Post on 24-Jun-2020
FSIN-AUC Technical Consultation
Food and Nutrition Security and Resilience Analysis:
Are we effectively using the right data?
17-19 November, 2015 – Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Summary of proceedings
2
Table of Contents
Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 4
I. Background ................................................................................................................................. 5
II. Panel discussions of outstanding issues and working group recommendations ............... 6
Panel 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Panel 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Panel 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Panel 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
III. Crosscutting issues and overall recommendations ............................................................ 19
IV. Conclusions and proposed way forward ............................................................................. 19
Appendices................................................................................................................................... 20
Final agenda .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
List of participants ................................................................................................................................................... 23
3
Acronyms
ACS
AGIR
AUC
CAADP
CILSSEC
EC
EO
FAO
FBS
FEWS NET
FNS
FSIN
GMES
IGAD
IFPRI
IMAAFS
IPC
ISFNS
JRC
LSMS
M&E
NEPAD
NSO
RAU
REC
RESAKKS
RM-TWG
SADC
SDGs
SDI
SETSAN
SHaSA
SUN
TWG
TWG-MFNS
UNICEF
USAID
WFP
WHA
WHO
African Charter on Statistics
Alliance Globale pour la Résilience
African Union Commission
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte Contre La Sécheresse Dans Le Sahel
European Commission
Earth Observatory
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Food Balance Sheet
Famine Early Warning System Network
Food and Nutrition Security
Food Security Information Network
Global Monitoring for Environmental Security
Inter-Governmental Authority on Development
International Food Policy Research Institute
Information for Meeting Africa’s Agricultural Transformation and Food Security Goals
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
Information Systems on Food and Nutrition Security
European Commission Joint Research Centre
Living Standards Measurement Study
Monitoring and Evaluation
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
National Statistical Office
Regional Analysis Unit (IGAD)
Regional Economic Commission
Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa
Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group
Southern African Development Community
Sustainable Development Goals
Spatial Data Infrastructure
Secretariado Técnico de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (Mozambique)
Strategy for the Harmonization of Statistics in Africa
Scaling Up Nutrition
Technical Working Group
Technical Working Group on Measuring Food and Nutrition Security
United Nations Children’s Fund
United States Agency for International Development
World Food Programme
World Health Assembly
United Nations World Health Organization
4
Executive summary
The Food Security Information Network (FSIN) and the African Union Commission (AUC)
joined forces to hold a Technical Consultation entitled “Food and Nutrition Security and Resilience
Analysis: Are we effectively using the right data?” from 17-19 November 2015, in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. The overall objective was to launch a process for the development of a framework for
action to improve national capacities in monitoring commitments to food and nutrition
security, including SDG Goal 2, the CAADP Results Framework and the Zero Hunger challenge.
The consultation was structured around four thematic panels, each guided by a background paper
written by recognized topical experts: 1) Food and nutrition security analysis: data availability,
access and analysis; 2) Resilience analysis: data availability, access and analysis; 3) Data
governance and institutional capacities; and 4) Filling the gaps by exploiting innovation
around data production, data collection and data sharing. The participants represented 28
African countries, regional institutions (AUC, IGAD and CILSS), as well as development partners,
academia, NGOs and the private sector.
Based on the outcome of panel discussions that took place on days 1 and 2, the participants broke
into four working groups on day 3 to review the panel deliberations and provide
recommendations to the AUC and FSIN. This report provides a panel-by-panel summary of the
discussions and recommendations, and outlines the next steps towards achieving related results.
Recommendations to the FSIN
1. Collaborate with the AUC to design a self-assessment of its Member States’ existing
information systems on food and nutrition security (ISFNS) to review their ability to report
on the CAADP and SDG 2 indicators;
2. Serve as an information sharing and communication platform to support improved FNS
data collection and governance;
3. Build upon and widely share the work of the Food and Nutrition Security and Resilience
Measurement TWGs and link this work to continental and regional efforts (e.g. CAADP,
AGIR, IGAD and RAU). This includes providing more guidance on the definition of
resilience, and recommending concrete actions on resilience measurement and analysis
methods.
4. Establish a dedicated TWG on responsible data sharing principles and open data, and
begin sharing good practices on the use of innovative, cost-effective technologies; and
5. Expand its efforts in coordinating country capacity development of different actors, based
on the model used in South Sudan.
Recommendations to the AUC
Specific complementary recommendations were also made to the AUC, in line with its existing
mandate to support continental dialogue, learning and accountability:
1. Take stock of the capacities of country information systems to monitor and analyze the
commitments outlined in the CAADP Results Framework, Malabo Declaration and the
SDGs, and engage with countries to reinforce these capacities;
5
2. Lead the partnership in Africa on resilience data generation and analysis, and support
related training;
3. Support AU member states in working towards implementation of activities within the
framework of the African Charter on Statistics, to better coordinate food and nutrition
security statistics;
4. Advocate for operational SDIs at national level, to support robust food security assessment
and monitoring; and
5. Support the development of operational EO-based information services to be provided on
the African continent, based on a validation workshop.
I. Background
The FSIN is a global initiative co-sponsored by
FAO, WFP and IFPRI to strengthen information
systems for food and nutrition security and
promote evidence-based analysis and decision
making.
The FSIN’s objectives (see the box) are aligned
with those of the AUC in terms of promoting
better integration of existing systems and efforts
for more efficient and effective policy processes.
The two entities joined forces to hold a Technical Consultation on “Are we effectively using the
right data for food and nutrition security and resilience analysis?” from 17-19 November
2015, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The FSIN-AUC event involved over 80 technical experts,
practitioners and decision makers from regional and national institutions, including
governments, CILSS, IGAD, IFPRI, the World Bank, FAO, WFP, the EC, USAID, NGOs, academic
institutions, and the private sector.
