TECHNICAL CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP Mapping Food Security … · 2011. 6. 30. · Mapping Food Security...

TECHNICAL CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP

Mapping Food Security and Nutrition Actions at Country Level

23 – 25 May 2011

ROME, ITALY

Workshop Report

25 June 2011


Workshop Report

of 26

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................4

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................5

BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................................9

OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP............................................................................................................ 10

WORKSHOP APPROACH......................................................................................................................... 11

PROCEEDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 11

ANNEX 1 WORKSHOP AGENDA.............................................................................................................. 16

ANNEX 2 OUTPUTS FROM BREAK-AWAY GROUPS.................................................................................. 17

ANNEX 3 WORKSHOP EVALUATION RESULTS......................................................................................... 24

ANNEX 4 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................ 26


Workshop Report

of 26

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The organizers would like to thank all participants from member states, regional and global

partners for their time and contributions towards the workshop outputs. The strong interest in

the subject matter and exchanges of ideas between a diverse group of participants has helped

to set the stage for the way forward for Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) action mapping

including requirements and recommendations for national, regional and global levels.

We also extend warm thanks to Thomas Gabrielle for the excellent review paper he drafted

that served as the basis for discussions at the workshop and to René Verduijn, who was a

capable and invigorating facilitator during the workshop and who has prepared the bulk of this

report.

Finally, the CFS Secretariat would like to extend our appreciation to the various organizations

that are represented on the FSN Action Mapping Task Team, especially, colleagues within FAO,

WFP, the UN-High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF), the Alliance

Against Hunger and Malnutrition (AAHM), OXFAM, and ActionAid. The Task Team members

have played a key role in the achievements of the workshop by assisting during the preparatory

phase and facilitating break-away group discussions during the workshop.

CFS Secretariat


Workshop Report

of 26

INTRODUCTION

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) Secretariat, as endorsed by the 36th Session of

CFS in October 2010, organized a technical consultative workshop on “Food Security and

Nutrition (FSN) Action Mapping at Country Level” from 23-25 May in Rome, Italy. Invitees

included about forty stakeholders and experts representing Governments, CSO/NGOs,

implementing organizations (public and private technical organizations), and UN and

development agencies. The 2 ½ day workshop enabled participants to develop a collective

understanding of what is required to map FSN actions at country level based on existing

experiences. More specifically, participants shared experiences and views on existing systems,

tools and practices; listed requirements for making FSN action mapping happen and formulated

a number of recommendations for concrete follow-up action. These workshop outputs will

form the core of a report that will be submitted and inform the next Session of the CFS in

October 2011 regarding the experiences, lessons learned and the way forward.

This report consists of three parts, 1) context for the workshop – including background,

rationale and objectives; 2) brief overview of the proceedings of the workshop, listing the main

objectives and outputs per session, and, 3) Annexes containing, the workshop agenda, outputs

from the break-away session, results of the evaluation conducted and the list of participants.

The key findings and recommendations from the workshop have been presented at the

beginning of the report to allow easy access by the reader.


Workshop Report

of 26

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The technical consultative workshop revealed that there was great interest in the subject of

mapping actions for FSN. Discussions and presentations during the workshop focused on

experiences with existing mechanisms to profile actions such as policies and programmes and

linking these with resource flows, funding and implementing organizations, benefiting locations

and populations, and other relevant variables. The experiences shared and subsequent

discussions show great potential among attending member states for such systems to enhance

co-ordination among development partners and improve efficiency and effectiveness in the

management of the food security agenda and related resource allocation.

The participants highlighted that the way forward in this regard is closely related to the ability

to establish appropriate linkages between the various existing initiatives and across the many

sectors that have an impact and are of relevance to food security and nutrition. These include

mapping initiatives that cover national and/or international flows of resources from various

partners (e.g. government, civil society organizations, international donors, IFIs, private sector);

systems in support of development or emergency actions; and, those related to specific

thematic areas and/or sectors. It was clear from the discussions that the need for the various

systems to use a common language, or at least understand each other, is paramount.

Networking and communication among the partners is an essential means towards achieving

compatibility between relevant information and database management systems.

It was also clear from the discussions that there are not many fully operational systems at the

national level that specifically ‘map food security and nutrition actions’, although there are

systems in place that ‘map’ various aspects in the broadest sense of the word. The FAO’s

MAfFS1 system, specifically designed to map FSN actions, showed good developmental progress

and potential in this regard. While some other systems do have certain methods/tools in place

to look at who is doing what where, the main mechanism used isn’t necessarily a database that

eventually links various aspects together. It is therefore useful to make a clear distinction

between organizational/institutional systems and those more focused on information, coding

structures and database management systems.

The workshop participants discussed all the various components of an FSN action mapping

system, but the ones that most strongly resonated among participants were:

(i) Institutions and governance

(ii) Data and information management

(iii) Operational capacities and resource requirements.

