◙DAN

.:: emergency needs assessment branch

SSttrreennggtthheenniinngg EEmmeerrggeennccyy NNeeeeddss AAsssseessssmmeenntt CCaappaacciittyy ((SSEENNAACC))

44tthh SSEENNAACC

AAddvviissoorryy GGrroouupp MMeeeettiinngg RReeppoorrtt::

SSuummmmaarryy ooff MMeeeettiinngg oonn SSttrreennggtthheenniinngg EEmmeerrggeennccyy NNeeeeddss AAsssseessssmmeenntt CCaappaacciittyy iinn WWFFPP

2244--2266 JJaannuuaarryy 22000077 RRoommee

2

3

4th SENAC Advisory Group Meeting Report: Summary of Meeting on Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity in WFP Prepared by: Alexis Hoskins, Programme Adviser, WFP. January 2007 © World Food Programme, Emergency Needs Assessment Branch (ODAN) This report was prepared under the umbrella of the “Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity” (SENAC) project. The SENAC project aims to reinforce WFP’s capacity to assess humanitarian needs in the food sector during emergencies and the immediate aftermath through accurate and impartial needs assessments. United Nations World Food Programme Headquarters: Via C.G. Viola 68, Parco de’ Medici, 00148, Rome, Italy ODAN Emergency Needs Assessment Branch SENAC Senior Project Coordinator: Darlene Tymo Tel: +39 06 6513 3608 E-mail: Darlene.Tymo@wfp.org SENAC Methodology Specialist: Agnès Dhur Tel: +39 06 6513 3650 E-mail: Agnes.Dhur@wfp.org SENAC Pre-Crisis Information Specialist: Jan Delbaere Tel: +39 06 6513 3256 E-mail: Jan.Delbaere@wfp.org This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

4

4th SENAC Advisory Group Meeting Report ___________________________________________________________ January 2007

5

6

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................7 I. Background and Purpose of the Meeting...............................................................9 II. Introductory Sessions...........................................................................................10 III. Household Food Security (HFS) Measurement...............................................12

A. Background and Outstanding Issues................................................................12 B. Conceptual Framework....................................................................................13 C. Food Security Indicators/Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Data ........14

IV. Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification...................16

A. Background and Outstanding Issues................................................................16 B. Conclusions and Cross-Cutting Issues.............................................................17 C. Recommendations for 2007 .............................................................................19

V. Markets and Assessments ....................................................................................19

A. Background and Outstanding Issues................................................................19 B. Conclusions and Cross-cutting Issues..............................................................20 C. Recommendations for 2007 .............................................................................21

VI. Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analyses (CFSVAs) ..........23

A. Background and Outstanding Issues................................................................23 B. Conclusions: Outstanding Issues .....................................................................23 C. Recommendations on Outstanding Issues .......................................................24 D. Strategic Recommendations for 2007..............................................................25

VII. Quality Monitoring ..........................................................................................26

A. Background and Outstanding Issues................................................................26 B. Conclusions: Outstanding Issues .....................................................................27 C. Strategic Recommendations for 2007..............................................................27

Acronyms.....................................................................................................................29 Annex 1: Matrix of Recommendations and Proposed Actions...................................30 Annex 2: List of Participants .......................................................................................34 Annex 3: Agenda .........................................................................................................36 Annex 4: Draft Conceptual Framework.......................................................................39 Annex 5: Letter to AG on CFSVA Progress (Dec. 2006) ...........................................40

7

Report of the 4th Advisory Group Meeting on Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity in WFP

(SENAC) 24 – 26 January 2007, Rome

Executive Summary The Advisory Group (AG) of WFP’s three year “Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity” (SENAC) project met with WFP headquarters and field staff at the beginning of the project’s final year to review the status of work to-date, and advise on the research strategy for 2007. The AG addressed outstanding issues and made recommendations for five priority areas, as well as on cross-cutting issues (see Annex 1: Matrix of Recommendations). The following summary is drawn from the working group discussions in each area and the overarching/cross-cutting issues presented by the AG Thematic Leaders during the final plenary session: Household food security (HFS) measurement The proposed HFS conceptual framework requires further refinement, including integration of contextual factors (market, risk, vulnerability) with household level analysis. Further research and validation is required on using dietary diversity and other proxies for measuring food security. This includes determining whether universal cut-offs can be established and identifying which methods are most robust and practical for emergency assessments. In general, universal outcome indicators (i.e. applicable in all contexts) can be identified but process indicators need to be context specific. Recommendations were made on indicators that can be collected and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods, respectively. Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification (IPC) Clear support was expressed on the overall usefulness of the IPC approach, particularly because it is a “meta-analysis”, which helps to make information comparable, to communicate complex information clearly to decision-makers, and to obtain consensus. Approval was voiced for plans to conduct and learn from pilots and produce iterative drafts of the IPC guidelines that are applicable to different contexts. Technical advice and peer review of the outputs from these initiatives should be sought from the AG. The effort to develop a multi-agency proposal for global application of the IPC approach was also supported, with the understanding that linkages with other interagency initiatives would be clarified and that decisions would be made on where the IPC should be housed at both global and national levels. Several outstanding issues were identified, including (i) the extent to which IPC can inform the response analysis; (ii) whether IPC should be expanded to cover other sectors; (iii) whether temporal and severity dimensions should be more clearly separated – for example, by clarifying how the chronic and acute phases relate to each

8

other; (iv) how to better capture differences in chronic, non-emergency situations through additional calibration/shading of Phases 1, 2 and possibly 3; (v) how to reduce subjectivity in determining phases; and (vi) whether the IPC model can work without substantial resources at a level similar to the Somalia Food Security Analysis Unit (FSAU). Markets and assessments There was broad agreement on the need to better integrate market analysis in WFP’s emergency assessments and improve the use of this information in determining appropriate responses. Although significant progress has been made in incorporating market issues in assessments, several issues and constraints remain. These include: how to narrow the vast number of market issues to those most appropriate/relevant for WFP programming purposes, how to establish the impact of markets on household food access, and how to institutionalise best practice so that it can be maintained after the SENAC project is completed. The main recommendations of the Subiaco Technical Meeting in January 2007 were endorsed, including (i) developing best practices and related guidelines on integrating market analysis into WFP’s Emergency Food Security Analysis (EFSA), Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission (CFSAM), Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA), and Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS) exercises; (ii) developing a tool kit for market analysis; (iii) setting up an inter-divisional working group within WFP to ensure integration of market analysis into existing assessments; (iv) and establishing a website with key data resources.

Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis The working group discussed a number of remaining issues on how best to improve and standardize WFP’s CFSVA technical approach (methods, guidance and use of indicators) and processes, including partnerships and capacity. Further clarification was requested of the analytical purpose and objectives of CFSVAs, with the caveat that these baselines should meet the needs of the wider food security - and not just food aid - community. Several recommendations were made on how to standardise the CFSVA methodology, including adoption of standard outcome indicators and strengthened use of qualitative components. Several measures to strengthen partnerships were identified, including providing more lead time for planning CFSVAs and circulating WFP’s minimum standards for CFSVAs to all stakeholders. Finally, suggestions were made on ways to build internal capacity for CFSVA analysis, such as through establishing a lessons-learned forum for CSFVA techniques and methods. Monitoring the quality of assessments WFP’s approach to monitoring ENA quality is on the right track, despite the challenges in strictly measuring the quality or accuracy of assessments. There is not likely to be a universal standard of ENA quality, because of context-specific variations e.g. in partners, the level of resources allocated, the need for timely versus rigorous analysis, and access issues. However, additional indicators of the utility of assessments need to be developed, possibly by adding questions to the current quality

9

checklist (e.g. on how reliable the data are, and whether there is a clear link between the analysis and recommendations). Also, a separate process-oriented checklist should be considered, for example to verify whether adequate consultative processes were used to validate the ENA findings with key stakeholders). Summary of overarching messages: The AG Chair and Thematic Leaders distilled the following key messages from the workshop discussions: It is essential to maintain a proper balance between utility and rigour, to ensure

that ENAs meet the needs of decision-makers. During 2007, WFP will need to increase its efforts to build partnerships and

capacity; these topics could be taken up as a major theme for the last AG meeting. WFP should take stock of progress made since SENAC began, possibly by

commissioning an independent desk review of ENA reports over the past three years, and consolidate this work in order to institutionalise it prior to 2008.

Although it is unrealistic to try to identify globally relevant process indicators, a common global set of outcome indicators can be developed.

It may be valuable to more clearly distinguish between situation analysis and response analysis, while making the link between these two explicit.

WFP should consider establishing a minimum investment level for funding its emergency assessment and response information strategy, such as 1 percent of each country’s programme budget.

I. Background and Purpose of the Meeting WFP’s Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity (SENAC) project is a three-year effort to provide more transparent, credible, accurate, and timely food security assessment and pre-crisis information in emergency situations. SENAC is a major component of WFP’s policy and implementation plan to strengthen emergency needs assessments (ENAs) in four areas: accountability and transparency, methods and guidance, pre-crisis information, and assessment capacities. 1 Substantive technical guidance on research, methods and partnerships is provided by an Advisory Group (AG) of experts which meets twice-yearly with WFP headquarters and field staff, the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and FAO (see Annex 2 for the list of participants). The purpose of the 4th AG meeting was to:

1. Review progress and outstanding issues during the final year of the SENAC project in order to achieve the overall objective of “providing transparent,

1 SENAC has been funded jointly by WFP and the following donors: the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) and Citigroup Foundation; complementary projects under the Implementation Plan have been funded the German Government, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the Danish Government.

