systemic food assistance · supply chain; the costs of key secondary goods and services; and...
TRANSCRIPT
January/2017
Interim Strategic and Operational Guidance for WFP
Engagement and Investment in Food Systems
Systemic Food Assistance
Food Systems Strategy, Policy and Support Service,
Policy and Programme Division
Fig
hti
ng
Hu
ng
er W
orl
dw
ide
1
Systemic Food Assistance
Interim Strategic and Operational Guidance for WFP Engagement and Investment in Food Systems
Table of Contents
Summary and Outline ....................................................................................................... 2
1. Objectives and Overview .............................................................................................. 4
2. Food Systems in the Strategic Plan 2017-2021 ............................................................... 4
3. Key Definitions ............................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Food Systems ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Food Assistance .................................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Systemic............................................................................................................................. 7 3.4 Systemic Food Assistance ................................................................................................... 7
4. Strategic Positioning ..................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Why Systemic Food Assistance? .......................................................................................... 7 4.2 Why WFP? ......................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 WFP’s Perspective on Systemic Problems in Food Systems ................................................ 10
4.3.1 The “Last Mile” Problem ..................................................................................................... 11 4.3.2 The “Good Year” Problem ................................................................................................... 11 4.3.3 The “Bad Year” or “Lean Season” Problem ......................................................................... 12
4.4 The Systemic Potential of WFP’s Portfolio ......................................................................... 12
5. Operational Principles and Alternatives ...................................................................... 13 5.1 Principles of systemic food assistance ............................................................................... 13 5.2 Alternatives for undertaking systemic food assistance ....................................................... 15
5.2.1 Enhanced food system performance as a primary objective under SR4 ............................ 15 5.2.2 Enhanced food system performance as a means to achieving SR1, SR2, and SR3 ............. 18 5.2.3 Enhanced food system performance via SR5 and SR6 ........................................................ 19
6. Developing Systemic Food Assistance Initiatives ......................................................... 20 6.1 Analysis and Knowledge Management .............................................................................. 20
Step 1: Map the CO’s existing portfolio from a food systems perspective .................................. 20 Step 2: Describe the CO’s food system footprint ......................................................................... 22 Step 3: Complete integrated VAM-Supply Chain analyses of key food value chains ................... 23 Step 4: Identify primary inefficiencies facing key food system actors ......................................... 26
6.2 Programme Development ................................................................................................. 27 Step 1: Identify relevant systemic problems emerging from analyses and consultations .......... 27 Step 2: Identify high-potential entry points for systemic food assistance .................................. 27 Step 3: Identify relevant Strategic Results ................................................................................... 28 Step 4: Identify candidate investment areas under each relevant Strategic Result .................... 29 Step 5: Develop strategic outcomes, outputs, and activities for CSPs and ICSPs ........................ 29
6.3 Partnership and Advocacy ................................................................................................ 31
7. Key References .......................................................................................................... 32
2
Summary and Outline
Overarching Messages 1. Food systems matter to WFP. 2. WFP matters to the food systems in which it operates. 3. Food assistance delivered, facilitated, and supported by WFP and partners can overcome the
many flaws, disruptions, and breakages in food systems that contribute to hunger and food insecurity for vulnerable populations.
Food Systems and WFP’s Strategic Plan 2017-2021 The Strategic Plan 2017-2021 aligns WFP’s work with Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Strategic Result 4 (SR4) of the Strategic Plan is directly linked to SDG Target 2.4 to Ensure Sustainable Food Systems. Through SR4, therefore, improving the performance of food systems is one of WFP’s primary aims. Better performing food systems should also improve access to food (SR1), reduce malnutrition (SR2), and spur smallholder productivity and income (SR3). Further, enhanced public sector capacity (SR5) and greater policy coherence (SR6) should boost the performance of food systems.
What is Systemic Food Assistance? Systemic food assistance is food assistance that improves food system performance by addressing systemic problems in given systems. It comprises WFP’s strategic and operational framework for engagement and investments in food systems. The core idea of this approach is to leverage food assistance through demand-driven, innovation-based, capacity-enhancing measures, driving wider improvements in food systems. By seeking to expand the capacity of rapidly transforming food systems to meet the needs of vulnerable food insecure populations, it takes the concept of food assistance to its logical conclusion.
Why WFP? Several attributes render WFP well suited to deliver, facilitate, and support systemic food assistance initiatives at multiple levels:
1. WFP’s new Strategic Plan and Country Strategic Plan Policy prioritize support to national efforts to implement the SDGs, with a focus on SDG2 and SDG17;
2. WFP’s partnerships, programmes, and capacities span food systems, with a concentration in the “mid-stream” food transformation segment that accounts for 40 percent of food system costs;
3. Through a $5 billion food assistance portfolio serving almost 80 million people annually in over 80 countries, WFP has a presence in and understanding of a range of contexts of food system functioning, and a strong grasp of the characteristics and needs of the hungry poor in these many contexts;
4. WFP occupies a unique operational position at the intersection of commercial markets (for food and food system services) and the public interest (as captured by food assistance); and
5. WFP has unparalleled capacity to combine “hard” supply chain and “soft” programming interventions to address hunger and food insecurity..
WFP’s Perspective on Systemic Problems in Food Systems WFP’s experience and analysis point to three deeply-rooted and related systemic problems in food systems – problems that destroy private value, constrain livelihoods, and inhale public resources: (1) the last mile problem; (2) the good year problem; and (3) the bad year or lean season problem. The three systemic problems manifest themselves in particular segments of food systems. Because WFP’s portfolio of partnerships, programmes, and capacities span food systems, and because systemic problems manifest themselves in specific segments of given food systems, WFP’s portfolio contains several food assistance initiatives with systemic potential. A defining feature of this systemic portfolio is the integration of supply chain and programmatic activities and interventions.
3
Guiding Principles for Engagement and Investment in Food Systems WFP’s pragmatic yet thorough approach to food assistance applies to systemic food assistance, with the added imperative to address systemic problems. Several principles are relevant:
1. Start with what WFP and partners are already doing in a country and leverage that for bigger impact;
2. Focus on particular food system functions, seeking to overcome or reduce inefficiency and dysfunction;
3. Remember that systemic leverage does not require direct intervention through resource transfers delivered by WFP and partners;
4. Focus on inclusion, especially gender equality; 5. Embrace and exploit the digital revolution; 6. Emphasize and promote production and consumption of quality (i.e., safe and nutritious)
food as drivers and reflections of systemic change in food systems; 7. As far as possible, avoid “pilots” and seek instead to go immediately to scale; 8. Position WFP and partners as enablers of enhanced food system performance, not only as
doers; 9. Remember that governments are the guide and glue of food system performance
enhancement, with the private sector as driver of change and innovation, and civil society boosting participation, transparency, responsiveness, and consensus; and
10. Remember that while systemic potential is ubiquitous, context matters immensely to actual outcomes.
Strategic Alternatives The Strategic Plan points to three perspectives on food assistance-based investment and engagement toward enhanced food system performance:
UNDER STRATEGIC GOAL 1 – SDG 2: 1. Enhanced food system performance as a primary objective of SR4; 2. Enhanced food system performance as a means to achieving SR1, SR2, and SR3; and;
UNDER STRATEGIC GOAL 2 – SDG 17: 3. Enhanced food system performance via SR5 and SR6.
