Fighting Hunger Worldwide
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina I
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina II
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1 A CHANGING EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ...........................................................................2 Operating Environment ...................................................................................2 Food aid has evolved .................................................................................2 Hunger and malnutrition is broader and deeper .............................................3 Climate change is leading to more extreme-weather events ............................5 Complex humanitarian emergencies create various challenges.........................6 Aid Effectiveness and the United Nations Context ...........................................8 An increasing emphasis on aid effectiveness .................................................8 United Nations context: Delivering as One ....................................................8 Funding Environment ......................................................................................9 HOW IS WFP CHANGING? ...............................................................................................11 The WFP Strategic Plan (2008–2013)............................................................11 Changes and Innovations ..............................................................................12 Assessment, analysis and targeting............................................................12 Cash transfers and vouchers .....................................................................12 Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation ..................................13 New nutrition products .............................................................................14 Connecting farmers to markets through Purchase for Progress.......................15 School meals: A flexible social protection instrument with solid benefits ..........16 Strengthening social protection .................................................................18 CHALLENGES REMAIN .....................................................................................................19 FIGURES Figure 1: Global Food Aid Deliveries by Category, 1990–2008...................................................2 Figure 2: Global Food Aid Deliveries, 1990–2008 ....................................................................3 Figure 3: Coping with Crisis .................................................................................................4 Figure 4: Average of Food Price Forecasts from Five Institutions (2000=100) .............................5 Figure 5: Number of Natural Disasters Worldwide ...................................................................6 Figure 6: Attacks on Aid Workers Worldwide ..........................................................................7 Figure 7: Steps for Implementing a New Approach to School Meal Programmes ........................16
This paper is produced by WFP’s Policy, Planning and Strategy Division (PS) and was written by Henk-Jan Brinkman, Senior Adviser for Economic Policy in PS.
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 1
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox INTRODUCTION
In recent years the importance of non-government actors such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector has increased. New funding sources have emerged, including through foundations and the United Nations. These developments also necessitate changes in the way WFP operates.
The United Nation’s World Food Programme (WFP) is the largest humanitarian agency in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. WFP has been, and remains, the agency with the logistics capacity to respond quickly to emergencies around the world and save lives. Yet, increasingly, WFP is more than an emergency food aid agency.
WFP is implementing changes that build on its strengths, particularly its deep-field presence, its focus on results and its emergency-response capacity. The world can continue to count on WFP for what it has always done well. But through a strategic focus on the innovations necessary to adapt to a changing environment, WFP can do even better and be more efficient and effective.
The world is facing unprecedented challenges, but also new opportunities and WFP is rapidly adapting to the new global environment. Higher and more volatile food prices combined with the global financial crisis have contributed to an historic rise in hunger and malnutrition. Climate change contributes to extreme-weather events. AIDS continues to have devastating effects on vulnerable communities. The number, scale and complexity of humanitarian emergencies have proliferated. The emphasis on government ownership of assistance programmes, aid effectiveness, and greater collaboration within the United Nations is increasing.
WFP AT A GLANCE IN 2009 Number of beneficiaries (2008): 102 million, of which 84 million were women and children. In 2009, WFP aimed to reach 108 million beneficiaries. Contributions: US$4 billion (all voluntary) Food distributed (2008): 3.9 million metric tons (mt) Food procured: 2.6 million mt (US$965 million), including 2.1 million mt (US$772 million) in developing countries
As the nature and causes of hunger have become more complicated, WFP is developing a more diversified set of instruments to respond. Innovations involve school meals, cash and voucher transfers, local procurement, and new nutritious food products . These are all helping transform the fight against hunger and malnutrition.
Partners (2008): 87 joint programmes with other United Nations entities; 197 country-level partnerships with United Nations entities or other international organizations; 2,838 NGOs Number of donors: 79 Country offices: 81, plus about 280 suband field offices Staff: more than 12,000 (about 90 percent in the field)
1
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 2
A CHANGING EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
food surpluses from developed countries to developing countries that had deficits. Over time, in-kind donations declined in importance. Factors contributing to the shift include the budgeting of food aid in value terms since the 1970s; the decline of government-held surplus stocks and increased purchasing of food aid in developing countries since the 1980s; declining farm support in developed countries since the mid-1990s; and declining global stocks since 2000.1 The transformation of the global food aid system is so fundamental that food aid is not what it was a few years ago. Some of the differences are the following:2
The operating environment in which WFP works is constantly changing. It is complex: the needs of the hungry and the solutions to hunger and malnutrition are influenced by an intricate set of factors. The time when hunger was caused by a crop failure — and an in-kind transfer of food was the automatic solution — is over. The food needs of the hungry have grown as a result of natural, political and economic shocks. WFP often operates in complex emergencies, where the humanitarian space is limited and humanitarian principles under threat. There have been significant changes in food aid modalities and in the funding environment, as the number and variety of donors has increased. Various trends regarding the operating environment, aid effectiveness and coordination within the United Nations, and the funding environment are outlined below.
