High Food Price Impact Assessment and Analysis - WFP Remote ...

High Food Price Impact
Assessment and
Analysis
Workshop Report
Rome, 29 - 31 July 2008

High Food Price Impact Assessment and Analysis
-Workshop Report-
Rome, 29 - 31 July 2008
Table of Content
Executive Summary 2
1. Background 3
2. Objectives, Achievements and Process of the Workshop 3
2.1 Objectives 3
2.2 Achievements of the workshop 4
2.3 Process of the workshop 4
3. Overview – Setting the Context 4
3.1 Introduction and relevance for programming 5
3.2 Overview of WFP Price Impact Assessments 5
3.3 Overview of global trends and programming responses 6
4. Cross-Cutting Issues and Recommendations Emerging from Price Impact Assessments 6
4.1 Issues and recommendations around the use of secondary data analysis and monitoring systems (Day 1) 8
4.2 Issues and reccommendations around assessments based on primary data analysis (Day 2) 9
5. Recommendations –What Needs to be Followed Up? 11
6. Planned Activities and Implementation of Recommendations 12
7. Next Steps 15
Annex 1: Workshop Agenda 16
Annex 2: Participants List 19
Annex 3: Workhop Evaluation Sheet 21
Annex 4: Note for the Record: Follow up meeting after the High Price Assessment Workshop 22
Annex 5: Workshop Presentations 23
1

Executive Summary
Since the price crisis, WFP has been undertaking extensive consultations with partners to set up mitigation responses
based on analyses findings. WFP has been joining with a range of partners, including among others, Governments,
FEWS NET, Oxfam, SCF-UK, FAO, the World Bank, IFAD to conduct field missions or more in-depth local
analysis of the impact of price rises on local populations.
The stock-taking workshop on the impacts of high prices, the fifth of a series of consultative meetings undertaken by
WFP since the beginning of 2008, focused on ways to improve price impact analysis for programming decisions. It
was funded by a DFID institutional strenghening grant. The meeting was attended by 27 staff from partners
(Governments, UN Agencies and NGOs) and 27 from WFP (Headquarters and Field Offices). The specific objectives
of the workshop were to:
• Share analyses findings and key lessons learned
• Identify minimum set of information to meet information needs under different settings (rapid versus in-depth
analyses)
• Strengthen the interface between assessment findings and programming responses.
A series of presentations made on the first two days, focussed on the use of existing monitoring systems, secondary
information sets and primary data collection and analysis to inform on the impacts of the food price crisis on
households’ food security. Discussions of issues that emerged from these presentations were prioritized during plenary
sessions and recommendations on how to address these issues are summarized in sections 4, 5 and 6. A number of
urgent and important recommendations that need to be followed-up were identified (section 5). Each agency or
organisation briefly presented its ongoing or planned activities and suggested where they could undertake to
implement or address some of these recommendations (section 6).
In conclusion, it was suggested that organisations look for areas where they can work in bilateral / multilateral
partnerships to implement recommendations. In order to carry the work forward, a small committee composed of
SCUK, OXFAM, OCHA, ANLP, FAO and WFP was set up to start discussions to identify an approach by which
lessons learnt can be shared.
2

1 Background
Recent high food and fuel prices are cause of major concerns among governments and the humanitarian community
because of their potential negative effects on vulnerable households and their nutritional and health status.
Notwithstanding the potential positive impacts on agricultural production, the negative impacts of high food and fuel
prices may jeopardize the prospects for the achievement of the Millennium Development through their impacts on
hunger and poverty across the world. Recent unrests across the world, particularly in developing countries (e.g.
Indonesia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Senegal, Mauritania, Cote d’Ivoire…) against the high cost of living suggest that
countries are under the pressure of food insecurity.
Since the crisis, WFP has been undertaking extensive consultations with partners to set up mitigation responses based
on analyses findings. This stock-taking workshop of July 29-31 is held as a follow-up of the informal consultation with
partners on February 13, the technical consultation with partners on May 12, the NGO and regional programme
advisors programming consultation on June 23, the in-house consultation with WFP Country Directors on July 10 and
several external meetings in Brussels, London and Washington between April and May. This workshop was triggered
by these consultations which recommended continued information sharing, possible joint analysis and monitoring;
open communication and dialogue with WFP’s major operational partners on implications of and responses to rising
food prices.
2 Objectives, Achievements and Process of the Workshop
The two-and-half-day meeting was conveined by WFP’s Food Security Analysis Service (OMXF) to discuss, with
partners, assessments of the impact of higher food (and fuel) prices on households’ food security.
2.1 Objectives
The main objective was to gauge the extent to which assessments, analyses and monitoring systems are
providing adequate information on the impacts of price rises for programming decisions. See annex 1 for
the original agenda.
The sub-objectives were the following:
• Share analyses findings and key lessons learned
• Identify minimum set of information to meet information needs under different settings (rapid versus in-depth
analyses)
• Strengthen the interface between assessment findings and programming responses.
Participants: The workshop was attended by 54 representatives from governments, NGO partners and
donor Agencies: Action contre La Faim, Care, CILSS, FAO, Fewsnet, OCHA, Oxfam, Save the Children,
ECHO, USAID, ALNAP, the Mozambique Government, the Lesotho Government, WFP VAM and
regional VAM officers, WFP staff members from the Policy, Planning and Strategy Division (OEDP) and
from the Programme Design Service (OMXD). See annex 2 for the full list of participants.
2.2 Achievements of the workshop
In responding to the end of workshop evaluation, the workshop was considered satisfactory by the
majority of the participants (annex 3). The workshop was rated as good by 50% of the participants and
very good by 20% of them. A minority of participants (20%) felt that the meeting had achieved the
objectives given above. However, 69% of participants felt that the workshop contributed to their own
work. The achievements of the sub-objectives can be summarized as follows:
• The findings and key lessons learned from the assessments were found very informative and led to useful
discussions according to 96% of the participants. In particular, the findings help identify what is different about
the current price increases at country-level, compared to previous country contexts. They also point out few
challenging:
3

- Getting a rigorous answer to the impact of prices without a comprehensive set of new information is difficult.
- Building scenarios to capture the future impacts of prices on household food security is difficult, given the
increased volatility of prices.
• Identifying a minimum set of information to meet information needs under different settings proved to be of high
interest for the workshop participants. Two working groups addressed this issue, involving a third of
participants. However, the working groups found it difficult and challenging to identify a minimum set
of information. A tiered approach was therefore recommended (see section 4, key issue #2 for details).
• The agenda was adjusted. Instead of discussing a pre-identified topic such as the third sub-objective, i.e. strengthen
the interface between assessment findings and programming responses, the approach of defining important issues based on
presentations was largely adopted by participants. As a result, the 2.5 day discussions produced the following
outputs:
- Identification of 28 issues emerging from recent experience and current work related to the collection,
analysis and use of information in the current context.
- Identification of 9 Key issues from among this set of 28: 4 issues identified on day 1 and 5 issues on day 2.
- A description of the current situation with regard to each of these 9 key issues.
- A set of recommendations as to how each of these 9 key issues should be addressed.
- A list of current activities, by agency, where these recommendations can be put to use, and where
collaboration between agencies may be possible.
The details of these outputs are presented in the rest of the report.
2.3 Process of the workshop
On day 1, the presentations focussed on the use of existing monitoring systems and secondary
information sets in addressing the food price crisis. Day-2 presentations focussed on assessments based
mainly on primary data collection and analysis to inform on the impacts of the food price crisis on
households’ food security. Day-3 focussed on the prioritisation of issues and recommendations and the
way forward.
The following process guided the workshop:
• Overview – setting the context
• Inputs – presentations on ongoing work, highlighting successes, challenges, and what is being learnt
• Identification of common themes and challenges emerging from the presentations
• Identification of key issues from among these common themes and challenges
• Establishing recommendations as to how these key issues might be addressed.
• Prioritisation and re-grouping of issues and recommendations
• Identification of programmes where recommendations can be integrated and tested
• Plans for sharing information between programmes on the results of integrating recommendations.
3 Overview – Setting the Context
3.1 Introduction and relevance for programming
(by Valerie Guarnieri, Director WFP Progamme Design and Support Division - OMX)
• High food prices are exacerbating structural and acute vulnerability, leading to i) a deterioration of
the situation of people who already receive WFP’s assistance, ii) an increase in the number of
people at risk of food insecurity, iii) a real challenge for WFP’s responses as costs are increasing
and less food is available on the markets, iv) governments’ policy measures that may not be
sufficient to mitigate the impacts of price rises.
4

• WFP’s new strategic plan re-affirms the importance of assessments and analysis. Hence, WFP is
conducting country-level analyses in countries flagged as high risk from rising food and fuel prices, to
determine impacts on communities/households.
• Assessments need to provide timely information to design programmes. However often assessments will also
help adjust the first interventions that have been already implemented to answer urgent needs.
• In collaboration with FAO, IFAD and the World Bank, rapid project identification missions are conducted to
provide an indicative overview of needs, and to identify most appropriate programmes. On the basis of
needs assessments and project identification missions, a strategic action plan has been established,
in line with national processes.
• High food prices are likely to be long lasting. Therefore, food security monitoring needs to
continue to guide the response and adapt programmes to changing situations.
3.2 Overview of WFP Price Impact Assessments
(by Joyce Luma, Chief WFP Food Security Analysis Service -OMXF)
• WFP’s analysis of the impact of higher food prices is based on a two step approach. The first step was to
identify the high risk countries, ranking the most vulnerable and estimating the total population affected
globally. In parrallel, country-level analysis is being conducted using three approaches:
• Secondary data analysis – e.g. Uganda, Pakistan, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Honduras
• Food security monitoring systems data analysis -e.g. Niger, Haiti, Guinea-Bissau,
Burundi, Nepal, Southern Africa
• Primary data collection and analysis through household and trader surveys e.g. Nepal,
Liberia, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Tajikistan.
• Objectives of the analyses are to: determine the magnitude and future outlook of food price
increases, assess the impact of higher prices on household food security, determine the proportion
of the population affected, recommend immediate, medium and long-term response - in rural and
urban settings.
3.3 Overview of global trends and programming responses
(by Henk Jan Brinkman, Chief, WFP Food Security Policy & Markets -OEDP)
• Food prices are higher and more volatile. They will peak, but stay high;
• There is an agreement on the causes of higher food prices but not on their relative weight. The list
is the following:
• On the demand side: emerging markets, changing demand patterns, oil-exporting
countries, biofuels, depreciating dollar, institutional investors.
• On the supply side: weather-related shocks, slowing productivity growth, oil price leading
to high cost inputs such as fertilizers, transport costs, export restrictions.
• The transmission from international prices to national markets is not a one-for-one relation. The
transmission depends on government policy and is larger if food imports represent a significant percentage of
domestic supplies, if transportation costs and trade barriers are lower, exchange rate is depreciating, food
taxes and subsidies are reduced and markets are competitive.
• The most at risk are: rural landless, pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, small-scale farmers, urban poor, children
under 2 and under 5, pregnant and lactating mothers, the sickly.
• The risk of severe and potentially lifelong negative consequences is high, even if prices come
down.
• There is a need for a broad response with: i) emergency interventions such as vouchers and cash, motherand
child nutrition programmes, school feeding, food or cash-for-work interventions, ii) agricultural supply
response, iii) social protection systems.
5

