food security information systems review and capacity...

Food Security Information Systems Review and Capacity Assessment

April 2016

Iraq

3

ContentsList of Acronyms 5Executive Summary 6 Crops 6 Livestock 6 Agro-meteorology 7 Markets 7 Socioeconomic 8 Nutrition 8 Recommendations 8 Follow-up Actions to Address Major Identified Weaknesses and Gaps 9Introduction 11Background 12 Socio-Economic Overview 12 Food Security Information Systems (FSIS) 12 FAO Capacity Development Approach 12 Experiences of Capacity Assessment by FAO 13 FAO’s Capacity Assessment Exercise in Syria Sub-Region 13 Food Security Information Network (FSIN) Guidelines to Capacity Development 14Objective and Methodology 15 Objective 15 Methodology 15Capacity Assessment Main Findings by Sector 17 Introduction 17 Crop Data 17 Livestock Data 21 Nutrition Data 24 Markets Data 27 Socio-economic Data 29 Agrometeorology Data 32Capacity Assessment Main Findings for each step in the Information Manag. Cycle 35 Data Collection 35 Data Analysis and Management 35 Coordination and improved Institutional Networking 36 Policy Enabling Environment 37Recommendations/ Inter-sectoral Coordination 37Priority Follow-up Actions to Address Major Identified Gaps 38 Annex I: FAO’s Experinces in capacity development 39 Annex II: Data Collection Questionnaire 40

5

EWARN Early Warning FAO(UN) Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United NationsFCS Food Consumption ScoreFSN Food Security and NutritionGIEWS Global Information and Early Warning SystemGIS Geographic Information SystemHDD Household Dietary DiversityILO International Labour OrganisationINMA The USAID-Inma Agribusiness ProgramINSAM International Society for Agricultural Meteorology: KurdistanIP Implementing PartnersIYCF Infant and Young Child FeedingKRI Kurdistan Region of IraqKRSO Kurdistan Region Statistics OfficeCSO Central Statistics Office MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster SurveyMoAWR Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (KRI)MoA Ministry of Agriculture (Baghdad)MoH Ministry of HealthMoP Ministry of PlanningMoTI The Ministry of Trade and IndustrymVAM mobile Vulnerability Analysis and MappingNGO Non-governmental OrganisationsOCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (United Nations)OIE World Organisation for Animal HealthRFSAN Regional Food Security Analysis NetworkSMART Standardized Monitoring of Relief and TransitionsUN United NationsUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency FundUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWFP World Food ProgrammeWHO World Health Organisation

List of Acronyms

6

Executive SummaryThe Regional Food Security Analysis Network (RFSAN), in close collaboration with the Gov-ernment of Iraq and other stakeholders such as WFP, undertook a capacity assessment of food security information systems and activities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq between August and December 2015. The overall aim was to as-sess the capacities of institutions in Food Secu-rity and Nutrition information systems as well as to identify strengths, weaknesses as well as gaps in systems collecting, analysing/managing and disseminating food security and nutrition (FSN) information. This should provide a strong evidence base for prioritizing capacity develop-ment needs among key institutions, providing better and more timely food security informa-tion to decision-makers and covering all pillars of food security (access, availability, utilization and stability).

RFSAN has made use of existing capacity as-sessment tools and FAO’s previous experienc-es . Interviews were conducted with 22 institu-tions from government, UN agencies and NGOs for the assessment.

The validation of findings was conducted during a one-day workshop in May 2016. Participants from government, UN and NGOs collectively re-viewed and verified findings, while adding more details to the specific findings by sector.

The results of this two-step process have been included in this report. A short summary fol-lows below.

Crops

Although several government institutions col-lect crop data, it should be noted that MoAWR and KRSO are the key institutions/stakeholders involved in crop data collection at national level, while NGOs and UN agencies collect data on a local scale for their humanitarian response in-terventions. At the validation workshop, stake-holders blamed lack of resources for weak crop data collection systems in government institu-

tions. At the same time, analysis and reporting for wheat and barley are the exception, as they are considered very strategic. It was mentioned that even within MoAWR, different approaches and methodologies are used for data collection in the field, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide a proper overview and comparison between areas.

Government institutions (MoAWR, KRSO and academic institutions) and NGOs have capacity to analyse collected crop data using their own staff; however individual capacity gaps exist in all areas, starting with analysis. Various crop data management software (hard copies, Word doc-uments, Excel, databases, and GIS software) are used. It should also be noted that keeping data in either hard copies or Word documents makes it difficult to organise it for analysis, a gap that needs to be addressed by the sector.

Although the collected data was used to pro-duce information products such as Research Di-rectorate Quarterly Reports, Research Activity Reports for Agriculture and Annual Agricultural Planning Reports by MoAWR, it was observed by interviewees and participants from the work-shop that timing of information dissemination of crop information is often late or that informa-tion is not public. Other information products include academic research papers, and grad-uate study theses with limited dissemination. Many respondents viewed better collaboration through a common platform as a a prerequisite to success. It was observed, for instance, that new knowledge generated by academic institu-tions on crops for example, was not available to other institutions such as MoAWR and KRSO as it lacks dissemination.

Livestock

The government institutions MoAWR and KRSO are the main institutions collecting livestock data at the national level, alongside NGOs col-lecting data at localized levels to support their humanitarian and livelihood project responses. The current political and economic crisis has

7

made it difficult to collect data due to financial constraints. Security concerns and closed bor-ders have prevented monitoring of livestock cross-border movements (Turkey/Iran/Syria). It is therefore difficult to know accurate livestock counts , especially with the incomplete livestock registration (tagging), which serves as a proxy for estimating livestock populations. Moreover, MoAWR and KRSO collect livestock data selec-tively and on an ad-hoc basis, leaving significant gaps in investigating any trends on livestock data.

Most livestock data is stored in Word documents, but also in Excel, databases and GIS software. Capacity gaps were noted in data analysis as in-stitutions indicated a need for improvement in data analysis for livestock data. In addition, there was need for multiple skills required in livestock data management using multi data manage-ment packages (Excel, databases and GIS soft-ware). Livestock data is not regularly published in the public domain as there are few incentives that exist to publish and share data and informa-tion widely, so little gets published in the pub-lic domain. This has obvious consequences for evidence-based policy formulation and program-ming. The main livestock information products produced by MoAWR include livestock disease surveillance reports, while KRSO generates ani-mal production statistics. At the workshop it was not clear if these were in the public domain and could be shared.

Agro-meteorology

The MoAWR and the National Meteorological or Hydro-meteorological Service under the Ministry of Transport are the main stakeholders collecting and reporting on agro-meteorology. NGOs and academic institutions reportedly collect some data, but have very limited or no rainfall collec-tion stations. The NMHS produces daily weath-er reports but a gap reportedly exists with ana-lysing and providing forecasts to farmers.

With agro-meteorology information dissemina-tion in real-time being important, information products, such as agrometeorological bulletins and reports, weekly water requirements reports, weather forecast reports produced need to be shared widely. It is evident that the information provides important early warning signals to en-

sure preparedness and timely interventions to avert impact of imminent disasters at any giv-en time. However stakeholders indicated that Ministry of Transport was not good at sharing agro-meteorology information, prioritizing re-search over early warning.

Markets

Many government and non-government stake-holders collect market and price information to understand the impact of price changes on people’s purchasing power. Several government institutions (MoAWR, MoP, Ministry of Finance, MoH, KRSO) as well as NGOs and UN agencies such as WFP collect market information. Coor-dination and exchange of data sets is reportedly minimal. This means that substantial duplication in data collection may exist. Government institu-tions are the only ones collecting information at country level, while NGOs typically collect mar-ket data locally on an ad hoc basis and mostly linked to their respective humanitarian response projects. Although there have been challenges in data collection, involvement of several govern-ment institutions in data collection leaves capaci-ties for markets better than that of other sectors.

MoAWR, UN agencies (WFP) and NGOs keep market data in hard copy, Excel and databases, with data storage in databases being the most secure. However, with the main government in-stitution MoAWR keeping market data in hard copy, access is difficult. Data kept in hard copies cannot be analysed in that state until it is organ-ised for analysis, making valuable information ‘inaccessible’.

Government institutions produced several infor-mation products from the market data collect-ed, with MoAWR’s collected market information feeding into the Five-Year Strategic Plan, a mul-ti-dimensional plan incorporating all the sectors of the economy with an overall objective of sus-tainable development. Monthly and annual mar-ket reports and import and export reports are produced by KRSO, with Ministry of Trade pro-ducing a report on prices and quantities of eleven staple items . It should be noted that there was also reliance on secondary market information products by some government institutions, with MoT using reports from KRSO, customs and traders to complement their market information.

8

UN agencies such as WFP produce mVAM food security bulletins, inter-agency operational up-dates and food basket value and voucher value reports.. On the other hand, institutions lacked awareness of the sources of market data, cre-ating additional gaps in market information ac-cess. Harmonization and sharing of data across various government ministries and departments may provide a solution to easier management and access. Some level of coordination is war-ranted.

Socioeconomic

Socioeconomic data is collected by a similarly large group of government institutions (MoAWR, MLSA, KRSO), UN agencies and NGOs). How-ever, most institutions collect data on an ad hoc basis, so comparison across governorates is dif-ficult. The last full population census was con-ducted in 1987. Attempts to update this have been stalled in recent years.

MoAWR, KRSO and UN agencies manage so-cio-economic data through use of Excel, Word and databases. However, MoAWR keeps most socioeconomic data in hard copy format. This makes data difficult to manage and access, and processing of the data before analysis can be lengthy and costly.

