High Level Expert Forum on Food Security in Protracted Crises
HLEF Technical Meeting SLIDE SYNTHESIS June 27-28, 2012 Queen
Juliana Room - FAO
Slide 2
Welcome
Slide 3
Technical Meeting Objectives 1. Develop a shared understanding
of the aims and expected outcomes of the HLEF, key working
assumptions that will frame the HLEF dialogue and the role of
contributing papers and authors. 2. 3. Ensure the content of each
contributing paper is robust and relevant to the aim and objectives
of the HLEF; and that the full set of contributing papers will
serve as a solid fact base for each key area. Identify any gaps/key
issues for authors to address when finalizing papers. Review
approach and possible categories / elements of an eventual Agenda
for Action. 4. Outline the required next steps to finalize
individual papers and synthesize content into briefs for HLEF
panelists & participants.
Slide 4
Target Results Individual feedback provided to authors, as
input to finalizing papers by July 20 th, 2012. 1. Key issues /
questions emerging under each key area are identified, as well as
any potential gaps that may need to be addressed. 2. Identification
of key elements / categories for an Agenda for Action emerging from
authors contributions, as well as a preliminary list of specific
recommendations or proposals that authors may contribute to the Way
Forward. 3.
Slide 5
Context, Vision &Team Assets & 3. Resilience 4. Lessons
Learned 5. Way Forward & Agenda for Action Next
StepsWelcomeHLEF Overview 1. Causes & Consequences 2. Political
& Governance Provisional Agenda 9.00 START 17.00 FINISH LUNCH
13.00-14.15 Day OneDay Two
Slide 6
Background on the HLEF Event
Slide 7
Presentation 1.Background on the State of food Insecurity
(SOFI) report 2.Characteristics/criteria for protracted crises and
specific cases 3.The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and its
role 4.The High Level Expert Forum (HLEF) and Agenda for
Action
Slide 8
The State of Food Insecurity 2010 Purpose of SOFI: 1.FAO/WFP
annual report on global estimates of under- nourishment 2.Each
annual edition explores some theme of food insecurity 3.2010: Food
insecurity in protracted crises
Slide 9
Definition of a protracted crisis Those environments in which a
significant proportion of the population is acutely vulnerable to
death, disease and disruption of their livelihoods over a prolonged
period of time* Not necessarily traceable to a single, acute
shock.** Donors or private-sector actors often not willing to make
long-term investments: overlap with development agenda** Weak,
fragile or predatory states: overlap with governance/ security
agenda** Remain on the humanitarian agenda, but dont fit classic
definition of emergency, or the classic mode of response ** *
Macrae and Harmer ** Maxwell et al.
Slide 10
Characteristics of protracted crisis Characteristics: Time
duration and magnitude (some > 30 years) Frequently IN conflict
(or no war-no peace situation) Weak governance/ breakdown of local
institutions Unsustainable livelihood systems and poor food
security outcomes Weak intervention mechanisms Criteria for
identifying countries in protracted crisis: Low Income Food
Defeicit Countries At least 8 of past 10 years on GIEWS list At
least 10% of total ODA in form of humanitarian assistance
Slide 11
GIEWS Table: Years in Crisis
Slide 12
Countries in protracted crisis 2010 + Palestine 17 Africa 4
Asia 1 LAC
Slide 13
Protracted Crises and Food Insecurity 166 million
undernourished people in countries in protracted crisis 20 percent
of the worlds undernourished people live in countries in protracted
crisis, or more than a third of the global total if China and India
are excluded Are Protracted Crises Different? Food Insecurity: Are
Protracted Crises Different?
