Presentation: Working Group on HFS and the MDGs _______________________________________ United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition 31st Session – New York, 24 March 2004

Food Security in the Context of IFAD Projects ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY Food Security in the Context of IFAD Projects Sustainability STABILITY Health & Sanitation Caregiving Practices UTILISATION Community Organization Participation Institution Building ACCESS Incomes Savings & Credit Extension & Training Literacy AVAILABILITY Land Water Technology Livestock & Fisheries Environment

IFAD Results and Impact Management System ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY IFAD Results and Impact Management System PROJECT MANAGEMENT & PARTICIPANTS RURAL COMMUNITIES IFAD MANAGEMENT & MEMBER STATES NATIONAL LEVEL

Case Studies in Morocco, China (IFAD & WFP) Guinée and Côte d’Ivoire ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY Case Studies in Morocco, China (IFAD & WFP) Guinée and Côte d’Ivoire Objectives: Establish anchor indicators of impact (linked to MDGs) which can be tracked over the life of the project Develop training materials for project staff and partners Improve local capacity to carry out future assessments

ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY “Anchor Indicators of Impact” to be Measured in IFAD Projects (beginning 2004) Reduction in length of hungry season Access to safe water Access to secure sanitation Female / Male Literacy Chronic Malnutrition Acute Malnutrition Underweight

Tools and Training Materials ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY Tools and Training Materials   overview tools & guidelines knowledge notes studies links Household Food Security and Nutrition New Website: section on “tools & guidelines” [French, English, Spanish & Arabic] Training Video: Benchmark Assessment of Impact Indicators [French, English]

Closing Thoughts ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY Importance of… >> Methodological Alignment >>Comparability of Indicators and Impact Reporting For WFP/IFAD + Other UN Agencies + Bi-laterals + Civil Society. For SCN WG participants interested in obtaining any of the IFAD tools / materials... >> Training Video: send an email request to s.kennedy@ifad.org >> Survey Planning and Training Tools: access www.ifad.org/hfs Most importantly – Let us know which tools / materials were useful, and which could be improved.

An Emergency Needs Assessment Framework Not either or…need both. WFP budget allocations: 1973 - 90% non-crisis, 10% emergency 2003 - 10% non-crisis, 90% emergency WFP 2003 expenditure – US$2.7 billion (all voluntary contrib.) * 30 million people affected by conflicts each year of the 1990s; 60 million people reached in emergencies by WFP in 2003 * Non-violent deaths in emergencies cut by c. 40% 1993 – 2003 vz. previous decade

WFP Strategic Priorities (2004-07) and the MDGS SP1. Save lives in crisis situations (MDGs 1, 4) SP2. Protect livelihoods in crises and enhance resilience to shocks (MDG 1, 7) SP3. Support improved nutrition and health of children, mothers and other vulnerable people (MDGs 1, 4, 5, 6)

Strategic Priority No. 1 Reduced and stabilized prevalence of acute malnutrition and mortality Indicator(s): * Crude mortality rate * Under 5 mortality rate** * Acute malnutrition of <5s (by gender) Interventions: * Supplementary and therapeutic feeding * General food distribution * Facilitating other interventions

Strategic Priority No. 2 Protect livelihoods in crises and enhance resilience to shocks Indicator: * Share of household expenditure allocated to food** Interventions: * Food for work to preserve assets during crises and support recovery; * Food-supported national safety-nets

Strategic Priority No. 3 Supporting nutrition and health among vulnerable groups Indicator(s): * Prevalence of <5 malnutrition * Malnutrition in adult women (BMI, LBW)** * Prevalence of anemia** * Reduced food insecurity among HIV affected** Interventions: * Nutrition programmes * School-based nutrition interventions; * HIV/AIDS, TB, leprosy, etc interventions.

Main recipients of food assistance (2002) Multilateral food aid recipients: Afghanistan, Ethiopia, North Korea, Sudan, Angola, Malawi. Bilateral food aid recipients: Philippines, Jordan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Yemen

Towards Managing for Results MOUs (need agreement on reporting/standards—tools, manuals, training, etc) Staff training (joint with UNICEF, ICRC, UNHCR, CDC, others)—focused on results and on policy dialogue for HHFS and nutrition in PRSPs Baselines (MDG-friendly): Afghanistan, Angola, Zambia, Sierra Leone Ethiopia, Chad/Sudan, Pakistan, CAR Applied research on methods/indicators (Liberia, Bangladesh)

Messages/Conclusions Protecting the acutely food insecure (incl. saving lives and managing risks) contributes to MDGs 1, 3, 4 — the MDGs are not only about ‘development’ Managing for results needed even (especially?) in high risk contexts affecting household investment behaviour. All partners need to ‘tool up’ to be able to report on impact, not merely process. This in itself will affect what is done, and how.