The rationale of the Consultation was threefold:
1) Build on the 2014 Information for Meeting Africa’s Agricultural Transformation and Food
Security Goals (IMAAFS) Conference. The IMAAFS participants identified the need for
greater integration of information systems and recommended a set of initiatives, inter alia
to reinforce food security and nutrition information infrastructure and support sustainable
collection of good quality data by strengthening national capacities;
2) Discuss the implications that the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
indicator and monitoring framework will have at country level;
3) Contribute to the CAADP Results Framework for efficient and effective monitoring of
food security and nutrition policies.
The overall objective was to launch a process for the development of a framework for action to
strengthen national food security and nutrition information systems and statistical capacities to
enhance evidence-based decision making and policy monitoring.
FSIN objectives
1) Share knowledge, best practices and lessons learned
with a network of national, regional and global
practitioners
2) Promote access to demand-driven harmonized sets of
methods, tools and indicators
3) Strengthen country and regional level capacities for
food and nutrition security analysis
6
II. Panel discussions of outstanding issues and working group
recommendations
The Consultation was structured around four thematic panels, each guided by a background paper
written by recognized topical experts:
1) Food and nutrition security analysis: data availability, access and analysis
2) Resilience analysis: data availability, access and analysis
3) Data governance and institutional capacities
4) Filling the gaps by exploiting innovation around data production, data collection and data
sharing
For details, please see the Consultation concept note, the four discussion papers and
presentations, and other relevant documents on the dedicated web page on the FSIN website.
Days 1 and 2 were dedicated to panel presentations on these four topics and related feedback
from panellists and participants during plenary sessions. On Day 3, based on the outcome of the
panel discussions on the first two days, participants discussed each topic in four different working
group sessions and provided a concrete set of related recommendations for action by FSIN, the
AUC, and for Member States (crosscutting issues). This report provides a panel-by-panel summary
of the discussions and recommendations.
All the panels considered the context within which their work should be viewed globally and on
the African continent. This included:
The transition to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include new measures
to monitor progress in food and nutrition security at the global and country level;
The relevance of the CAADP Results Framework 2015-2025, which provides goals, expected
results and associated indicators to transform the agricultural sector to reduce poverty,
food insecurity and malnutrition, improve livelihoods and build resilience;
The Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Africa Agriculture Transformation and Growth for
Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods, which commits to specific targets for ending
hunger, reducing stunting and underweight, and eliminating child undernutrition;
Sub-regional initiatives such as the Global Alliance for Resilience (AGIR) – in the Sahel and
West Africa; and
The IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) in the Horn of
Africa.
Panel 1
Food and nutrition security analysis: data availability, access and analysis
Introduction
The first panel reviewed whether the right food and nutrition security indicators, measurement
7
methods and integrated approaches are available for different analysis contexts and levels, and
identified data collection challenges. It began with a presentation on the work of the FSIN TWG
on Measuring Food and Nutrition Security (TWG-MFNS), which was asked to assess the quality
and utility of existing indicators, in order to provide guidance to decision-makers on which
indicators were most useful for specific purposes, including monitoring the SDGs.
The TWG-MFNS reviewed over 140 indicators, and is developing a user’s guide covering the 56
that were deemed most reliable, useful and valid based on standard criteria. While assessing these
indicators, the following preliminary insights have emerged:
Three key principles were proposed to improve data and measurements: (a) focus on more
than just calories to capture the various dimensions of food and nutrition security,
including the double burden of over- and under- nutrition; (b) consider the whole life cycle
to identify the specific needs of different groups at each stage of life, and (c) improve the
use of FNS data to catalyze policies and actions.
The biggest data gaps are in sub-Saharan Africa; this will require concerted efforts and
financial commitments to build sustainable data systems in the world’s food and nutrition
insecurity hotspots.
It is critically important to engage national policymakers and statistical offices as full
partners in this endeavor.
Four areas which should receive high priority are to: (a) improve national food balance
sheets (FBS) as they can be used to extract information on the nutritional value of foods;
(b) increase the availability of price data at all levels; (c) improve food consumption metrics,
particularly at the household-level; and (d) ensure that anthropometric data – which
represent the gold standard – are collected more frequently and reliably as a global public
good.
Achieving SDG 2 on food security and nutrition will depend on progress in meeting many
of the other 16 SDGs (in total covering 169 indicators). Not all of the proposed SDG 2
indicators were specifically reviewed by the TWG, including those on environmental
sustainability which are relevant but particularly difficult to measure and monitor.
The TWG‘s initial recommendations were to: mobilize policymakers to support evidence based
decisions; develop comprehensive national data strategies; use cost-effective and sustainable data
collection tools; improve coordination among donors and international organizations; and
increase investment in African institutions‘ human and institutional capital for FNS analysis.
Key issues discussed
Prioritizing and harmonizing FNS indicators
The TWG-MFNS’s work to assess, prioritize and harmonize indicators in FNS analysis was highly
appreciated. It was widely recognized that too many FNS indicators are currently being used, these
should be rationalized bearing in mind the need to capture the multi-sectoral dimensions of food
and nutrition security. A core set of indicators required for solid FNS measurement and analysis
should be identified, by prioritizing those that are most useful and removing those that are
duplicative. At the same time, the core set(s) may need to vary depending upon the context (e.g.
8
humanitarian vs. development) and use of the data in different situations. Moreover, a balance
needs to be struck between standardizing indicators for global reporting (e.g. SDGs), and allowing
their adaptation to the local context (e.g. for local early warning or specific livelihoods such as
pastoralists).
Specific feedback included suggestions that the TWG:
Report on the quality and limitations of the indicators, noting whether they actually
measure what they are trying to measure, and whether it is possible to draw statistically
valid conclusions from them;
Promote the use of participatory data collection and analysis approaches to enhance local
ownership and ensure two-way communication and feedback;
Importance of mainstreaming collection of the Women’s Minimum Diet Diversity into data
collection instruments;
Evaluate whether indicators mainly reflect chronic or acute food security conditions; and
Suggest ways to better understand and monitor the contributions of multiple interventions
in different sectors (e.g. in agriculture, health, sanitation, social protection).
Aligning FNS indicators among various initiatives
The TWG’s work should be aligned to regional and country level policy processes (CAADP, AGIR,
CILSS, IGAD, RESAKKS, etc.). In particular:
The CAADP Results Framework should be reviewed to understand what gaps exist and
compared to the SDGs; and
The relationship between SUN and the different sectors/policies/strategies should be
taken into account.
Issues with data collection and analysis
An overarching point made by numerous participants was the importance of having a credible
evidence base on which to develop sound policies, programmes and related monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) systems. Suggestions were made on how to deal with challenges in achieving
this goal:
Policy makers should be engaged throughout the process of data collection and analysis,
so that information systems provide them the facts that they need to make decisions.
Mechanisms should be established for “translating data into knowledge” for decision
making.
The information needs of local communities should be given greater priority, ideally using
their own indigenous indicators. Although standardization is needed for global
comparisons, it might not be needed at local level. For example, monitoring and early
warning systems for pastoral communities may require very site-specific data, which may
be obtained from communities and local NGOs.
There is a need to balance investments in collecting data to meet emergency needs, and
longer-term developmental needs. This could be done by involving NGOs and research
institutions in humanitarian and early warning information systems.
9
In many cases, data already exist (held by governments or NGOs) but are not accessible.
This secondary data should be better documented and an improved use of metadata
should be promoted, so that primary data are only collected to fill gaps1.
Focus on indicators that are actually sensitive to change and that are measurable.
Country level considerations
National institutions need to be involved in major data collection and analysis exercises
led by development partners. A major constraint is the lack of sustainable funding to
regularly conduct these exercises for FNS monitoring. A solution could be to include FSN
information systems into national agricultural investment plans.
It is essential to support the development of basic infrastructure for data and information
management2, e.g. a national analytical framework which outlines the respective roles and
responsibilities for data collection, analysis and information flow within institutions and
between stakeholders. National statistics offices (NSOs) need to be involved in this effort.
o Mechanism/unit for coordinated multi-sectoral data. Good practices of such a
mechanism are shown by Mozambique’s SETSAN where a Food Security Council is
the mandated body for FSN policies South Sudan, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Under
this body, the Food Security Technical Secretariat produces regular food and
nutrition security analysis ensuring the uptake of information.
Participants highlighted that nutrition goals with appropriate indicators should be
mainstreamed throughout agricultural programmes, policies and national implementation
plans (e.g. the CAADP–FAO–NEPAD programme on mainstreaming nutrition). CAADP and
SUN – as well as other initiatives – should work together at the country level; currently, this
is not always the case.
Involving academia
It is essential to engage national universities and research centers in building capacity for FNS
analysis, and in working more closely with policy makers to ensure that these decision makers
have the data they need to develop sound policies.
Role of FSIN
The role of FSIN within this context should be to act as an umbrella platform/mechanism
for sharing experience and good practices.
Also, FSIN should map the role of the different actors, assess gaps and identify needs, and
support harmonization; whereas the role of the AUC is institutionalization of approaches.
RECs/SADC are developing knowledge sharing platforms – FSIN can support this work,
whereas NEPAD can put in place the platforms.
FSIN also has a role in coordinating country capacity development efforts (e.g. South
Sudan success model).
1 See Panel 4 section for recommendations on improving access. 2 See Panel 3 and 4 sections for further discussion and recommendations on data infrastructure and management.
10
Working group 1 recommendations
For the FSIN Timeline
1. Support AU in developing TORs for a self-assessment/stock-taking
on Information Systems for Food and Nutrition Security (ISFNS)
• AU and FSIN to develop a template, building on existing templates
that have been used (e.g. Global Assessment)
TORs/template
completed by 1
February 2016
2. Capture best practices on ISFNS to share with its network Immediate Start
3. Consider providing technical support, capacity in response to this
stock-taking and capacity development
For the AUC Timeline
1. Conduct a self-assessment/stock-taking on ISFNS (based on the
ToR/template) by
• Looking at existing platforms/structures
• Identifying gaps regarding the indicators (alignment with CAADP,
AGENDA 2063, SDGs, etc.)
• Identifying a minimum set of indicators
• Identifying best practices (with support by the FSIN)
Start in 2016
2. Engage with stakeholders to reinforce the capacity of countries and
RECs to
• Account for target indicators
• Put in place - or amend an existing - mechanism to follow-up
• Ensure linkages between programmes and policies
TORs/template
to be completed
by 1 February
2016
Panel 2
Resilience analysis: data availability, access and analysis
Introduction
The panel 2 discussion articulated demand from the Regional Economic and Technical Agencies
coordinating and leading resilience measurement such as IGAD and CILSS and tried to identify
key indicators, data and methods of analysis to guide resilience policies and programming in the
regions and across the continent at large. The discussions were informed by a background paper
that addressed the empirical content (i.e., focus of measurement) and methodological issues (i.e.,
properties of measurement) that guide resilience measurement and analysis. In particular, the
paper reviewed the outputs of the FSIN Resilience Measurement TWG’s (RM-TWG) to define
resilience, establish measurement principles, identify a common model and casual framework to
guide data collection and analysis, and review existing analytical methods, data types and sources.
It then presented the features of a structurally integrated matrix of indicators for resilience (SIMI-
R) as a platform or data structure for harmonized metrics to underwrite resilience analysis. Such
an approach, could be field tested to provide a generalized data structure for the CAADP Results
11
Framework, and possibly other initiatives e.g. Cadre Harmonisé. Presented as an abstract data
architecture to inform thinking about resilience metrics, SIMI-R has the potential to facilitate
harmonised measurement across countries and over time. The opportunity to realise this potential
depends on the capacity to make use of existing data sets and on the ability to identify where
new data are needed.
Key issues discussed
Importance of a conceptual approach and clear communication
As resilience is a relatively new concept, there is the need for a common understanding on
resilience. Thus, a twin-track approach could balance both needs: Further resilience-based
research, to advocate a common definition and have in place an analytical framework
(monitoring and measuring); and in the meantime to use what is available (some common
standards might already be sufficient). While the RM-TWG has offered a definition of
resilience, broad consensus among practitioners and researchers has yet to emerge.
