€¦ · web viewhowever, following a food security and nutrition survey, it was determined that...

Food Security Information for Action

Targeting

Lesson 3

Targeting in Emergencies

Learners’ Notes

This course is funded by the European Union and implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations

© FAO, 2008

Course - TargetingLesson 3 - Targeting in Emergencies

Table of contents Learning objectives...........................................................................................2

Introduction........................................................................................................3

From emergency assessment to targeting strategy......................................4

Response options and their targeting effects................................................7

Targeting displaced and mobile populations...............................................10

Targeting during recovery and phase-out.....................................................13

Monitoring and evaluation of targeting in emergencies..............................15

Summary..........................................................................................................16

If you want to know more...............................................................................17

Annex 1: Humanitarian standards in targeting.............................................18

Annex 2: Response options...........................................................................20

Annex 3 - Example: Targeting pastoralists in Somalia with emergency relief (2003-4)...................................................................................................22

Learners’ Notes 1


Learning objectives

At the end of this lesson you will be able to:

apply the basic principles and tools of targeting to various emergency situations; understand the targeting effects of different emergency response options; and develop feasible and effective ways of monitoring and evaluating targeting in

emergency operations.

Learners’ Notes 2


Introduction

In emergencies, the primary aims of food security interventions are to save lives and to protect the wellbeing and livelihoods of distressed and vulnerable people.

In these situations, the ethical and humanitarian objectives of targeting, and the need for swift action, take priority.

In this lesson, targeting principles are applied to a range of practical examples and situations commonly encountered in emergency and post-emergency contexts.

The internationally accepted core standard for targeting in disasters is:

“Humanitarian assistance or services are provided equitably and impartially, based on the vulnerability and needs of individuals or groups affected by disaster.”

See Annex 1: Humanitarian standards in targeting

Learners’ Notes 3


From emergency assessment to targeting strategy

Food security emergencies can take various forms. The type of emergency, as well as the context, will affect how assistance can -and should - be targeted.

The World Food Programme (WFP) currently provides the following definition:

Definition of emergency“Emergencies are defined as urgent situations in which there is clear evidence that an event or series of events has occurred which causes human suffering or imminently threatens human lives or livelihoods and which the government concerned has not the means to remedy; and it is a demonstrably abnormal event or series of events which produces dislocation in the life of a community on an exceptional scale.”

Five types of food security emergencies (from WFP)The event or series of events may comprise one or a combination of the following:

a. sudden calamities such as earthquakes, floods, locust infestations and similar unforeseen disasters;

b. human-made emergencies resulting in an influx of refugees or the internal displacement of populations or in the suffering of otherwise affected populations;

c. food scarcity conditions owing to slow-onset events such as drought, crop failures, pests and diseases that result in an erosion of communities’ and vulnerable populations’ capacity to meet their food needs;

d. severe food access or availability conditions resulting from sudden economic shocks – market failure or economic collapse - and that result in an erosion of communities’ and vulnerable populations’ capacity to meet their food needs; and

e. a complex emergency for which the government of the affected country or the Secretary-General of the United Nations has requested the support of WFP.

WFP 2005 Definition of Emergencies. http://www.wfp.org/eb/docs/2005/wfp043676~2.pdf

These types sometimes overlap - for example, an emergency may be both slow-onset and complex; or an economic shock may come on top of a human-made or sudden calamity. Each emergency situation must be fully assessed before a targeting strategy is decided.

The ideal sequence of steps from identifying an emergency to designing a targeted response is the following:

1. Analyse the problem (what type(s) of emergency are we dealing with?).2. Assess needs (what type of assistance is needed, by whom, why, where, when,

how much?).3. Assess the context (economic, social, political, security and logistical)4. Define the target group(s).5. Decide response modalities (General food distribution? Livelihood support? School

feeding? Price controls? etc.).6. Select targeting methods and indicators.

Learners’ Notes 4

http://www.wfp.org/eb/docs/2005/wfp043676~2.pdf


This is the most logical sequence of steps. In a real emergency, things might not happen exactly in this order – for example, the first three steps might be done simultaneously, or a good analysis of the context may already be available. The key point is that the definition of target groups should come after the situation assessments and before the selection of response modes and targeting methods.

In some situations, particularly complex emergencies and conflict situations, targeting at household or individual level may not be feasible. Community-based targeting methods, in particular, require a stable security situation and a cohesive community.

In sudden emergencies, there may not be time to collect the information or establish the institutions necessary for detailed targeting before beginning a relief operation. In these situations it may be necessary to begin with blanket assistance to affected areas, and introduce further levels of targeting later (if appropriate).

