Josserand (FAO Early Warning Service) 19. Luca Alinovi (FAO Economic Analysis Service) 20. Mark Smulders (FAO Economic Analysis Service) WFP staff 1. John Aylieff, Director a.i. of the Programme Design and Support Division 2. Joyce Luma, Chief , Food Security Analysis Service 3. Henk-Jan Brinkman, Chief, Economic Analysis Service 4. Nicole Menage, Chief, Food Procurement Service 5. Caroline Heider, Director, Evaluation Division 6. Agnès Dhur, Senior Project Coordinator SENAC 7. Getachew Diriba, Senior Programme Adviser 8. Jan Delbaere, Crisis Information Specialist 9. Anette Haller, Programme Adviser 10. Arif Husain, VAM Officer 11. Haile Menghestab, Programme Adviser 12. Caroline Chaumont, Food Security Communication Officer 13. Etsuko Osumi, Consultant WFP staff – Working Groups

1. Angie Lee 2. Valerie Ceylon 3. Charisse Tillman 4. Lisa Biederlack 5. Simon Renk 6. Annette Angeletti 7. Cedric Charpentier 8. Cinzia Papavero 9. Peter Horjus 10. Issa Sanogo 3 A representative of UNICEF and WHO were invited to the AG meeting but unable to attend

23

11. Ludovic Subran 12. Vivien Knips 13. Andrew Thorne Lyman 14. Sabine Bongi

24

Annex 3: Main achievements of the 3-year SENAC effort – Full version of the introductory presentation John Aylieff, WFP’s Director a.i. of the Programme Design and Support Division, opened the AG meeting by presenting the main achievements of the Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Implementation Plan (SENAIP), of which the SENAC project is the major component. John Aylieff stressed that assessments have become the backbone of WFP operations. WFP managers are now accountable for ensuring that programs are supported by assessments. The necessity of assessments is not questioned anymore. Now questions concerning assessments are not about why but rather about how to conduct them. In parallel, checks and balances have been set up at headquarters, in particular through the Project Review Committee (PRC). The Committee provides the opportunity to check whether projects are based on a solid evaluation of needs. Consequently, over 95 percent of projects submitted to the PRC were backed by documented assessment in 2006 and 2007. This represents a significant increase from 2004 when 45 percent of projects were supported by assessments. The Evaluation of SENAIP found that assessments are routinely used to guide the implementation of WFP’s operations, in particular providing the basis for targeting, beneficiary numbers and total food needs.

The role of assessments is clearly reflected in the new Strategic Plan to be presented to the Executive Board in June 2008. The Plan acknowledges that “accurate and credible emergency needs assessments are critical for a swift and adequate emergency response.” It also highlights the role of vulnerability analysis in countries where WFP has a continuing presence in identifying appropriate set of interventions. This is reflected in the Executive Director’s strong interest in food security analysis and her high expectations of the newly created Food Security Analysis Service.

However, despite achievements, challenges remain. In particular, the link between assessments and programming is still not strong enough. It has to do with the following issues: the analysis of response options, timeliness of assessments and communication of results. As an internal evaluation of SENAIP pointed out, response recommendations are not always derived from the situation analysis.4 Many assessments do not provide well justified response recommendations. According to the internal evaluation, about two thirds of assessments recommended non food interventions out of 44 reports reviewed. Ten out of these 44 assessments recommended cash interventions. The quality of the non-food recommendations could often be improved. However the question of who takes on the responsibility for following up the recommendations that fall outside the WFP mandate is open. An organizational architecture to facilitate multi-sectoral analysis and recommendations is lacking. What is also missing is a more strategic approach to partnerships. Seventy-five percent of WFP assessments are done in partnerships, but roles and responsibility of each agency should be better clarified at the onset of the assessment.

The utility of assessment depends on their timeliness. Timeliness is improving but there are still instances when the assessments findings come out too late to inform program design. Food Security Monitoring Systems, which play a critical role in triggering assessments, still

4 Evaluation of the WFP Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Implementation Plan, A report commissioned by the WFP Office of Evaluation, October 2007, OEDE/2007/009

25

need to be strengthened and expanded, in particular early warning signals need to be integrated into FSMS. In addition, more work has to be done to ensure that WFP Country Directors are aware of how to plan and budget for assessments so that appropriate resources are available when necessary. Getting ahead of project cycles is also key and WFP will work on improving its tracking system.

Communicating the results of assessments clearly and widely to influence decision-making and justify WFP’s intervention is crucial. Progress has been made in the last three years with the preparation of executive briefs summarizing assessment findings, and the organizations of consultation and de-briefings at country level. However a more comprehensive communication strategy is needed. One of the post-SENAIP priorities will be to institutionalize good communication practices. In parallel, great progress has been made in the area of transparency. Assessments are publicly available and posted on WFP’s website. Assessment reports now present the methodology and limitations more systematically then before.