1 REF: MAfFS = Mapping Actions for Food Security (previously FS-ATMIS in CFS:2010/3).


Workshop Report

of 26

Based on the articulation of requirements for all components, which were drawn from national,

regional and international level experiences, the following recommendations were made:

i) Institutions and Governance

1. Given FSN is a complex, multi-sectoral discipline, and, building on existing FSN

institutional structures, rather than creating new ones to prevent duplication of efforts

and increased pressure on scarce resources, the following recommendations are given

for consideration at the national level:

a. Facilitate a process towards building political and institutional commitment for

FSN action mapping, ensuring involvement of multiple stakeholders.

b. Ensure linkages are made between the decision-making process and FSN

mapping, starting with linking the various actions to available resources. These

include active engagement by the custodians of the national budget and

planning process (eg., Planning/ Finance) and those Ministries with the ability to

coordinate multi-sectoral issues (PM Office/ Presidency/FSN

Councils/Committees).

c. National Task Teams, preferably embedded within existing coordination or

discussion forums on FSN, should be established or strengthened to engage in

advocacy for FSN action mapping to demonstrate the use of mapping in policy

decision-making and action-planning.

d. This same National Task team could assist in including FSN action mapping when

drawing up FSN action-plans, help ensure coherence in the process and linkages

to resource availability.

2. In line with the recommendations above, regional bodies are recommended to support

the use of FSN action mapping at country level and include mapping of actions in their

regional FSN action plans.

3. CFS is requested to support the promotion of action mapping among its member states

and facilitate efforts to exchange experiences between the countries and regions in the

world, including:

a. Identifying focal points at global, regional and national levels to help facilitate

the process and technical assistance to the regions and countries.


Workshop Report

of 26

b. Encourage the existing FSN action Mapping Task Team to play a role in

coordination and facilitation of technical assistance to national and regional

institutions working on mapping actions for FSN.

c. Organize a follow-up meeting/activities to track the progress of implementation

of food security action mapping in various country contexts. The results of this

follow-up meeting could then be shared in the CFS Plenary 2012.

ii) Data and Information Management

Realizing that mapping actions for FSN is part of a larger mapping exercise across all sectors

within national boundaries but including important stakeholders at national, regional and

global levels it is recommended that:

4. The process of reviewing existing work from OECD, UN, Gates Foundation, Aid Data, Aid

Info, national programs, etc. be further considered, with a clear aim of working towards

a common, or congruous language (especially regarding agreement on coding standards

of basic information) to facilitate compatibility between relevant information systems

and among the various initiatives;

5. At national level, inventories of data systems be conducted – to include definitions of

components, variables, code lists covering both qualitative as well as quantitative

sources, etc. This would help in developing templates that could eventually be used by

all stakeholders for programmes and projects towards harmonized coding of key

variables.

6. Global level partners facilitate and coordinate these data and information

harmonization efforts, while maintaining the ownership of the process clearly at the

national level, supported by serious efforts on strengthening relevant capacities at the

country level.

7. Given its mandate and experience in this field, FAO should lead the efforts towards

harmonization of the various data efforts and in developing a common or congruous

language towards compatibility between relevant information systems.

8. Technical working groups could be established to facilitate the communication and

exchange between stakeholders – in particular to contribute to a web portal for easy

access to codes and relevant links and information regarding mapping of FSN actions.

iii) Operational Context – Capacity, Resources and Users

As the various building blocks for mapping often already exist at national level, the workshop

emphasized the need for high-level (political) support to gain access to the various data sources


Workshop Report

of 26

to allow FSN action mapping to take place. Moreover, it was recommended that to be

successful:

9. The importance of capacity development cannot be overestimated, at organizational

and individual level, national and sub-national level, and in the technical and non-

technical areas.

a. Investment in capacity development is key to ensuring that FSN action mapping

becomes part of routine functions of existing information systems and

strengthens the roles of the different stakeholders.

b. A communication strategy is recommended to raise awareness of the

opportunities for and benefits of mapping FSN actions among various potential

users, in particular decision-makers.

10. Strengthening of ongoing efforts by international partners in building up an online

community of practice where experiences can be shared among member states. Such

online resources could provide the starting point for member states interested in

engaging in such mapping activities.

This includes activities such as taking stock of relevant initiatives and stakeholders,

defining roles and responsibilities, resource requirements and selection of approaches,

methods, processes, protocols and outputs.

11. International partners are requested to provide technical assistance where possible,

aligned fully with the national context and priorities as set by the countries.

12. Finally, member states are encouraged to allocate their own resources for FSN action

mapping as part of their overall monitoring, planning and decision-making efforts.


Workshop Report

of 26

BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, renewed political attention to world food security and nutrition has

resulted in pledges to increase resources to address factors that contribute to hunger, food

insecurity and malnutrition. This renewed attention also brings into focus the need for

comprehensive understanding of food security and nutrition (FSN) policies, plans, actions and

needs at national and sub-national levels. Information on FSN actions that exists at country-

level is often fragmented, not routinely captured, nor systematically analysed against national

food security and nutrition objectives.