• In 1990, food aid was mostly provided from one government to another. In 2008, only 10 percent of global food aid went through bilateral channels, while multilateral channels accounted for two thirds of global food aid — the highest ever. • In 1990, 60 percent of global food aid was programmed and 18 percent was emergency aid. In 2008 only 5 percent was programmed, while 76 percent was emergency food aid (see Figure 1). • In 1990, 61 percent of food aid was sold on the market (“monetized”), with the proceeds used for food security and development projects. In 2008, only
Operating Environment Food aid has evolved The food aid system that emerged in the 1950s was largely a way to redistribute
Figure 1: Global Food Aid Deliveries by Category, 1990—2008 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
n Programme
n Project
2
n Emergency
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0%
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 3
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
WFP/Rein Skullerud/Indonesia
9 percent was monetized, while 91 percent of food aid was directly distributed to selected beneficiaries (see Figure 2). • In 1990, less than 10 percent of food used for aid was procured in developing countries. In 2008, 41 percent came from developing countries (see Figure 2). • In 1990, a significant share of food aid was provided as a loan. Now all global food aid is provided on a grant basis — for the first time ever (see Figure 2).
people’s access to food. In 2009, the number of undernourished people was projected to exceed 1 billion — an historic high — partly as a result of these crises. Even before the recent crises, more than 2 billion people suffered the effects of micronutrient deficiencies and 195 million children under 5 were stunted. Those numbers are likely to have increased in the last two or three years.3 After decades of decline, the proportion of hungry people in the world was expected to increase to 15 percent in 2009.
Hunger and malnutrition is broader and deeper Hunger and malnutrition is more and more a result of people’s lack of access to nutritious food — rather than a lack of food availability. High food prices and the global economic and financial crisis made this even truer and restricted many more
Hunger and malnutrition have not only increased: they have also deepened among those who were already hungry or suffered from micronutrient deficiencies. The crises have affected traditional vulnerable groups such as the rural landless, smallholder farmers and pastoralists — but also relatively new and expanding groups such as the urban poor.
Figure 2: Global Food Aid Deliveries, 1990—2008
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
n Procurement in developing countries
n Distributed directly to beneficiaries
3
n Loans
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0% 1990
Percentage of total food aid
100%
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 4
Figure 3: Coping with Crisis Income
Impact on livelihood
Impact on food sources
Diversification or change in livelihood activities
Change to cheaper, lower quality and less preferred food
Reduced expenditure on non-essential to luxury items Beginning to sell nonproductive, disposable assets
Reduced diversity of food means poor nutrient intake Favor certain household members over others
Children drop out of school Out migration (rural to urban moves)
Reduced size and number of meals
Increased use of child labour Begin to borrow/purchase on credit increasing indebtedness
Consume wild food/ immature crops/seed stocks Send household members elsewhere to eat (i.e. neighbours)
Sell productive assets
Begging for food
Impact on health
Depletion of body micronutrient stores and lowered immunity
Appearance of clinical symptoms of micronutrient deficiencies such as night blindness (vitamin A), anemia and increased morbidity (within 2-3 months)
Increase in number of underweight Wasting increases
Sell off all assets
Skip entire days without eating
Reduce expenditures on essential items such as food and water
Eat items that are not part of a normal diet such as plants and insects
Maternal weight decreases
Early childhood mortality rates rise Increase in overall mortality
Engage in illegal and/or life threatening activities as a last resort
Source: United Nations, 2009. Voices of the Vulnerable: The Economic Crisis From The Ground Up (available at http://www.voicesofthevulnerable.net/); Adapted from D. Maxwell, R. Caldwell (2008), “The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual�, CARE Eastern and Central Africa and World Food Programme, 2nd ed.
After high food prices had already eroded their coping capacities, vulnerable households faced a second shock as a result of the global economic and financial crisis, which especially affected incomes. When faced with high food prices and/or declined incomes, vulnerable households reduce the quality and quantity of food they consume (see Figure 3). People who do not consume the right nutrients become more prone to health problems, are less able to learn and are less productive. Some effects are irreversible when they occur between conception and 24 months of life, and even a few months of inadequate food and
nutrition can have life-long effects. The cost of hunger and malnutrition extends to the growth potential of a country: in a joint study by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and WFP, in some countries the cost of hunger was estimated to amount to 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).4 Evidence from previous economic crises shows that households first reduce their consumption of more nutritious foods such as meat, eggs, milk, fruit and vegetables; this is followed by a reduction in the size 4
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 5
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
Figure 4: Average of Food Price Forecasts from Five Institutions7 (2000=100) Forecast 330 305 280 255 230 205 180 155 130 105
— Maize — Wheat — Rice — Soybean — Sorghum — Soybean oil
and frequency of meals.5 In 2008, WFP conducted food security assessments on the impact of high food prices and in 2009 on the impact of the economic and financial crisis. These studies found similar evidence, along with reductions in health expenditures, higher school dropout rates and increased sale of assets.6
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
80
Climate change is leading to more extreme-weather events There is convincing scientific evidence that global warming will cause an increase in the number of natural disasters over the next 50 years, and that the impact of climate change will be global, far-reaching and largely irreversible. There is already an upward trend in the frequency and severity of weather-related disasters, which is very likely a result of climate change.8 According to the Emergency Events Database, the number of natural disasters increased from 900 in the 1970s to more than 4,000 between 2000 and 2008 (see Figure 5).