WFP also need to better understand and monitor the links between assessments findings and programs. A new Directive is being finalized to address this issue. It will include a matrix which will compare assessment recommendations and program interventions and explain discrepancies between both.

At WFP headquarters, a new Food Security Analysis Service has been created, merging the former Emergency Needs Assessment Service (ODAN) and the Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit. The Service will provide a single source of direction and guidance and should lead to more consistency in data collection and analysis. It will include a risk analysis pillar, reflecting the need for a stronger link between food security analysis and early warning. The new Service is part of a newly created Program Design and Support Division. This will provide greater coherence and help to keep abreast of program cycles.

The role of headquarters is to provide support to national governments and country offices through capacity building activities, quality control, and surge capacity. The priorities WFP will address in the coming months are: i) the remaining gap in country-level assessment capacity, ii) strengthening response analysis, iii) communication.

The assessment community is facing new challenges. Climate variability and the rise of commodity and fuel prices are leading to an increased vulnerability and change the profile of food insecurity. The exact nature of it and impact at household level still have to be understood.

Results Hierarchy Performance Indicators 2004 Results 2005 Results 2006 Results 2007 Results Comments

1.1 Ten ENA or CFSVA reports subject to external/independent peer review

N/A N/A 12 reports 8 reports Members of SENAC Advisory Group review a number of reports for quality control. In 2006, 4 EFSAs, 7 CFSVAs, 1 market analysis were reviewed. In 2007, 5 EFSAs and 3 CFSVAs were reviewed (exercise still to be completed).

1.2 Percentage of new EMOP & PRRO operations supported by ENA or VAM information*

45%(Target: 33%)

70%(Target: 67%)

96% (27/28)

(Target: 100%)

93% (41/44)

(Target: 100%)

Denominator: newly approved EMOPs and PRROs (excludes rejected projects and IRA-EMOPs). Nominator: of these, number informed by food security assessments.

1.3 Percentage of ENAs supporting new EMOPs and PRROs conducted with partners*

54% (Target: 50%)

90%(Target: 60%)

85% (23/27)

(Target: 75%)

76% (31/41)

(Target: 75%)

Denominator: newly approved EMOPs and PRROs supported by food security analysis. Nominator: of these, number conducted in partnership with UN agencies or NGOs (because ENAs are systematically conducted with national authorities, partnerships with national authorities are not reflected in this indicator). Approximately 3/4 of these partnerships are with UN agencies, approximately 1/3 are with NGOs (some are conducted with multiple partners).

1.4 Percentage of Project Review Committee Meetings where comments provided on whether EMOP/PRRO documents reflect ENA/VAM findings

N/A70%

(28/40)91%

(29/32)100%(52/52)

Denominator: all PRCs held for EMOPs or PRROs. Nominator: of these, number of times comments had been posted by ODAN/ODAV staff. This indicates the involvment of ODA staff in the review of project documents, to ensure that operations are supported by food security analysis.

1.5 Percentage of ENA reports received by ODAN posted on WFP public website

N/A59%

(42/71)74%

(51/69)100%(58/58)

Denominator: all types of ENAs in which WFP participates and reports of which were received by ODAN (CFSVA and FSMS bulletins are not included). Nominator: of the above, those posted on WFP public website. This indicator provides information on accessibility andtransparency of assessment information. It should be noted that until 2007, only reports meeting quality criteria were posted on the public website; since 2007, all reports are posted.

2.1 Percentage of EFSAs and JAMs reviewed using Quality Monitoring Checklist (QMC)

N/A58%

(33/57)71%

(39/55)61%

(25/41)

Denominator: all EFSA and JAM reports received by ODAN in which WFP has taken part (QMC is not yet applied to CFSVAs). Nominator: of the above, those quality-checked with the Quality Monitoring Checklist.

2.2 Percentage of EFSAs and JAMs meeting overall WFP quality threshold

N/A67%

(22/33)79%

(31/39)76%

(19/25)Denominator: all QMC completed (indicator 2,1). Nominator: of the above, those getting anaverage score >= 2.5/4 in the QMC.

2.3 Percentage of EFSAs and JAMs that satisfactorily describe methods

N/A76%

(25/33)74%

(29/39)80%

(20/25)Denominator: all QMC completed (indicator 2,1). Nominator: of these, those getting a score>= 3/4 for the method description. Results have improved by 10% since 2005.

2.4 Percentage of EFSAs and JAMs that satisfactorily discuss limitations

N/A33%

(11/33)49%

(19/39)64%

(16/25)Denominator: all QMC completed (indicator 2,1). Nominator: of these, those getting a score>= 3/4 for the presentation of limitations. Results have improved by 24% since 2005.