Whilst MoAWR, KRSO, UN agencies and NGOs disseminate socioeconomic information, the low dissemination frequency resulting from ad hoc and yearly data collection by MoAWR make capacity development for managing socioeco-nomic data critical along the entire information management cycle. It should be noted that in-formation products such as socio-economic re-ports produced by MoAWR and MLSA, house-hold income and expenditure reports produced by KRSO and market assessments reports from NGOs were not readily available or easily acces-sible by stakeholders for use.

Nutrition

MoH plays a leading role in nutrition data collec-tion in Iraq among the government institutions (MoH and KRSO). UN agencies (UNICEF, WHO, WFP and FAO), NGOs and academic institutions also collect nutrition and food consumption data

in support of mainly humanitarian programming. Most of the data collected covers small surveys as the MOH employs few qualified nutritionists. Instead, it relies for nutrition data on health cen-tres and other institutions that include NGOs. MoAWR is not involved in data collection of nu-trition data.

MoH as the main government institution man-aging nutrition data, is keeping the data in Word documents, Excel sheets and databases. Whilst there are gaps in managing data as hard copies and in Word format, databases help in keeping the nutrition data secure. It should however, be noted that one of the critical gaps in capacity development is the use of Emergency Nutrition Assessment (ENA) software, a standardized as-sessment instrument and information manage-ment tool broadly used in nutrition information management.

While MoH leads the nutrition data collection, producing nutrition manuals, Early Warning (EW-ARN) bulletins, brochures, posters, nutrition re-ports, as its major information products, informa-tion contained in such products may not always be accurate, given their reliance on secondary sources. Furthermore, the lack of nutritional ex-perts prevents any significant attempts to ana-lyse and report on nutritional problems.

The above capacity gaps in data collection in-dicate a broad need for financial and technical support to strengthen institutional and individu-al capacities. Also, agreement and execution of more standardized approaches and methodolo-gies and greater coordination among institutions may see benefits. From the validation process, it was evident that most of the dissemination and exchange of information was conducted through the Humanitarian Cluster system, focusing on Syrian refugees, IDPs and host communities.

Recommendations

Following the capacity assessment and valida-tion process, the following was recommended:

1. Establishment of a central hub for data col-lection with a council of ministries composed of government, UN agencies and NGOs act-ing as a coordinating body for data collection, management, analysis and dissemination; this would also enable unified data collection

9

methods to ensure consistency in data quan-tity and quality collected, feeding into four food security pillars1.

2. Relevant government departments should connect with international agencies that can provide support in addressing the identified gaps. Based on the gaps identified, capacity development was found to be a priority cov-ering all stages of information management, ranging from data collection to data process-ing, management, analysis and dissemina-tion. This provides clear directions for UN agencies (Including FAO, WFP, ILO, WHO and UNICEF) to help strengthen such information functions in the government.

3. Separately, non-government humanitarian actors also deserve attention as to strength-en their capacity to help identify often lifesav-ing needs in the area of FS&N.

4. Training in food security and nutrition is re-quired. It was felt that much would be gained if stakeholders understood the multi-dimen-sional nature of food security and nutrition as well as key principles.. It may also offer opportunities for institutionalization of infor-mation functions by establishing a food secu-rity and nutrition information network, with sub-sectors meeting regularly and being able to collectively work on enhancing and sharing of knowledge base, resource mobilization, and training2.

1 It should also be noted that the organizational set up of institutions is important, and where the food security and nutrition is by many exclusively viewed as agriculture, other institutions may not see a need for the coordinated effort at national and local levels. Awareness raising is therefore required to create opportunities for collaboration and drawing synergy between sectors;2 Respondents reacted positively to the three introductory training courses developed by RFSAN. These include topics such food security and nutrition explained, main approaches and data collection instruments and indicators; visualization and presentation and GIS/ mapping.

Follow-up Actions to Address Major Identified Weaknesses and Gaps

Building on this study, the next steps involve addressing the priorities and recommendations derived from the capacity assessment process. Working towards this end, RFSAN will further engage with main stakeholders including Gov-ernment and FS Cluster partners to further oper-ationalize the requests for support in all sub-sec-tors and covering the data collection, analysis and management, report writing, mapping and information dissemination. RFSAN will work to-wards a capacity development plan of action for 2016/17 with actors such as WFP, UNICEF and WHO.

11

IntroductionThe Regional Food Security Analysis Network (RFSAN) facilitates targeted response initiatives to restore food security in Syria, Jordan, Leba-non and Iraq by providing analytical and informa-tion management support to the relevant nation-al, regional and international stakeholders. With financial support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Food for Peace and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RFSAN seeks to es-tablish a common understanding on the food se-curity situation for the region and to extend this understanding to stakeholders concerned with food security in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. RFSAN works with existing coordination struc-tures such as the Humanitarian Cluster system and host governments. RFSAN aims to strength-en food and nutrition security information sys-tems and networks at the country and regional levels to feed into greater evidence-based deci-sion making by all actors, including governments, NGOs and the private sector. During the period of August to December 2015, RFSAN conducted a capacity assessment to evaluate capacities of institutions in KRI on FSN, mapping their needs for data collection, analysis and communication on FSN information. This builds on the work FAO has been doing on FSN in the region.

Enhancing food security calls for a collective approach that brings together different stake-holders in implementing the national FSN pro-gramme, and RFSAN would like to extend its gratitude to the government of Iraq (KRI) for partnership, collaboration and the support it con-tinues to extend to FAO. Given the complexity of the challenges to regional food security, the multi-faceted and long-lasting implications of conflicts in the region call for a coordinated effort that fosters partnership, networking and broader consultation while linking national strategies and initiatives into regional action plan.

The RFSAN’s three strategic objectives are:

1. Strengthening National capacities – the capacity of food security information and ear-ly warning units in the countries affected by the Syria crisis is strengthened through con-text specific trainings, technical support and mentoring.

2. Consensus-Based Situation Analysis – Technical consensus fostered with partners through a regular and thematic situation-al analysis of relevant food security drivers across countries in the sub-region; and

3. Improved Quality of Food Security Infor-mation – Timeliness and quality of food se-curity information ensured through rigorous analysis and consensus as well as the dis-semination of products and use of best prac-tices and lessons learned.

In order to support decision-making processes at both country and regional levels, RFSAN aims at strengthening national food security and nu-trition information systems and enhancing gov-ernment capacities to use standardized method-ologies to collect, analyze and disseminate food security and nutrition information. Close collabo-ration is sought with other agencies tasked with strengthening national capacities such as WFP, UNICEF and WHO.

12

Background

Socio-Economic Overview

Years of conflict and political instability has seen Iraq face a number of challenges that are com-mon to all sectors of the economy, amongst which the most important are the deteriorated state of the social and economic infrastructure, the disruption of the social fabric of the society and the increased dependence on oil incomes, representing two-thirds of the GDP and almost all exports and fiscal revenues1. The contribution of agriculture to GDP has been declining in the last decade from 9% in 2002 to 3.6% in 2009 due to political instability. This has seen produc-tivity, food security, and the livelihoods of the rural population decline, with 80%2 of Iraq’s sta-ples imported. A third of the population resides in rural areas, and is dependent upon agriculture as a livelihood and suffers disproportionately from food insecurity 3. Agriculture’s contribution to overall employment is overstated and con-tinues to decline. If unemployment and chronic underemployment is to be addressed, a compre-hensive rural development strategy must be de-veloped. After the public service, the agriculture sector is the second largest employer in Iraq, and the second largest contributor to GDP after the oil sector. Unemployment is high, officially esti-mated at 16.4% in 2014, a rate which conceals extremely high levels of non-participation in the workforce. Demographic pressure is strong, with 50% of the population under 19 years4. The labour force lacks basic skills and the busi-ness environment is fragile and unstable.

Food Security Information Sys-tems (FSIS)

After a series of droughts and famines, the 1974 World Food Conference concluded that the ex-isting monitoring and information systems for food security were inadequate. In response, new FSIS were developed by different agencies,

1 Iraq Agriculture Note, FAO, 2012 2 Kurdistan Region Economic Development Assessment3 The Iraq Briefing Book, 20104 UNDP

including FAO’s Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS). These initiatives were mainly based on remote sensing as well as na-tional crop statistics. After repeated needs for emergency food aid during the 80s and 90s, the 1996 World Food Summit encouraged FAO to lead a UN interagency process to develop more effective information systems to track food inse-curity and vulnerability. Accordingly, the initiative for Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS) was established to strengthen governments’ commitments to re-inforce their own FSIS to identify who the food insecure are, where they are located, and why they are food insecure, nutritionally vulnerable, or at risk. The FSIS has set out essential stag-es in defining and setting up national systems for monitoring food security and nutrition with key functions such as baselines, early warning, needs assessments and monitoring and evalu-ation. FAO has been playing a crucial facilitative role in supporting countries to establish function-al and sustainable FSIS through working with ex-isting structures, involving all actors in food secu-rity (government institutions, civil organizations, private sector, NGOs, associations, etc.) in the implementation process. This ensures that cross analysis of the information systems is carried out at various levels by groups of different actors (national, governorate, district scale etc.). FSIS make a clear distinction between information management organs such as FSIEWS, FIVIMS, FSIN, and RFSAN and the decision-making.