Attempts should be made to move towards communication on resilience which is more
oriented towards practitioners as well as researchers. Clear key messages and a common
language can help to inform the decision-makers on the current status of a resilience
definition and measurement. A stocktaking exercise e.g. on whether existing RM approaches
are comparable and can be carried out with existing data, could facilitate the communication
around resilience.
The objective and added value of resilience sensitive programmes should be clarified and
communicated accordingly to decision-makers.
Thus, the fundamental problem to which resilience is intended as a solution should be clearly
stated, in terms that have both practical value and analytical integrity.
Data availability and use
In the medium-term, research processes, led by African research centers should be undertaken
that could bring further clarity on the key dimensions of resilience that need to be supported
and related data and analytical tools.
While the gold standard for measuring resilience is to use panel data gathered with high
frequency, in practice this is difficult to sustain and exposes households to assessment fatigue.
Thus, existing platforms (e.g. LSMS) and existing data should be used and leveraged to identify
gaps to be filled. Therefore, mapping of data sets within countries and with development
partners is gaining prominence. However, the potential of innovative technologies to address
data collection issues for the purpose of resilience analysis requires further attention. Efforts
should be made to develop an open data sharing platform.
Greater use should be made of qualitative measures, systems approaches and causal analysis
to better understand resilience. The lack of resilience baselines and thresholds was also noted.
Key related challenges
Coordination, harmonization and partnership
Given the abundance of resilience measurement initiatives, harmonization of different methods
and data systems is necessary for better resilience analysis and measurement. This can be achieved
12
through partnerships that also include non-traditional partners, in particular the private sector
(e.g. insurance companies). A coordination framework could be created by working through the
regional organizations such as IGAD and CILSS that would contextualize and define the context
for resilience analysis.
Lessons learning
It was emphasized that learning from existing efforts and experiences was crucial regarding the
technical development of resilience analysis using harmonized metrics. The IPC for instance offers
important insights of how to address challenges associated with the task of specifying and
implementing harmonized metrics. In addition, there is the need to learn from past experiences
in resilience programming and share best practices in terms of analysis and programming.
Time-sensitive data
Having a clear idea about the rate at which recovery from shocks is expected to occur is a key part
of resilience analysis. The need to collect, organize, and analyze data over appropriate time-frames
is therefore important for resilience measurement. One of the challenges of creating data sets that
will inform resilience policy and practices is that reporting requirements associated with funding
often constrains analysis.
Institutional capacities
Regional institutions such as IGAD and CILSS can play a fundamental role to coordinate the
demand and supply for trainings and capacity development related to resilience measurement
and analysis. In general, the right institutions should be identified for each national context and
the outcome of the resilience analysis should be linked to key policy processes that need to be
supported.
Working group 2 recommendations
For the FSIN Timeline
1. Develop communication material on the definition of resilience
• This should focus on the commonalities that exist among different
definitions of resilience and allow for flexbility across contexts
December 2015
2. Identify concrete actions on resilience measurement and analysis
methodology
• Specify data elements for resilience measurement and explore how
contents of existing data sets can be leveraged and augmented to
support resilience analysis
• Document and review analytical approaches: estimation method, that
are being used as part of resilience analysis
• Build on momentum and interest associated with FSIN’s resilience
measurement community of practice
Q1 2016
3. Provide training inputs Ongoing
13
• Provide training to member state experts and development partners
on methodology (e.g. organized as a methodological tool box, incl.
online delivery)
• Support AUC training through RECs and its appropriate agencies
• Build on the training modules developed by RAU
4. Facilitate a Global Partnership on data generation and analysis
• Develop a work plan for the global partnership
• Facilitate partnerships that are grounded in resilience-focused regional
initiatives and programs
End of February
2016
For the AUC Timeline
1. Support capacity building for policy-makers on methodology
• Training through the RECs and its appropriate agencies
Start in 2016
2. Lead the partnership on data generation and analysis in Africa
• AUC work plan on data generation and analysis under FSIN
• Linkages between programmes and policies
End of April 2016
Panel 3
Data governance and institutional capacities
Introduction
Panel 3 built on the outputs of panel 1 and panel 2 discussions and its objective was to discuss
how to improve the effective access and use of information through enhanced coordination and
agreed standards. In the context of the SDGs and the CAADP Results Framework, the monitoring
and indicator framework and the underlying primary statistical data needed for compiling the
indicators required increased demand in quantity, quality and diversity of data. The paper and
presentation focused on the challenges and opportunities related to the M&E framework for
national institutions in developing countries: the country-level institutional set-up and the critical
role of the NSOs in coordinating the national statistical system, data gaps regarding food and
nutrition security analysis and strategies to improve country-level information and standards as
well as key protocols and tools contributing to enhance data and information sharing.
Key issues discussed
Importance of coordination and governance
There is an increasing need for expanding inter-sectoral collaboration, in particular by linking
food security with nutrition data to the health sector and relevant platforms. Limited country
level capacities exist to integrate food security and nutrition information due to its multi-
dimensional nature; thus appropriate capacity building activities are required.
Examples of good practices in the region should be shared and promoted to enhance an inter-
regional transfer of knowledge and information (e.g. inter-sectoral platform in Sudan and
14
inter-agency commitments on data sharing, analysis and capacity development in South
Sudan through the FSIN).
It was emphasized that international agencies should better align their work with regional and
national systems and priorities and not duplicate efforts. At the global level, stakeholders
should build on the most important initiatives (e.g. Global Strategy for Agriculture and Rural
Statistics) and Malabo Declaration and related recommendations on data governance.
To promote the use of local sources of data (e.g. from social workers, agriculture extension
workers), local governments and administrative units should be empowered and methods
should be developed to decentralize food security and nutrition data collection systems at
county level. This would enable better decision-making and coordination at local level.