In addition, information regarding actions related to FSN usually comes from many different

sources, which adds to the challenge of having a systematically updated and comprehensive

view of the FSN actions landscape. Sources may include:

(1) Needs and situation analysis from routine or periodic assessments and surveys

(2) Aid management and financial tracking systems

(3) Response mapping (who/what/where)

(4) Information systems that produce thematic gap or policy impact analysis

(5) Project or programme monitoring and evaluations.

Since 2007, CFS has been interested in supporting member states in developing a systematic

inventory of food security actions. Subsequently, following the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative

(AFSI) meeting in December 2009, the CFS Chair requested the CFS Secretariat and UN-High

Level Task Force (HLTF) to develop a proposal for a country-owned ‘mapping’ mechanism. At

the 36th

session of CFS in 2010 a proposal was presented to the Committee outlining a plan to

develop and implement such a mechanism. The overall purpose is to provide national

governments and other users with an improved capacity to make better informed decisions

about how best to design national and regional policies, strategies and programmes and where

to allocate resources to achieve food security and nutrition objectives (ref: CFS:2010/3).

The proposal endorsed by CFS 36 contained a number of steps including:

1. Review existing mapping tools to draw lessons and identify information gaps;

2. Take advantage of on-going developmental activities and incorporate lessons that are

relevant to mapping food security actions;

3. Hold a consultative workshop based on the above outcomes to:

a. discuss a document reviewing existing tools/systems, including with

representatives of those systems,


Workshop Report

of 26

b. review the initial feedback from pilot countries participating in implementing

Mapping Actions for Food Security tools, and,

c. engage a broad base of stakeholders in the planning process for developing and

implementing such a mapping system.

4. Provide an update of the process, including experiences, lessons learnt and good

practices from countries, at the CFS session in 2011.

This report provides a brief account of key findings/outcomes as well as the proceedings of the

technical consultative workshop that was held for 2 ½ days in Rome, 23-25 May.

OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP

The overall objective of the workshop was to: Improve collective understanding of the

description of, and purposes for, mapping actions relevant to food security and nutrition (FSN)

at country-level, and what is required to make it happen.

The specific objectives included:

1. Clarify key issues - opportunities and constraints, key components and approaches for

FSN action mapping based on country experiences and other initiatives from global

partners

2. Learn lessons from country experiences and initiatives, and from global partners, to

illustrate different approaches to FSN action mapping

3. Identify the building blocks for FSN action mapping including components and

approaches

4. Formulate recommendations regarding FSN action mapping for CFS.

The expected outputs included:

1. Key issues identified and clarified for FSN action mapping, including opportunities and

constraints (Day 1)

2. Country experiences explored and documented (Day 1)

3. Lessons learned from country experiences, initiatives from global partners, and

subsequent discussions on dimensions and approaches to FSN action mapping (Day 2)

4. Building blocks identified for good practices on FSN action mapping (Day 2)

5. Content provided for recommendations by the workshop towards FSN action mapping

in response to CFS request (Day 3)

The workshop outputs, key findings and recommendations are summarized in this report,

which will be used as an input for the preparation of a document on FSN action mapping for


Workshop Report

of 26

CFS 37 in October 2011. The issues described here will also guide the outline of presentations

to be made by a select number of countries at that session.

WORKSHOP APPROACH

Approximately 40 people experienced with the technical and institutional issues related to

implementation and development of FSN mapping systems were invited to participate in the 2

½ day Technical Consultation hosted by the CFS Secretariat. The participants were from

national governments as well as representatives from global partners – UN, NGOs and

businesses – and the CFS Secretariat Task Team members. Participants included senior-level

decision makers, in addition to technical experts and agency representatives working on FSN

action mapping. Above all, the workshop provided an opportunity to exchange experiences and

together outline what is required to make FSN action mapping happen at country level.

The Consultation used the general format of presentations to introduce topics and prepare

participants for break-away groups, followed by interactive working group sessions (see agenda

in Annex 1). Break-away working group sessions provided participants with the opportunity to

explore and discuss in-depth the major subject components, drawing from and relating these to

their country experiences and perspectives. Day 1 focused on presentations and sharing of

experiences from the participants. Day 2 focused on identifying the requirements for FSN

action mapping through intensive break-away working groups focused on 6 major themes:

(1) Institutions and Governance

(2) Analytical Framework and Outputs

(3) Data and Information Management

(4) Users and Usage

(5) Operations, Capacity and Resources

(6) Context/ Enabling Environment.

All participants were able to contribute inputs and have detailed discussions on all six

components. With these requirements in mind, the workshop concluded on Day 3 by drawing a

set of recommendations on the most actionable points at national, regional and global levels.

PROCEEDINGS

DAY 1 - Overview

The first day of the workshop focused on setting the stage, clarifying what is meant by ‘mapping

actions for food security and nutrition’ and sharing experiences from the participants. The

agenda for Day 1 included the opening of the workshop by the CFS Secretariat, setting the

context for the workshop; introduction of the participants and review of expectations by the

facilitator; highlights from the review study conducted prior to the workshop; followed by a


Workshop Report

of 26

number of presentations drawing out experiences from country representatives and global

partners.

