1 | Region/Country |
2 | CCA I or II? Year of completion? UNDAF completed? When? |
3 | Is FAO a member of the UN Country Team? What has FAOs contribution been like? |
4 | List development priorities as identified in the CCA. Is hunger/malnutrition/food insecurity/vulnerability explicitly identified as one of them? Or is it, explicitly or implicitly, viewed as part of a broader poverty agenda? |
5 | Which institutions were responsible for completing the CCA? Assess, if possible, the degree to which local government and NGOs were involved in the completion of the CCA? Problem analysis? Data analysis? What sources of data have been used? |
6 | Outline briefly country-specific administrative structure (example: region, district, subdistrict, division, village, household). |
7 | Describe the methods applied to disaggregate statistical information (by gender, rural/urban, administrative subdivisions, other). |
8 | If data are disaggregated, describe down to which administrative level problems of food insecurity are being analysed and contrasted among administrative subdivisions. |
9 | Assess representativeness of the whole-country estimates based on subnational data: Ad hoc localized surveys? Selected districts? Representative or non-representative for the whole country? |
10 | Describe how subnational information is presented (text, tables, graphs, maps). |
11 | Assess the usefulness and validity of any maps as a tool for analysis and visualization of the distribution of the food insecurity situation at subnational level. |
12 | Describe the methodological approach(es) used to assess food insecurity and vulnerability at subnational level (household economy approach, facility/community-based anthropometry, agricultural production surveys, crop assessments, Household Income and Expenditures Surveys, Health Information Surveys, etc.). |
13 | List the indicators used to describe problems of food insecurity; assess these indicators regarding their validity and reliability as a monitoring tool; describe degree of overlap/coherence with indicators to monitor Millennium Development Goals and the CCA Indicator Framework. |
14 | Characterize the data sources used in the CCA analysis: Primary/secondary data? Data generated by government? By UN? NGOs? Collaborative data collection efforts? |
15 | Examine if timely, simple, low-cost information has been used, geared to provide clear messages to decisionmakers and social actors? What are the timeliness and periodicity of food insecurity data presented? |
16 | Are adequate explanations being provided regarding the causes of food insecurity? Is there an underlying causal model? If yes, go to (17); if not, skip to (18). |
17 | If yes, do the explanations relate to one or more of the following: food insecurity, vulnerability, production risks, asset endowments, coping strategies, safety nets, intra-household food distribution, nutrition status, caring practices, access to basic services, infectious diseases, or other? |
18 | Describe the types of interventions proposed in the CCA to alleviate food insecurity and undernutrition problems. Do proposed interventions have direct links to underlying food insecurity and vulnerability causes? |
19 | What are the suggested nutritional interventions with relevance to food security? Nutritional supplementation? Nutritional educating programmes? Other? |
20 | Identify clear areas for improvement in the conceptualization, analysis, organization and preparation process of the CCA, and strengthening linkages with PRSP process. Make clear recommendations how FIVIMS can address some of these information gaps. |
Review team
Dr Ir P.S. Bindraban
Production ecologist
Coordinator of the review study
Plant Research International
