FEEDBACK ON THE NIWG MEETING HELD ON 2 ND OCTOBER 2014

FSNMS Key concerns in the last FSNMS  Wide confidence intervals  High plausibility  Measurement problems- Weight (salter scale was used) and height  High digit preference  High Oedema cases (47 edema) Possible causes  Sample did not meet the mandatory 25 clusters per state – (ranged from 4-16)  Poor team supervision- lack of commitment/ involvement of many actors  Lack of routine data quality check Way forward  Increase clusters to 25 in each state  Partners commit to supervision of field work  Revise budget and re-allocate including partners  Full proposal presented in the next week NIWG meeting

SEASONALITY VS SURVEY TIMING Objectives of Nutrition surveys  Monitor and evaluate project/program progress  Feed information of severity of food insecurity into IPC analysis  Understand trends/severity of food insecurity  Informing program planning Way-Forward  Feedback on the meeting with FAO and OCHA Food security teams will be presented to the NIWG next week.  Template for 2015 planned surveys to be circulated to the partners for input  Date of planned survey  Area –county  Funding source etc  Required technical support if any

REVIEWS AND VALIDATION OF SURVEYS  Validated  Renk POC anthropometry and mortality  Renk host community anthropometry  Renk Host community mortality- clarifications sort  CWW and ACF- Torit proposal validated with amendments

DISCUSSION ON THE NUTRITION SITUATION UPDATE –DOCUMENT  All counties with GAM rate above 15% are considered to be vulnerable in terms of nutrition  Areas of GAM above 15% and with access constrains that might hinder response are identified as the most vulnerable counties.

NUTRITION INFORMATION  The survey matrix is on the cluster website n-cluster-assessment-database  Program reporting has been very poor –agreed the reporting trend of partners to be presented to the NIWG for further advice