VAM Verona Meetings

A synopsis of the main issues and action points

I. Introduction: VAM held two meetings in Verona between June 28 and July 6, 2001. The first (June 28-29) was dedicated to two things: a) an examination of the VAM Standard Analytical Framework (SAF), and b) the secondary data analysis portion of a SAF Comprehensive Vulnerability Analysis. The results of three SAF “pilot” secondary data analyses (in Bolivia, Kenya, Mali) were presented. These presentations were complemented by several examples of recent secondary data analyses in other VAM countries.

Between July 2-6, the focus of the discussions turned to primary data collection and analysis, with three SAF Participatory Vulnerability Profiling “pilots” in Bolivia, Kenya and Mali, and one planned analysis (Nicaragua) being presented. Late in the week, VAM work in emergencies was highlighted, and the SAF concept was considered in emergency settings.

II. General Conclusions: In general terms, the consensus of the meetings was that a “standard” approach to analysis is desirable and responds to important perceived needs (for a definable core of VAM activities, for quality assurance, for integration with WFP programming needs) in VAM and throughout WFP. The SAF approach (in which the “deliverables” of VAM analyses are spelled out and coincide with WFP information requirements, and a range of new and existing analytic methods and techniques, when used appropriately, are acceptable means of producing these “deliverables”) was also generally felt appropriate. During these discussions, the group determined that the terminology currently being used for several of the Comprehensive Vulnerability Analysis steps could be improved; alternatives were suggested.

In a broader sense, the group returned multiple times to a discussion of where VAM fits institutionally in the field. This discussion was well-served by the presence in the Verona meetings of several representatives of “Programme” and other non-VAM offices. Specifically referring to VAM and “Programme” functions and personnel, the group re-affirmed that the reality in the field is that the line between VAM and “Programme” is not a clear one, and that the most useful conception is that VAM is a part of the Programme function.

Another clear theme that surfaced repeatedly in both meetings was the importance of defining SAF products for emergencies, where the bulk of WFP’s resources are used, and where the analytic issues are clearly more pressing. Nevertheless, the group also insisted that there is a continuum of food security and vulnerability assessment between the emergency and development “poles”, and it is not easy nor desirable to try to cleanly separate the analytic tools and methods that should serve either.

III. Key issues and conclusions: SAF and Secondary Data meeting

Some of the “themes” that came out of these meetings included the following:

  • There was a general acceptance of the utility of a SAF approach to analysis.
  • In addition to the “deliverables” that are specified by the SAF approach, there is a clear demand for assistance in learning/using useful analytic methods and techniques.
  • The SAF SDA pilots employed very different methods/techniques in their analyses, but all appeared to produce useful information for CSO use.
  • In addition to the actual VAM analyses themselves, the “environment” in which they are carried out (the involvement/awareness of the CO in the analysis, the history of VAM assessments in that country, etc) is an important factor in whether they will yield useful information to the CO and to partners.
  • A number of other interesting analytic techniques are currently being used in VAM analyses around the world, although there is no systematic way to learn of them. Some of these include: indexing, simple statistical measures, Z-scores, principal components analysis, small area estimation, clustering, FEWS income accounting approach, etc.
  • The analytic potential of datasets that are now available in international datasets (satellite imagery, agro-meteorological data, etc.), and especially from web-based sites, is important but little known/used in many VAM offices. Some of these include:

Global remote sensing data sets, Human Development Index (UNDP), Household Income and Expenditure Surveys, Demographic Health Survey (USAID), Poverty – Participatory Poverty Assessment (World Bank), Living Sstandards Measurement Surveys, National Census, Multiple Indictor Cluster Survey (UNICEF), DESI, Literacy Survey (UNESCO), etc.

  • Secondary data are considered an important, but not stand-alone, source of information to use (when available) in building the credibility of targeting analyses.
  • The limitations of secondary data for community and household analyses are well-known, but most of us have little experience in how to get and use alternative sources of information (primary data).
  • The special place of nutritional data in food security/vulnerability assessment was of particular interest to most of us. There is considerable interest in learning more about how to use it in VAM assessments.
  • The name of the “Literature Review” step in the Comprehensive Vulnerability Analysis should be changed to “Situation Analysis” to more accurately reflect the range of issues and information sources that this first “planning” step should treat. Some of these include:

Situation Analysis: WFP current information needs, Data Inventory, Bibliography, Literature Review, Activity Inventory, Collaboration of/with FS Partners / MOUs for data sharing networks, Human resources available, Programme buy-in if possible, Analytical plan to guide data preparation and SDA

  • The draft Secondary Data Analysis Guidelines were reviewed by the group. Although many felt that most of the parts are there, the presentation needs more work. Suggested changes included removal of many of the acronyms, provision of more examples to explain the concepts, organising the sections by their functional purposes (identifying the most vulnerable areas, defining vulnerable groups, understanding the food security/vulnerable problem, etc.). A group of Mac, John, and Maren volunteered to advise further on this, and Susana Rico volunteered editing assistance from her unit.