Unfortunately, these trends are expected to continue. Food prices are expected to remain high and volatile for years to come (see Figure 4), partly as a result of climate change and the stronger links among food, financial and commodity markets, which became evident during the food price peak in 2007/08. Such volatility is a challenge to vulnerable households across the world and to WFP.
WFP/Marco Frattini/Philippines
5
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 6
Figure 5: Number of Natural Disasters Worldwide 4500 4000 575 3500 956
3000 420 2500 900
2000
1573
289
1500
558 1000
537
291
500 0
876
126
59 61
122
265 98 1970-1979
n Others
n Windstorm
196
383 126
1980-1989
n Flood
n Epidemic
543
264 142
265 167
1990-1999
2000-2009
n Earthquake
n Drought
Source: “Annual Performance Report for 2008� (WFP/EB.A/2009/4), based on Emergency Events Database
WFP must be prepared for a growing number of natural disasters such as those that occurred in Haiti in August/ September 2008 and in the Philippines in September/October 2009. Climate change is likely to produce droughts, storms and floods in the developing world that could impact as many as 3.4 billion people. Repeated disasters can reverse development and contribute to undernutrition even in countries that had made progress in fighting hunger. The ability of countries to respond to disasters depends on their level of
development, infrastructure and preparedness.
Complex humanitarian emergencies create various challenges The number of complex humanitarian emergencies has increased over the last few decades. WFP often operates within such an environment, where a set of multifaceted factors contributes to the emergency, and various actors play roles in causing, perpetuating and/or
WFP/Barry Came/Indonesia
6
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 7
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
Figure 6: Attacks on Aid Workers Worldwide 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 1997
1998
1999
2000
n Number of incidents
2001
2002
2003
— Aid workers killed
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
— Aid worker victims
Source: Aid Worker Security Database, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
addressing the situation. In 2009, WFP had operations in 19 countries characterized as “fragile” or “failed” states.
humanitarian principles and the marginalization of the humanitarian agenda by security or political concerns. 3. Providing quality programming. In complex emergencies, it is especially difficult to link assessment to programming, monitor the outcomes of activities and adjust operations when the context changes — for example, when recovery begins or conflicts relapse and restrict access. 4. Ensuring staff security. WFP can rapidly reach the most turbulent places, but staff is often at risk, as when WFP’s offices in Pakistan were attacked in October 2009. WFP is investing heavily in staff security, including through staff training and employing significant numbers of security officers. Despite large United Nations system-wide and WFP investments in security, deficiencies still exist, and the conditions for the free and safe movement of staff appear to be worsening. In 2008, 260 humanitarian workers were victims of security incidents, 122 of whom were killed, a significant increase since the late 1990s (see Figure 6).
Complex humanitarian crises present four main challenges:9 1. Adhering to the humanitarian principles of independence, neutrality and impartiality, while ensuring access to beneficiaries. The humanitarian space that existed for WFP and other humanitarian actors has eroded over time. WFP is regularly confronted by the tension between its obligations to meet humanitarian needs and its commitment to adhere to humanitarian principles during violent conflicts. 2. Making coordination operational. WFP’s leadership in the logistics cluster has been widely praised as an example of effective coordination, with WFP facilitating logistics services for the wider humanitarian community. But coordination beyond areas as concrete as logistics — for example through United Nations integrated missions or the “One UN” — can be much more complicated. Challenges include inefficiencies in coordination mechanisms, threats to 7
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 8
Aid Effectiveness and the United Nations Context
United Nations context: Delivering as One The United Nations is responding to pressure from Member States to “Deliver as One” at the country level to achieve efficient and effective results. A comprehensive set of recommendations was presented in the 2006 report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on United Nations System-Wide Coherence.11 The “One UN” agenda with one programme, one budget, one office and one leader (the Resident Coordinator) has been endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. There are eight pilot countries: Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay and Viet Nam. There are also continuing efforts to “Deliver as One” to achieve maximum development results in other countries.
An increasing emphasis on aid effectiveness The international community — donor and developing countries alike — has emphasized the need for improvements in aid effectiveness.10 The basic principles are: i) strengthening country ownership; ii) donor alignment with country strategies, institutions and procedures; iii) donor harmonization, simplification and transparent procedures; iv) delivering results; v) mutual accountability; and vi) building more effective and inclusive partnerships with various development actors. Targets and indicators have been identified for these principles. In addition, WFP is guided by the Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship. They include the allocation of funding in proportion to needs; strengthening the capacity of affected countries and local communities; and the provision of humanitarian assistance in ways that are supportive of the recovery of longterm development.
In the development area, United Nations reform efforts have focused on supporting one nationally owned development plan driven by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In the humanitarian area, the emphasis has been on predictability, speed and accountability of humanitarian response and partnerships among the United Nations, national governments and NGOs, including through the cluster approach; WFP leads the logistics cluster and co-leads the emergency telecommunication cluster. Both the development and humanitarian reform agendas have pushed for a clearer division of labour among agencies, with defined leadership and coordination roles. The reform efforts include common funding arrangements and greater inter-agency harmonization of human resources, finance, logistics, telecommunications and procurement practices.