4 Cross-Cutting Issues and Recommendations Emerging from Price Impact Assessments
On the basis of presentations made the participants worked on establishing the cross cutting issues
emerging from the Price Impact assessments conducted so far. A copy of the presentations is attached in annex
5.
The work was organised in two phases:
- Analyses using existing systems (monitoring systems and modelling based on secondary data)
to generate and analyse information in response to the food crisis (day 1).
- Assessments triggered by the food price crisis and based mainly on primary data collection
and analysis(day 2).
4.1 Issues and recommendations around the use of secondary data analysis and monitoring systems (Day 1)
The group discussions were based on the following presentations:
o FAO Price impact analyses using household income and expenditure surveys, and the Rural Income
Generating Activities (RIGA) datasets
o FAO Cross-Country Analysis of the Effects of Soaring Food Prices on Undernourishment
o WFP Food Security Systems in Afghanistan, Haiti, Niger
o WFP Community and Household Surveillance (CHS) in Southern Africa / Potential applications for
monitoring prices at country level, and
o Points presented by Fewsnet on price monitoring and household food security.
Through working group discussions around these presentations the following 19 issues were identifed
(here grouped under 5 headings).
Collaboration / partnerships / linkages between assessment exercises
- There is a proliferation of information available, often available on different websites. At the
same time, datasets are often difficult to access or obtain.
- Available data should be used more.
- There is a lack or inadequate linkage between the national sample surveys (HIES/ LSMS,
MICS, DHS, census, CPI, CVSVAs).
- Food security question modules are missing in national sample surveys.
- Coordination / partnerships need to be strengthened.
- Partners should join their analyses and develop a more comprehensive understanding of the
situation.
- Better linkages are needed between secondary data analysis and process of primary data
collection.
- The integration across information systems and linkages between early warning and
monitoring systems, vulnerability and need assessments should be strengthened.
Indicators, analysis and reporting
- Information on food security would be needed to identify useful proxy indicators for rapid /
emergency assessment (calibration / validation).
- Supply and Demand Analysis should be used to develop context specific indicators.
- There is a need to validate models for assessing the consequences of changes in food prices
on households; more analytical tools are needed to link high food prices and households.
- Analysis available doesn’t always answer the question of who and where the people affected
are?
- A better balance between quantitative and qualitative information is necessary.
- Reports provide a breadth of data and observations, but need to report more on the
“meaning”.
Food Security Monitoring Systems
- The ability of existing food security information systems to timely detect and analyse the
impact of shocks such as price increases should be strengthened.
6

- Food security monitoring systems should look beyond food security indicators.
- The regularity of monitoring is limited and systems within one country often incompatible.
Urban assessments
- Appropriate tools for urban analysis are missing, and data on urban situations is limited.
- There may be a rural bias in primary data collection for urban areas.
The group merged some of these issues, and in doing so created four key issues that they felt needed to be addressed.
Four working groups were established, each one covering a specific key issue. Each group had to establish
what the current situation is and make recommendations to improve the situation.
Key issue#1: Distinguising between urban and rural situations
The current situation: Urban vulnerability is still very unknown. There is an acknowledgment that it is
different from rural vulnerability. Urban vulnerability is more difficult to apprehend because the
environment is much more heterogenous and specific livelihoods are not specifically understood. There is
a lot of data on markets and prices available, however it is not always understood clearly. In an urban
environment the difference between poor and food insecure is often a fine line. There is a lack of
partners and entry points to help understand vulnerability in urban areas and implement interventions.
Recommendations:
1) The situation analysis, the indicators to be monitored and the programme planning need to be
strengthened for urban assessments.
2) The analysis of price data needs to be improved.
3) There is a need to start building up networks and explore potential partners, in particular churches,
and social groups.
4) Programmes need to include a strategy to build government capacity and phase out.
5) Complementary strategies are needed to avoid creating more disparities between urban groups.
Questions raised and points made:
• It is assumed that there is more heterogeneity in urban areas than in rural ones: is it really the case?
• It is sometimes difficult to define urban areas.
• There is a need to better understand the dynamics of secondary markets.
Key issue #2: Establishing a minimum set of indicators to assess the impact of high food prices
Situation: Establishing a minimum set of indicators is difficult and remains a key challenge. Two working groups
discussed this issue:
On day 2, the group considered the minimum set of indicators required to assess the impact of high food prices. This
group suggested two possible indicators for early warning, namely dietary diversity and coping
strategies. The group did not recommend that this should be the maximum number of indicators. For
instance, the group discussion indicated that it is also important to track data on prices and food
expenditures. Less than the number of indicators in itself, the group felt that the ease of the data
collection and relevance for decision-making is more important.
On day 3, a group addressed the issue of information required in order to determine (and potentially plan)
adequate programmatic responses. The group proposed a long list of indicators required for action. While
recommending that it was important to achieve response analysis, the group advised that clarity about the
assessment objectives should preceed the identification of a list of relevant indicators to meet the needs.
Plenary discussions suggested that the difficulties in identifying a minimum information set could have
been the result of the following factors:
• The wide variety of uses for which information is required: from forecasting, through situation
analysis, to targeting and response analysis. Minimum information sets would be different in each
case.
7

• Extreme variety in the availability of information from one context to another.
• The inevitable difficulty in reconciling the approaches of the different disciplines that need to
collaborate to fully understand the impact of the current economic situation: economics; nutrition;
sociology; anthropology, etc.
• The complexity and scope of the situation, and so of information required to fully understand the
current problem (and opportunities). In the current context, participants identified greatly enhanced
requirements for information on, inter alia: types of food consumed; non-food expenditures; regional /
cross border food flows and trade; Differences in urban/rural livelihoods and food prices and
relationships between urban and rural markets. While many of the analyses which were presented at
the workshop were addressing some of these areas, very few could look at them all.
Recommendations:
1) A tiered approach is necessary with: i) an early warning mechanism, based on a small number of indicators that
enable monitoring household food security, ii) rapid assessments, and more in-depth analyses when time and
resource permit.
2) Identify and agree on a small number of key indicators for use in an early warning system.
Key Issue #3: Analytical methods: how to establish the link between prices and households?
Situation: Different methods exist and have different implications. Hypothesis for the global analysis and
estimates conducted are often not clear and need to be tested. At country level, several methods are used
such as the FAO modelling and simulation, the food security monitoring tools and other methods such as
primary data analysis tools. Often the impact of higher food prices is not necessarily measurable.
Recommendations:
1) Global risk or vulnerability analysis needs to be validated and should be informed by country level
analysis.
2) Country level methods need validation to verify the modelled impacts;
3) Outcome indicators (such as nutrition and dietary diversity and frequency) should be looked at for
validation;
4) There is a need to better use qualitative information to understand the likely impacts of the food price
increases.
Questions raised and points made: The hypotheses are not yet validated. There is a need to further
elaborate and test them. It was noted that it is difficult to build up a conceptual framework to assess the
impact of high food prices, as this phenomena is difficult to isolate from other causes of food insecurity.
This is particularly difficult in urban areas.
Key issue #4: Compatibility and integration of secondary data
Situation: there is a proliferation of information available. However the challenge is the discrepancy of
data sets at national levels. Data is rarely compatible and comparable. It is often a challenge to establish
links between all surveys and analysis done. The willingness to share data is often missing. This is an
institutional problem.
Recommendations:
1) National sampling frameworks need to be developed.
2) Partners should coordinate the timing of assessments to facilitate comparisons.
3) Publications and reports should clearly document the process, the methology and constraints.
4) Previous surveys should be updated and modified when administrative boundaries change to facilitate
comparison over time.
5) Partners should seek to collect data together.
6) Data sharing between organisations should be encouraged.
8

4.2 Issues and reccommendations around assessments based on primary data analysis (Day 2)
Inputs - the presentations
The following presentations, attached in annex 4, were made:
o Initiative on Soaring Food Prices, Inter-agency project identification missions
o Nepal urban and rural case study
o Liberia urban case study
o Uganda case study
o Pakistan case study
Outputs - the issues
Through discussions after the presentations, the following 8 issues emerged:
- How to best model future outlooks?
- How to estimate caseloads?
- What is the best way to target identified caseloads?
- What are the programming implications from assessments?
Are new responses coming from assessments?
Are assessments giving the information required?
- How should we separate price effects from other shocks?
- Multi-agency partnerships: who to include, how to make it work?
- How to capture cross border trade issues?
- Capturing national price variations.
The group decided to concentrate on five of these as key issues.
Outputs – key issues and recommendations
Key issue #5: How do we best model future outlook?
Situation: the group looked at the assessment conducted in Pakistan. In this specific case, the assessment
team built senarios for the next 6 to 12 months, using the current data as the projection basis.
Recommendations:
1) There is a need for continuous ground thruthing (using MUAC, dietary intake) and reajustment of the
models’ parameters.
2) The assessment team should not only focus on diet diversity and food consumption, but should look
at other sectors, such as education (school’s attendance rate), health, etc.
3) Exclusion errors should be explored.
4) Team should work with scenario building when modeling.
5) The following indicators should be watched: inflation, incomes, nutrition, labour markets, livelihoods
groups and expenditure, availability of food supplies and access to food.
Questions raised or points made: Donors have been asking for a better and continuing adjustment of
programmes for years. However some participants mentioned the fact that donors are sometimes not
comfortable with estimates and changes of number of beneficiaries.
Key issue #6: What is the best way to target in urban settings?
Situation: the group discussed how urban targeting was done in the WFP assessment in Ethiopia. A
multi-tiered approach was used: i) mapping out existing programmes, ii) using the survey to measure the
problems, iii) using focus groups. These sources were then used to identify the vulnerable groups.
Inclusion and exclusion errors were established. It was decided then to scale up existing programmes,
target traditional vulnerable groups, and target newly affected groups (which are not amongst the
traditionally affected). Targeting criteria vary according to programmes.
9

Recommendations:
1) Use institutional and self targeting.
2) There is a need to look at the targeting of existing programmes and who benefits from what already.
3) Caution is needed to avoid attracting rural populations into cities.
4) There is a need to use both formal and informal sources.
Key issue #7: How should the price increase be separated from other shocks in assessments?
Situation: It is a challenge to attribute causality specifically to the price increase. The quantification of
the impact is often impossible. Rapid assessments can only give a general sense of the situation. However
it is important to understand the impacts of higher prices to formulate the responses. It is important to
have some information on the initial situation and the percentage of insecure food and work on the basis
of scenarios.
Recommendations:
1) It is important to use contextual information, in particular i) qualitative and descriptive information
and ii) information on macro-economy, trade and policy measures.
2) For comprehensive and in-depth surveys, the sample size should be big enough to allow for
multivaritae analysis (detailed expenditure models, food consumption, shock, coping strategies,
nutrition data and changes in income and sources of food).
Question raised: the complexity of comprehensive surveys, time and resource requirements were raised
as a challenge for timely mitigation responses.
Key issue #8: Recommending responses as a result of assessments
Situation: The group looked at the Nepal assessments and concluded that the recommendations were
broad and mainly at macro-level.
Recommendations: generally there is a need for more detailed information for decision-making and
operational roll out (area specific)
1) There is a need to conduct proper and detailed response analysis.
2) More information on existing institutional (UN agencies, NGOs, Governments) capacity is needed.
3) It is important to include information on partners’ ongoing or planned interventions.
Question raised: the question of how many functions an assessment needs to fulfill and the question of
whether a Price Impact assessment should, in addition to the analysis of the situation, also provide a full
range of information on responses and capacity to implement interventions were raised.
Key issue # 9: Multi-agency partnerships: who to include, how to make it work?
Situation: A comprehensive framework for action (CFA) exists. However it covers the macro / global
levels and now needs to go into country specifics. The CFA needs to cover the short term, medium term
and long term solutions and the approach of various agencies. The CFA is about providing information to
allow for the wider understanding, it is a stock taking exercise, that won’t replace the assessments that
each agency needs to carry. Participation is not inclusive enough and the private sector, new ministry
players, farmers associations, regional organisations are not necessarily participating.
Recommendations:
1) Additional Governmental focal points responsible for economic crisis are needed.
2) The link between Governments and the international humanitarian community (not UN specific or
NGO specific) needs to be strengthened.
3) There is a need to map out existing monitoring.
4) There is a need to build the ownership of the CFA (design, process and outcomes).
5) The FS working groups should be used and their inclusion reviewed (farmers organisations, nutrition
groups, etc).
6) The Food security group should organise regular briefing for decision-makers.
10

