Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Sharing Approaches for Achieving Improved Nutrition Through Agriculture
Presenter: Sarah Titus, Food Security and Nutrition Manager, Strengthening Partnerships, Results and Innovations in Nutrition Globally (SPRING)
While there is growing consensus (Lancet Material and Child Nutrition Series, 2013) that integrated programming is needed to achieve global nutrition goals, empirical evidence on how agriculture interventions impact nutrition is scant. However, many stakeholders have been developing or adapting frameworks to guide thinking that may help to better define areas for future research. Among these, FAO's Guiding Principles for Improving Nutrition through Agriculture, and work by Gillespie et al to define Pathways from Agriculture to Nutrition provide a coherent framework for analysis but are too generic to provide the details needed for good sectorally-integrated or co-located project design and implementation.
In this session the SPRING Project shared these two conceptual frameworks and how they have been used to guide a landscape analysis of Feed the Future investments in nutrition. Following a brief presentation and question and answer session, participants had an opportunity to feed into efforts that are underway to operationalize these frameworks. Drawing on experience in their own programs, participants worked in small groups to identify and discuss the interim steps along the pathways between agriculture and nutrition in their own programs. Participants then had an opportunity to discuss better practices and approaches for improving nutrition outputs and outcomes from agriculture activities along these pathways.
Participants learned that although we used to think that increased caloric intake and increased income meant greater food security, this link was found to be false. Now programs are looking closer at nutritionally dense food.
Questions and discussions centered on how to change national policies and systems, how we can orient the discussion for the empowerment of women, and how to turn an increase in consumption into an improvement in nutritional impact.
Management of Complex Programs: Working Effectively in a Consortium Environment
Presenters: Patrick Danière, West Africa Deputy Regional Director for Management Quality (Sahel and Coastal), Catholic Relief Services; Moderators: Patrick Coonan, Knowledge Management Officer, TOPS; Valerie Stetson, Independent Consultant
Many Title II and other food security programs now operate with a prime leading a consortium of international and local NGO sub-recipients. The consortium arrangement allows for greater geographic coverage, inclusion of technical and sectoral strengths from multiple organizations, and the potential of much greater impact through the synergy of the collaboration as well as greater coverage. However, working in a consortium is also managerially more complex. This session explored different components of consortia, using input from primes, subs and perhaps organizations that have yet to participate in a consortium arrangement. After reviewing different aspects of work in consortia, the session participants selected one of seven components for further discussion of possible improvements, bringing to bear their practical experience and any tools or resource materials. CRS’s CAFÉ manual were provided on CD in English, French and Spanish to all participants for future reference. The group identified some key ways forward for improving consortium work in the future.
The facilitator began the session by asking participants to write down one word that, in their minds, described a highly functional consortium. Those words that appeared with the most frequency include complementarity/synergy, communication, collaboration and coordination. The facilitator presented the seven components of consortium management according to Catholic Relief Service’s model: goals, strategies, structure, roles, process, interpersonal, and learning. Participants then used dots to rank where they felt the consortiums that they belong(ed) to rank across the seven components. Participants tended to rank their consortium experience highly for the components of goals and roles. Participants tended to rank their consortium experience lowly for the components of structure, strategies, and interpersonal. Afterward, participants broke into small groups, each of which was assigned one of the seven components. Each group identified practices or activities that they believed would be most effective in improving consortium management for that component.
Barrier Analysis: Lessons from the Field
Presenters: Bonnie Kittle, Independent Consultant, Kittle Consulting; Alexandra Rutishauser-Perera, Roving East Africa Nutrition Advisor, International Medical Corps
Many food security projects have begun to conduct formative research, such as the Barrier Analysis, to identify the reasons why farmers and other stakeholders resist adopting new practices and techniques. Project implementers use the results of the Barrier Analysis to develop more effective strategies to promote behavior change. In this session, the presenters shared the lessons learned from various countries regarding their experiences implementing the Barrier Analysis.
Developing Determinant-linked Behavior Change Activities
Presenter: Bonnie Kittle, Independent Consultant, Kittle Consulting
Many food security projects are using the Designing for Behavior Change (DBC) framework to develop more effective strategies to promote new practices. Although many staff members have been trained in DBC, we still struggle to develop new, more effective behavior change activities. Through this very participatory session (no power points!), participants examined the twelve determinants of behavior change that influence the adoption of a practice by farmers, mothers and other stakeholders. Then, working in small groups, participants designed creative behavior change activities that relate to a food security behavior and a specific determinant.
Achieving Gender Integration in Programming: A Panel Discussion on Including Recommendations for the Gender Analysis
Panelists: Philippe Carette, Chief of Party, Resources to Improve Food Security (RISE) Project, Mercy Corps, Democratic Republic of Congo; Fatimata Sinaré, Gender Advisor, ACDI/VOCA, Burkina Faso; Moderator: Sylvia Cabus, Gender Advisor, Bureau of Food Security, USAID
The program you are helping to implement has strategies, activities, and indicators promoting gender integration. A gender analysis has been completed. What next? How does one take the recommendations from the analysis and modify programming without making drastic changes to activities or needing additional funding? Panelists in this session discussed how gender is integrated within their programs and how they made changes to strategies and activities after the gender analysis was completed. Moderator Sylvia Cabus also provided a brief overview of recently released gender guidance (ADS 205).
Sylvia said the ADS will help those developing proposals on what gender components are needed, as it outlines the gender analysis. She explained that the project team should take into account gender equity, and gender needs to be integrated everywhere not just in the technical areas.
Philippe Carette presented on the RISE Project. He said gender was recognized, but there was no implementation plan. Clear activities, objectives and timeframes need to be outlined. We need to focus on gender and develop a culture of gender mainstreaming.
Fatimata Sinaré discussed the importance of having the support of technical staff in implementing gender programs. It is also important that gender analysis is conducted locally in the local language.
The speakers mentioned various challenges to integrating gender analysis recommendations, including prioritization of gender in budgets, sustainability, and cultural differences/desensitization.
MARKit: Monitoring, Analysis and Response Kit for Adaptive Food Assistance Programs
Presenter: Suzanne Andrews, Markets and Agriculture Program Specialist, Catholic Relief Services
The purpose of the MARKit tool is to enable implementers of food aid programs to:
• Understand the interaction between the workings of the market and their programs;
• Set up systems for evaluating the market and their programs;
• Identify anomalies in the prices of food products, the factors influencing market prices, and evaluate the impact on their programs; and
• Use market information to propose a response to changes linked to market conditions that influence their programs.
MARKit is different than EMMA in that EMMA is used as a baseline while MARKit is used during implementation to analyze project activities.
The presenter mentioned a World Vision example, in which the price of maize doubled in July 2011. Voucher prices were set prior to the price spike. Beneficiaries switched from buying maize to buying millet and sorghum, so they met their caloric intake by switching to a different commodity. The analysis allowed them to change their activity to meet the change in the market.