In recent years, many more development actors have become active, including other developing countries through South—South cooperation, the private sector, foundations and civil society. This has increased the size and potential impact of development assistance, but also has made the challenge of harmonization, coordination and reducing fragmentation more complicated and more essential. The system is taking steps to meet the urgent need for effective and inclusive partnerships among all development actors.
8
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 9
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
WFP/David Orr/Haiti
Funding Environment
These United Nations reforms have a significant influence on WFP’s development and humanitarian activities. Decisions regarding WFP policies, funding modalities, programming approaches, business practices and operational services are increasingly taking into account broader United Nations system-wide policies and practices, along with WFP’s specific needs.
The funding environment for WFP has changed significantly in recent years because of increases in Official Development Assistance (ODA), a higher share of contributions being received in cash, an increasing number and variety of donors, and reluctance of donors to provide funds for WFP’s development activities. 9
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 10
Net ODA from OECD/Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members grew from US$48 billion in 1997 to US$120 billion in 2008, the highest level ever. ODA for humanitarian purposes also increased — from US$2 billion in 2000 to US$7 billion in 2007. Yet, ODA is falling short of commitments, such as those made in the Monterrey Consensus in 2002 and at the G8 Summit in 2005.12 Moreover, ODA is currently under pressure because of the global economic and financial crisis. The gap between commitments for 2010 and actual disbursements in 2008 amounted to US$35 billion.
enhance resilience against natural disasters among communities, rebuild livelihoods after a disaster and address the causes of chronic hunger — for example, through training, or cash- or food-for-work activities that build roads, plant trees or terrace the land. Some donors have decreased or withdrawn their funding for WFP’s development activities in recent years. While contributions to WFP for development activities increased to US$406 million in 2008, reaching the highest level since 2000, they were at the lowest level ever as a percentage of total contributions: 8 percent.
Since 1994, WFP has received between 2.1 and 3.6 percent of the ODA from OECD/DAC members. Yet, international food assistance has declined as a percentage of ODA in recent years, dropping to less than 3 percent in 2007.
But new potential sources of funding have emerged. In 2009, WFP received contributions from 79 donors, reflecting a much wider donor base than a few years ago. Developing countries — including current or former recipients of food aid — and donors outside the traditional 22 DAC members are increasingly important as new donors.
After receiving a record $5 billion in 2008, the funding environment was particularly difficult in 2009 given the budget pressures on governments around the world to support financial institutions, provide fiscal stimuli and offer social protection, while tax revenues have declined. In 2009, contributions to WFP amounted to US$4 billion, compared to a programme of work of US$6.7 billion. Resources for food security may well increase as a result of the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy in July 2009, which committed US$20 billion for three years.
Multilateral pooled funds are also expanding as a funding mechanism. WFP has already benefited significantly from the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), country-level common humanitarian funds and World Bankand/or United Nations-managed multidonor trust funds (MDTF). WFP received contributions of about US$200 million through various pooled funds in 2009. These pooled funds for humanitarian response and transition programmes are likely to be a significant component of WFP income in the years ahead.
Donors are making more of their contributions to WFP in cash rather than in kind: in 2008, 60.5 percent of WFP’s contributions were in cash. Cash gives WFP more flexibility and is often faster and more cost-efficient.
Other funding sources are foundations, corporations and charitable giving by individuals. WFP has increasingly been able to tap these sources, contributing US$194 million to WFP in 2008.
Food assistance as an instrument for long-term development has been questioned. WFP’s development projects 10
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 11
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
HOW IS WFP CHANGING? WFP is responding to changes in the external environment through various adjustments and transformations in order to reach more hungry people, with the ultimate objective of reducing their reliance on food assistance. Many of these changes were consolidated and endorsed in the Strategic Plan for 2008—2013.
The WFP Strategic Plan (2008—2013)
WFP/Marco Frattini/Philippines
In June 2008, the Executive Board adopted the WFP Strategic Plan (2008— 2011), subsequently extended to 2013 to align with the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review by the United Nations General Assembly.13 The Strategic Plan is “a historic shift from WFP as a food aid agency to WFP as a food assistance agency”. It deepens and broadens WFP’s analysis of the root causes of hunger and brings more nuanced strategies and a variety of tools — in addition to food aid — to deal with the changing nature of hunger and to adapt to the rapidly evolving environment in which WFP operates.
It will remain a core responsibility of WFP to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies and protracted crises, and it will remain strong in logistics. But WFP is undergoing changes and implementing innovations. Yet, WFP will continue to adhere to its core principles of gender sensitivity and equality14 and targeting of the most vulnerable, which have served it — and its beneficiaries — well.
The WFP Strategic Plan (2008—2013) frames WFP’s vision, mission and strategic direction around 5 Strategic Objectives and 14 goals. Perhaps most important is the broader, flexible and nuanced toolkit it outlines, which builds on decades of experience and good practices. WFP does not bring in food by default; it determines its responses based on an assessment and an analysis of the context. The Strategic Plan refers explicitly to cash and vouchers; Purchase for Progress (P4P); policy dialogue and advocacy; climate change adaptation; home-grown school feeding; and nutritious food products to more effectively prevent and treat different types of malnutrition among different populations.