7) An “objective” partner should organise and communicate outcomes and understanding.
8) One coordinator should be appointed for all international agencies, with the responsibility to
coordinate also with non international community partners, and regional entities.
9) There is a need for more transparency and information sharing.
Point made: The issue of setting up a coordination mechanism was disucssed but participants raised
concern about having a ‘central command’ type of mechanism. Instead, it was suggested that partnership
can be envisaged in areas in which partners can work together, acknowledging the fact that there are areas
where agreement to disagree without being disagreable do exist.
5 Recommendations –What Needs to be Followed Up?
The participants prioritized the recommendations as discussed and presented by the working groups.
The most important and urgent recommendations are the following:
Strengthen analytical tools
o Modelling future outlook: food security analysis needs to provide for an outlook of the situation.
- Scenarios should be built on the basis of a model.
- The model should be readjusted on the basis of ground-truthing, through monitoring systems and
assessments.
- Indicators to watch are: inflation, income, nutrition, labour market, livelihood groups, expenditure, food
availability and access to food.
o
Separation of the price effect from other shocks: use contextual information in particular qualitative and
descriptive information and information on macro-economy, trade and policy.
Minimum set of indicators: Further work is needed to develop a core and minimum set of indicators.
o A tiered approach is necessary with: i) an early warning mechanism, based on a small number of indicators
that enable monitoring household food security, ii) rapid assessments, and more in-depth analyses when time
and resource permit.
o There is a need to look at other sectors, in particular health and education.
Information sharing and multi-agency partnerships
o Organisations and institutions need to be more transparent and share information.
o The food security groups should regularly brief key decision makers.
o The link between Governments and the international humanitarian community (not UN specific
or NGO specific) needs to be strengthened.
o An “objective” partner should organise and communicate outcomes.
Urban analysis
o Assessments should explore urban-rural linkages.
o Urban assessments have to include a situation analysis, indicators to monitor and programming responses
(including targeting and numbers of people affected).
o There is a need to rationalise urban programmes currently implemented.
o Programme design should include a handover strategy upfront and complementary strategies to avoid
imbalances.
o Existing networks and potential partnerships in urban settings need to be explored.
Improve linkages and integration of existing data
o Timing of assessments should be better coordinated to facilitate comparison.
o Partners should seek to collect information jointly to ensure compatibility and integration of data sets.
o National sampling frames should be set up.
o There is a need to increase the willingness to share data and analysis.
o Older surveys should be updated with new administrative boundaries information.
11

o
Reports and data available need to be made widely available, methods and constraints should be clearly
documented.
Response analysis
o It needs to be more detailed and inform the operational roll out. It should include information on other
actors’ interventions and on institutional capacity.
Targeting
o A multi tiered approach is recommended looking at people already targeted through existing programmes, the
traditionally vulnerable and the newly affected.
The important but less urgent recommendations are:
Strengthen analytical tools
o Linking prices to households:
- Global risk or vulnerability analysis needs to be validated and should be learned by country level analysis.
- Country level methods need validation to verify the modelled impacts.
- Outcome indicators should be looked at for validation.
- There is a need to better use qualitative information to understand the likely impacts.
o Separation of the price effect from other shocks: The sample should be big enough to allow multivariate
analysis ( expenditure, nutrition, food consumption, shock, coping strategies, changing income)
o Modelling future outlook
- Exclusion errors should be explored.
Design and implementation of responses
o Targeting in urban environment:
- Inclusion / exclusion criteria should be used.
- Look at traditional vulnerable groups.
- Self targeting / institutional targeting should be used.
- Both formal and informal information sources can be used.
- Caution should apply to avoid attracting rural populations to cities.
Information sharing and multi-agency partnerships
o The comprehensive framework for action needs to be rolled out to the field.
Appointing a coordinator for all international agencies was considered a less urgent and less important
recommendation.
6 Planned Activities and Implementation of Recommendations
Each agency or organisation briefly presented its ongoing or planned activities and explained where they could
undertake to implement or address some of the recommendations.
OCHA
Under the leadership of the UN Secretary General, the Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA) has been
adopted by all UN organisations and Bretton Woods’s institutions. OCHA provides support to the process and will
work with Country teams to take stocks of what is happening in terms of assessments, analysis and programming.
OCHA will continue its advocacy work with countries and regional organisations. OCHA will:
- Support partnerships at country level.
- Work on expanding the country team beyond strictly a UN membership.
- Work on linking beyond humanitarian issues to development issues.
- Work on linking food and non food sectors, and indicators in particular.
CILSS
In the coming months, CILLS will provide technical support to its member countries. Support will aim towards:
- Timely publication of information, in particular of the results of a survey in Banjul and Ouagadougou
12

- Widening the focus on urban areas
- Assisting countries to adapt their agricultural policy, and agricultural investments policy.
European Commission
- The European executive has recently published a Communication on Soaring Food Prices, which is largely
converging with the UN Common Framework for Action. The Communication covers the short term
emergency responses (food aid and help for agricultural regions) and the medium term interventions
(boosting agricultural productivity and safety nets).
- Possible funding for development interventions is being discussed with the Development Directorate General
and partners.
- Joint Research Centre: Results of the Ethiopia cereal availability study will be presented at a workshop with
IFPRI in September. The model used, which is 15 years old, will also be adjusted.
Government of Mozambique
- The next round of the Food Security Monitoring System, done with WFP will take place in October. It
monitors 25 markets covering prices, transport costs, and products flows.
- A market survey is planned for October to expand beyond the 25 markets already monitored.
- A household survey (with income and expenditure indicators) will take place this year.
Government of Lesotho
- Monthly monitoring of vulnerability and prices takes place.
- Training on the IPC is taking place in August. Scenarios will be built in August.
- An urban vulnerability survey is planned, the tools are being developed.
- Community and Households Surveillance and nutritional surveillance systems are in place.
Save the Children (SC-UK)
- An urban assessment was recently conducted with WFP in Burkina Faso; it is likely that a voucher
programme will be implemented as a response to the situation.
- On the IPC, Save will help better link situation and response analysis.
- Scenario modelling is being done for the last 15 years though the Household Economy Approach.
- Save will build a hunger safety net with Care and Oxfam in Northern Kenya.
ACF
- A number of assessments are ongoing (Haiti, Liberia, Central African Rep, Chad, Nepal)
- ACF is developing guidance on urban assessments, which are now being tested in Burkina Faso.
FAO
- In the framework of the Initiative on Soaring Food prices, about 10 missions to identify a plan for response
are taking place.
- The IPC east Africa Group is using the IPC to analyse the impact of high food prices.
- FAO will make additional efforts to model the impact of high food prices.
- In Sudan, Somalia and Bangladesh, teams are conducting Impact assessments.
WFP
- WFP conducted or is conducting assessments (including through CFSVAs and FSMS) in about 20 countries.
Upcoming are primary data collection exercises in Madagascar, Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Lesotho, Senegal, Haiti, Benin and Malawi. CFSVA, which will include HFP impact are planned in
Zambia, Burundi (urban), DRC (urban) and Swaziland (urban). WFP propose to implement
recommendations made on urban targeting.
- Urban assessment guidelines have been developed and will be further refined. The Technical Guidance Sheet
(TGS) on Urban Assessments is posted on WFP website at:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp185842.pdf
- Urban programming tools are being developed. WFP will share them.
- Existing monitoring systems will be strengthened to make them more price sensitive (Afghanistan, Niger,
Uganda, Opt, Sudan, Southern Africa, Nepal, Burundi, Liberia and Haiti).
- WFP will add future outlook in its analysis.
13

- WFP will further share information, in particular the tools it developed for price impact assessment. It was
initially shared with FAO.
- All ongoing or planned assessments are done in partnership.
OXFAM
- The emergency market analysis tools are being finalised and piloted in Myanmar.
- Oxfam will make a clear distinction between situation and response analysis
- A series of assessments is planned: Afghanistan (mainly rural), build on the WFP Nepal assessment, Uganda
(Karamoja) and Kenya.
FEWSNET / USAID
- FEWSNET is monitoring the situation through the publication of a price watch bulletin.
- Two market monitoring trainings will take place (Mauritania and Nigeria)
- Additional market guidance is being prepared.
- A scenario building workshop will take place in South Africa. A guidance note will be developed.
Food for Peace (FFP/USAID)
- A set of guidance on urban programming (food aid) is being prepared.
- Financial support is being provided for assessments and country planning process.
ALNAP
- Lessons paper for relief managers and planners facing rising food prices being prepared (September 2008).
- Lessons paper on urban disasters being prepared (November 2008).
- ODI HPG meeting bringing together researchers, practitioners and policy makers in preparation for
September or October (tbc).
CARE
- Second version of the Decision Tree Framework for response analysis to be rolled-out (December 2008).
- Collaborating with Cornell University on food security research.
- Working with Fintrac on a new approach to USAID Bellmon Determinations.
- Revising tools for response analysis to better assess the needs of pastoral communities.
Ongoing activities and implementation of recommendations per theme
Urban analysis /
urban programming
Operational rollout/response
Modelling future
outlook
WFP - Analyses ongoing or planned in Ethiopia, DRC, Swaziland, Burundi, Haiti, Senegal
- Developing and refining urban assessments guidance and generic tools for price
impact assessments.
SC-UK - Implementing a voucher based programmes for response in Burkina Faso
FFP - Developing guidance on urban programming
ALNAP/APG - Urbanization & disasters. With urbanization experts
CILSS – will increase focus on urban areas
ACF - testing guidance on urban assessments in Burkina Faso.
Lesotho Govt. – planning urban vulnerability survey, tools being developed.
SC-UK – Implementing hunger safety net with Care and Oxfam in Northern Kenya.
CILSS – Providing technical support on policy
CARE – Developing a decision tree for response
ALNAP – Preparing lessons for operational managers
ACF – Learning from assessments
FAO – 10 identification missions to develop plan for joint responses
OXFAM – Separating situation and response analysis
SC-UK – Scenario modelling through the Household Economy Approach
FEWS - Scenario building workshop, guidance to be developed
FAO - project analysis – 10 countries + WFP
WFP – Will include future outlook in its analyses,
Govt. Lesotho - Scenario building (August)
14

Analytical tools
Minimum indicators
Information sharing /
partnerships
OXFAM - MHM analysis
- Piloting Emergency market tools in Myanmar
Fewsnet - Developing additional guidance on markets
CARE - Developing tools to better understand pastoralists/agro pastoralists
JRC - Adjusting model further to the cereal availability survey in Ethiopia
FAO - Continuing work to model the impact of HFP
WFP – Strengthening existing FSMS to make them more sensitive to prices
OCHA/CFA - Linking food & non-food indicators
CILSS - Timely publication of survey results
ODI/ALNAP - 2-day conference in the autumn
WFP – will share data, reports, guidance and tools
OCHA (CFA) - Providing support to partnership at country level, and will work on
expanding UNCTs
7 Next Steps
The next steps are for:
- Organisations to implement these recommendations in their individual programmes.
- Organisations to look for areas where they can work in bilateral / multilateral partnerships to
implement recommendations.
Discussions took place on how to carry the work forward and ensure that organisations can learn from
each others on the implementation of the recommendations, progress made and progress on
methodologies and processes.
A small committee composed of SCUK, OXFAM, OCHA, ANLP, FAO and WFP was set up to start
discussions to identify an approach by which lessons learnt can be shared. The following tasks have been
suggested:
• Identify and set up groups by thematic areas.
• Prepare Terms of Reference for the convenor on each thematic area.
• Terms of reference to include:
- Identification if networks already exist for each thematic area
- Identification of members
- Identification of relevant technological support to share information if needed (but
note that the groups should not be ‘tool driven’)
- Consideration of what might motivate people to contribute to, and use, groups.
WFP agreed to act as the ‘convenor of last resort’ if no other agency stepped forward.
The committee met in the week following the workshop. The NFR of the first conference call is attached in
annex 4.
15

Annex 1: Workshop Agenda
Facilitator: Paul Clarke
Rapporteur: Caroline Chaumont
Day Sessions Topics Lead /
Presenter
Objectives
Day 0: Monday 28/07/08: Arrival of External Participants
Outcomes
Session 1 Introduction, Setting the Stage,
Secondary Data and Monitoring
Systems
Session 1.1 08:30 – 09:30 • Welcome remarks
• Relevance of the meeting for
programming
• Objectives, Expected Outputs,
Agenda review,
Session 1.2 09:30 – 10:00 Overview of global trends and
programming responses
Day 1: Tuesday 29/07/08
• V. Guarnieri
• J. Luma
Seek agreement and common
understanding on the expected
outputs of the meeting
‣ Complementarities with primary data
‣ Challenges
‣ Gaps
‣ Use for programming
Clarity on scope, utility and process of the
meeting
H-J. Brinkman Setting the stage • Overview of global price patterns
• Why is country-based analysis needed
• Possible programming responses and
information required
All Possible programming response options
and required information identified
Session 1.3 10:00 – 10:45 Plenary session on programming
responses and information needs
10:45 – 11:00 Coffee/Tea Break
Session 1.4 11:00 – 11:30 Secondary Data Analysis
B. Davis/L. Alinovi Price impact analyses using household Key findings, challenges, gaps and use for
(HIES/LSMS)
income and expenditure surveys programming
Session 1.5 11:30 – 12:00 FSMS (Niger, Haiti, Afghanistan, L. Subran/ E. Monitoring of household food security Key findings, Challenges and Gaps in
Nepal, Burundi) and CHS in Kenefick
indicators
informing impacts of prices on households’
Southern Africa
food security
Session 1.6 12:00 – 12:15 Price monitoring and household P. Bonnard Monitoring prices and food security Suggested information requirements
food security
Session 1.7 12:15 – 13:15 Round table discussions All Key emerging issues Identification of common key
themes/issues and presented in plenary
13:15 – 14:30 Lunch Break
Session 1.8 14:30 – 16:00 Working group sessions All Emerging common themes addressed
in working groups
Suggested working groups (WG):
• Minimum set of information needed
for the variety of programming
16