The stage of an emergency may also affect targeting priorities.An emergency is, by definition, a situation demanding urgent action. However, some emergencies are more predictable than others, and for various reasons (logistics, politics, quality of early warning, national preparedness, etc.) an aid operation may be launched late or early in the development of a crisis. A late response, even to a slow-onset emergency, may require rapid distributions with limited targeting at the beginning. In well-predicted or recurrent emergencies, by contrast, it is often possible to establish stable institutions and processes for targeting at various levels.

Example: Community-based targeting in a long-running emergencyFor a number of years, under emergency operation (EMOP) and protracted relief and recovery operation (PRRO) relief activities in Myanmar, highly food-insecure communities identified through vulnerability assessment and emergency needs assessments have received WFP emergency rations through a vulnerable group feeding approach. Until 2004, WFP defined the targeting criteria. The decision-making behind this method was poorly understood in the communities and led to the unintended exclusion of some vulnerable households. It also resulted in increased pressure on WFP to relax selection criteria in order to ensure that no poor households would be missed. WFP has since altered the targeting system by making community members themselves more responsible for decisions on the distribution of scarce resources. At least half of all men and women residents now attend community meetings where targeting criteria and selection are finalized. Vulnerable groups have been defined as households headed by women and widows without support, accounting for 80 percent of beneficiaries, refugee returnees, orphans, elderly, chronically sick or disabled people and tuberculosis patients. Once the food-security criteria are agreed upon, participants are divided into three groups and asked to categorize each eligible household in the village into one of four classifications: rich, middle, ordinary poor and extremely poor. The full meeting then triangulates the findings of the three groups and only those households that appear consistently as food-insecure and in the extremely poor category are targeted.

Source: WFP (2006). Targeting in Emergencies. Policy Issues: document WFP/EB.1/2006/5-A. http://www.wfp.org/eb/docs/2005/wfp043676~2.pdf, p.12

Learners’ Notes 5



Example: Target group definitions in a sudden emergencySometimes the definition of target groups is determined entirely by the nature of the emergency, and the usual indicator types (such as nutritional or socio-economic criteria) are secondary or irrelevant. For example, target groups for household cash and food transfers following the Asian tsunami were defined as: Families whose houses were completely damaged by the tsunami; Families from partially damaged households in the buffer zone [a government- defined

area, up to 200m from the sea, where re-building was prohibited]; Families in the buffer zone with no damage to their houses but who had lost their main

livelihoods; and Families considered as destitute.

Source: Mohidin, L., M. Sharma and A. Haller (2007) ‘Comparing cash and food transfers: findings from a pilot project in Sri Lanka’, Field Exchange 30 p. 19-21 www.ennonline.net/fex/30

Learners’ Notes 6

http://www.ennonline.net/fex/30


Response options and their targeting effects

There are many possible responses to food security emergencies, depending on the nature of the problem and the findings of the needs assessment. Food aid may or may not be appropriate.

Even if it is, there is still a range of modalities to choose from (general ration distribution, supplementary or therapeutic feeding, school feeding, food-for-work, and so on).

Look at the list of food and non-food response options from WFP’s Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook:

See Annex 2: Response options

The choice of response options is closely linked to targeting decisions.Different types of response are suited to different target groups, or to different targeting methods. Some responses have in-built targeting effects.

For example, employment-based programmes automatically exclude households with no able-bodied workers, while seed distributions will benefit people with land and viable farming-based livelihoods.

The followig table presents the targeting characteristics which correspond to the most common response options:

Table 1: Targeting characteristics of the most common response optionsCommon response options

Targeting characteristics

General ration or cash distribution

A wide range of targeting approaches is possible, including blanket distributions within targeted areas or communities. Community-based targeting can be the best option for socio-economic targeting at household level (where conditions are favourable).

Supplementary feeding

This is a nutritional intervention which has broadly standardised target groups and targeting criteria (unlike most other emergency food security interventions). Administrative targeting by trained staff using anthropometric techniques is the norm for targeted Supplementary Feeding Programs (SFP). Blanket SFPs use categorical targeting, covering everyone in specified age groups or categories.

The target groups in BLANKET SFPs are:• Children under 5 years (or 3 years if resources are scarce)• Pregnant women from the third month of pregnancy• Lactating mothers up to 6 months• Adults showing signs of malnutrition• The elderly and sick.