Business Unit Agrosystemsresearch
Dr Ir I.D. Brouwer
Nutritionist
Department of Human Nutrition and Epidemiology
Wageningen University
Ir M. van Dorp
Nutritionist
International Agricultural Centre
Ir C.B. Houtman
Agricultural economist
North-South Centre - Wageningen-UR
Dr Ir H.A.J. Moll
Agricultural economist
Development Economics Group
Department of Social Sciences
Wageningen University
Staff assigned for review process
Ir H.L. Aalbers
Plant breeder
Ir M.L. Brouwer
Nutritionist
Ir E.C.M. Hagenaars
Tropical land use planning
Ir M.M.M. Zuurbier
Environmental and occupational health
Region |
Country |
CCA |
PRSP review |
LDC-country review |
Undernourished |
Underweight |
Africa | Kenya | X | X (Interim) | 44 | 22.7 | |
Swaziland | X | 12 | n.a. | |||
Equatorial Guinea | X | X | n.a. | n.a. | ||
Dem. Rep. Congo | X | X (Interim) | X | 73 | 34.4 | |
Zambia | X | X | X | 50 | 25 | |
Senegal | X | X (Interim) | X | 25 | 18.4 | |
Mauritius | X | 5 | 16.4 | |||
Tanzania | X | X | X | 47 | 29.4 | |
Namibia | X | 9 | 26.2 | |||
Rwanda | X | X | X | 40 | 29 | |
Niger | X | X | X | 36 | 39.6 | |
Cameroon | X | X (Interim) | 25 | 21 | ||
Burundi | X | X | 69 | 45.1 | ||
Liberia | X | X | 39 | n.a. | ||
Lesotho | X | X (Interim) | X | 26 | 16 | |
Eritrea | X | X | 58 | 43.7 | ||
the Gambia | X | X | X | 21 | 17 | |
Asia and the Pacific | Viet Nam | X | X | 18 | 33.1 | |
Papua New Guinea | X | 27 | n.a. | |||
Lao P.D.R. | X | X (Interim) | X | 24 | 40 | |
Cambodia | X | X (Interim) | X | 36 | 45.9 | |
East Timor | X | n.a. | n.a. | |||
India | X | 24 | 47 | |||
Bhutan | X | X | n.a. | 18.7 | ||
Mongolia | X | X (Interim) | 42 | 12.7 | ||
P.R. China | X | 10 | 9.6 | |||
West Asia and North Africa | Yemen | X | X | X | 33 | 46.1 |
Djibouti | X | X (Interim) | X | n.a. | 18.2 | |
Lebanon | X | 3 | 3 | |||
Tunisia | X | n.a. | 4 | |||
Egypt | X | 4 | 11.7 | |||
Morocco | X | 7 | 9 | |||
Latin America and the Caribbean | Nicaragua | X | X | 29 | 12.2 | |
Jamaica | X | 9 | 3.9 | |||
Suriname | X | 11 | n.a. | |||
Trinidad and Tobago | X | 12 | n.a. | |||
Guyana | X | X | 14 | 11.8 | ||
Bolivia | X | X | 23 | 9.5 | ||
Haiti | X | X | 50 | 27.5 | ||
Guatemala | X | 25 | 42.2 | |||
Chile | X | 4 | 0.8 | |||
Honduras | X | X | 21 | 24.5 | ||
Europe and CIS | Bulgaria | X | 15 | n.a. | ||
Kazakhstan | X | 8 | 4.2 | |||
Kyrgyzstan | X | X (Interim) | 8 | 11 | ||
Bosnia-Herzegovina | X | 6 | 4.1 | |||
Georgia | X | X (Interim) | 16 | 3.1 | ||
Armenia | X | X (Interim) | 46 | 2.5 | ||
Kosovo | X | n.a. | n.a. | |||
Turkey | X | n.a. | 8.3 | |||
Moldova | X (Interim) | 10 | 3.2 | |||
Serbia (Yugoslavia) | X (Interim) | n.a. | n.a. |
Note: n.a. = not available.
Region | CCA reports | PRSPs | of which PRSPs: | |
(n = 50) | (n = 25) | Completed | Interim | |
Africa | 17 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
Not LDC | 5 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
LDC | 12 | 7 | 5 | 2 |
Asia and the Pacific | 9 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
Not LDC | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
LDC | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
West Asia and North Africa | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Not LDC | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
LDC | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Europe and CIS | 8 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Not LDC | 8 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
LDC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Latin America and the Caribbean | 10 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
Not LDC | 9 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
LDC | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Source: based on FAO, 1998.
