FOOD ASSISTANCE MODALITIES: EVALUATING BENEFITS AND TRADEOFFS TO MEET HUMANITARIAN FOOD NEEDS

Transcription

1 FOOD ASSISTANCE MODALITIES: EVALUATING BENEFITS AND TRADEOFFS TO MEET HUMANITARIAN FOOD NEEDS TOPS East & Southern Africa Regional KNOWLEDGE SHARING MEETING: Changing Landscapes of Food Security, September 20-22,

2 Discussion Objectives When do we need to be thinking about response options? How do we determine the most preferable modality? How does this relate to applying for FFP resources? 2

3 Modality Selection in Program Cycle Who could we work with to rapidly deploy different modalities? How has the crisis disrupted normal behaviors? Which modality corresponds to the breaks in the system? How are conditions changing from our initial analysis? Should program change in response? 3

4 Emergency Decision Trees 4 Sources: MIFIRA, Oxfam, WFP

5 Pre-Award: Modality Decision Tool FFP has created a Modality Decision Tool to guide decision-making: - Red box at any stage suggests modality is likely unsuitable. - Yellow represents a need for more information or potential trade-off while making final decision.

6 Market Appropriateness (Should we do this?) When evaluating market appropriateness, priority is to ensure do no harm for: Beneficiaries. Non-beneficiaries using source markets. Local producers and small businesses. Why is this important? Risk of Creating scarcity Price volatility and inflation Price-gouging

7 Market Appropriateness Resources Rapid Assessment for Markets (RAM) ICRC tool recommended for early response, i.e. first 4-6 weeks after a shock. Market Analysis Guidance (MAG) ICRC tool recommended for use anywhere from 2 weeks to 1 year after an initial shock. Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit (EMMA) Can be used as early as 3-4 weeks after a shock or later in recovery. Pre-Crisis Market Analysis (PCMA) Similar to EMMA but intended for use in the absence of an active crisis. Market information and food insecurity response analysis (MIFIRA) Framework for response analysis developed by researchers at Cornell and Tufts with CARE, USA Household Economy Approach (HEA) Somewhat intensive framework developed by Save the Children and the Food Economy Group focused more on livelihoods but including markets component; may be seen in protracted/chronic contexts. 7

8 Feasibility (Can we do this?) Emphasis on practical considerations. Who does the partner need to have relationships with in order to use this modality? WFP South Sudan What steps are necessary to roll it out? Does the implementing organization have the right systems in place to do so? Have they done it before? When do we need to be operational? Is the partner s timeline realistic? Where does the assistance need to be delivered? What security or access constraints may apply there? Is the infrastructure (physical and/or financial) in place to support this modality?

9 Programming Objectives (What delivers the best outcome for participants?) What is the nature of the emergency need? Do specific sub-groups (such as women, children, specific ethnic groups) have unique vulnerabilities that need to be addressed? Are there behavioral elements that are contributing to the crisis that could be mitigated by certain modalities? What does the targeted population prefer? Among those modalities that can meet core program objectives, do some have added benefits that others do not?

10 Cost Considerations (How do we make the most of limited resources?) Cost Efficiency = relative cost of delivering outputs (easy to measure) Cost Effectiveness = relative cost of achieving outcomes (harder to measure) Transfer to Total Cost Ratio = how much value is actually getting to the people we re trying to help?

11 Matrix Approach Local Procurement Regional Procurement International Procurement US In-Kind Cash Transfer Food Voucher Appropriateness Feasibility Objective Cost Local production has been severely disrupted, but imports are still available on local markets. Timing is urgent. Malnutrition is spiking and commodities most purchased on local markets are not fortified. 11

12 WFP Uganda: Program Objectives 9/27/2016 FOOTER GOES HERE 12

13 WFP Uganda: Market Appropriateness & Feasibility Rwanda LEWIE study: "An additional adult refugee receiving cash aid increases annual real income in the local economy by $205 to $253, significantly more than the $120 $126 in aid each refugee receives. Inclusion of cash transfers in WFP Uganda s programming is based on a 2013 agreement among WFP, UNHCR and the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) that cash transfers were appropriate and should be implemented on a pilot basis (starting with Rhino camp, Adjumani and Kiryandongo in May 2014). Feasibility assessments were conducted to determine if the local markets were accessible to refugees and could respond adequately to an injection of cash and supply a sufficient amount, quality and diversity of food without disturbing the market situation. A Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of food assistance modalities in refugee settlements February