359 513 551

18 76 323

3.4 Percentage of EFSA learning programme graduates conducting ENAs

N/A Source: survey of SENAIP trainees conducted by OEDE in February 2007.

4.1 Number of VAM Baseline surveys available in priority countries as a percentage of the target**

N/A

The following CFSVAs had been finalized as of February 2008. 2005: Angola, Madagascar, Niger; 2006: Comoros, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Tanzania, Timor Leste, Uganda; 2007: Lao; Nepal, OPT; Rwanda; DRC; Sudan. Five additional CFSVAs are ongoing: Cameroon, Haiti, Iraq, Sao Tome, Burkina Faso.

** Targets as reflected in SENAC proposals, 10 for 2005, changed to 5 for 2006 and 2007 for CFSVAs

* Corporate indicators as per WFP 2004-2006 Management Plan, for which targets were established.

Output 2: Appropriate guidance and rigorous methods/procedures developed and used for ENAs

Output 4: Improved availability, management and quality of pre-crisis information for priority countries

65%97/150 staff who answered the survey in June 2007

80% (16 CFSVAs - 3 year-target: 20)

3.2 Number of WFP and Partner staff trained at basic levelAs at February 2008, 1840 staff has been trained in food security assessments since the beginning of SENAC project (figures are still subject to change). This includes 56% of WFP staff, and 44% of partner staff (Governement, UN, NGOs)

IMPACT: To develop more appropriate responses to food insecurity through improved needs assessment and pre-crisis information

377WFP: 239; Partners:

138

589WFP: 263; Partners:

326

874WFP: 534;

Parners: 3403.1 Number of persons trained

Output 1: Increased transparency and accountability of ENAs (internal & external)

N/A

Annex 4: Monitoring Report on the Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Implementation Plan (2004-2007)

Output 3: Qualified cadre of WFP staff and partners to undertake ENAs available & deployed**

192% of the 3 year-target (3 year-target: 740)

160% of the 3 year-target (3 year-target: 260)

OUTCOME: To provide transparent, credible, accurate and timely food security assessment and pre-crisis information in emergency situations

86%(13 FSMSs - 3 year-target: 15)

Of which, 7 producing regular bulletins

The following FSMSs had been supported by WFP HQ under the SENAC project: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, CAR, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Haiti, Mali, Mauritania, Niger,Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda. Of these countries, the following are already producing regular bulletins: Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, CAR, Cote d'Ivoire, Haiti, Niger. Other FSMS have been supported by other sources than the SENAC project, such the Southern Africa' CHS (Community Household Survey), Nepal FSMS, etc.

3.3 Number of WFP and partner staff trained at intermediate or advanced level as a percentage of the target

N/A

4.2 Number of monitoring systems supported in priority countries as a percentage of the target**

N/A

SENAIP Monitoring Report 2004_2007

26

Timeframes Initial Rapid In-depth3 days 3 weeks 3 months

1a Shares in consumption (national, poor) VAM/HH survey (secondary data)* VAM/HH survey (secondary data)* VAM/HH survey (secondary data)*b Shares in incomes (national, poor) VAM/HH survey (secondary data)* VAM/HH survey (secondary data)* VAM/HH survey (secondary data)*

2a

i Production Secondary data (e.g. Government estimate) Food Balance Sheet Food Balance Sheetii Imports Key informants Trader survey Trader surveyiii Traders' response capacity (before/after shock) Key informants Trader survey Trader survey

bi Access (incomes) HH survey HH surveyii Impact of prices Shock-response scenarios, super light (ToT) Shock-response scenarios, light (ToT) Shock-response scenarios, de luxeiii Coping HH survey HH survey

ci Physical access, changes in flows Key informants Market map (trade directions), trader survey Market map (trade directions), trader surveyii Seasonality of production Seasonal calender* Seasonal calender; trader survey Seasonal calender; trader surveyiii Supply chain Supply chain analysis, light; trader survey Supply chain analysis, de luxe; trader surveyiv Market integration Market integration assessment, super light Market integration assessment, light Market integration assessment, de luxe

di Seasonality Seasonality prices, light Seasonality prices Seasonality pricesii Real prices Real price analysis (time-series); Terms of trade Real price analysis (time-series); Terms of tradeiii Do domestic prices deviate from import prices? Import parity price analysis* Import parity price analysis Import parity price analysisiv How much will prices rise? Partial equilibrium analysis (Zambia model light) Partial equilibrium analysis (Zambia model)

3a Policy backdrop Literature review (EIU, World Bank, IMF (Art. IV)) Literature review (EIU, World Bank, IMF (Art. IV)) Literature review (EIU, World Bank, IMF (Art. IV))b Policy measures: Effects on supply, demand Key informants Key informants Key informants

markets and prices of 3 key commoditiesc Response measures

4a Vouchers, cash, food (source?) Response option analysis Response option analysis b If food aid, quantity without market impact Food aid impact Food aid impact; Zambia modelc Rapid or in-depth assessment needed? If demand or intervention > thresholdsd Policy and advocacy

* base information, assumed to be available

Annex 5: Market Analysis Working Group Outputs

On prices?