No. | Heading/Question | TOR1 | Answers allowed and notes2 |
IDENTIFICATION AND GENERAL | |||
WUR analysis | |||
1 | Research assistant | 1 = MB; 2 = EH; 3 = HA; 4 = MZ | |
2 | Date of end of review | ddmmyy | |
3 | Hours needed for review | range | |
4 | Language of report | 1 = English; 2 = French; 3 = Spanish; 4 = other | |
5 | Pages in report (excluding annexes) | range | |
6 | A general impression of the FIV information in the report | string | |
Country details | |||
7 | Name of country | string | |
8 | Region | 1 | 1 = Africa; 2 = Asia and the Pacific; 3 = West Asia and North Africa; 4 = Europe and CIS; 5 = Latin America and the Caribbean |
9 | Archive number | 1 | archive number |
10 | CCA or PRSP? | 2 | 1 = CCA; 2 = PRSP |
11 | Is it a Least Developed Country(LDC)? | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 | |
12 | Population size in millions (1997-1999) | range. See Note 2 | |
13 | Size of country (thousands of square kilometres) | range. See Note 2 | |
Undernourishment/malnourishment in country | |||
14 | Proportion of undernourished/malnourished people in total population following FAO in 1997-1999 (percentage) | range. See Note 2 | |
15 | Proportion of underweight (moderate and severe) children between 0-59 months following Unicef (percentage) | range. Specify year of source in remarks. If other age range, specify in remarks. See Note 2 | |
REPORT PREPARATION DETAILS | |||
Type of report | |||
If it is a CCA, answer the next questions: | |||
16 | CCA version | 2 | 1 = I; 2 = II |
17 | Year of completion of CCA | 2 | range |
18 | UNDAF completed before 1 September 2002? | 2 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
19 | Year of completion of UNDAF | 2 | range. See Note 2 |
20 | PRSP completed before 1 September 2002? | 0 = no; 1 = interim; 2 = complete. See Note 2 | |
21 | Year of completion of PRSP | range. See Note 2 | |
22 | PRSP selected for FIVIMS-study? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
If it is a PRSP, answer the next questions: | |||
23 | PRSP version | 1 = interim; 2 = complete | |
24 | Year of completion of PRSP | range | |
25 | UNDAF completed before 1 September 2002? | 2 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
26 | Year of completion of UNDAF | 2 | range. See Note 2 |
27 | CCA completed before 1 September 2002? | 2 | 0 = no; 1 = I; 2 = II. See Note 2 |
28 | Year of completion of CCA | 2 | range. See Note 2 |
29 | CCA selected for FIVIMS-study? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
Organizations involved | |||
30 | Are government institutions involved in the completion? | 5 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
31 | How many different government institutions were involved in the completion? | range | |
32 | To what degree was the government involved in the completion? | 5 | 1 = involved in data supply; 2 = active involvement in problem analysis; 3 = active involvement in data analysis; 4 = active involvement in the whole process; 5 = comments (on draft report) |
33 | Are there NGOs involved in the completion? | 5 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
34 | To what degree were NGOs involved in the completion? | 5 | As for #32 |
35 | Is the UN involved in the completion? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
36 | How many different UN institutions were involved in the completion? | range | |
37 | To what degree was the UN involved in the completion? | As for #32 | |
38 | Are there bilateral aid agencies involved in the completion? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
39 | Is the private sector involved in the completion? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
40 | Are research institutions involved in the completion? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
41 | Are universities involved in the completion? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
42 | Are other organizations involved in the completion? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
43 | If other organizations are involved, specify | string | |
FAO involvement | |||
44 | Was FAO involved in the CCA or PRSP process? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
45 | What has FAOs contribution been like? | 3 | As for #32 |
DEFINITIONS | |||
Food security | |||
46 | Does the report provide a definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
If a definition of food security is provided, answer the following questions: | |||
47 | Is the concept of all people part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
48 | Is the concept of all times part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
49 | Is the concept of physical access part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
50 | Is the concept of economic access part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
51 | Is the concept of sufficient food part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
52 | Is the concept of safe food part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
53 | Is the concept of nutritious food part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
54 | Is the concept of meeting dietary needs part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