16:00 – 16:20 Coffee Break
Session 1.9 16:20 – 17:20 Plenary: feedback from working
groups (10’ each)
18:00 – 19:00 Welcome Cocktail All
responses (food and non-food in
short, medium and long-terms)
• Minimum set of monitoring
information
• Optimizing the use of secondary data
and ground truthing to meet info
needs
Other groups, to be added depending on
themes
All Main recommendations presented
Session 2 Stock-taking of country
assessments
Day 2: Wednesday 30/07/08
Session 2.1 09:00 – 09:30 Agenda review Facilitator Wrap-up of WG feedback, agenda of
day 2, miscellaneous and pending
issues
Session 2.2 09:30 – 09:45 ISFP programme identification
assessments
Session 2.3 09:45 – 10:00 Nepal Urban/Rural Case Study S. Hollema Draw lessons from primary data
collection and analysis
Session 2.4 10:00 – 10:15 Liberia Urban Case Study C. AhPoe Draw lessons from primary data
‣ Achievements
‣ Challenges
‣ Gaps
‣ Use for programming
C. Amaral/G. Diriba ISFP joint assessment missions UN Inter-Agency programme
reconnaissance missions
Key findings, challenges, gaps and use for
programming
Key findings, challenges, gaps and use for
collection and analysis
programming
Session 2.5 10:15 – 10:30 Uganda Case Study T. Benson/D. Ground-truthing of secondary data Key findings, challenges, gaps and use for
Bhattacharyya analysis findings
programming
10:30 – 10:45 Coffee/Tea Break
Session 2.6 10:45 – 11:00 Pakistan Case Study W. Herbinger/L. Ground-truthing of secondary data Key findings, challenges, gaps and use for
Balbi, C. Feng analysis findings
programming
Session 2.7 11:00 – 12:00 Panel discussion on presentations All
Session 2.8 12:00 – 13:00 Round table discussions All Key emerging issues Identification of common key
themes/issues from country assessments
and presented in plenary
13:00 – 14:30 Lunch Break
Session 2.9 14:30 – 16:00 Working group sessions All Emerging common themes addressed
in working groups
Suggested working groups (WG):
• Minimum set of information for
country assessments
17

16:00 – 16:15 Coffee Break
Session 2.10 16:15 – 17:15 Plenary: feedback from Day 2
working groups (10’ each)
19:00- Group Diner (optional)
• Refining information needs for
programming responses (Rolling
review)
• Partnerships arrangements and
countries of focus for future
assessments
Other groups, to be added depending on
themes
All Main recommendations presented
Day 3: Thursday 31/01/08
Session 3 Way forward and Closing
sessions
Session 3.1 09:00 – 09:30 Agenda review Facilitator Wrap-up of WG feedback, agenda of
day 2, miscellaneous and pending
issues
Session 3.2 09:30 – 10:30 Plenary: Action planning All Work out an action plan based on
working groups’ recommendations
10:30 – 10:45 Coffee/Tea
Session 3.2 10:45 – 12:00 Plenary: Action planning All Continuation of action planning
(Cont’d)
Session 3.3 12:00 – 12:30 Main conclusions/achievements of Facilitator/Rapporteu Wrap-up
Action plan based on main
recommendations
the meeting and outstanding issues r
Session 3.4 12:30 – 12:45 Way forward J. Luma How recommendations and pending
issues will be handled?
Session 3.5 12:45 – 13:00 Concluding remarks V. Guarnieri
13:00 – 14:30 Lunch Break/Closure Departure of participants
Note: It is worth noting that this agenda was adjusted following discussions with participants.
18

Annex 2: Participants List
Name Organization Contact
GOVERNMENT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS' PARTICIPANTS
Antonio Paulo Mozambique Govt. antmpaulo@yahoo.com
Matseliso Mojaki DMA Lesotho Govt. mojakim@dma.gov.ls/dce@dma.gov.ls
Hanna Mattinen Action contre la faim hmattinen@actioncontrelafaim.org
Ben Ramalingam ALNAP B.Ramalingam@alnap.org
Erin Coniker Lentz CARE/Cornel ecl4@cornell.edu
Catherine Chazaly CLSS/IRD catherine.chazaly@cilss.bf
Nanna Skau ECHO nanna.skau@ec.europa.eu
Nick Maunder ECHO nick.maunder@ec.europa.eu
Thierry Negre EC Thierry.Negre@ec.europa.eu
Henri Josserand FAO/ESTG henri.josserand@fao.org
Liliana Balbi/Feng Chang FAO/ESTG Liliana.Balbi@fao.org, cheng.fang@fao.org
Luca Alinovi FAO/ESAF Luca.Alinovi@fao.org
Benjamin Davis FAO/ESAE Benjamin.Davis@fao.org
Alberto Zezza FAO alberto.zezza@fao.org
Gustavo Anriquez FAO gustavo.anriquez@fao,org
Jacques de Graaf FAO/ES jacques.degraaf@fao.org?
Katia Covarrubias FAO/ES katia.covarrubias@fao.org
Mtendere Mphatso FAO Sudan Mtendere.Mphatso@fao.org
Patricia Bonnard FEWSNET pbonnard@fews.net
Aimee Wielechowski OCHA wielechowski@un.org
Camilla Knox Peebles OXFAM CKnox-Peebles@oxfam.org.uk
Alex Rees Save the Children A.Rees@savethechildren.org.uk
Gary Eilerts USAID GEilerts@usaid.gov
Hope Sukin USAID HSukin@usaid..gov
Michelle Snow (observer) USAID SnowMS@state.gov
Paul Clarke Facilitator paulclarke.consulting@gmail.com
WFP COUNTRY OFFICE AND REGIONAL BUREAU PARTICIPANTS
Claudia AhPoe Liberia claudia.ahpoe@wfp.org
Dipayan Bhattacharyya Uganda dipayan.bhattacharyya@wfp.org
Caterina Galluzzi WFP/OPT caterina.galluzi@wfp.org
Wolfgang Herbinger Pakistan wolfgang.herbinger@wfp.org
Siemon Hollema Nepal siemon.hollema@wfp.org
Eric Kenefick WFP/OMJ eric.kenefick@wfp.org
Naouar Labidi WFP/OMD naouar.labidi@wfp.org
Hebert Lopez El Salvador hebert.lopez@wfp.org
Daniel Molla Sudan daniel.molla@wfp.org
Robinah Mulenga Swaziland robinah.mulenga@wfp.org
Michael Sheinkman WFP/OMB michael.sheinkman@wfp.org
Elliot Vhurumuku Ethiopia elliot.vhurumuku@wfp.org
WFP HQ STAFF
Henk-Jan Brinkman WFP/OEDP henk-jan.brinkman@wfp.org
Ludovic Subran WFP/OEDP ludovic.subran@wfp.org
Ugo Gentilini WFP/OEDP ugo.gentilini@wfp.org
Vallerie Guarnieri WFP/OMX valerie.guarnieri@wfp.org
19

Volli Carucci WFP/OMXD volli.carucci@wfp.org
Guillaume Foliot/Kate Newton WFP/OMXD guillaume.foliot@wfp.org/kate.newton@wfp.org
Tina van den Briel/Acharya Pushpa WFP/OMXD tina.vandenbriel@wfp.org/acharya.pushpa@wfp.org
Ram Saravanamuttu WFP/OMXD ram.saravanamuttu@wfp.org
Caroline Chaumont WFP/OMXF caroline.chaumont@wfp.org
Agnes Dhur/Kathryn Ogden WFP/OMXF agnes.dhur@wfp.org, kathryn.ogden@wfp.org
Arf Husain WFP/OMXF arif.husain@wfp.org
Wanja Kaaria WFP/OMXF wanja.kaaria@wfp.org
Getachew Diriba WFP/OMX getachew.diriba@wfp.org
Joyce Luma WFP/OMXF joyce.luma@wfp.org
Issa Sanogo WFP/OMXF issa.sanogo@wfp.org
20

Annex 3: Workhop Evaluation Sheet
Question Question/Issue Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree No answer Total
1 The Agenda was well planned 0.0 25.0 25.0 45.8 4.2 0.0 100
2
The Level of technical discussion was suitable
for my background and experience
11.1 74.1 3.7 11.1 0.0 0.0 100
3 The meeting was well-paced 14.8 40.7 18.5 22.2 3.7 0.0 100
4
The presentations were informative and led to
useful discussions
33.3 63.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
5
Participants were encouraged to take an active
part
55.6 29.6 7.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 100
6 The meeting met my individual expectations 0.0 25.9 44.4 25.9 3.7 0.0 100
7 The meeting contributed to my own work 15.4 53.8 23.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 100
8 The meeting achieved the desired outputs 0.0 18.5 40.7 33.3 7.4 0.0 100
9 Facilitation team was excellent 22.2 40.7 22.2 11.1 3.7 0.0 100
10 The meeting space was adequate 18.5 44.4 11.1 22.2 3.7 0.0 100
11 Meals/refreshments were satisfactory 59.3 37.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
12 The overall organization was efficient 25.9 63.0 3.7 7.4 0.0 0.0 100
Correct Too short Too long No answer
13 Was the meeting length? 76.9 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 100
Just enough Too few Too many No answer
14 Was the number of participants? 64.0 0.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor No answer
15 What is your overall rating of this workshop? 0.0 19.2 50.0 23.1 7.7 0.0 100
21

Annex 4: Note for the Record: Follow up meeting after the High Price Assessment Workshop
(Friday 08/08/2008)
Participants
1. Ben Ramalingam (ALNAP)
2. Camilla Knox-Peebles (OXFAM)
3. Joyce Luma (WFP)
4. Arif Husain (WFP)
Aimee Wielechowski (OCHA) and Alex Rees (SCUK) apologized for missing the conference call due to colliding schedules. Luca
Alinovi (FAO), on leave could not make it.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss setting up a mechanism for the follow-up on the workshop recommendations. It was
agreed that:
1) Explore the possibility of using the "Food and Nutrition Security Coordination Mechanism" an NGO led initiative, with
CARE International and OXFAM leading the process.
Action Points:
a) Check the implementation time-frame for the mechanism
b) See if its ToRs meet our specific requirements
c) See what would be the financial implications--explore possibilities of pooled funding.
2) In the mean time continue to use the informal communication channels--mailing lists, e-mails etc.
3) Check the status of Community of Practitioners
Specific action points:
1. Complete the workshop report and share with partners
2. Contact "Food and Nutrition Security Coordination Mechanism" leaders
3. Check the status of Community of Practitioners (WFP)
Arrange another meeting early next month when most people are back from the summer break.
22

Annex 5: Workhop Presentations
DAY 1
Objectives and Agenda
Price Impact Analysis Workshop
29-31 July 2008
Rome
Joyce Luma
WFP/OMXF
Price Analysis Consultations
• Partners Consultative meeting in Feb 2008
Coordinated information sharing and advocacy
• ED consultative meeting on March 13
• Consultative meetings with EC, DFID, WB
FEWSNET/USAID,IFPRI, FAO Save and
OXFAM April/May
Assessments in priority countries
Stock-taking for lessons learning in June/July
Additional Analysis/Monitoring – July/Dec
• Response Options Workshop - June
Overview of Analyses at WFP
• Two-Step Approach:
‣ First Step: Global data analysis to identify high risk countries – ranking
of the most vulnerable and estimate of total affected population globally.
‣ Second Step: Country-level analysis using three approaches:
• Secondary Data analysis – e.g. Uganda, Pakistan, Guatemala, El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras
Food security monitoring systems data analysis -e.g. Niger, Haiti,
Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, Nepal, Southern Africa
• Primary data collection and analysis through household and trader
surveys e.g. Nepal, Liberia, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Tajikistan
23