Slide 14
Addressing Protracted Crises SOFI Chapters: Livelihoods
adaptation in protracted crises Gender issues in protracted crises
The role of local institutions (customary and emergent) Analysis of
aid flows to countries in protracted crisis Humanitarian food
assistance in protracted crises Social protection in protracted
crises Short-term responses to support longer term recovery
Slide 15
Recommendations to CFS Towards ensuring food security in
protracted crises: recommended actions Improving analysis and
understanding Donors and agencies must invest more in analysis,
impact assessment and lessons learned in protracted crisis
situations Response analysis must be improved, building capacities
in both production and use of better informed analysis of options
for assistance Information systems should be strengthened and
expanded Improving support to livelihoods for food security
Governments, donors and agencies should better link responses that
address both short- and longer-term needs Support for livelihoods
must build on existing capacity and should strengthen positive
livelihood adaptations Efforts should focus on helping to rebuild
and/or promote local institutions that support livelihoods
Reforming the "architecture" of assistance A High-Level Forum
should be organized to develop an Agenda for Action for tackling
food insecurity in protracted crises Donor planning should
emphasize predictability for prevention, early action and long-term
solutions Modalities of assistance should move beyond the
traditional categories of "relief" and "development" to a more
diversified approach
Slide 16
The Role of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 36 th
Session of CFS SOFI 2010 presented All recommendations endorsed,
including: organization of High Level Expert Forum (HLEF) 37 th
Session of CFS (2011) report presented showing added value of
having a HLEF Fall 2012: HLEF on Addressing Food Insecurity in
Protracted Crises and Agenda for Action 39 th Session of CFS (2012)
elements for an Agenda for Action to be presented
Slide 17
Going forward the role of the CFS Review elements for an Agenda
for Action (October 2012) Food insecurity in protracted crises CFS
work- stream for 2013/2014? Possibly it will be endorsed? Possibly
it will be forgotten?
Slide 18
HLEF Purpose Purpose Provide a forum through which countries
will be able to discuss issues related to food insecurity in
protracted crises; Open space for consultation and policy dialogue
to build on collaborative efforts; and Identify immediate actions
to be taken and elements for an eventual Agenda for Action.
Slide 19
HLEF Expected Outcomes Identification of concrete proposals or
initiatives that can be taken forward immediately Raising awareness
among aid agencies, donors and policymakers Better understanding by
aid agencies, donors and policymakers of the institutional and
funding challenges Better understanding of the positive and
negative contribution that food security policies and programmes
can make A clear set of elements for an Agenda for Action to
Address Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises
Slide 20
Structure of the HLEF Consequences and causes of food
insecurity in protracted crises Catalysts to create change:
political and governance opportunities and challenges Resilience of
individuals, households, communities and local institutions in
protracted crises What have we learned: working towards emerging
from protracted crises The Way Forward - Inputs to an eventual
Agenda for Action KEY AREA 1. KEY AREA 2. KEY AREA 3. KEY AREA 4.
KEY AREA 5.
Slide 21
HLEF Inputs & Outputs 1.Causes and consequences of food
insecurity in protracted crises 2.Catalysts to create change:
political and governance opportunities and challenges 3.Resilience
of individuals, households, communities and local institutions in
protracted crises 4.What have we learned: working towards emerging
from protracted crises 21 Individual Papers Synthesis Brief
Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs
Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers
Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs I. Concrete Proposals / Initiatives
from actors attending HLEF Ready to implement 5.Way forward &
Agenda for Action II. Elements that could contribute to a Future
Agenda for Action
Slide 22
Agenda for Action Draft Principles The Agenda for Action should
Be a new point of reference for stakeholders working on food
security in protracted crises; building on the research in SOFI
2010 and related initiatives already underway Be rooted in
partnerships and new forms of collaboration Highlight better ways /
opportunities for supporting local efforts and resilience building
Highlight different instruments and intervention options available
for different contexts; and propose ways for ongoing improvement,
replication and adaptation of these instruments and interventions
(rather than prescribe a one size fits all solution) Be inclusive
across multiple levels of action: Local, National, Regional,
International Feature concrete proposals that are responsive to the
most critical needs of those living in protracted crises 22
Slide 23
Your role as authors Background papers for the HLEF Expert
opinion on this topic Contribution of key elements for the Agenda
for Action Welcome to attend the HLEF Panelists will be primarily
practicioners (under selection)
Slide 24
Key Area 1. Causes & Consequences 24
Slide 25
Approach to Each Key Area Individual Author Presentation (6 8
mins) 25 Questions & Feedback to Individual Authors (10 15
mins) Review Key Area of Discussion (1-2 mins) Overall Discussion
of Key Area (15 25 mins) Facilitator to review current description
of the key area for discussion at the HLEF (framed by HLEF planning
team + steering committee) 1.Key issues and arguments 2.Countries
referenced 3.Key conclusions and expected contributions to the
Agenda for Action Clarification questions Feedback on key issues
for elaboration or possible inclusion in final paper Identify
emerging / common issues, key questions and/or gaps across the key
area (early inputs to synthesis brief) Note possible contributions
from other papers to key area Note comments / questions for absent
authors Synthesize contributions to the Agenda for Action
Slide 26
Key Area 1. HLEF Current Description This key area will look at
the different reasons for, and types of protracted crises, whether
protracted or recurrent, caused by natural or man-made factors, or
a combination of these. This area will look at why and how food
security is often an important problem to address in
transition/fragile settings. It will highlight the linkages between
food security and nutrition strategies and supporting programmes,
agricultural livelihood strategies and systems, as well as patterns
of natural resource management as elements that can contribute to,
or inhibit protracted crises. 26
Slide 27
Key Area 1. Causes & Consequences 27 Protracted Crises
Causes of Types of Man-made Natural Recurrent Protracted Food
Security Nutrition Strategies Supporting Programmes Agricultural
Livelihoods Strategies & Systems Natural Resource Management
CONTRIBUTOR?INHIBITOR?