Under SR4 – which explicitly aims to enhance food system performance – systemic food assistance entails specification of a full set of new strategic outcomes, outputs, and activities. Conversely, under SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, existing outcomes, outputs, and activities for these SRs remain relevant. Systemic food assistance under SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 thus entails development of additional complementary and incremental activities that seek to overcome systemic barriers to achievement of these existing outputs and outcomes.
Developing Systemic Food Assistance Initiatives As is the case for all food assistance, the three building blocks of systemic food assistance are: (1) analysis and knowledge management; (2) programme development; and (3) partnership and advocacy. Analytical and knowledge management needs for systemic food assistance will be context specific building on existing data and knowledge. A pragmatic approach is vital. Information routinely generated by VAM and Supply Chain units provides a solid foundation for rapid but revealing analysis of conditions in food systems. Programming should be based on normal food assistance procedures. But where analysis and consultation suggest potential for addressing systemic problems, additional steps are suggested to identify and respond to high-potential openings for systemic food assistance. Partnership and advocacy should be based on a clear-sighted examination of WFP’s comparative advantage and role in any proposed systemic assistance initiative. Where either is limited, continued development of any such initiative should be based on the existence of other actors or stakeholders with the required capacities and readiness to engage and invest.
4
Systemic Food Assistance: Interim Guidance
1. Objectives and Overview This document provides interim strategic and operational guidance to WFP Country Offices (COs) seeking to advocate for and develop initiatives that address systemic (i.e., structurally and institutionally embedded) challenges in the food systems in which vulnerable and food insecure populations must meet their food and nutrition needs. This document has been released at this time and in this form to serve as input into CO efforts to develop Country Strategic Plans (CSPs) and Interim Country Strategic Plans (ICSPs). It will be regularly updated based on feedback from users.1 Strategic, operational, and analytical/technical aspects of food system engagement and investment are addressed, in that order. First, the role and importance of food systems in the Strategic Plan 2017-2021 are outlined, followed by definitions of key terms: food systems, food assistance, systemic, and systemic food assistance. Guidance for strategic positioning is then offered, followed by a treatment of the three operational alternatives open to WFP COs based on the role and importance of food systems in the Strategic Plan. Key steps for developing systemic food assistance initiatives are then presented. In part, this entails an analytical approach building on WFP’s deep knowledge and capacity in both vulnerability analysis and mapping, and supply chain management. Options for developing strategic outcomes, outputs, and activities in CSPs and ICSPs are then suggested and illustrated with examples. A discussion of the profound partnership and advocacy imperatives associated with food system engagement and investment round out the document.
2. Food Systems in the Strategic Plan 2017-2021 Because WFP’s work entails procuring and arranging the distribution of nutritious food either directly or through markets, its perspective on food systems is inherently from the demand side. That perspective requires that WFP take a holistic view of food systems, aiming to develop partnerships, programmes, and capacities to act in a range of contexts. In the short term, WFP is concerned with: the volume, value, and quality of food in its supply chain; the costs of key secondary goods and services; and security- and political economy-related openings which enable the delivery of food assistance to targeted populations. Over the longer haul, WFP is concerned about trends in biophysical, socioeconomic, and political conditions affecting food systems. Also of concern is how these trends interact to determine the location, volume, and cost of food production and processing, as well as the affordability, quality, and safety of food as it moves toward vulnerable populations. It is therefore in WFP’s interest to be deliberate and strategic in its engagement and investment in food systems at different levels. The Strategic Plan suggests
1 A Food Systems Strategy is under preparation. Several elements included in this Guidance document also appear in the Strategy. Ultimately, the two documents will be explicitly linked. A technical background paper is also being finalized for release alongside the Strategy.
5
that such engagement and investment has at least three dimensions: (1) as a buyer of food and related goods and services; (2) as an innovator with a holistic operations-driven perspective; and (3) as a manager and disseminator of knowledge about welfare-enhancing and hunger-reducing food system innovations. Strategic Result (SR) 4 of the Strategic Plan is directly linked to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 2.4 to Ensure Sustainable Food Systems. Through SR4, therefore, improving the performance of food systems is one of WFP’s primary aims. Better performing food systems should also improve access to food (SR1), reduce malnutrition (SR2), and spur smallholder productivity and income (SR3). Further, enhanced public sector capacity (SR5) and greater policy coherence (SR6) should boost the performance of food systems (Figure 1). Figure 1: Food systems in WFP’s Strategic Plan
Source: WFP (2016)
Three perspectives on food assistance-based investment and engagement toward enhanced food system performance are therefore relevant: UNDER STRATEGIC GOAL 1 – SDG 2:
1. Enhanced food system performance as a primary objective of SR4; 2. Enhanced food system performance as a means to achieving SR1, SR2, and SR3; and;
UNDER STRATEGIC GOAL 2 – SDG 17:
3. Enhanced food system performance via SR5 and SR6. These three perspectives thus define WFP’s operational alternatives in food systems (see Section 5).
6
3. Key Definitions
3.1 Food Systems Food systems are interlocking networks of relationships that encompass the entire range of activities involved in the production, processing, marketing, consumption and disposal of goods that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries. This includes inputs required and outputs generated at each step (FAO, 2013).2 The scope of food systems thus extends beyond physical food commodities, to cover the goods and services required for food production, transformation, and consumption – i.e., agronomy, farm input provision, product harvesting, transport, storage and handling, processing, finance, wholesaling, retailing (Figure 2). From WFP’s perspective, performance problems in food systems spring from inadequate levels and qualities of these services. Because WFP operates at the nexus of humanitarian and development contexts, its perspective on food systems also takes in a range of security, political economy, policy, and climatic and environmental factors that spur humanitarian crises in the short term and impact development prospects over the longer term. In both cases, food system structure and functioning are strongly influenced. Figure 2: A functional and contextual view of food systems
Source: WFP
3.2 Food Assistance Food assistance empowers vulnerable and food insecure people and communities to access nutritious food, saving and protecting lives and livelihoods in the process. It includes instruments such as in-kind food, vouchers, or cash transfers used to assure recipients’ access to food of a given quantity, quality, or value. These instruments can be used to pursue specific objectives for targeted populations, such as nutrition improvement, gender equality, education expansion, or disaster risk reduction. Several supporting activities and institutional platforms render these instruments successful and sustainable relative to the
2 See HLPE (2016) for alternative relatively more abstract definitions.
7
objectives. These include needs assessments, logistics, information management, or engagement in national safety nets and strategies for hand-over.
3.3 Systemic Systemic phenomena affect or relate to collectives, groups, or assemblages, impacting them as a whole, as opposed to a particular segment or individual members. They feature multiple mutually reinforcing structural and institutional elements. Solutions to problems with systemic features must therefore be similarly holistic. They too, must feature multiple mutually reinforcing forces, which generate benefits that accrue to large groups and across wide areas.