Data availability and use
Given the lack of the most basic data in many African countries for a majority of the indicators,
questions on the quality of indicators and affordability play a central role. It is thus key to
decide on a minimum set of core data with a minimum quality threshold to ensure the
availability of basic statistics, based on which appropriate policy decisions can be taken.
Member States ownership of these decisions is essential to ensure the relevance and
sustainability of country data collection and analysis efforts.
Once the data are available, the findings and analysis need to be adequately communicated
with decision-makers. To do so, users require suitable skills for properly using data for policy
making.
The data revolution bears unprecedented possibilities regarding open data. However, limited
access to existing data bases due to confidentiality and quality issues, limited use of micro-
data, lack of and harmonization, emphasize the need to develop and implement data
security and metadata protocols.
Key related challenges
Coordination/Governance/Role of NSOs
Key challenges at country level include the lack of harmonized data collection activities, conflicting
data and difficulties in conducting sound analysis in many domains. This is due to weak
coordination and integration among the components of the national statistical systems, but also
among development partners. Often, NSOs do not play a central coordination role of statistical
activities. There is a need to develop appropriate protocols and tools, modernize the legal
framework and facilitate coordination and data access through clearly defined roles and
responsibilities of all stakeholders in the food security and nutrition sector.
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: SDGs and CAADP Results Framework
In many countries, national statistical systems are far from able to meet the needs of monitoring
results under the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The main problems are: the
dependency on external funding sources; an M&E process that does not include all data
producers; and weak governance of national statistical systems, including a lack of transparency
15
and independence. CAADP should be more active in the discussions on the SDG indicators and
have the flexibility to adapt the indicators if needed.
Systematic approach to data collection
The importance of national ownership and a systematic approach to collect data was emphasized
by several stakeholders. Governments should play a greater role in planning and requesting
appropriate budgets for data collection activities (e.g. surveys etc.). Data collection efforts need
to be prioritized by focusing on the most important data to feed the key indicators instead of
getting distracted by too many SDG indicators and data needs. The FSIN could play a role in
facilitating the dialogue at national level regarding a core set of indicators and the related data
needs.
Responsible data collection
Before launching any primary data collection exercise, the relevant stakeholders should ensure
that existing data are fully used. Data collectors and analysts should take advantage of ongoing
surveys by adding additional elements to a module (e.g. nutrition data) and by extracting more
information from existing data as necessary.
Engagement with non-traditional stakeholders
Public-private partnerships can add value to the discussions in particular related to open data, by
taking advantage of the complementarity between the competencies and capacities of the NSOs
and the private sector. In addition, involving academia in data collection activities and surveys can
help to scale-up and improve data availability and quality.
Working group 3 recommendations
For the FSIN Timeline
1. Serve as a platform for information sharing
• Platform for good practices on Food Security and Nutrition
information
• Inventory of past and upcoming assessments, surveys and information
(incl. schedule of country level activities)
Next 6 months
2. Serve as a communication platform
• Sharing of good practices of communication between data providers
and decision-makers
Next 6 months
3. Build on existing initiatives (Global Strategy to improve agricultural and
rural statistics, Malabo Declaration, WHA, etc.)
Immediate start
4. Expand FSIN’s membership to other partners: e.g. to UN Agencies
(WHO, UNICEF) and the private sector Immediate start
For the AUC Timeline
1. Support AU member states in the development of a framework for
open data by building on good practices (e.g. Kenya, Tanzania, Benin)
Start in 2016
2. Support countries in the course of working towards implementation Start in 2016
16
of activities within the framework of the African Charter on Statistics
(ACS), with a special focus on Food and Nutrition Security Statistics, and
in alignment with Africa’s Agenda 2063, the Strategy for the Harmonization
of Statistics in Africa (SHaSA), the African Union Institute for Statistics
(StatAfric) and the Panafrican Training Center on Statistics.
• To better coordinate the statistical activities linked to Food and
Nutrition Security in the countries
• To adopt open data principles
• To facilitate the process of enhancing the independence and
transparency of national statistics
Panel 4
Filling the gaps by exploiting innovation around
data production, data collection and data sharing
Introduction
Panel 4 explored the opportunities and challenges of innovative data collection technologies and
methods to fill existing gaps in data availability and quality, in light of the SDGs and related need
for a “data revolution” for sustainable development. The main innovations reviewed in the
background paper were improvements in remote sensing data from satellites, and use of data
from mobile phones. With more data, better technologies and unlimited computer power, the
paper highlighted the need to establish, adopt, and monitor compliance with standards and
protocols to provide robust, verified and accurate information for policy makers.
Key issues discussed
Importance of embracing the innovation challenge
There is an important space for innovation in the humanitarian sector – we need to take
advantage of it, be willing to test and learn from new approaches.
The adoption and implementation of open data principles and standards has been increasing
across countries and sectors. Open data means that it is freely available to everyone to use
and republish, without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control.
Effective and timely access to data provides a transparent and accountable foundation to
improve decision-making, as open data allows the user to compare, combine, and follow the
connections among different datasets.
Key advantages of new technologies:
o Innovations in data collection should allow fresh, accurate data to be available in a
timely and cost-effective manner. For example, real time observation of market
functionality and prices allows analysts to identify trends much faster than by using
17
other indicators. Thus, the low cost of mobile data may be the answer to having
sustainable ISFNS in the future.
o Free and open satellite data improve availability and temporal coverage.
o By analyzing mobile device data using different techniques, including
language/sentiment analysis, crowd-sourcing, GPS location, we can extract different
information than is available from traditional methods.
However, the participants highlighted the importance of balancing existing and new methods:
innovative technologies should not replace existing statistical processes. Technology and
innovation should be used to fill data gaps once these have been identified; it is the data gaps
that lead to technology innovation, and not vice versa.
Key related challenges
Management of data
Through these new approaches, the amount of data available may become overwhelming; the
challenge is not only to meaningfully integrate diverse data, but to have access to them through
a coordinated spatial data infrastructure (SDI). In the absence of accessible SDIs, there is a need
to support (and sometimes a tendency to substitute) essential information by alternative data
captured through innovative methodologies.
