Download the PDF version of this Consolidated Reply at (Size: 144 KB)

/ Food and Nutrition Security
Community /
/ Disaster Management Community

Solution Exchange for the Food and Nutrition Security Community

Solution Exchange for the Disaster Management Community

Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome

Discussion Summary

Revising Food Security Component oftheSphere Handbook

Compiled byGopi Ghosh and G. PadmanabhanResource PersonsandT N Anuradha and Nupur Arora, Research Associates

Issue Date: 15 September 2009

From Devrig Velly, Senior Food Security and Livelihoods Advisor, Action Against Hunger / ACF-International Network, New York

Posted 28 July 2009

The Sphere Handbook has been one of the most widely recognised tools for improving humanitarian response. For the Sphere Handbook to remain relevant, Sphere needs to keep in touch with changing practices in the context of humanitarian work, as well as technical innovations. To this end, and acknowledging the significant changes that have taken place since the 2004 edition, the Sphere Board has decided to revise the Sphere Project Handbook.

The revision process is to be coordinated by a group of Focal Points and the Sphere project team over the next year, with publication scheduled in 2010 (last quarter). As the Focal Point for food security, I will be working closely with the Food Security Core Working Group to ensure that new approach, new ideas, right tools etc and valid suggestions highlighted by members and practitioners are debated.

As a bit of background, the Food security component in the Sphere handbook is currently structured via 5 minimum standards, 37 key indicators, 39 guidance notes and 4 appendices. I would like to invite members to give feedback on the following questions:

1.What are the new standards that need to be added, if any? Please be specific and, if possible, provide evidence-based background or references to your suggestion.

2.What are the indicators/guidance notes that you think need to be adjusted? Please be specific and, if possible, provide evidence-based background or references to your suggestion.

3.What are the missing information/findings that need to be considered and reflected in the indicators/guidance notes or annexes?

According to the initial feedback and importance of suggestions for changes we might launch other consultation rounds later on focusing on each standard. Nevertheless if you feel more comfortable to go right now in one or several standards please find here below the details:

1.Assessment and analysis standard 1: Food security (standard 2 is about nutrition)

2.Food security standard 1: general food security

3.Food security standard 2: primary production

4.Food security standard 3: income and employment

5.Food security standard 4: access to markets

The Food Security section to be reviewed is from page 114 to 133 (page 172 to 179 and 194 to 199 for the appendices) in the “Food Security, Nutrition and Food Aid” Chapter, available at (PDF Size: 640 KB)

The concerned sections are available at

I thank you in advance for your contributions to this upcoming handbook revision and looking forward to hearing from you!

Responses were received, with thanks, from

1.Agnes Dhur,World Food Programme, Italy

2.YvesMartin-Prevel, Yves Martin-Prevel, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, France

3.Terri Ballard, Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations (FAO), Rome

4.Mrinal Kanti Dasgupta, VISVA-BHARATI, Santiniketan, West Bengal

5.Silvia Kaufmann, FAO, Afghanistan

6.Nirvana Pradhan, Consultant, Bhutan

7.Shambu Ghatak, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi

8.Raj Ganguly, FAO, New Delhi

9.Rujuta Desai,Sahaj Shishu Milap, Vadodara

10.D S K Rao, Independent Consultant, Hyderabad

11.Rebecca Kik, FAO, Rome

12.James Sawyer, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), United Kingdom

13.KV Peter, World Noni Research Foundation, Chennai*

*Offline Contribution

Further contributions are welcome!

Summary of Responses

Comparative Experiences

Related Resources

Responses in Full

Summary of Responses

The Sphere Project launched in 1997 by a group of humanitarian NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement for all possible steps to alleviate human suffering arising out of calamity and conflict. Sphere comprises of a handbook, a broad process of collaboration and an expression of commitment to quality and accountability for those affected by disaster and enabling them right to life with dignity and right to assistance.

The discussion called for suggestions towards revising the Food Security Component of the Sphere Handbook. It provided inputs on the existing standards, indicators and additional components for consideration for ensuring food security of the affected.

Members put forth the increasing concern of Food Security during disasters which is not just a household concern but affecting all socio-economic sections of the society. In an agricultural country like India, the various issues to be considered include farmers livelihood, availability of nutrition dense food products at reliable prices, check on increasing trend of genetically altered food products, and high sale of adulterated food products during such times and the adverse health and nutritional implications.

Following suggestions received with respect to the Food Security Standards, Indicators and Guidance Notes:

Food Security Standards

  • Including Access to food and quality diet
  • The importance of close linkages between nutrition and food security/food aid interventions requires prominence with standard procedures and indicators developed by respective actors.
  • Update on micronutrients including food based approaches
  • Meaningful and practicable indicators of food diversityrequire consideration in the ‘emergency context’ which needs to be standardized and harmonized.

