Documents - search results
The Board took note of “Summary Evaluation Report Republic of the Congo PRRO 103121” (WFP/EB.2/2009/6-G) and the management response in WFP/EB.2/2009/6-G/Add.1 and encouraged further action on the recommendations, taking into account considerations raised by the Board during its discussion.Meeting(s):
22. Summarizing the situation, the Deputy Regional Director for Asia (ODB) drew attention to the effects of high food prices and natural disasters in a context of funding shortfalls and limited capacities. In line with the Strategic Plan, WFP was deploying cash and voucher schemes and, where feasible, electronic food vouchers; cash grants for micro-enterprises were showing good results. In order to effectively manage risks associated with cash and voucher programmes, the region had stepped up the quality and breadth of its needs analysis, monitoring and oversight. ODB was shifting steadily to food assistance support for government safety-net systems and development of risk-management and disaster-response capacities. WFP was reviewing its operations in Afghanistan with a focus on strategy, operational modalities and risk management. In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), WFP would lead an inter-agency assessment following a request from the Government for emergency food assistance; the Board would be updated once the results were available.23. The Board welcomed the ODB report and commended the alignment of WFP interventions with government programmes. Members noted that in certain cases higher food prices could be advantageous for small farmers in the region. The Board stressed that the DPRK needs assessments be realistic and based on sound evidence, which would require adequate access; it urged WFP to ensure that its assessments and resource allocations in DPRK were fully transparent so that donor confidence was maintained. The representative of DPRK assured the Board that WFP would have the full collaboration of the Government.24. The Deputy Regional Director reassured the Board that its interventions were planned in collaboration with national and local authorities. He noted that when food prices increased, urban populations were the most affected; while some farmers might profit temporarily, the very poor were not able to derive benefits. Concerning the DPRK assessment, the focus would be on changes since the previous assessment in November 2010. The Secretariat clarified that Afghanistan would be one of the countries examined in the upcoming quarterly operational review.25. With regard to the impact evaluation of school feeding in Cambodia, the Director of the Office of Evaluation noted that school feeding had been effective in enhancing educational outcomes such as increased enrolment and attendance, and that the take-home rations had been an effective modality; the learning and nutrition outcomes had been sound. Food assistance had had significant effects in poor households, but the success of the school feeding programmes had been limited by the need for children in poor families to work, and low quality of education in schools and of school infrastructure. The programme was well organized, but had difficulties achieving all programme objectives at once. Therefore, the evaluation recommended that programme objectives should be further clarified and synergies with other projects identified with a view to providing a comprehensive assistance package. The Director of the Performance and Accountability Management Division noted that the evaluation’s eight recommendations were 26. The Deputy Regional Director noted that post-conflict Cambodia had the resources to escape the poverty trap: WFP saw its role as an enabler in supporting national food security, recovery and development programmes, particularly those targeting education, nutrition and livelihood development. With regard to the country programme (CP), WFP’s plans included purchasing 70 percent of food requirements locally and building emergency response capacities. Cash-based modalities would be used as appropriate and operations would be designed in collaboration with stakeholders to be cost-effective and sustainable in the long term with a view to hand-over.27. Board members commended the quality of the evaluation, the positive results and the taking up of the evaluation recommendations in the new CP. They suggested that WFP go further to develop systems for assessing value for money to assure donors that their contributions were used effectively and to inform governments on what it took to achieve objectives. Sound baseline evidence would have to be obtained from the outset of operations to achieve this. There was also a need to clarify the criteria for community-based nutrition, livelihood support and health care interventions and to ensure that gender and environmental issues were recognized. Some members asked for details of WFP’s capacity development work with government institutions and its plans for hand-over, suggesting that a budgeted operational workplan and timeline be developed for achieving sustainability and national ownership. Others asked for clarification of WFP’s partnership arrangements, noting that FAO and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had programmes that could be synergized with WFP’s interventions. The importance of establishing priorities to take account of possible resource shortfalls was again emphasized.28. The country director in Cambodia confirmed that collaboration with FAO and UNICEF was ongoing in several areas, and informed the membership that WFP supported community nutrition by training health volunteers for mother-and-child health (MCH) programmes; the major criterion for inclusion in MCH programmes was stunting (chronic malnutrition). Partnerships were developed with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for piloting voucher MCH programmes. Although not explicit in the CP document, Enhanced Commitments to Women objectives were addressed in the CP, and gender and environmental indicators would be used in targeting and reporting. WFP saw eventual national ownership of the CP programmes as a core feature, but realistic expectations and decisions regarding the eventual hand-over would have to be made on the basis of the status of government finances and management capacity: these matters would be reflected in the amended CP document. Work was ongoing with the World Bank and other partners to develop monitoring modalities on new pilots; opportunities for working with the Ministry of Agriculture would be examined, particularly within the context of Cambodia’s decentralization programme.29. With regard to the Timor-Leste CP, the Deputy Regional Director observed that the operation was in line with national plans and that responsibility for school feeding had been taken over by the Government. WFP was seeking to develop national capacities as a primary objective and to improve infrastructures; it would include school kitchens and the provision of fuel-efficient stoves in its programme.30. Board members approved the balance of CP activities, and urged caution with regard to handing over school feeding programmes in view of limited ministry capacities. The next draft of the CP document should include reference to synergies with other actors, more accurate data on food insecurity and component costs, further development of monitoring modalities and clarification of the logframe in terms of outcome and output indicators. Board members suggested that a strategy be prepared for the envisaged 2013 hand-over, along with provisional plans for an extended presence after that date. Questions were raised as to the extent of WFP’s consultations with other agencies at the planning stage and the extent to which gender issues were included in capacity development activities.31. The Deputy Regional Director observed that work on the hand-over had been in progress for some time, and staff had been embedded in ministries to facilitate this work. The essential requirement was to ensure that the Government was in a position to take over food assistance mechanisms: capacity development work was ongoing with this in view, and a workplan and timeline were being developed along with indicators for measuring progress. The country director assured the Board that synergies with the protracted relief and recovery operation (PRRO) would be sought and that the logframe would be adjusted as recommended by Board members.