FAO Capacity Development Ap-proach

Capacity is seen as “the ability of people, or-ganizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully.”5 Capacity Develop-ment (CD) is therefore the “process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time”6 . Capacity development is a core function highlighted in FAO’s strategic framework, and is the sum of efforts needed to nurture, enhance and utilize the skills and capa-bilities of people and institutions at all levels – lo-cally, nationally, regionally and internationally -- so

5 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/ Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) 6 OECD/DAC

13

that they can better progress towards sustaina-ble development. When capacity development is successful, the result is more effective, and people and institutions are better able to provide products and services on a sustainable basis.

FAO’s approach to capacity development con-sists of a structured analysis seeking to assess the capacity of a country in food security and in the sectors of FAO’s strategic framework across three key dimensions: policy enabling environ-ment, institutions and individuals. It is a holis-tic approach, as it considers the country as a three-dimensional system needing four function-al capacities to successfully develop and pursue a specific development goal. Technical capacities are required in the broad areas of food and agri-culture to enable national and (sub) regional ac-tors to carry out all technical tasks required to intensify production sustainably, manage natural resources, and eventually improve food security and nutrition for all.

The functional capacities highlighted in the FAO framework are:

• The capacity to formulate and implement policies and legislation (policy and normative capacity)

• The capacity to access, generate, manage and exchange relevant knowledge and to adapt it to local systems (knowledge capac-ity)

• The capacity to connect, to advocate and en-gage in networks, alliances and partnerships with international and national actors (part-nership capacity)

• The capacity to manage ad implement pro-grammes from planning to monitoring and evaluation (implementation capacity)

For each dimension/area of the country capacity system, a simple question is asked:

• Where are we now? Defining the pres-ent capacity level, its existing strengths and weaknesses

• Where do we want to be? This will define the vision of what capacity is required for the future. It involves the identification of a set of objectives.

• What is the best way to get there? This will compare the future with the present sit-

uation, and needs can be identified from the difference between current capacity and de-sired future capacity.

Defining the desired future situation permits the concerned stakeholders to discuss and reach consensus on where they can realistically expect to be in the medium term. This will enable them to have a shared vision and to identify priorities, options and strategies in order to reach this goal. Participation of key stakeholders in this process helps them commit to taking the steps required to achieve these outcomes. The approach en-courages sustainable organizational changes by supporting institutions to internalize functions and operational procedures in their structures and mandates.

Experiences of Capacity As-sessment by FAO

FAO has led several capacity assessment exer-cises in Africa and Asia and has capitalised on its technical assessments, which are normally part of its programme design, to also conduct capac-ity assessments. Findings from CAs have been the basis for Country Programming Frameworks (CPFs), strategic action plans, programmes and projects. FAO has had a comparative advantage in its role as the world’s agricultural knowledge agency for policy development, integrated ca-pacity building, technical cooperation, response to agricultural emergencies and support to reha-bilitation/recovery, support to rural and agricul-tural investment, collection and dissemination of global information, and for the development and implementation of major international treaties and agreements. For more information on the Capacity Assessments/Capacity Development activities conducted in these countries, see An-nex 1.

FAO’s Capacity Assessment Ex-ercise in Syria Sub-Region

FAO is working with partners to strengthen food security and build the resilience of households, communities and institutions in Syria and neigh-bouring Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Due to its long presence in the region, FAO has con-tinued with its resilience-building efforts to save

14

and protect livelihoods while helping communi-ties lay the foundations for their own longer-term recovery. To ensure an evidence-based and coor-dinated response, FAO monitors the impact of the crisis by conducting food security data col-lection and analysis, undertaking assessments with partners, and coordinating humanitarian response in the Food Security and Agriculture Sector with the World Food Programme (WFP). FAO’s work in the region has been foundational to the regional capacity assessments that it un-dertook in Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq as well as building capacities both at national and region-al level for food security information generation and analysis.

Food Security Information Net-work (FSIN) Guidelines to Ca-pacity Development

The Food Security Information Network (FSIN) is a global initiative co-sponsored by FAO, WFP and IFPRI to strengthen food and nutrition security information systems for producing reliable and accurate data to guide analysis and decision-mak-ing. With FAO’s focus on strengthening country and global capacities for food security and nu-trition analysis, FSIN is amongst the several FAO-supported initiatives complimentary to RF-SAN’s capacity development and FAO has drawn synergy in sharing and adaptation of CA tools across contexts. FSIN promotes the harmoniza-tion and strengthening of Information Systems for Food and Nutrition Security (ISFNS) to sup-port evidence-based and timely decision-mak-ing for improved FNS policies, programmes and response. Like RFSAN, methodological CA has been the framework for capacity development for FSIN and the tools have been versatile and adaptable to different contexts.

15

Objective

The capacity assessment exercise’s objective is to provide a clear picture of sectors’ capaci-ties in terms of strengths, weaknesses and de-velopment needs. This will be achieved through establishing current status of food security and nutrition institutions in Iraq/KRI as well as capac-ity constraints in data collection, management, analysis and dissemination.

Methodology

The capacity assessment started with RFSAN organising a two-day Partner Consultation from 6 – 7 July 2015, followed by the Capacity Assess-ment Training Workshop from 27-30 July in Am-man, Jordan. This was meant to provide stake-holders with background information on the principles of Capacity Development (CD), the process involved in the assessment of capaci-ties, train focal points with the Capacity Assess-ment tools including questionnaire, mapping tables and interview techniques, as well as per-form a stakeholder analysis for the identification of key interviewees from institutions working on food security and nutrition interventions. Attend-ees for the CA Training Workshop held on the 27-30 July included representatives from RFSAN Programme staff from various countries, WFP and the Ministries of Agriculture, Water and Ir-rigation, Planning and International Cooperation as well as the Department of Statistics in Jor-dan. The workshop gave attendees a thorough understanding of CD and the tools and analysis involved in CA. A questionnaire review and stake-holder mapping exercise prompted the National Focal Points to consider the strategy involved in targeting key institutions for relevant and ef-ficient data collection. Following the stakehold-er mapping exercise, the capacity assessment methodology was structured into questionnaire review data collection, data processing and anal-ysis, validation workshop, final report and formu-lation of an action plan.

i. Data Collection Instrument (Question-naire adoption)

In preparation of capacity assessment data col-lection, RFSAN reviewed FSIN’s questionnaire, the data collection tool that was used for CA in South Sudan. The tool was adapted to the Mid-dle East Sub-Region, tested and adopted for CA data collection.

ii. Data Collection

A series of trainings for RFSAN Team on capacity assessment and data collection were conduct-ed prior to data collection. Face-to-face inter-views were conducted between October and November 2015 with stakeholders (government institutions, INGOs, and UN) in Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) reaching a total of 22 food security and nutrition institutions focusing on crop, live-stock, nutrition, markets, socio-economic and agrometeorological information. Additional feed-back was received from national and interna-tional non-governmental organisations (NGOs) through a capacity assessment questionnaire administered online.

iii. Data processing and Analysis

The information collected was entered on Excel spread sheets, processed/cleaned, analysed, in-terpreted and presented as findings in a draft re-port for validation by stakeholders in thefood se-curity and nutrition information systems in Iraq.

iv. Validation Workshop

A one-day validation workshop was held, and findings were presented to a quorum of stake-holders. During the validation process, stake-holders reviewed findings of the food security and nutrition information systems, prioritized their food security and nutrition information needs, formulated desired changes based on identified gaps and made recommendations.

Objective and Methodology

16

v. Capacity Assessment Report

Following the validation workshop, the feedback from validation process was then incorporated into the report with the aim of finalizing it through reviews by the RFSAN Team and FAO Capacity Development Unit. The report becomes one of RFSAN’s information products and a reference tool for informing similar exercises in the region and elsewhere.

vi. Formulation of Action Plan

Recommendations made following the validation process fed into the formulation of the action plan. The action plan will guide the next phase of the capacity development in food security and nutrition information systems and will enable RFSAN to design the capacity development in-terventions for key government and non-govern-ment institutions based on their gaps and needs. Other UN agencies, such as WFP, UNICEF and WHO are expected to contribute as well.

Data Collection Instrument

Data Collection

Data processing and Analysis

Data processing and Analysis

Final Report

Formulation of Action Plan

Methodology

Erbil

Dahuk

Sulaimaniyah

Map 1: Information Systems Capacity Assessment Locations-Kurdistan Region of Iraq

17

Capacity Assess-ment Main Findings by Sector

Introduction

Following the survey, the findings (strengths and weaknesses) were validated by stakehold-ers during a workshop that was held in Erbil, Iraq. Stakeholders also highlighted other gaps that were not captured by the survey and made sector-specific recommendations. The lack of up-to-date or reliable information and coordination challenges were common findings across sec-tors, with the capacity to analyse and manage FSN data being an additional bottleneck. The sectors follow the food security pillars with crop, livestock and agro-meteorology data, mostly as-sociated with availability, while markets and so-cio-economic sectors reflected access (physical and economic) and lastly utilization reflected by nutrition (and health).

Crop Data

Main Data Collected

The Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resourc-es (MoAWR), the Kurdistan Region Statistics Of-fice (KRSO) in the Ministry of Planning (MoP), NGOs, UN (FAO) and academic institutions are the main stakeholders collecting crop data. The MoAWR collects data on main crops that include wheat, barley, rice (paddy), maize, dates, toma-toes, watermelons, eggplants and potatoes. In the Kurdish region where the assessment was conducted, the main grain production consists of wheat and barley1. The information agencies collect data on include crop types, crop area cul-tivated, mechanization, pest control, diseases, weeds, insects, harvests (including harvested area), yield, grain storage, and the contribution to forage. From the data collected, the MoAWR produce Agriculture Research Directorate Quar-terly Reports, Research Activity Reports for Agri-

1 Appropriate Agriculture International – Agriculture and farmers in Kurdish region<Part 1>

culture and Annual Agricultural Planning Reports. The MoAWR also uses outside sources of crop information data such as FAO crop data to pro-duce crop product reports2. The KRSO carries out periodic surveys to estimate cultivated area, the average productivity of all agricultural crops according to seasonal and geographical distribu-tion, irrigated crops, vegetable cultivation, areas of orchards and number of trees with productivi-ty according to types of fruits.

