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

2. ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY Food Security in the Context of IFAD Projects Technology Livestock & Fisheries WaterLand Environment Incomes Community Organization Health & Sanitation Health & Sanitation Savings & Credit Extension & Training Participation Literacy Institution Building CaregivingPractices Sustainability A VAILABILITY A CCESS U TILISATION S TABILITY

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

4. ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTYObjectives: 1.Establish anchor indicators of impact (linked to MDGs) which can be tracked over the life of the project 2.Develop training materials for project staff and partners 3.Improve local capacity to carry out future assessments Case Studies in Morocco, China (IFAD & WFP) Guinée and Côte d’Ivoire

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

7. ENABLING THE RURAL POOR TO OVERCOME POVERTY Closing Thoughts 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.orgs.kennedy@ifad.org >> Survey Planning and Training Tools: access www.ifad.org/hfswww.ifad.org/hfs Most importantly – Let us know which tools / materials were useful, and which could be improved.

8. An Emergency Needs Assessment Framework

9. 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) WFP Strategic Priorities (2004-07) and the MDGS

10. 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. 1 Reduced and stabilized prevalence of acute malnutrition and mortality

11. 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. 2 Protect livelihoods in crises and enhance resilience to shocks

12. 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. Strategic Priority No. 3 Supporting nutrition and health among vulnerable groups

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

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

15. v Protecting the acutely food insecure (incl. saving lives and managing risks) contributes to MDGs 1, 3, 4 — the MDGs are not only about ‘development’ v Managing for results needed even (especially?) in high risk contexts affecting household investment behaviour. v 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. Messages/Conclusions