• Objectives of the analyses:
‣ Determine the magnitude and future outlook of food price increases
‣ Assess the impact of higher prices on household food security
‣ Determine the proportion of the population affected
‣ Recommend immediate, medium and long-term response - in rural
and urban settings.
Completed or Preliminary Results Ongoing
Planned
Nepal (Rural/Urban)
Lesotho
Senegal (Urban)
Tajikistan (Rural)
Tajikistan (Urban)
Haiti (Urban)
OPT (Urban/Rural)
Ethiopia (Urban)
Madagascar
Guinea (Rapid Urban)
Bangladesh**
Cote d’Ivoire
Uganda (Urban/Rural)*
Yemen
Cameroon
El Salvador*
Niger (Urban/Rural)
Malawi
Guatemala*
Senegal (Rural)
Mozambique (Urban)
Honduras*
Sierra Leone
Nicaragua*
Swaziland**
Zimbabwe**
Pakistan (Urban/Rural)
Liberia (Urban)
Cambodia (Urban/Rural)
Kenya
Burundi (Urban)
Burkina Faso (Urban)
*Completed through secondary data analysis; **Through CFSAM
Why are we here?
• Determine the extent to which the assessments
and monitoring systems are providing adequate
information for programming decisions.
• key lessons learned emerging from the analyses
• Identify a core set of information for programming
response options
• Recommendations to feed into future analyses,
countries of focus and partnership arrangements
All these assessments have used primary or secondary data or both
What will we talk about?
• What information is required for programming a range of
response options?
• Lessons learned but less on methods
• How to strengthen links between secondary and primary
data?
• How to strengthen monitoring
• Planning for the next set of analyses
How can it be done to maintain a broad number of agencies
What can be done together?
what need not be done together
How have we organised the two
and half days?
Day One: Secondary Data and Monitoring
What are we learning from these analysis?
How to ground truth the secondary data analysis?
How to strengthen monitoring
Day Two: Country Assessment
Minimum set of information for programming options
Partnership arrangements
Day Three
Way forward
24

Overview
Key messages
I. International prices
o Food prices will peak, but stay high
High food prices
Henk-Jan Brinkman
WFP/OEDP
Stock-taking workshop
29-31 July 2008
II. Transmission to domestic prices
III. Impact on households
IV. Responses
2
o Risk of severe and potentially lifelong
negative consequences is high, even
if prices come down
o Risk is not the same as impact
o Need for broad response
3
I. Higher & more volatile food prices
Index 1998-2000=100
350
300
MEAT
DAIRY
CEREALS
250
OILS
SUGAR
200
150
100
50
0
1990
1991
1992
Source: FAO
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
4
Causes: Agreement on list, but
not on relative weight
o Demand
• Emerging markets, changing demand patterns
• Oil-exporting countries
•Biofuels ( link between output and oil price)
• Depreciating dollar
• Institutional investors
o Supply
• Weather-related shocks
• Slowing productivity growth
• Oil price ( inputs: fertilizer, transport costs)
Prices will peak, but remain high
Average of forecasts of EIU (2008), FAPRI (2008), IFPRI (2008),
OECD/FAO (2008), USDA (2008) and World Bank (2008) (2000=100)
80
• Export restrictions 5
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
6
Maize Wheat Rice Soybean Sorghum Soybean oil
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
Forecasts
25

II.
From int’l to domestic food prices
Transmission is larger if:
Risk = hazard x vulnerability
o Not one-for-one relation
o Relationship depends on policies
o Food imports as % of domestic supplies
are larger
o Transportation costs are lower
o Trade barriers are lower
o Exchange rate is depreciating
o Food taxes & subsidies are reduced
o Hazard = Price increase
o Vulnerability:
• Government response capacity
• Imports as % of consumption
• Foreign exchange reserves
• Existing socio-economic conditions
7
o Markets are more competitive 8
9
Vulnerable countries
III. From int’l to national to household
Vulnerability at household level:
o High % of income spend on food
o Buy more food than sell (net-buyer)
o Few coping mechanisms
High
vulnerability
Low
vulnerability
10
11
12
26

People most at risk
Rapid deterioration of nutritional
status
Impact of child nutrition is life long
oRural landless
o Pastoralists, agro-pastoralists
o Small-scale farmers
oUrban poor
o Children under 2 and under 5
o Pregnant and lactating mothers
oSickly
Livelihood
Food/Nutrtion
Diversify
incomes
Cheaper
food
Spend
less on
nonessentials
Selling
some
assets
Less
nutritious
food
Source: WFP/Chiara Brunelli
Drop out
of school
Child
labor
Migration Borrow
Reduce
size /
number
of meals
Consume
wild
foods,
seeds
Selling
of
productive
assets
Begging
for food
Selling
of all
assets
Entire
day
without
eating
Spend
less on
essential
items
Eat ab
normal
items
(e.g.
plants
and
insects)
Health
threatening
activities
Child
malnutrition
1. Higher productivity
2. Cognitive development & education
3. Better health & lower health costs,
including of next generation
13
14
15
Risk analysis vs Impact assessment
Risk analysis in Liberia
Rice price nutritional status
Risk analysis
oEx ante
oSecondary data
o Isolate price effect
oNo coping
Impact assessment
oEx post
oPrimary data
oAll factors
o Incorporate coping
o Monitor!
16
% of rice % rice in food Rice price
bought consumption increase (%)
Percentage change 100
Food crop farmers 64.1 16.4 -4.2
Palm oil seller/producer 81.7 14.0 -4.6
Petty traders 85.7 16.0 -5.5
Hunters 77.4 13.6 -4.2
Contract labourers 81.6 16.1 -5.3
Rubber tappers 84.0 17.6 -5.9
Charcoal producers 85.5 15.9 -5.4
Fisher folk 90.7 14.2 -5.2
Employees 90.3 16.4 -5.9
Skilled labourers 78.3 15.6 -4.9
Cash and food crop producers 64.0 16.4 -4.2
Palm oil and food crop produce 66.1 16.4 -4.3
Other activity 85.7 16.6 -5.7
Total 78.0 15.8 -4.9
Source: Liberia, CFSVA Elasticity of demand for rice -0.4
17
Underweight children
(% )
Underweight children and rice expenditure in rural
Bangladesh (1992-2000)
76
71
66
61
56
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Underweight Children (%)
Rice Expenditure
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Weekly expenditure
on rice (per capita in
$)
18
27

IV. Response: 6 A’s
A broad-based response
a coherent global response
o
o
o
o
o
Assess and analyse
Adjust existing programmes (nutrition)
Add activities (monitor) + programmes
Advise Governments on policies
Assist Governments
1. Emergency
• Vouchers and cash
• Mother- and child nutrition
• School feeding
• Food or cash-for-work
2. Agricultural supply response
3. Social protection systems
o Advocate for funding and response 19
20
policy
reform
increased
agriculture
production
12 months +
(Long term)
agricultural inputs
(seeds, fertilizer)
cash & vouchers
community works
programmes
6 – 12 months
(Medium term)
Balance of payments/financial support
emergency
food
& safety nets
(child nutrition,
school feeding)
urgent agriculture inputs
0 – 6 months
(Immediate)
21
WFP’s Strategic Plan 2008-11
o From food aid to food assistance
o Broader, flexible and nuanced toolkit
o Tools not new, but expand to new
scale:
• Cash and vouchers
• Purchase for Progress
• Policy dialogue and advocacy
• No one-size fits all school feeding
• New nutrition and food products
Thank you
22
28

Household level impact of high
food prices
Insights from multitopic household surveys
Agricultural Development Economics Division
FAO
Alberto Zezza
Main messages
• Importance of expenditure, assets, inputs,
livelihoods in characterizing welfare
gains/losses
• Multitopic surveys offer a unique tool to do
that
• Can they be better linked to other data
sources to improve analysis for response
and action?
Outline
• Data and methodology
• Cross-country analysis
• Elements of a country profile: Nepal
Rome, 29 July 2008
Data and methodology
Some formulas...
2
Expendtiture quintiles
Cross-country analysis
Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
• Data: Rural Income Generating Activities
(RIGA) dataset
• Methods
– Measure of immediate impact (compensating
variation)
– Bivariate analysis over hh characteristics
– Multivariate analysis – correlates
Three effects: Price, labour, supply response:
F dw ∂Q
dA dpx
F dpz
g ≡[ Q−q]
+ [ L−L
] + p −X
+ [ Z−Z
]
dp ∂A
dp dp dp
∆w
x
∆p
∆p
p
c
i r
r
= PR
p ir
−
c
0i
∆p
0r
∆p
0r
CR
We just focus on the first, which depends on the share of
the staple in the hh production and consumption
ir
% chang e in welfare
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Rural
Nepa l
Nepal
Tajikistan
Vietnam
G uatemala
Nicaragua
Panama
Ghana
% chang e in w elfare
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Malawi
Albania
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Nepal
Nepal
Tajikista n
Vietnam
Urban
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Panama
Urban
Ghana
Malawi
Albania
29

A country profile: Nepal
Expenditure quintiles
Expendtiture quintiles Poorest 2 3 4 Richest
2
Land
A country profile: Nepal
Livelihoods
A country profile: Nepal
% chang e in w elfare
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Rural
Nepal
% change in welfare
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Nepal
Urban
% change in welfare
Nepal
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Landowners
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Expenditure quintiles
Landless
% chang e in w elfare
Nepal
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Other
0 1 2 3 4 5 Specialized 6
Expenditure quintiles
in agriculture
A country profile: Nepal
A country profile: Nepal
A country profile: Nepal
Large welfare losses by region
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Mountain Hill Tarai
Incidence
Mountain,
8.5%
Tarai,
59.8%
Concentration
Hill,
31.7%
Assets typologies (combining land, education
and infrastructure)
• 2 winners in 3 are ‘high land’ types
• Most large losers (70%) have little land AND
education
4. Assets typologies (Land, Educ., Infrastruc.)
Household
grouping by
asset
combination
Average Welfare
Change
Group Share of
Winners
Group Share of Group Share of
Moderate Losers Extreme Losers
WITH 1 E, L, I 0.72 26.02 14.42 3.36
LAND 2 NE, L, I 0.54 12.12 7.36 4.48
3 E, NL, I -0.27 8.15 13.75 5.45
4 E, NL, NI -0.55 3.66 5.81 3.64
5 E, L, NI 0.81 11.39 6.87 2.52
6 NE, NL, I -0.65 7.63 10.45 13.99
7 NE, L, NI 0.29 15.99 11.52 6.57
8 NE, NL, NI -1.10 10.03 17.33 26.85
NO 9 E,I -1.02 1.25 5.32 3.08
LAND 10 NE, I -2.30 1.36 3.39 12.73
11 E, NI -1.09 0.42 0.97 1.40
12 NE, NI -2.38 1.99 2.81 15.94
Total
-0.39 100.00 100.00 100.00
30

A country profile: Nepal
Descriptives by welfare gain/loss category
variable Gainer Mod. Los. Ext. Los.
hhlabor 3.2 2.6 2.4
flaborshare 55.2% 56.4% 58.0%
femhead 15.1% 21.4% 23.6%
agehead 47.3 44.9 44.4
Non Hindu 15.4% 17.3% 26.9%
Education (head) 2.9 2.8 1.2
Land 1.0 0.6 0.3
% Irrigated 47.3% 28.5% 17.0%
Livestock (TLU's) 2.1 1.6 1.0
ag wealth 0.457 -0.104 -0.602
fertilizers 81.8 57.1 30.9
pesticides 22.9 12.3 3.7
distroad 509.4 768.8 657.9
A country profile: Nepal
RURAL
changew Coef. Std. Err.
hhsize -0.07 0.02 ***
dependency 0.67 0.19 ***
flaborshare -0.64 0.16 ***
femhead 0.01 0.11
agehead -0.03 0.02
emphead -0.39 0.08 ***
nonhindu -0.17 0.09
educhead 0.05 0.03
educhead2 0.00 0.00
landown 0.53 0.09 ***
landown2 -0.05 0.01 ***
irrigated 0.86 0.12 ***
TLU_total 0.17 0.05 ***
agwealth 0.40 0.08 ***
fertil 0.01 0.00 ***
R2 0.3186
N 2705
Multivariate: OLS
of welfare gain
over correlates
Conclusions and discussion
• Importance of ag assets/inputs, livelihoods
(and demographics)
• Asset typologies powerful in identifying
likely losers
• Multitopic data can give depth to analysis
• Opportunities for integrating with other
sources
31