Owing partly to the small group, and also to the general level of interest by participants, all

presentations were made in plenary followed by Question & Answer sessions. Although not all

participants were originally scheduled to present, at the request of the participants, additional

time was scheduled so that any participant who wished, had a chance to present their

perspective to plenary. The presentations and sharing of experiences were concluded by the

first session on Day 2. The break-away groups were also designed to provide additional

opportunity for participants to share their experiences and contribute to specific components.

The expected workshop outputs for Day 1 were achieved, including:

1. Key issues identified and clarified for FSN action mapping, including opportunities and

constraints

2. Country experiences explored and documented.

This successfully concluded the first part of the workshop and opened the way for the second

part - in-depth discussions among participants identifying key issues and formulating

requirements for FSN action mapping. The following paragraphs briefly describe the workshop

sessions and their achievements.

Session 1 Opening

The workshop was opened by Kostas Stamoulis, Director of the Agricultural Development

Economics Division of FAO (ESA) and Secretary of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS).

He elaborated on the importance of the workshop by explaining the context for this event, in

particular in relation to global FSN initiatives and the reformed CFS. He welcomed the

participants to Rome and asked them to look at the opportunities and challenges for

developing and promoting FSN action mapping systems in a more coordinated and coherent

manner.

Mark McGuire, Coordinator of the CFS Secretariat Team, and focal point for the workshop,

made a short presentation on the process, including recommendations from CFS 36 in 2010

where FSN action mapping had been discussed - and the expectations for this workshop to

provide further clarity on the concept and learn from existing country experiences. He also

presented a working definition for FSN action mapping where it can be distinguished from

tracking and monitoring of FSN actions at country level. FSN action mapping was defined as the

profiling of actions (including policies, legislation, plans, programmes, and investments) and

linking them with resource flows, institutions, benefiting locations and populations. One key

outcome of the workshop turned out to be that this distinction – mapping, tracking, monitoring

– is somewhat arbitrary - as many of the countries present insisted that tracking and monitoring

of FSN actions are part of their mandate and follows almost automatically once an inventory of

actions has been completed.


Workshop Report

of 26

Session 3: Highlights of the Review Paper

This session provided an overview of the review of existing systems that was conducted prior to

the workshop to inform the discussions on the mapping of FSN actions. The study reviewed

existing action mapping systems and related activities drawing out lessons from existing

national, regional and global experiences. Examples of the diversity of initiatives that were

explored during the review include: Aid Management, Humanitarian Coordination,

Development and Humanitarian Financial Tracking (Global), FSN and Early Warning Situation

Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation, Project Management and Sector/ Thematic/ Agency

Program Mapping (see Review Paper for further details).

Session 4: Sharing Experiences from Countries and Global Partners

The objective for this session was to explore experiences from countries and global partners in

order to identify and clarify the issues, opportunities and constraints for FSN action mapping. A

significant number of presentations were made, followed by plenary Q&A. This included a

number of presentations that were conducted under the umbrella of an “Exchange Fair.”

Table. Plenary presentations at the workshop (Day 1 and 2)

Name Country/ organization Topic/ system on display

Ramon Borjas Honduras/Presidential M. FS instruments and decentralization

Edgar Cossa Mozambique/ SETSAN SETSAN

Ahmad Fahim Didar Afghanistan/ MAIL MAfFS/ country context

Maiwada Zubairu Nigeria/ FMARD MAfFS/ country context

H.E. Srun Darith Cambodia/ CARD CARD

Barun Dev Mitra Bangladesh/ MFDM FSN action mapping

Azzam Ayasal WBGS/ FAO APIS

Jose VallsBedeau FAO MAfFS

Mohamed Ajuba Sheriff Sierra Leone/ MAFFS MAfFS/ country context

Mande Isaora Zefania

Romalahy

Madagascar/ PM Office Aid Management Platform

Michele Lessa Oliveira

Carmen Priscilla Bocchi

Brazil/ CONSEA CONSEA

Bill Anderson IATA International Aid Transparency Initiative

Alberta Guerra Action Aid Public Finance/ Agricultural Research

Marzella Wuestefeld UNSCN REACH and WHO Landscape Analysis

Julie Montgomery InterAction Thematic Project Mapping

The presentations generally followed a structure where the subject matter had been divided

into components of:

(1) Institutions and Governance

(2) Analytical Framework and Outputs

(3) Data and Information Management

(4) Users and Usage

(5) Operations, Capacity and Resources

(6) Context/ Enabling Environment.


Workshop Report

of 26

The strong interest in and depth of knowledge of the subject by the participants was evident

from the presentations. Various examples of the mapping of FSN actions were provided and

many were focused on linking actions, such as (sub) sectoral programmes and projects to

resources and locations. The presentations emphasized the need to involve and harmonize the

efforts of multiple stakeholders at different levels (local, state, national) in order for the

mapping to contribute more effectively to the definition of national FSN needs and targeted

development plans.