The Strategic Objectives WFP Strategic Plan, 2008—2013 1. Save lives and protect livelihoods in emergencies 2. Prevent acute hunger and invest in disaster preparedness and mitigation measures 3. Restore and rebuild lives and livelihoods in post-conflict, postdisaster or transition situations 4. Reduce chronic hunger and undernutrition 5. Strengthen the capacities of countries to reduce hunger, including through hand-over strategies and local purchase
11
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 12
Changes and Innovations
particularly through the Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity (SENAC) project — and handbooks and guidelines have been developed or updated.15 Guidance now includes, for example, a greater emphasis on analysis of markets, response options and urban food insecurity.
The Strategic Plan endorsed many programmatic and policy innovations. Some of them build on a long period of experience in WFP and are incremental changes. Others are more recent and more fundamental.
Where: Virtually all operations submitted for approval since 2006 have been backed by assessments — up from 45 percent in 2004.
Assessment, analysis and targeting Why: WFP’s decision-making and interventions are guided by assessment and analysis in order to meet hunger and humanitarian needs in ways that are sensitive to needs, vulnerability patterns and changing context, targeting the most vulnerable. WFP’s credibility, efficiency, effectiveness and the appropriateness of its response are dependent on the quality of its analysis, assessment and targeting.
Cash transfers and vouchers Why: Cash transfers and vouchers can be efficient and effective tools to address food insecurity in areas where markets function and implementation capacities are in place. Their wider use allows WFP to respond more flexibly and appropriately to context-specific situations. They can help strengthen local markets, empower beneficiaries by allowing them to make choices and prioritize their needs, and reduce the costs to distributors and to beneficiaries of collecting bulky food items at distribution sites.
How: WFP has developed various tools to analyse and map vulnerability, provide early warnings and assess needs. These tools facilitate understanding of food insecurity and inform targeting, programme design and delivery mechanisms to ensure that the response is effective. They are updated to respond to changing contexts. WFP’s capacity for assessment, analysis and targeting has been expanded and enhanced —
How: WFP has provided cash or vouchers to vulnerable people for two decades, but most projects were small and of short duration. More recently, WFP has gained experience with larger programmes and new approaches and is documenting lessons learned. A new policy paper was approved by the Executive Board in 2008.16
WFP/Judith Schuler/Senegal
Cash transfers and vouchers are not always appropriate or feasible: functioning markets and local capacity for implementation are indispensable. Analysis and assessment of the context are, therefore, critical. It is also important to be clear about objectives (especially related to nutrition), beneficiary preferences and costs. Cost comparisons should extend to costs associated with 12
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 13
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
set-up, monitoring and administration. Possible limitations to the use of cash transfers and vouchers include limited skills and capacities for voucher and cash transfer programming; restricted appropriateness in the immediate aftermath of an emergency because the conditions for their use often do not exist after an emergency; higher security risks for beneficiaries and staff; and WFP’s current funding structure, which is based on tonnages of food delivered.
Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation Why: The Strategic Plan (2008—2013) overcomes the traditional gap between emergency and development interventions by introducing a continuum of interventions and tools for pre- and post-disaster settings. Climate change threatens already fragile food security ecosystems throughout the developing world and the poorest and most vulnerable communities are affected the most because they rely on climatesensitive sectors, such as agriculture, and lack the capacity to adapt to disaster risks. Climate change requires collective action and substantial investment in mitigation and adaptation efforts. Investments in disaster risk reduction reduce future relief and rehabilitation costs.
Significant progress is being made in developing comprehensive programming and financial guidelines, implementing cash transfer and voucher programmes and compiling good practices. WFP could evolve into one of the few agencies able to deliver large-scale cash or voucher programmes to address hunger in the field, building on synergies with food transfers and switching between the alternatives whenever circumstances require.
How: Strategic Objective 2 aims at reducing the risks of communities through safety nets and or asset creation, and strengthening capacities of governments to prepare for, assess and respond to acute hunger arising from disasters.
Where: In Pakistan, WFP’s nearly continuous experience goes back to 1994. Between 2005 and 2007, WFP used cash or vouchers in ten situations. As a result of new guidelines, policies and the Strategic Plan (2008—2013), by 2009 WFP had cash transfer or voucher programmes in 29 countries. In February 2009, WFP launched its first voucher programme in Africa, addressing the needs of 150,000 people in Burkina Faso.