With crop production conducted both in summer and winter, the collected crop data by the KRSO is used for producing winter crop area reports, summer crop production reports, and expendi-ture reports. These reports rely on the crop pro-duction data from MoAWR. From the information collected there is both some complementarity and some overlap as the MOAWR crop data col-lected feed into the KRSO crop data, yet at the same time, KRSO conducts periodic surveys to collect similar crop data.

The NGOs collect similar crop data on a smaller or localized scale for their programming and also rely on the data collected by MOAWR, such as the MoAWR bulletins. NGOs use the collected crop data for resources mobilisation. UN agen-cies, includingWorld Food Programme (WFP) also conduct crop assessments to inform their food assistance programming. In addition to the primary data they collect, they also use second-ary data from the Ministry of Agriculture in Bagh-dad and MoAWR in KRI, FAO and other agencies to complement the data they collect. WFP uses NDVI data from FAO as a proxy to detect poten-tial drought, and this has been useful in their vul-nerability assessments mapping. The Agriculture Renovation Organization, an Iraqi NGO, uses sec-ondary data from wheat, barley and corn product reports/data to complement the data they col-

2 FAOSTATS: http://faostat3.fao.org

18

Perceived weaknesses• Poor coordination between MoAWR and CSO• Lack of budget for surveys• Lack of inter-governmental coordination with NGOs• Different data collection methods across districts• No labour surveys conducted – impact on making crop pro-

duction estimates

Perceived Strengths• Good data/information on wheat, being collected as strate-

gic crop, especially on area cultivated

Figure 1: Crops data collection

MoAWR

Reports Reports

Donors

Bulletins

Used for:- Programming- Resources mobilisation

Used for:Inform their food assistance programming

Ministry Data

Collect Data

Sec

ound

ary

data

(Bag

hdad

/KR

I)

Collect Data

Collect Data

Collect Data

Crop assessments/Collect data

FAO

& other UN AgenciesWFP

Academic institutions

Kurdistan Region Statistics Of�ce (KRSO)

Wheat BarleyRice Maize Dates Eggplants Potatoes Watermelons Tomatoes

Main grain production in KRI

Main crops data

Crops Data

lect. The KRSO uses crop production secondary data to feed into a food balance sheet that are important in forecasting the food and agricultural situation in the country. UN-OCHA also shares RFSAN reports as secondary data for use by food security and nutrition stake3.

FAO has been collecting crop data at country level with information such as major crops and cropping calendar (sowing, growing, harvesting) collected and shared with food security stake-holders through the GIEWS. FAO has been col-lecting information on crop production levels, ac-cess to markets, food prices, cross border trade and cereal import requirements. Such informa-tion has been useful for early warning on food

3 GIEWS Country Brief – Iraq: 07-March 2016

insecurity and for preparedness and response planning. FAO’s GIEWS has also been collecting and publishing various weather-related indices including Normalized Difference Vegetation In-dex (NDVI) data, which is used to monitor crop condition and forecast yield as well as produc-tion. RFSAN has recently been publishing addi-tional maps at a high resolution that include Iraq as well (see information on www.rfsan.info).

Academic institutions collect crop data for re-search purposes such as generating new knowl-edge and publishing academic research papers such as journals as well as graduate theses and dissertations. Their research products on crop information are fed into the University Activi-ty Report for future reference or use by other stakeholders. The academic institutions also use external crop data sources from the MoAWR and KRSO to complement their research.

19

Data Managment

Several crop data management systems are used by institutions that collect crop data. These include keeping crop data in hard copies, in word documents, excel sheets, databases and Geo-graphic Information System (GIS). All the insti-tutions (MoAWR, KRSO, NGOs, and Academic) use Excel and have databases for managing the crop data. The same data management tools across institutions are an opportunity for access-ing and sharing collected data across institutions for verification and comparison purposes. There are also variations in data management, with the MoAWR and NGOs using word documents and keeping crop data as hard copies in addition to use of excel and databases. This may pose chal-lenges in sharing data with other institutions as well as organising data for analysis. The MoAWR also uses GIS for managing the crop data col-lected. A common platform for managing crop data and shared data management technologies needs to be strengthened across institutions to ensure it is easily accessible to provide baseline information and to inform programming. The availability of crop data at national and governo-rate levels determines accessibility of the infor-mation to stakeholders at grassroots levels and many others who may want to access the data for decision making.

Data Analysis

Both government institutions (MoAWR and KRSO =) and NGOs analyse the data they collect using their own staff. Whilst other stakeholders may be analysing data at different levels (for ex-ample NGOs analysing data to inform their pro-gramming at governorate level) the Statistics Office does the analysis of crop data at both governorate and national levels.

Hard copies Word Excel GISData Base

MoAWR

W

Data Management Systems

KRSO

Crops

Academics

NGOs

Perceived weaknesses• • Storage of data in hard copies by

MoAWR, KRSO and NGOs leaves the col-lected data insecure for future use

• • Crop data stored in hard copies cannot be exported into other data management systems for improved data management

• • Management of data in excel format only by academic institutions leaves it inse-cure

• • Problems in harmonising data manage-ment across institutions – no common platform across institutions

• • Different data management systems (hard copies, word, excel, database, GIS) for MoAWR may require different skills set and more resources to manage data

Perceived Strengths• All the institutions managing crop data

with MoAWR keeping data in hard copies, word documents, excel, databases and GIS, while KRSO keeps crop data in hard copies and databases, with NGOs using hard copies, word, excel and databases while academic institutions keep their data in excel sheets

• Databases and GIS keep crop data secure for MoAWR, KRSO and NGOs

• Keeping crop data in soft copies makes it possible for it to be exported to other data management systems

20

Perceived weaknesses• • Outdated crop information disseminat-

ed

• • Gaps or delays in available information for early warning bulletins, general publi-cations, policy formulation, etc. due to low data collection frequencies

• • New knowledge generated by academ-ic institutions on crops not available to oth-er institutions such as MoAWR and KRSO since its never disseminated.

Recommendations

Crop data collection should be pluralistic but done through a coordinated approach for data collection, management and dissemination and managed by a coordination body such as the government, UN agency or council of ministries. It was recommended during the validation work-shop that capacity development be conducted through the entire information management cycle, with particular emphasis placed on data analysis and remote sensing, GIS mapping and land cover mapping at a sub-national level. RF-SAN in collaboration and/or in partnership with other UN agencies (WFP, WHO, UNICEF, FAO) was recommended to lead in capacity building, offer guidance on data collection and harmonized processes and methodologies. . Government or-ganizations should therefore take a leading role in allocating budgets and also collaborate with stakeholders for resource mobilization (materi-als, finance, human resources) for capacity de-velopment. Capacity building initiatives should address enabling environment, institutional and individual capacity gaps. It was also recom-mended that there be an open data system for institutions to access data across ministries (e.g. MoA, CSO, etc, accessing food security related data from ministries such as health, transport, water resources, etc.). This is important in inte-grating institutions that impact on food security dimensions into the food security and nutrition information systems.

Perceived Strengths• Crop information is disseminated by

MoAWR, KRSO, UN and NGO to users

Perceived Strengths and weaknesses

Dissemination and use

The government institutions (Ministry of Agricul-ture & Water Resources, Statistics Office) share the analysed data with ministry departments and other organisations. The MoAWR dissemi-nate crop production information at governorate and national levels, while NGOs disseminate crop information to donors for resource mobili-sation purposes for humanitarian interventions. With the crop data information dissemination done on yearly basis by the MoAWR, and on ad hoc basis by the Statistics Office, such long and irregular information sharing intervals make the information unavailable on time for decision-mak-ers, and even when it is disseminated, the lack of clear communication strategies result in poor information dissemination, overall affecting de-cision-making. The communication of crop in-formation systems is one-way, with institutions disseminating the crop information not aware of the needs and priorities of users or getting feed-back from users about the quality of information disseminated.

21

Livestock Data

Main data collected

The main institutions collecting data on livestock include the MoAWR, the KRSO, UN (FAO) and NGOs. The MoAWR estimates numbers of live-stock, monitors fish farms and conducts surveys on poultry and livestock projects. The Ministry uses the collected data to produce reports on livestock production. It should be noted that Vet-erinary Centres within the Ministry of Agricul-ture collect information specifically on livestock diseases and produce reports on disease sur-veillance. They also gather livestock information from external sources such as the World Organ-isation for Animal Health (OIE) and also share livestock information with OIE on livestock dis-ease outbreaks. The Statistics Office maps geo-graphic livestock areas, field capacities, livestock equipment and barns, livestock production and loss, farmers’ average livestock production costs and animal feed. They use the collected data to produce Poultry Survey Reports and Animal Pro-duction Reports as well as to report indicators on livestock. They also use external sources such as the Poultry Production Report to update poultry data.

FAO collects data on livestock and shares it through a global information and early warning

system on food and agriculture (GIEWS). Data collected on livestock include livestock systems, livestock types (sheep, cattle, goats, camels, buffaloes, and poultry), livestock population, live-stock production, livestock feeds, feed access, cereal byproducts and livestock products such as eggs and meat. FAO has used the early warn-ing system to safeguard animal health and pro-ductivity through support to provision of animal feeds, veterinary supplies and services, includ-ing improved animal health services, vaccina-tion campaigns, tracking and monitoring animal movements and strengthening animal disease early warning systems. FAO collaborates with the government and works in partnership with NGOs as implementing partners (IPs) in collect-ing livestock data.