Outline
Nutritional Impact: Methodology
A Cross‐Country Analysis of the
Effects of Soaring Food Prices on
Undernourishment
Gustavo Anríquez
FAO –ESA
(Agricultural and Development
Economic Division)
• Methodology to asses the effects of soaring
food prices on undernourishment.
• Cross country results.
• Malawi country case study.
Cross‐Country Sample
Food Price Impact on Caloric Intake
Impact on Undernourishment
• Bangladesh 2000
• Guatemala 2000
• Kenya 2005
• Malawi 2004
• Nepal 2003
• Peru 2003
• Tajikistan 2003
• Vietnam 2002
• Sample designed to
cover heterogeneity in
diets (food staples, and
their relative
importance), income,
and agricultural
production profiles.
% Change in Average Caloric Intake
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0
Bangladesh Guatemala Kenya Malawi Nepal Peru Tajikistan Vietnam
Poorest
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
Wealthiest
Change in Undernourishment
0 2 4 6
Bangladesh Guatemala Kenya Malawi Nepal Peru Tajikistan Vietnam
Poorest
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
Wealthiest
32

Results not correlated with income.
Importance of diversification of diets.
Results country‐specific
Determinants: 1) share of staple in diet
2) distribution of farm income 3)
Preferences 4) Distribution of food
calories
Malawi Case Study
Who are the Undernourished
Prevalence of
Undernourishment
No
Yes
Rural 22.0 31.4
Southern Region 27.3 33.9
Head >8 yrs Education 32.4 19.6
Female Head 29.9 32.0
Own Land 23.4 31.4
Diversified Income HH 28.8 32.7
Where are the
Undernourished
Located
Prevalence of
Undernourishment
Change in
Undernourishment
(% points)
33

Probability of Being Undernourished
Elasticity
Expenditures -0.77
HH Size 0.48
% HH Members < 15 yrs 0.15
Farm Specializers -0.08
Diversified -0.05
Significant 99%
79% of observations predicted correctly.
Probability of Being Vulnerable
Elasticity
Expenditures -1.00
HH Size 0.76
Land Owned -0.14
Farm Specializers -0.15
Urban 0.09
Definition Vulnerable: Among the initially not
undernourished, falls into hunger as a result of soaring
food prices.
Significant 99%
66% of observations predicted correctly.
Conclusions
• It is not straightforward to determine ex ante
who are the most vulnerable groups to food
price hikes.
• Relevance of country case‐studies.
• In Malawi, for example, farmers and land
owners are better equipped than urban
households to deal with the costs of soaring
food prices.
Price impact analyses using household
income and expenditure surveys –
taking advantage of the RIGA dataset
Benjamin DAVIS
FAO-ESA
High Food Price Impact Assessment and Analysis Workshop
Rome
29-31 July 2008
RIGA
Rural Income Generating Activities
The RIGA dataset
19 countries, 35 datasets
Objectives: consistency & comparability across countries
• Focus on income aggregates
• household/individual level variables
Africa
• Ghana (1992, 1998)
• Madagascar (1993, 2001**)
• Malawi (2004)
• Nigeria (2004)
• Kenya (2005*)
Asia
• Bangladesh (2000, 2005*)
• Indonesia (1993, 2000)
• Nepal (1996, 2003)
• Pakistan (1991, 2001)
• Vietnam (1992, 1998, 2002*)
• Cambodia (2004*)
Eastern Europe
• Albania (2002, 2005)
• Bulgaria (1995, 2001)
• Tajikistan (2003, 2007*)
Latin America
• Ecuador (1995, 1998)
• Guatemala (2000, 2005**)
• Nicaragua (1998, 2001, 2005**)
• Panama (1997, 2003)
• Bolivia (2005*)
Income Aggregates: Sources of Income
Crop
Livestock
On-Farm
Wages
• agricultural
Off-Farm
• non-agricultural
Self Employment
Transfers
• public
• private
Other
34

Bread
Cereals
Roots
Dairy
Pulses
Meat & Eggs
Other Food
Oil and Fat
Veg. & Fruits
Sugar
Food
Transport
Tobacco
Soap
Taxes
Debts
Medical
Celebrations
Education
Non Food
Other Non Food
House
Clothing
Total
Cereals
Roots
Bread
Dairy
Pulses
Meat & Eggs
Oil and Fat
Ve g. & F ruits
Other Food
Sugar
Food
Transport
Tobacco
Soap
Taxes
Clothing
House
Medical Debts
Non Food
Celebrations
Education
Other Non F ood
Total
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Rounds
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Riz Maize Wheat Bread Sugar Milk Noodles Oil Potato Banana Chicken FCS
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Three examples of linking
household food security
and high food prices
Food Security Monitoring Systems
High Food Price Impact Assessment and Analysis
Workshop, 29-31 July, 2008
Ludovic Subran, WFP/OEDP
Afghanistan: Urban
programming in response to
high food prices
2.5mn extra caseload, TFD
• Steep increase in wheat
prices and particularly harsh
winter entailed deteriorated
‘tot’ for unskilled labourer
• Seasonally-adjusted
difference needed
• Confronting primary data
and monitoring system:
methodology,
responsiveness of FSMS are
at stakeExpenditures Breakdown in 2006
Afs
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Prices are up, Terms of Trade are down
Kabul Retail Prices, WFP/AFG
Jan-05
Mar-05
May-05
Jul-05
Sep-05
Nov-05
Jan-06
Mar-06
May-06
Jul-06
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
May-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Bread (1kg) Fuel (1L) ToT Casual Labour/Wheat Flour (Right axis)
Expenditures Breakdown in 2007
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Haiti: Riots or in-depth analysis,
what drives programming?
1.5 mn extra
caseload, TFD
• Northeast of Haiti
SAPSAP (Jan06-
Feb08)
• Lack of evidence of
impact either on food
budget share, or on
FCS/CSI: volatility?
• No econometric
evidence controlling
for idiosyncratic
shocks
Prix (gourdes)
Grisom Garde
FCS
Niger: Sustainability and…
Catchment areas!
Backdrop
• Panel data: 4,376
households in 357
Nigerien villages; usual
food security indicators
(DD, anthropometric
measures e.g.)
• Rounds: monthly from
June to December ’07
because of a lack of
funding
• Finding matching markets
as sentinel sites data are
gathered separately
Food for thought
Framework?
• Price determinants intrinsically play a role in the strength of the
impact (persistence of the shock e.g.), what to really expect from
monitored indicators
Analysis?
• In-depth econometric analysis not possible; different needs to
inform targeting e.g.; New monitoring tools: cost of a food basket
approach? Triggers?
Reconciliation?
• Proved hard to link prices to household level data, tap into other
monitoring indicators and fields (education,…)
Innovations?
• New set of indicators might be used in the monitoring systems
when covering other livelihoods (urban settings e.g.); coping
without a proper baseline
Sharing?
• Hard access to data
Community and
Household Surveillance
(CHS) in Southern Africa
Potential applications for monitoring prices at
country level
High Food Price Impact Assessment and Analysis
Workshop, 29-31 July, 2008
Eric Kenefick, WFP/OMJ
35

Background
Where?
• Seven southern African countries: Mozambique, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland (10 Rounds);
Namibia (2 rounds)
Who?
• Data collected from WFP beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
(non beneficiaries as control group)
When?
• Twice-year (Feb/Mar & Sept/Oct) approach allows accounting
seasonality issues and variations in food assistance
How?
• Teams composed of WFP staff and partners (including
government), using PDAs. For nutrition, we partner with
National nutrition bodies within Government plus UNICEF
CHS for Monitoring HP Issues
Three countries have used the CHS to
cover the entire country:
• Lesotho: With DMA, covers all 10 districts in
March/Oct 2007 and March 2008
• Swaziland: All four regions covered for last 3
rounds
• Mozambique: The GAV used the CHS tool
for their annual assessment to cover all 10
provinces
• Main limitation: Only used in rural areas
CHS – Monitoring food expenditures
share m onthly expenditure
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Trends in monthly food expenditures - Lesotho
Oct 06 Mar 07 Oct 07 Mar 08
Share food
Per capita food
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
p/c m o nthly expenditure -
Maluti
Monitoring Transport Expenditures
share m onthly expenditure
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Trends in monthly transport expenditures - Lesotho
Oct 06 Mar 07 Oct 07 Mar 08
Share t ransport
Per capit a t ransport
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
p/c m onthly expenditure -
Maluti
Types of Markets - Mozambique
The markets were then assessed for various items
including: whole maize, maize meal, rice, beans,
groundnuts, oil, sugar salt and soap.
From this information households were grouped
together using statistical analyses to create 5 market
access groups, including those without any market
access.
The five types of household access include:
1. Markets with all items (22%)
2. Markets with oil, sugar, salt and soap; sometimes, whole
maize, beans and groundnuts (18%)
3. Markets with rice, oil, sugar, salt, soap and sometimes milled
maize (18%)
4. Markets with a mix of these items but not all (6%)
5. No market access (36%)
Types of Market Access by Province
All items
Basics plus whole maize, beans and gnuts
Basics plus rice and milled maize
Mix of everything but not all
No market
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Niassa Cabo Nampula Zambezia Tete Manica Sofala Inhambane Gaza Maputo
Delgado
36

Coping, Consumption and Markets
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
23.5
47.7
All items
FCS significantly
higher than the
other groups
28.1
41.7
CSI
25.2
FCS
44.3 43.5 43.8
30.5
Oil, sugar, salt, soap; Rice, oil, sugar, salt, Mix of different items
some whole maize, soap and some maize but not all
beans and gnuts
meal
25.7
No market
Source of Consumption and Markets
production gifts purchase food assistance hunt/gather other
100%
90%
80%
35%
31%
70%
47%
49%
39%
60%
6%
7%
5%
50%
6%
5%
40%
30%
56%
57%
51%
20% 43%
43%
10%
0%
All items Oil, sugar, salt, soap; Rice, oil, sugar, salt, Mix of different items No market
some whole maize,
beans and gnuts
soap and some maize
meal
but not all
Mozambique Stock Taking
Systems
SIMA -
Agricultural
Market
Information
System
INFOCOM -
Ministry of
Commerce and
Industry
VAC -
Vulnerability
Analysis
Committee
CHS –
Community &
Household
Surveillance
Frequency
weekly
weekly
twice a year
(April/October)
twice a year
(April/October)
Tool
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative and
Qualitative
Quantitative and
Qualitative
Process
Questionnaire to
traders (retail
and wholesales)
Questionnaire to
Supermarkets
Questionnaire to
households and
focus group
(using PDA)
Questionnaire to
households and
focus group
(using PDA)
25 markets, including provincial
capitals and at least 1 district with
high potential in production and trade
66 Supermarkets in all provincial
capitals
rural areas
Place
Areas with WFP activities
Combined with VAC in April 2008
Mozambique
System
SIMA - Agricultural
Market Information
System
INFOCOM - Ministry
of Commerce and
Industry
VAC - Vulnerability
Analysis Committee
CHS – Community
& Household
Surveillance
Questions related
to markets
prices, availability,
flows and transport
cost of commodities
prices of maize meal,
rice, sugar, eggs and
fish
Food availability in
communities, selling
prices of agricultural
products and
livestock, High price
shock and coping
Same as VAC
Analyses
price and food
availability dynamic,
products flows and
transport cost
price dynamic
Analyses of food
availability and prices
in communities, and
access to markets by
producers
Analysis of food
availability and prices
and comparisons of
food and livestock
prices across places
Missing Tools
Quest. to millers
Questionnaire to
traders and millers
Trader questionnaire
Missing Analyses
a) food price impact
on households
income, b) price
transmission, c) food
price policy
a) food price impact
on households
income, b) price
transmission, c)
customs regulation
impact on food price
a) Deeper income
and expenditure
analysis; b)
elasticity/substitution
of foods
Discussion points
Successes
• Widely accepted in most countries
• Full coverage in 3 countries
• Some seasonal aspects covered
• Southern Africa has fluid borders
Challenges
• No urban coverage; Rural coverage can be limited
• Costs and Time
• Linking with other systems/identifying complementarities
Urban opportunities
• Churches and outreach programmes
• Government safety nets
• Health/nutrition centres (surveillance)
Thank you!
37

DAY 2
Inter Agency Assessment Missions in the
context of Soaring Food Prices
Jacques de Graaf
FAO/ES
Brief Background
Under CAADP Framework, the AU and NEPAD
launched an Initiative to assist countries to
address SFP through acceleration of CAADP
country roundtable process.
Workshop held in Pretoria (20-23 23 May)
19 countries, including key institutions (CILLS,(
CILLS,
UKZN, REC, other CAADP Pillar Lead Institutions,
CGIAR,WB,WFP,IFAD,FAO,USAID,DFID, GTZ, NORAD)
Workshop led to draft country action plans
and roadmaps for short, medium and long
term
As part of this process some inter-agency
assessment missions were foreseen
38

