Response analysis in food security crises: a 'road map'
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•660 vistas
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Destacado (19)
Similar a Response analysis in food security crises: a 'road map'
Similar a Response analysis in food security crises: a 'road map' (20)
Más de ALNAP
Más de ALNAP (20)
Response analysis in food security crises: a 'road map'
- 1. Response Analysis in Food Security Crises: A “Road Map” Dan Maxwell and Heather Stobaugh ALNAP Presentation March 6 2013
- 2. Examining the Response Analysis Question 2004: Levine and Chastre et al. “Missing the Point” Since ~2005: • Major efforts to improve food security analysis • Many new response options in food security emergencies and chronic vulnerability Research question: Is improved analysis driving response choice?
- 3. Changing Donor Resources Humanitarian food aid 2001–2011, by source (MT) 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 Triangular Purchase Local Purchase 3000000 Direct Transfer 2000000 1000000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WFP-FAIS
- 4. Changing Donor Resources U.S. International Emergency Food Assistance Funding by Program Type, FY2005-2011 $2,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 OFDA (Agriculture and Food Security) PRM (LRP) $1,500,000.00 EFSP (Cash, Vouchers, LRP) $1,000,000.00 LRP Project (USDA) In-Kind (Title II) $500,000.00 $0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
- 5. What is Response Analysis? • “Link between situational analysis and program design” (IPC) • “The analytical process by which the objectives and modality of program response options are determined, and potentially Conceptual Overview harmful consequences are minimized” (Study Team definition) Situation Analysis Response Analysis Response Planning Response Implementation Current Projected Potential response Response Options options Identification selection Monitoring/ Situating Response Analysis Evaluation (FAO 2011)
- 6. Response Analysis: The “Road Map”
- 7. Factors Shaping Response Choice • Situational analysis Internal context • Needs assessments • Organizational considerations • Causal analysis • Mandate and mission • Projection/forecast • Objectives in field • Capacity and skill set Feasibility analysis Appropriateness considerations • Market assessment • Internal comparison of response options • Donor resources • External analysis of gaps in response • Organizational capacity • Risk assessment/prevention of • Partner agency capacity unintended consequences • Government policy • Market distortion risks • Access and security • Staff security and safety • Timeliness • Recipient community security • Record of past programs • Risk of theft, diversion, or corruption • M&E records/ Lessons learned • Reputational/legal risks to agency • Logistics • Do no harm analysis • Cost of compliance • Cost effectiveness • Influence of large agencies • Assessment of recipient preferences • Conditionality/targeting considerations • Evidence of post-distribution dynamics
- 8. Factors shaping response choice: Importance and influence of evidence
- 10. 1st Order Response Options: Conditionality/Targeting ACF Decision Tree Which tools help in GPR on Cash Programs ECHO Decision Tree WFP RA Decision Tree which decisions? WFP Guidelines for Targeting Assessment Tools Tufts Guidelines for Targeting Situation Analysis ICRC Guidelines for Cash Trans. Food/Nutrition Products FAQR Decision Trees, GFD/Market-based WFP Decision Tree for (cash, voucher, etc.) Nutrition Products EMMA* Response Analysis WFP Market Analysis* S-C-P * Overall RA Process MIFIRA* RAF (FAO) SC Risk Assessment* RAP (WFP) GPR on Cash Programs Oxfam RA Guide Program Design ECHO Decision Tree ACF Decision Tree WFP Decision Tree Cross Cutting ICRC Guidelines & Livelihoods assistance/resilience/ Considerations Decision Tree protection Benefit-Harm-Analysis LEGS (PRIM)* Do No Harm Supplementary/ Therapeutic Seed Security System Assessment* TI Corruption WHO GAM Cut-Offs* FAQR Decision Trees * Includes data collection/assessment
- 11. Response Analysis: Next Steps So what? Can determination of responses in emergencies/ transitions/ chronic vulnerability become more evidence- based? More work with agencies and donors required Question still remains: Has the investment in improved analysis and the broader range of response options led to improved program response in diverse operating environments? (Are programs still “missing the point?” )
- 12. Thanks! Time for a few questions? Daniel Maxwell Daniel.Maxwell@tufts.edu Heather Stobaugh Heather.Stobaugh@tufts.edu
Notas del editor
- Four Points about MSPPrograms not based on analysisIgnoring information where it existedBased on off-the shelf interventions (mainly 3)Not having much impactAnalysisSENACIPCIndicatorsProgramsMarket-based programsLivelihoods (beyond S&T)Nutrition
- Why response analysis?Well—used to be no choice. Now there is a choice. Several manifestations of thisBig changes in approaches to food security programs in emergencies and chronic crises over past decadein-kind transfers to LRPCash and vouchersBroader livelihoods responsesRevolution in nutritional program
- Here is the US figuresUS may now be the biggest single cash donor in FS emergencies (not sure)Still the biggest in-kind FA donorSummarize ECHO: more cash and livelihoods support, much more nutritional supportCIDA: 50% untied in 2005, all untied since 2008, all still in kindDFID: Also leading on transition to cash
- Admittedly focused on emergency food security responses, but most of this is equally applicable to chronic/ protracted crisis situations in which program options are considered in an annual needs assessment context; or safety net programs; or transitional/recovery programsProbably not applicable to general food security development programs
- Situational analysis is the starting pointWho, how many, how bad, how much, how long etc.Sometimes whySometimes trendsThen four major kinds of decisions--nested
- Analysis vs. instinct and the lack of accumulated evidence
- Constraints are numerous. We tried to reduce them to the things that mainly shape response choiceLeft/darker—more evidence basedRight/ lighter– more assumption or perception basedMajor balloons and within themSize of balloon is roughly proportional to how important the influence seems to beCapacity and resource availability top nearly everyone’s list. But partly assumption and perception; capacity is malleable—even is ST; donor resources are more flexible than they used to be (even US)Info/analysis– but only one factor shaping choicesSome from organizational experience: but some of this is not really evidence basedLots on “organizational ethos” –mandate and experience tend to make for preferred responses. Org ethos shapes the way information is translated (2011 Case study) and even the way recipient preferences are interpreted.Emphasis: make it more evidence based, but real change often comes from the top down, not on the basis of single assessment or situation.
- RA Tools: LOTS of them out there, but many are hidden in other documents; some not explicitly labeled RA.One objective of the study is to try to compile an exhaustive a list of tools as possibleSix categories– one not shown here is about consensus building tools– like RAF and RAPNote that many of these are NOT primarily about RA—but have implications for RATools often not used: too complex, too time consuming; not clear how they relate to specific choices faced by agencies. Etc“We don’t need another tool—need some general guidance”HS: what to add to this slide??
- Rather than creating new tool map the existing tools to various decision in RA.Various needs assessments tools not shown here, but inevitably provide information helpful in RA. 1st order – a few decision trees that walk through different considerations for various sectoral response, but main not really used.Mainly driven by agency capacity and mandate. Only few agencies large enough can choose between all, even then they are very separate.2nd order: By far the area with the largest amount of tools/guidance. Mainly a result of the recent surge in use of C/V.Various types of nutrition interventions, including addressing micronutrient deficiencies, but it is rare.3rd Order: Food and cash assistance: Issues such as targeting/conditionality often drive the choice of response. Nutrition and Food Products: several overview of products, but not very many that provide guidance of when the products are appropriate.Overall RA ProcessCross Cutting Considerations
- We’ve gained a much clearer understanding of what the process looks like.Understand areas where we can improve -- certainly making our program choices based more on evidenceBut what does this process lead to? The question still remains…