2.2 The terms of reference
2.3 The phases of the case study
2.4 Stages of the case study
2.5 External review
The relationships between growth in food demand, urban spatial expansion, urban poverty and FSDS efficiency and dynamism are analysed by means of a case study.
The case study intends to facilitate the formulation of technically sound food supply and distribution (FSD) policies, strategies and programmes, at regional, metropolitan, urban and local level (or at urban, periurban and rural level) with clear institutional responsibilities and in a spirit of partnership between the private and public sectors combined with collaboration between central and local government institutions. These include specific private-sector, low-cost FSD arrangements to target the urban poor,
The case study sets the following immediate objectives:
1. identify current and future constraints to FSDS efficiency and dynamism in the city concerned;Basic assumptions
2. define the remedial measures needed to promote the development and modernization of food supply and distribution systems (FSDSs).
1. Present constraints affecting FSDSs are either the cause of additional FSD costs or missed opportunities for economies;The above assumptions may be accompanied or replaced by others. For instance, a citys growth may fall second to market control by the traders, lack of infrastructure, barriers to entry, lack of private initiative, and legal as well as regulatory restrictions to trade.
2. urban growth and the growth of urban food needs will lead to a further rise in FSD costs;
3. direct or indirect measures on FSDSs are implemented by public (e.g. central or local government) or para-statal institutions with insufficient knowledge of FSDSs, and with an inadequate policy and strategic approach.
Table 2.1 Who is Interested in an FSDS Case Study?
The urban context:
Urban food demand and food insecurity:
Food supply to cities subsystem:
Costs, profits and margins.
Social costs and negative
Urban food distribution subsystem:
Costs, profits and margins.
Social costs and negative externalities.
Policies, programmes and institutions:
The city in ten years time.
The "status quo" scenario.
The "desirable" scenario.
Comparison of the scenarios.
CHAPTER 1: THE URBAN, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
Content: description of the urban, socioeconomic, institutional and regulatory context of the issues concerned.
CHAPTER 2: PRESENT-DAY URBAN FOOD DEMAND AND FSDSS
Description of present-day urban food demand, types of FSDS structures and players (public and private), their organization, operation, stability, fragility, performance and efficiency in meeting urban consumers food requirements.
In principle, all the food groups are to be taken into account: cereals, fruits and vegetables, roots and tubers, meat and dairy products, fresh and dried fish, and products processed and dried by traditional methods. Groups of products will be included in the analysis on the basis of their importance in consumers diets and the financial and human resources available for implementing the study.
CHAPTER 3: THE CITY AND ITS FSDS THE FUTURE
Projections of the city ten years into the future and analyses of whether and how the FSDSs will be able to meet the urban consumers food requirements (in terms of volume, quality, stability, services and costs). It analyses the possible implications of urban growth and the socio-economic factors on FSDS structure, organization and performance.
The aims of this analysis are:
1. determine whether there is a correlation between urban growth and socio-economic factors on the one hand, and FSDS efficiency and dynamism on the other;This analysis will be based on simple assumptions which will help to define two scenarios:
2. identify the processes of change, adaptation and modernization (exogenous and endogenous, spontaneous and induced) which the FSDSs must adopt in the short, medium and long terms in order to meet urban food requirements adequately.
1. a "status quo" scenario which projects current trends concerning the city (urban space, poverty mapping, urban food demand) and FSDSs into the future (say ten years) assuming no corrective interventions;CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2. a "desirable" (but realistic) scenario which simulates the situation in an FSDS in ten years. It outlines which structure, which type of spatial and functional organization, which system of operation (infrastructure, facilities and services) and which level of performance of FSDSs will best meet urban food demand at a given time and with a given spatial urban development.
Clear, succinct and operational conclusions and recommendations.
Steps in developing the case study
1. Define the organization of the present FSDS and the way it functions;To undertake the above steps, it is necessary to:
2. translate the perception of the various problems currently observed into a number of specific questions about the city and its FSDSs;
3. identify and prioritize the constraints affecting the FSDS;
4. collect, organize and analyse information and data using an interdisciplinary methodology;
5. identify, analyse, select and assign priority to the possible solutions;
6. define the development objectives and strategies;
7. recognize, choose and designate the requisite accompanying selected measures.
Table 2.3 Example of Institutional Responsibilities by Geographic Area
As responsibility for the development of each geographic area is usually shared between different institutions (see following), the preparation of geographic subprogrammes facilitates the assignment of specific institutional responsibilities for the implementation of the development programme.
Improvement measures on the FSDSs will interest urban, periurban and rural areas (or local, urban, metropolitan and regional levels) in which numerous institutions intervene (see Table 2.3).
Effective interinstitutional cooperation is imperative if one is to:
Interinstitutional cooperation could be eased through the establishment of interinstitutional study groups (ISG) (see § A3.2.5) to focus on specific issues and an interinstitutional steering committee (ISC) (see A5.2).
The TORs contain all the information needed to implement the study (see Table 2.4). It is possible to map out an efficient research path suited to the city and its FSDSs. This is a dynamic process requiring continuous review of the TORs.
The general TORs in Annex 2 need to be adapted to local conditions by the body responsible for the study and/or by the ISC and by the interdisciplinary team members.
Table 2.4 Terms of Reference
The terms of reference must include:
2.3.1 Phase 1: the pre-case study
2.3.2 Phase 2: the case study proper
The case study is carried out in two phases: the "pre-case study" (phase 1) with an overall view of the issues, and a more in-depth analysis called: "the case study proper" (phase 2) (see Figure 2.1).
The objectives of the pre-case study are:
1. to understand the overall structure and operation of the FSDS to the city and assess its overall efficiency and dynamism;Expected outputs
2. to identify the major issues, constraints and possible solutions at urban, periurban and rural level, bearing in mind the citys anticipated growth;
3. to identify those aspects requiring a more detailed examination during phase 2;
4. encourage interinstitutional participation in phase 2.
Phase 1 should produce:
1. general assessment of FSDS structure, performance, constraints, their causes and possible solutions
The results should be:
2. issues for further investigation
A list will be compiled of the problems, critical points and constraints surrounding FSDSs about which information is lacking, and the ad hoc studies required to be undertaken in phase 2. It will therefore be necessary to pinpoint such issues:
Proposals will contain:
The pre-case study may commence by categorizing past and expected urban physical expansion, poverty distribution, urban food needs, extent of urban household food insecurity; location, using maps, of main supply areas, food transport axes and urban markets. The process gradually expands to cover institutional responsibilities as well as past, present and planned interventions. Although it may not be possible to cover all the items included in the general TORs, the description and analysis should suffice to show the complexity and interrelationships between the various FSDS elements. Major constraints are identified as well as problems requiring immediate solution. Problems and constraints should not simply be listed but presented as sets interconnected at critical points. Key areas for further investigation should also be identified.
Phase 1 comprises five main stages:
1. collection of information and data (see § 2.4.1);Figure 2.1 How the Phases of the Case Study are Linked
2. analysis of information and data (see § 2.4.2);
3. analysis of FSDSs, identification of constraints, critical points and solutions (see § 2.4.3);
4. identification of specific issues for further investigation (see § 2.4.2);
5. external review (see § 2.5).
Phase 1 should not exceed twelve weeks/man.
During phase 2, there will be:
1. an expansion of the general assessment of FSDSs undertaken during the pre-case study;Objectives
2. studies of specific topics, the need for which was identified during the pre-case study;
3. pre-feasibility assessments of proposed major infrastructure investments.
The aims of the case study proper are to:
1. facilitate consensus by all concerned institutions on proposed interventions;Expected outputs
2. facilitate the formulation of urban FSD policies, strategies and development programmes, at regional, metropolitan, urban and local level (or at urban, periurban and rural level) based on a technically sound analytical framework.
Phase 2 should produce:
1. technically sound and sustainable remedial measures to address the constraints affecting FSDSs and support their development to meet growing urban food needs;The lack of adequate food containers can encumber the development of micro and small food processing enterprises in hygienic conditions.
2. a document consolidating the FSDS constraint analysis and selected remedial measures;
3. proposals for specific low-cost FSD arrangements to target the urban poor.
Phase 2 comprises seven stages:
1. collection of information and data (see § 2.4.1);Duration
2. analysis of scenarios (see § 2.2.2);
3. in-depth analysis of specific FSD issues (see § 2.4.2) including present and future FSD specific issues and constraints and their causes (see § 2.5.3);
4. identification and pre-feasibility of public and private infrastructure investment needs and opportunities (see A5.3, 5.7 and 5.8 and Tracey-White, 1999);
5. external review (see § 2.6).