NGOs primarily use the livestock data collected by the agricultural ministry and shared in min-istry’s reports such as the Animal Herders Re-port for INMA. They use the data they gather to feed into the MOAWR Animal Bulletin, livestock information reports and also share the data col-lected with INMA. NGO data may both comple-ment and overlap with both government and UN agencies data as NGOs collect data at a local-ized scale for their humanitarian interventions. The MoAWR uses livestock secondary data

such as livestock dis-ease reports produced by FAO, while the Agri-culture Renovation Or-ganization makes use of livestock data gathered and shared by MoAWR in the form of livestock bulletins.

MIinistry of Agriculture and Water resources

Livestock Data

Collect Data

Data

Collect Data Collect Data

Collect Data

FAO


Main grain production in KRI

Veterinary Centres Within the Ministry

Used to produce reports on livestock production

Used to produce reports on disease surveillance

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)

- Update the poultry data using external sources such as (Poultry Production Report)

Used to produce:- Poultry Survey Reports- Animal Production Reports - Indicators on livestock Reports

Types of data collected and shared through (GIEWS)

Livestock Types

Livestock Population

Livestock Products

Livestock Feeds

Feed Access

Livestock Systems

Cereal By-Products

Collaboration

Col

labo

ratio

n

Figure 2: Livestock data collection

22

Data Management

The MoAWR keeps the collected data in hard copy format, Word documents, and Excel sheets, while the KRSO keeps hard copies , Ex-cel sheets, databases and GIS software. NGOs keep the data in hard copies and databases. FAO keeps livestock data in databases that can be ac-cessed by food security stakeholders.

Perceived weaknesses• Multiple skills required for several data

management packages (hard copies, word, excel, databases and GIS)

• Livestock data kept as hard copies by MoAWR is not secure

Perceived Strengths• MoAWR, KRSO, NGOs process and ana-

lyse collected livestock data• MoAWR and KRSO using several data man-

agement packages (word, excel, databases & GIS)

• Use of several data management packag-es offers an opportunity to secure livestock data

Perceived weaknesses• NGOs collecting data they could access

from FAO FAOSTAT database (duplication)• Livestock registration (tagging) incomplete

– inaccurate estimation of livestock popu-lation

• Current crisis making it difficult to collect data on livestock population, making it dif-ficult to estimate the number of livestock

• Borders controls(Turkey/Iran/Syria)and lack of information on livestock movement across borders makes it difficult to control and eradicate disease, threatening the food security and livelihoods of smallholders and preventing animal husbandry sectors from achieving their economic potential

• MoAWR and KRSO collect data on ad-hoc basis, meaning that livestock data insuffi-cient or not available when needed for de-cision making, programming or policy for-mulation

• KRSO only collects data on livestock popu-lation, which is not cost effective as the de-partment could collect more livestock data.

Perceived Strengths• KRSO and MoAWR collecting data on live-

stock• Vaccination programmes in existence, in-

cluding control and reduction of epidemic and zoonotic trans-boundary animal dis-ease (TAD) in liberated areas and KRG – en-ables livestock population to be estimated in these areas.



KRSO

NGOs

MoAWR

W

FAO

Livestock

23

Data Analysis

Government institutions, particularly MoAWR and KRSO, as well as NGOs analyse livestock data. FAO analyses livestock data through sever-al statistical packages and data is kept in statisti-cal products such as FAOSTAT.


The Statistics Office and NGOs disseminate live-stock data to other organizations. The Statistics Office disseminates the livestock information at national level through its website. Informa-tion disseminated include livestock numbers by governorate, number and characteristics of livestock, livestock production, etc. FAO dissem-inates livestock information through its FAOSTAT database, which is accessible to all food security stakeholders.

Perceived Strengths and weaknesses

Perceived Strengths• Livestock information disseminated by

CSO, UN (FAO) and NGOs to users

• Information disseminated on livestock products (meat)

Perceived weaknesses• • MoAWR and KRSO receive livestock in-

formation from other institutions on ad hoc basis; information is insufficient

• • Keeping livestock information in hard copy format; data not available to other in-stitutions

• • Livestock data not disseminated by MoAWR; kept for internal use

• • Low frequency of livestock information product releases; not getting information on time for informed decision making

Recommendations

In the workshop, stakeholders recommended that there be an establishment of a central live-stock hub/database at KRI so as to ensure easy access to livestock and livestock products in-formation. Registration (ID tagging) of livestock needs to be completed so as to have livestock information on the livestock register for easy es-timation of livestock populations. Establishing standard data collection guidelines, processes and methodologies, while building capacities in technical skills for livestock data collection, analysis and management was recommended. Setting up a data management system for data storage and fostering sharing of information was another factor that participants highlighted.

24

Nutrition Data

Main data collected

The Ministry of Health (MoH) plays a leading role in nutrition data collection in Iraq among government institutions (MoH and KRSO), with UN agencies (WHO, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR) and NGOs also collecting nutrition data. The MoH col-laborates with UN agencies and NGOs in collect-ing nutrition data although they do collect data independently at times. The main nutrition data collected are on acute malnutrition and stunting and anthropometric data (weight, height, MUAC) for children under the age of 5 years. The data is used to determine the magnitude of the un-dernutrition (wasting, underweight and stunt-ing) as well as crude and under-five mortality rates in populations. In addition, nutritional data on pregnant and lactating women is also col-lected. The collection of anthropometric data is used to measure the nutritional situation by de-termining the prevalence of acute malnutrition, underweight, stunting and overweight. Prev-alence of child morbidity data is also collected by all institutions through establishing frequen-cy of diarrhoea and Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) amongst children 6 – 59 months. All the institutions (MoH, UN agencies, NGOs) collect Infant and Young Child Feeding practices (IYCF) among children 0 – 23 months, coverage of mea-sles vaccination and Vitamin A supplementation among children.

Figure 3: Nutrition data collection

Col

lect

dat

a

MoH

CollectData

Collect Data

Collect Data

WHO, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR

Nutrition Data

Acute malnutrition

Food security data indicators

Proportion of households with access to safe water and sanitation

Stunting and anthropometric data (weight, height, MUAC)

Nutritional data on pregnant and lactating women

Prevalence of child morbidity data

Infant and Young Child Feeding practices (IYCF) data (measles vaccination and Vitamin A supplementation)

Main source of drinking/safe water sources (To establish access to potable water)

The

mai

n da

ta c

olle

cted

Posters Brochures Bulletins

Early Warning (EWARN)

The data has also fed into...(FCSs, HDD)

KRSOAcademic institutions

Due to its impact on household dietary diversi-ty and undernutrition, food security data is also collected by NGOs, including Food Consump-tion Scores (FCSs) and Household Dietary Di-versity (HDD). The information related to food access determines food utilization and hence nutritional outcomes. The proportion of house-holds with access to safe water and sanitation is also collected by institutions (MoH, UN agen-cies, NGOs) since lack of potable water and poor hygiene has detrimental consequences on child morbidity and survival. To establish access to potable water, the institutions collect household data on main sources of drinking/safe water. UN agencies collect data in partnership with MoH, Implementing Partners (IPs), INGOs, and local NGOs, with the main data they collect include immunization, vitamin supplements. They use the data collected to produce Rapid Food Secu-rity Analysis Reports, Monthly Situation Reports and Inter-Agency Operational Updates.

Nutrition data collected has been used to pro-duce nutrition manuals by the MoH in collabo-ration with UN agencies and NGOs. The data has also fed into Early Warning (EWARN) bulle-tins, brochures and posters produced for target groups. UN agencies such as WFP, UNICEF and FAO use secondary data sources to complement their primary data and inform their program-ming. Secondary data sources include nutrition reports, scientific publications on the nutrition standards, food safety reports and monthly food security bulletins produced by other stakehold-ers and the Food Security Cluster.

25

Perceived weaknesses• Capacity gaps for government, UN and

NGOs on data collection• Weak coordination between institutions

(MoH, NGOs and UN agencies) in collect-ing data resulting in overlap

• Ad-hoc data collection by UN agencies – gaps in nutrition data

• Collection of nutrition data done selectively and on yearly basis by MoH create gaps in nutrition data available for decision-making or evidence- based programming

• Frequent data collection (monthly) by UN agency is usually non-systematic (collect-ed from health centres)

• Small-scale data collection by partners, es-pecially NGOs

• Few staff available in nutrition within MoH, UN and NGOs

• MoH collects nutrition data for age 0 – 59 months only – gaps in nutrition information for population above 59 months

Perceived Strengths• • MoH, KRSO, Academic, UN agencies

and NGOs collect nutrition data• • Yearly data collection for development

is satisfactory• • Collaboration in data collection exists

between government, UN and NGOs.• • Standardized data collection through

use of ENA software for Standardized Mon-itoring of Relief and Transitions (SMART surveys)

Perceived weaknesses• Skills gap in use of other software other

than Excel and databases used by MoH• Capacity gaps for government, UN and

NGOs• Not enough capacity to use ENA software,

anew tool for the whole of Iraq

Perceived Strengths• MoH managing data in Word, Excel and

databases• Databases keep data secure

Data Management

The Ministry of Health keeps the collected data in Word documents, Excel spreadsheets and in databases, while UN agencies keep data in Word format.

Data Analysis

The Ministry of Health, UN agencies and NGOs analyse the nutrition data collected.