In addition to responding to disasters, WFP is using existing and new tools to analyse and manage risk to help communities become more resilient. These include index-based weather insurance, a global disaster riskmanagement system17 and community-based projects that reduce social and environmental vulnerability, such as building flood defences, fixing sand dunes, harvesting water, rehabilitating depleted land or planting trees to mitigate the impacts of floods. Adapting to climate change implies preparing for more frequent disasters. In nearly all countries where WFP operates, it is already working on understanding risk, prevention and preparedness. WFP’s role can be core or 13
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 14
WFP’s Role and Tools in Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation Disaster risk reduction activity
Role for WFP
Examples of WFP tools
People-centred early warning system
Core role
Early warning systems
Comprehensive risk and vulnerability assessment
Core role
Vulnerability assessments
Culture of safety and resilience at all levels
Limited/supporting role
Food for training
Policy and institutional basis: DRR a national priority
Limited/supporting role
Capacity development
Limited/supporting role
Food for work/assets (FFW/A)
Core role
FFW/A, school meals
Limited/supporting role
Weather insurance
Contingency and disaster planning
Core role
Capacity development
Logistical preparedness
Core role
Food for work/assets
UNDERSTANDING RISK
PREVENTION Physical prevention Socio-economic prevention PREPAREDNESS Contingency funding
supportive according to whether it is before or after a disaster, the type of activity, and WFP’s experience and competency levels (see Table 1). A new disaster risk-reduction policy paper was approved by the Executive Board in February 2009.18
experience. An inventory of these activities was presented during the 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland.19 New nutrition products Why: New scientific evidence details the devastating and irreparable effects of early childhood undernutrition on growth, health, learning ability and economic productivity. New nutritious food products, more cash resources, new programmatic solutions such as conditional cash transfers and vouchers, and private sector support have created the opportunity for WFP
Where: WFP has an extraordinary ability to deliver at the community level. In recent years it has devoted US$300 million in programmes and operations aimed at reducing social and environmental vulnerabilities among the poorest and most vulnerable communities, building on decades of
WFP/Richard Lee/Namibia
14
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 15
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
to transform the fight against chronic undernutrition and target the specific needs of different groups of beneficiaries — such as young children, pregnant and lactating women and people living with HIV — with adequate, safe and cost-effective products. The food price and financial crises have illustrated the importance of having a number of tools available to respond to different types of malnutrition such as moderate acute malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies and child stunting.
Connecting farmers to markets through Purchase for Progress Why: In 2009, WFP procured 2.1 million mt of food worth US$772 million in developing countries. Through P4P, WFP seeks to build on the strength of its ongoing local procurement and leverage its purchasing power to benefit low-income farmers in developing countries.20 How: P4P is developing new ways to manage risk and reduce obstacles for low-income farmers to access food markets, including by: • modifying competitive tendering practices (e.g. reducing tender sizes, waiving bag markings or performance bonds and purchasing ex-warehouse); • purchasing directly from farmers’ associations and local traders; • using forward-contracting and partnerships with microcredit and insurance schemes to reduce risk and create greater certainty for farmers in their planning; and • developing processing options.
How: By focusing on the most vulnerable groups, WFP can be particularly effective in achieving — and documenting — impacts on the nutritional status of populations. Working with the private sector and other United Nations agencies, WFP is developing, testing and expanding the use of new products and strategies, including nutritionally improved blended foods, micronutrient powders and preventive ready-to-use supplementary foods, targeting young children. WFP developed a new approach to guide country offices in mainstreaming nutrition in their programmes and using new nutritionally enhanced products to achieve the greatest impact.
Combined with partnerships that promote agricultural productivity, P4P seeks to improve market opportunities and access for low-income farmers with the ultimate objective of raising their incomes by increasing the demand for their products. A monitoring and evaluation system for P4P has been developed and baseline studies are being conducted.
Where: As of 2009, WFP had piloted new food products in 18 countries and was preparing to expand the approach.
WFP/Peter Transburg/Mozambique
WFP/Souraya Saoud/Occupied Palestinian Territory
15
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 16
Figure 7: Steps for Implementing a New Approach to School Meal Programmes
Steps
Buy-in
Appraisal
Design/ redesign
Launch
Activities
Rationale
Outcomes
High-level government meetings
SF needs to be owned and driven by national government
An idea of the government’s position on SF and WFP’s role
School feeding (SF) strategy workshop
SF needs to be looked at in a wider context with all the stakeholders
An initial action plan and agreement on the way forward for SF in the country
Assessments and project design
SF needs to be redesigned using standards and tools
An in-depth assessment of the design; a project document; a transition plan
Implementation, monitoring & reporting
Quality standards are implemented
Programme implementation guided towards results
Where: P4P programmes are being implemented in 21 countries. By November 2009, 26,000 mt were already contracted in 12 countries.
deworming they offer valuable nutritional benefits. School feeding programmes are highly participatory, supporting communities and connecting teachers, parents, cooks, children, farmers and the local market. In some communities, school feeding has become the platform for local poverty reduction and development activities.