The Board took note of draft country programme Cambodia 200202 (2011–2016) (WFP/EB.1/2011/7/3), for which the food requirement is 137,586 mt at a total cost to WFP of US$131.9 million, and authorized the Secretariat to formulate a country programme, taking into account the observations of the Board.Meeting(s):
The Board took note of “Review of the Arrangements for Reporting Post Delivery Food Losses to the Executive Board: Report by the External Auditor” (WFP/EB.1/2006/6-B/1) and looked forward to a management response to the recommendations and findings contained in the report. The Board also took note of the comments of the ACABQ (WFP/EB.1/2006/6(A,B,C,D,E)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.1/2006/6(A,B,C,D,E)/3).Meeting(s):
1. Summarizing the situation in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Regional Director drew attention to the 53million hungry people in the region, who were food-insecure largely because food prices in much of the region remained high. There were 1.5million more poor people, 1million jobs had been lost and remittances from abroad – a major element of social security in the region – had decreased by 8percent. Natural disasters in 2009 were affecting 10percent of the population in the region, and an El Niño situation was causing droughts resulting in losses of 40percent or more of bean and maize crops in some areas. Flooding caused by hurricane Ida had destroyed livelihoods, leaving more people in need of immediate food aid. WFP was responding to these needs in partnership with a number of other agencies and NGOs, with much of its effort aimed at reinforcing safety nets and reducing food insecurity and malnutrition. In the longer term, the main needs were to enhance social protection networks and improve nutrition among young children and vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples. WFP was working with UNDP in seven countries to build capacities in governments and public institutions. In the region as a whole, programmes were being considered with partners to address the nutrition needs of young people and schoolchildren and to provide technical support for government programmes.
2. Guatemala country programme (CP) 200031 was designed to address chronic undernutrition among children under3 and support agricultural recovery among farmers affected by disaster. It also aimed to increase government capacity to reduce food insecurity and included elements addressing HIV and AIDS and disaster response. The CP was fully aligned with WFP's Strategic Objectives and with government policies.
3. Haiti PRRO 108440 was designed to address a situation in which high food prices and natural disasters had destroyed livelihoods and led to civil unrest. Unemployment, food insecurity and vulnerability rates were still very high, which was preventing recovery. The basic need was to re-develop Haiti's agricultural potential, particularly by increasing the amount of food produced by small farmers and by developing food processing and other agriculture-related programmes; there was also a need for health, education and nutrition interventions to support stabilization and recovery.
4. Board members welcomed the Regional Director's remarks. With regard to Haiti, Board members applauded the efforts to overcome aid dependence and support recovery, and drew attention to underlying causes of the situation such as the breakdown of the rural economy, environmental degradation and inequalities in external trade. It was essential to enable the Government to invest in agricultural and market development, infrastructures and livestock farming: WFP was urged to maximize local food procurement policy to support this aim. There was an urgent need for sustained funding to support safety-net and food-security programmes. Board members approved of the support for small farmers, and of the disaster risk reduction elements of the PRRO, including pre-positioning of food. The Board encouraged WFP to continue its partnerships with FAO, UNDP and the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP) in support of capacity development. Some Board members recommended that the Secretariat give more attention to targeting, measurement of outputs and hand-over mechanisms, and asked whether cash and voucher programmes had been considered.
5. With regard to the Guatemala CP, Board members suggested that programmes such as seed diversification be introduced to guard against crop failure and that WFP study the potential benefits of cash-based interventions. Some members asked about the targeting approaches used in the CP. Board members particularly approved the capacity-building elements of the CP and its alignment with government priorities, but recommended more attention to gender and to developing common indicators to measure impact. Coordination with other actors at all levels was essential in a situation requiring a combination of disaster response, recovery and development approaches.
6. The Board recognized that there were resource constraints in the Guatemala CP and the Haiti PRRO and urged WFP to prioritize its interventions to make best use of the resources available and to consolidate its capacities with the other United Nations agencies.
7. The Regional Director thanked the Board for its observations and support. The country director for Haiti noted that work was under way to improve the measurement of impact and nutrition outcomes and that capacity-building in ministries was moving forward with a view to making disaster response a locally owned process. Local procurement was a priority; cash-based projects were being considered, and decisions on how and where to apply them were imminent. Coordination with the Government, United Nations agencies and NGOs was at the core of WFP's work in Haiti.
8. The Guatemala country director noted that the Government had taken over the school feeding programme and was working on community centres and IDP resettlement. Agricultural interventions were aimed at structural development based on small farmers. The Government was working with various agencies to reduce food insecurity, particularly among children, and in programmes addressing gender equality and health. Cash and voucher programmes had been considered in designing the CP, but uncertainty of funding made it unlikely that such programmes would be implemented.
The Board endorsed “Draft Country Programme Guatemala 200031 (2010–2014)” (WFP/EB.2/2009/7), for which the food requirement was 21,160 mt at a total cost to WFP of US$19.5 million, and authorized the Secretariat to formulate a country programme, taking into account the observations of the Board.Meeting(s):
1. The Director for the Southern, Eastern and Central Africa region began his overview by drawing the Board's attention to the increasing scale of food and nutrition insecurity in the region. In the Horn of Africa, drought and livestock diseases combined with the effects of global recession had led to a 14percent increase in malnourished and vulnerable populations: 20million people were in need of assistance. WFP was working to leverage various forms of assistance to address immediate needs and improve safety nets. El Niño was currently causing floods in parts of eastern Africa and drought in southern Africa, and food was only one of many urgent needs.
2. A good harvest in Zimbabwe had increased the availability of food, but there was still a cereal deficit in rural areas; WFP had been obliged by resource shortfalls to reduce its ration sizes. WFP was working with FAO to develop smallholder food production and respond to the cholera outbreak. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, political instability and conflict had displaced 2million people and left another 1.5million vulnerable to food insecurity: WFP and its partner agencies were addressing these problems as best they could. In Ethiopia, in response to earlier requests from the Board, an improved system of reporting at the district level had been introduced jointly with the Government. A new food security network and a capacity-building action plan were being developed, with a new monitoring system to be functioning by early 2010.
3. In the region as a whole, very high rates of HIV and AIDS continued to exacerbate other difficulties. WFP was preparing to introduce new and innovative tools such as cash and voucher programmes and P4P interventions to increase local procurement in support of small farmers with FAO and IFAD, and was working on forward purchasing and pre‑positioning to reduce delivery lead times, food processing projects, food exchanges and food warehousing options for small farmers, and enhancing school feeding and other safety-net approaches. The successes of the Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transitions to More Sustainable Livelihoods (MERET) programme in Ethiopia were highlighted as a model that could be scaled up and replicated elsewhere. Throughout the region, WFP was strengthening its contacts with the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme(CAADP), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and others. Aregional nutrition group had been formed to develop new approaches. The Regional Director expressed gratitude for the generosity of donors; the region still needed more assured funding to be able to continue its work at the current level.
