Part III - USERS' PERSPECTIVES

Panel 1: National Users - Discussion Summary (Jacques Vercueil)

SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION

The first message that emerged very clearly from the discussion is that food insecurity is a complex concept both in its manifestation and its causes, and therefore, it is useless to try to determine which measurement is most applicable for this concept. No single indicator or measure can or should pretend to embrace food insecurity. Indeed, we were reminded that food insecurity has many distinct dimensions. These include food availability, accessibility and consumption, outcomes such as nutritional status, and living conditions including poverty and its various aspects. Information on food insecurity, in order to be useful, has to address these different dimensions. We heard suggestions to consider a composite index, but it was observed that any such index may not reveal all relevant aspects and also may not detract from the cost of assembling the basic information embedded in its construction. We were advised, nevertheless, to try to move in this direction and to make something that is complicated a bit simpler.

We have heard several times that although much attention has been placed on the concept of "not enough" or energy deficiency owing to food deprivation, the other aspects of malnutrition, ranging from micronutrient deficiency and anaemia to overweight and obesity, are public health problems that are part of the food insecurity phenomenon and therefore should be given all due attention in terms of both information and action.

A second theme from the discussion dealt with the different measurement methods and the various types of food insecurity information they generate. Anthropometry was mentioned as a fundamental source of information in all the examples and cases we heard today. The importance of this is that anthropometry can address any type of geographical level and can provide trends through time and information on different groups, families or individuals. It was noted, however, that a large amount of anthropometric information is still child-related while little is available on adult anthropometry - data that would be very useful. We saw that comparing adult and child anthropometry in the same population, although yielding diverging signals, can provide important understanding of how things happen. Also, it was noted that for nutritional anthropometry of adolescents, there are still methodological problems to resolve.

Another source of information discussed comes from the various types of household surveys such as expenditure surveys and living conditions surveys, as in the Indian example. While anthropometry provides an outcome but does not clarify the causality behind it, household information is vital in helping to understand the causes and mechanisms at stake, and therefore in leading to appropriate action.

The qualitative or, better named, self-assessment surveys that provide the individual's assessment of their hunger situation were discussed. The term "self-assessment" is used rather than "self-reporting" because nearly every survey involves self-reporting on some level. This method is very useful because, first of all, it reflects what really matters, namely how the concerned people themselves perceive hunger and how they suffer or not from the situation they are in, providing deeper insights than what may be possible from other methods. Because of the subjectivity and the risk that respondents may attempt to manipulate their responses, this information at first sight could be regarded as soft, but we were shown that if properly developed and validated, self-assessment can become hard information and yield results of more value than a simple collection of opinions - it can become scientific, verifiable data.

There were diverging views about how all these methods can be combined. We heard that anthropometric measurements could be added in household surveys at low cost, or that qualitative information could be put into traditional questionnaires, but we also heard that including anthropometry into other surveys means a large increase in costs. Despite the lack of consensus on how to combine methods, the usefulness of these complementary sources of information was made very clear.

The mapping of information was felt to be of great value. We have seen on many occasions that information needs to be known on different levels and that not only numbers but also trends are dramatically important. Trends indeed may be more reliable than numbers, but the latter remain indispensable for many purposes.

A third major theme was that information collection must be linked to and justified by the use made of the information. We were shown in a number of examples what type of information is used for which type of programme or action, e.g. for determining access to fair shops or to programmes of targeted subsidized prices. We also had concrete examples of this link from UNICEF, where information on food insecurity is used for designing remedial action. This becomes an important concept when discussing the cost (for the surveyor) and the burden (for the surveyed) of information. When information leads to action and policies, it is necessary to obtain the information even if there is a cost involved. In many cases, the benefit of information will outweigh the costs when its collection is justified by a clear link to actions, policies or programmes that rely on valid and reliable information. Another aspect of the use of information is advocacy. Information for this purpose may not be of the same nature as reviewed so far, but advocacy is a necessary function and therefore must be considered part of the different uses of information.