10

credible, accurate, and timely food security assessment and pre-crisis information in emergency situations”; and

2. Advise on strategies, approaches, and partnerships to address outstanding issues.

The meeting involved a number of introductory, “stage-setting” sessions and the following five working groups to discuss issues and advise on priorities for 2007 (see Annex 3 for the detailed agenda): Group 1: Household food security measurement Group 2: Integrated food security and humanitarian phase classification (IPC) Group 3: Markets and assessments Group 4: Comprehensive food security and vulnerability analyses (CFSVAs) Group 5: Monitoring the quality of assessments Section II of this report provides a brief summary of the introductory sessions; and Sections III – VII summarize the main outstanding issues and conclusions of Working Groups 1-5, respectively.

II. Introductory Sessions Jean-Jacques Graisse, WFP’s Senior Deputy Executive Director, opened the AG meeting by acknowledging the AG’s role in improving credibility and building partnerships, and pointing out that concrete results have already been observed thanks to the investment by WFP and donors in the project, which will total US$20 million by end 2007. He suggested that the decline in food aid beneficiaries in 2006, when there were fewer food security crises, and the plans to close 10-15 country offices over the next few years demonstrate that WFP bases its programming on careful situation analysis and needs assessments. Darlene Tymo, SENAC project coordinator, reviewed SENAC’s management structure and overall budget and provided a brief update on the project’s achievements and 2007 plans. Subsequently, Wolfgang Herbinger, Chief, Emergency Needs Assessment Service (ODAN) and Joyce Luma, Chief, Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Branch (ODAV) provided additional detailed information on the remaining issues challenges for 2007 to set the stage for the five working groups. The main achievements and plans in each of the four areas of the implementation plan are2: Transparency and accountability: Based on the results of an ENA tracking system,

WFP engaged in over 90 assessments in 2005 and 2006, of which 84 percent involved partners. In 2006, 96 percent of WFP’s operations were supported by publicly available ENA or VAM documents, compared with the target of 100 percent. A quality-monitoring process was established to review major EFSAs and evaluate progress since 2004-5, including peer review of selected EFSAs and CFSVAs by the AG members.

2 For further information, please request a copy of the power point presentations from the SENAC team.

11

Assessment methods and tools: During 2005-2006, research was conducted on eight selected topics 3 and the Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) handbook was launched. In 2007, this work will be consolidated into state-of-art food security assessment guidance, including revised FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission (CFSAM) guidelines. Priority will also be given to developing a common approach to classifying food security work with FAO and partners and strengthening the links between assessment recommendations and programme design.

Capacities and competencies: To date, 11 Regional Assessment Officers (RAOs)

have been posted in the field, over 900 WFP and partner staff have been trained and a cadre of 60 advanced assessors has been established. A distance learning programme is being developed with FAO input. Priorities for 2007 include training another 500-600 staff and partners, rolling out a coaching strategy and integrating the improved guidance into WFP’s learning strategies. The goal is to have a group of 300 “ENA competent” WFP programme staff, and 1000 “ENA/VAM-aware” WFP staff and partner staff plus a network of ENA/VAM partners at local, regional and international level

Pre-crisis information: Over the past two years, WFP has worked with partners to

conduct 17 pre-crisis baselines (CFSVAs) and establish or support food security monitoring systems in 13 countries. Five additional CFSVAs and five FSMS will be implemented in 2007 and technical training will be provided for staff and partners on pre-crisis data collection and analysis.

These activities have led to more rigorous and standardized assessments, stronger relationships between ENAs and pre-crisis baselines, and greater demand for needs-based operations. They also helped WFP to play a more active role in advancing food security analysis.

James Darcy, Chair of the AG and Director of Humanitarian Programmes of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), briefed the AG on the provisional findings of the ODI-led “Review of Linkages between ENAs and Decision-making”. This review involved four case studies and stakeholder interviews to address two key questions: (i) Are organisational decisions about response to food crises adequately informed by ENAs? (ii) Are ENA and other processes providing the analysis required for timely, appropriate, proportionate and effective responses? The review suggests that while WFP’s needs assessments are increasingly effective in informing internal decisions about programme responses (including exit decisions), they are less able to influence the response decisions of other actors (particularly donors) or to justify response decisions and appeals for funds. Although WFP’s assessments have embraced a wider food security perspective in some respects, they are still largely geared towards determining how much food aid is required and by whom, and do not provide a clear rationale for the proposed food aid strategy compared with a wider range of potential response options. Also, despite 3 The topics are: dependency and migration effects of food aid; chronic versus transitory food insecurity; non-food responses to food insecurity emergencies; market analysis; estimating population numbers; measuring household food security; integrating food security and nutrition analysis; and strengthening assessment links with decision-making.

12

considerable progress in matching ENA to decision-making needs, information from the various information and analysis mechanisms (early warning, VAM, ENA, FSMS etc.) is not well integrated and the relationship between CFSVAs and ENAs is often unclear. Overall, the study found that an information strategy was too rarely considered as part of programme management and that there is a relative under-investment in the information and evidence base to support response decisions. Other issues raised by the review were the focus on macro versus micro-level analysis, aggregated versus disaggregated analysis, information gaps (e.g. relative dependence on food aid over time) and the lack of incentives to re-assess and adjust programming as needs change. The review highlighted the value of RAOs in bridging country, regional and headquarters-based decision-making and the strong support by donors for IPC-related initiatives as a way to promote independence and transparency. Further opportunities exist for WFP to improve the links between ENAs and decision-making through initiatives related to UN Reform, Good Humanitarian Donorship and strengthened partnerships.

III. Household Food Security (HFS) Measurement

A. Background and Outstanding Issues In line with the recommendations made during the 3rd AG meeting, this working group explored the following three outstanding issues:

1. A conceptual and analytical framework for household food security for CFSVAs, EFSAs and FSMS.

2. A core set of indicators most appropriate to measure household food security, particularly food access, and applicable both in CFSVAs and EFSAs.

3. How to best combine quantitative and qualitative approaches and indicators in CFSVAs and EFSAs.

Conceptual framework: The proposed WFP household food security framework (Annex 4) is based on the livelihoods framework and the UNICEF nutrition causal framework as references. It seeks to guide the data collection and analysis process for both CFSVAs and EFSAs, and to clarify the linkages between the various food security and livelihood elements. This framework spells out the various components including not only food security and nutrition, but also markets and livelihoods issues. Depending on the purpose of the assessment, it should be possible to apply and develop it on a ‘modular’ basis, as if using a ‘lens’ that would focus on different parts of the framework according to the objectives and type of assessments (e.g. CFSVA versus rapid EFSA).

13

Food security indicators: Over the past few years, WFP has made numerous efforts to systematically use the Dietary Diversity and Food Consumption Frequency (DDFF) score in CFSVAs and EFSAs as a key indicator of household food security. In recent CFSVAs and in-depth EFSAs, the DDFF score has been combined with varying indicators of food access including the level and proportion of food expenditures, main sources of foods (particularly food aid) and/or the share of agricultural production kept for self-consumption. The choice of indicators is directly linked to the Household Food Security framework. Whereas in CFSVAs time and other resources make it possible to collect a broad standard set of indicators, the selection of indicators is more restricted in EFSAs, particularly the rapid ones. Cross-tabulations (‘triangulation’) of key indicators help to characterise the household food security status. However, a standardized set of these key indicators and of the type of analysis to be done with them in both CFSVAs and EFSAs has yet to be determined. Using results from the 2006 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and experience gained through the last CFSVAs and EFSAs (including those that incorporate nutrition assessments), a follow-up study by Tufts University will shed light on some of the issues, including the technicalities of DDFF and optimal combinations with other indicators to better reflect household food security. Integrating qualitative and quantitative data: Recommendations were made to integrate more qualitative data collection and analysis into the mainly quantitative approach followed for CFSVAs. On the other hand, rapid EFSAs generally apply qualitative approaches only, and collect very limited information in a quantitative manner. As these types of EFSAs are very much constrained by time and accessibility issues, they heavily depend on baseline/CFSVA information; thus, it is necessary to ensure the best mix of approaches in both types of assessments to ensure linkages and make the best use possible of data collected. The conclusions, links to cross-cutting issues, and recommendations for 2007 from these topics are summarized below (discussion on issues 2 and 3 were combined).