4. The Ethiopia delegation gave a brief account of the Government's work to address hunger issues, noting that Ethiopia had met and even exceeded the targets set in the Maputo Declaration. Under MERET, large areas of land had been rehabilitated and reforested, and water and soil management programmes were proving to be effective.
5. Board members expressed appreciation for the Regional Director's presentation, and asked how new programme approaches were assessed in terms of suitability and cost‑efficiency. The Board commended the regional bureau on its partnerships with other United Nations agencies, NGOs and CAADP, and encouraged it to maintain and enhance them. The improvement in reporting from Ethiopia had enabled donors to increase their contributions to humanitarian work in the region.
6. The Regional Director thanked the Board on behalf of the country offices for their support. Work to improve M&E and to enhance resilience to weather shocks was ongoing and would be reported to the Board regularly. WFP's partnerships were fundamental to its operations in the region and would certainly be continued and extended. In response to a Board member's question, the Secretariat noted that new tools and nutrition products were being introduced to support the objectives of different projects; research into optimum nutrition options was ongoing.
7. In presenting the document, the Secretariat assured the Board that it incorporated responses to Board comments made at an informal consultation in July 2009.
8. The Board welcomed the new document and recognized that it addressed queries that members had raised at previous discussions. It emphasized the need for WFP to review its position and comparative advantages in Uganda, as the country's economy grew and expanded; the CP should fit within Government-led processes and focus on providing technical assistance. Some members expressed concern about the lack of support for school feeding activities, especially at the local government level. The Board commended the excellent in-country process that had gone into designing and revising this programme and the country office's strong partnerships with the Government and its ministries.
9. The Executive Director also thanked the country director for his efforts in strengthening the United Nations country team, respecting Government wishes and seeking inputs from a broader range of stakeholders.
10. Responding to points raised by the Board, the country director reported that the network of WFP sub-offices throughout Uganda was a useful resource for both WFP and UnitedNations partners working at the community level. The Government fully supported the CP, and joint action agreements were being set up with counterpart ministries outlining roles and responsibilities for reaching its objectives. Concerning school feeding, the Government regarded it as the responsibility of parents and communities, and had requested WFP to provide them with expertise and advice on how to fulfill this important responsibility.
11. The Board asked for a progress report on the CP to be presented at its Second Regular Session in 2011.
The Board approved on a no-objection basis country programme Uganda 108070 (2009–2014) (WFP/EB.2/2009/8) for which the food requirement is 79,552 mt at a total cost to WFP of US$158.4 million and requested a progress report at the end of 2011.Meeting(s):
1. In presenting the third update on WFP’s Management Plan (2010–2011), the Secretariat stressed that increases to the programme of work represented appeals rather than actual adjustments in operations. During 2010, WFP’s appeals had increased, but operations in many countries had been scaled back; although some of these reductions were the result of efficiencies gained, others were caused by inadequate funding and operational difficulties. Changes in the wording of the Management Plan would enhance understanding of how operations were planned and resourced.2. The Board expressed its appreciation for the Secretariat’s update on WFP’s programme of work amid the global financial and food crises. WFP was commended for improving operational efficiency and encouraged to continue to seek efficiencies and widen the donor base, particularly among developing countries and the private sector. Many Board members expressed concern about the widening gap between WFP’s resources and operational needs, and welcomed the activities of the SRAC.3. The Board urged WFP to make all possible efforts to meet the needs of vulnerable populations despite the unpredictable funding and unforeseen needs, and to continue to base its management planning on expected needs rather than contributions. A seminar in December 2010 would help to clarify the methods used for needs assessment and prioritization of programming. WFP was also encouraged to provide an extra budgetary framework and to provide more detail on operational reductions in countries not covered in the update.4. The Secretariat assured the Board that many of the important management issues it raised would be discussed in greater detail in the upcoming seminar. The Management Plan reflected countries’ expressed needs, but the terminology would be improved to properly reflect differences between these needs and the operational level. In Iraq, a funding shortfall had necessitated a focus on the most vulnerable beneficiaries; in Somalia, limited access had resulted in a scaling back of operations.5. WFP’s programme of work would continue to be needs-based, except for development projects, where a planned package of activities agreed with the Government could not be carried out due to funding constraints.6. The draft decision was amended to take into account comments raised during the Board’s discussion.
Having considered “Third Update on the WFP Management Plan (2010–2011)” (WFP/EB.2/2010/5-C/1), the Board took note of the updated foreseen programme of work of US$11.98 billion for the 2010–2011 biennium, excluding any provision for unforeseen requirements. The Board encouraged WFP management to take into account considerations raised by the Board during its discussion. The Board also took note of the comments of the ACABQ (WFP/EB.2/2010/5(A,B,C,D,E)/2 and WFP/EB.2/2010/4(B,C)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.2/2010/5(A,B,C,D,E)/3 and WFP/EB.2/2010/4(B,C)/3).Meeting(s):
1. The Director of the Office of Evaluation outlined the summary evaluation report of Colombia PRRO 105880 and the management response. The Board heard that 92 percent of beneficiaries had been reached, but that only 52 percent of the anticipated food had been available as a result of resourcing constraints. WFP generally managed to avoid pipeline breaks, however, and commitments to women had largely been met; school enrolment had increased, IDPs had received relief and been enrolled in government welfare programmes, and food for work (FFW) had created community assets. The operation had been efficient, even though implementation had been affected by cash-flow problems. Food insecurity had been reduced, but the operation had had little impact on the nutrition situation; partnerships had been effective and livelihoods had been enhanced. Evaluation recommendations were being addressed by the country office with a view to increasing the indirect effects of WFP programmes.2. The Board welcomed the presentation, noting that many of the problems to be addressed were connected with internal conflict. Members were encouraged to note that the economy and national governance were improving and that as people became more self-reliant there was a good prospect of sustaining the improvements. The Board noted with approval that WFP had worked effectively with the Government of Colombia, which had guaranteed staff safety, and had set up several fruitful partnerships with other agencies. Members urged WFP to seek early hand-overs of viable and sustainable projects and to promote full country ownership, but to embed disaster risk management in all projects and maintain its capacity to provide humanitarian aid in view of the frequency of natural disasters. Clarification was sought as to the numbers of IDPs in rural areas and the resources allocated to supporting them. The need to develop innovative approaches appropriate to local conditions was stressed as a means of achieving sustainable, efficient responses.
The Board took note of “Summary Evaluation Report Colombia Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation 105880” (WFP/EB.2/2010/6-C) and the management response in WFP/EB.2/2010/6-C/Add.1, and encouraged further action on the recommendations, taking into account considerations raised by the Board during its discussion.Meeting(s):
77. The Board heard an oral report of the visit by WFP Board members to Malawi and Zambia, during which Board members had met children suffering from malnutrition and HIV/AIDS, the main beneficiaries of WFP's work in both countries, and had observed the positive role of nutrition. WFP had made considerable progress in improving disaster preparedness and mitigation. The level of inter-agency cooperation was high in both countries.
78. The Director of the Southern Africa Regional Bureau (ODJ) gave a regional presentation, noting that floods, cyclones and drought had recently affected large areas. In Zimbabwe, a drought had been declared, which was having severe effects on basic food stocks and prices; WFP had reduced the number of beneficiaries to preserve food stocks. Poor harvests were expected in Lesotho, where large numbers of people would need food aid. The situation was worse in Swaziland: current weather patterns there and in South Africa had triggered a disaster. Mozambique had been badly hit by severe weather that had affected hundreds of thousands of people. There had been severe floods in Zambia: the Government had provided for victims' food needs but would need assistance with the recovery. Infrastructure had been damaged by a series of cyclones in Madagascar, but funding from the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) was supporting immediate relief. Good harvests in Malawi would help with food procurement in the region. Smaller WFP operations in Angola and Namibia were being wound down and future operations would need to be negotiated with the national governments with a view to possible handovers. The Regional Director gave an update on the regional PRRO, which would need a budget revision. He emphasized that HIV/AIDS prevalence rates were the highest in the world and that food insecurity was increasing. Single-country PRROs for Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, to be presented later in the year, would focus on social protection.
79. The Secretariat presented the summary report of the mid-term evaluation of Southern Africa regional PRRO 10310.0. The simultaneous provision of food aid and medical care had been successful in treating HIV/AIDS; 9 million people had been reached. Greater efficiency would have been achieved had information on targeting been shared more fully among the country offices. Evaluation had shown a need for greater partnerships, above all of a technical nature. More had to be done to reduce the populations' vulnerability to natural disasters. The Secretariat also presented an overview of development project Malawi 10581.0, explaining the problems facing the education sector and WFP's support for education.
80. The Board commended the Secretariat on its comprehensive reports and on WFP's achievements in the region, in particular its focus on nutrition when addressing food insecurity and HIV/AIDS, and its model cooperation with other United Nations agencies. WFP needed to work more with other bodies to enhance national and local capacities and ensure sustainability. Some members felt that better preparation of the regional PRRO could have avoided setbacks such as widespread rejection of imported genetically modified grain. More information on the benefits for women of WFP projects would have been welcome, and support was expressed for more gender mainstreaming in WFP projects in the region. Board members called for further information on the methods and effectiveness of market analysis in the region; some members expressed a preference for regional rather than single-country PRROs. The complementary role of food aid in the region was stressed: it was preferable to leave leadership of development activities to national institutions and other agencies. The availability of food stocks in neighbouring countries was signalled. It was pointed out that donors responded where situations were more urgent and sometimes chose to channel donations through other bodies. WFP needed to establish uniform target criteria for the region. There should be further debate in the Board of the place of capacity-building in WFP strategy. The work done in the region by FAO, IFAD, the World Bank and bilateral donors was acknowledged.
81. The Secretariat noted that a regional PRRO was not necessary for drawing regional conclusions: that was the function of the Regional Bureau. The Secretariat was developing a new form of country-level evaluation for WFP operations. Evaluation reports were submitted to national governments for comments, which were incorporated into the final version; independence, impartiality and professional standards were important criteria in evaluation reports. The Secretariat undertook to cross-reference full reports in summary reports. Board members were encouraged to read the full report, which contained detailed information of government input and met many of the concerns voiced by the Board. Information on the gender aspect would soon be made available. More time was needed before the impact of
WFP operations in the region could be comprehensively assessed; evidence of success or potential success had been presented in the report. Government partners had been the main providers of feedback. Country scenarios could be made the subject of separate reports in the future if requested. Assurance was given that regular exchanges of information were held at country level to avoid overlap. Consideration would be given to partnerships with national and local associations for the aged.
82. The Regional Director noted that the findings and recommendations of the evaluation had been taken seriously and that future programmes would benefit, but felt that it could have given greater prominence to regional work on targeting, monitoring and reporting, in which there had been considerable investment. Regular surveys had provided extensive data, which had been accessed by the international community. The regional bureau had produced useful indicators in the form of fact sheets that showed that food aid had greatly helped beneficiaries. The Regional Director acknowledged that the impact of food aid varied according to the category of beneficiary.
The Board approved development project Malawi 10581.0 “Strategic Focus of the WFP Development Project: Support to Education” (WFP/EB.A/2007/9-A/3), contingent on resource availability, for which US$20.5 million would be provided from regular development resource allocations, noting that up to US$19.5 million was expected as an additional contribution through the McGovern-Dole International Food-for-Education and Child Nutrition Program.Meeting(s):
60. The Regional Director summarized WFP’s work in the region with the
ongoing challenges, including climate change and the aftershocks of the
financial crisis. National governments were particularly supportive,
including as emerging donors contributing to WFP programmes and safety
nets in their own and other countries; WFP was playing an increasingly
technical role. He warned that Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and Yemen, among others remained serious concerns.
Yemen was affected by security issues, food insecurity that affected a
third of the population and the influx of 1.5 million refugees from the
Horn of Africa; a protracted relief and recovery operation (PRRO) would
soon be presented to Board members for approval by correspondence.
Throughout the region 410,000 refugees and 349,000 internally displaced
persons (IDPs) were among the people depending on WFP for their food and
61. Elsewhere in the Middle East, innovative voucher programmes had
helped 156,000 beneficiaries in six countries. Following successful
piloting in the Syrian Arab Republic, electronic vouchers had been
introduced elsewhere, including the West Bank, where the voucher
programme was to expand to 61,500 beneficiaries by the end of 2010.