Objectives
Overall Objective is to develop a Country
Action Plan that will include a
Government/UN Appeal for short term
assistance though consultative process
with all involved (AU.....etc.)
Country Action Plans
Several dimension included in Plans:
1) Humanitarian assistance: social safety
nets
2) Boost agricultural production (short term
leading to longer term solutions)
3) Policies to respond to high food prices
4) Budget adjustment (assist countries)
African countries: Burkina Faso,
Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Madagascar
(completed)
(Ongoing), Somalia, Gambia
others completed: Pakistan, Cambodia,
Haiti, DPRKorea)
Some under discussion
Some lessons learned
Very important to have presence of members of
all partners to ensure maximum synergy
Government commitment crucial
Share information with all partners of findings of
missions
Challenge: how to merge CAADP process with
ongoing actions of e.g. IFI ?
Follow up in country essential
Flexible and integrated in on-going
programmes
Thank you!
39

NEPAL
Market and Price
Impact Assessment
Siemon Hollema
Nepal facts
• Political perspective:
- Emerging after a 10 yr conflict
- Weak and ineffective government structures
- Serious law and order problems
- UNMIN mission
• Economic and Development perspective
- Heavily reliance on food and oil imports
- Export restrictions imposed by India
- High level of chronic food insecurity (41% undernourished) and
poverty (31%)
- High share of expenditure on food (average 59%, poorest 73%)
- Recurrent national disasters
- Constraints in agricultural (accessibility, underinvestment,
mechanization, seed and fertilizer use, irrigation)
Objectives of the analysis
Market and Price Impact Analysis
• To quantify the magnitude of the
recent increase in food prices.
• To assess the future outlook in
different parts of the country
• To understand the likely impact
on household food security.
• To make recommendations for
government and humanitarian
interventions.
Methodology
• Primary data:
- FSMAS field monitors and NDRI enumerators
- Market survey: 406 retailers and 193 wholesalers
- Household survey: 611 households in market catchment areas
- Rapid urban survey (216 households - 10 slum households and 2 relative
better off households, 90 urban traders)
• Secondary data:
- Department of Agriculture, FNCCI, Nepal Rastra Bank and Ministry of
Finance
• Geographical coverage
- 40 districts
- 6 urban cities (Biratnagar, Birgunj, Nepalgunj, Dhangadhi, Kathmandu and
Pokhara)
• 6 month recall
- Prior to October 2007, food price increases were marginal
- Pre-harvest period for paddy (highest prices of key commodities)
- India introduced the export ban
Findings
• Seasonal price variation normally show a 11% and 5% drop in the
price of rice and wheat flour during this time of year.
• More substantial increase in wholesale prices.
• Change on farm gate prices between 13 to 24% for paddy.
• Immediately following the survey, fuel prices were increased by 25% or
more.
• Indian ban has pushed up prices in Nepal.
‣ Substantial further price rise expectations,
especially in urban areas.
Wheat flour
Lentil
Coarse rice
Cooking oil
6 % 17 % 19 % 26 %
Change in real (1995/96) retail prices
Impact on household food security
• Household food purchasing power has declined (term of trade ↓).
• Shift in consumer purchasing behaviour.
• Negative relationship between consumption intake, coping intensity
and price increase.
• Development of a food price vulnerability index:
- Land access index
- Food expenditure index
- Income source index
• Those with already unacceptable low consumption intake were
identified for immediate support (2.5 million rural and 67,000 urban)
Nepal: Rural urban
Significant losers 42.2 % 9.7 million 525,000
Marginal losers 41.2 % 9.5 million
Marginal winners 14.3 % 3.3 million
Significant winners 2.3 % 0.5 million
40

Rural populations most at risk
Recommendations and next steps
• Set-up of joint market monitoring
system (MoAC, WFP, FNCCI and CIPF)
• Food security phase classification at
district level
• Targeted food assistance to 2.5
million rural poor
• Introduction of emergency nutrition
programme in collaboration with
UNICEF
• Ensuring regular petroleum supply,
address road obstructions and
resolve transportation syndicate
dispute.
• Address constraints in improving
agricultural production, particularly in
remote areas.
‘Real-time’ programming
• B/R for ongoing PRRO (Food Assistance to Food Insecure and
Conflict Affected Populations)
- Budget increases from $54 million to $104 million
- Caseload from 1.25 million to 2.5 million (CP and PRRO)
- Expansion of area coverage
• MoAC/WFP assessment and response in drought affected areas in
Far- and Mid-West (caseload 286,000)
• Pilot study on the implementation of a cash/voucher system in the
Terai.
• Provision of improved seeds through partnership with FAO
• Targeted nutrition interventions with UNICEF (plumpy nut for acute
malnutrition and supplementary feeding)
• Addition of pulses into the food basket
Lessons learned
• Review of methodologies for
impact of food prices on
household food security and
estimation of caseload.
• Guidance required on
geographic targeting for food
price hike responses (which
areas? and who?)
• FSMAS invaluable for
preparedness and monitoring
the ongoing situation.
41

Liberia Joint High Food Price Impact Assessment
Key Findings and Lessons Learnt
High Food Prices Impact Analysis Workshop,
Rome, 29-31 July 2008
Claudia AHPOE
Background
• Liberia is in a recovery phase and still
volatile to political instability
• Food-deficit country national
production only meets about one third
of the consumption requirements
• 49% of imports are for food and fuel
• Rice is the number one staple food,
followed by cassava
• 66% of rural and 52% of urban
incomes are spent on food
• 25% of rural and 17% of urban
incomes are spent on rice
• Poverty rate: 63.6% (2007) If the
rice price increases by 20%, rate
increases to 67.9%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Locally produced versus imported rice
58%
42%
44%
56%
92%
8%
99%
1%
National
Rural
Urban
Monrovia
Imported
Locally
produced
• Objectives
Assessment methodology
– Analyze food price trends and
assess impact on HH food security
– Identify response options
• Focus of the analysis
– Poor neighbourhoods in Greater
Monrovia
– Specific rural livelihood groups
across Liberia
• Timeframe
– Mid June to mid July 2008
• Stakeholders
– Ministries of Commerce and
Agriculture, LISGIS, FAO, UNICEF,
UNDP, WFP, ACF, Concern, DRC,
GAA, SC UK
• Team composition
– Market specialist, VAM Officer,
Food/cash/voucher expert
– Representatives from MOA, LISGIS,
FAO, DRC, SC UK
• Methodology:
– Secondary data analysis
– Rapid HH survey in Greater Monrovia
– Focus group discussions
– Key informant interviews/group
discussions
– Trader interviews
Key findings – Macro-level 1
• Inflation is high and increasing: 13.4%
in 2008
• Trade balance is highly vulnerable to
the price shock: It will deteriorate by
16% of GDP Liberia is the single
most affected economy in sub-Saharan
Africa
• The price for a 50 KG bag of ‘butter’
rice has increased by 36% from May
2007 to May 2008
• Rice purchased by cup is 32% more
expensive than by bag
• Rice is 56% more expensive in the
South-East due to high transport costs
• At Nzerekoré, a 50 KG bag costs US$47
compared to US$31 in Greater
Monrovia (May 2008)
• World market prices have not yet fully
passed through to the consumer
Key findings – Macro-level 2
• An estimated 50,000 MT of butter
rice is in stock bought at 490
US$/MT FOB able to supply the
market until mid Sep 2008
• The current FOB price for the main
used exporter is 800 – 825
US$/MT FOB
• 80,000MT of Chinese butter rice
has been earmarked by the
Chinese Government for Liberia at
a reduced rate of 615 US$/MT
FOB
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
26.05
Nominal price development and projections
(US$ per 50KG bag in Monrovia)
28.31
27.42 28.23 27.42
31.61
38.70
Dec'07
Jan'08
Feb'08
Mar'08
Apr'08
May'08
Chinese negotiated price
50.90
Global market price
Key findings – Micro-level 1
• Absolute per capita
cash expenditures
have increased by
about one-third
compared to
December 2006
• Almost all
households reported
an increase in
expenditure – mainly
on food and fuel
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6% 2%
91% 96%
Total
Expenditure 2008 compared to 2007
Food
8%
90%
Transport
9% 12% 9%
23%
25%
59%
68%
Education
Expenditure
64%
Health
31%
Housing
Decrease
No
change
Increase
42

Key findings – Micro-level 2
• Households spend more on transport and basic
food commodities and less on higher quality food
commodities, health, education and housing
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
86%
% Change in Key Food Expenditure (2007-2008)
75%
59%
54%
50%
Fish Oil Rice Pulses Cassava Eggs Veg &
fruit
-16%
-29%
Other
meat
-40%
Bush
meat
-55%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
% Change in Key Non-Food Expenditure (2007-2008)
113%
Transport Education Health Housing
-11%
-18%
-33%
Key findings – Micro-level 3
• Based on a food
consumption/dietary
diversity analysis, the
proportion of households
with poor or borderline
consumption has increased
• Households consume
slightly more staple
commodities but less
protein sources, fruits,
vegetables and oil
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
-0.7
-0.9
-1.1
-1.3
-1.5
Greens
Rice
Bulgur
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Food consumption groups
64%
20%
13%
4%
40%
30%
23%
8%
Dec 2006 Jun 2008
Change (number of days eaten)
Cassava/tubers
Vegetables
Beans, peas, lentils
Fish
Fruits
Oil, fats
White flour/bread
Sugar
Bush meat
Good
Fairly good
Borderline
Poor
Other meat
Eggs
Key findings – Micro-level 4
• Households with fewer
sources of income
• Households with
debts/loans
• Households with low
asset ownership
• Consume fewer meals
per day
• Skip days without eating
• Purchase food on credit
Lessons, gaps and recommendations
Data collection, tools, expertise, coordination
• Good baseline very important, ideal is a functioning FSMS
• For “quantification” of impact, HH survey using random sampling most appropriate
• Focus group discussion useful to assess general trends, perceptions and
mitigation strategies
• Combination of VAM, market specialist and programme expert was successful
• Partnership with Gov, UN and NGO partners key for coordinated response
Response analysis
• SWOT analysis and stakeholder validation workshop highly recommended
• More guidance on intra-urban targeting
• Chronically food insecure versus population more vulnerable to price shocks
More/different analytical tools
• Tools identified/standardized to “project” likely future impact of increasing prices
• ToT analysis to be improved (“contextualization”)
• Focus group discussion guide to be improved based on lessons learned
43

Likely impact on Ugandan
households of rising global food
prices
Dipayan Bhattacharyya
1
Total Population
Population Growth
rate
Poverty Headcount
P(1): Country Fact sheet
3.4%
Per capita GDP at
Market Prices
GDP growth rate at 9%
current market
prices
Per capita GDP 5.5%
growth rate at
current market
prices
Contribution of 21%
agriculture to GDP
at market prices
Inflation rate
29.6 million
Rural–32.4%
Urban–13.7%
UGX 21,000
(USD 13)
12.4% (food
15 4%)
• Surplus producer of maize; primary importer of
rice and wheat; exporter of maize in the region
• Main staples – Matoke (plantains), maize,
cassava, sorghum and beans
• Rice and breads are mainly consumed in urban
areas
LIVELIHOOD ZONES OF UGANDA
N
0 50 Kilometers
LEGEND
Fishing
Maize-Pineapple
Fishing-Tourism Maize-Gnuts
Fishing-Salt Extraction Tea-Livestock
Tea-Annual Crops
Fishing Cassava
Livestock
Tobacco-Coffee
Sorghum-Livestock Tobacco-Sugarcane
Cassava-Livestock Tobacco-Cassava
Maize-Livestock Horticultural
Millet-Livestock Sugarcane
Livestock-Rice Crop Production
Livestock-Banana Mixed Farming
Pastoral
Arabica-Coffee
Banana-Coffee
Cotton-Simsim
Banana-Annuals
Banana-Maize The Highland Plateau
Cassava-Coffee
Protected Areas
Cassava-Livestock-Cereal
Pulses-Cassava Urban/Peri-urban
Root Crop
Rice-Millet
Rice-Tobacco
Rice-cotton
2
Sorghum-Pigeon peas
Potato-sorghum
P(2): Objectives of the analysis
• Triggers - reports in the media, traders defaulting WFP tenders and
asking for higher prices An interagency team was formed that
recommended that expressed the need for an assessment.
The assessment has three objectives
• Analyze current food prices in Uganda and the future outlook
• Assess the current and foreseen impact of high market prices on
food security and welfare at the household level
• Consider immediate, mid-term, and long-term response options to
any negative impacts of rising global food prices on household
welfare and food security
The study was mainly national analysis of secondary
data with some ground-truthing from HH and market
surveys
Time period – 1.5 months; Budget – USD25,000
3
P(3): Overview of the analysis
• IFPRI led the study with support from WFP, FAO
and UNICEF.
• Governments participation was limited to one
formal meeting, key informant interviews, data
analysis (PMA secretariat worked with IFPRI)
• Core research team was led by Food Security
Analyst, with support from market specialist and
statistical analyst.
• Data used – Uganda National Household Survey
2006, price data (Monthly-2000-08; weekly
2007-08); Market Survey (traders interviews at 7
regional markets); HH survey (in Northern
Uganda IDP areas)
4
EF(1): Determinants of high food
prices, food availability
• Rising global food prices should not directly affect
access of Ugandan households to most important
staples or significantly alter consumption
patterns.
– Should not see sustained, general significant food
price rises in Uganda.
– However since January 2008, there has been a sharp
upturn in prices, most notably for bean and maize
– Uganda is isolated from most global food markets.
• Regional market more important than global market.
• Several key staples for Uganda are only traded locally.
– Government does not need to act now to enhance
access to food for Ugandan households.
5
• Karamoja and IDP population are important exceptions.
• Adopt an alert wait and see stance
EF(1): Why rising food prices in
Uganda
• Rising fuel costs.
– Food transport and processing costs have risen.
• Kenya’s post-election turmoil.
– Sharp reduction in planted area for long rains in
Kenya.
– Significant demand now and expected for coming
year.
– Maize, in particular.
• Southern Sudan and DR Congo are new
sources of demand for food from Uganda.
• Localized production problems.
– Sequence of poor cropping seasons in Karamoja;
6
44