55 | Is the concept of meeting food preferences part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
56 | Is the concept of leading an active life part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
57 | Is the concept of leading a healthy life part of the definition of food security? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
Are the following dimensions used in defining food security? | |||
58 | Availability? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
59 | Stability? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
60 | Sustainability? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
61 | Utilization? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
62 | Access? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
63 | Are other terms related to FIV used? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
64 | If yes, which terms are used? | string | |
Poverty | |||
65 | Does the report provide a definition of poverty? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
66 | Is a poverty line defined? | 0 = no; 1 = yes, one poverty line defined, 2 = yes, more than one poverty line defined | |
67 | Is the poverty line defined as US$ 1/day/person? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
68 | Is the poverty line defined as local currency/day/person? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
69 | Is the poverty line defined in another way? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
70 | If the poverty line is defined in another way, specify | string | |
POLICY STATEMENTS | |||
71 | Is integration of Food Insecurity Vulnerability (FIV) (hunger, malnutrition, food insecurity and vulnerability) identified as a development priority or a key issue? | 4 | 0 = no; 1 = on its own; 2 = as part of a broader poverty agenda; 3 = other |
72 | Which other development priorities are identified? | 4 | string |
73 | Under which chapter is FIV discussed? | 0 = none; 1 = agriculture; 2 = education; 3 = health; 4 = development; 5 = poverty; 6 = separate; 7 = other | |
74 | If other in #73, under which chapter is FIV discussed? | 4 | string |
DATA COLLECTION | |||
Administrative structure | |||
75 | Of how many levels does the administrative structure consist as indicated in the report (higher than household; lower than country)? | range | |
76 | Outline briefly country-specific administrative structure as from report (for example: region, district, subdistrict, division, village) | 6 | string |
Sources of FIV data | |||
77 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by the government of the country? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
78 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by NGOs? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
79 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by bilateral aid agencies? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
80 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by the private sector? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
81 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by UN? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
82 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by FAO? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
83 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by research institutions? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
84 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by universities? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
85 | Are quantitative FIV data generated by other organizations? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
86 | Were there any collaborative data collection efforts? | 14 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
87 | Are the FIV data sources used primary or secondary data? | 14 | 1 = only primary; 2 = mostly primary; 3 = both primary and secondary; 4 = mostly secondary; 5 = only secondary |
88 | Are data sources specified (including FIV data sources)? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
89 | Are FIV data sources specified? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
Visualization of FIV data | |||
90 | Are (sub)national FIV data presented as text? | 10 | 0 = no; 1 = yes, at national level; 2 = yes, at subnational level; 3 = yes, at national and subnational level |
91 | Are (sub)national FIV data presented as tables? | 10 | As for #90 |
92 | Are (sub)national FIV data presented as graphs? | 10 | As for #90 |
93 | Are (sub)national FIV data presented as diagrams (e.g. pie or bar charts)? | As for #90 | |
94 | Are (sub)national FIV data presented as maps? | 10 | As for #90 |
95 | Are (sub)national FIV data presented in another way? | As for #90 | |
96 | If yes in #95, how are (sub)national data presented? | string | |
Disaggregation of FIV data | |||
97 | Is the statistical information disaggregated by gender? | 7 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
98 | Is the statistical information disaggregated by ethnic identity? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
99 | Is the statistical information disaggregated by age? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
100 | Is the statistical information disaggregated by socio-economic class? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