3.4 Systemic Food Assistance Systemic food assistance is the framework proposed to cope with systemic problems, which resonates strongly with Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. It is food assistance that improves food system performance by addressing systemic problems in given systems. Systemic food assistance is demand-driven, innovation-based, and capacity-enhancing and entails both direct and indirect measures. Direct measures relate to food assistance activities, investments, and interventions that enhance capacities of key actors to respond to, catalyse, or boost demand for quality food over the short term. Quality comprises both food safety and nutritional content. Indirect measures work over the medium- to long-term by influencing the terms and conditions of exchange and interaction within food systems. These measures can target either the incentives of specific actors or wider structural and institutional conditions in food value chains.
4. Strategic Positioning
4.1 Why Systemic Food Assistance? Systemic food assistance takes the concept of food assistance to its logical conclusion. The core idea is to leverage food assistance interventions for wider gain in food systems. The promise of systemic food assistance is that it can articulate and translate primal demand for safe and nutritious food in humanitarian and chronically devastated contexts into effective demand for safe and nutritious food as a driving force for improved food system performance over the longer term. Sustained improvement in food system performance supports the structural and economic transformation that leads to rapid and significant reductions in poverty and hunger (Figure 3). The scale of WFP’s food assistance activities confirms that the most basic needs of vulnerable populations caught in the grip of humanitarian crises borne of poverty, violence, and environmental degradation are expressed through food systems that determine and reflect that vulnerability. In extreme cases, food systems are arenas of oppression, subjugation, and abuse of power. But even in relatively stable contexts, food systems can be deeply flawed. Communication, transportation, and storage facilities are often poor. Commercial markets – which are the primary channels through which most food is accessed
8
– can be sharply segmented, with access restricted for large numbers of people lacking purchasing power. Highly unequal social capital and financial bargaining power is often brought to exchanges between buyers and sellers. Scope for systemic food assistance that improves the performance of food systems in terms of hunger reduction is likely significant in most of the contexts in which WFP is called to act. Figure 3: From systemic food assistance to Zero Hunger
Source: WFP based on arguments in Timmer (2014)
Food systems are changing rapidly and deeply as a result of such forces as urbanization, income growth, and shifting consumer diets brought on by broader structural transformation of economies (Reardon and Timmer, 2012; Timmer, 2014). Supply chain integration, capital-intensive technology change, expanded use of digital devices and internet access, and emergence and enforcement of private standards of quality and safety are spurring and accentuating the upheavals (Reardon, 2015; Reardon and Timmer, 2012 and 2014; Tschirley et al., 2015a and 2015b). Systemic food assistance seeks to expand the capacity of these rapidly transforming food systems to meet the needs of vulnerable food insecure populations, both in the short term during humanitarian crises and over the long term within the context of broader structural and economic transformation.
4.2 Why WFP? Corporately, WFP operates at the intersection of the “humanitarian action domain” and the “hunger reduction domain” (Figure 4). That positioning provides both the rationale and opening for design and implementation of systemic food assistance. Several areas of strength, knowledge, and capacity which have been built up as a result render WFP well suited to deliver, support, and facilitate systemic food assistance. These include:
9
1. WFP occupies a unique operational position at the intersection of commercial markets (for food and food system services) and the public interest (as captured by food assistance).
The demand-side capacity-enhancing dimensions of systemic food assistance are already deeply embedded in WFP’s portfolio.
Figure 4: WFP’s food assistance, humanitarian action and hunger reduction
Source: WFP
2. Through a US$5 billion food assistance portfolio serving almost 80 million people
annually in over 80 countries, WFP has a presence in and understanding of a range of contexts of food system functioning.
In 2016, WFP bought over US$1.3 billion-worth of food and received over US$600 million-worth of in-kind food for distribution to beneficiaries. Cash transfers for food assistance were valued at US$700 million. Spending on food-related transport services totaled US$1 billion, including US$400 million on land transport and US$150 million in sea freight;
This portfolio represents a high-potential low-hanging fruit to address systemic problems at scale.
3. WFP has a deep understanding of the characteristics and needs of the hungry poor
across a range of contexts.
Especially important is WFP’s understanding of the role of conditionality in generating systemic changes that draw these marginalized people into the mainstream.
4. WFP has unparalleled capacity to combine supply chain and programming
interventions to address hunger and food insecurity.
This coverage of both “hard” and “soft” dimensions of food systems is truly unique and powerful for a public agency, offering significant traction in food systems.
10
5. WFP’s partnerships, programmes, and capacities span food systems, with a
concentration in the “mid-stream” food transformation segment (Figure 5).
On average, this midstream segment of food systems accounts for 40 percent of food system costs. This means that investments to reduce costs and increase mid-stream productivity are equally important as similar investments at the farm level.
6. WFP has developed a new Strategic Plan and CSP Policy with far-reaching
consequences.
Together, these documents create the conceptual and operational openings for innovative engagement with a wide range of partners in most segments of food systems in different contexts.
Figure 5: A food systems perspective on WFP’s partnerships, programmes, and capacities
Source: WFP Key: FFA = food for assets; FFT = food for training; P4P = Purchase for Progress; PPP = Patient Procurement Platform; PHL = Post-Harvest Loss initiative; CBT = cash-based transfers; HGSF = Home Grown School Feeding; PAA = Purchase for Africa from Africans; R4 = Rural Resilience Initiative; GFD = general food distribution; SF = school feeding; MCH = mother and child health nutrition interventions; ARC Replica = Africa Risk Capacity Replica; FoodSECuRE = Food Security Climate Resilience Facility.
4.3 WFP’s Perspective on Systemic Problems in Food Systems As a public agency operating at scale in several interconnected commercial settings, WFP’s experience and analysis point to three deeply-rooted and related systemic problems in food systems – problems that destroy private value, constrain livelihoods, and inhale public resources: (1) the last mile problem; (2) the good year problem; and (3) the bad year or lean season problem. When ignored or inadequately addressed, the three systemic problems generate chronic hunger. By weakening food systems, these problems also increase the risk that food systems will collapse under shocks, leading to emergencies that call for food assistance (Figure 6). The resilience and overall performance of food systems hinge on how effectively these problems are handled.