The primary target group for TARGETED SFPs are:

Learners’ Notes 7


• Mild or moderately malnourished children under 5 years of age (e.g. children < 80% WFH)

• Children discharged from therapeutic feeding programmes• Clinically malnourished individuals over 5 years of age• Pregnant and lactating women who are nutritionally vulnerable

for medical or social reasons.Source: WFP Food and Nutrition Handbook (2000), p.73

Therapeutic feeding

This is a medical / nutritional intervention targeting severely malnourished individuals with the aim of reducing mortality. Expert medical staff are needed to screen patients. Geographical targeting and coverage are very important in supplementary and therapeutic feeding.

Food-for-work or Cash-for-work

The work requirement and low payment rates have a self-targeting effect. However, in nearly all situations additional administrative or community targeting methods are needed if the programme objective is to select the poorest. The work requirement excludes labour-scarce households.

School feeding

School feeding and other institutional methods only reach those enrolled and attending. In many (not all) situations it is not the poorest children who attend school.Geographic targeting can greatly increase the effectiveness of school feeding.Targeting is usually not the major objective of school feeding.

Livelihood support

This covers a varied range of interventions and equally wide targeting options. Targeting by livelihood criteria requires good contextual analysis, as eligible groups can be very large.

See Jaspars 2006, From food crisis to fair trade: Livelihoods analysis, protection and support in emergencies. Special Supplement No.3, ENN. http://www.ennonline.net/fex/27/supplement27.pdf

Market interventions

Geographical targeting and commodity selection are important if interventions in price, supply or demand are to benefit the intended target group.

Let’s look at the following example of a food assistance programme for low-income urban households.

Learners’ Notes 8

http://www.ennonline.net/fex/27/supplement27.pdf


Example: Market assistance pilot project (MAPP) in Zimbabwe (2003)

As an alternative to traditional food distributions, C-SAFE approached existing commercial entities that could facilitate a programme aimed at 'filling the market gap' with an affordable maize substitute. A proposal to use sorghum initially encountered resistance from both retailers and consumers, given its lack of commercial presence in the local market for several generations. However, within weeks, 150 retailers in 40 high-density Bulawayo suburbs agreed to sell the cereal. Demand exploded from 30 tons to 300 tons a day, and by November 2003 seven local millers were milling and packaging the USAID sorghum to meet consumer demand.The price of sorghum set by C-SAFE is determined by income, household size, and the retail price gap between maize and sorghum. When cereal prices rise, the potential for side marketing increases, so C-SAFE monitors the market activity and adjusts the sorghum price accordingly. Retailers are also permitted a 15 percent mark-up on the product to ensure profitability. The sorghum is an easy-to-sell commodity and although it is priced to move, it stays in the target market …The MAPP targeted more than 800,000 families in the Bulawayo area. Preliminary estimates suggest that the sorghum meal prices allowed most poor families in the target area to purchase sufficient food to feed all family members three meals per day for the six-month duration of the pilot programme.The vulnerable low-income households could easily access the sorghum meal from the retail outlets. However, retail outlets did not exclude the higher-income households, and targeting will continue to be a challenge, especially during periods of maize meal shortage.An external evaluation found that low-income households self-select and continue to purchase sorghum meal as long as it is affordable compared to maize meal.

Source: Allen, K. (2004) ‘A Market Support Programme to Address an Urban Food Crisis in Zimbabwe’, Field Exchange Issue 23. http://www.ennonline.net/fex/23/fex23.pdf

Learners’ Notes 9

http://www.ennonline.net/fex/23/fex23.pdf


Targeting displaced and mobile populations

Geographical targeting is usually the first stage of emergency targeting.

However, its usefulness is limited if the target groups have been expelled from their home area (refugees and displaced people), or if they move as part of their normal livelihood (many pastoralists).

Targeting at household and individual levels may also require a different approach among these populations.

In displaced and refugee communities, social and leadership structures may or may not exist. If they do, they may or may not be fair and representative of everyone. These factors must be assessed in the local context before any form of community-based targeting is recommended.

Socio-economic targeting in camp situations is rarely appropriate, since everyone’s livelihoods and means of accessing food are disrupted. Over time, camp economies often develop which change this situation, and some residents may have more assets and income than others.

However, it still may not be worthwhile to target at household level using poverty or livelihood criteria. Better options are therefore nutritional targeting, a standard general ration for everyone registered, or both.

Why poverty and livelihood criteria may be inappropriateIt may not be worthwhile to target at household level using poverty or livelihood criteria for the following reasons: those excluded are likely to be few (so a large effort would bring only a small saving); it could be seen as unfair, and could cause conflict; and it would discourage people’s efforts to reconstruct an independent livelihood for the

future.