Indicators and Guidance Notes

  • Guidance on linking emergency response to rehabilitation and recovery frequently overlooked and hence, all guidance or trainings on emergency actions should ultimately provide guidance and practical steps for phasing over.
  • Indicators on food consumption: refer to Food Consumption Score for World Food Programme (WFP) and the Household Dietary Diversity Score for Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
  • Indicators on coping strategies: recommended referring to the revised Manual for the compilation and analysis of the Coping Strategy Index
  • The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS),evolving as the Household Hunger Scalewill bevery usefulfor measuring whether householdsare actually experiencing hunger, which is not an easy concept to capture through survey methods.
  • The guidance on the close linkages between food distribution and nutrition programmesrequires updation in light of the new growth standards and its implications as well as the recent trend towards community based management of malnutrition (which still requires facility based support). The guidance note developed by WFP is useful.
  • The actual guideline focuses on standard food basket and the minimum nutrient requirements. The guideline could highlight the importance of optimizing the use of local foods and the inclusion into the recommended food basket. This entails the promotion of local foods as part of the general food basket as well as in supplementary feeding rations.
  • Guidance on data needed to decide on the relevance and feasibility of social safety nets in emergencies.

Right to food aspect could be included under the information/findings that need to be considered and reflected in the indicators/guidance notes or annexes. The right to food underpins the four dimensions of food security (availability, access, stability of supply and utilisation) with the human rights perspectives and includes the human rights principles like participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment and the rule of law into the decision-making process and helps to fight hunger and malnutrition in the world.Furthermore, the right to food offers a coherent framework to address critical governance dimensions in the fight against hunger and malnutrition and it introduces additional instruments that ensure access to income earning opportunities and social protection.

There exists a significant gap on the role animals have to play in humanitarian crisis and the impact they can have on food security is heavily underestimated. The problem of animals in the humanitarian sphere extends to companion animals as well.

Food security is about access to nutritious and safe food. Food safety is a matter of grave concern for every national government. The question whether there should be uniformity in food-based standards and norms across the nation arises. At the international level, the Codex Alimentarius officially covers all foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, but requires far more attention to foods that are marketed directly to consumers. In India, the Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA)lays down scientific standards of food safety to ensure safe and wholesome food.

There is a strong need todo micro planning at community level to understandfood production and consumption patterns and model of the community to optimize its resources during emergencies.

The discussion also provided for additional components thatthe handbook could take in account:

  • School feeding in emergencies with linkages to school based food security and agriculture
  • A guidance note on inter-sectoral as well as sectoral coordination
  • Protecting breast feeding in emergencies: Operational guidance for infant feeding in emergencies and code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes possibly as an annex.
  • Grain Banksas a sustainable food security intervention in Sphere hand book
  • Culture and religion are important and sensitive social dimensions that require adequate elaborations in assessment indicators for food security.
  • Hygiene interventions including hygiene education and promotion of hand washing along with access to clean drinking water is very much a need for assuring food safety.

Sphere Handbook requires revision in view of increased pressure on natural resources resulting explosion in human population, higher water and energy requirement of existing food crops. Food is the end-product of processing a set of edible plants, animal products, poultry and allowable additives in a clean environment. Clean water, clean air and above all the affordability to access the food are also vital to define food standards.

***

Following comments were received on various sections of the handbook marked in blue and red corresponding to the comments from original document:

Assessment and analysis standard(FS) 1: food security

Where people are at risk of food insecurity, programme decisions are based on a demonstrated understanding of how they normally access food, the type of food (local diet) and theimpact of the disaster on current and future food security, and hence the most appropriate response.

The type should be mentioned on this section otherwise FS Standard I cannot not be fulfilled. There is a gap between Assessment and analysis standard I and FS Standard I. The access to (how) and the type of food is directly correlated to program decisions and fulfilling criteria laid out in FS Standard I. The type of food relates to (i) general understanding of type of nutrition intake and energy consumption (Key Indicator 8) (ii) local land use types (iii) local market structures and (iv) related livelihoods patterns. This is because, in the present situation of climate change affecting the land used by farmers and the local infrastructures does help in risk and vulnerability assessment which are prerequisite to program decision making processes.

Key indicators (to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

_ Assessments and analyses examine food security in relevant geographic locations and livelihood groupings, distinguishing between seasons, and over time, to identify and prioritise needs (see guidance note 1).

_ The assessment demonstrates understanding of the broader social, economic and political policies, institutions and processes that affect food security (see guidance note 2).