EF(2): Household Data Analysis:
Net-buyers and net-sellers of food
• Conceptually, food price rises benefit net-sellers
of food; net-buyers are harmed.
• Considering all foods:
– Net-sellers: 16.2%
– Net-buyers: 82.9%
• Staples only:
– Net-sellers: 29.9%
– Net-buyers: 62.5%
• These figures comparable to those found in other
sub-Saharan African countries.
7
– However, need to be clear on definitional and data
issues arising
EF(2): Household Data Analysis: Sources of
calories consumed – market or home
production
• Provides a different viewpoint from considering market transactions
for food.
– Less pessimistic with regards to food price rises.
• For rural Ugandan households, access to calories primarily is
through own production.
– Urban households will see access to calories decline with higher prices.
• Poor receive important amounts of food as in-kind transfers.
Household Home
grouping production
National 49.2
Rural 56.1
Urban 11.4
Poor 50.9
Non-poor 48.7
Purchased,
consumed
at home
43.4
37.0
78.8
37.7
45.0
Purchased,
consumed
elsewhere
1.4
0.8
4.7
0.3
1.7
Received Inkind,
free
6.0
6.1
5.1
11.0
4.6
8
EF(2): Household Data Analysis:
Maize-consumers are vulnerable
• Demand from Kenya for
Calories
Prop. maize
maize has depleted Uganda’s
from
calories
maize stocks.
maize as
from home
– Stocks may recover with Population prop. all
production
coming harvest.
group calories
– However, Kenya demand will National 16.1 36.2
persist until 2009.
Rural 16.3 41.0
• Maize provides significant
Urban 15.0 7.5
share of calories for three
Northern rural
groups.
(not IDP)
8.4 42.5
– WFP clients.
IDP camp
– Institutional populations.
residents
41.3 2.3
• Schools, military, prisons,
hospitals, etc.
Karamoja 31.1 17.6
– Urban poor.
Poor 19.7 30.8
• These groups require
Urban poor 26.1 11.0 9
continued & expanded Non-poor 15 1 38 0
EF(2): EFSA Data Analysis: Net buyers and
net sellers of food among vulnerable HH’s
• Vulnerable households
surveyed in May 2008.
– WFP client populations.
– Asked to compare value
(UShs) of food produced (not
food aid) and sold in the
market to value of food
purchased in market, from
traders, or in shops.
• Largest proportion by far are
net buyers.
• However, higher proportion of
net food sellers than seen in
the general Ugandan
population in 2006 Uganda
National Household Survey.
– Puzzling finding.
60%
1%
20%
19%
Significant net food sellers
Similar levels of food sales & purchases
Significant net food buyers
10
Did not sell or purchase
EF(2): EFSA Data Analysis: Comparing food
sales between 2008 and 2007
• Respondents asked:
– “Compared to last year at this
time (March to May 2007), is
the amount of food you
produced (not food aid) and
sold this year:”
• Lower sales, in spite of higher
market prices for food.
– May reflect poor harvest in
some areas.
– Or poor productivity as
formerly Internally Displaced
households restart their
farming activities. Little
marketable surplus.
percent of households
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Much less
Somewhat less
About the same
Somewhat more
Much more
11
EF(2): EFSA Data Analysis: Disaggregated
net-buyers & net-sellers
Kitgum - food secure
Kitgum - borderline
Kitgum - food insecure
Kitgum - Transit
Kitgum - Mother
Kitgum - all
Gulu - food secure
Gulu - borderline
Gulu - food insecure
Gulu - Transit
Gulu - Mother
Gulu - All
Pader - food secure
Pader - borderline
Pader - food insecure
Pader - Transit
Pader - Mother
Pader - A ll
National
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Significant sellers
Similar levels sales & 12
net food of food purchases
Significant net food buyers Did not sell or purchase
45

EF(3): Recommendations
• Be alert. Monitor for effects on households due to secondary price rise
due to high regional demand for Uganda’s food crops.
– Expand vulnerability monitoring to poor urban and other marketdependent
households.
• But no restrictions on trade in food.
– Producers can realize substantial benefits by supplying regional markets.
– Food security of Uganda’s neighbors dependent to some degree on trade
in food from Uganda.
– Uganda’s provision of part of its neighbors’ food requirements unlikely to
significantly affect food security of most Ugandan households.
• Address key data deficiencies:
– Detailed agricultural production estimates. Critical for assessment,
planning. Uganda must collect this data.
– Expand trade monitoring to more closely consider DR Congo & southern
Sudan trade flows.
13
• Possibility of adverse effects from rising food prices highlights lack of
broad social protection systems in Uganda.
R(1): Lessons and
recommendations for future
analyses and follow-ups
• More time needed for the study a primary
survey should be integral part of the assessment
• Uganda EFSA tool needs improvement
• For P4P need to expand FSMS to areas
beyond WFP operations
• Need to sit with other agencies doing similar
study (possibly with smaller geographic focus)
and undertake joint response analysis
• Enhancing government’s capacity to collect,
analyze, predict and respond to emerging crises
because of rising prices
16
M(1): ‘Real-time’ programming
• The study partially fulfilled the
expectations of the programme staff.
• While contextualizing the overall situation,
the report fell short of highlighting the
geographic and economic priorities and
number of people at risk of hunger due to
rising prices.
• Based on the recommendation of the
study the CO proposes to pilot a social
protection project, targeting low-income
M(2): What worked and what
didn’t?
• The main need was to do a rapid national analysis and
understanding the linkages of the rising prices in Uganda
with that of the global trend and also to understand the
possible impacts on households the study adequately
addressed these queries
• A national primary survey could not be taken up, given
time constraint possibly urban vulnerability is not well
captured.
• EFSA complimented the study with findings from the
North (only IDP areas)
• The study was presented in several forum and many
agencies using the report (e.g., World Bank)
• Food Security and Agricultural Livelihood Cluster is
mobilizing a team from agencies and government to set
a minimum standard for price/market monitoring for
14
15
small holder farmers. information integration.
THANK YOU!
17
46

High Food Price Impact Analysis Workshop
Rome, 29-31 July 2008
Pakistan Country Facts
Food Insecurity and Food Price Hikes by Province
Pakistan Country Facts
Food Availability
UN inter-agency food crisis
assessment in Pakistan
Methodology, Findings, Recommendations,
Lessons Learned
Presented by
Cheng Feng, Liliana Balbi, Wolfgang Herbinger
• Increasing wheat import gap (national balance sheet)
– Biggest factors: informal flows across border, substitution effect
– Government underestimated import gap
• Declining capacity to import
• Drastic increase in inter-provincial disparities
– Supply problems in western provinces
Pakistan Country Facts
Food Access
• Increasing food poverty levels - from 23% to 28%
• Food price hikes perceived as shock, particular urban areas,
however most vulnerable are rural poor
• Increasing regional disparities in terms of trade (wheat/wage)
Pakistan Country Facts
Food Utilization and Non Food Expenditures
• Declining diet diversity
• Declining access to health
• Pressure on education
= Squeezing of non-food
expenditures
70.0
2.8 4.1 7.4
5.3
4.6
3.0
3.4
Energy for cooking
Electricity
Health
Education
Transport
Clothing and shoes
Other non-food expenses
Food Expenditure
• Inter-agency:
Assessment approach
WFP (lead), FAO, UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, UNESCO
• Objective:
Assess impact of food price hikes on food security, nutrition and health
and recommend response for affected population, agriculture and trade
• Data collection and analysis:
– Rapid survey (18 districts, 322 households, 39 traders, markets …)
– Key informants, mission briefing meetings with stakeholders
– Modeling of secondary data
• SEE DETAILED FAO PRESENTATION
47

Determinants of high food prices
Impact on Household Food Access
Recommended responses
• Wheat prices up by 53-98 percent compared to 2007
• Global market pass-through effect initially mitigated (heavy
Government role in wheat market)
• However policy of low domestic prices not sustainable
(need to move from general subsidies to targeted safety nets)
• Price shock made worse by inter-provincial export bans
• Wheat price expected to rise further
• Regional disparities likely to stay high
(until supply situation in Afghanistan improves)
• Increasing population share =28% below lowest food
security poverty line 1,700kcal/day
• Poor households cope by reducing food
intake/diversity, less expenditure on health
• Food sales and credit for retail traders fell while
wholesale trade/millers profit margins increased
• Most affected by price hikes are agricultural workers,
petty traders and service sector employees
• Protect livelihoods of most food insecure households
(approx. seven million)
• Cash transfers, emergency food assistance,
peoples work programme
• Prevent deterioration of nutritional situation and
educational gains
• Targeted input subsidies for small farmers
• Wheat procurement at competitive market prices
and domestically non-restricted movement of wheat
“Real-time” programming
– Main findings and recommendations accepted by
Government and will contribute to shape national
food crisis response (wheat import plans, wheat price policy,
targeting of safety net)
– Assessment process triggered response planning
of UN agencies and one donor
ASSESSMENT – PROGRAMME RELATIONSHIP
IS NOT LINEAR BUT INTER-ACTIVE AND MESSY!!!
– Based on assessment findings and recommendations
one major donor earkmarked funds for WFP safety
net intervention
What worked? What didn’t?
• Methodology:
– Inter-Agency Assessment enhanced credibility and attention
– Mix of rapid household/market survey and modeling secondary
data gave more robust and representative results
– Analysis enables district level but not household targeting
• Support/Partners:
– HQs support providing competent mission leader was critical
– Partnership with FAO allowed modeling of secondary data
– Partnership with six agencies was painful but still worthwhile
Lessons and recommendations for future
• Data sources, sampling, collection, analysis, partners:
– Access to/use of national statistics (HIES, prices) critical for
secondary analysis and modeling
– Trained team of enumerators enhances speed and data quality
– Sensitization/engagement of stakeholders critical for ownership
and acceptance of assessment … (process important!)
– Still missing: tool for household targeting other than means test
• Response analysis:
– Most essential: Magnitude and cause of need, forecast next 6-12
months, geographic area, demographic/livelihood status
– Response options: take stock and evaluate existing plans,
review responses nobody thought of (rare), attention to power and
institutional dynamics (efficiency not only criterion)
• Price impact analysis:
– Modeling essential for representative findings and forecasting
– Rapid survey for groundtruthing/assessment of coping behaviour
48

Follow-up
• Monitoring:
– Quarterly sentinel site based monitoring of food security/
nutrition/ health/ school retention (inter-agency)
– Enhanced market analysis through monitoring of rural market
prices and cross-border trade (Afghanistan)
– Output monitoring of planned WFP/UN agencies interventions
• Next steps:
– Assessment of medium- to long-term response needs with
major focus on agricultural and trade policies (lead FAO)
– Refinement and testing of price impact model (inclusion of a
non-cereal food items, non-food expenditure?)
49