high level expert forum on food security in protracted crises hlef technical meeting slide synthesis...

High Level Expert Forum on Food Security in Protracted Crises HLEF Technical Meeting SLIDE SYNTHESIS June 27-28, 2012 Queen Juliana Room - FAO

Welcome

Technical Meeting Objectives 1. Develop a shared understanding of the aims and expected outcomes of the HLEF, key working assumptions that will frame the HLEF dialogue and the role of contributing papers and authors. 2. 3. Ensure the content of each contributing paper is robust and relevant to the aim and objectives of the HLEF; and that the full set of contributing papers will serve as a solid fact base for each key area. Identify any gaps/key issues for authors to address when finalizing papers. Review approach and possible categories / elements of an eventual Agenda for Action. 4. Outline the required next steps to finalize individual papers and synthesize content into briefs for HLEF panelists & participants.

Target Results Individual feedback provided to authors, as input to finalizing papers by July 20 th, 2012. 1. Key issues / questions emerging under each key area are identified, as well as any potential gaps that may need to be addressed. 2. Identification of key elements / categories for an Agenda for Action emerging from authors contributions, as well as a preliminary list of specific recommendations or proposals that authors may contribute to the Way Forward. 3.

Context, Vision &Team Assets & 3. Resilience 4. Lessons Learned 5. Way Forward & Agenda for Action Next StepsWelcomeHLEF Overview 1. Causes & Consequences 2. Political & Governance Provisional Agenda 9.00 START 17.00 FINISH LUNCH 13.00-14.15 Day OneDay Two

Background on the HLEF Event

Presentation 1.Background on the State of food Insecurity (SOFI) report 2.Characteristics/criteria for protracted crises and specific cases 3.The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and its role 4.The High Level Expert Forum (HLEF) and Agenda for Action

The State of Food Insecurity 2010 Purpose of SOFI: 1.FAO/WFP annual report on global estimates of under- nourishment 2.Each annual edition explores some theme of food insecurity 3.2010: Food insecurity in protracted crises

Definition of a protracted crisis Those environments in which a significant proportion of the population is acutely vulnerable to death, disease and disruption of their livelihoods over a prolonged period of time* Not necessarily traceable to a single, acute shock.** Donors or private-sector actors often not willing to make long-term investments: overlap with development agenda** Weak, fragile or predatory states: overlap with governance/ security agenda** Remain on the humanitarian agenda, but dont fit classic definition of emergency, or the classic mode of response ** * Macrae and Harmer ** Maxwell et al.

Characteristics of protracted crisis Characteristics: Time duration and magnitude (some > 30 years) Frequently IN conflict (or no war-no peace situation) Weak governance/ breakdown of local institutions Unsustainable livelihood systems and poor food security outcomes Weak intervention mechanisms Criteria for identifying countries in protracted crisis: Low Income Food Defeicit Countries At least 8 of past 10 years on GIEWS list At least 10% of total ODA in form of humanitarian assistance

GIEWS Table: Years in Crisis

Countries in protracted crisis 2010 + Palestine 17 Africa 4 Asia 1 LAC

Protracted Crises and Food Insecurity 166 million undernourished people in countries in protracted crisis 20 percent of the worlds undernourished people live in countries in protracted crisis, or more than a third of the global total if China and India are excluded Are Protracted Crises Different? Food Insecurity: Are Protracted Crises Different?