Much of what we have heard is linked to subnational level problems, situations, actions and programmes. At the national level, we have inter alia the FAO measurement, or rather the estimate of the number of people undernourished. We have seen that the usefulness of such information is not the same from country to country. We heard that for India, this kind of global assessment is not really of interest because global availability of food is secure and is no longer a problem. This was the case also for Colombia but different in Kenya and Mali. From this, it was clear that the FAO assessment of the number of undernourished is considered fairly valid in some countries, far from the mark in others, and dubious in other cases. When FAO started publishing its estimates of the number of undernourished at the country level, it was very much with the intention of triggering a process of improvement on the estimate, as if to say: "Here are national level data that we have estimated using the FAO method with the information we have received from you." It was expected that some countries would find the assessment valid in their case, while others would challenge it and provide improved data from which a more valid estimate could be based.

Another aspect of the debate that appeared clearly in the example of Kenya, but was also underlined in other cases, is that there is much complexity in the information systems and in the types of information generated and used at national and subnational levels, as well as in relation to the international community. This complexity may result in excessive demands for information together with excessive costs and burden for the population, while the results arising from the use of the information may not be optimal. It was interesting to note, in the case of Kenya for instance, that in the resource-poor Early Warning Area, very positive results had been achieved in coordinating information among many partners in a purposeful fashion in order to support badly needed effective action. The next step would be to move towards adopting the same approach and reaching the same degree of progress in other regions, those better endowed in natural resources but with a more complicated information situation. This shows that no case is desperate and that improvement is feasible, although the process remains difficult.

In this respect, we also heard several times that international organizations are not considered to be very helpful in solving the complication problem. Your message was very clear, that international organizations should in all possible ways help countries and governments to have a simpler and more effective approach to information. On this account, there were references to the fact that FIVIMS does not pretend to add information or create new demands but instead to help countries make better use of the information they already have, to eliminate duplication or to fill in gaps. Above all, however, FIVIMS attempts to bring together institutions that are generating and using information on food security to help them make better use of the information.

As we have seen, there are several different methods to study food security, all measuring something different. Therefore, it is necessary on some occasions to use two or three methods concomitantly on the same population, to see clearly what kind of information each method provides and how well the various methods might bring a different light on the same situation. One can also evaluate whether a priori hypotheses on convergent or divergent information are borne out, therefore providing information both on the particular situation and on the use of the methods themselves. The Mali case demonstrated how results derived from the use of different methods applied to a particular situation did not necessarily tell the same story. It is indispensable to develop occasions like this purposefully from which one can learn how the various methods work; this also helps those specialized in one method to understand how their approach relates to others.

This issue of the relationship between different methods is linked to a final point raised by our colleagues on several occasions, namely the frequency with which information should be collected and reported. This is, of course, an important issue: as information is usually not needed all that frequently, considerable savings in resources can be made by carrying out surveys at appropriate intervals. For instance, we were given the example of intake surveys that are difficult and costly but provide unique information: they may not need to be done frequently. They can be very useful when conducted at several years' intervals to help calibrate and consolidate the information from less precise and less direct observations. A final message was that among the tasks that can be usefully done in the future, a few well-selected cases where different methods are applied in parallel would greatly help clarify what each one brings and how they complement each other, and would help make precious savings in costs while assuring gains in understanding and effectiveness.

Panel 2: International Users - Discussion Summary (Jacques Vercueil)

SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION

The first main result of the discussion this afternoon is how important the MDGs have become. After they were presented by Mr Wilcock, we heard from international organizations as well as donor countries that they are all using the MDGs as their guiding thread for objectives and targets at all levels. We can conclude that the purpose of the MDGs seems to be very well fulfilled, as they now serve as the benchmark for international development assistance, and among their top objectives, we see poverty and hunger eradication. Another observation about MDGs is that they clearly encompass all the dimensions that have been so consistently affirmed as essential for comprehensive understanding of food insecurity, ranging from income poverty to education and health in its different dimensions, and of course hunger and malnutrition. We also noted that they helped to trigger momentum in assembling and enriching the information.

Let me pause briefly on a comment that while reducing hunger is part of both the MDGs and the WFS goals, the expression of these two targets leads to very different objectives. In reality, there is a considerable quantitative difference between the two - between proportions and numbers. The targets of the MDGs and the WFS differ by hundred of millions of people, or by decades, and therefore it is appropriate that these differences be discussed.