The Ministry of Health, UN agencies and NGOs share the nutrition data they collect with other line ministries. UN agencies such as UNICEF, WHO, and UNHCR disseminate multiple-indica-tor cluster surveys (MICS) online to share infor-mation on nutrition activities and also show the needs for nutrition interventions.

Perceived Strengths• Nutrition information disseminated by

MoH, UN agencies and NGOs.

Perceived weaknesses• Institutions (MoH, UN agencies and NGOs)

disseminating same nutrition data; duplica-tion of efforts

• Delays in nutrition information dissemina-tion


MOH

W


Nutrition

26

Recommendations

Following the validation, stakeholders indicated a need for nutrition awareness as there was lack of nutrition education and that media organizations should support the awareness raising. Study of nutrition in Iraq was cited as a significant gap and it was recommended that academic insti-tutions focus more on the sector. With informa-tion gaps in nutrition, monthly data collection by MoH was recommended for accurate response programming. With overlaps evident in nutrition data collection by partners, it was recommended that stakeholders collaborate and discuss with the government and UN agencies so that they first establish gaps in information and act as gap fillers in data collection. Stakeholders also rec-ommended evidence-based policy formulation based on yearly data collection. With coordina-tion gaps noted, it was recommended that there be strong coordination between nutrition part-ners and FS partners such as WHO and UNICEF with WFP, especially during displacement or emergencies, as well as with FAO during recov-ery phases. It was also recommended that there be clarity in mandates for existing coordination mechanisms and a decentralized coordination mechanism at governorate level. With capaci-ty gaps noted, a recommendation was made for capacity development for nutrition stakeholders such as MoH, UN agencies and NGOs.

27

Markets Data

Main data collected

Stakeholders involved in market information data collection include the MoAWR, the Ministry of Planning (MoP), the Ministry of Trade and Indus-try (MoT), the Ministry of Finance (Customs Di-rectorate), the Ministry of Health (MoH), KRSO, academic institutions, UN agencies and NGOs. MoAWR collects market information on com-modity prices, crops and livestock, commodity volumes and trade flows and value chains. UN agencies (WFP, FAO, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR and OCHA) collect market data, but the level of collaboration with NGOs as well as MoAWR is not well known. The information collected in-cludes market functionality, market integration, commodity prices, minimum food basket pric-es, purchasing power of households, market environment, and market chains. UN agencies such as WFP have been using market data to produce the mVAM food security bulletins, in-ter-agency operational updates, food basket values and voucher value reports. UN agencies have also been using outside sources such as market/trade information data, the FAO Country Programme Framework and OCHA situational reports to inform market programming1.

1 DRC (2014), Labour Market Systems mapping and Analysis, Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

With the Syria response having disrupted liveli-hoods and markets, NGOs have been conducting Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA), a rapid market analysis that allows stakeholders to understand the main features and dynamics of a market system linked to a crisis in order for decision makers to consider a range of appro-priate response options and to mitigate risks of disrupting markets2. Several market systems have been selected by NGOs that include food commodities and service sectors with an objec-tive of identifying, selecting and mapping out critical market systems that most likely offer livelihood opportunities or address food insecu-rity for target groups. Information on baseline market systems maps, market actors and the interactions between them before the crisis and key infrastructure and market support services are part of the market data collected by NGOs in emergencies. With market baseline information, NGOs have been able to conduct a gap analysis, market analysis and a response analysis that has enabled NGOs to consider market based or cash transfer interventions to address acute food in-security for affected communities, while and the same time supporting market recovery. NGOs have also mapped market trade flows and col-lected prices and volumes of specific commod-ities to inform the feasibility of market-based food security interventions. With such interven-tions, NGOs have also been monitoring com-modity market prices periodically (weekly and monthly), collecting commodity market prices to establish the impact of cash transfers on ad-dressing food security and nutrition outcomes for affected communities. Academic institutions have also been collecting similar market infor-mation such as market demand on crops. The MoAWR also uses secondary data from Trade Information Reports and Crop Market and Trade Reports to inform food security as trade affects all dimensions of food security (food availabili-ty, access, utilisation and stability). Oxfam uses WFP’s mVAM reports and mVAM bulletins as secondary data sources to complement their market-based programming. The Food Security Cluster uses market assessment reports avail-able to contribute to food security coordination reports for humanitarian actors.

2 Tearfund UK (2014) Iraq Response – RAM Market Assessment Report – Semel and Dohuk Markets in Dohuk Governorate, Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI)

MoAWROtherministries

Collect Data

Collect data

Collect D

ata

Col

lect

dat

a

Collect Data

Collect data


Market Data

KRSO

Figure 4: Markets data collection

28

Data Management

The Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources keeps markets information in hard copies, Word documents and Excel sheets, while UN agencies store market information in Word, Excel and da-tabases. NGOs store market information in Excel sheets and databases.

Perceived Strengths• Market data collection by MoAWR, MoP,

MoT, Ministry of Finance, MoH, KRSO, UN and NGOs; data available

Perceived weaknesses• Language gap• Data collected often inaccurate• Same types of data collected by MoAWR,

UN agencies and NGOs; duplication of ef-forts/waste of resources

• MoAWR collecting market data quarterly; necessary market information may not al-ways be available to users

• Ad hoc collection of data by NGOs; data not available when needed by users

Perceived Strengths• Data secure in databases• MoAWR, UN and NGOs keep data in excel

format and databases

Perceived weaknesses• Data kept in hard copies by MoAWR is in-

secure• Many stakeholders managing different data

sets; information silos

Data Analysis

All the institutions (MoAWR, UN, NGOs) analyse the collected data.

Recommendations

During the validation process, stakeholders rec-ommended that market information be reflected on the food balance sheet, indications of local production, and commodity importation needs (deficits), all that all this information be published or made available to the public to evaluate the institutions’ performance (MoAWR, MoP, MoT, etc). This would be an opportunity to support local markets when import taxes are raised and when there are surpluses or shortages of goods. Markets determine both economic and physical access, and stakeholders therefore recommend-ed having a unified commodity market prices ga-zetted by the government for review by the pop-ulation in general (consumers, traders, private sectors, etc.). Coordination across stakeholders was also determined to be critical. Capacity de-velopment of stakeholders in market analysis, and actual data collection such as what has been ongoing with mVAM and Information sharing. The creation of an automated system linked to the food balance sheet associated with a web-site/database for registering all imported items was another recommendation that could help capture market information at a national level.


The MoAWR, UN agencies and NGOs dissemi-nate markets data to other organizations.

Perceived Strengths• Market information disseminated

Perceived weaknesses• Lack of awareness where data is published

(sources)• Low frequency in disseminating market in-

formation by MoAWR ; data collected quar-terly

• Dissemination of information at national lev-el; information not available at governorate and district level

• Many coordination bodies; different infor-mation transmitted by different coordina-tion bodies/institutions


Hard copies Word Excel GISData BaseW

MoAWR

Market

29

Socio-economic Data

Main data collected

The main stakeholders involved in the collection of socio-economic data include the Ministry of Agriculture & Water Resources, the Ministry of Health, the Kurdistan Region Statistics Office, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MLSA), UN agencies and NGOs. The MoAWR collects primary data that include household demograph-ic information, household income and expendi-tures, price indices, food consumption at house-hold level, and gender and also use secondary data for producing products such as socio-eco-nomic reports. Together with the Statistics Of-fice, the Ministries of Agriculture and Health also gather information on total population estimates aggregated by sex and age, dependency ratios, urban and rural populations, fertility, employ-ment rates, economic activity rates, and average household expenditures. The information they collect from secondary sources includes poverty pockets, imports and exports, the state of pover-ty at national level.

Figure 5: Socio-economic data collection

The Statistics Office collects data on economic activities, health insurance, individual economic activity and housing projects. The data they col-lect is used to produce household income and expenditure reports. UN agencies collect similar data to produce reports on the economic sta-tus of refugees and affected host communities. Some of the data collected include impact of an influx of Syrian refugees on the labour market.

On the other hand, NGOs collect data to deter-mine vulnerabilities of communities they are as-sisting or evaluate the impact of their interven-tions in communities. Some of their products include the impact of cash-based interventions on refugees and labour market assessment re-ports. NGOs also use secondary products to in-form their programming, including comprehen-sive food security and monitoring reports from WFP as well as reports or information from the Statistics Office, UNHCR and International La-bour Organisation (ILO). OXFAM, for example, uses socio-economic/socio-demographic infor-mation to inform their food security program-ming.

MoAWR

MoH

Collect Data


Collect Data

Collect Data


Socio-economic Data

Household demographic information, Household income and expenditures, Price indices, Food consumption at household level, Gender

Hconomic activities, Health insurance, Individual economic activity and housing project

Household income & expenditure

reports

Produce

Determine OR

Produce

Economic status of refugees Affected host communities.

Evaluate the impact of their interventions

in communities

Impact of cash based interventions

Vulnerabilities of communities

they are assisting

30

Perceived Strengths• MoAWR, MLSA, KRSO, UN agencies (WFP)

and NGOs collecting data

Perceived Strengths• MoAWR, UN agencies managing informa-

tion through use of Excel, Word and data-bases

Perceived Strengths• • Socio-economic information dissemina-

tion by MoAWR, KRSO, UN agencies and NGOs

Perceived weaknesses• Ad hoc data collection by MoWAR, UN and

NGOs; information gaps• MoAWR, KRSO, UN agencies and NGOs all

collecting similar data; duplication of efforts

Perceived weaknesses• Low frequency of dissemination since data

is collected yearly and on ad-hoc basis by MoAWR, NGOs and UN agencies

Perceived weaknesses• • Data kept as hard copies by MoAWR,

UN and NGOs are not secure• • Different data management systems

across institutions make information shar-ing difficult; incompatible data manage-ment systems

Data Management

The MoAWR keeps the collected data in hard copies, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets and databases while the Statistics Office stores the information in databases. NGOs use hard copies, Word documents and databases for man-aging data. UN agencies keep socio-economic information as hard copies, excel and databases.

