1 / 14

Formation of Food Security Working Groups

Formation of Food Security Working Groups. FSTS Training on Food Security Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) 25 – 27 October 2010. Food Insecurity – Multi-sectoral Dimension. Successful strategies to eliminate food insecurity combines these diverse sectors.

edythe
Download Presentation

Formation of Food Security Working Groups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Formation of Food Security Working Groups FSTS Training on Food Security Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) 25 – 27 October 2010

  2. Food Insecurity – Multi-sectoral Dimension Successful strategies to eliminate food insecurity combines these diverse sectors

  3. Formation of Food Security Working Group • One possible mechanism for generating an integrated food security analysis: • To establish independent structures dedicated to gathering and analyzing a wide range of food security data?? • Two major disadvantages of independent structures: • They tend to be very costly to operate • They are often completely independent of national structure • Not Sustainable – heavy loaded institutional setup creates dependency…

  4. Solution is Interdependent Coordination Group? • Because of complex livelihood crises - requiring a range of strategies and responses that cut across mandates and institutions • Minimizes inadequate knowledge and helps to understand interlocking vulnerabilities and encourages multi-sectoral responses • Strengthens the capacity of the government by ensuring timely and accurate warning to initiate early and appropriate responses Light weighted office structure- advantages of networking

  5. Advantages … • Ensures continuous early warning information exchange between the EWS and different agencies • Increase consensus between donors, humanitarian agencies and the Government on emergency needs and how to address them • Aavoids duplication of data collection by decreasing establishment of parallel system – helps to keep costs at a minimum • Increase participation in and use of the results of the government-led working groups by other partners • Helps to develop an appropriate quantitative andstandard methodology – creates the necessary platform for policy related discussions

  6. Advantages … • Increases credibility when preceded by a consensus based planning process • Ensures a demand for routine data exchange network to facilitate a smooth information exchange • Improves connectivity between federal line ministries and states/localities • Helps to follow up on response, analyze gaps and update and circulate information to decision makers as required

  7. Linkages b/n National & Sub-national FSIS • FSIS is increasingly needed to support decision making at the local level. • By building the capacity of the decentralized FSIS • Appropriate institutional relationships between national and sub-national information system activities • Mostly it is vertically integrated with data collected at lower administrative levels

  8. Sub-sectors and Focal Points • Possible sectoral sub-working groups and their possible chairs: • Agriculture and Livestock – possible chair- MoAF, MoARF and/or FAO • Water and Environmental Sanitation – possible chair MoWR, and/or UNICEF • Health and Nutrition – possible chair MoH and/or UNICEF • Food and Consumption – possible chair HAC, MoT, MoAF, SMA, MoFNE and/or WFP • Education and other demographic issues – possible chair - Ministry of Education, CBS, MoIC, MoSW and/or NPC • Sectoral working group chairs of the government will serve as focal points for food security/livelihood working group

  9. Potential membership • Membership should be open to all government and non-government agencies and organizations directly working on FS • Government line ministry members may include MoAF, CBS, SMSO, Mapping Authority, HAC, MoFNE, NIC, MoH, MoWR, etc. • Core members outside the government may include: UN/OCHA and/or RCO, WFP, UNICEF, FAO,USAID, EC, etc. • NGOs: CARE, SC-UK, SC-USA, CRS, OXFAM, World Vision, ERCS, AOAD, FHI, Goal, etc. • Similar structures are recommended for Federal and State levels

  10. Major Activities of the working groups • The activities of the Food Security and/or livelihood Working Group can be defined via annual work-planning process. • Review of the Sudan food security monitoring system with the aim of developing a single standardized approach • Ensure coordination and coherence between the various information systems of the Government • Review, advise and develop a standing system of sectoral and cross-sectoral coordination at federal and state levels. • Providing technical advice and guidance on food security and drought mgt to the Government, donors and partners.

  11. Sustainability • The leadership of the government should be ensured and well articulated • Without Government leadership, other agencies would continue to lead sectors to their own objectives. • This is now functioning in uncoordinated manner and has the potential to result in more debate and less consensus • Best example – Case of Kadugli – DG chairing FSLCG

  12. Possible Constraints • Lack of sustained commitment and resource and capacity (human and financial resources) • Hence strong support required, at least at its initial stages • Institutional agenda may sometimes set in • Frequency of lengthy meetings may increase • Network partners may not always conform to deadlines

  13. Thank You

More Related