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

home.wfp.org

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

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines