In the fourth stage, all the available data and analyses are deployed and a suitable system for the country proposed in the framework of a highly participatory process. First of all, a survey of the users (often also called "recipients" or "customers") of food security information is carried out. From the results of the survey, what is "available" (in terms of data) can be compared with what is "useful", and an optimal and sustainable system set up. This gradual deployment should involve the working groups and the national FSIEWS team who will then be able to propose the optimal and sustainable system they have developed together at a national workshop.
There is a multiplicity of useful information on the four food security monitoring components (availability, stability, access, biological utilization), but it is not always available in the services that oversee its collection (the "information providers"), either in the form of raw data, or (even less likely) in a more refined form. Moreover, some of this data may seem superfluous to policy makers and other food security information users (often also called "recipients"). The survey of potential users helps to clarify precise individual requirements, in respect of both how the information is prepared for use, its periodicity and medium. Once the requirements are known FSIEWS staff can select the data to be collected, define the database, the control panel, the method for circulating information, the information products and the media for publishing and disseminating information.
A participatory approach is recommended for the preparation of the questionnaires, since this guarantees a constructive dialogue with users, who are key to the system's sustainability, right from the establishment of the FSIEWS. It is a good idea to develop a partially-guided questionnaire comprising closed and open questions, since it offers a good compromise between the need for precise answers and the need to complete the survey in a short space of time.
The content of the questionnaire depends on the status of the FSIEWS when the survey is carried out. Are there any constraints regarding the dissemination of information? What are the problems of the users? The assistance or collaboration that can be expected at a later date from each member can also be clarified. A questionnaire of about ten questions, spread over between one and three pages (50 to 80 variables) gives a reasonable length of interview.
Example of the first part of a questionnaire drawn up for
the National Early Warning System
(SNAR) in Cameroon
RECIPIENT IDENTIFICATION ORGANIZATION:/____________________________/___/___/___/ CATEGORY:/________________________________/___/ ZONE:/____________________________________/___/___/ Interview team: /__________________/___/___/ Date of survey: __________________________/___/___/___/___/___/__/ Date of entry_____________________________/___/___/___/___/___/___/ Q1 Question N° 1: Are you familiar with any FSIEWS publications? __________________/___/ Q2 Question N°2: Do you receive information from FSIEWS? _______________/___/ Q3 Question N°3: if YES, in what form or medium ? Q3a Monthly bulletin /______________/____/ Q3b Ad hoc reports /______________/___/ Q3c Radio broadcast /_______________/____/ Q3d Electronic media /______________/____/ Q4 Question N°4 Regarding the information you receive, Q4a is it regular? _______________________/___/ Q4b does it meet your needs?_______________________/___/ Q5 Question N° 5: What are your current sources of information on food security? Q5aPublication1/---------------------/____/ Q5a1 Body/----------------------/____/ Q5b Publication2/--------------------/____/ Q5b1 Body /---------------------/___/ Q5c Publication3/--------------------/____/ Q5c1 Body /---------------------/___/ Q5d Publication4 /-------------------/____/ Q5d1 Body /--------------------/____/ |
The survey sample is drawn from the list of recipients of information disseminated by the FSIEWS, where it already exists, or from a list drawn up by the MWG. In general, the representatives of organizations involved in food security at all levels should be surveyed: representatives of governments, NGOs, development partners, traders, associations of producers and consumers, etc. This list should then be compared with the list of subscribers to the bulletin (if there is one), target groups for information broadcasts on the radio and television, information provider services and all the regular recipients of information in all its forms. They are then regrouped into homogeneous categories according to their role in food security: consumers, producers, market operators, decision-makers, the media, donors, etc.
A preliminary letter should be sent out to all recipients describing the aims and expected results, and giving the schedule for the survey. Two options for replying to the questionnaire can be offered (by post, or by personal interview). The interview teams, with two researchers to a team, should carry out the survey according to the rules set down (optimal duration of one hour per interviewee, four interviews per day). The duration of the survey will therefore vary according to the number of teams used and the size of the sample. A half-day session is sufficient to train the survey teams. Training should focus on describing the aims of the questionnaires, ways of filling them in, scoring them, and checking the completed questionnaires. The researchers should preferably belong to the MWGs and the national team. Since the questionnaires are short and carefully targeted, it is a good idea if members of the national team participate in this survey as they can make sure the work is carried out properly and supply the team with results that it will certainly be able to use.
Depending on the size of the sample, the surveys may be collated manually or by computer. SPSSPC software, used in processing social data, has been used in some countries, but simple database software can also be used.