School meals: A flexible social protection instrument with solid benefits Why: In the world today, 66 million children go to school hungry. School meals are an important social protection instrument that is flexible and can be adjusted to address increased vulnerabilities in case of an emergency, with positive effects on educational achievements, nutrition and economic development.21 School meals encourage poor households to send children to school and improve attendance rates. School feeding programmes are often targeted to girls and are also an important way to reach children affected by AIDS. When school meals are combined with micronutrient fortification and
How: WFP has a new approach to school feeding that uses school meals as a safety net to support government development strategies in addressing hunger and shocks. The “one-size-fits-all” approach to school meals has evolved to a tailored approach supporting countries’ priorities and goals. A new policy paper was presented to the Executive Board in November 2009.22 The new approach is based on eight quality standards for better and sustainable school meals programmes: i) a strategy for sustainability; ii) sound 16
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 17
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
alignment with the national policy frameworks; iii) stable funding and budgeting; iv) needs-based, cost-effective quality programme design; v) strong institutional and implementation arrangements; vi) a strategy for local production and sourcing; vii) strong partnership and inter-sector coordination; and viii) strong community participation and ownership.
• results-based management using monitoring and evaluation. The process of implementing the approach at country level is conducted in four stages (see Figure 7). The first stage is to ensure that the government fully supports school feeding. This includes identifying the rationale, objectives and targets of school feeding and its relationship to the national development strategy. The second stage is to organize a stakeholder workshop, to appraise government policies and capacities, funding mechanisms and mapping of the programme areas in the country for the transition stage. The third stage applies the new approach to the design of school feeding programmes, assessing opportunities for local procurement. It also develops a strategy and transition plan for the country, including timelines, resources and capacities required to ensure sustainable, efficient programmes. The fourth stage launches the new school feeding programme, including monitoring.
WFP’s role in supporting school feeding varies according to how established a given country’s school feeding programme is. WFP provides: • expertise to promote school feeding as a social protection instrument and a hunger solution; • analysis and advice on needs, targeting, cost-effectiveness, cost containment and sourcing of food; • coordination support: bringing stakeholders together; • capacity development and technical support to ensure sustainability and adherence to agreed design and implementation standards; • implementation support, including in policy, programme design, needs assessment, management, targeting, monitoring and local procurement; • funding and resource mobilization; • support for partnerships, including for scale-up; • a knowledge base of good practices and research; and
Where: WFP has run school meal programmes for over 45 years; in 2008 these reached 22.6 million children in 68 countries. WFP has handed over school feeding programmes to 42 governments. Of the 42 hand-overs, 31 countries — almost 74 percent — still have school feeding programmes offered at some level.
WFP/Rein Skullerud/Zambia
17
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 18
WFP/Peter Smerdon/Kenya
Strengthening social protection Why: In developing countries, social protection is becoming a way to: i) move away from annual relief programmes to multi-year, more predictable systems; ii) enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, coverage and coordination of existing programmes; and iii) foster more equitable, inclusive and rights-based development processes. All this suggests that social protection should not be viewed merely as a cost, but rather as an investment in future growth.23 If properly designed and managed, social protection offers a platform to reduce the need for future assistance and enhance country ownership of programmes and processes.
How: Social protection includes a range of measures such as safety nets (mostly in the form of cash or food transfers), social services (such as health clinics) and insurance options. As described in its 2004 policy paper,24 WFP’s engagement in social protection centers on social safety nets involving food. WFP supports national safety nets through such activities as vulnerability assessment and mapping, market analyses, identifying targeting mechanisms, monitoring systems and conditionalities, implementation and delivery, impact and process-oriented evaluation, and policy-making (as for the Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia). 18
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 19
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
Where: Social protection is largely about public action, and all countries deploy some form of public measure against hunger. However, countries’ different capacities and objectives lead to diverse models of social protection. Such diversity must be explicitly recognized and interventions tailored to meet context-specific challenges. WFP has longstanding experience in supporting national social protection systems in various contexts. However, its comparative advantage is greatest in implementing safety nets in low-capacity contexts. WFP has been engaged in social protection in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi and Mozambique, among others.
in terms of metric tons; many of the innovations do not involve the deliveries of food. Different funding sources and mechanisms will be necessary. - Capacities. WFP needs to develop further the skill sets and knowledge required to implement the Strategic Plan: systematic implementation, documentation and evaluation of the innovations requires some new, or slightly different skills, than are currently available in WFP. With regard to effective and efficient voucher and cash transfer programming there is a need for more capacity in market analysis, financial delivery mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation systems. - Partnerships. Particularly in contexts where capacities are limited, WFP needs to strengthen and develop new partnerships, whether with governments, other United Nations agencies, the private sector or civil society. Partnerships should involve capacity development to work toward partners assuming ownership. - Social protection. WFP programmes that provide safety nets for vulnerable households need to be linked, where possible, to broader national social protection frameworks. WFP needs to engage more systematically in policy debates at the country level, advocating for and advising on food-related programmes in social protection systems. Where these do not exist, WFP needs to develop capacities and hand-over strategies.
CHALLENGES REMAIN WFP is shifting: - from a food aid to a food assistance organization, employing a wide set of tools to fight hunger; - from planning by project to planning based on more strategic, comprehensive approaches, based on a thorough analysis of the hunger situation in a country; - from implementing directly to enabling government ownership, capacity and accountability, with WFP in a supporting, advising and advocating role; and - from working with many partners to working more effectively in synergy with strategic partners to jointly fight hunger and malnutrition. WFP is already changing and the results on the ground are evident. Reaching the full potential offered by the changes, and documenting and implementing such a wide range of changes, will not be easy. WFP is likely to face a number of challenges in the coming years: - Funding. WFP’s funding mechanism is based on physical deliveries of food
Challenges create opportunities. Staff members throughout WFP are excited about the opportunities that have emerged in recent years to fight hunger on a new and expanded scale with effective results. It is this enthusiasm and sense of mission that will be an important factor for success.