As I move from the question of national perspective to international perspective, the topic of this afternoon, let me comment en passant about the issue of international versus national demands for data. Data are not collected for the purpose of feeding a worldwide data-base or for monitoring a worldwide target. Rather, information collection is always directed at solving particular problems in a country. However, there is a need for comparability, standardization and harmonization of the data - we heard the need for this expressed repeatedly. This need does create a conflict at the country level between what has been done traditionally and what countries are now being asked to generate and produce. However, rather than countries being asked to generate data they do not need, it is quite often just a question of which particular method they should use to collect the data. This is not unreasonable, because if we collect information in different ways on the same problem in different places, within one country or among several countries, in the end we may not be able to use the information in the most efficient way.

The second main observation is that even though this was a session on "international perspective", very quickly we were called back to recognize that what is important is not the worldwide objectives, but rather what happens at the country level. While on the international level information is useful for advocacy, monitoring or resource allocation, the country perspective is most important; it is here that real action can be achieved. From this observation, two conclusions emerge: information has to be country-demanded, and capacity building at the country level for generating and for utilizing information is crucial. I would like to underline what was said by the panellists about capacity building, because quite often this critical link is badly missing. It is not easy to create the necessary capacity to generate and utilize information, but it is decisive in changing the demand for, and hence the quality of, generated information - not so much "more" information but "more useful" information - to use for improving policy and action.

This discussion has brought us back again to the relevance of the national FIVIMS - the effort at rationalization and optimal utilization of information systems. One new point I noted was related to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, a very important channel for linking information to action at the national level that should be part of this streamlining effort to improve assistance to policy-makers.

Anthropometry was once again highlighted in several occasions as basic information, and more broadly, nutrition-related information was considered to be extremely important. Indeed, nutrition is important not just as one dimension of poverty but in itself, because improvements on the nutritional front have a direct beneficial impact not only on the welfare of the people but on economic ability at micro- and macro levels, as hunger and poverty mutually reinforce each other.

Vulnerability as a distinct dimension may not be able to be measured with the type of methods we are using now. I understand that much work on vulnerability is still required and that it is a work in progress.

The necessity to justify information indicators by their use for policy decision and preparation for action was reiterated, and this led to our Chairman's suggestion of this morning to think in terms of a matrix. The matrix column heads would show who does what, the row heads would list the level at which action is taken and the information needs would be specified at the row-column intersections. I find it interesting in a meeting called a scientific symposium, where we would expect to hear mostly about technicalities of nutrition, socio-economy and surveys, that the strongest conclusions concerned the importance of ascertaining that what we are doing with information will be useful in an action-oriented perspective.

We were reminded of the importance of proper terminology and not to use words indiscriminately like hunger, undernourishment or undernutrition, food energy deficiency and so on. While this is well understood, it is also true that as one moves from the technical field to that of politicians and public opinion, it is difficult to adhere to strict terminology and, even more, to avoid using public terminology. The case of "hunger" is very clear. We all know that when the word "hunger" is used, it generally has a very loose, unscientific meaning, but everybody understands it, and therefore it tends to invade a broader field than what might be proper. This is not easy to avoid and thus is a problem.

There were a few more words about the FAO method at the end of the discussion. We heard comments that more of country-based information should be used in this method and that household surveys should be injected into it as well. This, in fact, is the case: the method is based on data provided by countries, and many surveys are reviewed and used when possible. But I must warn that country data and household surveys have very serious problems of gaps, credibility and consistency. Another person asked why the coefficient of variation (CV) should be kept constant through time. Personally I fully agree with this comment, and the only reason I can see for keeping the CV constant is that in the past, very seldom were usable values of the CV available in a country, so when you had one, you did not even dream it could change over time! The situation is different now and while I am not an authority on this issue, I do know the situation reasonably well and I do not see that changing the established approach should create any difficulty other than using a country's coefficient when it becomes available and changing the value in the formula for the relevant period when it is updated.

I believe, Mr Chairman, that these are the main points in the discussion. Let me add simply that we also heard many colleagues express that they found this meeting quite a useful event, and we all thank you for that.