Addressing Protracted Crises SOFI Chapters: Livelihoods adaptation in protracted crises Gender issues in protracted crises The role of local institutions (customary and emergent) Analysis of aid flows to countries in protracted crisis Humanitarian food assistance in protracted crises Social protection in protracted crises Short-term responses to support longer term recovery

Recommendations to CFS Towards ensuring food security in protracted crises: recommended actions Improving analysis and understanding Donors and agencies must invest more in analysis, impact assessment and lessons learned in protracted crisis situations Response analysis must be improved, building capacities in both production and use of better informed analysis of options for assistance Information systems should be strengthened and expanded Improving support to livelihoods for food security Governments, donors and agencies should better link responses that address both short- and longer-term needs Support for livelihoods must build on existing capacity and should strengthen positive livelihood adaptations Efforts should focus on helping to rebuild and/or promote local institutions that support livelihoods Reforming the "architecture" of assistance A High-Level Forum should be organized to develop an Agenda for Action for tackling food insecurity in protracted crises Donor planning should emphasize predictability for prevention, early action and long-term solutions Modalities of assistance should move beyond the traditional categories of "relief" and "development" to a more diversified approach

The Role of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 36 th Session of CFS SOFI 2010 presented All recommendations endorsed, including: organization of High Level Expert Forum (HLEF) 37 th Session of CFS (2011) report presented showing added value of having a HLEF Fall 2012: HLEF on Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises and Agenda for Action 39 th Session of CFS (2012) elements for an Agenda for Action to be presented

Going forward the role of the CFS Review elements for an Agenda for Action (October 2012) Food insecurity in protracted crises CFS work- stream for 2013/2014? Possibly it will be endorsed? Possibly it will be forgotten?

HLEF Purpose Purpose Provide a forum through which countries will be able to discuss issues related to food insecurity in protracted crises; Open space for consultation and policy dialogue to build on collaborative efforts; and Identify immediate actions to be taken and elements for an eventual Agenda for Action.

HLEF Expected Outcomes Identification of concrete proposals or initiatives that can be taken forward immediately Raising awareness among aid agencies, donors and policymakers Better understanding by aid agencies, donors and policymakers of the institutional and funding challenges Better understanding of the positive and negative contribution that food security policies and programmes can make A clear set of elements for an Agenda for Action to Address Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises

Structure of the HLEF Consequences and causes of food insecurity in protracted crises Catalysts to create change: political and governance opportunities and challenges Resilience of individuals, households, communities and local institutions in protracted crises What have we learned: working towards emerging from protracted crises The Way Forward - Inputs to an eventual Agenda for Action KEY AREA 1. KEY AREA 2. KEY AREA 3. KEY AREA 4. KEY AREA 5.

HLEF Inputs & Outputs 1.Causes and consequences of food insecurity in protracted crises 2.Catalysts to create change: political and governance opportunities and challenges 3.Resilience of individuals, households, communities and local institutions in protracted crises 4.What have we learned: working towards emerging from protracted crises 21 Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs I. Concrete Proposals / Initiatives from actors attending HLEF Ready to implement 5.Way forward & Agenda for Action II. Elements that could contribute to a Future Agenda for Action

Agenda for Action Draft Principles The Agenda for Action should Be a new point of reference for stakeholders working on food security in protracted crises; building on the research in SOFI 2010 and related initiatives already underway Be rooted in partnerships and new forms of collaboration Highlight better ways / opportunities for supporting local efforts and resilience building Highlight different instruments and intervention options available for different contexts; and propose ways for ongoing improvement, replication and adaptation of these instruments and interventions (rather than prescribe a one size fits all solution) Be inclusive across multiple levels of action: Local, National, Regional, International Feature concrete proposals that are responsive to the most critical needs of those living in protracted crises 22

Your role as authors Background papers for the HLEF Expert opinion on this topic Contribution of key elements for the Agenda for Action Welcome to attend the HLEF Panelists will be primarily practicioners (under selection)

Key Area 1. Causes & Consequences 24

Approach to Each Key Area Individual Author Presentation (6 8 mins) 25 Questions & Feedback to Individual Authors (10 15 mins) Review Key Area of Discussion (1-2 mins) Overall Discussion of Key Area (15 25 mins) Facilitator to review current description of the key area for discussion at the HLEF (framed by HLEF planning team + steering committee) 1.Key issues and arguments 2.Countries referenced 3.Key conclusions and expected contributions to the Agenda for Action Clarification questions Feedback on key issues for elaboration or possible inclusion in final paper Identify emerging / common issues, key questions and/or gaps across the key area (early inputs to synthesis brief) Note possible contributions from other papers to key area Note comments / questions for absent authors Synthesize contributions to the Agenda for Action