Slide 28
Key Area 1. - Emerging Issues Reasons for protracted crises
many fold Interaction between factors are important, but context
specific and not generalizable There are limits to technical
action, therefore a need to pay attention to political, governance
and institutional level of our work Linked to this, there is a need
for political and conflict analysis capacity Consensus on need to
treat both symptoms & causes Need to focus on the problems that
we as an international community can address vs. those that other
important actors can address How to operate within potential +
limitations of CFS as a body, to produce a meaningful Agenda for
Action, and to advance the global dialogue on protracted crises
28
Slide 29
Key Area 1. - Gaps GAPS Different types of protracted crises,
may need to be better spelled out Not a clear conclusion on
importance of FS in protracted crises may need to strengthen the
link across all papers Question on how much to enter into political
aspects of these protracted crises Role of the international
community what role can be played? CFS is not = international
community To what extent are intl agencies working on the food
security component of the problem in protracted crises May need to
have a map of actors and/or categorization of types of actors to
advance dialogue Is population growth vs. resource base a missing
linkage? Is there enough attention to what are the positive ways of
coping with / making progress in protracted crises situations
(resilience? lessons learned?) 29
Slide 30
Key Area 2. Political / Governance
Slide 31
Key Area 2. HLEF Current Description This key area will focus
on fundamental political and governance opportunities which serve
as catalysts to create change in addressing food insecurity in
protracted crises, as well as challenges which create blockages.
The various roles of national governments, regional organizations
and the international community will be considered. A political
economy lens will be used to analyze the changing nature of
response in protracted crises, particularly food security and
livelihood responses. In addition, this discussion will consider
whether the coordination and the role of relief and development
funding needs to be changed in order to enable more effective
action in tackling protracted crises. 31
Slide 32
Key Area 2. Political / Governance 32 Protracted Crises
Man-made Political Economy Lens Governance Opportunities &
Challenges Political Opportunities & Challenges RELIEF &
DEVELOPMENT FUNDING & COORDINATION National Actors Intl
Community Change in FS & Livelihood Responses Regional
Orgs
Slide 33
Key Area 2. Emerging Issues Very tentative suggestions on sorts
of interventions that food security agencies could do, and tempered
with caution about complexity and specificity of these situations
Common reference to double sided role of Food Security and
Agriculture investments vicious cycle Need for customized responses
and taking much more into account the political and social factors
in country Conflict analysis need to do it better, and need to note
limitations of conflict analysis Way interventions are done is as
important as intent of intervention (on conflict vs. in conflict)
May need to adjust and/or expand objectives to include
Peacebuilding element Cautionary notes on what can be expected from
relief / humanitarian interventions or longer term development Need
to be conscious of aid being instrumentalized 33
Slide 34
Key Area 2. Gaps (1 of 2) GAPS What political bodies can the
CFS link up with? (e.g. UN Security Council or PBSO + UN missions +
WB rolling out WDR, etc.) Specific governance challenges are there
Food Security institutions with governance problems that we can be
more specific about More detail may be required on each set of
institutions /actors and the stakes or opportunities of each set of
actors / institutions engaging with one another Lot of talk ~10 yrs
ago re: participation in emergency NOTE: local political economy
issues looked at then, are likely still relevant to the debate
today Capacity + Transition lessons learned (e.g. funding flows
relative to capacity to absorb aid) impact of this cycle on
repeated cycles (i.e. strengthen / undermining recurrent dynamic)