14 WFP Uganda: Program Objectives A Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of food assistance modalities in refugee settlements February

15 WFP Uganda: Cost Efficiency Analysis Cost of assisting 1 person for 1 month Cash $10.50 Food $13 Cost Efficiency of Cash Assistance Refugee Operation WFP Uganda Country Office

16 WFP Uganda: Cost Efficiency Analysis 4% 14% 10% Cash significantly reduces the cost of delivery 5 % Cost Efficiency of Cash Assistance Refugee Operation WFP Uganda Country Office

17 WFP Uganda: Cost Efficiency Analysis Where do the savings go? More money going directly into the hand of beneficiaries! 55 cents of every dollar 78 cents of every dollar Cost Efficiency of Cash Assistance Refugee Operation WFP Uganda Country Office

18 Discussion Example: East Africa Drought Population of concern: Agricultural HHs Shock: Drought induced production losses Food deficit country reliant upon imports to meet food gap Livestock prices stable Poor dietary diversity Price KG of Rice (imported) Price KG of Sorghum

19 FFP APS Concept Paper Evaluation Revised Rationale justifications: Old Evaluation Criteria Emergency Justification Technically Sound/Without Significant Problems Advisable at this Time/Consistent with Overall Food Assistance Program and Coordination in Country New Criteria Emergency Justification Market Appropriateness Feasibility Program Objectives Cost Efficiency

20 FFP APS Application Changes to Scoring Criteria (Old FY 2015 APS Criteria) Scoring Criteria Points Scoring Criteria Points 1. Project Overview Table 0 4. Management and Logistics Project Justification 15 i. Management 3. Project Design and Description 50 ii. Staffing i. Beneficiaries iii. Logistics ii. Geographic Targeting A. Organizational Capacity iii. Ration B. Activity Timeline iv. Distribution Method C. Commodity Procurement Table v. Market Analysis and Impact D. Commodity Safety and Quality Assurance vi. Description of Conditionalities or Food Security Related Complementary Services 5. Past Performance 10 vii. Exit or Transition Strategy viii. Partners ix. Gender x. Protection xi. Coordination xii. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan xiii. Conflict Sensitivity

21 FFP APS Application Changes to Scoring Criteria (Draft FY 2017 APS Criteria) Scoring Criteria Points Scoring Criteria Points 1. Project Overview Table 0 4. Operations and Logistics Project Justification 20 a. Ration 3. Project Design and Description 50 b. Distribution Method a. Participants c. Market Analysis and Impact i. Gender and Protection d. Commodity Procurement Table ii. Conflict Sensitivity iii. Conditionalities e. Commodity Safety and Quality Assurance f. Activity Timeline b. Coordination c. Food Security Related complementary Services d. Partners e. Exit or Transition Strategy

22 New APS Preview: Market Strengthening Assistance provided to improve a crisis-affected group s situation by providing support to a critical market system they rely on, often utilizing a transfer modality but not necessarily at the household level. Support can be provided to market actors, market infrastructures and services, or market environment. 9/27/

23 New APS Preview: Complementary Services Complementary Food Security Programming Activities that complement the primary mechanisms for providing food assistance, directly support but are not intrinsic to the core transfer-based modalities. Based on their potential to contribute to the stabilization of household and community access to adequate nutritious food, complementary programming may include but is not limited to: Agriculture and food security: including support for agricultural inputs such as seeds, tools, fodder, as well as agriculture-related training. Livelihoods: including support for community-level savings and restoration of livelihoods. Nutrition: including support for community-based services such as community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM), integrated management of acute malnutrition (IMAM), promotion of appropriate infant and young child feeding practices in emergencies and/or other social and behavior change communication associated with the food emergency, or distribution of locally/regionally procured nutrition products. Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: including support for hygiene promotion, environmental health (such as solid waste management, drainage, and vector control), and sanitation programming. Coordination support: Clusters, working groups or other sub-cluster working groups which are relevant to support a more effective and coordinated food security responses to the specific shock (e.g., food security cluster, logistics cluster). Efforts to strengthen gender equity, empower youth, or improve cohesion, linkages and dispute resolution mechanisms between identity groups when such factors can be directly linked to improved food security. 9/27/

24 Questions? 24