B. Conceptual Framework 1. Conclusions – Outstanding and Cross-cutting Issues The general view was that the conceptual framework needs further work. ODAV and ODAN (will review suggestions made by the group to review the framework, with the help of the AG. It was suggested that both a simplified framework and more detailed sub-frameworks on some elements of the global framework should be prepared. The simplified framework would be used for capacity building and as a communication tool. Analysis of market, conflict and gender issues is insufficiently integrated into the current conceptual framework. There was some discussion about the tension between

14

(a) making the framework sufficiently rigorous so as to be useful and (b) sufficiently straightforward so as to facilitate capacity-building. One suggestion is to have a straightforward, basic framework but supplement it with further diagrams, explanatory notes, examples etc. to allow individuals to drill down for greater depth. 2. Recommendations for 2007 Technical Recommendations: A number of nice features of this framework were noted, including the welcome addition of nutrition and the use of the sustainable livelihoods language. That said, a major criticism was that the box on the ‘Political/Institutional/Economical Environment’ found at the top of the framework (which mentions “markets” is insufficiently developed. This is seen as a major reason why markets are insufficiently integrated into the framework, and should be separately spelled out in the framework. This concern also applies to other contextual issues that also seem underplayed (e.g. conflict, social tensions, politics, natural disasters, infrastructure, etc). Other criticisms were that the risk exposure/shocks box is not detailed enough – it does not provide a sufficiently strong link between the broader environment and the household level analysis. Gender and gender-related issues were also not given sufficient prominence. Strategic Recommendations: A strategic issue that requires further reflection is whether the conceptual framework is seen as a way of structuring analysis that describes current circumstances (a “situation analysis”) or whether it should go further and also analyze/assess appropriate response options (a “response analysis”). It was noted that the IPC work deliberately separates these two functions. Some participants believed that the same framework can be used for both situation analysis and response analysis, while still separating these two functions.

C. Food Security Indicators/Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Data 1. Conclusions – Outstanding and Cross-cutting Issues The working group proposes further work to standardize indicators used for consumption (dietary diversity; food frequency) and the techniques by which context-specific process indicators of food security are generated. Interest was expressed by a number of individuals in creating a working or discussion group that explore how new technological developments (such as handheld computers) could be exploited in the collection of data for EFSAs and CFSVAs. The working group’s views were divided regarding existing capacity strength and capacity-building needs. One argument was that capacity is limited and therefore consideration of data collection and analysis must be dominated by the need to keep things simple. A second view was that some capacity already exists and therefore the key issue is to consider how best to: a) use what is already in existence; and b) build up where there are weaknesses. One line of attack here would be to move away from a “one size fits all” approach to capacity strengthening and instead move towards a more differentiated approach – for example, one where basic skills (e.g. how to collect and enter data for an EFSA) are developed widely whereas more advanced skills (e.g. working out which process indicators of household food security are most

15

appropriate to consider in a given context) are concentrated among a smaller group of people who could be ‘on call’. 2. Recommendations for 2007 Technical Recommendations: In considering the issue of appropriate indicators for different dimensions of food security, the working group found it helpful to distinguish between indicators that reflect the processes by which food security status was determined (for example, the interaction between asset bases, livelihood strategies and markets) and the outcomes of those processes (food consumption; nutritional status etc). The collective view of the working group was that it is simply does not make sense to have ‘universal indicators’ for these process dimensions. Because processes are different in different contexts, there is no ‘one size fits all” for process indicators’. However, there is scope for standardizing: (a) the process by which these process dimensions are understood in different contexts; and (b) outcome indicators. The group’s recommendations follow from these observations. In the context of an EFSA, identifying the appropriate process dimensions could look like this: Step 1 – Adapt the framework to fit the reality of the country – to be done in a

multi-agency, multi-sectoral manner and obtain agreement. Step 2 – Agree on the key livelihood groups/stratification of the population that

need to be sampled. Step 3 – Further tweak the parts of the framework that have been identified with

livelihood groups. Identify indicators for those groups. These may not be used in different countries.

Step 4 – Collect set of indicators (outcome) relating to the framework boxes identified.

Step 5 – Analyze data and identify a list of recommendations, including some that go beyond WFP’s mandate.

In terms of outcome indicators, the group recommended that the following indicators be collected/considered using quantitative methods: In certain contexts (such as conflict), mortality data Measures of nutritional status in pre-school children: middle upper arm

circumference (MUAC), weight, height, age Measures of nutritional status in women: body-mass index (BMI, which requires

data on height and weight) Measures of micro-nutrient status, notably iron status Measures of dietary diversity, frequency of consumption and source of foods Meal frequency Coping strategies as they relate to food consumption Household demographic composition: number of persons by sex and age, and

recent changes (both in-flows and out-flows of persons) Qualitative data that should be collected in an EFSA would include:

16

Child feeding practices Intra-household allocations of food Current food security status; the impact of recent covariate shocks and projections

of likely status in the future Perceptions of what forms of assistance would be most useful.

Strategic Recommendations: There is tension between the desire for universal, standardized indicators which facilitate comparisons across time and space (and which make capacity-building more straightforward) and the recognition that some indicators (particularly on the more process aspect of food security) are country (and sometimes within country) specific. There is a need to consider which parts of the conceptual framework are most amenable to standardized indicators. The working group perceived that biological measures are in fact already standardized and that there is scope for further standardization of the indicators used for consumption (dietary diversity; food frequency) but techniques for this standardization require more work. The process (but not the indicators themselves) by which process indicators are generated and analyzed could also be standardized. As in the discussion of the conceptual framework, there was discussion on the extent to which CFSVAs and EFSAs should ‘describe the world as it is’ and, in addition to this description, recommend a course of action. In addition to this strategic consideration, it was noted that CFSVAs and EFSAs were sometimes perceived to recommend responses (such as the provision of food) that were not fully justified by the evidence provided in the assessments themselves. Resource constraints were frequently cited as a reason as to why EFSAs cut corners or sacrifice quality. While the working group understands the nature of time constraints faced by WFP staff, the sacrifice in quality comes about not because of time constraints but rather because of inadequate resourcing. External members of the working group pressed their WFP colleagues to be more vocal in making clear that such funding constraints can carry high opportunity costs in terms of poor use of WFP resources. Providing higher levels of funding for assessments, together with the application of standardized methods and techniques, offer the potential to undertake rapid and more accurate EFSAs.

IV. Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification

A. Background and Outstanding Issues There is broad agreement among food security experts, agencies and donors on the need for a common approach to classify and communicate food insecurity. The Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification system (IPC), based on work by the Food Security Assessment Unit (FSAU) in Somalia, is currently considered the best approach available. At the 3rd AG meeting, it was agreed that further work was required to apply the IPC in other countries to determine its applicability beyond Somalia and Africa, for example in selected Consolidated Appeal Process/Needs Analysis Framework (CAP/NAF) countries.

17

During 2006, FAO and WFP attempted to pilot the IPC approach as part of the CAP/NAF in four countries beyond Somalia, but country teams were unable to implement the IPC because of the strict CAP/NAF timelines and limited technical support on using the approach (e.g. guidelines were not yet available). However, positive experience and momentum were gained from FAO-led regional IPC roll-out strategy for East and Central Africa and a WFP-led IPC pilot in Indonesia, both of which received full technical support. In December 2006, the two agencies developed a draft multi-agency strategy proposal to “develop, implement and advocate a commonly accepted, standardized tool for classifying food insecurity”. The strategy is based on a two-pronged approach: Practical implementation and development of IPC approach in different

regions/countries; and Global development of IPC and related tools.

The objective of the working group was to determine the interest of other partners in moving towards a coordinated approach to developing the IPC. Three issues were identified for discussion:

1. What are the various agencies’ perspectives on using the IPC approach as the starting point towards defining a common food security and humanitarian classification system, and their plans for achieving this?

2. What are the key issues that need to be resolved (e.g. methodological, analytical tools, process, partnership, replicability), and how do we make progress?

3. What is the most appropriate mechanism for coordinating, communicating and ensuring timely partnerships?

The deliberations were preceded by a joint FAO/WFP overview of their common strategy and plans for moving this forward, and presentations by participants from the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET) and OXFAM on their support for the IPC, and plans and remaining issues regarding its implementation.

B. Conclusions and Cross-Cutting Issues There was clear support from the group on the overall usefulness of IPC, particularly in terms of making information comparable, communicating complex information clearly to decision-makers, and securing consensus and buy-in. Importantly, IPC is not a new method – it is a meta-analysis – and does not duplicate existing data collection and food security information systems. In terms of the potential applications of the IPC, there is a need to clarify what decision-makers require from the IPC, as this will inform the direction for many of the technical issues raised below:

What is the scope of the IPC: is it classifying the food security, livelihoods or cross-sectoral humanitarian situation?

18

Is IPC intended only for humanitarian contexts, or should a “family of IPCs” be developed, including others for health, water and sanitation, etc, as well as the current approach focused on food security?

Is it intended to provide comparisons between countries at a global level, at a regional level and/or comparisons within countries?

Is it intended to examine the current status of areas, should it have predictive/ early warning uses, and/or should it provide more detailed guidance on appropriate responses?

The following technical issues were identified:

How can differences in the situation of non-emergency countries be better captured? Should the severity and temporal dimensions be captured on different scales? Will different (but comparable) sub-scales be needed in different contexts (e.g. different “shades of yellow” for the chronic phase)?

Linked to the above, there is a risk that by placing chronic food insecurity on the same scale but at a lower level than acute food insecurity, the IPC could unintentionally understate the seriousness and importance of addressing chronic food security problems. Should acute and chronic food insecurity be placed on different scales, or different axes of the same scale?

Outcome indicators (e.g. malnutrition and mortality rates) are more likely to be comparable across countries, but process indicators (e.g. market prices) cannot be standardized, and need to be adapted to each country context, and even to different livelihood systems within countries. There are still some questions about the validity of some indicators across all contexts, and about the comparability of classifications across different contexts.

