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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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]

7. 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 request to
>> Survey Planning and Training Tools: access
Most importantly – Let us know which tools / materials were useful, and which could be improved.

8. An Emergency Needs Assessment Framework
Not either or…need both.
WFP budget allocations: % non-crisis, 10% emergency
% 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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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.