Presentation for the Hunger Reduction Commitment Index workshop held on 18th July 2011 at ActionAid in Farringdon. Dolf te Lintelo describes the draft HRC index developed by IDS and discusses some the intitial findings.

1. A Hunger Reduction Commitment Index: Assessing political commitment to reduce hunger Supported by Irish Aid

2. Irish Hunger Task Force 2008 “Addressing hunger...ultimately is a matter of political priorities..at a global level there is no independent body which audits the implementation of these commitments. Neither is there an independent authority with the power and willingness to name and shame those who have not lived up to their promises” page 23

3. Theory of change of HRCI Hunger is neglected, numbers of hungry are not decreasing, pressures likely to increase in future Outcome measures do not promote strong enough accountability Civil society needs something to hold governments to account – their commitment Governments need mechanisms to focus their cross-department efforts on hunger The building of commitment can be helped by measuring commitment and promoting uptake of measures Across countries for global advocacy (using secondary data) Within countries for national advocacy (using primary data)

4. Objectives of Phase I of HRCI This Phase Develop a credible and practical cross-country index of commitment to reduce hunger using secondary data Develop and pilot a credible and practical primary data collection methodology to triangulate the secondary data supplement secondary data develop a country specific process for collecting data on commitment that is credible and mobilising for operational partners

5. What is distinct about the HRCI? Decouples commitment from outcomes HungerFree Scorecard (ActionAid): outcomes + commitment Global Hunger Index (IFPRI/Concern/WHH): outcomes HRCI: commitment Uses primary + secondary data Secondary for cross-country comparisons Primary data To guide future choices of secondary data To mobilise within country for over time

7. Functioning of government systems (Brinkerhoff 2000)Legal frameworks Public policies and programmes Public expenditures

8. Data collection

10. Primary data questions organised around these indicators Adaptation and learning (2 questions) Institutional coordination (2) Analytical rigour (2) Continuity of effort (2) Credible incentives (2) Locus of initiative (1) Mobilisation of stakeholders (2) Policy preferences revealed (2) Expenditures (4) Evaluation of intention and action (4) Adapted from Brinkerhoff (2000)

11. Selecting secondary data indicators Steps Indicators 1. Identify potential (>50 in 3 categories of policy, legal, expenditure) 2. Assess data availability (8 policy, 10 legal, 3 expenditures) 3. Select (3 policy, 3 legal, 3 expenditures) Selection Criteria Theory driven - availability, access and right to food Practical- sufficient variation in scores across countries

12. Secondary data indicators used

13. Selected findings expert surveys 1=very strong, 5 =very weak

14. HRCI Results using secondary data by theme and overall rankings

15. Points to note Zambia outperforms Bangladesh on both primary and secondary data for expenditure and policy indicators. However, on legal framework, Zambia scores 0, and Bangladesh 2.5 Note the very different scores on the 3 secondary indicators Tanzania: 1 on expenditures, 21 on policy Brazil: 1 on policy, 17 on expenditure Bangladesh: 2 on legal framework, 29 on policy More work to be done on legal indicator—does not seem to differentiate countries terribly well

16. Green=more than halving of HF rank, Red= more than doubling of HF rank Mostly due to decoupling from hunger outcomes—those in green had worse outcomes, those in red had better outcomes

17. Commitment – with and without resources?

18. Commitment and administrative capacity?

19. Commitment and hunger status?

20. Commitment – accountability & voice?

21. Some discussion points Do the rankings correspond with our intuition? How to categorise commitment scores (low, medium, high)? Do cross-country comparisons need to be stratified by wealth, capacity, hunger levels? Is the HRCI helpful in terms of directing resources? Ethiopia: high hunger & high commitment to reduction: do we focus on capacity (medium), wealth (low), or voice (low)? How can the primary data be incorporated into the cross-country index? What kinds of sensitivity analyses would you like to see us do?

22. Potential next phase Refine secondary data use and indicator choice construct the index over time work with partners and others (e.g. FAO, Guardian) to publicise index Run the primary data collection activity in 20-30 key countries over a 3 year period Incorporate some subjective primary components into the cross-country index Use the primary data collection to fuel national campaigns for hunger reduction Assess whether the HRCI is adding value

23. For further information Please contact: Jen Leavy, index manager: j.leavy@ids.ac.uk Dolf te Lintelo, project manager: d.telintelo@ids.ac.uk Alan Stanley, knowledge service specialist: a.stanley@ids.ac.uk