Considering the surrounding host population In targeting displaced or refugee groups, the surrounding host population must also be considered. Sometimes distinguishing between them is a problem in itself. Often, the surrounding residents are also in need of assistance and may feel unfairly neglected if aid goes only to the ‘incomers’. This can be a source of conflict.

The following is an example of targeting internally displaced people (IDPs) and host communities.

Example: Targeting IDPs and host communities in Darfur (2004/5) – balancing inclusion and exclusion errors

Displacement in response to armed conflict is a major cause of hunger in Darfur. In the initial stages of the conflict, targeting criteria were based mainly on whether a person was displaced. However, following a food security and nutrition survey, it was determined that rural residents were similarly susceptible to food insecurity, putting them in

Learners’ Notes 10


a more precarious position than some IDPs. These non-displaced people were vulnerable on several fronts: their harvest was threatened by poor climate conditions in 2004, they were experiencing the negative consequences of the conflict, including limited market access and a virtual cessation of trade, and their communities were increasingly burdened by hosting large numbers of IDPs. Assisting a large number of IDPs in a village raised tensions in the communities, as did targeting all IDPs and only some of the residents. Therefore, WFP and partners needed to find a fair and transparent way to ensure that the most food-insecure people were assisted. After discussions with partners and communities, WFP arrived at a pragmatic formula: in rural villages already identified as vulnerable to food insecurity and in which hosted IDPs exceeded 50 percent of the total population, WFP would provide rations for the entire village population. It is possible that some residents did not require immediate food assistance, but they constituted a small minority, and identifying and excluding these individuals would have taken vital human resources away from distribution and monitoring tasks and could have led to further tensions.

Source: WFP (2006) Targeting in Emergencies. Policy Issues: document WFP/EB.1/2006/5-A. http://www.wfp.org/eb/docs/2006/wfp083629~2.pdf p.15

Targeting within pastoralist communities is often considered particularly difficult because of their social and economic organization. Pastoralist societies are as varied as farming cultures, so we should be careful with generalizations. It is always necessary to assess the specific context of any proposed targeted assistance.

That said, common features which pose challenges for targeting include:

Table 2: Challenges for targeting within pastoralist communities

Mobility

Pastoralist livelihoods (in drought-prone and food-insecure areas) usually require all or part of the community to move according to the season and availability of resources. This can make it difficult simply to identify, locate and reach the vulnerable. Targeting methods which require people to stay in one place may undermine their livelihoods.

Joint assetsOwnership of key assets (particularly livestock) is often partly shared within the clan. This can make it difficult or inappropriate to distinguish poor and vulnerable households.

Different ideas of fairness

Many pastoralist societies have clan-based sharing and redistribution mechanisms, which tend to go against the fundamental idea of selective targeting within the community. There is often a strong preference to distribute aid equally to everyone.

Experience of targeting emergency assistance to pastoralists has been very mixed and often unsuccessful at household and individual levels. However, in recent years there have been an increasing number of relief and development programmes with pastoralists, and therefore a growing body of knowledge about targeting in these contexts.




The following example shows that household targeting of pastoralists is possible and sometimes necessary. Most of all, it underlines the importance of understanding the local social and political context, and working with beneficiary communities to agree on targeting criteria and processes.

See Annex 3: Example - Targeting pastoralists in Somalia with emergency relief



Targeting during recovery and phase-out

Emergencies are not static situations. They change all the time. Monitoring information should constantly feed back into programme management, allowing adjustments and corrections in targeting as the situation evolves. This need for flexibility and responsiveness continues in the final phase of an emergency, when aid may either be wound up completely or shifted into programmes for recovery or longer-term development.

There are two basic planning approaches to targeting during the exit phase of an emergency operation:

1. Pick dynamic targeting criteria (such as nutritional status) which will automatically track the recovery process.

2. Change the targeting strategy, and/or the response option, when food security indicators show that recovery has started. For example, you could reduce geographical coverage; progressively cut rations per person; introduce narrower targeting criteria; or switch from free distribution to conditional aid (such as food-for-work or cash-for-work).

During the phase-out of emergency operations, changes in targeting are often employed to reduce the quantity of aid or the number of beneficiaries, or both. This is valid as long as the priority objective of ensuring adequate aid to the most vulnerable is maintained. However, careful monitoring is needed to ensure that the phase-out plan matches the changing realities on the ground.