Key Area 1. HLEF Current Description This key area will look at the different reasons for, and types of protracted crises, whether protracted or recurrent, caused by natural or man-made factors, or a combination of these. This area will look at why and how food security is often an important problem to address in transition/fragile settings. It will highlight the linkages between food security and nutrition strategies and supporting programmes, agricultural livelihood strategies and systems, as well as patterns of natural resource management as elements that can contribute to, or inhibit protracted crises. 26

Key Area 1. Causes & Consequences 27 Protracted Crises Causes of Types of Man-made Natural Recurrent Protracted Food Security Nutrition Strategies Supporting Programmes Agricultural Livelihoods Strategies & Systems Natural Resource Management CONTRIBUTOR?INHIBITOR?

Key Area 1. - Emerging Issues Reasons for protracted crises many fold Interaction between factors are important, but context specific and not generalizable There are limits to technical action, therefore a need to pay attention to political, governance and institutional level of our work Linked to this, there is a need for political and conflict analysis capacity Consensus on need to treat both symptoms & causes Need to focus on the problems that we as an international community can address vs. those that other important actors can address How to operate within potential + limitations of CFS as a body, to produce a meaningful Agenda for Action, and to advance the global dialogue on protracted crises 28

Key Area 1. - Gaps GAPS Different types of protracted crises, may need to be better spelled out Not a clear conclusion on importance of FS in protracted crises may need to strengthen the link across all papers Question on how much to enter into political aspects of these protracted crises Role of the international community what role can be played? CFS is not = international community To what extent are intl agencies working on the food security component of the problem in protracted crises May need to have a map of actors and/or categorization of types of actors to advance dialogue Is population growth vs. resource base a missing linkage? Is there enough attention to what are the positive ways of coping with / making progress in protracted crises situations (resilience? lessons learned?) 29

Key Area 2. Political / Governance

Key Area 2. HLEF Current Description This key area will focus on fundamental political and governance opportunities which serve as catalysts to create change in addressing food insecurity in protracted crises, as well as challenges which create blockages. The various roles of national governments, regional organizations and the international community will be considered. A political economy lens will be used to analyze the changing nature of response in protracted crises, particularly food security and livelihood responses. In addition, this discussion will consider whether the coordination and the role of relief and development funding needs to be changed in order to enable more effective action in tackling protracted crises. 31

Key Area 2. Political / Governance 32 Protracted Crises Man-made Political Economy Lens Governance Opportunities & Challenges Political Opportunities & Challenges RELIEF & DEVELOPMENT FUNDING & COORDINATION National Actors Intl Community Change in FS & Livelihood Responses Regional Orgs

Key Area 2. Emerging Issues Very tentative suggestions on sorts of interventions that food security agencies could do, and tempered with caution about complexity and specificity of these situations Common reference to double sided role of Food Security and Agriculture investments vicious cycle Need for customized responses and taking much more into account the political and social factors in country Conflict analysis need to do it better, and need to note limitations of conflict analysis Way interventions are done is as important as intent of intervention (on conflict vs. in conflict) May need to adjust and/or expand objectives to include Peacebuilding element Cautionary notes on what can be expected from relief / humanitarian interventions or longer term development Need to be conscious of aid being instrumentalized 33