11
4.3.1 The “Last Mile” Problem3 A defining feature of chronically hungry people is their physical, economic, social, and political isolation. In both rural and urban areas, they are “hard to reach” and can themselves “reach out” only at great cost. In rural areas, low-return subsistence-oriented production and trading livelihoods are continually affirmed – especially for smallholder famers. So too, are the hunger and poverty associated with these livelihoods. In urban areas, poor households with few skills and assets struggle under pervasive unemployment and low-paying jobs. Hand-to-mouth livelihoods featuring low capacities to purchase food and maintain adequate nutrition are thus the norm. In humanitarian contexts, the “last mile” is often besieged, sometimes for months or years on end. Yet even besieged populations cultivate, plant, harvest, store, process and trade food for consumption. The last mile problem applies to them in the extreme. Figure 6: Systemic problems in food systems
Source: WFP
4.3.2 The “Good Year” Problem The good year problem relates to devastating household-level and aggregate outcomes caused by widespread gaps in storage capacity, transport infrastructure, post-harvest management technologies and practices, and trade financing. These gaps are coupled with harvest-time cash constraints faced by producers. Together, these elements translate into insufficient capacity to handle large food surpluses, resulting in distress sales, plunging prices, waste, spoilage, and blunted incentives for future investment. The political content of food policy often presses governments into statements and actions that exacerbate the good year problem, while absorbing huge amounts of public funds in efforts that typically fail to make a significant impact on the problem.
3 This problem has also been termed the “first mile” problem and the “missing middle” problem.
12
4.3.3 The “Bad Year” or “Lean Season” Problem4 Large numbers of marginalized households in rural and urban areas lack sufficient supplies of food to meet their needs. They also lack the purchasing power to fully meet their food and nutrition needs on the market due to low incomes and few assets. Such households regularly face periods spanning months or even years of severely constrained access to nutritious food. Over time, vulnerable people develop complex methods for tackling the hardships associated with bad years and lean seasons. Common to most of these coping strategies is that both the quantity and quality of food consumed fall. Meals are missed, portion sizes reduced. Starchy staples loom larger in diets at the expense of nutrient-rich but more expensive meats, dairy products, and vegetables.
4.4 The Systemic Potential of WFP’s Portfolio The three systemic problems manifest themselves in particular segments of food systems. The last mile problem presents itself for both producers and consumers of food, with linkages forward and backward to food transformation. The good year problem is largely a food transformation problem, but with strong reach into food production (due to obvious links to harvest) and into food consumption (due to impacts on food quality and safety). The bad year or lean season problem expresses itself in household and individual food consumption. Because WFP’s portfolio of partnerships, programmes, and capacities span food systems, and because systemic problems manifest themselves in specific segments of given food systems, food assistance interventions can be mapped to particular systemic problems. WFP’s portfolio thus contains several food assistance initiatives with systemic potential (Figure 7). A defining feature of this nascent systemic portfolio is the deliberate (planned) or opportunistic (circumstance-dictated) integration of supply chain and programmatic activities and interventions. The greatest potential for systemic leverage of WFP’s portfolio resides at this supply chain/programme interface. This is a central element of the operational agenda outlined in the next section.
4 The lean season is also referred to as the “hunger season” or the “hungry season.”
13
Figure 7: Systemic problems and WFP’s portfolio of partnerships, programmes, and capacities
Source: WFP
5. Operational Principles and Alternatives
5.1 Principles of systemic food assistance WFP’s pragmatic yet thorough approach to food assistance should be applied to systemic food assistance. Specifically, COs should:
1. Start with what WFP is already doing in a country and leverage that for greater impact
The “systemic” idea is not new to WFP, but it has yet to be fully articulated;
Many COs are already experimenting with systemic food assistance; some have already taken such initiatives to scale.
2. Focus on particular food system functions, seeking to overcome or reduce
inefficiency and dysfunction
The “midstream” of food systems – i.e., the post-farm segment that covers different dimensions of food transformation over space (transport), time (storage), form (processing), and expectations (finance) – is especially amenable to WFP engagement to improve efficiency and performance;
Efficiency gains in the mid-stream of food systems generate benefits across entire food systems, especially for the hungry poor, who often face extremely high costs when performing or accessing basic food systems functions.
3. Remember that systemic leverage does not require direct intervention through
resource transfers delivered by WFP
14
Systemic food assistance is the “child” of food assistance, which does not always entail direct intervention through transfers of food and cash;
Considerable systemic leverage can be achieved via complementary investments, enhanced capacities, transformative partnerships, institutional innovations, and policy reform based on existing initiatives.
4. Focus on inclusion, especially gender equality
WFP’s primary concern in food systems is the plight of the hungry poor;
The core question is: How can fast-transforming food systems more effectively meet the food and nutrition needs of the vulnerable food insecure populations that WFP serves from day to day?
Challenges and opportunities facing women underpin the performance of food systems in many of the contexts in which WFP works.
5. Embrace and exploit the digital revolution
Sophisticated digital platforms are already fundamental WFP’s day-to-day business processes;
Digital solutions can address deeply entrenched systemic challenges that afflict the hungry poor WFP serves, including poor access, exclusion, isolation, and dislocation;
COs that invest in seizing this potential are likely to be richly rewarded and COs that fail to do so will likely will become irrelevant.
6. Emphasize and promote production and consumption of quality (i.e., safe and
nutritious) food as drivers and reflections of systemic change in food systems
WFP’s long experience as a buyer of food in different contexts confirms that the capacity to maintain food quality (and meet high quality standards) is a necessary condition for capturing the full set of returns to market engagement;
Any food whose quality cannot be sustained is a liability, and by implication, food for which quality can be maintained becomes an asset.
7. As far as possible, avoid “pilots” and seek instead to go immediately to scale
Many host governments and donors are weary of pilots;
WFP COs often have the capacity or networks of partnerships to go to scale;
That means embracing the partnership and coordination imperative, including the strong possibility of loss or significant diminishment of control and leadership of initiatives.
8. Position WFP as an enabler of enhanced food system performance, not only as a
doer
Again, this means embracing the partnership and coordination imperative, including the strong possibility of loss or significant diminishment of control and leadership of initiatives.
15
9. Remember that governments are the guide and glue of food system performance enhancement, with the private sector as the driver of change and innovation
Leverage WFP’s unique relationships with both stakeholder groups and WFP’s understanding of both worlds.
10. Remember that while systemic potential is ubiquitous, context matters immensely
There is no one-size-fits-all systemic solution to a given systemic problem;
Just as any school meals programme must accommodate local conditions and thus differs in material ways from all other school meal programmes, so, too, must effective and relevant systemic interventions.
5.2 Alternatives for undertaking systemic food assistance As noted earlier, the Strategic Plan suggests three perspectives on and rationales for engaging with food assistance-based investment and engagement toward enhanced food system performance: UNDER SDG 2:
1. Enhanced food system performance as a primary objective of SR4; 2. Enhanced food system performance as a means to achieving SR1 (Access to Food),
SR2 (End Malnutrition), and SR3 (Smallholder Productivity and Incomes); and; UNDER SDG 17:
3. Enhanced food system performance via SR5 (Capacity Strengthening) and SR6 (Policy Coherence).
Table 1, on the following page, presents the operational framework for systemic food assistance. The three perspectives described above provide the basic organizing logic for seven distinct investment approaches. Each is associated with a set of demand-driven, innovation-based, capacity-enhancing systemic food assistance initiatives or activities. The framework implies that SR4, on one hand, and SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, on the other, must be treated differently within CSP/ICSP processes. Under SR4 – which explicitly aims to enhance food system performance – systemic food assistance entails specification of a full set of new strategic outcomes, outputs, and activities. Conversely, under SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, existing outcomes, outputs, and activities for these SRs remain relevant. Systemic food assistance under SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 thus entails development of additional complementary and incremental activities that seek to overcome systemic barriers to achievement of these existing outputs and outcomes.