How can subjectivity be reduced in deciding phases? IPC does not prescribe methods, but it does encourage transparency of data, inclusiveness of analysis and convergence of evidence. These principles can at least partially compensate for poor quality data, but can also provide a platform for discussing improvements in methods.

Several institutional issues also need to be considered:

There is a large amount of buy-in from agencies already, with FAO taking the lead and driving the agenda forward. How should WFP (and SENAC) engage with ongoing initiatives?

There are still questions of where IPC should be housed institutionally. There is a need for some global leadership, but should it be one agency or inter-agency?

At national level, there may be risks to housing IPC within governments, although national buy-in is crucial. Conversely, there are also concerns that the successful application of IPC in Somalia is a function of the strength of the FSAU – could IPC analyzes be conducted in the absence of an equally sophisticated institutional home in-country?

19

Finally, there is a need to ensure that IPC is well-linked with other inter-agency initiatives, such as the Health and Nutrition Tracking Service (HNTS) and the Inter Agency Standing Committee’s Contingency and Preparedness Planning group. These initiatives must be complementary. With regard to the cross-cutting issue of quality management, data quality and data availability were problematic in the Somalia case study and the Indonesia pilot, respectively. As IPC is rolled out, it is likely that this could be a major issue in countries with less sophisticated food security information systems than are found in FSAU Somalia. More generally, variable data availability and quality across countries could result in compromises being made that undermine the credibility of IPC reports and forecasts. Finally, market analysis is relatively weak in IPC (currently, market prices and needs to be strengthened.

C. Recommendations for 2007

More discrimination needs to be built into phases 1, 2 and possibly 3, to be better able to distinguish the situation in non-emergency contexts.

For WFP operational purposes, the predictive power of IPC analysis needs to be improved.

A new Technical Manual needs to be drafted that gives clear operational guidelines for conducting IPC analysis across different contexts.

The IPC online forum and the March consultation meeting in Rome will be the main “next steps” in developing the technical aspects of IPC; complemented by lessons learned from the roll-out in various countries (Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Cambodia, East Africa)

The SENAC Advisory Group should be invited to provide technical inputs to the IPC pilots planned for 2007 – e.g. advice on design issues, and peer review of outputs.

Clear links need to be made to other inter-agency initiatives, such as the inter-agency HNTS hosted by WHO.

Decisions need to be made about the institutional housing of IPC, at both global and national levels.

V. Markets and Assessments

A. Background and Outstanding Issues One of the main themes of SENAC is to improve the collection and analysis of market information in crisis-prone countries, to design responses that are more appropriate and to avoid potential negative market effects. Since 2005, WFP has conducted 20 market profiles and market-related case studies, commissioned four

20

desk reviews, and held two workshops to review progress and resolve technical issues related to markets. The working group was asked to provide feedback on two outstanding issues:

1. Mainstreaming: integration of market analysis into existing assessments: emergency (EFSA + CFSAM), baseline (CSFVA), and monitoring (FSMS) so that market indicators are consistently collected and analyzed as an integral part of food security analysis to assist decision making, awareness creation, and capacity development;

2. Capacity enhancement of practitioners by developing relevant reference material, guidance notes and establishing practitioner partnerships;

The group was also asked to review and agree on the priority market activities in 2007, as identified at the Subiaco Technical Meeting held in January 2007.

B. Conclusions and Cross-cutting Issues There is wide agreement on, as well as enthusiasm for the need to integrate ‘market’ analysis in WFP emergency assessments, and more on-going activities. Currently, there is a small but growing institutional capacity in WFP to support this kind of work, including some capacity at the country office level, beyond the already existing capacity within procurement staff. The participants recognized that huge progress has been made in acknowledging the importance of market issues in assessments and in other aspects of WFP’s work. At the same time, several issues need to be clarified, and objective constraints must be overcome: For example, what does WFP really mean by ‘market’ issues? Depending on the

context, the potential range of relevant domains of analysis is wide. Some feel that there is an urgent need for guidelines on the appropriateness/relevance of various areas of investigation in the broader domain of ‘markets’. As stated by one participant, “What tools are we going to use, who will be the main users, and with what involvement on the part of WFP staff? Such diverse issues as procurement, targeting, choice of interventions, and monitoring of food aid effects are all areas appropriate for the use of analytical tools related to market issues.”

Some participants pointed out that although there is substantial expertise among

WFP procurement staff in market analysis, this expertise is specific and has not ‘spilled over’ into other areas of WFP’s work. Procurement staff expertise lies in the national and regional markets, rather than the relationships of households with it local markets. There is still a question on “who is really going to have the time and capacity to use these analytical tools in country offices?” Field staff indicated that more work is needed to address the micro level and to develop useful indicators related to the household level analysis and their markets for both food and wage goods.

Availability of good information or data is often another constraint, but it was felt

that there are also many cases where data are collected and used only in a very

21

limited way for analysis. This is partly because of the lack of clearly expressed demand for analysis.

There was agreement that there are rapidly diminishing returns to adding

complexity or sophistication to analysis. One way to put this was to say that we do not seek perfection; ‘better be vaguely right than precisely wrong’. Others also suggested there may be cases where ‘rapid market assessment’ may be useful.

Country office staff must clearly understand not only the relevance of market

analysis to their work, but also the types of analysis most pertinent to the country context and to the situation at hand. Therefore, how does one generate – and support – this CO understanding and willingness to contribute to market analysis? This is a somewhat circular problem: the process must be demand-driven, but how can CO staff clearly specify analytical needs unless they already have a solid understanding of the range of relevant issues? In any case, there seemed to be wide agreement on the importance of establishing clear linkages between HQ, RBs and COs in a dialogue on analysis requirements, tools and methods and ways to help the CO either with regional or headquarters technical support, or help in establishing contact with competent local partners. Another proposal was to identify, in the roster of qualified ENA practitioners, persons who have relevant expertise in economic analysis.

The role of assessments and assessors was raised as a cross-cutting issue. Should market analysis provide recommendations on response alternatives? Given the skills of the assessors, is this a reasonable expectation? Since WFP has several ways of implementing food aid (food for work, general distribution, etc.) as well as some cash distributions, market analysis should clearly inform these response decisions.

C. Recommendations for 2007 The key recommendations from the Subiaco Technical Meeting were accepted and comments on these recommendations are included below. Further details can be found in the Subiaco workshop proceedings: Technical: Developing several cases of best practice in market assessments, demonstrating

how a good markets analysis might figure into a CFSVA, EFSA or CFSAM: One key indicator of “good” is that the results of the market analysis can be found in the Executive Summary and contribute directly to decision-making and policy. Content might include the following depending on the type of assessment and context:

o Commodity substitution o Response to import requirements o Price forecasting o Dealing with net food-deficit households.

Tools and guidelines may be somewhat specific to the type of assessment, some to

be integrated into FSMSs: (typology of markets, seasonal and spatial price

22

analysis, mapping surplus-deficit zones, catchment areas, etc.). Current tools need feedback from the field, and participation of PDPE economists would be valuable.

Zambia market model or extensions of the model to other countries:

o Substitution and import effects of shortfalls in production o Income effect, expanded household classes o More analysis on shock response or shock scenarios

Web-based resources should be prepared by PDPE of key market data resources

for use by field offices for country offices, HQ, regional IMF price data. That website should include a database on price and consumption elasticities, wholesale prices on international markets, price deflators, terms of trade analysis and other features, as suggested from the field and in guidelines.

Strategic: Market analysis still needs to be better incorporated into the CFSVAs, with the

micro/meso linkages and indicators identified and of use to non-specialists. Linkages between ODAN and PDPE can achieve this, working with field staff.

Keeping at least some of the regional market assessment officers in the field is

critical to WFP’s capacity to include market analysis in the assessments. These officers have the needed training and skills to contribute to CFSVAs and other assessments that go beyond the more easily observed market relationships that non-specialists can identify.

WFP will need to conduct training at two levels. Non-market specialists will need

more market orientation on why markets are important for the work and the types of analysis that might be useful. This is part of the demand generation for market analysis noted above. More specialized market training will be needed for completing thorough market profiles in limited cases, critical in those areas with recurrent and large needs, such as the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa.

Process: Mainstreaming market analysis (internal advocacy and information sharing) and

capacity building is an ongoing process. WFP’s decisions to commit its own resources to market analysis after SENAC and to institutionalize the recommended practices from SENAC experience will be critical.

. Market analysis must be able to inform decision-making and policy, and

developing the demand among decision-makers is part of that process. The identification and use of “best practice” assessments/analyzes will contribute to developing this demand.

The establishment of an inter-divisional working group within WFP (including

ODA, PDPE and ODO) would help to capitalize on the experiences and to ensure integration of market analysis into existing assessments, creating commitment across the key divisions.

23

VI. Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analyses (CFSVAs)

A. Background and Outstanding Issues At the 3rd AG meeting, a number of observations and recommendations were made to improve WFP’s CFSVA practice, including the need for: strengthened and standardized methodology and guidance, an analytical framework, improved partnerships, additional VAM capacity, and improved relevance for decision-making and linkages with ENAs. WFP’s progress in improving CFSVA methods and practice in response to these recommendations was summarized in a letter sent to the AG members in December 2006 (see Annex 5). The working group was asked to provide further input on the following unresolved questions:

1. How to maximize the benefits of CFSVA for EFSA and programming in WFP?

2. What are optimal partnership arrangements for the CFSVA and the acceptable trade-off between strong partnership arrangements and timeliness, standardisation and the quality of the analysis?