Key Area 2. Gaps (1 of 2) GAPS What political bodies can the CFS link up with? (e.g. UN Security Council or PBSO + UN missions + WB rolling out WDR, etc.) Specific governance challenges are there Food Security institutions with governance problems that we can be more specific about More detail may be required on each set of institutions /actors and the stakes or opportunities of each set of actors / institutions engaging with one another Lot of talk ~10 yrs ago re: participation in emergency NOTE: local political economy issues looked at then, are likely still relevant to the debate today Capacity + Transition lessons learned (e.g. funding flows relative to capacity to absorb aid) impact of this cycle on repeated cycles (i.e. strengthen / undermining recurrent dynamic) suggest real institutional issues that could lead to concrete recommendations Important to reflect on criteria in SOFI & interplay with insights on governance (should we consider adding CPI as another indicator?) + ability to do aggregate tracking NOTE: WFP study looking at WFP indexes and interrelation with FAO indexes link between poor governance (corruption indexes) + food insecurity not published 34

Key Area 2. Gaps (2 of 2) GAPS Need to have awareness of new processes and/or governance structures emerging and how to link Agenda for Action to these appropriately (i.e. political attention / G8 / G20, process following Busan New Deal +, emergence of new South/South cooperation, private sector role, other) Focus seems to be moving towards building social cohesion / social contracts -- therefore, the question is not what you do, but how you are doing it, and outlining ways of engaging in these protracted crises situations NOTE: this also implies giving away power and may include determining the risk appetite of CFS and ensuring an honest discussion of when agencies can or cannot have sufficient impact Is paradigm as building institutions appropriate is there such thing as an institutional void or do we simply displace other institutions (formal or informal) 35

Day One Highlights

Day One Highlights HLEF Event Clarity on Twin Track objectives of HLEF and how papers contribute as the initial fact base and source of proposals on the way forward HLEF dialogue not to debate definition of protracted crises or classification of specific countries HLEF focus is on advancing collective understanding of complexity of interactions within protracted crises settings and whats different in protracted crises re: food and nutrition security + agricultural requirements and international intervention contributions HLEF aim is to identify concrete, practical, feasible actions that could be taken going forward Recognition of the political value in a CFS endorsed Agenda for Action, and some of the potential risks / limitations of an Agenda for Action Need for the Agenda for Action to link to and build on other specific initiatives and momentum present at this time 37

Day One Highlights - Papers Value in trying to unpack complexities and clearly define scope and comparability of analysis within each paper Need to distinguish between different types of protracted crises and the different implications that result not generalizable Opportunities to further elaborate / underline specific contributions & real limitations of Food Security / Agriculture as an entry point within protracted crises Opportunity to more explicitly outline complementary requirements and expected roles from other actors (outside international agencies) Need to get concrete on not just what needs to change, but who and how Need to ensure good coverage of a range of countries for evidence base Value in drawing out specific anecdotes / evidence in papers* Need to spell out implications and push to the so what within each individual paper, in order to actively contribute to Twin Track objectives of HLEF event* 38 * Particularly important for synthesis briefs

Day One Highlights Additional Insights Requirement for technical and political interventions to be working in parallel, over time Recognition of +/- dual roles at play in protracted crises: assets, causal cycles Working on conflict vs. working in conflict impact vs. process Surprising realities of protracted crises, also important to note in dialogue Difficult nature of providing net positive and sustainable technical interventions and institution building contributions Need to leverage old knowledge and approaches alongside new paradigms and ways of working Real challenges exist in operationalizing desired response in protracted crises (agency capacity on ground, funding structures, etc.) Significant constraints with current aid architecture 39

Key Area 3. Resilience

Key Area 3. HLEF Current Description This key area covers how individuals, households, communities and local institutions have adapted (more or less successfully), and how they have pursued increased resilience in the face of prolonged or recurrent crises. It will draw upon recent events in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, among others, which have led to concerted efforts by both local communities and international organizations, to increase resilience for households, communities and local institutions. This key area will focus particularly on the question of what can be learned, supported, changed, or strengthened in the resilience strategies of individuals, households, communities and local institutions to guide action by policymakers and by external agencies. Disaster risk management and related approaches, which are risk-oriented rather than crisis response-oriented, will also be considered as one way to achieve this, or to complement the subsistence strategies or stakeholders on the ground. 41