5.2.1 Enhanced food system performance as a primary objective under SR4 According to the Strategic Plan, under SR4, WFP seeks to continue to strengthen and deploy its ability to exploit linkages between its procurement and programming practices and the capacity of food systems to meet the needs of vulnerable groups. Focusing on the most vulnerable people and communities, WFP supports partners to promote livelihoods and
16
resilience-building linked to food security and nutrition, climate change adaptation, risk management, and strengthened sustainability and resilience of food systems. SR4 also recognizes that WFP routinely expresses demand for food and food system services at a scale that could have structural consequences, given that WFP operates at the intersection of commercial food markets, and the public interest represented by food assistance. Properly used, that demand for food – and the associated capacities and activities that it catalyses and reflects – could be a potent force for enhanced food systems performance, inclusive growth of agrifood sectors, sustainable social and economic transformation, and broad-based food security and hunger reduction.
17
Table 1: Operational framework for systemic food assistance Relevant SDG SDG2 (Strategic Goal 1) SDG17 (Strategic Goal 2)
Strategic Alternatives
Enhanced food system performance as a Strategic Result under SDG 2
Enhanced food system performance as an enabler of other Strategic Results under SDG2
Enhanced food system performance as a focus area for Strategic Results under SDG 17
Relevant Strategic Result
SR4 Sustainable Food Systems SR1 Access to Food SR2 End
Malnutrition SR3 Smallholder
Productivity & Incomes SR5 Capacity
Strengthening SR6 Policy Coherence
Relevant food system performance enhancing investment approach
Pillar 1: Tailored investments in improved household and community adaptation and resilience to climate-related and other shocks
Pillar 2: Tailored investments in improved food market and supply chain efficiency
Complementary or incremental investments in capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to improved access to food
Complementary or incremental investments in capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to improved nutrition
Complementary or incremental investments in capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to increased productivity and incomes for smallholders
Investments in technical skills, organizational forms, and institutional innovations that increase capacities of national systems and agencies to address identified food system inefficiencies and inequities
Investments in policy reforms that address identified food system inefficiencies and inequities
Examples of systemic initiatives (activities)1/
Support for community-based market-responsive asset building for protection and rehabilitation of natural resources
Support for design and implementation of digital resilience-enhancing risk management financial instruments
Support for women user groups for water and other natural resources
Support for upgrading of market and supply chain physical infrastructure
Support for digital solution-based technical and organizational upgrading of supply chain service providers
Support for digital solution-based innovations in business development and financing of women food retailers
Support for enhanced financial inclusion of key beneficiary groups – especially women – within shock-responsive social protection systems
Support for linking urban food safety nets with local food market development
Support for digital innovations in beneficiary targeting, monitoring, and support in remote and insecure locations
Support for supply and uptake of locally fortified nutritious foods
Support for design and implementation of nutrition platforms in social protection systems
Support for digital platforms for nutrition education for vulnerable groups – especially women – linked to food and cash transfers
Support for purchase-based coordination and facilitation of supply-side, aggregation, and financing support for smallholders and small and medium scale agrifood enterprises (SMEs)
Support for non-purchase-based integrated support platforms for smallholders and agrifood SMEs, emphasizing digital solutions and innovations
Support for strengthening of food quality and safety standards
Support for digital platforms to enhance quantity, quality, and flow of food market data and information
Support for development and implementation of early warning and response systems in urban areas
Support for physical, technical, and organizational upgrading of national food assistance agencies and systems within national social protection systems
Support for reform of market and trade policy standards and implementation
Support for reform of structure and functioning of public food reserves
Support for reform of laws and regulations affecting rural and urban agrifood SMEs
1/ These examples are illustrative, not definitive nor exhaustive. Country Offices may drop, rephrase, or add to them as appropriate to their contexts and partnerships. However, in all cases, the logical link to the relevant investment approach, SR, and SDG must be clear.
18
Two investment pillars are therefore identified for systemic food assistance UNDER SR4: 1. Tailored investments in improved household and community adaptation and
resilience to climate and other shocks, where potential investments include (but are not limited to):
Support for community-based market-responsive asset building for protection and rehabilitation of natural resources;
Support for design and implementation of digital resilience-enhancing and risk management financial instruments; and
Support for women user groups for water and other natural resources. 2. Tailored investments in improved food market and supply chain efficiency, where
potential investments include (but are not limited to):
Support for upgrading of market and supply chain physical infrastructure;
Support for technical and organizational upgrading of supply chain service providers; and
Support for digital solution-based innovations in business development and financing of women food retailers.
5.2.2 Enhanced food system performance as a means to achieving SR1, SR2, and SR3 UNDER SR1 (ACCESS TO FOOD), WFP supports collective efforts to protect access for all people, especially the most vulnerable, to the sufficient, nutritious and safe food they need to survive and to live healthy and productive lives while strengthening national systems wherever possible. Activities designed and implemented with partners include unconditional resource transfers to support access to food; asset creation and livelihood support; school meals; individual capacity strengthening; institutional capacity strengthening; and emergency preparedness. Systemic food assistance UNDER SR1 entails complementary or incremental investments in capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to improved access to food, where potential investments include (but are not limited to):
Support for enhanced financial inclusion of key beneficiary groups – especially women – within shock-responsive social protection systems;
Support for linking urban food safety nets with local food market development; and
Support for digital innovations in beneficiary targeting, monitoring, and support in remote and insecure locations.
UNDER SR2 (END MALNUTRITION), WFP supports joint and coordinated collective efforts that are essential to end all forms of malnutrition, and supports governments to strengthen national capacities in multi-sectoral nutrition activities. WFP also enhances partnerships with other public and private actors and engages in nutrition governance and country-level action through multi-stakeholder platforms. WFP supports countries’ capacities in nutrition-specific approaches that deliver quality nutrition services to treat and prevent malnutrition. WFP emphasizes a preventive approach to malnutrition, focusing on facilitating access to nutritious diets required by vulnerable groups, helping to provide the foundation for sustainable development. WFP also supports nutrition-sensitive approaches, working with partners using complementary approaches across sectors.
19
Systemic food assistance UNDER SR2 entails complementary or incremental investments in capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to improved nutrition, where potential investments include (but are not limited to):
Support for supply and uptake of locally fortified nutritious foods;
Support for design and implementation of nutrition platforms in social protection systems;
Support for digital platforms for nutrition education for vulnerable groups – especially women – linked to food and cash transfers.