The example below from Angola, shows how impact assessments during the phase-out of emergency relief identified a continuing need among a specific target group.

Example: The corrective function of impact assessmentAs conditions improved in Malange, Angola in 1995, the international humanitarian community began to explore ways to decrease the amount of food aid being provided. It was quickly noted that, to determine the optimal level of food aid requirements, reductions in the general ration were best carried out in conjunction with surveillance activities. This showed that a gradual reduction in the general ration did not necessarily have a negative impact on nutritional status. However, the near-total withdrawal of the ration in December 1995 resulted in an increase in the level of acute malnutrition among children under five years of age. This suggested that certain population groups within Malange were still at least partially dependent on external assistance. More in-depth qualitative studies revealed that a proportion of the population, especially those who were displaced from rural areas and had no access to land within the peri-urban secure boundaries of the city, were particularly vulnerable if the ration was withdrawn. The information allowed for more effective targeting of limited resources.

Source: Hofmann, C.-A., L. Roberts, J. Shoham and P. Harvey (2004). Measuring the impact of humanitarian aid: A review of current practice. HPG Report 17, Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI. p.11



Example: Using repeated small-scale nutrition surveys to target and phase out food aid in Ethiopia

Following three successive poor harvests in Damot Woyde Woreda in North Omo Zone in Ethiopia, Concern Worldwide conducted a nutrition survey in April 2000. The prevalence of wasting (weight for height < -2SD) was 25.6 percent of which 4.3 percent was severe (weight for height < -3SD). In response, Concern mounted targeted therapeutic and supplementary feeding as well as a general ration programme. Concern also distributed seeds required by farmers, including teff, sweet potato, wheat, maize and beans. In addition to identifying the acute need for intervention in these areas, the survey results gave Concern the necessary information to highlight the whole area of Wolayita as one that required urgent attention and as a result received priority status for food distributions by WFP.A second survey was undertaken three months later. This identified a dramatic improvement in nutritional status (6.4 percent wasting with only 1 percent severe wasting). A third survey in October showed stabilization in the rate of malnutrition (7.2 percent wasting with 1 percent severe wasting). The improvement was partly attributed to the interventions. The stabilization of malnutrition and the imminent arrival of another harvest allowed Concern to phase out the general ration. The therapeutic feeding programme was stopped in October and supplementary feeding only continued until the large number of beneficiaries had reached their target weight.

Source: Shoham, J., F. Watson and C. Dolan (2001). The use of nutritional indicators in surveillance systems. DFID-funded Technical Support Facility to FAO’s FIVIMS: Technical Paper 2.



Monitoring and evaluation of targeting in emergencies

The monitoring and evaluation of targeting provides a crucial feedback loop which enables targeting to be improved or corrected during a programme, or from one programme to the next.

The monitoring of targeting in emergencies is often particularly weak. As the example on the corrective function of impact assessment shows, it is not always necessary to mount separate studies or assessments in order to analyse how well the targeting is working.

Targeting is a cross-cutting objective which is involved in all stages and all aspects of an emergency operation. Questions about targeting can therefore be integrated into a wide range of survey types. Quantitative and qualitative, formal and informal methods can all be used.

Ideally you should provide quantitative estimates of your selected core targeting indicators, contextualized by a qualitative assessment. However, if this is not possible (due to the various problems of access, time, resources or staff capacity, which are common in emergency situations), do what’s possible with the resources you have, using the analytical framework provided in this course.

Some feedback information about who’s getting what – the bottom-line question in targeting – can be gained in almost any situation. Sometimes a rapid qualitative investigation can provide enough information for action, even if the findings cannot be expressed in exact percentages.

When drawing up a monitoring report on the targeting of an emergency food security programme, the sequence of steps to be taken should be the following:

1. Define the key questions to be answered and the quantitative indicators to be calculated (if any)

2. Review existing information – can it be analysed to answer some of the targeting questions?

3. Design your data collection instruments (questionnaire section, checklist for qualitative discussions, etc.)

4. Collect data through fieldwork (stand-alone, or ‘bundled’ with other monitoring)5. Process and analyse the data6. Interpret the findings – what does it all mean? 7. Recommend any necessary changes or improvements in the targeting



Summary

In emergencies, the ethical and humanitarian reasons for targeting are paramount.

Priority is usually given to reaching as many as possible of the target group – that is, maximizing coverage (or, to put it another way, minimizing exclusion errors). In order to achieve this, it is often necessary to accept some degree of inclusion error.

Targeting options are affected by the nature of the emergency, the timing of the intervention, security and logistical access, and the resources available.