Key Area 3. Resilience 42 Protracted Crises How increased resilience pursued Individuals Households Communities Institutions More or less successful adaptations D.R.R. Crisis Response Risk Orientation Horn of Africa Sahel How to.. Support Strengthen Change Resilience Strategies Policy Makers External Agencies Others

Key Area 3. Emerging Issues (1 of 2) Important to keep a strategic level of discourse in the bigger picture of the economics / politics of protracted crises Whos resilience we are talking about is important to clarify Is resilience always of value? Focus in right direction specific actors to enable and support Need better clarity between resilience and coping (resilience has longer term view than coping + resilience is positive) Issue of context specificity even within a country / region not just between countries link to local understanding required before intervening / building resilience strategies Need more clarity on scale and level of intervention appropriate for different protracted crises government, informal support systems, etc. (linked to above ) What works the enablers: markets, risk management tools, social systems, etc. -- need to underline these 43

Key Area 3. Emerging Issues (2 of 2) Also outline REAL limitations to a resilience discourse (avoid indulgence in rhetoric of resilience where NOT possible) Understand the economy of war and the way interventions can be manipulated Question of neutrality What need to change in our business + what needs to change in the way the aid system works? More thoughtful and oriented to enabling / building resilience / risk management / longer lasting outcomes Imply shifts in local level and global level conception of work Does diversification equal resilience or not? Is the standard assumption that diversification = increased resilience still valid? 44

Key Area 3. Gaps Is the risk environment in which we operate changing? NOTE: Hard to tell if this is context / agency specific or generalizable Are there certain social patterns or coping mechanisms that have reached their limit? If so Why? -- Climate Change? Demographics? Other? Role of markets in keeping people poor and role of markets in building peace. Can be highly exploitative keeps me alive, but also keeps me poor. Somewhere in protracted crises people fall off the edge & weve not yet got it right how to see this / predict it Application of the term resilience to conflict does it fit or not? Do we need a glossary to clarify terms in advance of HLEF NOTE: request that all authors clarify / define key terms in final paper 45

Key Area 4. Lessons Learned

Key Area 4. HLEF Current Description This key area will highlight specific lessons learned in protracted crises contexts, particularly with regards to addressing issues related to food insecurity, as well as lessons on how countries have emerged or avoided protracted crises. This theme may include discussion of agricultural production and markets, safety nets including nutrition interventions, improvement of rural and urban infrastructure, governance, disaster risk reduction/management and early warning systems. It will also include how food security and livelihood programmes can be integrated into peace and stability initiatives in fragile and transition contexts. This key area will provide country case studies and lessons learned and will include panellists from countries (including G7+ New Deal countries), regional organizations and international agencies which will help extract key lessons learned. 47

Key Area 4. Lessons Learned 48 How countries have emerged from / avoided protracted crisis Specific contextual lessons learned Ag. Production Markets Nutrition Interventions Infrastructure Governance, etc. Protracted Crises Food Security Implications for. What countries need Contributions / roles of different actors Links to ongoing processes +

Key Area 4. Emerging Issues (1 of 3) Interactions with governments How to engage with government -- how to square aid effectiveness agenda with support to resilience in protracted crises Importance of ensuring government responses to shocks do not undermine building longer term resilience (how to preserve fiscal space, role for other actors) Needs to be a rapid response to government level needs & there needs to be flexibility to re-orient work / programming Difficulty from a process perspective -- in coordinating with governments and in aligning with other ongoing processes at country level 49

Key Area 4. Emerging Issues (2 of 3) Institutional processes re: agencies working in this space Development work needs more contingency planning Focus on work / response first and then process later is this a lesson learned for other contexts outside Somalia? Problem of knowledge management and institutionalizing learning (it is particularly important in protracted crises) Role of innovation in crises unclear - best practice + rapid response needed Make visible the challenges and limits to doing what is needed in order to explicitly push the political discussion re: aid architecture Question of sequencing linear sequencing possible? Sequencing of different tools? Not clear There is pressure within UN system towards coordination of planning (i.e. multi-year strategies to support resilience) enough vs. too much coordination is it an issue particularly in protracted crises? Setting joint outcomes accountability for outputs / performance vs. outcomes / impact 50