101 | Is the statistical information disaggregated in rural/urban? | 7 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
102 | Is the statistical information disaggregated by administrative subdivisions? | 7 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
103 | Is the statistical information disaggregated by other categories? | 7 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
If other categories in #103, specify | string | ||
104 | Down to which administrative level are FIV data disaggregated, analysed and contrasted? | 8 | string |
Timeframe FIV data | |||
105 | From which year were the most recent FIV data? | range | |
106 | From which year were the oldest FIV data? | range | |
107 | Are projected FIV data presented for the future? If so, what range? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = 1-5 years; 2 = 1-10 years; 3 = >10 years |
What is smallest unit used to present the periodicity of FIV data? | |||
108 | Are FIV data presented on a monthly basis? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
109 | Are FIV data presented on a seasonal basis? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
110 | Are FIV data presented on a half-year basis? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
111 | Are FIV data presented on a yearly basis? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
112 | Are FIV data presented on a 2-5 years basis? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
113 | Are FIV data presented on a >5 years basis? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
How many FIV indicator measurements are presented? | |||
114 | One measurement? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
115 | Two or three measurements? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
116 | Four or more measurements? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
Presentation of general data | |||
117 | Examine if timely and simple information has been used, geared to provide clear messages to decision-makers and social actors? | 15 | 0 = no; 1 = yes, RRA; 2 = yes, PRA; 3 = yes, PLA; 4 = several; 5 = other: specify. See Note 3 |
ANALYSIS | |||
Approaches | |||
118 | Is there an approach used to describe FIV? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
What kind of approach is used to describe FIV at (sub)national level? | |||
119 | A food production approach? | 12 | 0 = no; 1 = yes, national level; 2 = yes, subnational level |
120 | A household economy approach? | 12 | As for #119 |
121 | A nutrition approach? | 12 | As for #119 |
122 | An entitlement-based approach? | 12 | As for #119 |
123 | A livelihood approach? | 12 | As for #119 |
124 | Another approach? | 12 | As for #119. (no need to specify in remarks) |
Methodologies | |||
125 | Are there methodologies used to assess FIV at (sub)national level? | 12 | 0 = no; 1 = yes, national level; 2 = yes, subnational level |
What methodologies are used to assess FIV at (sub)national level? | |||
126 | Agricultural production surveys? | 12 | As for #119 |
127 | Household income and expenditure surveys? | 12 | As for #119 |
128 | Anthropometric measurements? | 12 | As for #119 |
129 | Individual intake surveys/Food consumption surveys? | 12 | As for #119 |
130 | Health Information System surveys? | 12 | As for #119. |
131 | Qualitative methods? | 12 | As for #119 |
Indicators | |||
Are the following FIV indicators used? | |||
132 | Level of malnourished women (based on Body Mass Index (BMI) | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
133 | Per capita Dietary Energy Supply (DES) | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
134 | Indicators of Household Income and Expenditure surveys | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
135 | Qualitative (coping) strategies | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
136 | Food production indicators | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
137 | Prevalence of malnourished children (<5 years) | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes, underweight; 2 =yes, wasted/stunted; 3 = yes, underweight/wasted/stunted; 4 = general, not specified. See Note 2 |
138 | Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
139 | Infant (<1) and/or child (<5) mortality rate | 0 = no; 1 = yes, infant mortality rate; 2 = yes, child mortality rate; 3 = both | |
140 | Maternal mortality rate | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
Are the following poverty indicators used? | |||
141 | Is a proportion or number of the population below the poverty line given? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
142a | If yes, define fraction of the population below the 1st poverty line (name and define in remarks) | range | |
142b | If yes, define fraction of the population below the 2nd poverty line (name and define in remarks) | range | |
142c | If yes, define fraction of the population below the 3rd poverty line (name and define in remarks) | range | |
142d | If yes, define fraction of the population below the 4th poverty line (name and define in remarks) | range | |
142e | If yes, define fraction of the population below the 5th poverty line (name and define in remarks) | range | |