Assessments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had found that
vouchers helped improve the diets of 90 percent of beneficiaries, and
that beneficiaries consumed 98 percent of rations, compared with 78
percent of rations in food distributions. Voucher programmes supported
local economies and increased beneficiaries’ self-respect and food
choices. Another major success was the government-led food fortification
programme in Egypt, providing over 40 million people with fortified
flour. The Regional Director closed his presentation with a plea for
donor support to WFP activities in the region to address the current
shortfalls and pipeline breaks.
62. The Director of OE then summarized the evaluation findings for the
Egypt country programme (CP), which had an interesting composition of
components and a hand-over strategy. Programme activities were found to
be consistent with country needs, but of mixed efficiency, particularly
regarding capacity development. Food for education (FFE) and food for
assets (FFA) had faced funding limitations. Quality control of
programmes was good. The FFE activities had reduced gender disparities
in schools, FFA activities contributed to government development
programmes, and food insecurity and micronutrient deficiencies had been
reduced. The prospects for sustainability after government take-over
63. The Board commended the Secretariat for its work in the region.
Members shared the concerns about Yemen, and suggested that the WFP
projects may not be large enough to address the needs. Instability in
Iraq meant that WFP should continue its support there and in Jordan and
the Syrian Arab Republic, where there were many refugees from Iraq.
Given the vast numbers of refugees and people in transit throughout the
Middle East and beyond, the Secretariat should strengthen collaboration
with the International Organization for Migration and similar agencies.
64. Many members suggested that the Egypt CP could serve as a model for
others in the region. They commended the contributions and commitment of
the Egyptian Government and private sector, and suggested that the
Secretariat explore the opportunities for expanding private-sector
involvement in other countries. Members felt that more capacity
development from WFP would mitigate many of the weaknesses noted in the
evaluation, and encouraged the Secretariat to develop a qualitative
indicator for measuring the effectiveness of capacity development. Some
members questioned the sustainability of the FFA activities and
suggested that WFP should increase its partnerships with experts in
assets generation. Many members emphasized the need to continue
activities in Egypt beyond 2011.
65. In response to points raised by Board members, the Director of OE
clarified that it was the Egyptian Government’s decision to include
large percentages of the population in social safety nets and subsidy
programmes. The Egypt country director explained that the FFA activities
were supporting a government programme that provided land and water in a
remote area where landless and jobless people could settle with their
families. WFP was contributing only 10 percent of this programme, which
included the construction of homes, roads, schools, health centres and
other infrastructure; families had already moved into the area and were
involved in contract farming. He emphasized that WFP had a technical
role in Egypt, providing information and expertise that the Government
used in implementing its own programmes, including those for food
66. The Regional Director introduced the development projects for
Tajikistan and Armenia, emphasizing the strong government support that
both had and their alignment to government policies and priorities. The
gross domestic product of both countries relied heavily on migrant
remittances, which had declined dramatically since the global economic
crisis. WFP school feeding would provide support while the national
economies recovered sufficiently to allow hand-over to governments. The
projects included a large capacity development component to facilitate
this. In both countries, the Government and parent-teacher associations
(PTAs) at schools with feeding programmes would be contributing funds
and in-kind resources.
67. The Board welcomed the two projects, recognizing the governments’
commitment to school feeding and the need for WFP support at this stage.
The projects were building on past successes for WFP programmes and
government collaboration in Armenia and Tajikistan. Members also
mentioned the strong financial support provided by a Government in the
region and supported the proposed shift to home-grown food in the third
year of the Armenia project. Members urged the Secretariat to clarify
the projects’ hand-over strategies and to avoid risks such as corruption
and fraud. They pointed out that the effectiveness of school feeding
depends on government commitment to ensuring quality education. It was
suggested that FFA activities could be used to improve school
68. Responding to Board members’ comments and concerns, the Tajikistan
country director noted that WFP’s partners in the country included
agencies with education expertise, as well as regional governments and
The Board took note of “Summary Evaluation Report Country Programme Egypt 104500 (2007–2011) – Enabling Livelihoods, Nutrition and Food Security” (WFP/EB.A/2010/7-B) and the management response in WFP/EB.A/2010/7-B/Add.1 and encouraged further action on the recommendations, taking into account considerations raised by the Board during its discussion.Meeting(s):
During its June 2011 discussions leading to approval of “Oversight Framework and Reports Disclosure Policy” (WFP/EB.A/2011/5-C/1), the Board had requested a review of the concept of inspection and an update of the oversight reports disclosure policy. The policy clarified the concept of inspection, proposed disclosure of internal audit and inspection reports on WFP’s public website, and authorized the Inspector General to enter into formal agreements for sharing investigation reports on a confidential and reciprocal basis. The policy was in line with those of other United Nations funds and programmes.The Board noted that the present policy was going beyond its original request and that increased disclosure would enhance transparency. Acknowledging that WFP’s provisions for sharing investigation reports with counterparts were unique, the Board expressed its hope that this would set a precedent within the United Nations. It emphasized that the policy should allow for guarding of confidentiality, and should not impinge on WFP’s immunities. Members agreed to authorize the Inspector General to redact or withhold the contents of a report in accordance with the safeguards set forth in the policy, and were assured that the reasons for such decisions would be provided together with the report.Some members appreciated the gradual development of the disclosure policies since 2010, and called for a similar step-by-step approach in the implementation of the new policy to avoid unnecessary risks, give the Secretariat more time to adjust its work without compromising core activities, and take into consideration similar processes in other United Nations institutions and the ongoing discussion in the General Assembly.