Data Analysis

The MoAWR, KRSO, UN agencies and NGOs an-alyse data. However, NGOs indicated that they both analyse and keep raw data for internal use.


The MoAWR and the KRSO as well as UN agen-cies disseminate socio-economic data to other organizations; NGOs generally keep the informa-tion for internal use.

Recommendations

Following the validation process, stakeholders recommended a mapping exercise to identify in-stitutions collecting socio-economic data and fo-rums or clusters where such information is being shared. Building a network of food security and nutrition information producers (socio-economic data) supports the use of such information in the production of food security and nutrition prod-ucts such as bulletins and reports. With capacity gaps having been identified in data collection as well as analysis and management, stakeholders recommended capacity development activities and programmes for staff responsible for data collection, management and analysis. An infor-mation sharing platform was also recommended from the national level down to district level as well as a public access platform for stakeholders. This was also highlighted for consensus build-ing on food security and nutrition, as a common platform would enable institutions to standard-ize processes and methodologies and improving data quantity and quality.

KRSO



NGOs

MoAWR

Socio-Economic

32

Agrometeorology Data

Main data collected

The main institutions collecting agro-meteoro-logical data are MoAWR and the National Me-teorological/Hydro-meteorological Service under the Ministry of Transport, with Academic insti-tutions and NGOs participating as well1. The main data they collect include wind speed and direction, solar radiation and sunshine hours, barometric pressure, atmospheric temperature/relative humidity and dewpoint, precipitation, soil temperature at two depths, soil moisture, leaf wetness, and evapotranspiration. Data is collected through the agro-meteorology centre in all established stations which prepares elec-tronic monthly bulletins containing daily values of all agrometeorological parameters (maximum and minimum air temperature, relative humidity, grass minimum temperature, vapour pressure, precipitation, sunshine duration, solar radiation, wind speed and direction, pan evaporation, soil temperature at different depths, and sky cloud cover). These real-time data help food security

1 INSAM – The International Society for Agricultural Meteorology: Kurdistan – April 2016

stakeholders understand weather conditions that affect agriculture.

Agro-meteorology is seen as a service that pro-vides essential information to all weather-sensi-tive activities. It’s therefore important to all food security stakeholders as it informs the develop-ment of agriculture. Collaboration with other ser-vices determines the suitability of the required data, because important information is needed to ensure the timely scheduling of cultivation, ir-rigation, production and land use, requiring some shared responsibility with the users. Agro-mete-orology data is important in early warning sys-tems and sharing data with food security stake-holders well in advance of a possible occurrence of drought so that they can be prepared. Food security institutions also need timelines for the onset and cessation of the rains to determine the types of crops to plant. The main products from agro-meteorology data for MoAWR are agro-meteorological bulletins, reports on rela-tions between yield, agro-meteorology and the impact of rainfall on yield as well as the weekly water requirements report. The KRSO collects data on climatology (temperature, humidity, pressure, rainfall, etc.) and uses this information to produce rainfall reports, while making use of secondary sources that include the meteorolog-ical bulletins to inform their products. The Min-istry of Trade collects data on rainfall and also uses products from outside sources such as the weather forecast reports. It should be noted that the agro-meteorology stations are the main play-ers in meteorology data collection that is made available to all users with specific information needs on meteorology.

MoAWR


Main data collected Monthly bulletins

Daily values of all agrometeorological

parameters Collect data


Agrometeorology Data

Wind speed and direction, Solar radiation and sunshine hours, Barometric pressure, Atmospheric Temperature,Relative Humidity & Dewpoint, Precipitation, Soil temperature at 2 depths, Soil moisture, Leaf wetness, Evapotranspiration.

Collaboration

Agrometeorology Centre

Figure 6: Agro-meteorology data collection

33

Perceived Strengths• There are 61 stations collecting data • Installation of automatic agro-meteorology

station funded by USGS: Baghdad complet-ed

Perceived weaknesses• Selective agro-meteorology data collection;

information gaps • Weather stations disconnected; different

information collected without relating to each other

Data Managmement

The Agrometeorological Department has man-ual, meteorological stations in three northern Governorates of Iraq and rainfall data log sys-tems. The installation of these stations has cre-ated an agrometeorological network in Kurdistan Region of Iraq and the sites are geographically well distributed and cover the area in accord-ance to World Meteorological Organization. The agro-meteorology network records daily and hourly agro-meteorology parameters which are essential for informing agricultural production in the region. Data is kept in databases.

Data Analysis

The agro-meteorological Stations analyse the meteorology data collected.


The agrometeorological stations provide regular climatic and meteorological data and processed information products to national and regional in-stitutions to enable them to develop early warn-ing systems for crops, livestock, forests, etc. From agro meteorological stations, data is dis-seminated by Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources.

Perceived Strengths• Monthly reporting on agro-meteorology• Regular bulletins published

Perceived Strengths• MoAWR and KRSO managing data through

excel and databases

Perceived weaknesses• KRSO – not good at disseminating/sharing

information• Existing agro-meteorology stations are for

measuring not broadcasting information – information not readily available

• Individual reporting weather stations – in-formation disconnected

Perceived weaknesses• Gap in analysing data• Technical expertise required for agromete-

orology information management

Agrometeorological Department



Agrometeorology

34

Recommendations

Following the validation exercise, stakehold-ers made several recommendations for the agro-meteorology sector. These include a need for collaboration and information sharing across weather stations, and that weather stations’ focus should not only be collecting agro-mete-orological data, but collecting, processing/ana-lysing and disseminating it. A need for connect-ing the existing agro-meteorology stations was recommended so as to show weather variation at country level as it relates to agro-ecologi-cal zones, and hence agricultural systems and productivity. Stakeholder mapping and a coor-dination mapping exercise was recommended as key in identify all the stakeholders and the meetings they participate in for greater coordi-nation between humanitarian actors and gov-ernment institutions. A coordination body such as the Food Security Cluster was recommended to engage in mapping the institutions engaged in agro-meteorology information. Stakeholders also recommended segregating institutions into those that collect agro-meteorology data and those who use it, so as to ensure data collec-tion, processing/analysis and dissemination is demand driven. Stakeholders found it important to establish a baseline by mapping information currently available and where it has been ar-chived, such as databases, websites, etc.

35

Following the capacity assessment and the vali-dation process for the food security and nutrition information systems, the main gaps of the insti-tutions across the sectors assessed are similar across the information management cycle (data collection, data analysis and management and dissemination). It should also be noted that in-stitutional arrangement and coordination signif-icantly impacted on food security and nutrition information systems. Below are the findings across sectors as they span the information management cycle.

Data Collection

In terms of the food security and nutrition data collection by institutions across sectors, findings indicate different institutions working at different levels (national, governorate and district). This creates gaps in data collection at these levels in terms of the type, quantity and quality of data collected. As a result, reliability of data collected was a challenge. Different frequencies (ad hoc, monthly, quarterly, bi-annual and annual), in data collection by different institutions is also a gap. It determined the availability and timeliness of data for food security and nutrition products such as policy formulation, bulletins, and briefs and for programming. Capacity gaps generally noted across institutions and sectors were also integral for collection of high-quality data, analysis and reporting.

Data Analysis and Management

TThe assessment showed gaps in capacities to analyse and manage data , consequently result-ing in gaps in the disseminated information. All the institutions interviewed indicated a need for improvement in data analysis and management, a reflection of institutional and individual capacity gaps. Inadequate capacity for analysis and inter-

pretation of data results in the failure to effec-tively utilize data that has been collected. As a result, that leaves gaps for evidence-based food security and nutrition policy formulation, and for programming. This was also validated by stake-holders as a gap for capacity development.

Existing food security and nutrition related skills in government institutions are extremely limit-ed, with government institutions concentrating on data collection and keeping it as raw data or partially analysing it for internal use only. Sharing of raw data by government institutions such as MoAWR, KRSO has been a reflection of a skills gap in data analysis across institutions, and the collected data in its raw state has not been val-uable in informing policy and programming. In terms of data analysis, the type and frequency of existing data analysed and reports produced by government institutions were insufficient, with a significant number of reports produced by partners (UN agencies, NGOs) and with data analysis done at a micro scale, making it difficult to inform food security at national level. All the institutions that participated in the assessment indicated having some skills in data analysis, but indicated that they needed additional staff. The low skill level among technical government staff is a critical gap that needs to be addressed as part of capacity development.

Information Dissemination and UseBased on the findings of the assessment and the validation workshop, most institutions collect, analyse and disseminate similar or the same in-formation (e.g. crop production, market prices, etc.), indicating a lack of coordination in food se-curity information management systems. This has resulted in duplication and inefficiency. Al-though stakeholders identified the Food Securi-ty and Nutrition Clusters, they were mainly hu-

Capacity Assessment Main Findings for each step in the Information Management Cycle

36

manitarian forums focusing on the Syrian Crisis and without a broad focus on food security and nutrition dimensions. With capacity gaps across institutions and sectors, existing institutions will not be able to review policies and lead policy dialogues adequately for evidence-based policy formulation and programming.