The large diversity and scope of FSN action mapping and how this crosses sectoral borders and

their associations not only with government but also donor resources was emphasized by the

initiatives that were presented. This diversity also emphasized that collaboration and

common/congruous standards for exchange of information would be crucial to the success of

mapping initiatives. Moreover, the presentations emphasized the utility of well mapped FSN

actions, in particular the opportunities for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of

government programmes. It was confirmed that few national FSN action mapping systems are

fully operational. Perhaps most advanced were Afghanistan, Nigeria and Sierra Leone that

shared their experiences with FAO’s MAfFS (Mapping Actions for Food Security).

DAY 2:

The second day of the workshop was dedicated to in-depth discussion among participants after

drawing out experiences and identification of main issues on Day 1. Break-away groups were

formed in the morning and afternoon and discussions focused on the identification of

requirements for FSN action mapping by component. The 5 components used included:

(1) Institutions and governance

(2) Analytical framework and outputs

(3) Data and information management

(4) Usage and users

(5) Operations, resources and contextual requirements.

The outputs of the break-away groups can be found in Annex 3. By the end of Day 2, the

workshop outputs for day 2 as listed below had been largely achieved:

3. Lessons learned from country experiences, initiatives from global partners, and

subsequent discussions on dimensions and approaches to FSN action mapping

4. Building blocks identified for good practices of FSN action mapping.

The main results from Day 2 contributed to the overall objective of the workshop of identifying

what is required to make FSN action mapping happen at country level.

DAY 3

The final half day of the workshop was used to review the achievements of Day 1 and 2, and,

with the requirements for FSN action mapping in mind, to identify action points and


Workshop Report

of 26

subsequent recommendations for follow-up. In a final break-away session, three groups were

formed and presented their actionable points and recommendations in plenary. Details of the

final working group presentations can be found in Annex 3. They formed the basis for the

findings and recommendations included at the beginning of this report. Overall, the expected

output was achieved on the final day, namely:

5. Content provided for recommendations by the workshop towards FSN action mapping in

response to CFS request.


Workshop Report

of 26

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 WORKSHOP AGENDA

Monday 23rd Tuesday 24th Wednesday 25th

MO

RN

ING

1 Opening (9.00-9.30) 2 Introduction (9.30-10.30) Coffee break (10.30 - 11.00) 3 Highlights of the review

paper – setting the stage (11.00 – 11.30)

4 Sharing experiences from

countries and global partners (11.30 – 13.00)

Presentations and Panel discussions

6 Review of Day 1 (9.00-9.10) 7 Discussion of issues - towards identification of good practices a. Discussion on issues using guiding questions and sharing of country experiences in smaller groups (9.10-12.00)

Coffee break (10.40-11.00)

Exchange fair (12.00-13.00)

9 Review of Day 1 and 2 (9.00-

9.30)

10 Break away groups (9.30-

10.30)

Wrap up of the various issues

towards WS outputs/ outcomes

Coffee break (10.30-11.00)

11 Conclusions/way forward

(11.00-12.00)

12 Wrapping up (12.00-12.15)

13 Official Closure (12.15-12.30)

AF

TE

RN

OO

N

Lunch (13.00 – 14.00) Session 4 Continued (14.00 – 15.30) Presentations and Panel discussions Tea break (15.30 – 16.00) 5 Day 1 Wrap-up Session (16.00-16.15) Exchange fair (16.15-18.00)

Lunch (13.00-14.00) b. Identification of good

practices based on country experiences in break-away groups (14.00-15.00)

c. Break-away group

presentations in plenary followed by discussion (15.00-18.00)

Tea break (16.00-16.30)

8 Wrap up of Day 2 (18.00-

18.15)

Cocktail at venue (18.30-19.30)

Lunch (12.30-13.30)

EX

PE

CT

ED

OU

TP

UT

S

Day 1:

1) Key issues identified and

clarified for FSN action

mapping, including

opportunities and

constraints,

2) Country experiences

explored and documented

Day 2:

3) Lessons learned from country

experiences, initiatives from

global partners, and

subsequent discussions on

dimensions and approaches

to FSN action mapping,

4) Building blocks identified for

good practices.

Day 3:

5) Content provided for

recommendations by the

workshop towards FSN action

mapping in response to CFS

request


Workshop Report

of 26

ANNEX 2 OUTPUTS FROM BREAK-AWAY GROUPS

DAY 2 REQUIREMENTS FOR FSN ACTION MAPPING (Session 7)

Group 1: Institutions and Governance

1) Elements of good governance and coordination

- High level mandate for FSN responsibilities (presidential/ ministerial decree, legislative act,

…). Some countries already have this high level mandate (examples: Brazil and Egypt),

others need to move forward and learn from such experiences. Advocacy, identification of

champions may be useful tools to achieve this goal.

- Direct link to the FSN institutional structure through an inter-sectoral body with state and

non-state participation. This body should document continuously as the system is being

developed to provide information about the methodology, the guiding principles,

responsibilities, organizational structure, needed capacities, definition of indicators, rules

and regulations, resources.

2) Organizational Structure of inter-sectoral body

- Adequate technical capacity including in information analysis and dissemination and role of

national government in opening to international partners to improve technical capacity

- A technical and administrative secretariat should take the lead role within the intersectoral

body (Ministry of health, Ministry of social development and fight against hunger, Ministry

of Agriculture)

- Different levels of coordination are required for inter country and national/local level action

mapping (horizontal and vertical linkages for FSN action mapping)

3) Composition of inter-sectoral body

- The key stakeholder is the Government, as without their engagement the system has no

sustainability.