The Board approved the Executive Director’s proposals to revise the “Policy for Disclosure of Internal Audit Reports to Member States” (WFP/EB.2/2010/4-B/1/Rev.1) and the “Oversight Framework and Reports Disclosure Policy” (WFP/EB.A/2011/5-C/1), adding provisions for: i) disclosing inspection reports; ii) disclosing internal audit and inspection reports on the public website; iii) authorizing the Inspector General and Director, Oversight Office to enter into formal agreements for sharing investigation reports on a confidential and reciprocal basis; and iv) authorizing the Inspector General and Director, Oversight Office to redact or withhold reports in accordance with the safeguards set forth in the disclosure policies. The Board also took note of the comments of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) (WFP/EB.2/2012/5(A,B,C)/2, WFP/EB.2/2012/4-A/2, WFP/EB.2/2012/13-A/2) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Finance Committee (WFP/EB.2/2012/5(A,B,C)/3, WFP/EB.2/2012/4-A/3, WFP/EB.2/2012/13-A/3).Meeting(s):
The Secretariat briefed the Board on the ongoing Financial Framework Review, including the three priority work streams: resource-based planning and macro advance financing – both being piloted in eight country offices – and budgeting for operational effectiveness. The Financial Framework Review was presented as part of a broader organizational context that included the Strategic Plan, the Corporate Results Framework and the country strategic planning approach.The Secretariat also briefed the Board members on the review of the target level of WFP’s PSA Equalization Account, which involved a trend analysis and a stress test of potential target levels. The review led to the conclusion that WFP should increase the PSA Equalization Account target from four to five months and establish a “floor” of two months’ expenditure. These changes would allow WFP to better underwrite organizational risks and would allow less conservative forecasting and medium-term PSA planning.The Board thanked the Secretariat for undertaking this transparent review of WFP’s financial framework, expressing support for its three work streams, which would increase flexibility and predictability, and would make WFP more transparent, effective and efficient with clearer links between resources and results. Board members also commended WFP’s commitment to consult with the Board throughout the review process.The Board looked forward to receiving accurately costed proposals for informed decision-making, and reiterated that WFP should not neglect planning based on assessed needs. Members noted that the changes were ambitious but expressed confidence that WFP would be vigilant in managing risks. Members also requested consideration for the impact on donor funding platforms and requested flexibility in implementation timelines if necessary.The Secretariat responded that it was committed to: consulting regularly with the Board and holding bilateral discussions; sharing lessons from the pilots, including cost-benefit and risk analysis; looking at models for engagement; and exploring new donor funding platforms. The Secretariat noted that planning continued to take needs into account; proposals for action would include costed budget breakdowns. The Board was assured that all efforts in pilot countries were grounded in country contexts with support from regional bureaux.
Having considered the “Update on the Financial Framework Review” (WFP/EB.2/2015/5-C/1) the Board: i) took note of the ongoing work of the Financial Framework Review, the proposed timeline and cost estimates for 2015 and 2016; ii) took note of the review of the Programme Support and Administrative Equalization Account target level and the Secretariat’s conclusion that the target level should be increased from the equivalent of four months of approved Programme Support and Administrative expenditure to five months; and that a “floor” should be established equivalent to two months of approved Programme Support and Administrative expenditure; and iii) looked forward to regular updates on the Financial Framework Review. The Board also took note of the comments of the ACABQ (WFP/EB.2/2015/5(A,B,C,D)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.2/2015/5(A,B,C,D)/3).Meeting(s):
In presenting the nomination of a member to the Audit Committee, the Secretariat recalled that new appointments were made on a rolling basis for terms of three years each. Board approval was sought for a replacement for Ms Dianne Spearman, whose term had expired on 8 October 2009. WFP had used an international recruiting agency to find candidates with recent, relevant financial and audit experiences, and who had been independent of both the Secretariat and the Board for at least two years. Equitable geographical representation was also taken into account. From a short list of 16 candidates, Ms Kholeka Mzondeki of South Africa had been selected. Ms Mzondeki's curriculum vitae had been circulated to Board members and her selection had already been supported by the FAO Finance Committee and the ACABQ.
The Board approved the appointment, noting that it supported both geographical and gender equity and that Ms Mzondeki had an impressive range of appropriate experience. Members welcomed her and thanked Ms Spearman for her work while on the Audit Committee. It was suggested that in the future Board members be consulted regarding potential candidates.
The Board approved the appointment of Ms Kholeka Mzondeki, whose term would take effect immediately and run until 9 November 2012.
The Board also took note of the comments of the ACABQ (WFP/EB.2/2009/5(A,C,F,G)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.2/2009/5(A,B,C,F,G)/3/Rev.1).Meeting(s):
52. In presenting the document, the Secretariat highlighted the two main modes of implementation – support and stand-alone – and summarized WFP expenditures. It was stressed that most Strategic Objective 5 activities had been mainstreamed and that many new country programmes (CPs) had strong Strategic Objective 5 components; work was ongoing to improve programme quality and support in relation to Strategic Objective 5. WFP was a participant in the United Nations working group on capacity development. In the Latin America and Caribbean Regional Bureau (ODP), alliances had been established with regional political entities and technical institutions with a focus on WFP's specialized capacities in issues related to nutrition and hunger. In the Southern Africa regional bureau (ODJ), partnerships had been established with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and national authorities for capacity-building in food-security monitoring, vulnerability analysis and formulation of food-security policy. Since 2006, new CP with technical components in addition to food operations had been developed.
53. Funding for Strategic Objective 5 came from other direct operational costs (ODOC), bilateral donations and trust funds; since 2005, US$59 million had been spent on capacity-building. WFP had had more success fundraising at the country level than at the central level. Capacity-building took place at three levels: policy and institutional, organizational and individual; WFP invested most in the last two, and was working to address the policy and institutional levels. Capacity-building was particularly important in view of handovers and phasing down of WFP assistance. WFP was using project-specific indicators for capacity-building and was developing corporate indicators.
54. The Board recognized the importance of capacity-building, but asked WFP to provide an evaluation of its work on it and to develop outcome indicators. Questions to be asked during such an evaluation related to whether WFP had a comparative advantage for carrying out capacity-building, and in which situations, the value-added and the experience gained in handing over, the future focus of capacity-building and the costs involved. It was suggested that the purpose of the evaluation be to improve capacity-building and not to question WFP's participation in it.
55. The Board expressed support for mainstreaming capacity-building. Members of the Board appreciated reading about the work done in individual countries; some members suggested that WFP capacity-building was also useful at the beneficiary level. Several Members of the Board suggested that WFP's comparative advantage was in capacity-building for vulnerability analysis and mapping (VAM). Board members stressed that WFP should align its work with national and regional structures, institutions and civil society. It was suggested that the term"stand-alone" be avoided because it could lead to misunderstanding about the roles of partners. The Board asked for clarification of the relationship between WFP's VAM system and the FAO Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS).
