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