- Other stakeholders include: statistics bureau, national and international NGOs and CSOs

(especially at the grassroots level), private sector companies, research and academia;

development partners.

- Incentives for participation. For governmental actors incentive is given by the high level

mandate stipulating institutional responsibilities. Different incentives should be found for

NGOs/CSOs and private sector. For NGOs/CSOs to have their voice heard and have access to

funding opportunities. For private sector to have access to information which will guide

their investment decisions.

4) Elements of accountability for the inter-sectoral body


Workshop Report

of 26

- A widely disseminated work plan defined through a participatory process detailing time-

bound deliverables, sharing responsibilities, prioritized resources

- Guiding principles for the work plan should include transparency, equity (gender,

marginalized groups..)

- Products of the work plan should include: periodic reports, reviews, annual conferences

presenting achievements, maintaining mapping tools.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group 2 Analytical Framework and Outputs

Identification of Issues and Good Practices

Outputs

Key Output Products

• Map of who’s doing what where?

• Map of who’s doing what where and for whom?

• Identification of gaps/overlaps of interventions related to needs/situation analysis

• Analysis of effectiveness/efficiency/impact of programmes

Characteristics

• Location, trend, targets (LZ, Socio-, Gender etc…)

• Simple

• Routine/Regular

• Prompting further research

Inputs

• Policies/strategies/plans

• Interventions

• Resources

• Needs/situation analysis

• Beneficiaries

• Spatial (coverage – location)

Methods

• Definition

• Establishing frameworks

• Processes established

• Software usage (GIS, stats, automated outputs from systems etc…)

• Timeline

Structure

• Multi-sectoral analysis

• Multi-stakeholder OR independent body to conduct analysis


Workshop Report

of 26

• Technical expertise (subject matter specialists, stats, information management)

• Central vs. decentralized levels of data input/analysis

– Analysis should happen at different levels, not just at centralized level

– To ensure identification of both macro- and micro- actions

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group 3 Data and Information Management

1. What are core information layers for FSN mapping?

• Multi-layered/multi-faceted system (horizontal and vertical) -> aggregation according to

user/decision maker

• Layers: geographical, sectoral, needs, actions, strategies/policies, achievements,

humanitarian vs development (timing)

• Two approaches:

o Unitary system – efficient decision making

o Multiple systems -> inventory and linage -> flexibility and dynamic

2. What FSN classification required?

• Need for classification (including protocols for usage)

• Multiple coding systems/definitions

3. What are IT requirements?

• ICT environment to be considered; with forward looking perspective, as appropriate

• Simplicity/user friendliness is key – for data entry and data output

• [take advantage of current] Technologies for processing unstructured data

• Capacity requirements to be ensured -> sustainable local skills

o Management, development, administration

• Open source vs proprietary – resources for capacity development

• SMS technology for data collection – link to main system

4. Partnerships

• Country-led partnerships – country defined needs

• Regional partnerships – by sharing of information/experiences – inter-operable

country/organization systems

• Code of practice on making information available or partnership agreements/negotiated

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group 4 Users and Usage


Workshop Report

of 26

Main user Main usages Main issues

Primary users

• Governments decision

makers

• planners

• Members of national food

security council

• Donors/development

partners

• Regional organizations

• Budgeting,

• Multi-sectoral planning,

• Policy making,

• Overall monitoring,

• Resource mobilization

(Proposals preparation,

donors identification)

• Advocacy

• Policy Analysis

• Regulatory functions

(alignment)

• Proposal making, evaluation,

research, , mapping donors

and projects, policy analysis.

• Levels of access

• Commitment to full

transparency (inputs-outputs)

• Progressive decentralization

• Political buy-in

• Human resources

• Integration with FNSIS and

other existing systems

Secondary users

• Agricultural research

institutes, universities, crop

researchers

• Media

• Parliamentarians

• Prosecutors (right to food)

• Private sector

•Contribution to policyresearch

•Advocacy/watchdogging

•Influence policy decisions

•Policy enforcement

•Investment/business

opportunies/ CSR/

Group 5 Operational, Resources and Contextual Requirements

Overarching assumptions:

� Capitalize on existing institutional mechanisms and management systems

� Country governments led operationalization of the system for long-term sustainability

� Ensure operational mandates and responsibilities at all levels within contributing institutions

� Operational, Resources and Contextual Requirements

o TORs for units, task forces, individuals… etc.

o MOUs between organizations as needed

o Focus on existing staff (national officers) , train and provide career motivation (trainings,

equipments, career promotions,…etc.)

o Necessary tools (software), equipment (PCs, plotters, printers, communication..etc.) , and

services (internet) to contributing organizations, units, individuals


Workshop Report

of 26

o Logistical capacities, e.g. sampling, data collection, workshops, outreach, etc.