Responsible data sharing
Higher volumes of data and an increasing tendency towards open data pose a new question of
how to manage information in a responsible manner, particularly when it is sensitive. Appropriate
attention should be given to data security, privacy and protection issues, particularly in the
humanitarian sector, where the “do no harm” principle must be followed to avoid possible
repercussions such as by revealing the locations of vulnerable groups in conflict areas.
Engagement with the private sector
The importance of improving collaboration with the private sector - at local level as well as
with international companies - was highlighted.
This engagement poses challenges such as clarifying the roles between private sector and
public institutions, and their respective rules of engagement; ensuring that private sector
innovation is transformed into a public good; and managing expectations of profit-seeking
companies.
Need to engage people at the grass-roots level
There is also a need to ensure the involvement of local communities in the information flow.
Collection of information should be based on demand from the ground up, rather than from
the top down. As mentioned, it is more important to give farmers a voice than to give them
information. We need to find out what local communities or farmers need to know, rather than
what information donors or institutions need for advocacy.
18
It is therefore necessary to create the right incentives for local communities to provide
information and develop methods to better capture their demand. An example is to engage
youth in local data collection as “knowledge brokers”.
In the future, Early Warning Systems will likely be based on such grass roots information.
Specific challenges in Africa
In Africa – as in other regions – the implementation of the national SDIs still needs to evolve.
Cloud-based technologies, data policies and models are particularly needed at country and
intercontinental level. The AUC could play a key role towards meeting this goal.
A road map is needed to spell out how to better engage African universities, private and public
sectors in this work.
Working group 4 recommendations
For the FSIN Timeline
1. Promote responsible data sharing principles and open data
• Establish a dedicated TWG to map out existing initiatives and share
awareness and boost debate in terms of food security and nutrition
related issues; and
• Provide a list of key principles/guidelines/code of conduct
2016
2. Share examples and provide links to existing cost-effective innovative
data collection practices
2016
3. Organize specific webinars and workshop(s) on the use of new
technologies and share examples on existing training and capacity
building initiatives
2016
For the AUC Timeline
1. Advocate for linking between food security assessment and
monitoring and the need for operational SDIs at the national level 2016
2. Facilitate the development of a set of Earth Observation (EO)-based
information services for Food Security, implementable in Africa, by
organizing a validation workshop under the Global Monitoring for
Environment and Security (GMES) and Africa Initiative
2016
19
III. Crosscutting issues and overall recommendations
In addition to the panel-specific suggestions, a number of cross-cutting issues and
recommendations were made:
1. National governments to strengthen their support to statistics: (i) National ownership; (ii)
Funding and government budget; (iii) Appropriate infrastructure
2. Make the best use of existing data: any data collector should take stock of what data are
available before collecting any additional data, and should take advantage of ongoing surveys
to collect additional data
3. Support capacity building within countries and communicating the access of existing data
produced by diverse partners and using it for the country’s own purposes
4. Development partners to align their efforts with national statistic plans and priorities
IV. Conclusions and proposed way forward
The technical consultation was the first FSIN continental event to elicit demand from high-level
African practitioners on how to improve their capacities to monitor national commitments to food
and nutrition security, including SDG 2, the CAADP Results Framework and the Zero Hunger
challenge.
The event underscored that African leaders have already made firm commitments towards
improving Africa’s capacity to generate data and information required for evidence-based
decision-making and tracking of progress. It also confirmed FSIN’s important role as a neutral
broker and global advocate for developing sustainable, evidence-based information systems to
support the food and nutrition security and resilience agendas. In particular, it gave FSIN a clear
mandate to continue delivering on its three operational components:
serving as a platform for sharing “good” practices amongst FSN practitioners;
promoting harmonization of food and nutrition security information and analysis; and
facilitating related capacity development.
Participants representing 28 African countries, regional institutions (AUC, IGAD and CILSS), as well
as development partners, academia, NGOs and the private sector made a number of
recommendations to the AU Commission and FSIN to ensure that the right data are available to
meet the goals mentioned above. The FSIN Secretariat will incorporate these recommendations,
as appropriate, in its 2016 work plan after consulting with key stakeholders on agreed priority
activities, related resource requirements and timing. Subsequently, a validation workshop will be
held with the AUC, FAO, IFPRI, WFP and other relevant organizations in early 2016 to update the
FSIN vision, objectives, activities and governance structures.