The duration of phase 2 depends on the work to be done, the size of the city, the complexity of its FSDS, the amount and quality of the data required, the surveys to be completed, the funds available and the available technical and financial resources.
Non motorized transport helps keep food prices low, provides employment for young and poor people and does not pollute but contributes to traffic congestion in and around markets.
2.4.1 Collection of information and data
2.4.2 Analysis of information and data
2.4.3 Analysis of problems, constraints, critical points and remedial measures
Required information can be collected by:
This guide does not review the several methods of analysis. An interdisciplinary methodological approach is introduced in Annex 1. Those responsible for carrying out the study will develop individual and group methodologies.
If the problems are identified without assessing their relative importance or urgency, solutions put forward without assessing feasibility or sustainability in time, remedial measures proposed without adequate knowledge of their efficiency, impact and realism, the teams efforts will be rendered null. The proposals for FSDS policies, strategies and programmes will be left on the shelf. The validity, acceptance, implementation and impact of the proposals on food security depend on this process. It is imperative to adopt appropriate, selective criteria.
Information is handled as follows:
The analysis of the problems, constraints and critical points follows the relationship:
PROBLEM ® CAUSES ® CONSEQUENCES ® REMEDIAL MEASURES
The criteria to be adopted for problem analysis, selecting and prioritizing remedial measures are relative and not absolute. A5.6.1 and A5.6.2 suggest a pragmatic approach to problem identification and how to grade the problems by priority.
There are a number of criteria for selecting remedial measures, investment projects and support measures. These shall depend on the complexity of any given remedial measure. Some general criteria are suggested in A5.5.3 See A.4.7 and A5.8 and Tracey-White (2000) for criteria relating to decisions in market infrastructure investment.
In order to judge the time needed for each group of remedial measures, or each individual measure, the following elements must be borne in mind:
Source: Seck et al., 1997b.
2.5.1 Phase 1: submission of results
2.5.2 Phase 1 and 2: discussion of specific topics
2.5.3 Phase 2: submission of results
There will be external reviews so the team can submit its analysis as well as preliminary and final proposals. External reviews are an opportunity to obtain the opinions of the concerned social groups, the eventual "official" approval by the interested institutions and pave the way for beneficiaries and institutions to participate in the implementation of the proposed programmes.
For details about:
Workshops should last no more than one day. Workshop reports should be widely distributed among all concerned institutions, organizations and associations.
Table 2.6 Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries of Remedial Measures
The «direct beneficiaries» of an intervention could be the staff of the public and private institutions directly involved in the programme.
The «indirect beneficiaries» are the groups of people whose situation it is hoped to improve, e.g. the most deprived urban consumers, food traders and transporters.
It is important to identify the target groups and describe
their main characteristics (socio-economic, demographic and occupational) and
most urgent needs, and show how beneficiaries will effectively reap the
At the end of phase 1, a short issues paper will be prepared summarizing and outlining the content of all the documents prepared. This paper should be distributed to the participants a few days before each workshop.
Table 2.7 Layout of the Final Version of the Case Study
During both phases, there should be technical discussions on specific topics (e.g.: SME development; FSD legislation and regulations; wholesale market development, retail outlets development, urban and periurban food production). The aim of each workshop is to show the progress made, submit the interim results of the teams work and present the measures proposed in relation to a specific topic. Direct and indirect beneficiaries will be invited to attend, particularly policy makers and senior planners and representatives of concerned private sector organizations.
Maximum time will have to be devoted to obtaining the views of different interest groups.
The final version of the case study could be structured as suggested in Table 2.7.
A final workshop should review the diagnosis and the FSD policy, strategy and development programme proposals. The aim is to:
1. A general, standard formulation of the type: "The relevant authorities are urged to take all necessary action in order to..." must be avoided. It says nothing.
2. For an annotated bibliography on FSDSs, see Aragrande and Farolfi, 1997 and Aragrande, 1997.
3. Should more detailed surveys be necessary, they should be proposed as an aspect for further analysis to be undertaken during phase 2, or as an activity in the FSD development programme.