o Availability of financial support during start-up and running (sustainability)

o Operational, Resources and Contextual Requirements

o Advocate political and strategic commitment of the government

o Build buy-in at all levels of contributing organization through outreach and effective

communication

o Ensure participation and involvement at all stages and levels (planning, design,

implementation) (govt, NGOs, donors, private sector, etc)

o Establish motivations at the institutional and individual levels

o Ensure access to information at all times – contributors need to see the results of their work


Workshop Report

of 26

DAY 3 TOWARDS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FSN ACTION MAPPING

Group 1 Recommendations on Institutions and Coordination

Actionable Points Time-line National Regional Global

Short-term

National Task Team to

engage in active advocacy

demonstrating the use of

mapping in policy decision-

making and action-planning;

When countries are engaged

in drawing up FSN action-

plans, should include

mapping as part of the plan

thus ensuring eventual

resource availability.

Inclusion of mapping

activities in regional

FSN action plans

CFS suggested to

organize a follow-up

meeting to track the

progress of

implementation of food

security action

mapping in various

country contexts. The

results of this follow-

up meeting will be

shared in the CFS

Plenary 2012.

Building political and

institutional commitment

Long-term

Short-term

Recommendation to national

governments to ensure that

action mapping becomes a

routine activity performed

within existing food security

and nutrition bodies and

working groups. This task

team would include multiple

stakeholders (govt, UN

agencies, NGOs, civil

society) and work with IT

professionals, statisticians,

and subject matter

specialists.

Recommendation for

regional organisations

to support the

establishment of food

security action

mapping system at

national level.

Existing Task Team to

coordinate, provide

technical assistance to

national and regional

institutions working on

food security action

mapping.

Ensuring

involvement/communication

of multiple stakeholders

Long-term

Encourage regional

organisations to make

use of national level

mapping outputs to

provide an analysis of

regional food security

and nutrition mapping

related issues.

CFS to identify focal

points at global,

regional and national

levels to be involved in

coordination/technical

assistance

Short-term Ownership Long-term

Work in Progress

-----------------------------------------------------------

Group 2 Recommendations Data and Information Management

Context:

• FSN part of bigger picture

Scope:

• Inventory of data systems fields

• Definitions, variables, code lists

• Qualitiative and Quantitative


Workshop Report

of 26

Timeframe

• 1 year

Approach

• Top-down led – transparent working

• Platform – bottom-up input

Tasks

• Existing work – OECD, FAO, Gates, Aid Data, Aid Info, National programs

• Inventory

• Content

• Linkage

Host

• Utilise existing resources

• FAO – linked data

• Shared participation

• Working group

Long-term

• Portal and Registry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Group 3 Recommendations on Operations, Capacities, etc.

To Whom Recommendation

Government Explain/Demonstrate/Promote and get High-Level Buy In

Regional Encourage countries in region speak in common language

Government Anchor System into Existing Institutional Framework

Government Define/Plan/Design

• Take stock of what exists (not to redo)

• Define roles and responsibilities

• Define resource requirements

• Define methods, processes, protocols, outputs

Regional/Global Provide Technical Assistance but align with national context (external ‘keys’ might not fit

national ‘lock’…so learn/respect national needs)

Government and Others Build Capacity/Awareness

• designate existing/specific staffs

• learn from other countries/partners (study tours)

• establish online communities of practice

• consider wider training/capacity targets (not just technical)

Government Allocate Resources (preferably national with other as needed)

Government Include ways of monitoring results


Workshop Report

of 26

ANNEX 3 WORKSHOP EVALUATION RESULTS

Technical Consultative Workshop


23 – 25 May 2011

WORKSHOP EVALUATION RESULTS

The following evaluation form was used on Wednesday 25 May at the end of the workshop proceedings.

The evaluation was used to evaluate certain aspects of the workshop organization, content and

facilitation with an opportunity to rate an overall impression of the workshop. Participants were asked

to rate these with scores between 1-5, with 1=poor and 5= excellent. The results were generally

positive based on a response of 272 (N=27). All aspects have been rated with an average between 4 and

4.6 (good …towards excellent). All remarks and observations have been listed below in the bottom

section. They provide additional flavor and may help the organizers and facilitator in preparing for any

future events.

ORGANIZATION Ratings between 1-5, with 1=poor and 5= excellent AVG score

N=27

Workshop organization 1 2 3 4 5 4.4

Selection of venue 1 2 3 4 5 4.6

CONTENT

Relevance of the technical content 1 2 3 4 5 4.3

Practical to my needs 1 2 3 4 5 4.3

Attainment of workshop results 1 2 3 4 5 4.3

2 This number includes responses from 5-7 task team members/ organizers of the workshop. The uniformity in

responses is such that with confidence can be said they have not influenced the overall ratings of the participants,

either positively or negatively.


Workshop Report

of 26

In line with my expectations

FACILITATION

Clarity on the process (how to achieve results) 1 2 3 4 5 4.3

OVERALL

Overall rating of the workshop

1 2 3 4 5 4.3

General comment s/ remarks:

1. Great learning experience. Lots of work being done regarding project management. Excellent opportunity to

build partnerships and see synergies. Great task team and facilitator. Good job and very diverse group!