suggest real institutional issues that could lead to concrete
recommendations Important to reflect on criteria in SOFI &
interplay with insights on governance (should we consider adding
CPI as another indicator?) + ability to do aggregate tracking NOTE:
WFP study looking at WFP indexes and interrelation with FAO indexes
link between poor governance (corruption indexes) + food insecurity
not published 34
Slide 35
Key Area 2. Gaps (2 of 2) GAPS Need to have awareness of new
processes and/or governance structures emerging and how to link
Agenda for Action to these appropriately (i.e. political attention
/ G8 / G20, process following Busan New Deal +, emergence of new
South/South cooperation, private sector role, other) Focus seems to
be moving towards building social cohesion / social contracts --
therefore, the question is not what you do, but how you are doing
it, and outlining ways of engaging in these protracted crises
situations NOTE: this also implies giving away power and may
include determining the risk appetite of CFS and ensuring an honest
discussion of when agencies can or cannot have sufficient impact Is
paradigm as building institutions appropriate is there such thing
as an institutional void or do we simply displace other
institutions (formal or informal) 35
Slide 36
Day One Highlights
Slide 37
Day One Highlights HLEF Event Clarity on Twin Track objectives
of HLEF and how papers contribute as the initial fact base and
source of proposals on the way forward HLEF dialogue not to debate
definition of protracted crises or classification of specific
countries HLEF focus is on advancing collective understanding of
complexity of interactions within protracted crises settings and
whats different in protracted crises re: food and nutrition
security + agricultural requirements and international intervention
contributions HLEF aim is to identify concrete, practical, feasible
actions that could be taken going forward Recognition of the
political value in a CFS endorsed Agenda for Action, and some of
the potential risks / limitations of an Agenda for Action Need for
the Agenda for Action to link to and build on other specific
initiatives and momentum present at this time 37
Slide 38
Day One Highlights - Papers Value in trying to unpack
complexities and clearly define scope and comparability of analysis
within each paper Need to distinguish between different types of
protracted crises and the different implications that result not
generalizable Opportunities to further elaborate / underline
specific contributions & real limitations of Food Security /
Agriculture as an entry point within protracted crises Opportunity
to more explicitly outline complementary requirements and expected
roles from other actors (outside international agencies) Need to
get concrete on not just what needs to change, but who and how Need
to ensure good coverage of a range of countries for evidence base
Value in drawing out specific anecdotes / evidence in papers* Need
to spell out implications and push to the so what within each
individual paper, in order to actively contribute to Twin Track
objectives of HLEF event* 38 * Particularly important for synthesis
briefs
Slide 39
Day One Highlights Additional Insights Requirement for
technical and political interventions to be working in parallel,
over time Recognition of +/- dual roles at play in protracted
crises: assets, causal cycles Working on conflict vs. working in
conflict impact vs. process Surprising realities of protracted
crises, also important to note in dialogue Difficult nature of
providing net positive and sustainable technical interventions and
institution building contributions Need to leverage old knowledge
and approaches alongside new paradigms and ways of working Real
challenges exist in operationalizing desired response in protracted
crises (agency capacity on ground, funding structures, etc.)
Significant constraints with current aid architecture 39
Slide 40
Key Area 3. Resilience
Slide 41
Key Area 3. HLEF Current Description This key area covers how
individuals, households, communities and local institutions have
adapted (more or less successfully), and how they have pursued
increased resilience in the face of prolonged or recurrent crises.
