19th Biannual Meeting
Food Security
13-14 June 2006
hosted by CARE in Nairobi
The theme of the 19th Biannual Meeting was to draw out key aspects of learning, accountability and performance related to food security, and to identify actions for ALNAP to encourage positive system-wide change.
Reports
Meeting report
Workshops
Impact assessment of food security interventions
Workshop summary
Facilitator: Susanne Frueh (OCHA)
Challenges in monitoring and evaluating food security interventions. Is this done too rarely? What are the limitations of the quantitative approach? Are we monitoring the right things, and even if so, what else should we be monitoring or not monitoring?
Evaluations and practice
Workshop summary
Facilitator: Jeff Marzili (WFP)
Is there a gap between evaluation findings from food security programmes, thinking and practice in food security? Do we need to go back more than we do, and objectively measure the accuracy and effectiveness of the theoretical models that underpin food security
intervention practices?
Integrated food security and humanitarian phase classification and associated tools
Workshop summary
Presentation
Facilitator: Nick Haan (FSAU)
Food Security Analysis Unit (Somalia) case-study – situation and response analysis. The key problem here is that situations of chronic food security are often not adequately addressed and become acute in nature. Humanitarian response to acute food security often comes in the form of food aid and this is only a palliative, short term solution. The challenge therefore is to link complex food security analysis to appropriate action, and to monitoring and evaluation of outcomes in order to improve learning and accountability. FSAU/FAO will present a new model and tools and their experiences and lessons learned from Somalia. One of the points for discussion will be: can models like this be resourced and replicated usefully in the many food-insecure environments around the world?
Integrated Phase Classification manual
Humanitarian food security and sustainable livelihoods
Workshop summary
Facilitator: Dan Maxwell (CARE)
In terms of both analysis and activities, food security is not well coordinated with national systems and capacities. While there is a recognition that famine can be ‘poverty driven’ and recurrent, we do not appear to have real solutions to recurrent crises set within the context of chronic vulnerabilities. In what ways can the humanitarian community live up to its commitments to build local capacity and to improve ‘downward accountability’?
Non-food-related food security issues
Workshop summary
Facilitator: Kate Longley (ODI/HPG)
There are many factors apart from food itself that are determinants in food security. They include: production; property, land and land tenure; health and nutrition; markets; macro-economic factors; water; conflict; governance and the roles of government in response; corruption; etc. In the face of such complexity, how do humanitarian actors make sure that they act responsibly, monitor the right factors, and ensure that they address their attempts to learn appropriately?
Food security and ‘transition’
Workshop summary
Presentation
Facilitator: Julius Holt (Food Economy Group)
‘Transition’ is used to refer both to the post-emergency phase, and to post-conflict transition. The issues in the former case are often about the phasing out of food inputs to allow and recognise return to ‘normality’; and in the latter to do with the use of food security strategies to support, for example, DDR, access to land, return, peace and reconciliation. What lessons have been learnt that will help improve
synergies between the different types of strategies, policies and activities that are used by both the humanitarian and developmental community as a bridge between these transitional phases?
The role of participation in food security interventions
Workshop summary
Facilitator: François Grünewald (Groupe URD)
The humanitarian system has made little gains in improving accountability and performance through enhanced participation of affected populations. There is still a challenge to be met in ensuring that food aid and other food security interventions are in line with affected peoples’ own priorities and will strengthen their own livelihoods. How well do we permit the priorities of food insecure people to enter our calculations? And how active can their participation be in verification of our analysis or our decision-making?
Early warning, preparedness and mitigation
Workshop summary
Presentation
Facilitator: Gary Eilerts (FEWSNET)
Recent experiences in Niger for example highlight the need for more effective early warning. ALNAP’s findings from the Review of Humanitarian Action (RHA) also demonstrate a general lack of attention to preparedness and mitigation activities. What are the kind of things being done and do we know what works well / less well? How do these improve response and / or reduce the need for response? Do we have the methodologies to assure us of the value of what is being done and of how it might need to change? How do we deal with the differences between what different methodologies tell us? Given the choices made by both donors and operating agencies, are we being as accountable as we should be?
Alternatives to food aid
Workshop summary
Cash and more are being increasingly promoted and trialled as an alternative and/or complement to food aid. Given the potentially different methodologies involved in doing non-food aid, how do we ensure that
we are able to monitor and evaluate such humanitarian interventions? How do we capture the learning and modify the methodologies? How do we assess the impact of alternatives to food aid?
Community-based targeting and distribution methodology
Workshop summary
Presentation (case-study from Oxfam)
There is now quite a large body of experience in this methodology (which is more systematic than an ‘approach’). It has obvious links to ‘participation’ and accountability. When does this methodology work and when does it not, and why? How can it be monitored?
Real-time Evaluations
Workshop summary
Facilitator: Lucien Back (UNICEF)
RTEs are meant to provide quick and practical evaluative feedback to country teams and other levels of management during early stages of emergency responses. In practice, experiences have been rather diverse in terms of timing / duration, purpose, focus, governance, implementation modalities, use / usefulness and management response and follow-up. But there seems to be agreement in the humanitarian community that we should develop a more systematic approach to evaluation of humanitarian action and more clearly define the possible role and contribution of RTE. The workshop will explore options for RTE with special emphasis on joint evaluations and possibly result in a discussion forum that will further develop the RTE approach.
Presentations
Regional Risk Transfer Initiative
All India Disaster Mitigation Institute
ECB2 - The 'Good Enough' Principle
Emergency Capacity Building Project
Share and bookmark