20
Appendices
Final agenda
DAY 1 – Tuesday 17 November
08.30 – 9.00 Registration, Conference Room
09.00 – 9.30 Welcoming remarks by
Amadou Diallo Allahoury, FAO Representative in Ethiopia
John Aylieff, WFP Country Director, Ethiopia
Michele McNabb, FEWS NET Program Manager, USAID
Thierry Negre, Head of the Food Security Group, EC/JRC
9.30 – 9.45 Introduction to the conference process, objectives and panels by
Kostas Stamoulis, FAO Strategic Programme Leader, Food Security and
Nutrition
Panel 1 – Food and Nutrition Security Analysis: Data availability, access, and analysis
9:45 – 9:50 Panel 1 Introduction by
Panel chair Samson Bel-Aube Nougbodohoue, Statistician, AUC
9:50 – 10.10 Panel 1 Presentation by
Author Dr. Uma Lele, Independent Scholar and Development Economist,
United States and India, and Chair of FSIN TWG on Measuring Food and
Nutrition Security
10.10 – 10.45 Panel 1 Feedback from panellists
10.45 – 11.00 Coffee Break
11.00 – 11.15 Recap and opening of the plenary discussion by
Panel chair Samson Bel-Aube Nougbodohoue, Statistician, AUC
11.15 – 12.30 Plenary Discussion (Outcome: Initial recommendations)
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch
Panel 2 – Resilience Analysis: Data availability, access, and analysis
14.00 – 14.05 Panel 2 Introduction by
Panel chair Tesfaye Besha, IGAD Resilience Analysis Unit (RAU)
Coordinator
14.05 – 14.25 Panel 2 Presentation by
Author Mark Constas, Associate Professor, Cornell University, and Chair
of the FSIN TWG on Resilience Measurement
14.25 – 15.00 Panel 2 Feedback from panellists
15.00 – 15.15 Recap and opening of the plenary discussion by
Panel chair Tesfaye Besha, IGAD Resilience Analysis Unit (RAU)
Coordinator
15.15 – 16.00 Plenary Discussion (Outcome: Initial recommendations)
21
16.00 – 16.30 Coffee break
16.30 – 17.00 Recap of day 1, next steps and closing remarks by
Kostas Stamoulis
DAY 2 – Wednesday 18 November
09.00 – 09.15 Opening and introduction to panels 3 and 4 by
Kostas Stamoulis
Panel 3 – Data governance and institutional capacities
09.15 – 09.20 Panel 3 Introduction by
Panel chair Issa Bikienga, Coordonnateur de la Cellule technique
régionale AGIR, CILSS
09.20 – 09.40 Panel 3 Presentation by
Author Naman Keita, Independent Consultant, Former Head of the
Global Agricultural Statistics Initiative
09.40 – 10.15 Panel 3 Questions for panellists
10.15 – 10.45 Coffee Break
10.45 – 11.00 Recap and opening of the plenary discussion by
Panel chair Issa Bikienga, Coordonnateur de la Cellule technique
régionale AGIR, CILSS
11.00 – 13.00 Plenary Discussion (Outcome: Initial recommendations)
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
Panel 4 – Filling the gaps by exploiting innovation around data production, data
collection and data sharing
14.00 – 14.15 Panel 4 Introduction by
Panel Chair Samson Bel-Aube Nougbodohoue, Statistician, AUC
14.15 – 14.30 Panel 4 Presentation by
Author Prof. Peter Zeil, Seconded National Expert working as a Policy
Officer at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Internal
Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW)
14.30 – 15.00 Panel 4 Questions for panellists
15.00 – 15.15 Recap and opening of the plenary discussion by
Panel chair Samson Bel-Aube Nougbodohoue, Statistician, AUC
15.15 – 16.00 Plenary Discussion (Output: Initial recommendations)
16.00 – 16.30 Coffee break
16.30 – 17.00 Recap of day 2, next steps and closing remarks by
Kostas Stamoulis
17.00 – 17.30 Presentation on El Niño: The Story So Far and What to Expect Next
Arif Husain, Chief Economist and Deputy Director, Policy, Programmes
and Analysis Division, WFP
22
DAY 3 – Thursday 19 November
09.00 – 09.15 Opening of day 3 and summary of day 1 and 2
09.15 – 11.00 Four Working Group sessions based on the panel discussions to phrase key
recommendations, moderated by the four panel chairs
11.00 – 11.15 Coffee Break
11.15 – 13.00 Panel chairs’ presentations of the recommendations in the plenary
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
14.00 – 15.30 Plenary discussion and comments (Outcome: Consensus on major
recommendations)
15.30 – 16.00 Coffee Break
16.00 – 16.45 Recap and summary on the way forward
16.45 – 17.00 Closing remarks
23
List of participants
Speakers, authors, chairs and panelists3
Surname Name Organization Title
Speakers
Stamoulis Kostas FAO Director, Strategic Programme Leader, Food Security and
Nutrition
Diallo Allahoury Amadou FAO FAO Representative in Ethiopia
Aylieff John WFP WFP Country Representative for Ethiopia
McNabb Michele USAID FEWS NET Program Manager at USAID
Thierry Negre JRC Head of the Food Security Group in the Monitoring
Agricultural Resources Unit
Panel 1
Lele Uma Independent Scholar and Development Economist
Yeo Dossina AUC, Addis Ababa Head of the Statistics Division
Kanisio Lefuk Dr. John South Sudan Secretary General of the Republic of South Sudan Food
Security Council (RSSFSC) at the Office of the President
Mawuli Sablah FAORAF Nutrition Officer
Covic Namukolo IFPRI Research Coordinator in the Poverty, Health and Nutrition
Division
Lacey Michelle Tulane University Associate Professor of Mathematics and Biostatistics
Panel 2
Constas Mark Cornell University Associate Professor, Cornell University
Besha Tesfaye RAU/IGAD Technical Coordinator
Mattioli Laura Global Resilience
Partnership, KPMG
Impact Director
Tefera Nigussie EC-JRC Scientific Officer
Griffin Tiffany USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor
Russo Luca FAO Senior Economist
Vuhurumuku Elliott WFP Regional VAM Adviser
Panel 3
Keita Naman Independent Consultant, Former Head of the Global
Agricultural Statistics Initiative
Bikienga Issa Secrétariat
Exécutif CILSS
Coordonnateur CT-Agir
Mane Erdgin FAO, Rome Statistician
Husain Arif WFP, Rome Chief Economist and Deputy Director, Policy and
Programme Division
Zezza Alberto World Bank Senior Economist, Development Research Group
Lokosang Laila AUC, Addis Ababa CAADP Adviser (Food & Nutrition Security), Rural Economy