IV. . Key issues and conclusions: Participatory Vulnerability Profiling meetings

Key themes that emerged in these wide-ranging meetings included:

  • Most of us are very interested in learning more about how to cost-effectively undertake primary data collection and analysis to complement our other normal data sources (secondary data, key informants, rapid windshield surveys, etc.).
  • Multiple “methods” of primary data collection and analysis were used in the three SAF pilots. All look reasonable and promising in the results that they may provide.
  • It appears that the SAF approach to primary data collection and analysis should include a range of tools and instruments that will fall at various points in a continuum between the two poles of closed-end questionnaires and open-ended interviews. It will be important to know the basis on which the choice of tools/instruments would be made.
  • The use of the term “Participatory” in “Participatory Vulnerability Profiling” may be problematic because WFP information needs do not allow us to make this exercise “participatory” in the same sense as R. Chambers’ PRA techniques. It may therefore mislead some. Therefore a better name might be “Community Food Security Profiling”. This terminology allows for all the tools/instruments we might use, and appropriately indicates the level we are attempting to describe (community).
  • Staffing high quality data collection teams for the PVP was problematic in Mali and Bolivia: One good suggestion (Nicaragua) was to train 40 people for 1 week in the data collection techniques and methods, then pick 20 of them for the actual PVP/CFSP. This would allow the facilitators to choose the best candidates, as well as creating a pool of reserve team members in case of team dropout.
  • SAF needs to be institutionalized through biannual/ quarterly formal advisory sessions with senior programme staff in order to promote the utility of SAF to programme needs (interventions design, problem analysis etc.)
  • VAM Officers working on SAF process steps should assure programme buy-in (negotiation) at the country office level before proceeding with this (or any other) analysis.
  • Food Security Monitoring (not to be confused with project monitoring) should be an integral part of the VAM SAF. SAF could also help in defining VAM’s role in M&E.
  • Needed inputs to CSO, EMOP and PRRO documents will be relatively the same. The conceptual ‘division’ between emergency and development does not extend to the field.
  • VAM Officers should carry out full food security analyses to meet not only the information needs of WFP, but also for “advocates” who can help when food aid is not the solution. VAM should also look at food security problems in the long-term rather than taking a “project driven” approach.
  • The relationship between VAM and FIVIMS should be explained on the web site.
  • There is a definite role for VAM In contingency planning in the profiling of vulnerable groups and risks/hazards.
  • More support for the field will be provided from VAM HQ: the Cartographer and Remote Sensing Expert are employed and will be available to go to the field.
  • It was suggested that VAM should bring together 10-12 people from “Programme” (programme advisors, deputy and country directors, etc. ) to develop a global approach to defining the role of VAM.
  • VAM needs guidelines on the use of nutrition indicators for its assessments.
  • SAF terminology should be formalised soon so that we may all start using the same terms for the same concepts.
  • VAM Officers need forum to share issues and problems. The web-site is a useful tool for this.
  • Global VAM should carry out a “needs survey” with regional VAM officers from each bureau to identify country-by-country where VAM is, the way forward and resources needed.

V. Participants:

Jeffrey Marzilli <>, Annalisa Conte <>, Annika Stanley <>, Gary Eilerts <>, Graham Farmer <>, Nicholas Haan <>, Nathan Morrow <>, Birane Wane" <>, Carmen Barragan <>, Maren Egedorf" <>, Mahadevan Ramachandran <>, Iain McDonald <>, John McHarris <>, Bishwa Tiwari <>, William Fielding <>, Chuck Chopak <>, Charisse Tillman <>, Susana Rico <>, Judit Katona-Apte <>, Deborah Hines <>, Carlo Scaramella <>

IV. Presentations:(some of which will be posted on the web site)

  1. Fundamentals of SAF
  2. Bolivia Pilot SAF secondary data analysis
  3. Kenya Pilot SAF secondary data analysis
  4. Mali Pilot SAF secondary data analysis
  5. Syria secondary data analysis
  6. Laos and Cambodia secondary data analysis, Vietnam Rapid Disaster Support
  7. Presentation on Participatory Vulnerability Profiling (background and principles)
  8. Zambia Participatory Clustering
  9. Nepal SAF PVP
  10. Bolivia SAF PVP
  11. Nicaragua SAF PVP plans
  12. Kenya SAF Pilot PVP
  13. Mali SAF Pilot PVP
  14. Uganda E-VAM experience
  15. Angola VAM activities