The definition of target groups should always be based on a local analysis of the emergency and its context.

The choice of response options is also closely connected with targeting decisions. Different types of interventions have inherent targeting effects or limitations, and are more likely to reach some groups than others.

Flexibility and feedback are essential, because emergency situations are constantly changing.

Monitoring and evaluation of targeting in emergencies can be challenging, but it can and should be incorporated into all emergency programmes.



If you want to know more...

Online resources Jaspars, S. (2006). From food crisis to fair trade: Livelihoods analysis, protection and support in emergencies. Special Supplement No.3, ENN. http://www.ennonline.net/fex/27/supplement27.pdf

Jaspars, S. (2000). Solidarity and soup kitchens: a review of principles and practice for food distribution in conflict. HPG Report 7. London, ODI. http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport7.pdf

Taylor, A. and J. Seaman (2004). Targeting Food Aid in Emergencies. ENN Special Supplement 1. Oxford, Emergency Nutrition Network. http://www.ennonline.net/fex/22/supplement22.pdf

WFP (2005). Full Report of the Thematic Review of Targeting in WFP Relief Operations Ref. OEDE/2006/1. Rome, WFP Office of Evaluation. http://www.wfp.org/operations/evaluation/doclist.asp?section=5&sub_section=8&EBDoc=WFP/EB.1/2006/7-B&Year=2006&ID=WFP086129

WFP (2006). Targeting in Emergencies. Policy Issues: document WFP/EB.1/2006/5-A. http://www.wfp.org/eb/docs/2006/wfp083629~2.pdf

WFP (2005) Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) Handbook, First Edition http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp142691.pdf (update due early 2008)

D.Maxwell and J. Burns, Targeting in Complex Emergencies: South Sudan Country Case Study, May 2008, http://fic.tufts.edu/?pid=82

WebsitesEmergency Nutrition Network http://www.ennonline.net/

Feinstein International Famine Center (Tufts University) http://fic.tufts.edu/

ODI Humanitarian Policy Group; Humanitarian Practice Network; and ALNAP http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/

Sphere Project (Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response) http://www.sphereproject.org

World Food Programme http://www.wfp.org

Additional readingJaspars, S. and J. Shoham (1999). "Targeting the vulnerable: a review of the necessity and feasibility of targeting vulnerable households." Disasters 23(4): 359-372.


http://www.wfp.org/

http://www.sphereproject.org/

http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/

http://fic.tufts.edu/

http://www.ennonline.net/

http://fic.tufts.edu/?pid=82

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp142691.pdf


http://www.wfp.org/operations/evaluation/doclist.asp?section=5&sub_section=8&EBDoc=WFP/EB.1/2006/7-B&Year=2006&ID=WFP086129

http://www.wfp.org/operations/evaluation/doclist.asp?section=5&sub_section=8&EBDoc=WFP/EB.1/2006/7-B&Year=2006&ID=WFP086129


http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport7.pdf



Annex 1: Humanitarian standards in targeting

extract from SPHERE HANDBOOK (2004) Ch.1

The SPHERE project, which sets international norms for humanitarian work, states the following core standard for targeting in disasters:

Key indicators Targeting criteria must be based on a thorough analysis of vulnerability (see

guidance note 1). Targeting mechanisms are agreed upon among the affected population (including

representatives of vulnerable groups) and other appropriate actors. Targeting criteria are clearly defined and widely disseminated (see guidance notes 2-3).

Targeting mechanisms and criteria should not undermine the dignity and security of individuals, or increase their vulnerability to exploitation (see guidance notes 2-3).

Distribution systems are monitored to ensure that targeting criteria are respected and that timely corrective action is taken when necessary (see guidance notes 4-5).

Guidance notes1. The purpose of targeting is to meet the needs of the most vulnerable, while providing aid efficiently and in a way that minimizes dependency.

2. Targeting mechanisms are the ways in which assistance is made available impartially and without discrimination, according to need. Options include community-based targeting, administrative targeting, self-targeting, and combinations of these methods. Agency workers should be aware that self-targeting can sometimes exclude certain vulnerable groups. To ensure that the disaster-affected population is consulted and is in agreement with the targeting decisions, a representative group of women and men, boys and girls and people from vulnerable groups should be included in the consultation process. In conflict situations, it is essential to understand the nature and source of the conflict and how this might influence administrative and community decisions about targeting assistance.