UNDER SR3 (SMALLHOLDER PRODUCTIVITY AND INCOMES), WFP seeks to use its significant purchasing power and experience to increase smallholder farmers’ access to markets, both directly and by mainstreaming learning and best practices across the organization. WFP’s demand for food and food system services can be a direct and indirect force for enhanced performance of food systems, contributing to inclusive agricultural growth, sustainable social and economic transformation and broad-based food security. Systemic food assistance UNDER SR3 entails complementary or incremental investments in capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to increased productivity and incomes for smallholders, where potential investments include (but are not limited to):
Support for purchase-based coordination and facilitation of supply-side, aggregation, and financing support for smallholders and agrifood SMEs;
Support for non-purchase-based integrated support platforms for smallholders and agrifood SMEs, emphasizing digital innovations and platforms.
5.2.3 Enhanced food system performance via SR5 and SR6 UNDER SR5 (CAPACITY STRENGTHENING) AND SR6 (POLICY COHERENCE), WFP seeks to facilitate responsible and accountable partnerships for strengthening country capacities, ensuring coherent policies and actions, encouraging multi-stakeholder participation in implementation, and promoting innovation for achievement of all SDGs. WFP provides and facilitates support to capacity-strengthening of governments for the implementation of Zero Hunger and related national SDG plans. This includes through support to South-South and triangular cooperation among developing countries, and the provision of common services. A focus is placed on sectors where WFP has a core competency recognized by national stakeholders and partners in given country contexts. Systemic food assistance UNDER SR5 entails investments in technical skills, organizational forms, and institutional innovations that increase capacities of national systems and agencies to address identified food system inefficiencies and inequities, where potential investments include (but are not limited to):
Support for strengthening of food quality and safety standards;
Support for digital platforms to enhance quantity, quality, and flow of food market data and information;
Support for development and implementation of early warning and response systems in urban areas;
20
Support for physical, technical, and organizational upgrading of national food assistance agencies and systems within national social protection systems
Systemic food assistance UNDER SR6 entails investments in policy reforms that address identified food system inefficiencies and inequities, where potential investments include (but are not limited to):
Support for reform of market and trade policy standards and implementation;
Support for reform of structure and functioning of public food reserves;
Support for reform of laws and regulations affecting rural and urban agrifood SMEs.
6. Developing Systemic Food Assistance Initiatives As is the case for all food assistance, the three building blocks of systemic food assistance are: (1) analysis and knowledge management; (2) programme development; and (3) partnership and advocacy.
6.1 Analysis and Knowledge Management By definition, food systems are wide and deep. The analytical agenda related to systemic food assistance is potentially immense. Analytical needs for systemic food assistance will be context-specific, building on existing data and knowledge. A pragmatic approach is vital. COs should invest in core knowledge bases on which additional focused analysis can be founded. Information routinely generated by Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) and Supply Chain provides a solid foundation for rapid but revealing analysis of conditions in food systems. Levels of detail and sophistication will be dictated by need and capacity. Four broad steps are proposed:
Step 1: Map the CO’s existing portfolio from a food systems perspective;
Step 2: Describe the CO’s food systems footprint;
Step 3: Complete integrated VAM-Supply Chain analyses of key food value chains; and
Step 4: Identify primary inefficiencies facing key food system actors.
Step 1: Map the CO’s existing portfolio from a food systems perspective Two examples are shown below from Zambia (Figure 8) and Syria (Figure 9). In both cases, the breadth of coverage across food systems is significant. Scope for design and implementation of systemic food assistance initiatives would appear to be correspondingly significant. This likely will be the case for all WFP COs.
21
Figure 8: Zambia CO’s portfolio in 2016 viewed through a food systems lens
Figure 9: Syria CO’s portfolio in 2016 viewed through a food systems lens
22
Step 2: Describe the CO’s food system footprint As quantitatively as possible, capture the breadth and depth of the CO’s current (most recent 12 months) operations and broader engagement in the country’s food system. Table 2 below is proposed as a template. Additional dimensions and details can be added as appropriate and relevant for the CO. The aim is to build understanding of the scale of the CO’s activities and investments in a country’s food system. That understanding will inform both internal discussions and external engagement. Where possible and relevant, reported measures should be gender-disaggregated. Table 2: Template for describing WFP’s footprint in a country’s food system
Feature Item/Activity/Unit Level/Measure
Categories and numbers of beneficiaries served and participants reached
Refugees #s
IDPs #s
School children #s
Smallholder farmers #s
Other #s
Other #s
List of food commodities and products handled over the last 12 months
List: Maize, wheat, lentils, HEBs,…
Quantity and value of food commodities and products distributed
Quantity (MT) MT
Value (USD) USD
Value of cash-based transfers Cash USD
Vouchers USD Quantity and value of food commodities and products purchased locally
Quantity (MT) MT
Value (USD) USD
Quantity and value of food commodities and products imported
Quantity (MT) MT
Value (USD) USD
Value of food system services sourced locally Transport USD
Warehousing USD
Processing USD
Finance/insurance USD
Other USD
Value of equipment sourced locally List equipment
Value of consulting services sourced locally List areas
Value of capacity development/technical assistance provided to national and sub-national government bodies
List areas covered
Other
Other
Other
23
Step 3: Complete integrated VAM-Supply Chain analyses of key food value chains COs and relevant HQ teams have considerable capacity for vulnerability assessment, mapping, and early warning, typically employing cutting-edge digital technology. Also available in COs and HQ teams is detailed supply chain information about the food systems in which WFP operates. Few explicit efforts have been made to deliberately integrate supply chain and programming data, save for the P4P pilot and the apparatus developed to handle WFP’s burgeoning cash-based transfer portfolio. When analyzed together, VAM and Supply Chain data can yield powerful insights about systemic challenges facing vulnerable groups, as well as systemic opportunities, such as those set out in the operational framework for systemic food assistance (Table 1). It is key to note that many systemic problems can be identified within levels of and relationships between costs and prices of key food system goods and services. The initial focus should therefore be on an integrated analysis of prices and costs in food value chains where WFP has a direct and indirect presence. The key distinction is between the actual and efficient market prices. The “actual” market price is the prevailing price of a commodity or food basket in the market. This can be gathered based upon information routinely collected by VAM units. The “efficient” market price is the price of a commodity or food basket “built up” around costs of major supply chain functions. This is based on information available to Supply Chain units. Systemic problems and thus potential scope for systemic food assistance can be identified where there are unjustifiably high levels of “actual” market prices at different points in given value chains, as well as excessive gaps between “actual” and “efficient” prices. The approach is captured in Figure 10. Results of applications in Syria are presented in Figures 11-13. Figure 10: A methodology for combining VAM and Supply Chain data to analyze food systems
24
Figure 11: The methodology applied for food destined for Syria’s besieged areas
Figure 12: Cost build-up for rice on a hypothetical route from Lattakia Port through Homs warehouse to besieged Deir Ezzor, Syria; cost of airdrop to Deir Ezzor also shown
25
Figure 13: Food-related costs of besiegement and benefits of food distribution in Deir Ezzor, Syria
Interpretation The focus of the analysis is on the interrelated issues of: (1) market prices in besieged and hard-to-reach areas; (2) the implied food-related economic costs of besiegement; and (3) the effects of food assistance. The main findings can be summarized as follows: 1. Actual market prices in besieged and hard-to-reach (HTR) areas can be as much as 10 times
higher than the equivalent “efficient” market prices computed based on supply chain costs; 2. WFP’s food distributions in besieged and HTR areas lower market prices significantly and cut
sharply into “food-related besiegement costs.” But post-distribution prices in most areas are still at least four times higher than “efficient” prices. Clearly, food assistance is a necessary short term solution to “last mile” and “bad year” problems in besieged and HTR areas, but without sustained access it is far from sufficient;
3. The monthly food-related economic cost of besiegement and poor access averages US$110/person (or US$550/household). Implicitly, this figure also captures the average level of benefits accruing to individuals and households as access improves, when besiegement ends, or when people are allowed to leave besieged areas;
4. Based on this level of individual cost (or implicit benefit), the food-related economic cost of besiegement for the estimated 861,200 Syrians living in besieged areas in 2016 is US$78.97 million per month (US$948million per year). By implication, quite aside from the humanitarian rationale, there is a strong “pure economic” rationale for WFP’s projected need for US$255 million over 6 months in its two Syria EMOPs – i.e., potential annual benefits of US$948 million vs. projected costs of US$510 million; and
5. Assuming a unit cost of US$10,000/mt for food airdrops, wherever the gap between the actual and “efficient” prices of the food basket exceeds US$565/mt, food airdrops are justifiable in purely economic terms (i.e., without considering humanitarian aspects). Analysis suggests that this threshold is well within frame for many areas and has recently been breached in Darayya and Madamiyet Elsham.