It will draw upon recent events in the Horn of Africa and the
Sahel, among others, which have led to concerted efforts by both
local communities and international organizations, to increase
resilience for households, communities and local institutions. This
key area will focus particularly on the question of what can be
learned, supported, changed, or strengthened in the resilience
strategies of individuals, households, communities and local
institutions to guide action by policymakers and by external
agencies. Disaster risk management and related approaches, which
are risk-oriented rather than crisis response-oriented, will also
be considered as one way to achieve this, or to complement the
subsistence strategies or stakeholders on the ground. 41
Slide 42
Key Area 3. Resilience 42 Protracted Crises How increased
resilience pursued Individuals Households Communities Institutions
More or less successful adaptations D.R.R. Crisis Response Risk
Orientation Horn of Africa Sahel How to.. Support Strengthen Change
Resilience Strategies Policy Makers External Agencies Others
Slide 43
Key Area 3. Emerging Issues (1 of 2) Important to keep a
strategic level of discourse in the bigger picture of the economics
/ politics of protracted crises Whos resilience we are talking
about is important to clarify Is resilience always of value? Focus
in right direction specific actors to enable and support Need
better clarity between resilience and coping (resilience has longer
term view than coping + resilience is positive) Issue of context
specificity even within a country / region not just between
countries link to local understanding required before intervening /
building resilience strategies Need more clarity on scale and level
of intervention appropriate for different protracted crises
government, informal support systems, etc. (linked to above ) What
works the enablers: markets, risk management tools, social systems,
etc. -- need to underline these 43
Slide 44
Key Area 3. Emerging Issues (2 of 2) Also outline REAL
limitations to a resilience discourse (avoid indulgence in rhetoric
of resilience where NOT possible) Understand the economy of war and
the way interventions can be manipulated Question of neutrality
What need to change in our business + what needs to change in the
way the aid system works? More thoughtful and oriented to enabling
/ building resilience / risk management / longer lasting outcomes
Imply shifts in local level and global level conception of work
Does diversification equal resilience or not? Is the standard
assumption that diversification = increased resilience still valid?
44
Slide 45
Key Area 3. Gaps Is the risk environment in which we operate
changing? NOTE: Hard to tell if this is context / agency specific
or generalizable Are there certain social patterns or coping
mechanisms that have reached their limit? If so Why? -- Climate
Change? Demographics? Other? Role of markets in keeping people poor
and role of markets in building peace. Can be highly exploitative
keeps me alive, but also keeps me poor. Somewhere in protracted
crises people fall off the edge & weve not yet got it right how
to see this / predict it Application of the term resilience to
conflict does it fit or not? Do we need a glossary to clarify terms
in advance of HLEF NOTE: request that all authors clarify / define
key terms in final paper 45
Slide 46
Key Area 4. Lessons Learned
Slide 47
Key Area 4. HLEF Current Description This key area will
highlight specific lessons learned in protracted crises contexts,
particularly with regards to addressing issues related to food
insecurity, as well as lessons on how countries have emerged or
avoided protracted crises. This theme may include discussion of
agricultural production and markets, safety nets including
nutrition interventions, improvement of rural and urban
infrastructure, governance, disaster risk reduction/management and
early warning systems. It will also include how food security and
livelihood programmes can be integrated into peace and stability
initiatives in fragile and transition contexts. This key area will
provide country case studies and lessons learned and will include
panellists from countries (including G7+ New Deal countries),
regional organizations and international agencies which will help
extract key lessons learned. 47
Slide 48
Key Area 4. Lessons Learned 48 How countries have emerged from
/ avoided protracted crisis Specific contextual lessons learned Ag.
Production Markets Nutrition Interventions Infrastructure
Governance, etc. Protracted Crises Food Security Implications for.
What countries need Contributions / roles of different actors Links
to ongoing processes +
Slide 49
Key Area 4. Emerging Issues (1 of 3) Interactions with
governments How to engage with government -- how to square aid
effectiveness agenda with support to resilience in protracted
crises Importance of ensuring government responses to shocks do not
undermine building longer term resilience (how to preserve fiscal
space, role for other actors) Needs to be a rapid response to
government level needs & there needs to be flexibility to
re-orient work / programming Difficulty from a process perspective
-- in coordinating with governments and in aligning with other
ongoing processes at country level 49
Slide 50
Key Area 4. Emerging Issues (2 of 3) Institutional processes
re: agencies working in this space Development work needs more
contingency planning Focus on work / response first and then
process later is this a lesson learned for other contexts outside
Somalia? Problem of knowledge management and institutionalizing
learning (it is particularly important in protracted crises) Role
of innovation in crises unclear - best practice + rapid response
needed Make visible the challenges and limits to doing what is
needed in order to explicitly push the political discussion re: aid
architecture Question of sequencing linear sequencing possible?