142f | If yes, define fraction of the population below the 6th poverty line (name and define in remarks) | range | |
143 | Is a further distinction of poverty made on the basis of regions, rural/urban, economic sectors or age? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
144 | Poverty gap ratio (incidence x depth of poverty) | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
145 | Share of poorest quintile in national consumption | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
146 | Share of poorest quintile in national income | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
147 | Poverty headcount ratio (percentage of population below national poverty line) | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
148 | Food poverty headcount ratio (percentage of population below national food poverty line) | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
149 | Poverty headcount ratio (percentage of population below US$ 1 per day) | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
150 | Percentage of household income spent on food for the poorest quintile | 13 | 0 = no; 1 = yes. See Note 2 |
Causes and trends for FIV data | |||
151 | Is an underlying causal model presented in the report? | 16 | 0 = no; 1 = implicit; 2 = explicit |
152 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to the socio-economic and political environment? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
At the national level | |||
153 | Population | 0 = no; 1 = yes, static; 2 = yes, past trends; 3 = yes, projecting | |
154 | Education | As for #153 | |
155 | Macro-economy | As for #153 | |
156 | Policy-environment | As for #153 | |
157 | Natural resource endowment | As for #153 | |
158 | Agriculture sector | As for #153 | |
159 | Market conditions | As for #153 | |
At the subnational level | |||
160 | Household characteristics | As for #153 | |
161 | Livelihood systems | As for #153 | |
162 | Social institutions | As for #153 | |
163 | Cultural attitudes | As for #153 | |
Other | |||
164 | Natural disasters | As for #153 | |
165 | Political disasters | As for #153 | |
166 | HIV/AIDS | As for #153 | |
167 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to the food availability? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
168a | Production | As for #153 | |
168b | Imports | As for #153 | |
169 | Exports | As for #153 | |
170 | Utilization (food/non-food) | As for #153 | |
171 | Stocks | As for #153 | |
172 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to the stability of food supplies and stability of access? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
173 | Storage | As for #153 | |
174 | Incomes | As for #153 | |
175 | Markets | As for #153 | |
176 | Social entitlements | As for #153 | |
177 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to access to food? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
178 | Purchasing power (consumers) | As for #153 | |
179 | Market integration | As for #153 | |
180 | Access to markets | As for #153 | |
181 | Food prices | As for #153 | |
182 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to care practices? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
183 | Child care | As for #153 | |
184 | Feeding practices | As for #153 | |
185 | Nutritional education | As for #153 | |
186 | Food preparation | As for #153 | |
187 | Eating habits | As for #153 | |
188 | Intra-household food distribution | As for #153 | |
189 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to health and sanitation? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
190 | Health care practices | As for #153 | |
191 | Hygiene | As for #153 | |
192 | Water quality | As for #153 | |
193 | Sanitation | As for #153 | |
194 | Food safety and quality | As for #153 | |
195 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to food consumption? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
196 | Energy intake | As for #153 | |
197 | Nutrient intake | As for #153 | |
198 | Are there explanations regarding the causes of FIV in the report that are related to food utilization? | 17 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
199 | Bioavailability | As for #153 | |
Health status | |||
200 | Malaria | As for #153 | |
201 | Diarrhoea | As for #153 | |
202 | Anaemia | As for #153 | |
203 | Intestinal parasites | As for #153 | |
204 | Other infection diseases (specify in remarks) | As for #153 | |
Is a link made between food security and...? | |||
205 | Poverty? | As for #153 | |
206 | Human rights? | As for #153 | |
207 | Gender? | As for #153 | |
208 | HIV/AIDS? | As for #153 | |
209 | Women education? | As for #153 | |
210 | Governance? | As for #153 | |
211 | Environment? | As for #153 | |
Usefulness and validation of maps on FIV data | |||
212 | Are there any maps on FIV in the report? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
213 | Do the maps show the geographical distribution of the FIV problem? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
214 | Do the maps show a relationship between the FIV problem and an indicator(s) of the FIV problem? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
215 | Are the results of the maps analysed and discussed in the text of the report? | 11 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Representativeness of FIV data | |||