56. The Secretariat drew attention to the fact that the Board had established capacity-building as a Strategic Objective. WFP focused on practical matters in response to requests from countries to help governments to improve their own effectiveness, which enhanced WFP's impact. Countries were free to request that WFP do capacity-building where WFP was best placed to offer it in relation to operational work: for example in Egypt WFP was recognized among several potential providers as best placed to support the Government in reforming its food subsidy programme. WFP had developed a conceptual framework on capacity-building that was in line with United Nations work on guidelines and tools for developing national capacities; the framework was being tested in ODP and would be used in identifying practical and rigorous corporate indicators. Capacity-development had emerged as an important theme in poverty-reduction strategies. The Secretariat drew attention to examples of good collaboration with FIVIMS and other systems, and underlined the importance of understanding the relationship between needs and capacity in terms of disaster prevention and response, early warning, emergency food needs and food and nutrition interventions. Ideally each country would in time be able to take care of its own needs, but in the meantime WFP was in a position to share its experience, knowledge and resources, for example in addressing HIV/AIDS. Evaluations should include a long-term view of emergency situations and could suggest tools to address them. There could be flexibility about who provided services as long as capacity was built and was country-driven.
The Board took note of the “Update on Capacity-Building (Strategic Objective 5)” (WFP/EB.A/2007/6-H/1). The Board requested an evaluation of SO5 activities and looked forward to the presentation of findings in subsequent Board sessions, as they became available.Meeting(s):
39. The Inspector General and Director of OS provided an overview of audit, investigation and inspection activities carried out by OS in 2009. There had been a significant reduction in the number of high-risk audit observations, and improvement in the implementation of audit recommendations; in particular, financial management processes had been enhanced through the implementation of IPSAS and WINGS II. Weaknesses included the absence of a performance management information system, inadequate capacity of implementing partners and need for improved commodity management processes. Given that a number of complaints regarding food diversion referred to minor incidents, the Inspector General recommended that WFP develop an internal tolerance norm recognizing some food sale by beneficiaries. Staffing constraints had limited OS work in 2009, and had not allowed the Inspector General to convey ―positive assurance‖ that all high risk areas had been reviewed. The Inspector General recommended that the Board revisit its decision to forward the report to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).40. The Board sought a clearer understanding of the reasons for high staff turnover in OS and assurance that allegations of misconduct were being effectively captured and responsible persons penalized; the Inspector General was asked to elaborate on the kinds of disciplinary action taken. In the light of findings in the Inspector General’s report, WFP was encouraged to develop a robust performance management information system; to ensure that OS was fully staffed with specialized audit personnel, in part by excluding OS staff from WFP’s staff reassignment exercise; and to support a strong whistle blower policy. The Board noted that the Report of the Inspector General should be submitted to it as the ultimate governing body for the purpose and that therefore it was no longer necessary to forward the report to OIOS. The Board also expressed its support to establishing a direct reporting line between the Inspector General and the Board, as recommended by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU).41. The Inspector General confirmed that no externally recruited staff member of OS would be reassigned within a reasonable minimum period and in any case, only if staffing was complete; high staff turnover was due in part to more lucrative career opportunities outside WFP. All staff were required to possess relevant qualifications, or to obtain such qualification within the first year of joining OS from other WFP divisions. Staff training and the use of informal means to resolve disputes had helped reduce complaints of sexual harassment and abuse of power. Disciplinary actions for WFP staff ranged from letters of reprimand to dismissal, with a zero-tolerance policy for fraudulent activities.42. The Secretariat acknowledged weaknesses in WFP’s performance and risk management systems, noting that the SRF would be employed to this end; more details were presented in the APR. Although WFP could not always choose its implementing partners, capacity development activities had been the focus of efforts to monitor partners’ performance.
The Board took note of “Report of the Inspector General” (WFP/EB.A/2010/6-I/1) and requested the Secretariat to forward it to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services. The Board also took note of the comments of the ACABQ (WFP/EB.A/2010/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.A/2010/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K)/3).Meeting(s):
43. The Deputy Executive Director responsible for the Operations Department and Chief Operating Officer presented the three papers generated by the investigation: i) conclusions of Bureau meetings held on 12 and 17 March following release of the Monitoring Group on Somalia (MGS) report, the recommendations from which had been approved through correspondence; ii) Addendum 1, the outgoing External Auditor’s response to the Bureau’s request that it review WFP procedures for contracting, delivering and distributing food in Somalia, containing advice and draft terms of reference for the incoming External Auditor, which would undertake the review should the Board decide to proceed with it; and iii) Addendum 2, which concerned management actions in Somalia in response to the reports and recommendations received.44. The Secretariat had established a plan of action and a Somalia Steering Group, chaired by the Executive Director. She had appointed a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and former WFP senior manager as her special envoy for Somalia. A panel of experts had been convened on 18 May to advise on supply-chain management in risky circumstances. The Executive Director had also asked the Inspector General to review the MGS allegations. Copies of her responses to the Chairman of the Sanctions Committee and of the MGS report had been provided to the Bureau on 4 June. The Deputy Executive Director reiterated the Secretariat’s commitment to ensuring integrity of WFP operations and re-engaging in Somalia as quickly as possible, as well as its policy of zero tolerance for diversions of resources by staff.45. Board members expressed their concern about the repercussions of the allegations on WFP’s reputation. Many noted that WFP had not received evidence presumably supporting the MGS allegations, and emphasized the value of WFP’s work in the trouble-torn country: 3.2 million people needed assistance owing to poor rainfall, disease, conflict and displacement. Some members suggested that a procedure should be developed for ensuring that the Board remained informed of developments in similar cases. The Secretariat was requested to provide a time-line for dealing with the issues raised by MGS and the Inspector General, and the steps taken to prepare the new External Auditor for carrying out its review of food distribution procedures in Somalia. Members approved of the Executive Director’s decision to appoint a former WFP staff member to report on how to improve.46. The Executive Director confirmed that the Secretariat had informed the Board of all developments as soon as they occurred. Somalia was a high-risk country where some of WFP’s normal control procedures could not be implemented; the Secretariat was therefore investigating ways of carrying out long-distance monitoring. The plan of action involving the External Auditor had been suggested by the Bureau and the Board had voted to approve it. The Secretariat had received no evidence for the allegations, which made it difficult to address them; staff or partners were not necessarily responsible for the food diversions, as beneficiaries often sold part of their WFP food rations to generate cash for other essentials.