Sequencing of different tools? Not clear There is pressure within
UN system towards coordination of planning (i.e. multi-year
strategies to support resilience) enough vs. too much coordination
is it an issue particularly in protracted crises? Setting joint
outcomes accountability for outputs / performance vs. outcomes /
impact 50
Slide 51
Key Area 4. Emerging Issues (3 of 3) Knowledge of context
important Need to decide when supporting resilience is a good thing
Link between risk management & resilience Working in much less
than optimal circumstances during protracted crises, therefore --
need an operational, hands on approach to what can be done and this
approach must be in sync with local resilience strategies Related
to above, need to relieve pressure on agencies in protracted crises
performance is: optimum use of limited resources in difficult
circumstances Importance of having resilience strategies funded
through multiple funding mechanisms how to piece funding sources
together to build a longer term approach not to lose longer term
strategic because LT funding not available How can use of longer
term resilience strategies help to CHANGE mindsets and stimulate a
systematic change re: funding frameworks Need to be more
accountable in protracted crises situations via explicit aims,
holding each other accountable, joint monitoring and having
transparency 51
Slide 52
Key Area 4. Gaps What makes countries emerge from protracted
crises? Missing from current fact base What is the impact of work
on resilience, on conflict and the drivers of crises Important to
zero in on the story of institutional change (particularly Somalia
lessons learned) Are we paying sufficient attention to lesson
learning as an international community can we highlight where
lessons have been learned and used Need to capture missing
information to inform understanding of coping strategies and
resilience strategies locally (i.e. Somalia case particular) How to
ensure coordination structures / joint efforts continue to add
value 52
Slide 53
Way Forward & Agenda for Action
Slide 54
HLEF Inputs & Outputs 1.Causes and consequences of food
insecurity in protracted crises 2.Catalysts to create change:
political and governance opportunities and challenges 3.Resilience
of individuals, households, communities and local institutions in
protracted crises 4.What have we learned: working towards emerging
from protracted crises 54 Individual Papers Synthesis Brief
Panelist Inputs Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs
Individual Papers Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs Individual Papers
Synthesis Brief Panelist Inputs I. Concrete Proposals / Initiatives
from actors attending HLEF Ready to implement 5.Way forward &
Agenda for Action II. Elements that could contribute to a Future
Agenda for Action
Slide 55
I. Possible Concrete Initiatives 1.Rome based agencies together
with PBSO and WB be prepared to offer a package of technical
support services to New Deal pilot countries, if requested?
2.Organization of an Expert consultation on Operationalizing A
Resilience Approach? 3.Concrete initiatives to better integrate
Food Security into ongoing regional strategies / initiatives?
4.Others? 55
Slide 56
I. Participant Feedback on Concrete Initiatives (1 of 2) 56
a)On technical support services - they could be of at least two
types: (i) to assist countries to bring protracted crises lens to
existing plans or plans under development; (ii) create a training
programme on conflict analysis and how to translate it into
effective programming and/or a training for decision makers as to
why they need conflict analysis and what programmes look like with
vs. without conflict analysis. b)On expect forum re:
operationalizing a resilience approach proposal should be clarified
/ more specific. For example, event could encourage dedicated
thinking on how to address underlying causes how to decide what to
do. Alternatively, event could explore how to measure resilience or
designing integrated resilience strategies/programmes. c)Specific
proposal to map most strategic and relevant planning processes and
fora (e.g. CADAAP), at national and sub-regional levels, where
integrated approach to protracted crises should be present
d)Concrete initiative to address the lack of advocacy on Food
Security + Protracted Crises. Several agencies commit to a
collective effort to advocate outcomes of HLEF at various levels
(e.g. ECOSOC, UN General Assembly, etc.)
Slide 57
I. Participant Feedback on Concrete Initiatives (2 of 2) 57
e)Create a global knowledge center / platform for exchange of tools
& approaches / practice / lessons learned in protracted crises.