The main steps in computerized collation of the survey results are as follows:
Computer processing of results has the advantage of being faster. It means that the data can be used for other purposes with a precision that is difficult to obtain with manual processing.
The results of surveys of recipients carried out in some countries between 1996 and 1998 shared the following characteristics:
The table below gives a summary of the results of the surveys carried out among users in three West African countries with very different political, economic and social structures.
Information gathered from surveys carried out among
users of food security information in three countries in Africa
As mentioned above, the FSIEWS databases rely on the four "feeder" databases of the MWGs, to which are added databases containing more general information (population, employment, general economy, etc.). The MWGs are responsible for regularly updating their databases. The control panel is a forecasting tool. It therefore contains indirect indicators, trend analysis data, warning signals, etc. The central control panel is the responsibility of the secretariat, but it should always be set up and maintained in close collaboration with the lead managers of each MWG. It is generally desirable to set up a database and sometimes also a control panel at provincial level (see section 4 below). The circulation of information among the various structures is dealt with below in section 3.
There is a natural tendency to fill the databases of the food security information system with all the data officially collected by the information providers of the four food security monitoring components (production, marketing, vulnerable groups, nutrition) and then to integrate the specific indicators into the control panel. A number of difficulties are involved in such an approach since the data is not always regularly available from the collection services, and the information system can neither invent not estimate it. Moreover, this "information bulimia" gives rise to enormous unmanageable databases and useless duplication of the work of the provider services. In this context it is often better to leave well enough alone: quality is often inversely proportional to quantity.
By the same token, the control panel (on the basis of which forecasts are made) is not in a position to meet the needs of the users of this information, since in this case it is only an analysis (however compelling) of all the existing data. On the contrary, a better way to proceed is to first decide what is to be put in the control panel, taking into account the needs actually expressed by the users, and as a result adapt the volume and content of the database, which is necessary for developing and regularly updating the control panel.
The database and control panel should be established not on the basis of the mass of available information, but according to the users' needs as expressed in the survey.
The database and control panel should be based on clear criteria, defined by the results of the user (recipient or client) survey:
However, the FSIEWS should not by any means replace the providers of primary data, with whom specific agreements will be drawn up at a later date to guarantee a regular supply of information. The FSIEWS is an instrument for the synthesis, analysis and dissemination of carefully selected information. It is neither a data-collection system nor a sectoral analysis system.
The contents of the database and control panel, thus designed, will respond precisely to the information requirements of decision-makers at all levels, and will be protected from becoming unmanageably large. They will be updated more regularly, processed more efficiently, costs will be lower and the system more sustainable.
The set-up phase of the database and control panel involves the following steps:
It is very difficult, and, above all, not in the didactic grain, to propose ideal lists (of direct or indirect indicators, warning signals or other type of information) for setting up the food security database and control panel in a given country. Staple foods, national constraints (analysed in Stage 1), the available information in the country (Stages 2 and 3), and recipients' needs vary considerably from one country to another. Only through a highly participatory discussion process can an acceptable compromise be reached between the ideal control panel (including all useful information) and the obstacles to obtaining this information regularly and within an acceptable period of time. The diagram below provides reminders for setting up the database and control panel. It highlights the repetitive nature of the process, and indeed of the establishment of the entire FSIEWS. The database and the control panel should be proposed, discussed, approved, established, monitored, but above all, regularly reviewed and adapted.
An example of a database and control panel set-up plan for the FSIEWS in Chad is illustrated on the next page. The national team chose to present separately the indicators for the availability of staple foods, stability of supplies, access and biological utilization. This has the advantage of clearly defining each food security area, and by the same token of not overlooking anything important. It also leaves each MWG completely responsible for setting up and monitoring the feeder databases. It should however be noted that this particular set-up only applies to Chad.
Analysis of the information priorities revealed by the user survey (beginning of this chapter) can also be used to draw up a plan for the flow of data.
The plan should cover:
This should be established by the FSIEWS team working closely with representatives of the four MWGs and other information provider services (not members of a MWG).
The feasibility of this plan should be carefully evaluated while it is being developed. It is not just a question of establishing the most reliable methods of transmitting information to the FSIEWS: bottlenecks have to be clearly identified at each stage (no paper, roads flooded, recurrent power cuts, all of which can impede the flow of information through the system, and may require some adaptation to local conditions). Careful examination of these constraints should reveal whether it is necessary to give some methodological (or other) support to selected information services or provincial food security committees to enable them to transmit reliable data to the FSIEWS in good time. Many problems can be resolved with little cost by installing fax machines (providing there is a telephone network, of course).
This type of support will sometimes have to be governed by cooperative agreements (often called "agreement protocols"). Whatever the situation, the concerted effort involved in planning the flow of information should be sustained in the future, both to adapt to the FSIEWS' constantly changing information requirements, and to ensure its continued functioning and sustainability.
Plan of the flow of information between information providers and MWGs
(Using Chad as an example)
Plan of the flow of information between Regional Action Committees (CRA), MWGs and the FSIEWS (Using Chad as an example)
Note: The CASAGC is a decision-making authority involving government and donors that manages food crises. It functions as a national food security committee (NFSC).The CRA are decentralized multidisciplinary food security bodies roughly corresponding to the provincial committees (PFSC) mentioned in this book.
The application of the information flow plan can, as mentioned above, encounter problems caused by:
In some cases the information provider services (public, private or voluntary) may make payment for services a condition of their cooperation (a practice that is current in other projects, and even within institutions). It is essential that this problem is looked into and carefully dealt with by the National Food Security Committee.
A good information flow plan for a FSIEWS should be based on:
Example of a data-collection sheet for the FSIEWS database in the Sahel Collection date: ________________ Crop description: _______________ Crop code: _____________ | |||||
Year |
Prefecture Code |
Area (ha) |
Yield (kg/ha) |
Gross production (t) |
Source |
Type of crop: | ||
0: Other
|
1: Pennisetum |
2: Sorghum |
All the information received by the MWGs and the Provincial Committees (PFSC) should be accompanied by the minutes of the meetings of the two bodies responsible for collating the data. The minutes and a copy of the data should be filed by the FSIEWS documentation clerk. The data should also be put into the database and analysed for the control panel. Clearly the information has to be submitted to the FSIEWS in a format that it can use. Where Provincial Food Security Committees, MWGs and the FSIEWS are connected in a computer network or by modem, the format for the data-files can be agreed on so that they can be used directly in the format in which they arrive. Nevertheless, it often happens in developing countries that information sources are not uniformly equipped and the data may arrive in a number of formats (as mentioned in Section 2 above). Therefore standard data-collection forms have to be prepared in collaboration with the providers, which can be sent by fax, mail and modem or dictated via radio. While such forms may have to be adapted for every region or MWG, they should be easy to fill in and use.
It is essential to have powerful computers, usually connected in a network, equipped with a simple range of good software including as a minimum:
The computers must also have a good storage and back-up system, such as Iomega or Java ZIP (either on the hard drive or an external drive), or some other way of saving information, either on the network or CD-Rom.
The first step consists of developing a conceptual data model as a preliminary to creating the file structures.
To organize and structure the database a fixed number of files covering the different food security areas has to be created and the master items developed. There are two types of files: archive files (that are regularly updated) and reference files (coding list).
A user-friendly interface should be prepared by computer experts to facilitate access to the database so that users only need click on a screen button to perform a task. The first screen gives all the fields for managing the database (input masks, requests, file searches and print-out). This method allows users to quickly become familiar with the data-management systems installed and also makes checking tasks performed by unskilled users simpler.
The following example is a very approximate list of files for monitoring national situations; it includes a special documentation file:
List of prefectures, sub-prefectures and cantons
Transport infrastructure
Status of roads
GDP
GNP
Economic indicators
Macro-economy
Rainfall and PET monitoring
etc.
Population, resident
Population, by occupation
Population, by gender
Population, by age
Locust eradication: areas infested and treated
Crop development stage
Price paid to cereal crop growers
Agricultural production
Tuber production
Horticulture and fruit growing
Animal health (vaccinated animals)
Breeding inputs
Herds slaughtered
Milk production
Changes in size of herd
Changes in animal production
Coastal fishing
Main cash products having an indirect influence on food security
National fisheries production
List of fish varieties
Fish production by sector and by species
Imports of foodstuffs
Exports of foodstuffs
Food aid
List of donor countries
National trade in staple foods
Food stocks
Price of food products
Price of meat and milk
National trade in livestock: supply and sales
Price of animals on the hoof
Rainfall
List of stations
Status of grazing
Hydrology (level of rivers and lakes)
Forests
Water supply
Food consumption
Harvesting wild food
Number of meals per day
Urban and rural poverty
Malnutrition
Nutritional status (deficiency)
Statistics on diseases (children from 0 to 5 years)
Health monitoring
Average income by occupation
List of occupations
Unemployment rate
etc.
List of FSIEWS documents and documents available from other services
Users (of documentation)
Minutes of NFSC meetings
Monthly records of Provincial Committees
Bulletins etc.
The list is far from being complete. The practice in some countries of keeping data on the marketing of staples (both domestic and foreign) in the same file as production data is not very appropriate. The former information generally comes from the MIS, customs, the ministry of trade and the ministry of internal affairs, while the origin, periodicity and utilization of agricultural data is totally different.
A user's guide to the database should be prepared describing the relations between files, procedures for updating, adding, and modifying data, and data output. The guide should also describe all the procedures for managing data at the level of the Provincial Committees, the MWGs, and the FSIEWS.
If recommendations are followed and the computer programmes used by the FSIEWS are simple and easy to use, there should be no need for a full-time computer expert to see to its maintenance. Indeed it would be a serious error of judgement to take such a step, in that staff at the National Committee (including the FSIEWS team) would have no incentive to learn for themselves how the system is structured and works. When the systems are launched the assistance of a computer expert should be strictly limited to training staff at national level (how to use software and manage the system). The system can only function properly if the greatest possible number of managers is able to use it. It is, of course, necessary to arrange regular training/refresher courses and take out maintenance contracts for the computer equipment, peripherals and software, with the suppliers of the equipment.
Any inefficiencies brought to light58 in the analysis of information providers and that impede data-processing in these services should be addressed by developing a training programme for data-management staff (in particular data managers, lead managers of the MWGs and FSIEWS management) to ensure that information flows smoothly. The problems of services still using out-of-date equipment or manual processing should also be addressed.
The organization and timetable of regular meetings should be decided jointly by the FSIEWS team and the MWG lead managers. The data-collection sheets for updating the databases, the form of which will gradually be modified, will be examined during these meetings. The role of each in the publications/broadcasts (bulletins, radio broadcasts, etc.) will also be discussed.
Example of collated information | ||||
Information provider services |
Resources people |
Data supplied |
Processing software |
FSIEWS Files |
Agrometeorological Division |
Mbodj Cheikh |
Data on rainfall, grazing, yields, estimated sowing dates |
Climbase, DHC |
PLUVIO |
Agricultural and Livestock Statistics Division |
Nagi O/ Sabar |
Annual agricultural survey |
Processing done by the project |
DIERI |
Plant Resources Improvement Service |
Sidi M. O/Ndioubnane |
Data on damage |
No processing |
DEGAT |
ONS |
Saadna O/ Baheida |
Consumer indices with cereal prices curve for Nouakchott |
EXCEL |
INDICE |
CSA |
M. Mahmoud/Isselmou |
Cereal prices in Wilayas |
Processing done by rural information project (do not have MSOFFICE) |
PRIXCERE |
Port autonome de Nouakchott |
Diery Gueye |
Imports (Rice, wheat, flour) |
Do not have MSOFFICE |
PORT |
Planning unit/MDRE |
Abderrahim O/ Zein |
Irrigation |
Do not have MSOFFICE |
IRRIGUE |
Health and Social Affairs Ministry |
Corera Choibou |
Statistics on diseases |
Do not use MSOFFICE |
STATMAL |
Mauritanian Red Crescent |
Diallo |
Nutritional situation |
Do not use MSOFFICE |
NUTRITIO |
SONADER |
Ismail Ould Ahmed |
Irrigated crops |
Do not use MSOFFICE |
IRRIGUE |
FEWS |
SY Hamady Samba |
Vulnerable groups and zones |
Have MSOFFICE |
CARTE |
As mentioned at the end of Part One (section 5), the functioning of a FSIEWS depends on having direct contact with national food security decision-makers. In countries where there is serious chronic food insecurity, an interministerial committee will often coordinate food security activities. Donors, NGOs and other representatives of civil society, plus those involved in national food security, may participate in it as full members or as observers. The committee, which has been called National Food Security Committee in this handbook, but may be designated differently (food planning committee, national production committee, etc.), usually meets at regular intervals two or three times a year, during periods of high risk. It may also meet, at the request of the chairman (often the agriculture minister, or may even be the prime minister, as in Niger), to try to solve current food crises, but its main purpose is to assess the risks of future crises and propose ways of avoiding disasters. These committees usually include among their members senior representatives from: agriculture and livestock (for food production), customs (for imports and exports), trade (monitoring markets, infrastructure, transport, prices, supplies, etc.) social affairs (monitoring poverty and vulnerable groups), and health (health and nutrition monitoring). Representatives from planning, domestic affairs or education may also participate but this varies from country to country. They all have decision-making roles in the food security context and they are all providers and recipients of information. In addition, representatives of donor countries, who play a key role in food security, NGOs and civil society often participate in these committees.