19
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 20
ACRONyMS AIDS CERF DRR ECLAC FFW/A GDP MDG MDTF mt NGO ODA OECD/DAC P4P SENAC UN WFP
acquired immune deficiency syndrome Central Emergency Response Fund disaster risk reduction Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean food for work/assets gross domestic product Millennium Development Goal multi-donor trust fund metric tons non-governmental organisation Official Development Assistance Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee Purchase for Progress Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity United Nations World Food Programme
NOTES 1
See, for example: WFP. 2009. World Hunger Series — Hunger and Markets. London, Earthscan.
2
See: WFP. 2008. Food Aid Flows 2007. Rome; and WFP. 2009. Food Aid Flows 2008. Rome.
3
4
5
6
7
8
See, for example: Brinkman, H.-J., de Pee, S., Sanogo, I., Subran, L. and Bloem, M.W. 2010. High food prices and the global financial crisis have reduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritional status and health. Journal of Nutrition, 140: 153S-161S. CEPAL and WFP. 2007. El Costo del Hambre: Análisis del Impacto Social y Económico de la Desnutrición Infantil en América Latina. Santiago de Chile. See, for example: De Pee, S., Brinkman, H.-J., Webb, P., Godfrey, S., Darnton-Hill, I., Alderman, H., Semba, R.D., Piwoz, E., Bloem, M.W. 2010. How to ensure nutrition security in the global economic crisis to protect and enhance development of young children and our common future. Journal of Nutrition, 140: 138S-142S.
10
The report is available at http://www.un.org/events/panel/. Josette Sheeran, now WFP Executive Director, was a member of the panel.
12
See, for example: United Nations. 2009. MDG Gap Task Force Report 2009: Strengthening the Global Partnership for Development in a Time of Crisis. New York.
13
“WFP Strategic Plan (2008—2011)” (WFP/EB.A/2008/5A/1/Rev.1), extended to 2013 in 2009.
14
See, for example: “WFP Gender Policy” (WFP/EB.1/2009/5-A/Rev.1).
15
See, for example: WFP. 2009. Analysing Food Security and Vulnerability: Approach and Guidance. Rome.
16
“Vouchers and Cash Transfers as Food Assistance Instruments: Opportunities and Challenges” (WFP/EB.2/2008/4-B).
See: Sanogo, I. 2009. Global food price crisis and household hunger: A review of recent food security assessments. Humanitarian Practice Network. Humanitarian Exchange, 42: 8—12; and the WFP assessments available at http://www.wfp.org/foodsecurity/reports/price-rise. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2009. Global Economic Outlook 2009. London; Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. 2009. FAPRI 2009 U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook Database. Ames, Iowa; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2009. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2009—2018. Paris; United States Department of Agriculture. 2009. Agricultural Projections to 2018. Washington, DC; and World Bank. 2008. Global Economic Prospects 2009. Washington, DC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
9
11
See, for example: WFP. 2009. WFP’s Work in Complex Emergencies and On-Going Conflicts: A Discussion Note. Prepared for the International Conference on Humanitarian Assistance in Conflict/Complex Emergencies, Rome, 24—25 June. See, for example: the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008). 20
17
WFP. 2009. Development Risk Solutions. Project briefing note for the Rockefeller Foundation (July), Rome.
18
“WFP Policy on Disaster Risk Reduction” (WFP/EB.1/2009/5-B).
19
See http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/items/ 3595.php#beg.
20
See, for example: WFP. 2009. Connecting Farmers to Markets. Rome. Available at http://www.wfp.org/purchase-progress.
21
See, for example: World Bank and WFP. 2009. Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development and the Education Sector. Washington, DC; WFP. 2009. Feed Minds, Change Lives: School Feeding: Highlights and New Directions. Rome; WFP. 2009. Home-Grown School Feeding: A Framework to Link School Feeding with Local Agricultural Production. Rome; and WFP. 2009. Learning from Experience: Good Practices from 45 years of School Feeding. Rome.
22
“WFP School Feeding Policy” (WFP/EB.2/2009/4-A)
23
See, for example: Gentilini, U. and Omamo, S.W. 2009. Unveiling Social Safety Nets. WFP Occasional Paper No. 20 (November). Rome.
24
“WFP and Food-Based Safety Nets: Concepts, Experiences and Future Programming Opportunities” (WFP/EB.3/2004/4-A).
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 21
World Food Programme: Fighting Hunger with an Updated Toolbox
WFP/Anne Poulsen/Nepal
WFP_Fgtngthgrwithupdtbx-G_Layout 1 04/02/10 12.51 Pagina 22
P1006 - Printed: February 2010 - Cover Photo: WFP/Susannah Nicol/Afghanistan
Policy, Planning and Strategy Division World Food Programme Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 68/70 00148 Rome, Italy February 2010