NOTE: Some doubt among participants if this type of initiaitve
would generate sufficient learning and knowledge exchange. WB doing
something similar with a knowledge platform on fragile &
conflict states, could suggest a theme on FS + conflict Is added.
May be lessons learned from FAO DRM effort. Also suggested that
resources in such a platform should be prioritized. f)Opportunity
to develop an initiative to align with / complement other public
private partnerships re: investment in protracted crises countries
(e.g. G8 New Alliance Initiative and development of risk management
experts in Agriculture underway as part of this effort).
g)Opportunity to contribute to common framework for resilience +
growth (noted in Frankenberger presentation). Trying to develop
country level plans now, therefore there is an opportunity to
influence the technical content (EGAD, CAADAP effort). NOTE:
complements suggestions on technical support. h)Opportunity to
integrate resilience into the post MDG discussion? Participants
noted that the UN Task Team is largely done and that resilience
likely would not meet the criteria.
Slide 58
II. Agenda for Action Draft Principles The Agenda for Action
should Be a new point of reference for stakeholders working on food
security in protracted crises; building on the research in SOFI
2010 and related initiatives already underway Be rooted in
partnerships and new forms of collaboration Highlight better ways /
opportunities for supporting local efforts and resilience building
Highlight different instruments and intervention options available
for different contexts; and propose ways for ongoing improvement,
replication and adaptation of these instruments and interventions
(rather than prescribe a one size fits all solution) Be inclusive
across multiple levels of action: Local, National, Regional,
International Feature concrete proposals that are responsive to the
most critical needs of those living in protracted crises 58
Slide 59
II. Participant Feedback on Agenda for Action Principles 59
Bullet point #1 Suggest re-wording for all stakeholders working in
protracted crises, re: food security in protracted crises settings
In order to deliver on bullet point #4, instruments and
intervention types must be clearly identified (i.e. in papers and
as part of HLEF outcomes) Recommend taking one size fits all notion
out of parentheses in point #4 as a separate bullet In order to
response to local contexts, responses to protracted crises must be
specific and need to be ground in local context / conflict
analysis. Principles should capture idea of the importance of
defining whos resilience is being targeted / built Principles
should specify that the agenda for action intends to be value-added
and to complement other ongoing strategic and regional initiatives
Need to ensure measurable milestones are included in the agenda for
action, in order to have something concrete to measure progress
against; as well as specifying who each action is for to ensure
accountability
Slide 60
II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 1.
Advocacy on causes and consequences of Protracted Crises 2.
Principles re: Emerging from Protracted Crises 3. Joint Mechanisms
& Operationalization of Integrated Strategies (Food Security /
Resilience / Peacebuilding Tools & Intervention Options ) 4.
Institution Building/ Governance / Accountability 5. Funding
Structure / Processes 6. Future Research Agenda 7. Monitoring &
Results Targeted 60 NOTE: Participants suggested changing Box 4.
above to read institutional development or institutional
empowerment rather than institution building. NOTE: Participants
suggested changing Box 6. above to be framed more broadly as
research and knowledge management and training. GENERAL NOTE: Need
to ensure proposed elements of the Agenda for Action do not over
commit individual actors or step outside of an appropriate realm of
influence for CFS.