Key Area 4. Emerging Issues (3 of 3) Knowledge of context important Need to decide when supporting resilience is a good thing Link between risk management & resilience Working in much less than optimal circumstances during protracted crises, therefore -- need an operational, hands on approach to what can be done and this approach must be in sync with local resilience strategies Related to above, need to relieve pressure on agencies in protracted crises performance is: optimum use of limited resources in difficult circumstances Importance of having resilience strategies funded through multiple funding mechanisms how to piece funding sources together to build a longer term approach not to lose longer term strategic because LT funding not available How can use of longer term resilience strategies help to CHANGE mindsets and stimulate a systematic change re: funding frameworks Need to be more accountable in protracted crises situations via explicit aims, holding each other accountable, joint monitoring and having transparency 51

Key Area 4. Gaps What makes countries emerge from protracted crises? Missing from current fact base What is the impact of work on resilience, on conflict and the drivers of crises Important to zero in on the story of institutional change (particularly Somalia lessons learned) Are we paying sufficient attention to lesson learning as an international community can we highlight where lessons have been learned and used Need to capture missing information to inform understanding of coping strategies and resilience strategies locally (i.e. Somalia case particular) How to ensure coordination structures / joint efforts continue to add value 52

Way Forward & Agenda for Action

HLEF Inputs & Outputs 1.Causes and consequences of food insecurity in protracted crises 2.Catalysts to create change: political and governance opportunities and challenges 3.Resilience of individuals, households, communities and local institutions in protracted crises 4.What have we learned: working towards emerging from protracted crises 54 Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs I. Concrete Proposals / Initiatives from actors attending HLEF Ready to implement 5.Way forward & Agenda for Action II. Elements that could contribute to a Future Agenda for Action

I. Possible Concrete Initiatives 1.Rome based agencies together with PBSO and WB be prepared to offer a package of technical support services to New Deal pilot countries, if requested? 2.Organization of an Expert consultation on Operationalizing A Resilience Approach? 3.Concrete initiatives to better integrate Food Security into ongoing regional strategies / initiatives? 4.Others? 55

I. Participant Feedback on Concrete Initiatives (1 of 2) 56 a)On technical support services - they could be of at least two types: (i) to assist countries to bring protracted crises lens to existing plans or plans under development; (ii) create a training programme on conflict analysis and how to translate it into effective programming and/or a training for decision makers as to why they need conflict analysis and what programmes look like with vs. without conflict analysis. b)On expect forum re: operationalizing a resilience approach proposal should be clarified / more specific. For example, event could encourage dedicated thinking on how to address underlying causes how to decide what to do. Alternatively, event could explore how to measure resilience or designing integrated resilience strategies/programmes. c)Specific proposal to map most strategic and relevant planning processes and fora (e.g. CADAAP), at national and sub-regional levels, where integrated approach to protracted crises should be present d)Concrete initiative to address the lack of advocacy on Food Security + Protracted Crises. Several agencies commit to a collective effort to advocate outcomes of HLEF at various levels (e.g. ECOSOC, UN General Assembly, etc.)