2. It was a learning experience that can be reflected in the task team ahead of formulation a system for mapping

FSN actions at country level.

3. Compliments to the hard work done and well boiled approach.

4. The workshop could have been shorter as some of the sessions were repetitive. The process should be simpler:

it was too complex and not concrete enough.

5. I thank the organizers and congratulate them to this excellent work. In the process it was not always clear where

we are heading to. Sometimes the dynamics where low and there seemed to be repetitions that might have

created some unclarity. however we achieved our results. The mix of participants was excellent and contributed to

the success. I hope this work will be implemented. A follow-up workshop after 1 year would be good.

6. Well done.

7. Per diem in Euros please.

8. More information on logistics and administration should have been provided to ease the participants from

countries outside Rome.

9. More time/ days required.

10. There should be continuation of these workshops to help more in adopting the FSN mapping system. Exchange

experiences between different countries.

11. Good facilitation.

12. I learned a lot. Would have liked more discussion on the way in which qualitative issues are mapped.

13. Workshop very timely and appropriate.


Workshop Report

of 26

ANNEX 4 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Name Institution Country Nationality Theme or Purpose Email Address Phone Number

Mande Isaora Zefania Romalahy

Government - MoF Madagascar Malagasy Aid Management [email protected] '+261340550507

Mohamed Ajuba Sheriff Government - MoA Sierra Leone Sierra Leonean FS Actions Mapping [email protected] '+23276646442

Maiwada Zubairu Government - MoA Nigeria Nigerian FS Actions Mapping [email protected] +2348033116655 Ombaeli O. N Lemweli Government - MAFC Tanzania Tanzanian Thematic Project Mapping [email protected] +2550222865950/1

Edgar Cossa Government- SETSAN Mozambique Mozambican FS Coordination [email protected] +25821462775

Carmen Priscila Bocchi CONSEA Brazil Brazilian FS Coordination [email protected] Michele Lessa Oliveira CONSEA Brazil Brazilian FS Coordination [email protected].

br

Patricia Palma Fulladolsa PRESANCA El Salvador Guatemalan Regional FS programme [email protected] +503 / 2527 9202 Ramon Borjas UTSAN Honduras Honduran FS Coordinaton [email protected]. Julie Montgomery NGO USA/Haiti American Thematic Project Mapping [email protected] +12025526572 Ahmad Fahim Didar Government - MoA Afghanistan Afghanistan FS Actions Mapping [email protected] Dr Azzam Saleh Ayasa UN-FAO West Bank/Gaza

Strip Palestinian Thematic Project Mapping [email protected] +972548026752

Yacoub Keilani Zaid Government - MoA West Bank/Gaza Strip

Palestinian Thematic Project Mapping [email protected] +970 598 9310610

Dr. Akila Saleh Government - FSIC Egypt Egyptian FS Coordinaton [email protected]

[email protected] +202 37496014

H.E. Srun Darith Government - CARD Cambodia Cambodian FS Coordinaton [email protected] +85512448444 Barun Dev Mitra Government - FPMU Bangladesh Bangladeshi FS Coordinaton [email protected] Marzella Wustefeld SCN Swizerland German UN [email protected] Joanna Komorowska OECD/TAD Paris, France Polish OECD/TAD [email protected] +33145241786 Bill Anderson IATI London, UK South African IATI [email protected] Jose Valls Bedeau FAO-TCSF HQ Spanish FS Actions Mapping [email protected] Karel Callens FAO-TCSF HQ Belgian FS Actions Mapping [email protected] Ceren Gurkan FAO-TCSF HQ Turkish FS Actions Mapping [email protected] Ram Saravanamuttu WFP - CFS Sec HQ Sri Lankan Task Team [email protected] Marie-Christine Laporte AAHM HQ French Task Team [email protected] Elisa Pozzi AAHM HQ Italian Task Team [email protected] Alberta Guerra Action Aid HQ French Task Team [email protected] Samir Bejaoui UN-HLTF (UNDP) HQ Tunisian Task Team [email protected] Benoist Veillerette UN-HLTF (FAO) HQ Belgian Task Team [email protected] Mario Musa WFP HQ Italian Task Team [email protected] Chiara Cirulli FAO - CFS Sec HQ Italian Task Team [email protected] Bayasgalanbat, Nomin FAO - AGN HQ Mongolian Task Team [email protected] Thomas Gabrielle Consultant - Review HQ American Task Team [email protected] Rene Verdujin Consultant - Facilitator HQ Dutch Task Team [email protected] Maarten Immink Consultant - CFS-Sec HQ Dutch Task Team [email protected] Mark McGuire CFS-Sec Coordinator HQ American Task Team [email protected] Kostas Stamoulis ESA Director; CFS

Secretary

HQ Greek Task Team [email protected]

TECHNICAL CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP Mapping Food Security … · 2011. 6. 30. · Mapping Food Security...

Documents

Transcript of TECHNICAL CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP Mapping Food Security … · 2011. 6. 30. · Mapping Food Security...