_ The assessment includes an investigation and analysis of coping strategies (see guidance note 3).

_ Where possible, the assessment builds upon local capacities, including both formal and informal institutions (see guidance note 4).

_ The methodology used is comprehensively described in the assessment report and is seen to adhere to widely accepted principles (see guidance note 5).

_ Use is made of existing secondary data, and the collection of new primary data in the field is focused on additional and existing information essential for strategic decision-making (see guidance note 6).

_ Recommended food security responses are designed to support, protect and facilitate in developing sustainable livelihood strategies, while also meeting immediate needs (see guidance note 7).

_ The impact of food insecurity on the population’s nutritional status is considered (see guidance note 8).

Instead of promote, facilitate might be more adequate because, the sustainability, besides other issues also includes mainstreaming of community based disaster management efforts that leads to feasible livelihoods strategies that could be developed by communities themselves.

Guidance notes

1. Scope of analysis: food security varies according to people’s livelihoods, their location, their social status, the time of year and the nature of the disaster and associated responses. The focus of the assessment will reflect how the affected population acquired food and income before the disaster, and how the disaster has affected this. For example, in urban and peri-urban areas, the focus may be on reviewing the market supply of food, while in rural areas it will usually be on food production. Where people have been displaced, the food security of the host population must also be taken into account. Food security assessments may be undertaken when planning to phase out a programme as well as prior to starting one. In either case, they should be coordinated among all concerned parties to minimise duplication of effort. Assessments gathering new information should complement secondary data from existing information sources.

Somewhere it would be good to mention the types of food because, sources together with the type is mandatory during assessment.

3. Coping strategies: assessment and analysis should consider the different types of coping strategy, who is applying them and how well they work. While strategies vary, there are nonetheless distinct stages of coping. Early coping strategies are not necessarily abnormal, are reversible and cause no lasting damage e.g. collection of wild foods for consumption as well as for selling, selling non-essential assets or sending a family member to work elsewhere. Later strategies, sometimes called crisis strategies, may permanently undermine future food security e.g. sale of land, distress migration of whole families or deforestation. Some coping strategies employed by women and girls tend to expose them to higher risk of HIV infection e.g. prostitution and illicit relationships, or sexual violence as they travel to unsafe areas. Increased migration generally may increase risk of HIV transmission. Coping strategies may also affect the environment e.g. over-exploitation of commonly owned natural resources. It is important that food security is protected and supported before all non-damaging options are exhausted.

As per experiences in South Asia, the communities collect wild food and other NTFP for both consumption & selling.

Example; in Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Nepal communities collect leafy vegetables, firewood and fruits from the forests as per the season and sell them in the market to purchase basic food item; e.g., rice, oil and salt and fill up their daily household’s food basket. They consume lesser but sell more of these item to have cash in handone of the coping strategies for communities typical in Myanmar, 6 months after disaster.

4. Local capacities: participation of the community and appropriate local institutions at all stages of assessment and planning is vital. Programmes should be based on need and tailored to the particular local context and within the local government and their partner agencies’ policy frameworks. In areas subject to recurrent natural disasters or long-running conflicts there may be local early warning and emergency response systems or networks. Communities which have previously experienced drought or floods may have their own contingency plans. It is important that such

local capacities are supported.

Partner is usually United Nations agencies.

5. Methodology: it is important to consider carefully the coverage of assessments and sampling procedures, even if informal. The process documented in the report should be both logical and transparent, and should reflect recognised standards and procedures for food security assessment. Methodological approaches need to be coordinated among agencies and with the government to ensure that information and analyses are complementary and consistent, so that information can be compared over time. Multi-agency assessments are usually preferable. The triangulation of different sources and types of food security information is vital in order to arrive at a consistent conclusion across different sources e.g. crop assessments, satellite images, household assessments etc. A checklist of the main areas to be considered in an assessment is given in Appendix 1. A checklist for reviewing methodology is provided in Appendix 2.

Recommend Households Dietary Index as one of the assessment tools because; it gives an idea on the daily traditional food basket and the types of food and, secondly, it is very helpful for professionals with non nutrition and health background to design rapid response strategy that could have longer – term results.

In Myanmar, Mid Island, rice farming communities do not consume rice on a daily basis. They consume rice noodles, which are available at cheaper rates. The rice they consume are lower/ substandard quality, that are cheaper in the market. The rice they farm are usually better quality and fetches good price in the market.

Guidance notes

4. Exit and transition strategies: such strategies must be considered from the outset of a programme, particularly where the response may have long-term implications e.g. the provision of free services which would normally be paid for, such as access to credit or veterinary services. Before closing the programme or transiting to a new phase, there should be evidence that the situation has improved.