3. How best to strengthen the methodology and standardisation 4. Dynamic analysis of CFSVA, taking into account inter-annual and seasonal

differences.

B. Conclusions: Outstanding Issues Purpose of CFSVA: At a broader level the purpose of the CFSVA is still not entirely clear: Does it focus on information for WFP programming or the broader emergency

food security community? Is it descriptive or analytic? Where does the CFSVA fit within WFP’s information/knowledge frameworks?

Methodological Issues: Food security and vulnerability classification: how the food insecurity and

vulnerability classification should be conducted remains controversial. What data reduction techniques are appropriate? What metrics should be used?

There is inadequate use of secondary data, qualitative techniques and multi-method assessment/analysis. The analyses do not relate to temporal patterns of food security indicators, making it difficult to interpret survey data. This includes seasonality, defining baseline years, looking at trends in indicators to assess vulnerability to shocks.

Overly lengthy questionnaire: the questionnaire is long and it is not clear what value it has for analysis and use of the CFSVA. Specifically, the sections on risks/shocks, agriculture, livelihood strategies and assets were cited.

24

Definitions, indicators and items are not standardized and do not always follow best practice. There are still no agency-wide definitions of key terms such as vulnerability and food security, or at least operational ones. Some questionnaire areas, such as expenditures do not conform to a clear methodological approach.

Use of CSFVA information: Reports are not user friendly. They are rich in information but the key findings

and analyses are not clearly stated in a way that response options can be weighed and identified. Reports are very long and the recommendations often do not clearly follow from the analyses.

Reports do not clearly outline how the CFSVA findings relate to food security monitoring or clearly establish baselines for future EFSAs.

Process: There is limited planning for CFSVA. WFP’s capacity in analysis and in qualitative methods is currently insufficient. No systematic mechanism has been established for sharing field learning on

conducting/implementing the CFSVA. Progress on how partnerships work at the global, regional and country levels is

still very uneven. This slows down the process and results in incomplete assessment/analyses.

C. Recommendations on Outstanding Issues Purpose: The CFSVA should provide assessment and analysis related to the emergency

food insecurity community, not just WFP’s needs. On the other hand, the CFSVA should focus on identifying leverage points in the food system and identify potential positive and negative effects of food aid interventions.

The CFSVA needs to be analytical and forward looking; therefore, it should include key baseline indicators as well as estimates of the effects potential shocks on food insecurity and vulnerability.

Technical: Analysis should include scenarios. Analysis should include decision trees related to food aid and other interventions. One participant suggested organizing analysis and write-up around the key

objectives of the CFSVA (who, what, where and why). All reports should include market analysis and more effective contextual analysis,

emphasizing risks that are particularly germane in that context, such as conflict, natural hazards, HIV/AIDS, etc.

All reports should include a specific section on recommendations for FSMS and EFSA exercises.

Reports should be shortened and organized around objectives; other material should be placed in annexes.

25

Standard indicators for nutrition and dietary intake should be developed and applied across assessments.

A standard process should be used for identifying measures/metrics related to household access, livelihood and other processes that lead to food insecurity and then applied to the CFSVA, FSMS and EFSA.

CFSVA should provide baseline measures for EFSA. The example of Timor Leste can serve as a basis to demonstrate how that can work and also where improvements in the process are still needed (anthropometry, where capacity building is still needed; and expenditures/household access, which still needs a better and clearer process and then re-application of consistent measures for FSMS and EFSA).

Analytical quality should be strengthened by (a) including trends in, and variability of, nutrition, prices, expenditure/consumption and migration where available and (b) using qualitative methods to explore causal dynamics and inform predictive analysis

Sampling and methods should be better documented in annexes to CFSVA reports and stored in a data base.

The sampling frame should be maintained in a database to assist in designing an EFSA.

Food insecurity and vulnerability classification cannot be completely standardized; however, nutrition, diet and household access can be included in all CSFVAs.

The survey questionnaire can be reduced in sections on income, risk exposure/shocks (e.g. only include idiosyncratic risks), and livelihood assets/strategies. These can be better formulated by applying qualitative methods in the design of questionnaires.

Dietary information is one of the CFSVA centerpieces. It should be strengthened by utilizing CFSVA to calibrate the dietary proxy measures.

Process: Partnerships can be improved if WFP (a) more clearly articulates minimum non-

negotiable requirements for a CFSVA and (b) undertakes advanced planning of the CFSVA

Capacity can be strengthened through partnerships with institutions that add value to WFP capacity-qualitative assessment/analysis and analysis/economic analysis.

A WFP professional analyst team is needed, which includes PhDs and interdisciplinary team members.

A lessons learned forum for CSFVA technical and methods learning is needed.

D. Strategic Recommendations for 2007 Identify cases of CFSVAs that were particularly useful to decision-making as

learning tools and case studies for WFP capacity building. Identify at least one field opportunity for a CFSVA that attempts to develop a

model CFSVA, forming strategic partnerships with Oxfam, Save the Children Fund (SCF) or another qualitative methods partner, and an economic analysis

26

partner such as Michigan State, IFPRI or the World Bank. Allow several months planning lead-time.

Outsource the development of the conceptual framework for food insecurity and vulnerability and the approach to conducting the CFSVA; however, make sure that this is integrated well with the EFSA handbook. Select one or more members of the AG or other individuals who cover key technical methodological areas as well as have an in-depth knowledge of WFP and the CFSVA.

Establish a mechanism for improved sharing of lessons learned from implementing CFSVAs, including methods and use of CFSVA data.

Guidelines/tools are needed for the use of CFSVA information in making programming decisions.

VII. Quality Monitoring

A. Background and Outstanding Issues A major goal of WFP’s policy and implementation plan is to monitor - and demonstrate solid improvements in - the quality of WFP's needs assessments. In 2004, two main corporate indicators and related targets were established, on (i) the percentage of ENAs conducted with partners, and (ii) the percentage of emergency and protracted relief operations (EMOPs and PRROs) supported by ENA or VAM reports. Also, a checklist to review the quality of ENAs was piloted in late 2004-2005 in HQ to determine whether ENA reports were of adequate quality for public posting. In 2005, the interim review of SENAC recommended more emphasis on measuring improvements in the quality of ENAs. Subsequently, WFP completed several steps to augment quality monitoring. First, a logframe exercise was conducted to develop additional performance indicators and targets. Second, the data from the pilot checklists were analyzed to provide a baseline for measuring improvements and identify areas of relative strength and weakness in EFSA reports. Third, a Quality Monitoring Checklist (QMC) was launched in May 2006 for use by field staff in rating EFSA reports. Fourth, AG Thematic Leaders were requested to provide peer reviews of two SENAC products each per year. Finally, arrangements were made for an evaluation of the first two years of the implementation plan by the WFP Office of Evaluation. From June 2006 onward, the focus shifted to ensure that quality is supported throughout all stages of planning and finalizing ENAs. This included development of a draft ENA Quality Management and Coaching Guide, and discussion of this and other tools at a workshop held with WFP assessment experts. A presentation was provided to the working group on the preliminary results and key limitations of WFP’s quality monitoring efforts to obtain the AG’s views on three outstanding issues:

1. How do we define quality, and is it a universal standard or does it change according to context (e.g. time constraints, different contexts)?

27

2. Have we identified the right indicators and procedures for capturing changes in WFP’s overall ENA quality? (refer to the Implementation Plan Logframe and the Quality Monitoring Brief). Is the process sufficiently objective and transparent?

3. How can we best “ground-truth” the findings/recommendations of ENAs, e.g. through improved monitoring?

B. Conclusions: Outstanding Issues The working group participants generally thought that WFP was on the right track in its approach to monitoring ENA quality. However, they acknowledged the difficulty of strictly measuring the quality or accuracy of assessment documents, without some type of retroactive analysis or ground-truthing. They also did not attempt to define what constitutes accuracy or quality, in part because this will vary according to the context of the assessment, for example: which partners are involved, the level of resources allocated, tradeoffs made between timely versus rigorous analysis, and lack of access to some affected areas. Among the main aspects that need to be captured for quality monitoring purposes are: How useful were the results of the ENA to decision-makers? Is the link between the analysis and recommendations clear? An example was the

need to show your calculations when providing the answer to a math question. How reliable are the data used, and what degree of confidence can be assigned to

the data and to the overall findings? Were adequate consultative processes used, including discussion and validation of

initial findings with key stakeholders? Were minority or dissenting views regarding the analysis or recommendations acknowledged and discussed?

Were the findings compared with the results of previous assessments? A number of ideas were provided on how to revise the current QMC and on topics that may need to be covered through a separate process-oriented checklist (see recommendations below). The possibility of assigning different “weights” to different sections of the QMC was also raised, particularly to assign less weight to overall content and format versus the situation and response analysis sections. It was also suggested that, once final, the QMC should be shared with partners; this will help them to understand better why WFP seeks to use specific data collection and analysis methods.

C. Strategic Recommendations for 2007 Additional questions should be considered for the QMC: re-assessments, including the comparison to previous assessments; whether the report adequately demonstrates how conclusions were arrived at (link

between analysis and recommendations); whether the report helped to prioritize among programming options; and whether alternative conclusions were considered/reflected in the analysis.