3. Targeting criteria are usually linked to the level or degree of vulnerability of a community, household or individual, which in turn is determined by the risks presented by the disaster and the coping capacity of the recipients. Individual dignity may be unintentionally undermined by improper targeting criteria, and mechanisms and appropriate measures must be taken to avoid this. Some examples include:

administrative and community-based targeting mechanisms may ask for information about an individual’s assets. Such questions may be perceived as intrusive and can potentially undermine social structures.

households with malnourished children are often targeted for selective food assistance. This may undermine people’s dignity since it may encourage parents to



keep their children thin so that they continue to receive selective rations. This can also apply when general rations are provided.

where assistance is targeted through local clan systems, people who fall outside such systems (e.g. displaced individuals) are likely to be excluded.

displaced women, girls and boys may be exposed to sexual coercion. people suffering from HIV/AIDS may be exposed to stigma. Confidentiality should

be observed at all times.

4. Access to and use of facilities and services: people’s use of facilities and goods provided are affected by many factors, such as access, security, convenience, quality and whether they are appropriate to needs and customs. Access may be particularly constrained in situations of armed conflict, and by factors such as corruption, intimidation and exploitation (including sexual). Wherever possible, factors that limit the use of facilities should be dealt with through community mobilization or revisions to the programme. It is essential to ensure that consultation before and during programme implementation includes adequate discussion with women, children and other vulnerable groups, for whom the constraints on use are likely to be greatest.

5. Monitoring errors of exclusion and inclusion: when a targeting system fails to reach all of the vulnerable people in need following a disaster, individuals or groups can quickly develop critical needs. Provision should be made for updating and refining targeting and distribution systems to achieve more effective coverage.

Sphere Project (Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response)

http://www.sphereproject.org


http://www.sphereproject.org/


Annex 2: Response options

Source: WFP Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook Ch 13, Table 13-A, p.233-4 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp142691.pdf

Response options, according to type of problem (* = programmes that WFP may not be able to support directly)

1) Responses to problems of food Availability and/or Access and Livelihoodsa) Food transfers providing assistance to households

Free food distribution

A distribution of free rations for households in need. Rations are designed to make up for household food access shortfalls. They may be ‘general’ provided to all households in a particular area or population group, or ‘targeted’ to households in specific groups.

Food for work

A food ration as payment for work, e.g. to rehabilitate or create infrastructure necessary for specific livelihood activities (e.g. irrigation channels, fish ponds, rural roads, riverside jetties) or community services (e.g. health facilities). This may also include incentives for work in the aftermath of a disaster that requires little technical supervision (e.g. general clean-up activities after a flood or cyclone).

Food for training

Food provided as an incentive to enable (and encourage) individuals from food-insecure households to undertake skills training to increase their livelihood assets and their food production or options for earning income.

Exchange against produce

Food given to affected rural households in exchange for their own produce (including livestock) for which there is temporarily no market locally.

b) Food transfers providing assistance to individuals (and also benefiting their households) Neighbourhood and home-based care programmes

Food provided to orphans and vulnerable children in a context of high prevalence of HIV/AIDS.

School feeding A nutritionally balanced meal, or snack, for children/youths at school.

Food to other social service institutions

Food provided to orphanages; centres for unaccompanied children; homes for the elderly or handicapped people; hospitals and health centres providing in-patient care.

c) Cash and other non-food transfers providing assistance to households Cash transfer programmes* Cash distributed to target beneficiaries.

Cash for work (CFW)* A cash payment for work (similar to food for work).

Food vouchers* Beneficiaries receive vouchers that they can exchange for food in designated shops

Non-food transfers* Non-food items or services (e.g. water, schooling, health care) provided free or at subsidized prices or through vouchers, thus





sparing cash that could be spent on food.

Non-food support to livelihood activities *

Productive inputs and/or services (or vouchers to obtain such inputs or services) to maintain, rebuild or restore capital assets for food-insecure but economically active individuals and households. Productive inputs may include seeds, tools, fertilizer, irrigation, fodder or other livestock inputs, tools and materials for artisans. Services may include veterinary care, extension services, improved access to pasture, and financial services such as emergency loans for productive activities.

d) Market Interventions to enhance availability and facilitate access for households Market assistance programme*

Selected (normally ‘second-choice’) food commodities made available to traders and retailers to sell at controlled prices.

Market support Reduction of logistic bottlenecks (e.g. repair of bridges or roads), or credit made available to traders.

2) Responses to problems of food Utilization

Food preparation materials*

Items required for preparing food, such as cooking sets, cooking fuel and water. Such interventions are common for displaced and refugee populations.

