Findings and Conclusions of the Seminar

Draft

Dhaka 2009

Field Visit (Visit 2 NGO’s)

• Quality of working conditions

• Diversity of investment

• Bio-culture

• A small scale programme compared to the scale of the poblem

• Overall view of innovative and creative holistic programme with communication skills

• Proshicka’s link to donors a function of the political party in power

• Sub-components of Fosol programme requesting follow-on funding (sustainability?)

• The homestead agriculture food security programme is based on of 10 decimals/of land but the poor do not have 10 decimals of land

• The arsenicosis programme is medically and safe water driven.

• The nutrition component is by pills and nutrition education

Soaring Food prices and FTSP

• Food Facility:• Reverted trend on food commodities implies a new title of the FF: “Volatility” to

replace “soaring” food prices• Scope and limits of EC-WFP in Bangladesh: Sustainability and coordination with

institutionalised programme.• 50 countries selected according to criteria (most affected, potential impact, etc.)• Allocation in fonction of the population factors, index score, exceptional situation• Objectives: Encourage a positive supply response of the agricultural sector,

Support activities to respond rapidly and directly to mitigate the negative effects of volatile food prices; strengthen the productive capacities and the governance of the agricultural sector.

FSTP 2010:1) Continental and regional programmes in Agricultural Research for Development: €

20 m2) Linking information and decision-making to improve food security response

strategies: € 7 m (regional project in Asia, IFPRI, Top up regional programmes)3) Continental and regional food security programmes: € 20 m (Nutrition/Unicef,

Social protection/WB, IFAD)4) LRRD: €17m (North Corea, Afghanistan)5) Innovative approach: Bangladesh, Mynamar, Laos

Social Transfers

• To restore the second pillar Access within the scope of FS?• Remittances as a source of Social transfers: problem of

predictability and targeting • Is risk of corruption higher in other redistributive mechanisms?• Is BRAC a substitute to GoB’s function in terms of social

protection?• Graduation: Is risk financing can be assumed by ultra-poor?• Predictability of transfers is the key word• Social Protection to be developed with parallel social services• Civil society must be involved• What is the place of private sector?• Social Transfers and demography: integrated family planning • Programming: Top up as possible fast reply when

institutionalised system already in place

Nutrition

• Candidate pilot countries for assessment on nutrition to be selected• Sociology of Food Security participants: Why is it so gender

unbalanced (Male and RD, Female and Nutrition) ?• “Targeted” (micronutrient) food transfers versus cash transfers in

Bangladesh (WB)?• Nutrition is not only a question of income • Priority: children under 2 years old (Unicef)• Intergenerational cycle• Harmonization between Food Security Indicators and indicators on

nutrition• Nutrition and political dialogue: not always a priority for the Gvt

“and” donors/EC agenda• Toward an holistic and multidimensional approach of FS• Tuberculosis as an example of the sickness of the poor with a

relationship with nutrition (Proteins)

Mid Term Review/Country Strategy Papers and FSTP

• In principle, on going MTR of CSPs will not modify their strategies as regards FS/RD (Next MIP should remain in similar sectors)

• Food crisis/Food Facility will apparently not influence EC programming

• Only LRRD countries in Asia (Afg., Myan., DPRK) will remain eligible under FSTP

• MTR of FSTP should take into consideration 2/3 undernourished population living in Asia (4 out of 5 most affected countries: Afg., BGD, India, Nepal)

• Large Asia regional programmes on nutrition to be foreseen under FSTP (link to be established with Social Transfers)

Working GroupsGroup 1: Social Transfers

• RATIONALIZE• Inventory of existing programmes

• KEEP IT SIMPLE• Government led, Unconditional (where possible), Cash (unless there are good

reasons not to), Categorical targeting not poverty, targeting, Delivery by private sector (where possible)

• ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS• Government: • Policy, Registration/ID, • Donors: • Guaranteed long term funding (appropriate instrument ?), Fund associated/one-off

services, Technical assistance• Civil society:• Rights issues, Grievance procedures, Social audit• NGOs: Baseline assessment, Training/capacity building, M&E\, Advocacy on

conception/design• PRIVATE SECTOR: Delivery, Implementation

Working GroupGroup 2: EC response to Soaring Food prices

Lessons learnt from Food Facility:

Strength:Strong reaction to crisis, Inter-service Consultation, Establishment of task force, Working with international player, Inclusion of international players, Multiplicator effect, Monitoring envisage/expenditures verification, Additional Euro 140 M spent by ECHO

Weaknesses:Not timely cause of reverted process, Political pressure, Problem of communication, Major subcontracting

Opportunities: Open the door to non-state actors, Open policy dialogue

Threat:Short product life, Distortion of local market, Expensive grain reserve, Donors’ fatigue, Financial crisis flu, Lack of reliable early warning system, Land issue

Working GroupGroup 3: Nutrition

JUSTIFICATIONS:South Asia, Poverty reduction does not obligatory lead to improve nutrition, Vicious intergenerational circle

PROGRAMMING:Better take into account nutrition issues in MTR of both CSPs & FSTP, This should lead to recommendations to better integrate nutrition in projects,

FSTP:Short term: use 2010 FSTP budget to work on nutrition related issues Component 1 – Research (assessing the effectiveness of agricultural interventions for better nutrition)Component 2 – Inclusion of nutrition indicators in information systemsComponent 3 – Regional programme to focus on nutrition \ (Unicef proposal + review at regional level of indirect interventions impact on underlining causes of malnutrition)

Medium term: use the regional level review for early planning of large FSTP 2011-2013 regional intervention on nutrition in Asia/South Asia

BANGLADESH CASE:Evaluation of EC Food Security intervention in Bangladesh (already planned) to better understand the impact of food security projects (EC + other interventions) on malnutrition; thus comparing the set up and modalities of interventionLink with health programmes (HNPSP) to be further exploredBangladesh (or other candidate countries in Asia?) to be selected as EC nutrition pilot country