28

Furthermore, a separate process-oriented checklist could be developed in order to better: assess the credibility and relevant expertise of the assessment team; ensure that all stakeholders are identified early on and that their inputs are sought; demonstrate how the EFSA methods, results and preliminary findings are shared

and validated; and ensure that the assessment findings were considered valid.

Finally, WFP should explore ways to ground-truth the accuracy of its assessments.

29

Acronyms AG Advisory Group CAP/NAF Consolidated Appeal Process/Needs Analysis Framework CFSAM Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis DRC Democratic Republic of Congo DDFF Dietary Diversity and Food Consumption Frequency ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office EFSA Emergency Food Security Assessment ENA Emergency Needs Assessment FEWS NET Famine Early Warning Systems Network FSAU Food Security Analysis Unit (Somalia) FSMS Food Security Monitoring System HFS Household Food Security IDS Institute of Development Studies IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IPC Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification ODAN Emergency Needs Assessment Service (Assessment, Analysis and

Preparedness Division) ODAV Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Branch (Assessment, Analysis

and Preparedness Division) ODI Overseas Development Institute PDPE Economic Analysis Unit Policy (Policy, Strategy and Programme

Support Division) RAO Regional Assessment Officer SENAC Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity in WFP VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping

30

Annex 1: Matrix of Recommendations and Proposed Actions

Household Food Security Measurement Action/Timeline (if applicable) Lead Revise the draft conceptual framework, e.g.: (a) Develop a simplified framework and more detailed sub-

frameworks (b) Expand the environment and other contextual sections of

the framework, e.g. to better integrate markets, conflict and gender analysis

(c) Expand the risk exposure/shocks box

Circulate a revised framework tentatively by end February

Subcontract AG member(s) to develop/review final framework

Integrate in draft analytical guidance on EFSA/CFSVA tentatively by March; include in revised global EFSA guidance (November)

ODAN/ ODAV (AD/JD)

Collect/analyze the following outcome indicators w/ quantitative methods: Mortality data (in certain contexts, such as conflict) Nutritional status of pre-school children: MUAC,

weight, height, age Nutritional status of women: e.g. BMI (height and

weight data) Measures of micro-nutrient status, notably iron status Measures of dietary diversity, frequency of consumption

and source of foods Meal frequency Coping strategies as they relate to food consumption Household demographic composition: number of persons

by sex and age, and recent changes (both in-flows and out-flows of persons

The list of indicators will be developed by end February and integrated into EFSA/CFSVA guidance

ODAN/ ODAV (AD/JD)

In an EFSA, collect qualitative data on: Child feeding practices Intra-household allocations of food Current food security status; the impact of recent

covariate shocks and projections of likely status in the future

Perceptions of what forms of assistance would be most useful

Will be integrated into EFSA (and some also in CFSVA) guidance

ODAN/ ODAV (AD/JD)

Integrated Phase Classification Action/Timeline (if applicable) Lead Conduct and learn from pilots and produce iterative drafts of operational IPC guidelines for different contexts. Specific actions include: (a) Attempt to further break down phases 1, 2 and possibly 3

to better distinguish these phases in non-emergency contexts

(b) Improve the predictive (risk forecasting) power of IPC analysis

(c) Invite the SENAC AG to provide technical inputs to the 2007 IPC pilots, and peer review the outputs

(d) Use the IPC online forum, March 2007 consultation meeting and lessons learned from the country pilots to develop the technical aspects of the IPC

Test modified approaches in

WFP’s 3-5 pilot countries during 2007

Arrange for AG input on pilot design issues and review of pilot outputs

Produce guidelines on piloting IPC during assessments by March 2007

ODAN/ ODAV* (AJH/TF) *FAO lead on revising IPC Technical Manual

Move forward on developing a multi-agency proposal for global application of the IPC approach. Suggestions include: (a) Clarify and make clear links to other inter-agency

FAO/WFP to draft joint longer-term proposal for presentation at March 21-23 meeting.

ODAN/ ODAV (AJH/TF)

31

initiatives, e.g. HNTS and FIVIMS (b) Change the name (acronym?), as IPC is unclear (c) Determine where the IPC should be housed at both

global and national levels

Finalize proposal for discussion at next SENAC SC meeting (mid-2007)

Market Analysis Action/Timeline (if applicable) Lead Develop best practices of integrating market analysis into CFSVAs, EFSAs, CFSAMs and FSMS that provide information useful in decision-making, if possible from different RB. Examples should include use of the Zambia market model and identification of micro/meso linkages and indicators identified

Draft best practices/lessons by September. Possible cases: DRC CFSVA and CHAD EFSA on IDPs

ODAN (GD)

Develop a toolkit and related guidelines for market analysis Draft toolkit/guidance by end June ODAN/ PDPE

Establish a website with key data resources (e.g. elasticities, international wholesale prices, price deflators, terms of trade)

June PDPE (H-JB)

Establish an inter-divisional working group within WFP to ensure integration of market analysis into existing assessments

ODA, PDPE and ODO; first meeting scheduled in February 2007

ODAN (GD)

CFSVAs Action/Timeline (if applicable) Lead Revise the CFSVA technical approach: (a) Include scenarios and decision trees re food aid & other

interventions (b) Shorten and organize report around key objectives of

CFSVA (who, what, where and why); place other material in annexes

(c) Include market analysis & more effective contextual analysis, emphasize context-specific risks e.g. conflict, natural hazards, HIV

(d) Include a specific section on recommendations for FSMS and EFSA

(e) Use & apply standard indicators for nutrition & dietary intake across assessments

(f) Use a standard process for identifying measures/metrics for household access, livelihood & other processes; apply to all CFSVAs, FSMSs & EFSAs

(g) Provide baseline measures for EFSA, e.g. using Timor Leste approach

(h) Strengthen analytical quality by including trend and variability of nutrition, prices, expenditure/consumption, migration where available

(i) Strengthen analytical quality by using qualitative methods to explore causal dynamics and inform predictive analysis

(j) Improve documentation of sampling and methods in annexes to CFSVA reports and store in a data base

(k) Maintain sampling frame in a data base to assist EFSA (l) Include nutrition, diet and household access in all

CFSVAs (m) Reduce survey questions on income, risk

exposure/shocks (only include idiosyncratic risks), livelihood assets/strategies. Formulate these using qualitative methods for questionnaire design

(n) Strengthen dietary information by using CFSVA to calibrate the dietary proxy measures

Pilot and include in final CFSVA guidance (end 2007) as follows: (a) Pilot in Laos (b) Shorten Executive Summary

but reorganization of report as suggested would be repetitive and impractical

(c) Pilot in DRC, Laos (d) Will start in Laos (e) Already partly being done (f) Develop a more standardized

household access measurement for Laos (Feb 07)

(g) WFP already does, but will try to develop common CFSVA/EFSA indicators (mainly for outcome, not process, indicators

(h) This will be tried in Laos (i) Try in Laos and DRC (j) Try in Laos and DRC (k) Try in Laos and DRC (l) WFP already does this (m) Will exclude questions on

covariate shocks but will keep livelihood strategies at household level, as they are essential to answer which households are food insecure and why

(n) This was nearly tried in Burundi but was postponed for practical reasons

ODAV (JD)

32

Revise the CFSVA process: (a) To improve partnerships, (i) clearly articulate minimum

non-negotiable requirements for CFSVA and (ii) leave room for advanced planning of CFSVA

(b) Partner with institutions that add value to WFP’s capacity-qualitative assessment/analysis and analysis/economic analysis

(c) WFP should use professional analysts, PhDs and interdisciplinary

(d) Establish a lessons learned forum for CSFVA techniques and methods

(a) Will be formalized in the next

CFSVA (b) Will be worked out in country

context (c) Where possible, WFP also uses

qualified temporary staff, but this is not always within WFP’s control

(d) Will start with Laos

ODAV (JD)

Identify CFSVA examples that were particularly useful to decision-making as learning tools and case studies for WFP capacity building

To be completed by June 2007 ODAV (JD)

Identify at least 1 field opportunity for developing a model CFSVA, involving strategic partnerships with qualitative methods partners (e.g. Oxfam/SCF) and an economic analysis partner (e.g. MSU, IFPRI, World Bank)

A model CFSVA country will be identified, in collaboration with partners for piloting in 2007

ODAV (JD)

Outsource the (a) refinement of the conceptual framework for food insecurity and vulnerability and the (b) approach to conducting the CFSVA to AG member(s) or others with relevant expertise and an in-depth knowledge of WFP and CFSVAs

(a) Refinement of the conceptual framework will be outsourced (March 07) (b) The approach to conduct is often an internal organizational matter

ODAV (JD)

Establish a mechanism for improved sharing of lessons learned from implementing CFSVAs, including methods and use of CFSVA data

To be implemented, starting in Laos

ODAV (JD)

Develop guidelines/decision tools for the use of CFSVA information

To be considered in 2008 ODAV (JD)

Quality Monitoring Action/Timeline (if applicable) Lead Add questions to the QMC on: (a) Re-assessments, including the comparison to previous

assessments (b) Whether the report adequately demonstrates how

conclusions were arrived at (c) The degree of confidence in the data used (d) Whether the report helped to prioritize among

programming options (i.e. what was the actual response (e) Whether alternative conclusions were considered or

reflected in the analysis

Selected questions will be added and the QMC revised accordingly by end March based on a review of QMC (by field staff working group)