Nutrition education, health, water and sanitation interventions*

Interventions designed to improve feeding and care practices, prevent nutrient loss during food preparation, and prevent and treat diarrhoea or other diseases that affect nutrient absorption and utilisation within the body.

3) Responses to Malnutritiona) Correcting high levels of Global Acute Malnutrition

Therapeutic feeding

Medical and nutritional treatment to save the lives of severely malnourished individuals. Treatment may either be provided on site (in health centres or specially established therapeutic feeding centres), or – where cases are geographically dispersed – through a take-home ration with community level follow-up by trained health workers (community-based therapeutic care).

Supplementary feeding

The distribution of food to supplement the energy and other nutrients available in the basic diet of individuals who have special nutritional requirements or who are malnourished. This may be either a take-home ration or a ready-to-eat food or porridge eaten on the spot. The food is in addition to the individual’s share of the general ration, if any.

Public health measures *

Measures to improve sanitation, water supplies, health care services and their use, measles vaccination, deworming, etc.

b) Correcting or preventing Micronutrient deficiencies

Food fortification Foods fortified with specific nutrients (particularly vitamins and minerals), provided where the general diet is grossly deficient in these.

Nutrient supplementation *

Regular distribution of specific nutrient supplements (e.g. vitamin A capsules), when the general diet is grossly deficient in these.



Annex 3 - Example: Targeting pastoralists in Somalia with emergency relief (2003-4)

The Emergency Cash Relief Programme set out to alleviate immediate acute food insecurity by providing the most vulnerable households in Sool and Sanaag with temporary one-off payments of US$50 to meet food, water and medical needs over a six-week period. The target group comprised the most structurally vulnerable drought-affected pastoral communities in Sool and Sanaag. These included women-headed households, the disabled and the elderly.

The criteria by which households would be excluded were: Livestock ownership of more than 60 sheep and goats. Ownership of assets such as berkads (reservoirs) and water tanks. Social capital such as remittances or access to extended family support.

Due to the magnitude of the needs, the project was designed to target only pastoralists who were at risk of destitution. The project was not, in other words, designed to meet ‘normal’ vulnerability or to address issues of general poverty. For this reason, poor non-pastoralists, or non-destitute pastoralists, were not eligible.Targeting methodologies were specifically chosen to promote impartiality and minimize the risk of conflict as a result of the cash distribution. Channels of communication remained open with beneficiaries and targeted communities, who could communicate their grievances to the project team or relevant community representatives.

Two different allocation methodologies were used: clan-based and village-based.

In village-based targeting, the village population was represented by a Village Relief Committee, which selected beneficiary households eligible for the cash grant according to agreed-upon criteria. This approach was used in Sool to target 2,780 beneficiaries. In the other targeted area (Sanaag), a clan-based method was used. This targeted a significantly larger population (11,050 beneficiaries). While village-based targeting is the usual unit for pre-allocations, a clan-based methodology was deemed more appropriate in targeting pastoralists. The clan system is the strongest traditional structure in Somalia, and is also the core governance mechanism in the pastoral community. The clan system was therefore judged to be the best way of promoting an understanding of the registration process, and minimizing the risk that minority clans would be excluded from the distribution. It was also expected that clan-based targeting would better suit a situation where the majority of recipients were pastoralists not based in villages. Pre-allocation by clan required a rapid population assessment to determine levels of vulnerability. The number of grants for sub-clans and clans in each targeted location was pre-allocated based on this information. A deliberate strategy to target women was built into the programme, taking into consideration gender roles and the fact that women are better equipped to prioritize household expenditure.Evaluations confirmed that the criteria established to identify the beneficiaries ensured that the most vulnerable people received cash grants. Overall, the evaluations indicated that 97 percent of the total beneficiaries were well targeted through the distribution process and received the cash grants. An estimated 3 percent of beneficiaries met criteria that should have excluded them from the programme. In two villages (one in Sool and the other in Sanaag), members of the Village Relief Committees



registered themselves, as well as other village members who did not qualify according to the criteria set.

Summarized / extracted from: Ali, D., F. Toure and T. Kiewied (2005). Cash relief in a contested area: Lessons from Somalia. HPN Network Paper 50. London, ODI Humanitarian Practice Network. http://www.odihpn.org/documents%5Cnetworkpaper050.pdf


http://www.odihpn.org/documents%5Cnetworkpaper050.pdf

http://www.odihpn.org/documents%5Cnetworkpaper050.pdf

€¦ · web viewhowever, following a food security and nutrition survey, it was determined that...

Documents