World Vision-led ENSURE DFAP

El Niño Crisis Modifier

Resumé, Results, Rationale and Reflections

TOPS Knowledge Sharing Event

Washington, DC

20 July 2017

Background

• ENSURE DFAP

• El Niño drought of 2014/15 and 2015/16

• Crisis Modifier – 2016/17 Resumé, Results, Rationale and Reflections

ENSURE DFAP

• Enhancing Nutrition, Stepping up Resilience

and Enterprise

• World Vision-led, USAID-funded, five-year

intervention ending in June 2018

• Impacting 215,000 vulnerable and food-

insecure households in Manicaland (Buhera,

Chimanimani and Chipinge) and Masvingo

(Bikita, Chivi and Zaka)

• Four partners and one service provider—

World Vision, CARE, SNV, SAFIRE and ICRISAT

• Excellent program progress to date (activities,

outputs, behaviors and outcome trends)

Extended El Niño Drought of

2014/15 and 2015/16

• 40% decrease in national cereal grain

production in 2014/15 and a further

44% decrease in 2016/17 (worst

harvest in past 50 years).

• 4.1 million highly food insecure

nationally in 2016/17, with

Manicaland and Masvingo Provinces

having the largest population of food

insecure households.

USAID Definition of Crisis Modifier

A mechanism to “quickly inject

emergency funds during crises

into existing development

programs. These funds allow

partners to respond rapidly to

address humanitarian needs,

reducing livelihood and other

development losses.”

Crisis Modifier Resumé

• August 2016 to March 2017

• Coverage of 52% of ZIMVAC food insecure in 66

ENSURE wards plus 43 additional Affected Wards in

five ENSURE Districts (excludes Zaka which

benefitted from DFID-funded Cash Transfer Program)

• Two components: Expanded Protective Ration and

Nutrition Surveillance

• 18,840 MT of commodities comprised of 7.5 kgs of

sorghum, 1 kg of yellow split peas, and 0.5 kgs of

vegetable oil per beneficiary household member per

month.

• 80 additional staff and 115 additional casual laborers

and students on attachment

• $5.2M in cash and $13.9M in commodities

• Quick scale-up

Crisis Modifier Results

• A total of 315,802 beneficiaries received

food rations in both Manicaland and

Masvingo (101% of target)

• 270,000 of them were emergency

response beneficiaries (non-DFAP

recipients)

• A total of 28,107 children were screened

for malnutrition in the two provinces.

• Food security situation improved among

beneficiary households as shown in the

following graphs:

Household Hunger Scale

5.8

3.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HHS Oct 2016 HHS Mar 2017

3.5

0

2.9

0.9

1.6

3.6

2.2

4.4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Prevalence of GAM (Wt/Ht) in

ENSURE Districts

Self-reported Hunger: Comparison between

Beneficiaries and Non-beneficiaries

34.6 31.5 28.1 26

53.8

25.7

59

29.4

66.8

52.1

59.6 60 71.4

68.8

46.2

74.3

41

70.6

29.4

43.6

5.8 8.5

0.5 5.2 0.9

6.9 7.5 9.5 3.8 4.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Benefici

arie

s

Non-

Benefici

arie

s

Benefici

arie

s

Non-

Benefici

arie

s

Benefici

arie

s

Non-

Benefici

arie

s

Benefici

arie

s

Non-

Benefici

arie

s

Benefici

arie

s

Non-

Benefici

arie

s

October November January February March

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f h

ou

seh

old

s (%

)

Months

Little/No hunger

Moderate

Severe

Prevalence of Stunting

(Ht/Age)

[VALUE] [VALUE]

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

ENSURE Program Area 2014 Baseline ENSURE Program Area 2016

The Prevalence of Stunting in ENSURE Districts

Crisis Modifier Rationale

• Massive food needs required an emergency

response

• Protecting DFAP program gains

• Duplicative WFP emergency pipeline and removal

of administrative layer

• Leveraging DFAP infrastructure and staff capacity

• Leveraging Cohesive Groups of Praxis

• Decision to import food (vs cash or vouchers)

based on national and regional deficit and liquidity

crisis.

• EFSP not the right mechanism given presence of

DFAP implementers.

Crisis Modifier Reflections

• Good results pointing to successful protection of beneficiary households and DFAP gains

• Excellent coordination and alignment between donors and implementing agencies

• ENSURE systems, structures and staff in place allowing for rapid expansion and contraction

• Rapid expansion and prepo commodities

• ENSURE groups of praxis in place and functioning well (especially Care Groups and VSLs)

• Gender mainstreaming success

• Slow on-set allowing for ample time to plan

• GOZ and local authorities in agreement with targeting and selection criteria

• Good relationships with health clinics and local authorities