216 | Are whole-country estimates based on national representative surveys (Demographic Health Survey (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), etc.)? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
217 | Are whole-country estimates based on randomly selected districts? (or something like districts) | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
218 | Are whole-country estimates based on ad hoc local surveys? | 9 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
219 | Are whole-country estimates based on routine sector data? | 9 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND INVENSIONS | |||
Policy | |||
220 | Are there long-term general development policies formulated? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
221 | Is a long-term policy concerning FIV formulated? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
222 | Is the long-term FIV policy time bound? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
223 | Is a long-term policy regarding poverty eradication formulated? | 0 = no; 1 = yes | |
Strategies to address food insecurity and vulnerability, and poverty | |||
224 | Are strategies proposed? | 18 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Are strategies related to...? | |||
225 | Socio-economic and political environment? | 0 = no; 1 = yes, related to FIV; 2 = yes, related to poverty; 3 = yes, related to FIV and poverty; 4 = yes, related to other: specify | |
226 | Food availability? | As for #225 | |
227 | Stability of food supplies and access? | As for #225 | |
228 | Access to food? | As for #225 | |
229 | Care practices? | As for #225 | |
230 | Health and sanitation? | As for #225 | |
231 | Food consumption? | As for #225 | |
232 | Food utilization? | As for #225 | |
233 | Social services | As for #225 | |
234 | Income/employment | As for #225 | |
Interventions | |||
235 | Are there interventions suggested with relevance to FIV and poverty? | 19 | 0 = no; 1 = yes |
Are interventions related to...? | |||
236 | Socio-economic and political environment? | 0 = no; 1 = yes, related to FIV; 2 = yes, related to poverty; 3 = yes, related to FIV and poverty | |
237 | Food availability? | As for #236 | |
238 | Stability of food supplies and access? | As for #236 | |
239 | Access to food? | As for #236 | |
240 | Care practices? | As for #236 | |
241 | Health and sanitation? | As for #236 | |
242 | Food consumption? | As for #236 | |
243 | Food utilization? | As for #236 | |
244 | Social services | As for #236 | |
245 | Income/employment | As for #236 | |
246 | Are the interventions the responsibility of the government? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
247 | Are the interventions the responsibility of national NGOs? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
248 | Are the interventions the responsibility of international NGOs? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
249 | Are the interventions the responsibility of bilateral aid agencies? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
250 | Are the interventions the responsibility of the private sector? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
251 | Are the interventions the responsibility of the UN? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
252 | Are the interventions the responsibility of FAO? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
253 | Are the interventions the responsibility of research institutions? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
254 | Are the interventions the responsibility of universities? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all | |
255 | Are the interventions the responsibility of other organizations? | 0 = no; 1 = some; 2 = most; 3 = all |
Notes on the Framework:
1 Refers to relevant item in the TOR checklist (see Appendix I).
2 Additional answers allowed: x = unknown; y = not applicable.
3 RRA = Rapid Rural Appraisal.
PRA = Participatory Rural Appraisal.
PLA = Participatory Learning and Action.
Both CCA reports and PRSPs were screened for their use of five indicator types for food insecurity, all measuring complementary aspects of the food insecurity and vulnerability problem.
The two first indicator types estimate dietary intake and try to relate this to energy needs. The first of this type comprises two indicators. One indicator is the per capita dietary energy supply (DES) and the proportion of the population below a minimum level of dietary energy consumption, which are based on the FAO methodology for estimating the prevalence of food deprivation at national level (Naiken, 2002), This refers to the prevalence of undernourishment, using a comparison of usual consumption expressed in terms of dietary energy (Kcal) with certain energy requirement norms. The part of the population with food consumption below this norm is considered undernourished.
The other indicator in the first category is based on Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES). These surveys, using food expenditure data to calculate household calorie availability, reflect the quantity of food acquired and thus immediately available to a household, rather than that consumed by its members (Smith, 2002).