ODAN (AJH)

Develop a separate process-oriented checklist which: (a) assesses the credibility and relevant expertise of the

assessment team (b) checks whether all stakeholders were identified early on

and that their inputs were sought (c) indicates how the EFSA methods, results and

preliminary findings were shared and validated (d) checks whether the assessment findings were considered

valid by decisionmakers

Will consider developing a process checklist for use by managers/

ODAN (AJH/AH)

Explore ways to ground-truth the accuracy of assessments and/or commission an independent desk review of ENA documents over 3 years

Will be considered, possibly use Danish funds

ODAN (AH/AL)

33

Capacity-Building and Mainstreaming Recommendations Action/Timeline (if applicable) Lead Decisions need to be made on the type and target audience of trainings: (a) Consider adopting a more differentiated approach i.e.

basic and specialized training sessions. (b) Determine the minimum market analysis to include in

EFSA training and the extent to which assessors should be trained in providing answers on market analysis response alternatives

Joint ODAN/ODAV capacity meeting to agree on 2007 basic training priorities and approach

ODAN/ ODAV (NS/SW)

Raise awareness to managers that EFSA funding constraints can carry high opportunity costs in terms of poor use of WFP resources; possibly establish a minimum percentage of programme resources to allocate to ENAs

Re-issue the directive on ENA accountability, including allocation of funds for ENAs

ODAN (WH/NS)

Mainstream at least some market RAOs post-SENAC to enable market-related information sharing, advocacy and capacity building

Advocate with WFP management for market posts in 2008-09 budget

ODA (JA/WH)

34

Annex 2: List of Participants PARTICIPANT ORGANIZATION Facilitator Klenk, Jeff Consultant to WFP/ODAN Advisory Group Darcy, James (Chair) Overseas Development Institute (London) Alinovi, Luca Food and Agriculture Organization (Rome) Ben Yahmed, Samir World Health Organization (Geneva) Devereux, Stephen Institute of Development Studies (Sussex) Donovan, Cynthia Michigan State University Dorosh, Paul The World Bank (Washington DC) Eilerts, Gary FEWS NET (Washington DC) Hoddinott, John IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute Josserand, Henri FAO (Rome) Mattinen, Hanna Accion Contre la Faim (representing EuronAid) Mock, Nancy Tulane University (New Orleans) Mohiddin, Lili Oxfam (London) O'Donnell, Michael Save the Children Fund UK (London) Stephen, Linda European Commission Joint Research Centre Walker, Peter Tufts University, Feinstein International Famine Center

(Boston) SENAC Steering Committee Skau, Nanna ECHO Brussels WFP HQ AG Focal Points Brinkman, Henk-Jan

Economic Analysis Unit, Policy and Programme Support (PDP)

Crawford, Nicholas Emergencies and Transitions Unit, PDP Marzilli, Jeffrey Office of Evaluation (OEDE) McDonald, Iain Emergency Preparedness Branch, Assessment, Analysis and

Preparedness Division (ODA) Menage, Nicole Food Procurement Service, Transport and Procurement

Division (OTP) Van den Briel, Tina Nutrition Service, PDP WFP Field Offices Forsen, Yvonne Regional Bureau, Bangkok (ODB) Jibidar, Claude Democratic Republic of Congo Country Office Kenefick, Eric Regional Bureau, Johannesburg (ODJ) Montembault, Sylvie ODJ Niazi, Asif Regional Bureau, Cairo (ODC) Ronchini, Scott Regional Bureau, Kampala (ODK)

Scaramella, Carlo El Salvador Country Office

35

Sheinkman, Michael ODB Ward, Philip ODC Wickrema, Sonali Ethiopia Country Office WFP Headquarters Staff Aylieff, John ODA Berardo, Andrea Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Branch (ODAV) Bisson, Darlene Global Staff Survey Charpentier, Cedric ODAV Chaumont, Caroline Emergency Needs Assessment Service (ODAN) Delbaere, Jan ODAV Dhur, Agnes ODAN Diriba, Getachew ODAN Flaemig, Tobias ODAN Graisse, Jean Jacques Senior Deputy Executive Director Haller, Anette ODAN Herbinger, Wolfgang ODAN Hoskins, Alexis ODAN Horjus, Peter ODAV Howe, Paul PDP Husain, Arif ODAV Luma, Joyce ODAV Luzot, Anne-Claire OEDE Papavero, Cinzia ODAV Tillman, Charisse ODAN Tymo, Darlene ODAN Wanmali, Samir ODAV Other External Participants Coates, Jennifer Tufts University Frueh, Susanne

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (New York)

Leather, Chris Oxfam U.K. Haan, Nicholas Transformative Analysis (Nairobi) Negre, Thierry European Commission Joint Research Centre Administrative Assistant Lorefice, Mary ODAN

36

Annex 3: Agenda

Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity in WFP

4th SENAC Advisory Group Meeting

24-26 January 2007, Grand Hotel del Gianicolo, Rome, Italy

Agenda

Tuesday 23 January 2007 18:30 Planning meeting (in hotel) – James Darcy, Nancy Mock, Cynthia Donovan,

Paul Dorosh, John Hoddinott, Jeff Klenk, John Aylieff, Wolfgang Herbinger, Joyce Luma, Agnes Dhur, Jan Delbaere, Darlene Tymo, Getachew Diriba, Alexis Hoskins

Wednesday 24 January 2007

Setting the Stage

9:00-9:15 Opening of 4th Advisory Group Meeting – Jean-Jacques Graisse, Senior Deputy Executive Director, Operations Department

9:15-9:30 Introduction to AG Meeting/Admin Issues – James Darcy, AG

Chair/Jeff Klenk, Facilitator 9:30–10:00 Update on the SENAC project – Darlene Tymo

• Achievements in 2005-6, workplan for 2007 • How are benefits being integrated into the way WFP does

business?

10:00-10:30 Setting the Stage: Overview of outstanding issues – Wolfgang Herbinger, Joyce Luma • Presentation of key issues and review in plenary

10:30-10:45 Break 10:45-11:45 Setting the Stage cont…

Purpose of meeting:

1) Review progress and outstanding issues (as identified in five working group agendas) during the final year of the SENAC project in order to achieve the overall objective of “providing transparent, credible, accurate, and timely food security assessment and pre-crisis information in emergency situations”

2) Advise on strategies, approaches, and partnerships to address the outstanding issues

37

11:45-13:00 Links between ENA and decision-making: how do we strengthen them? – James Darcy

13:00-14:00 Lunch

Working Groups

14:00-17:30 Group 1: Household food security measurement (first session) –

John Hoddinott, Peter Walker Group 5: Measuring the quality of ENAs (half day) – James Darcy

18:00-19:00 Optional Presentation: IPC On-Line Forum – Colin Andrews, FAO

Thursday 25 January 2007

Working Groups cont…

9:00-13:00 Group 1: Household food security measurement (second session) – John Hoddinott, Peter Walker Group 2: Integrated Phase Classification Approach (half day) – Stephen Devereux

13:00-14:00 Lunch 14:00-17:30 Group 4: CFSVA (Comprehensive Food Security and

Vulnerability Analyses) (half day) – Nancy Mock Group 3: Markets and Assessments (half day) – Paul Dorosh,

Cynthia Donovan 18:00-19:30 Synthesis of Working Group conclusions and recommendations

for 2007 and beyond – AG Chair, thematic leads and rapporteurs only

Friday 26 January 2007 9:00 -12:00 Synthesis and recommendations cont…. (AG chair and thematic leads) (free morning for other meeting participants) 12:00-13:00 Stocktaking of Global Assessment Initiatives: Can we prioritize?

– Allan Jury, Director, External Relations 13:00-14:00 Lunch 14:00-15:30 Advisory Group recommendations for 2007 and beyond – James

Darcy and AG thematic leads • Plenary presentation and discussion

38

15:30-16:00 Break 16:00-17:00 Wrap-up and next steps for AG – Jeff Klenk

• Future of Advisory Group after SENAC • Next AG meeting – purpose and dates

39

Annex 4: Draft Conceptual Framework

40

Annex 5: Letter to AG on CFSVA Progress (Dec. 2006) Dear All, During the last SENAC Advisory group meeting, the pre-crisis information activities were the subject of an in-depth discussion. As we approach the next AG meeting in January, we thought it would be useful to provide you with an update of the work done and the remaining challenges. During the last Advisory Group meeting, the Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) discussions were based upon the independent review of the CFSVA reports and VAM Guidance and Practice, which were undertaken by Nancy Mock and her team from Tulane University. A number of observations and recommendations were made to improve the implementation and outcomes of the CFSVA. The discussions have identified the need for:

Strengthening methodology and standardization; Refined guidance and an analytical framework; Improved partnerships; Additional and improved capacity; and Increasing the relevance for decision-making and improving the links with

Emergency Needs Assessments. Fewer CFSVAs to be implemented in 2006 to permit consolidation and

methods improvements. Since the last AG meeting, the VAM team has been working on integrating the above recommendations. Although progress has been made in improving the CFSVA methodology and guidance and links between CFSVA and EFSA and programming, there remains a lot of a work ahead. Progress to date is presented below. 1. Methodology and standardization Improvements are being made, with changes progressively incorporated in the CFSVAs. However, there still remains work to be undertaken before finalizing a consolidated standard approach and methodology that includes the various thematic areas required for the pre-crisis baselines. Measuring food security Measuring food security is still one of the important challenges. VAM continues to refine the measurement and analysis of food security. CFSVA has a module of core questions that are asked across surveys, which ensure a standard way of food security measurement. In addition, analysis is being strengthened to enable comparison of assessments. However, much of this work is ongoing and will be concluded in 2007 with the help of Tufts University. The SENAC team has just launched a study with Tufts University as a follow-up to the previous review done by IFPRI last year, to fine-tune and address remaining issues on the use of household’s dietary diversity and food consumption frequency as a proxy for measuring food security. The study will contribute to the standardization of food security measurement in WFP assessments.