I. Participant Feedback on Concrete Initiatives (2 of 2) 57 e)Create a global knowledge center / platform for exchange of tools & approaches / practice / lessons learned in protracted crises. NOTE: Some doubt among participants if this type of initiaitve would generate sufficient learning and knowledge exchange. WB doing something similar with a knowledge platform on fragile & conflict states, could suggest a theme on FS + conflict Is added. May be lessons learned from FAO DRM effort. Also suggested that resources in such a platform should be prioritized. f)Opportunity to develop an initiative to align with / complement other public private partnerships re: investment in protracted crises countries (e.g. G8 New Alliance Initiative and development of risk management experts in Agriculture underway as part of this effort). g)Opportunity to contribute to common framework for resilience + growth (noted in Frankenberger presentation). Trying to develop country level plans now, therefore there is an opportunity to influence the technical content (EGAD, CAADAP effort). NOTE: complements suggestions on technical support. h)Opportunity to integrate resilience into the post MDG discussion? Participants noted that the UN Task Team is largely done and that resilience likely would not meet the criteria.

II. Agenda for Action Draft Principles The Agenda for Action should Be a new point of reference for stakeholders working on food security in protracted crises; building on the research in SOFI 2010 and related initiatives already underway Be rooted in partnerships and new forms of collaboration Highlight better ways / opportunities for supporting local efforts and resilience building Highlight different instruments and intervention options available for different contexts; and propose ways for ongoing improvement, replication and adaptation of these instruments and interventions (rather than prescribe a one size fits all solution) Be inclusive across multiple levels of action: Local, National, Regional, International Feature concrete proposals that are responsive to the most critical needs of those living in protracted crises 58

II. Participant Feedback on Agenda for Action Principles 59 Bullet point #1 Suggest re-wording for all stakeholders working in protracted crises, re: food security in protracted crises settings In order to deliver on bullet point #4, instruments and intervention types must be clearly identified (i.e. in papers and as part of HLEF outcomes) Recommend taking one size fits all notion out of parentheses in point #4 as a separate bullet In order to response to local contexts, responses to protracted crises must be specific and need to be ground in local context / conflict analysis. Principles should capture idea of the importance of defining whos resilience is being targeted / built Principles should specify that the agenda for action intends to be value-added and to complement other ongoing strategic and regional initiatives Need to ensure measurable milestones are included in the agenda for action, in order to have something concrete to measure progress against; as well as specifying who each action is for to ensure accountability

II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 1. Advocacy on causes and consequences of Protracted Crises 2. Principles re: Emerging from Protracted Crises 3. Joint Mechanisms & Operationalization of Integrated Strategies (Food Security / Resilience / Peacebuilding Tools & Intervention Options ) 4. Institution Building/ Governance / Accountability 5. Funding Structure / Processes 6. Future Research Agenda 7. Monitoring & Results Targeted 60 NOTE: Participants suggested changing Box 4. above to read institutional development or institutional empowerment rather than institution building. NOTE: Participants suggested changing Box 6. above to be framed more broadly as research and knowledge management and training. GENERAL NOTE: Need to ensure proposed elements of the Agenda for Action do not over commit individual actors or step outside of an appropriate realm of influence for CFS.

II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 61 1. Advocacy on causes and consequences of Protracted Crises 2. Principles re: Emerging from Protracted Crises Political and practical action to be integrated. Agencies to specify minimum conditions required to have effective impact Develop communication and advocacy materials to build awareness at all levels, using existing mechanisms where possible (Link to Box 3) CFS to propose agenda / theme discussion on protracted crises to Security Council Engaging / get commitment of new donors /actors in addressing protracted crises

II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 62 3. Joint Mechanisms & Operationalization of Integrated Strategies Technical support package (to address food security) developed and offered to countries implementing the New Deal (package could include response analysis, tools, financing opportunities and advocacy) NOTE: Need to spell out what technical assistance Rome based agencies would like to provide, which protracted crisis countries be concrete with budget / costs Mandatory/ specific contingency planning for all development projects, with contingency contracts/strategies agreed: (a) locally; and (b) between donor and recipient agency (including Ministries and Treasury) Integrate food security related initiatives within global / country action plans to reduce state fragility and to promote peace Integrate peace building into food security policies, programmes and projects Investment in social capital as basis for grass roots peace building Emphasize (in the HLEF report/ suggested elements of an agenda for action) those elements that show (not tell) the comparative advantage of multilateral institutions in dealing with protracted crisis situations