26
Step 4: Identify primary inefficiencies facing key food system actors The price and cost build-up analysis based on VAM and supply chain data can reveal segments of the “price gradient” or “cost column” on which attention should focus. An example from Kenya is shown in Figure 14 and another from Zambia in Figure 14. Figure 14: Price gradient for sugar in transit to Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya
Source: WFP Kenya
Figure 15: Price gradient for cowpeas in Zambia
Source: WFP Zambia
27
6.2 Programme Development Normal procedures for food assistance programming apply. But where analysis and consultation suggest potential for addressing systemic problems, five additional steps are suggested:
Step 1: Identify relevant systemic problems emerging from analyses and consultations;
Step 2: Identify high-potential entry points for systemic food assistance;
Step 3: Identify relevant Strategic Results;
Step 4: Identify candidate systemic food assistance initiatives under each relevant Strategic Result; and
Step 5: Develop strategic outcomes, outputs, and activities for CSPs and ICSPs.
Step 1: Identify relevant systemic problems emerging from analyses and consultations Based on quantitative and qualitative information generated by WFP’s own analyses and those of other stakeholders, which of the three systemic problems is most relevant to the populations targeted by the CO, and why? Table 4 provides illustrations of symptoms and impacts on the hungry poor of the three systemic problems. Symptoms and problems actually identified in given countries will be specific to sub-national regions and groups. Table 4: Illustrative impacts of systemic problems on the hungry poor
Systemic Problem
Illustrative Symptom of Problem Illustrative Impact on the Hungry Poor
Last Mile High farm-to-market transport costs in rural areas
Farmers face high input prices and low output prices
High food handling costs (including high loss rates) in urban areas
Urban households face high prices for perishable nutritious foods
Good Year Limited adoption and utilization of effective on-farm storage capacity
High rates of post-harvest losses for farmers
Poor access to credit and financial services for traders and aggregators
Low offtake rates and harvest-time prices for farmers
Bad Year Migration of men in search of employment
Increased workloads for women, with negative health impacts
Loss of productive assets and livelihoods
Reduction in quantity and quality of food consumed
Cross-cutting Poor enforcement of food quality and safety standards
High rates of aflatoxin contamination of marketed staple foods
Step 2: Identify high-potential entry points for systemic food assistance Based on the CO’s portfolio of partnerships, programmes, and capacities, identify scope for addressing systemic problems through leveraging and scaling up existing efforts. Figure 16
28
shows that the systemic potential of the Zambia CO’s portfolio is greatest for the “last mile” problem, with a particular focus on problems facing smallholders. Figure 16: The systemic potential of the Zambia CO’s portfolio
Source: WFP Zambia
Step 3: Identify relevant Strategic Results Relevant Strategic Results should emerge from Step 2. As indicated in the operational framework for food assistance (Table 1):
1. SR4 will be relevant where opportunities exist to: (1) significantly improve household and community adaptation and resilience to climate and other shocks; and (2) significantly improve food market and supply chain efficiency;
2. SR1 will be relevant where opportunities exist to develop capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to improved access to food;
3. SR2 will be relevant where opportunities exist to develop capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to improved nutrition;
4. SR3 will be relevant where opportunities exist to develop capacities and partnerships that address identified systemic barriers to increased productivity and incomes for smallholders;
29
5. SR5 will be relevant where opportunities exist to enhance technical skills, organizational forms, and institutional innovations that increase capacities of national systems and agencies to address identified food system inefficiencies and inequities; and
6. SR6 will be relevant where opportunities exist to support design and implementation of policy reforms that address identified food system inefficiencies and inequities.
Step 4: Identify candidate investment areas under each relevant Strategic Result Based on the examples of systemic initiatives included in Table 1, Table 5 builds a sense of investment areas open to COs seeking to invest in systemic food assistance under each Strategic Result. Recall that cutting across all investment areas are the two principles of: (1) embrace of the digital revolution; and (2) promoting inclusion, especially gender equality. Table 5: Investment areas under Strategic Results
Strategic Result Potential Investment Area
SR4 – Sustainable Food Systems
Pillar 1
Natural resource protection and rehabilitation
Risk management Pillar 2
Supply chain infrastructure
Supply chain technology and organization
Gender-transformative business development
SR1 – Access to Food Financial inclusion
Urban safety nets and food markets
Beneficiary targeting
SR2 – Nutrition Food fortification
Nutrition-sensitive social protection
Nutrition education
SR3 – Smallholders Purchase-based support to smallholders
Non-purchase-based support to smallholders
SR5 – Capacity Strengthening
Food quality and safety
Market data and information
Urban early warning and response systems
National food assistance agencies in social protection systems
SR6 – Policy Coherence
Market and trade policy
Public food reserves
Law and regulations affecting rural and urban agrifood SMEs
Step 5: Develop strategic outcomes, outputs, and activities for CSPs and ICSPs As outlined in the Strategic Plan and Country Strategic Plan Policy, WFP’s activities at country-level must fit within and contribute to national development priorities and strategies within the context of the SDGs. This holds true for systemic food assistance initiatives. As noted earlier, SR4, on one hand, and SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, on the other, must be treated differently. Under SR4 – which explicitly aims to enhance food system performance –
30
systemic food assistance entails specification of a full set of new strategic outcomes, outputs, and activities. Conversely, under SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, existing outcomes, outputs, and activities for these SRs remain relevant. Systemic food assistance under SRs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 entails development of additional complementary and incremental activities that seek to overcome systemic barriers to achievement of these existing outputs and outcomes. Table 5-7 below provide examples. Table 5: SR4-Pillar 1 Strategic Outcome, Outputs, and Activities from Colombia’s CSP
CSP Element Description
Relevant SDG SDG 2.4
Strategic Result SR4 Sustainable Food Systems
SR4 Pillar Pillar 1: Tailored investments in improved household and community adaptation and resilience to climate and other shocks
Strategic Outcome
Ethnic rural communities in vulnerable areas have increased capacity to recover from shocks and adapt to climate change.