The NFSC should be governed by specific statutes providing for a small number of compulsory meetings and extraordinary meetings convened at the request of the chairman or its members.
The secretariat should be a small service of three or four managers with a background that is complementary or additional (may include economics, sociology, agronomy, statistics); they should all have a good level of computer knowledge and be assisted by two members of staff for secretarial and documentation duties. The secretariat should naturally carry out all the normal routine work of such an office:
The NFSC secretariat is usually the focal point of the FSIEWS in the country.
The staff of the secretariat and the FSIEWS should be able to carry out the same tasks, although some members will have their own special fields. They should therefore all have received suitable training to enable them to: use and update the database and control panel; organize and keep the minutes of committee meetings; be familiar with and manage the records; prepare a bulletin or radio broadcast, etc. This flexible staff situation, which does not preclude staff members having individual specialized roles in the service, is essential to ensure a good overlap of skills (each staff member should have a clear understanding of the others' work and plan his/her own accordingly) and to cover for staff who are absent. It is essential in such a small group that the various functions can be carried out smoothly without compartmentalization.
A documentation unit is indispensable and should be managed, if possible, by someone with training in this field. Documentation includes:
As we saw above (first steps in setting up a FSIEWS), regular contact with those in charge of collecting and processing data in the field and at provincial or local level, is essential. The raw data is organized at regional level by extension, health, education, and market monitoring workers. They are the mainstay of primary information since they gather it in the field; they are also the only ones who can say whether the information is true or has been "manipulated".
A decentralized (provincial) food security committee (such as the CRA in Chad, or the provincial monitoring stations in other countries) should be set up both to promote the work of the field managers and improve the flow and control of data in the long-term. The committees should cover most of the fields of specialization to be found at central level and include representatives of major NGOs in the region, associations of traders, carriers, consumers, etc. Such a committee may be coordinated by the provincial administrative officer (which is often the case and seems to give the best results), or function independently.
The responsibilities of the Provincial Food Security Committees are to:
Depending on the population density, communication systems, and number of field managers, it may be necessary to organize several levels of local coordination among food security workers. For example, local committees could be set up in cantons or other small administrative units that have a market, and a provincial committee at prefecture or district level. Whatever system is chosen, it should comprise permanent members, those regularly involved in food security in the area covered, and represent all sectors. The information should be checked for consistency at provincial level before being collated and transmitted to the FSIEWS.
A system of the type illustrated below could be envisaged:
Clearly the proposed organization and the setting up of provincial and local committees presupposes the effective participation of all those involved in the system, who (and this is a key aspect) are both providers and recipients of information.
In due course a legal document should be drawn up (or other legislative method used) to regulate these decentralized committees (their composition, responsibilities, meetings, and the means at their disposal) and provide them with permanent statutes.
One of the main functions of such decentralized structures is to monitor food insecure groups. While there may be some overlap between other local data and national data (although still enabling the FSIEWS to better analyse such data), information on vulnerable groups is mainly local in origin.
The first formal relationship is based on the data-collection sheet the decentralized offices have to send every month (or with whatever regularity has been established) to the FSIEWS. The sheets, the form and content of which may change over time, are collated by the FSIEWS team, working closely with the focal points in the provinces. At regional level, FSIEWS focal points are often the chairpersons of the Provincial Committees although they may also be another member chosen by the Committee.
The data sheet may change as the system is gradually adapted and develops; it may also vary from one season to another (in keeping with the crop season or regularly occurring crisis points, for example) and from one province to another.
Decentralized structures should ideally be linked by modem to the FSIEWS. But obviously in areas where there is neither electricity nor telephone, communications can be maintained by radio or by sending roneoed documents with the pilot of an airplane, or by any other means adapted to the situation.
If there is a telephone (with a satellite connection for example) fax transmission is simple and cheap.
As was mentioned above, it can be a good idea to create Local Food Security Committees. It is necessary if the region is very big, the areas within it very different from each other, or if the local managers simply prefer this more decentralized form. In this case, its governing rules will have to be worked out and the local committees allocated their own resources.
