fsin-auc technical consultation › fileadmin › user_upload › fsin › docs › fsin-auc...2)...

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

http://www.fsincop.net/fileadmin/user_upload/fsin/docs/FSIN-AUC_Technical_Consultation_Concept_Note.pdf

http://www.fsincop.net/fsin-auc/en/

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 undernutrition; (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.


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.



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


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.


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.


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.



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


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.


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.


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.



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


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


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


Panel chair Tesfaye Besha, IGAD Resilience Analysis Unit (RAU)

Coordinator


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


Panel chair Issa Bikienga, Coordonnateur de la Cellule technique

régionale AGIR, CILSS


Author Naman Keita, Independent Consultant, Former Head of the

Global Agricultural Statistics Initiative

09.40 – 10.15 Panel 3 Questions for panellists



Panel chair Issa Bikienga, Coordonnateur de la Cellule technique

régionale AGIR, CILSS


13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

Panel 4 – Filling the gaps by exploiting innovation around data production, data

collection and data sharing


Panel Chair Samson Bel-Aube Nougbodohoue, Statistician, AUC


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



15.15 – 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


11.15 – 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)


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.

http://www.fsincop.net/fileadmin/user_upload/fsin/docs/FSIN-AUC_Technical_Consultation_Bios.pdf

http://www.fsincop.net/fsin-auc/en/

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 [email protected]

Signorini Cecilia WFP Capacity Development

Consultant, FSIN Secretariat

[email protected]

Antonaci Lavinia FAO Food Security Analyst, FSIN

Secretariat

[email protected]

Kiermeier Michèle FAO Coordination and M&E

Specialist, FSIN Secretariat

[email protected]

McGuire Mark FAO Senior Programme Coordinator,

Economic and Social

Development Department

[email protected]

fsin-auc technical consultation › fileadmin › user_upload › fsin › docs › fsin-auc...2)...

Documents