Outcome description
Integrated actions support community-based sustainable natural resource management and adaptation to climate change measures, building on the analysis of climate trends and forecasts. Activities build resilience, using food and cash-based transfers (CBT), recovering ancestral practices and traditional knowledge, and supporting dietary diversity and livelihoods. Opportunities to link safety nets with innovative risk management schemes will also be explored
Focus area Resilience Building
Expected outputs
Traditional knowledge transferred to support dietary diversity and livelihoods
Assets created to build resilience
Key activities
Build resilience and strengthen livelihoods: Measures address the convergence of climatic factors, protracted marginalization, extensive environmental degradation and high levels of food insecurity. The role of women and adolescents is emphasized through participatory planning compliant with national regulations, and community ownership. Concrete adaptation measures include protection of water sources, watershed management, reforestation, agroforestry and regeneration of degraded areas.
Note: Colombia’s CSP does not specify “Pillar 1” because the framework was not available when the CSP was developed.
Table 6: Illustrative SR4-Pillar 2 Strategic Outcome, Outputs, and Activities CSP Element Description
Relevant SDG SDG 2.4
Strategic Result SR4 Sustainable Food Systems
SR4 Pillar Pillar 2: Tailored investments in improved food market and supply chain efficiency
Strategic Outcome
Food retailers serving vulnerable food insecure populations avail a wide range of nutritious food products to customers predictably, reliably, and at competitive prices
Outcome description
Integrated actions address technical and organizational challenges facing food retailers serving vulnerable food insecure populations, along with those facing their suppliers. Activities enhance risk management capacities, aiming to boost “operational capacity” whereby retailers are more equipped to tailor their operations to local conditions, setting necessary goals but retaining flexibility to adapt to inevitable market changes. Efficiency gains for retailers lead to lower costs that are passed on to vulnerable populations through lower prices for nutritious foods, thereby boosting their food purchasing power.
Focus area Root causes
Expected outputs Retailer supply chain management capacity increased relative to industry benchmarks
Retailer supply chain management costs are lowered relative to baseline levels
Key activities
Demand-led, ICT-based, benchmark-driven investments to upgrade retailer supply chain management aiming to expand capacity for efficient acquisition, inventory and stock management, customer service, and sales promotion for quality food. Specific investments include both “hard” physical infrastructure and “soft” management platforms that dramatically lower operational costs. Support for collective action among retailers (e.g., buyers clubs) also included.
31
Table 7: Illustrative Systemic Food Assistance Activities for SRs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 Strategic Result Illustrative Activities
SR1 – Access to Food
Support for enhanced financial inclusion of key beneficiary groups – especially women – within shock-responsive social protection systems
Support for linking urban food safety nets with local food market development
Support for digital innovations in beneficiary targeting, monitoring, and support in remote and insecure locations
SR2 – Nutrition Support for supply and uptake of locally fortified nutritious foods
Support for design and implementation of nutrition platforms in social protection systems
Support for digital platforms for nutrition education for vulnerable groups – especially women – linked to food and cash transfers
SR3 – Smallholders
Support for purchase based coordination and facilitation of supply-side, aggregation, and financing support for smallholders and agrifood SMEs
Support for non-purchase-based integrated support platforms for smallholders and agrifood SMEs, emphasizing digital innovations and platforms
SR5 – Capacity Strengthening
Support for strengthening of food quality and safety standards
Support for digital platforms to enhance quantity, quality, and flow of food market data and information
Support for development and implementation of early warning and response systems in urban areas
Support for physical, technical, and organizational upgrading of national food assistance agencies and systems within national social protection systems
SR6 – Policy Coherence
Support for reform of market and trade policy standards and implementation
Support for reform of structure and functioning of public food reserves
Support for reform of laws and regulations affecting rural and urban agrifood SMEs
6.3 Partnership and Advocacy The transformative power of systemic food assistance lies in the opportunities it opens up for otherwise disconnected actors in food systems to align incentives, potentially leading to pooled investments and leveraged impacts. Partnership and advocacy needs are profound. The CO’s approach to partnering and advocacy for systemic food assistance should be based on a clear-sighted examination of WFP’s comparative advantage and role in any proposed systemic assistance initiative. Where either is limited, continued development of any such initiative should be based on the existence of other actors or stakeholders with the required capacities and readiness to engage and invest. The approach should be: (1) “progressive” for the given systemic food assistance initiative not “self-interested” for WFP as an organization; (2) seek to integrate partnership and advocacy with resource mobilization; and (3) maintain focus on WFP’s major area of expertise and credibility: a strong understanding of the aspirations and needs of the hungry poor and the organizations that serve them. Practical considerations based on local country-level experience and analysis should define specific approaches. Note, however, that skills may need to be enhanced in areas that expand the range of sophistication of partnership and advocacy opportunities – e.g., strategic leadership in complex environments, business planning, team-building, management, gender awareness, and networking.
32
7. Key References FAO. 2013. State of Food and Agriculture 2013: Food Systems for Better Agriculture. Rome: UN Food and Agriculture Organization. HLPE. 2016. Nutrition and Food Systems. Committee on World Food Security High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Rome: Committee on World Food Security. IFPRI. 2016. Global Food Policy Report. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Reardon, T. 2015. “The Hidden Middle: The Quiet Revolution in the Midstream of Agrifood Value Chains in Developing Countries,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 31(1), Spring. Reardon, T. and C.P. Timmer. 2014. “Five Inter-Linked Transformations in the Asian Agrifood Economy: Food Security Implications,” Global Food Security. 3(2): 108-117. Reardon, T. and CP Timmer. 2012. “The Economics of the Food System Revolution,” Annual Review of Resource Economics,” 14: 225-264. Timmer, C. P. 2014. Managing Structural Transformation: A Political Economy Approach. WIDER Annual Lecture 18. Helsinki: UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research. Tschirley, D, J. Snyder, M. Dolislager, T. Reardon, S. Haggblade, J. Goeb, L. Traub, F. Ejobi, F. Meyer. 2015a. “Africa’s Unfolding Diet Transformation: Implications for Agrifood System Employment,” Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 5(2), September (online). Tschirley, D., T. Reardon, M. Dolislager, and J. Snyder. 2015b. “The Rise of a Middle Class in Urban and Rural East and Southern Africa: Implications for Food System Transformation,” Journal of International Development, 27(5), June. WFP. 2016. WFP Strategic Plan for 2017-2021. Rome: UN World Food Programme.
For more information contact:
Steven Were Omamo
Deputy Director, Programme and Policy Division
Coordinator of Food Systems Strategy, Policy and Support