41

The study will: clarify which are the most appropriate foods or food groups for assessing food insecurity and vulnerability; review the benefits and limits of applying weights to foods or food groups; examine the seasonality of dietary diversity, food consumption and food sources; and ascertain the validity and feasibility of applying a unique cut-off to the dietary diversity and food consumption data to describe the household food security situation in different countries, population groups and crises. A final report is expected by the end of May. A technical meeting on food security measurement is planned for the second half of 2007 to review results and recommendations for the use of the approach. Testing the frequency-weighted food diversity score In 2007, the team will further test the validity of diet diversity score and thresholds by comparing with measured household energy intake. For a panel of households in selected CFSVAs, it was proposed that all foods consumed would be weighed/or measured to enable convert into calories consumed. This would be the basis for establishing a threshold that is sensitive for identifying food insecure households. This activity was originally planned for Laos, but will now be undertaken in the Burundi FSMS in January in 2007. Additional countries for piloting will be identified as CFSVAs are being implemented in 2007. The results of these pilots will feed into ongoing research and guidance material. Qualitative approach and dynamic analysis So far, the CVFSA approach has employed primary quantitative data collection using a household survey. Secondary data analysis and zoning activities have been part of the CFSVA. Use of systematic qualitative approaches have been limited and has been applied to collection of information from WFP staff and the partners.

Efforts are being made to collect and integrate qualitative information into the CFSVAs. In Rwanda, a community based instrument was applied, which included issues related to the impact of HIV/AIDS. In Laos, a rapid rural appraisal (key informant and focus groups) took place last August, a few months before the CFSVA household survey was conducted. A qualitative exercise was planned for the DRC in August. However this was postponed because of the security situation. A leaner qualitative module (based on focus groups) will be applied in the DRC, in addition to the typical community and household questionnaires. In Zambia a qualitative module is being developed in partnership with FEWSNET and the government. With regard to the snapshot nature of the CFSVA, a qualitative instrument is being developed to take into account the seasonality and cyclical weather/trade patterns. Time series analysis will be strengthened to address these factors. Practical ways of addressing this issue include the following:

A question on seasonality has been included in the instrument (Rwanda, Laos and DRC).

A qualitative question related to the “normalcy” of the year under study will be included in future CFSVAs, starting with the DRC.

Coping capacity can be crossed linked with risk factors to come up with vulnerability to specific shocks.

42

An FSMS in principle is organized on a sub-sample of the CFSVA, which allows studying the cyclical movements. Risk analysis and the likely impact of predictable shocks on vulnerability is another area that requires strengthening within CFSVAs. Preliminary work has begun and these aspects will be included in the ongoing CFSVA in Laos. Risk analysis will be integrated up-coming CFSVAs, in particular in Africa. Integration of markets The integration of market analysis into CFSVAs remains a challenge. Markets issues were piloted in the Mali and Mauritania CFSVA in early 2006. The Zambia CFSVA, currently in the preparatory stage, will integrate market elements. VAM in collaboration with the WFP’s Economics Analysis Unit has developed a module to be integrated in the urban Liberia CFSVA and the DRC baseline, to start in early 2007. SENAC is organizing a market workshop on 10-12 January in Rome with the aim of finalizing a module to be integrated into CFSVAs. The overall objective of the workshop is to identify practical ways to integrate market analysis into ENAs, CFSVAs and FSMS. The workshop will also seek to get a better understanding of how markets influence household food security. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) techniques and zoning Following recommendations by the DISI study, other techniques for food security classification analysis are being explored than PCA/cluster analysis techniques. VAM believes livelihood zoning is a useful tool, particularly for sampling. The Mali CFSVA benefited from the FEWSNET livelihood zoning. 2. Refined guidance and analytical framework A first draft of the analytical framework underpinning the CFSVA approach was presented and discussed with the VAM officers at a global meeting last July. Work is still ongoing to refine the framework. The existing thematic guidelines are also under review in collaboration with the gender, education, HIV/AIDS, nutrition and markets specialists from within WFP leading to a process of improving methods and indicators. VAM is currently writing and compiling analysis guidelines for CFSVAs. A first draft should be ready in the first quarter of 2007. The plan is to have a consolidated CFSVA guideline next year which include various thematic areas. 3. Additional and improved capacity

Additional VAM capability WFP intends to hire additional VAM officers to ensure that high priority crisis-prone country offices are fully covered. There is a proposal to recruit 12 new VAM officers and 6 data analysts. However, this has been postponed following a hiring freeze

43

implemented across the organisation. Some countries have nonetheless proceeded in hiring VAM officers with their own funds (Malawi and oPt). Capacity building VAM has undertaken trainings needs assessments to identify skill gaps, focusing in particular on analytical skills. In 2006, several trainings took place at the basic and intermediate levels as well as on-the-job trainings. In 2007, a comprehensive capacity building strategy, based on the desired core VAM skills to undertake VAM work at various level and focusing the key people will be developed. A basis and intermediate training programme on analysis is also being prepared, jointly with ODAN. Next year will also see an “advanced training / workshop” for CFSVA design and analysis, funded by ECHO and Citigroup. 4. Improved partnerships A major criticism of the CFSVAs is that were organised and conducted with insufficient buy-in by governments, NGOs, and partner agencies. Efforts have been made to increase partners’ involvement, with the aim to increase the value and ownership of these exercises. All CFSVAs are now planned and implemented through a local “food-security working group” which includes the government, international organizations and NGOs. Partnerships are country specific. In Zambia, the CFSVA has been initiated and led by the government with financial and technical support of WFP, the UN System and other partners, such as FEWSNET. In Liberia, the government was fully involved in the design and implementation of the CFSVA and acknowledges full ownership of the exercise. In Rwanda and Laos, the CFSVAs were planned and conducted together with government agencies, while the Southern Sudan exercise was absorbed into a nationwide survey and is implemented through the Government infrastructure, the Bureau of Statistics. UNICEF has been an important partner in Liberia, Mauritania and Mali and has co-funded the CFSVAs in these counties. Most CFSVAs are co-funded by partners, financially and with logistics support. As WFP strengthens partnerships involvement, with some of the CFSVA being led by government, an issue that emerges is whether there is an acceptable trade-off between strong partnerships and timeliness, standardization and the quality of the data gathered and the analysis. 5. Increasing relevance for decision-making and ENAs

Relevance for decision making To date, CFSVAs have been used to support the following:

emergency assessments and the design of EMOPs in East Timor, Niger and Rwanda;

the preparation of the PRROs in Mauritania, Tanzania and Rwanda; adjustment of ongoing programmes in Madagascar, Uganda, Nepal, Angola and

Mali; and the setting up of FSMSs in Mali, Mauritania, Rwanda and Uganda.

44

CFSVA reports are used by other humanitarian and rural development agencies. The Liberia report is a major source of information for programming by other UN agencies. To increase the relevance of CFSVAs, the instrument has been reviewed with key WFP HQ units (education, HIV/ AIDS, gender, economic analysis unit) to ensure that relevant thematic programming information needs is collected. In order to make more holistic and realistic recommendations for food and non food responses, an in-country workshop is now systematically organized with partners (in particular non food agencies) to discuss the results and formulate recommendations for the CFSVA. This has been done in Mali, Mauritania, Rwanda and Uganda. Improving the link with Emergency Needs Assessments A CFSVA, as a preparedness tool, can only be useful for an EFSA if the assessment results can be linked. This will require that a set of core indicators be defined that can be collected in both EFSA and CFSVA. In addition, there is a need to employ the use of simplified, standardized food security measures such as the: dietary diversity and food frequency and coping strategy. The core of the analysis in EFSA and CFSVA should remain standard to allow comparison. To this end, the results of the study prepared by Tufts on measuring food security (see above) will help to strengthen the links between EFSAs and CFSVAs. Information management system The DISI study recommended establishing a comprehensive information management system, possibly based on the livelihoods framework. As a first step, VAM has been working on a web-based tool for centralizing, managing and sharing information. While VAM recognizes the interest of a comprehensive system, challenges include the integration of baseline data into one information system. Indeed data is usually country tailored and the number of partners involved usually hampers standardization. 6. Slowing Down on the new CFSVAs Since the last AG, most of our efforts have gone into finalizing CFSVAs that were ongoing at the time. Only one new CFSVA has been launched (Laos). A secondary data review took place in oPt, and preparations are being made for primary data collection in the DRC and Zambia. In 2007, five CFSVAs will be undertaken, and improvements will be incorporated as the work proceeds.