Having considered the documents entitled “Investigation on WFP Operations in Somalia” (WFP/EB.A/2010/6-K/1), “Investigation on WFP Operations in Somalia: Addendum – External Auditor Advices to the Executive Board: Somalia” (WFP/EB.A/2010/6-K/1/Add.1), and “Investigation on WFP Operations in Somalia: Addendum 2” (WFP/EB.A/2010/6-K/1/Add.2), the Board took note of and decided to approve the draft terms of reference as contained for a review of WFP Somalia operations. The Board requested the Secretariat to forward the terms of reference to the incoming External Auditor to undertake, in line with the terms of reference, a detailed review of WFP operations to deliver food aid in Somalia. Further, the Board requested the incoming External Auditor to issue a report on recommendations to enhance the framework of controls in Somalia for approval by the Board as soon as possible. Lastly, the Board requested the Secretariat to provide an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the WFP Inspector General to be presented in a report at the Second Regular Session in 2010.Meeting(s):
26. The Secretariat presented the document on the funding of employee termination payments. The draft decision in the document had been amended to take account of concerns expressed by ACABQ and the FAO Finance Committee; the issue of short-term staff would accordingly be discussed at a later date.
27. Board members sought clarification, at the next regular session if necessary, of the authority under which termination payments had been made to date. Further information was requested on the current practice of termination payments; some members asked whether WFP was setting a precedent on the matter for other agencies. Other members suggested that any future document should explain the practice of applying different staff rules to different categories of staff. The Board hoped that once IPSAS had been implemented, the whole approach to the termination of contracts at WFP would become clearer.
28. The Secretariat took note of the requests for information, which would be supplied when the issue of short-term staff was discussed.
(i) took note of the issue of unfunded termination payments;
(ii) took note of the reports and recommendations of the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.A/2007/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J)/3) and the ACABQ (WFP/EB.A/2007/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J)/2);
(iii) authorized the Executive Director to utilize up to US$15 million released from the Self Insurance Fund for termination payments specifically provided for under staff regulations and ICSC rules; and
(iv) requested the Executive Director to report to the Second Regular Session of the Board in October 2007 on the implications to WFP of staff employed under Special Service Agreements (SSA), Service Contracts (SC) and Assignment of Limited Duration (ALD) contracts.Meeting(s):
29. The Secretariat presented the document updating on the WFP Management Plan (2006-2007), noting that two corrigenda had been issued. The draft decision had been amended to take into account the recommendations of the FAO Finance Committee. The Board suggested a further amendment to the draft decision to state that the amount transferred to the WINGS II special account would be reduced for any voluntary contributions received for the project.
30. The Board thanked the Secretariat for the information provided on implementation of the Management Plan and welcomed further updates on the current and future status of the Programme Support and Administration (PSA) Equalization Account, WINGS II implementation and policy on landside transport, storage and handling (LTSH). The Board commended the work of the Secretariat to hedge foreign exchange risk, noting that hedging for PSA spending in the next biennium might not be possible before the Board approved the PSA appropriations.
31. The Secretariat agreed to provide regular information on WINGS II implementation, noting that cost savings from the new system could not be quantified at the present time. The Secretariat assured the Board that M&E would be integrated into the new system. The Board and the Secretariat agreed to discuss the expenditure and income predictions for the next biennium at informal consultations.
(i) took note of the progress made on the WINGS II project and its current funding status, as outlined in paragraphs 14–19;
(ii) approved that the US$10 million advance approved by the Board in the First Regular Session of 2007 from the WFP General Fund to the WINGS II Special Account be converted into a permanent transfer of funds to the Special Account;
(iii) approved a further transfer of funds from the General Fund to the WINGS II Special Account to cover WINGS II expenditure up to a maximum of US$24 million, less an amount equivalent to any voluntary contribution to the WINGS II Special Account; and
(iv) looked forward to regular reports on the WINGS II project. The Board took note of the comments of the ACABQ (WFP/EB.A/2007/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.A/2007/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,)/3).Meeting(s):
21. The Second Update on the WFP Management Plan (2010–2011) was presented to the Board for approval following review by the FAO Finance Committee and ACABQ. The revised programme of work for 2010–2011 totaled US$10.7 billion, including US$6.4 billion for 2010 – US$1.2 billion more than reported in the first update; funding projections remained unchanged at US$7.5 billion for the biennium. Increases resulted from the earthquake response in Haiti, drought in the Sahel, deteriorating security conditions in Pakistan and increasing food insecurity in Ethiopia. The Secretariat had presented a plan to provide for the funding of staff liabilities over a 15-year period. Lessons learned regarding hedging against currency fluctuations concluded that the arrangements helped WFP to maintain stability in the planning process.22. The Board thanked the Secretariat for the update. Members highlighted that only 58 percent of WFP’s operational needs would be met in 2010. The Secretariat was encouraged to prioritize operations in order to meet the needs of the most vulnerable beneficiaries, but a call was made to avoid excessive earmarking, which could reduce its flexibility. The Board sought management feedback on how WFP would undertake the current programme of work with limited funds. Board members recommended an analysis of unforeseen requirements to provide a more complete picture of WFP’s resourcing status, and that WFP develop prediction capacity for more realistic estimates of future emergencies. It was proposed that funding for staff liabilities be mainstreamed into the PSA and direct support costs (DSC) budgets as of 2011 and that the 2010 portion of US$7.5 million not be funded from the PSA Equalization Account, as originally proposed. In the light of the discussion, the Board agreed to amend its decision accordingly.23. Efficiencies gained were commended, and the Board encouraged the Secretariat to undertake similar exercises, especially in countries with large programmes. With continuing disasters worldwide, WFP would need to prioritize its responses.24. The Secretariat highlighted that while unforeseen requirements would be difficult to assess, an analysis would be included in future management plans along with the actual amount of WFP’s funding to date.25. The Executive Director thanked the Board for its engagement on operational and procedural issues, affirming that increasing efficiency would be a high priority, along with a focus on excellence in operations. Other humanitarian actors would be called upon to support this endeavor; partnerships with private-sector partners were already creating efficiencies in the transport sector. The Executive Director encouraged further discussion of prioritization.
Having considered “Second Update on the WFP Management Plan (2010–2011)” (WFP/EB.A/2010/6-D/1), the Board: i) took note of the projected total programme of work of US$10.7 billion, excluding provision for unforeseen requirements; ii) approved the plan to provide for the unfunded staff liabilities over a 15-year period as outlined in this document; iii) approved an increase in the Programme Support and Administrative (PSA) appropriation for 2011 of US$3.37 million to fund the PSA-related impact of the above plan in 2011; and iv) approved the use of the PSA Equalization Account as an alternative source of funding to cover expenditure totalling US$38.9 million, originally approved for 2010–2011 against the unearmarked portion of the General Fund as outlined in this document. The Board also took note of the comments of the ACABQ (WFP/EB.A/2010/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.A/2010/6(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K)/3).Meeting(s):