II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 63 4. Institution Building/ Governance / Accountability The agenda should include elements of the Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure (VGLT) relevant for conflict avoidance or mitigation countries are committed to implementing these with support from international organizations Countries commit to developing risk management strategies for their agricultural sector as part of national development plans, supported by international organizations For countries affected by crises: better contingency planning in development and social protection, more equity in development planning Assess local institutions, coping mechanisms, capacity etc. before intervening (there is no such thing as an institutional void) Human rights approach / issues and link to violation of Geneva conventions Move ahead with the development of code of conduct on management of regional / national emergency humanitarian food reserves Integrate resilience into national / regional strategies

II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 64 Long term funding made available in humanitarian crisis that will enable life and livelihood saving action Joint funding for guru mentors in specific crises (i.e. experts on context experiencing protracted crises made available to all actors as advisors) For donor countries: Accelerate integration of emergency and development funding streams / reform structures that define ho funding is allocated Reform CAP process subject to long term strategy Promote integration of resilience into national / regional strategies Agree on international targets by 2015 for multiyear food security agriculture instruments in protracted crisis countries engaged in New Deal Phasing out emergency assistance only when there is some proven state of self- reliance, and assistance for this (Also part of Box 3.) Distance political agenda from aid 5. Funding Structure / Processes

II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 65 Support research and learning on key questions such as: When is resilience a poverty trap? Promotion and development of markets in protracted crises Political causes of protracted crises and required action (Also part of Box 1.) How food security programmes contribute to peace Understanding the decision making of those who are actively undermining food security (e.g. their own food security might be one) Host forums for strategic sharing between traditional international aid systems and non traditional donors Inter-agency cooperation (including common learning agenda, shared studies, etc.) on impact learning, including return visits years after project end. Institutional lens to be essential component. (Also part of Box 7.) 6. Future Research Agenda

II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 66 Monitor hunger reduction progress in protracted crises against set goals Call for all actors to recognize limitations of log frames in protracted crises settings Spell out who will be responsible for reporting progress on action plan action items and when 7. Monitoring & Results Targeted An additional proposal was made, however, it was unclear which category to place it under: Addressing the needs of illegitimates areas controlled by rebels or stigmatized groups.

Next Steps

ActionResponsibilityTiming 1. HLEF Planning Team to follow-up with authors not able to attend the technical meeting Content chairs Next week 2. Circulate synthesis slides from meeting + slide summary of Way Forward Discussion Facilitator + HLEF Planning Team End of next week (latest) 3. Authors to submit input for synthesis brief (specific evidence/anecdotes + agenda for action proposals) All Authors July 10, 2012 4. Authors to submit final papers All Lead Authors July 20, 2012 5. Synthesis Briefs to be written & finalized HLEF Planning Team End July 6. Synthesis Briefs to translation HLEF Planning Team 1 st week August 7. Background papers edited and posted on HLEF website (authors will be consulted) HLEF Planning Team + Authors End August

Participant Feedback on Next Steps 69 Participants requested synthesis slides as soon as possible It was noted that individual papers will not be posted under any specific Key Area on the HLEF website, rather, all papers will be listed as a contribution to forum discussions Individual panelists will have access to all papers, and HLEF planning team may l suggest a subset of priority papers, according to individual panel contributions anticipated Participants requesting greater details on timeline for copy editing, in particular as some authors will need time to get institutional clearance on final document, before it can be posted on the HLEF website Authors need feedback from HLEF on copyright of individual papers HLEF to follow-up Request that a complete e-mail list of all workshop participants + absent authors be circulated NOTE: request that future communications not be by zipped files for those who use tablets

THANK-YOU

high level expert forum on food security in protracted crises hlef technical meeting slide synthesis...

Documents

action slide

hlef event slide

welcome slide

governance security

development agenda

eventual agenda

humanitarian agenda

theme of food insecurity