The FSIEWS team prepares the tables of indicators for the database and the control panel with the active participation of the lead managers of the MWGs, the focal points, the provincial committees, and ensures the involvement of development partners (donors, NGOs, etc.). The tables and concrete proposals for setting up the FSIEWS should be discussed openly and validated at a national workshop. The workshop should be held in a place that is easily accessible by everyone, last for at least three days, and should be an event instilled with a sense of occasion to make it a truly inclusive event, an important element in the national debate. Naturally the press and other media should play an active part in the proceedings.
The main aims of the workshop should be to:
The maximum number of participants in the workshop has to be established, the active participation of everyone assured in advance, and the debates organized in such a way as to provide all the participants with constant stimulation. Therefore those who have been invited to take an active role in the workshop should also be known well in advance (see list below for guidance).
The following should be invited to take an active role in the workshop:
The principal ministries having an active role in food security should be represented at decision-making level:
The local administrative authorities, directly or indirectly responsible for food security, who should be invited to participate in the workshop are principally:
If there are one or more NGO coordinating associations, they should certainly be involved in the organization of the workshop. A number of representatives of national and international NGOs should, in any case, be invited to participate; they should be highly representative of the activities carried out in this field. In particular, representatives of NGOs working in the following fields should be invited:
Efforts should also be made to invite associations of producers, consumers, small traders, carriers, etc.
Representatives of the main development partners should preferably be involved in the whole process of defining and setting up a FSIEWS. Their technical collaborators should ideally take an active part in the MWGs, which ensures that they are well placed in the system to observe and provide assistance (financial or technical) when required. The main partners should of course be represented at the decision-making level of the national workshop.
One of these representatives could be chosen to represent the donor community and be asked to make a speech at the opening or closing ceremony to present the donor's interest in this process.
Representatives of technical agencies (United Nations, development agencies, international banks, etc.) should also be invited to participate in the opening or closing ceremonies and in the discussions.
Representation of the private sector involved in food security in the country is essential. If there is a chamber of agriculture and commerce, members will be invited to participate actively in the workshop. Should there be no such organization, representatives from the following areas should nevertheless be invited:
All the documents should be clearly presented at the opening of the workshop. If possible, the technical documents should be sent out in advance with the invitation. They can be put in a folder or envelope with the name of the workshop on the cover. It is also a good idea to include some paper and a ballpoint pen for participants to take notes.
There are three types of documents:
The principal technical documents to be distributed are:
All these documents should be short, to the point, easy to read and understandable to all.
The main worksheets are:
A press campaign announcing the workshop should be launched in advance so that by the time participants have received their invitation they already know about the event. The press releases prepared in advance should be clear and concise; they should give the aims of the workshop, the list of participants, and highlight key figures and events.
The preparation and sending out of technical and organizational documents should preferably be a participatory activity. All those who so desire, should be given the time to read, analyse and add supplementary information in their areas of interest in advance of the workshop. Some documents may, however, be distributed at the last minute with the worksheets. The number of copies made should far exceed the number of participants.
A large number of participants can be expected at such a workshop (often between 50 and 100). A large airy, well-lit, possibly air-conditioned conference room is therefore required. Also needed are another large room for the secretariat, a reception area (in the entrance hall), and three or four smaller rooms for group work. Overhead and video projectors, screens and white-boards should also be available.
There must be a full-time secretariat to provide services such as typing up minutes of meetings and working groups, answering the telephone, collating the various documents, etc.
The workshop's budget should cover:
Participants usually nominate a chairperson for the workshop as a whole, and additional chairpersons for each session, who in turn appoint a session secretary (to take the minutes) and a rapporteur if necessary.
The workshop should start with an opening ceremony, the formalities of which will depend on the customs of the country. This is followed by the plenary sessions where the documents and the food security context are presented (one or one-and-a-half days) and continue with the working groups, the subjects and participants of which should be established in the plenaries. Each working group appoints its own chairperson, secretary and rapporteur.
As already mentioned, the minutes of the plenary or working-group sessions should be handed in to the secretariat at the end of each stage by the rapporteurs, typed up immediately, copied and distributed to all the participants at the following session.
The final copy of the minutes should be available, at least in summary form, at the closing session for participants to approve. Should it then have to be amended by the national team, it should nevertheless be distributed as quickly as possible to maintain interest levels among participants and impress on them the speed and efficiency of the organization.
The results of the workshop should be given national coverage highlighting the aspect of a nationwide concerted effort for food security. Therefore the press, radio and television must all be there to point up the importance of the workshop and the decisions taken.