The second type of indicators estimate the level of food production and is mainly focused on the key staple foods in a country or region and as such reflects food availability.
The third type assesses the perceptions of hunger/food insecurity and the behavioural response to these using more qualitative measures of food insecurity through focusing on coping strategies (Kennedy, 2002).
The fourth type of indicators measures the physical effects on growth and body form (anthropometry). These comprise three indicators of growth of infants and children under five years: height-for-age (reflecting linear growth and measures long-term growth faltering or stunting); weight-for-height (reflecting body proportion and is particularly sensitive to acute growth disturbances, detecting the presence of wasting); and weight-for-age (representing a synthesis of both linear growth and body proportion, and is used to diagnose underweight children) (Shetty, 2002). Body mass index (BMI, weight:height ratio) is considered the most objective anthropometric indicator of nutritional status of the adult, and is used to diagnose chronic undernutrition. The causes of undernutrition are multidimensional, including both food- and non-food-related factors. In addition to food insecurity, many social, cultural, health and environmental factors influence the prevalence of undernutrition, and hence undernutrition is more than a problem of food insecurity.
The last type of indicators looked at are the mortality rates, including infant mortality rate (IMR, number of children dying in first year per 1 000 live births), under-five mortality rate (U5MR, number of children dying before end of 5th year per 1 000 live births) and maternal mortality rate (MMR, number of women dying during pregnancy and delivery per 100 000 women of reproductive age). Mortality rates describe the general level of development and, as with undernutrition, reflect more than the food security situation.
There is no absolute measure or golden standard, but all the indicators mentioned assess different aspects of food insecurity and vulnerability. To estimate the extent of the food insecurity and vulnerability problem, the use of a combination of the above indicators would be advisable in order to capture the different components of food insecurity and vulnerability.
Explanations | CCA reports | PRSPs | of which PRSPs: | |
(n = 50) | (n = 25) | Completed | Interim | |
Socio-economic and political environment | 68 | 32 | 55 | 14 |
Population | 14 | 16 | 18 | 14 |
Education | 8 | 8 | 18 | 0 |
Macroeconomy | 22 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Policy environment | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Natural resource endowment | 24 | 8 | 18 | 0 |
Agricultural sector | 26 | 16 | 18 | 14 |
Market conditions | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Household characteristics | 20 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Livelihood systems | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Social institutions | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cultural attitudes | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Natural disasters | 38 | 16 | 36 | 0 |
Political disasters | 12 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
HIV/Aids | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Food availability | 56 | 12 | 9 | 14 |
Production | 44 | 12 | 9 | 14 |
Imports | 10 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Exports | 6 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Utilization (food/non-food) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Stocks | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Stability of food supplies and access | 52 | 24 | 36 | 14 |
Storage | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Incomes | 36 | 12 | 27 | 7 |
Markets | 10 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Social entitlements | 6 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Access to food | 40 | 8 | 9 | 7 |
Purchasing power (consumers) | 18 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Market integration | 6 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
Access to markets | 14 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Food prices | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Care practices | 34 | 16 | 27 | 0 |
Child care | 4 | 8 | 18 | 0 |
Feeding practices | 22 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Nutritional education | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Food preparation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Eating habits | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Intra-household food distribution | 10 | 12 | 18 | 0 |
Health and sanitation | 28 | 12 | 27 | 0 |
Health care practice | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hygiene | 10 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Water quality | 14 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Sanitation | 20 | 8 | 18 | 0 |
Food safety and quality | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Food consumption | 40 | 8 | 9 | 7 |
Energy intake | 20 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Nutrient intake | 34 | 8 | 9 | 7 |
Food utilization | 24 | 16 | 27 | 7 |
Bioavailability | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Malaria | 10 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Diarrhoea | 14 | 8 | 18 | 0 |
Anaemia | 2 | 4 | 9 | 0 |
Intestinal parasites | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other infection diseases | 18 | 12 | 18 | 7 |