and Agriculture Department
Isaacson Bruce USAID/FEWS NET Chief of Party
3 The bios of the speakers, authors, chairs and panellists are available at the Consultation web page.
24
Panel 4
Zeil Prof. Peter EC Directorate-
General for
Internal Market,
Industry,Entrepren
eurship and SMEs
(DG GROW)
Seconded National Expert working as a Policy Officer
Bel-Aube Nougbodohoue
Samson
AUC, Addis Ababa Statistician
Macharia
Muthike
Denis Regional Center
for Mapping of
Resources for
Development
(RCMRD)
Thematic Leader of the Climate, Weather, Disasters
Portfolio, SERVIR Eastern and Southern Africa
McNabb Michele USAID Programme Manager
Bauer Jean-Martin WFP, Rome Programme Officer
Tscheko Prof. Rejoice Botswana College
of Agriculture,
Gaborone
Associate Professor in Biosystems Engineering, Department
Agriculture Engineering and Land Planning
Bernard Marc AfricaRice Head, Knowledge Management Unit
Participants
Country Surname Name Organization Title
South Sudan Aba William Olami Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Tourism, Animal
Resources, Fisheries,
Cooperatives and Rural
Development
IDDRSI coordinator
Kenya Abdel-Rahman, Dr. Elfatih
Mohamed
International Center for Insect
Physiology and Ecology
Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Geo-information
and Modeling Unit
South Africa Adam, Dr. Elhadi University of
The Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg
School of Geography, Archaeology and
Environmental Studies
Ghana Afram Asuo Ghana Statistical Service Head of Economic Statistics Directorate and
Senior Expert on Agriculture Statistics
Sudan Al Hassan Fatima Food Security Technical
Secretariat
Ethiopia Alemu Alemtsehai WFP, Ethiopia Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Officer
Mauritania Alioune Gueye
South Africa Ayele, Dr. Dawit Getnet University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Pietermaritzburg
Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Applied
Statistics, School of Mathematics, Statistics and
Computer Science
Sudan Beraki Yergalem FAO office Sudan Officer in Charge, Food Security Policy and
Strategy Capacity Building Programme (FSPS)
Benin Biaou Abraham National Statistics Office of
Benin
Senior Statistician (Agriculture Statistics)
Burkina Faso Bikienga Issa Secrétariat Exécutif CILSS Coordonnateur CT-Agir
Biru Nigist FEWS NET Regional Technical Manager, East Africa
25
Mozambique Buene Dino SETSAN - NVAC
Zimbabwe Butaumocho Blessing Food and Nutrition Council Head of Programmes
Angola Caliengue Ermelinda Ministry of Agriculture Technico Superior
Calvert Owen ICF International Project Director
Kenya Diang’a Evaline Kimetrica - FEWS NET Technical
Support Project, Kenya
Technical Advisor and Deputy Chief of Party
Ghana Dieudonné Nzamba University of Ghana Associate Researcher on Agricultural
Development
Senegal Diop Mody Conseil National de Sécurité
Alimentaire
Assistant Secrétaire Exécutif (Surveillance et du
Suivi des Indicateurs de Sécurité Alimentaire)
Mali Doumbia Seydou Institut National de la
Statistique
Chef de Division des Statistiques Agricoles
Chad Dreni-Mi, Mr. Mahamat
Djimé
Ministère de l’Agriculture Directeur de la Production Agricole et des
Statistiques
Liberia Dweh Augustin S. Ministry of Agriculture
Sudan El Tayeb Osman Aziza General Directorate for
Agricultural Planning - Food
Security Department
Kenya Forsen Yvonne WFP kenya Head of Programme/M&E VAM, Kenya – also a
Nutritionist
Namibia Jakob Alice Ministry of Agriculture, Water
and Forestry: Domestic Agro-
Industry Development
Agro-Business Analyst
Somaliland Jama Hassan Ministry of Planning Director of Statistics
KRISHNASWAMY Siddarth WFP Uganda VAM Officer, Uganda
Malawi Matale Enock Ministry of Agriculture,
Irrigation and Water
Development, Planning
Department, Statistics Unit
Statistician
South Africa Mdladla, Ms. Phumzile FEWS NET
Uganda Menyha Emmanuel Uganda Bureau of Statistics Principal Statistician in the Directorate of
Agriculture and Environment Statistics
Zambia Mofu Musonda J. National Food and Nutrition
Commission
Deputy Executive Director
Somalia Molla Daniel Food Security and Nutrition
Analysis Unit (FSNAU)
Chief Technical Advisor
Gabon Moussone Emmanuel University Omar Bongo Senior Expert on Agriculture Statistics
Tanzania Msaki Mark Food Security Analyst
Kenya Munro Tate Regiona Resilience Adviser Mercy Corps – Resilience Hub for East and
Southern Africa
Uganda Muwanika Abdul Principal Economist M&E,
Department of M&E, Office of
the Prime Minister
IDDRSI and M&E working group members
Kenya Mwangi John Kihiu National Drought Management
Association (NDMA)
Information Manager
Tanzania Mzee Mzee
Mohamed
Ministry of Agriculture and
Natural Resources
Head, Agricultural Statistics Unit
Ethiopia Negash Selamawit UNICEF Ethiopia Nutrition Specialist
Ethiopia Negussie Fikre UNICEF Ethiopia Nutrition Specialist
26
South Africa Ngwenya Lucky Statistics South Africa Head of ASSD Secretariat and Executive
Manager of the International Statistical
Development and Cooperation
South Africa Odero Andrew WFP Johannesburg regional
bureau
WFP Regional Vam Advisor
South Africa Pillay Laven Xcallibre Managing Director of Xcallibre and Expert on
Data Collection on Agricultural Statistics
Djibouti Rachid, Dr. Elmi IDDRSI coordinator
Ethiopia Shitaye Edmealem IDDRSI coordinator
Zimbabwe Takawira Delilah FAOZW Nutrition and Food Safety Officer
Zimbabwe Tendai Mugara FAOZW M&E Officer
Truebswasser Ursula EC-NAS
Benin Vlavonou Firmin Enseignant chercheur
South Sudan Wanjohi Kamau FAOSS
Rembold Felix EC-JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Monitoring Agricultural Resources Unit
Nigusso Fikadu WFP, RBN Senior Programme Associate
Rapporteurs
Surname Name Organization Title Email
Hoskins Alexis WFP FSIN Secretariat Coordinator alexis.hoskins@wfp.org
Signorini Cecilia WFP Capacity Development
Consultant, FSIN Secretariat
cecilia.signorini@wfp.org
Antonaci Lavinia FAO Food Security Analyst, FSIN
Secretariat
lavinia.Antonaci@fao.org
Kiermeier Michèle FAO Coordination and M&E
Specialist, FSIN Secretariat
michele.Kiermeier@fao.org
McGuire Mark FAO Senior Programme Coordinator,
Economic and Social
Development Department
mark.mcguire@fao.org