Slide 61
II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 61
1. Advocacy on causes and consequences of Protracted Crises 2.
Principles re: Emerging from Protracted Crises Political and
practical action to be integrated. Agencies to specify minimum
conditions required to have effective impact Develop communication
and advocacy materials to build awareness at all levels, using
existing mechanisms where possible (Link to Box 3) CFS to propose
agenda / theme discussion on protracted crises to Security Council
Engaging / get commitment of new donors /actors in addressing
protracted crises
Slide 62
II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 62
3. Joint Mechanisms & Operationalization of Integrated
Strategies Technical support package (to address food security)
developed and offered to countries implementing the New Deal
(package could include response analysis, tools, financing
opportunities and advocacy) NOTE: Need to spell out what technical
assistance Rome based agencies would like to provide, which
protracted crisis countries be concrete with budget / costs
Mandatory/ specific contingency planning for all development
projects, with contingency contracts/strategies agreed: (a)
locally; and (b) between donor and recipient agency (including
Ministries and Treasury) Integrate food security related
initiatives within global / country action plans to reduce state
fragility and to promote peace Integrate peace building into food
security policies, programmes and projects Investment in social
capital as basis for grass roots peace building Emphasize (in the
HLEF report/ suggested elements of an agenda for action) those
elements that show (not tell) the comparative advantage of
multilateral institutions in dealing with protracted crisis
situations
Slide 63
II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 63
4. Institution Building/ Governance / Accountability The agenda
should include elements of the Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure
(VGLT) relevant for conflict avoidance or mitigation countries are
committed to implementing these with support from international
organizations Countries commit to developing risk management
strategies for their agricultural sector as part of national
development plans, supported by international organizations For
countries affected by crises: better contingency planning in
development and social protection, more equity in development
planning Assess local institutions, coping mechanisms, capacity
etc. before intervening (there is no such thing as an institutional
void) Human rights approach / issues and link to violation of
Geneva conventions Move ahead with the development of code of
conduct on management of regional / national emergency humanitarian
food reserves Integrate resilience into national / regional
strategies
Slide 64
II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 64
Long term funding made available in humanitarian crisis that will
enable life and livelihood saving action Joint funding for guru
mentors in specific crises (i.e. experts on context experiencing
protracted crises made available to all actors as advisors) For
donor countries: Accelerate integration of emergency and
development funding streams / reform structures that define ho
funding is allocated Reform CAP process subject to long term
strategy Promote integration of resilience into national / regional
strategies Agree on international targets by 2015 for multiyear
food security agriculture instruments in protracted crisis
countries engaged in New Deal Phasing out emergency assistance only
when there is some proven state of self- reliance, and assistance
for this (Also part of Box 3.) Distance political agenda from aid
5. Funding Structure / Processes
Slide 65
II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 65
Support research and learning on key questions such as: When is
resilience a poverty trap? Promotion and development of markets in
protracted crises Political causes of protracted crises and
required action (Also part of Box 1.) How food security programmes
contribute to peace Understanding the decision making of those who
are actively undermining food security (e.g. their own food
security might be one) Host forums for strategic sharing between
traditional international aid systems and non traditional donors
Inter-agency cooperation (including common learning agenda, shared
studies, etc.) on impact learning, including return visits years
after project end. Institutional lens to be essential component.
(Also part of Box 7.) 6. Future Research Agenda
Slide 66
II. Possible Categories / Elements of an Agenda for Action 66
Monitor hunger reduction progress in protracted crises against set
goals Call for all actors to recognize limitations of log frames in
protracted crises settings Spell out who will be responsible for
reporting progress on action plan action items and when 7.
Monitoring & Results Targeted An additional proposal was made,
however, it was unclear which category to place it under:
Addressing the needs of illegitimates areas controlled by rebels or
stigmatized groups.
Slide 67
Next Steps
Slide 68
ActionResponsibilityTiming 1. HLEF Planning Team to follow-up
with authors not able to attend the technical meeting Content
chairs Next week 2. Circulate synthesis slides from meeting + slide
summary of Way Forward Discussion Facilitator + HLEF Planning Team
End of next week (latest) 3. Authors to submit input for synthesis
brief (specific evidence/anecdotes + agenda for action proposals)
All Authors July 10, 2012 4. Authors to submit final papers All
Lead Authors July 20, 2012 5. Synthesis Briefs to be written &
finalized HLEF Planning Team End July 6. Synthesis Briefs to
translation HLEF Planning Team 1 st week August 7. Background
papers edited and posted on HLEF website (authors will be
consulted) HLEF Planning Team + Authors End August
Slide 69
Participant Feedback on Next Steps 69 Participants requested
synthesis slides as soon as possible It was noted that individual
papers will not be posted under any specific Key Area on the HLEF
website, rather, all papers will be listed as a contribution to
forum discussions Individual panelists will have access to all
papers, and HLEF planning team may l suggest a subset of priority
papers, according to individual panel contributions anticipated
Participants requesting greater details on timeline for copy
editing, in particular as some authors will need time to get
institutional clearance on final document, before it can be posted
on the HLEF website Authors need feedback from HLEF on copyright of
individual papers HLEF to follow-up Request that a complete e-mail
list of all workshop participants + absent authors be circulated
NOTE: request that future communications not be by zipped files for
those who use tablets