Coordination was the most significant gap iden-tified, with government institutions ranking this as most important challenge they faced. These gaps impacted on:

1. The standards and methodologies used by institutions (Different standards and method-ologies are used across institutions);

2. Quality and reliability of data collected and shared;

3. Monitoring food security and nutrition situa-tion at country and household level;

4. Lack of an evidence base supporting pro-gramming interventions;

5. Inability to triangulate information by differ-ent stakeholders;

6. Lack of strategic priorities in addressing key challenges to the sector through dialogue, leading to advice on key food security and nutrition policies and strategies;

7. Coordination and sharing of information that promotes best practices and lessons learn-ing amongst food security actors.

Due to these coordination gaps, the to food se-curity and nutrition platforms by food security and nutrition actors were varied, with govern-ment institutions focusing on inter-departmental meetings, and attending UN/NGO meetings less frequently. Partners focusing on humanitarian needs have few links to the government’s infor-mation systems.

At the same time, UN agencies and NGOs at-tended most of the food security and nutrition forums but not government forums. This creates parallel independent systems, raising owner-ship, leadership and sustainability issues. Gov-ernment institutions and donors did not have a platform on which to deliberate on food security and nutrition issues together. National and inter-national NGOs were said to be least frequently attending the Nutrition Cluster meetings, imply-ing that their interventions, strategies or food se-

curity policies may not completely address the food security and nutrition pillars. There also ap-pears to be gaps in bridging emergency respons-es and development interventions. Coordination of activities along with a central repository for results can synchronize the processes, allowing multiple data sources to be analysed and triangu-lated to come up with a more informed picture of food security and nutrition at national level as well as feeding into the regional food security information systems.

Coordination and improved Institutional Networking

Lack of effective coordination, gaps in informa-tion sharing, and low institution participation were some of the weaknesses associated with poor coordination mechanisms. The divide be-tween government institutions predominantly focusing on inter-departmental meetings while UN agencies and NGOs attended the food se-curity cluster created coordination gaps for food security and nutrition as strategies and policies on FSN could not be integrated to inform food security and nutrition at national level with differ-ent institutional platforms running in parallel.

In terms of existing food security and nutrition related coordination mechanisms, the Food Se-curity Cluster and inter-departmental govern-ment institution meeting forums were identified during the capacity assessment. The existing co-ordination platforms have gaps in terms of cover-age in data collection as well as coordination and harmonization of approaches among institutions and in terms of information flow and dissemina-tion for timely decision-making.

With low levels of coordination between gov-ernment institutions and other stakeholders, it is necessary to establish or strengthen food se-curity and nutrition coordination structures and mechanisms through partnerships Key areas of coordination between agencies could include joint assessments and analysis, increased con-vergence of activities through joint planning and programming, multi-sector coordination mecha-nisms geared towards building systems, mutual accountability and aligned resource mobilization and drawing synergies across interventions.

In the light of the current Syrian crisis, institu-tional partnerships could focus on coordinating

37

actions to improve assessment of humanitarian needs and inform response. At the same time, considering the importance of bridging humani-tarian and development interventions, informing the regional refugee and resilience programming framework as a priority under such partnership.

Aligned to improved coordination, open data and information sharing among key actors are fundamental for more efficient and effective de-cision-making and policy action. There is need for data harmonization, integration and recipro-cal accessibility across sectors and institutions, with an objective to make relevant analysis rep-licable. Improved coordination can also result in clarity of mandates and responsibilities among food security and nutrition institutions through functional reviews of institutions engaged in food security and nutrition, awareness creation and sensitization of stakeholders on food secu-rity and nutrition as well as creating forums for validation and consensus building among stake-holders on situational analysis and assessment findings.

Policy Enabling Environment

Gaps noted with the policy enabling environ-ment were also a reflection of coordination gaps. While it should be acknowledged that there are policies and strategies for promoting food secu-rity and nutrition information gaps, wide lack of knowledge or access to such policies is a hin-drance. Although government institutions and some UN agencies were aware of food security and nutrition policies in place, INGOs and NGOs interviewed were not aware of such policies. This poses a challenge in ensuring that interventions are aligned to food security and nutrition coun-try priorities. If food security institutions are not aware of policies and strategies, it leaves a huge gap in addressing food security pillars. It also leaves a gap on engagement with policymakers on matters that affect food security. Achieving national food security depends on appropriate policies that will ensure availability of adequate food either through local production or through an increase in the volume of international trade, and this should inform food security and nutrition intervention. Designing appropriate food securi-ty interventions becomes a challenge, which un-derpins the importance of analytical based policy decision making by food security institutions.

Recommendations/ Inter-sectoral Coor-dination Following the capacity assessment validation, stakeholders recommended that there be a plu-ralistic but coordinated approach for data collec-tion with a council of ministries composed of government, UN agencies and NGOs acting as a coordinating body for data collection. Stake-holders also recommended that there be unified data collection methods to ensure consistency in data quantity and quality collected, feeding into food security pillars. They recommended that KRI connects with international agencies that can provide support in addressing the identi-fied gaps. Based on the gaps identified, capacity building was found to be a priority, in data collec-tion, analysis and management with recommen-dations made for RFSAN and UN agencies (FAO, WFP, WHO and UNICEF) to work jointly in de-veloping capacities of food security and nutrition institutions. It was further recommended that RFSAN and UN agencies take a leading role in ensuring data collection methodologies and pro-cesses are harmonized. A coordinating body on food security and nutrition was recommended in the light of the disparity between the large amounts of data that are collected in compari-son with what is actually analysed.

It was also indicated that capacity gaps hinged on limited understanding among institution-al counterparts and development partners of the multi-dimensional nature of food security and nutrition and capacity development plans should incorporate basic food security and nu-trition principles. Understanding food security and nutrition principles may also offer opportuni-ties for institutionalization of functions by estab-lishing a food security and nutrition knowledge base, partnerships (RFSAN, WFP, UNICEF, WHO, Clusters, NGOs) and for resource mobilization, strengthening the skills of multiple partners and distributing knowledge among food security and nutrition institutions.

It should also be noted that the organizational setup of institutions is important, and while food security and nutrition is exclusively viewed as re-

38

Priority Follow-up Actions to Address Major Identified GapsBuilding on this study the next steps are main-ly the priorities and recommendations derived from this process, RFSAN will further engage with main stakeholders including Government and FS Cluster partners to further operationalize the requests for support in all sub-sectors and covering the data collection, analysis and man-agement, report writing, mapping and informa-tion dissemination. RFSAN will work towards a capacity development plan of action for 2016/17 with actors such as WFP, UNICEF and WHO.

lated to agriculture, other institutions may not see a need for the coordinated effort at national and local levels. An integrated, multi-sectoral ap-proach needs to be adopted in addressing food security and nutrition dimensions to build an un-derstanding of the multi-dimensional nature of food security and nutrition across institutions and sectors, thus creating opportunities for col-laboration.

39

Africa and Asia: A communication and knowl-edge-sharing learning program has been devel-oped for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) teams, as well as for food security professionals from ASEAN countries.

Africa: FAO works with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to develop ca-pacity in nutrition. Over 600 CAADP stakehold-ers from 50 countries participated at a series of workshops to develop action plans for inte-grating nutrition within their respective National Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plans. In addition, to strengthen linkages between so-cial protection and agriculture, an initial capacity needs assessment was facilitated among partic-ipants from eight sub-Saharan African countries representing various line ministries. Stakehold-ers themselves identified actionable issues to linking social protection with agriculture.

Niger: Program staff worked with Producer Or-ganisations (POs) to develop their capacity in terms of leadership, gender equality and gov-ernance. The immediate impact of this work re-sulted in more women in leadership roles and POs also managed to participate in national dis-cussions on a new Law on Agricultural Policy.

Somalia: Over 100 local stakeholders assessed their capacity in managing and using Food Se-curity and Nutrition Information Systems. Fur-thermore, local participants were trained in re-silience data collection and analysis based on a capacity needs assessment.

South Sudan: Capacity development plans based on CAs of national and state level institu-tions on Food Security and Nutrition Information Systems were developed in 10 states.

Yemen: National stakeholders and project staff used FAO’s CD approach to assess the capacity of Food Security and Nutrition Information Sys-tems and to strengthen them with the help of a work plan.

Uganda: Although the number of people living below the poverty line in Uganda decreased by 50% in the last decade, malnutrition increased

from 27% to 30%. Uganda’s National Action Plan on Nutrition identified a lack of capacity – especially at the district level – as a major factor driving persistent malnutrition. In order to iden-tify capacity gaps, a CA was launched by FAO, WFP, REACH and other partners in Uganda in 2013. FAO worked with a consulting company and the Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger and Undernutrition (REACH) staff members to in-terview stakeholders in 33 districts. The findings revealed that institutional issues were keeping malnutrition levels high despite increased food productivity and higher incomes. A recurrent problem was the lack of capacity to implement nutrition program at district level. In order to ad-dress the gaps, participants identified concrete next steps such as: raising awareness among staff from the local government and donor agen-cies and NGOs about national nutrition plans; strengthening the capacity of public, private and civil society stakeholders to include and monitor nutrition objectives in their core programs; and setting up nutrition training programs in universi-ties. In late 2014 the Office of the Prime Minister of Uganda recognised the CA’s value by recom-mending further support from FAO for districts to conduct additional CA’s and prepare CD action plans for improving nutrition

Annex I: FAO’s Experinces in capacity development

40

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Annex II: Data Collection Questionnaire

41

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

42

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

43

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

44

��

��

��

��

��

��

food security information systems review and capacity...

Documents