On demand?

On supply?

On markets?

Note:[24 January 2008]

Questions to answer and tools to use for different timeframesQuestions

What is the impact of the shock?

Key 3 markets/commodities to analyse?

Tools

Government policies and actions

Response options

Duration

27

28

Annex 6: Working group on Food Security and Nutrition output Linking household food security with nutrition security at individual level in EFSA and CFSVA. Household food security analysis and individual nutrition security analysis in EFSA

EFSA Essential analytical outputs (comparisons, cross-tabulations)

Data required Level

(HH, individual, community etc.)

Sampling options

(purposive,

random)

Source options (primary/secondary

combined/separate)

Output 1: What is the problem?

- MUAC - Wasting and stunting (ages ?)

Individual Purposive (selection of location to survey) Randomly within the location

Primary/secondary

Output 2: What do we know about the underlying causes?

- Proximate determinants of nutritional status: food (including new WHO indicators of complementary feeding), care practices and health

Individual Purposive (selection of location to survey) Randomly within the location

Primary/secondary

Output 3: Where are these individuals located?

- Location HH Community

Purposive (selection of location to survey) Randomly within the location

Primary/secondary

Output 4: What are the characteristics of the households in which they live?

- PMK characteristics - HH characteristics including assets and HH food security

Individual HH

Purposive (selection of location to survey) Randomly within the location

Primary/secondary

Output 5: What contextual factors are important for understanding the nature of the problem and its underlying causes?

- Community resources - Norms and practices as they relate to nutrition - Time of year (seasonality) - Likely direction of change over time

Community Purposive (selection of location to survey) Purposive, key informants and focus groups

Secondary Qualitative survey

29

Household food security analysis and individual nutrition security analysis in CFSVA

CFSVA Essential analytical outputs (comparisons, cross-tabulations)

Data required Level

(HH, individual, community etc.)

Sampling options

(purposive,

random)

Source options (primary/secondary

combined/separate)

Output 1: What is the problem?

- Stunting, wasting, underweight and MUAC - BMI (women, all adults) if not already available - Micro-nutrient status (but note that thus is challenging and rarely feasible; in some cases proxies may be useful)

Individual Random Primary/secondary

Output 2: What do we know about the underlying causes?

- Proximate determinants of nutritional status: food (including new WHO indicators of complementary feeding), care practices and health

Individual Random Primary/secondary

Output 3: Where are these individuals located?

- Location HH Community

Random Primary/secondary

Output 4: What are the characteristics of the households in which they live?

- PMK characteristics - HH characteristics including assets and HH food security

Individual HH

Random Primary/secondary

Output 5: What contextual factors are important for understanding the nature of the problem and its underlying causes?

- Community resources - Norms and practices as they relate to nutrition - Time of year - Likely direction of change over time

Community Random Purposive, key informants and focus groups

Secondary Qualitative survey

30

Annex 7: Remaining issues Extensive list of remaining issues to strengthen WFP food security assessments and analyses

The following issues were mentioned by the participants at the Advisory Group of Experts’ meeting in February 2008: Methods and technical issues

• Household food security and vulnerability measurement • Measurement of the impact of food security interventions • Markets’ guidance (follow-up on progress and recommendations already made) • Integration of market analysis into Emergency Food Security Assessments and

Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analyses • Analysis of market impact of Purchase-for-Progress initiatives • Development of policy instruments to capture market price shocks • Mainstreaming nutrition (particularly micronutrients) in response options • Analysis of seasonality and chronic food insecurity • Guidance on initial rapid assessments and collection of ‘real-time’ information • Risk analysis process, including combination of quantitative and qualitative

methods • Incorporating health hazards in risk analysis • Food security and risk analysis in urban contexts

Responses to food insecurity

• Institutionalisation of non-food responses • Guidance on social safety nets • Guidance on cash and voucher responses • Guidance on non-food responses that support the linkages between EMOPs,

PRROs and Development operations • Role of food and non-food responses in prevention, mitigation and adaptation

interventions • Guidance on risk reduction strategy and livelihood interventions

Communication

• Improvement of communication of results of assessments and analyses to donors

Processes

• Development of a food security information strategy • Establishing multi-disciplinary teams for baseline Comprehensive Food

Security and Vulnerability Analyses • Staff and partners’ capacity building (to ensure application of methods and

tools) • Establishing AGE at regional level • Establishing AGE for the food security community/sector rather than just WFP