Documents - search results

Found 3689 results
  • WFP/EB.2/2016/1/1/Rev.2
  • WFP/EB.1/2008/9/2
    The Secretariat presented these two items together; the results of the mid-term evaluation of PRRO 10366.0 were presented for consideration, and the proposed PRRO 10588.0 was presented for approval. The evaluation had found the PRRO to be relevant and appropriate to the needs of IDPs in Colombia, many of whom were difficult to reach. Quite a number of targets were over-accomplished. Special efforts had been made to involve women: 55 percent of beneficiaries and 80 percent of decision-makers were women. The evaluation advised against reaching more than the programmed number of beneficiaries, as this implied decreased ration sizes. It also recommended: developing effective monitoring systems to hand over to the Government at programme completion; focusing on relief rather than recovery activities at the current stage; and increasing attention to nutrition and education, outcome measurement and targeting the neediest people.The proposed PRRO provided a three-year plan for 530,000 IDPs, improving their living and nutrition conditions, especially of women and children under 5, and increasing their access to education. The PRRO was rooted in the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), the Government’s policy for supporting IDPs, which was enforced by the law courts, and its Poverty Reduction Strategy. The Government would be contributing US$64 million to the PRRO, of which US$20 million would be in cash. The Government also had an ongoing programme to monitor the assistance provided to IDPs throughout the country.The Board supported both the evaluation findings and the new PRRO. In both, members appreciated the collaboration between WFP and the Government and the feedback to all stakeholders, which would promote sustainability. The Board suggested that WFP share lessons learned and best practices from this experience. There were concerns about contingency planning for resource shortfalls; how the new PRRO would link to the new Strategic Objectives; the need to move from operationalto policy activities; the importance of promoting national ownership of government programmes; and expanding the toolbox, especially for collaboration and cooperation mechanisms.Responding to the Board’s comments, the country director for Colombia explained that more careful beneficiary targeting and advocacy among donors would help ensure adequate funding. Ways were being sought to increase local procurement and build local capacity. Ultimately, all IDPs would be channeled into the Government’s IDP programme. The Regional Director assured the Board that implications of the new Strategic Objectives would be kept in mind during PRRO implementation, and the possibility of using new tools would be explored.
    The Board approved the proposed PRRO Colombia 10588.0 “Food Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons and Other Highly Food-Insecure Groups Affected by Violence” (WFP/EB.1/2008/9/2 + Corr.1).
  • WFP/EB.1/2009/5-C
    The Secretariat presented the Strategic Results Framework (SRF), which included changes made on the basis of Board comments made during informal consultations in December 2008. The SRF was a core component of WFP's accountability framework and performance measurement system; it helped align projects with the Strategic Objectives through the use of measurable outcome- and output-level indicators. As the Board had observed during previous consultations, the framework provided the flexibility to adapt to different situations, while ensuring the stability that permitted comparisons across projects and programmes. The Secretariat appreciated donor technical feedback on many aspects of the SRF. WFP field offices had already begun to collect indicator data for the 2009 report. Changes made since the last consultation included a greater focus on the nutrition status of women in emergencies; more emphasis on risk preparedness, rather than impacts; collection of more data on internally displaced persons (IDPs) and assets; and consideration of quality issues in assessing local procurement. Challenges identified had included how to treat the mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) indicator; the need to develop methodologies for capturing asset scores; measuring retention levels in school feeding interventions; and indicators for measuring capacity development. Logical frameworks for all new projects would reflect the revised SRF; the Indicator Compendium, which included additional details, would be published in the following weeks. Next steps included supporting field offices' use of the framework, developing a performance management strategy to ensure that lessons were learned from past experience and looking at transition indicators. The Secretariat emphasized its interest in remaining engaged with the Board on the SRF. The Board welcomed the SRF as providing a good reporting system for its members and WFP management that translated WFP's mandate into tangible outcomes. Members requested more details on government involvement in developing the indicators and how indicators related to the United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs) and WFP country programmes and suggested that national-level capacity-building go beyond exit strategies. Members noted the lack of a timed implementation plan, and of essential baseline data for several indicators. The SRF would require systems at the country level to ensure that all relevant data were available; national governments would be partners in achieving objectives and flexibility should be ensured for adapting to countries' different needs. Members expressed concern that some outcomes depending on external factors would be difficult to attribute and that the costs of surveys and expertise could be an obstacle. The Board looked forward to seeing the Indicator Compendium and appreciated the invitation to contribute to revisions of the SRF. Responding to the Board's remarks, the Secretariat mentioned its new country strategy documents, which would help to identify who was hungry, where the hungry were, and which tools would best help alleviate hunger. Successful use of the SRF would depend on the involvement of host governments and United Nations country teams, and would be linked to the UNDAF and Poverty Reduction Strategies. Some projects would have additional indicators, for example, to measure the impacts of local procurement on local markets. Baseline surveys were becoming more common; all emergency operations and protracted relief and recovery operations (PRROs) were preceded by assessments. When outcomes could not be fully attributed, WFP could still be reported as having made a contribution. To reduce costs, WFP used information from others' surveys or extrapolated results from samples. The Board requested an update on the SRF and its implementation at EB.1/2010, along with details about lessons learned during the roll-out.
    The Board took note of the Strategic Results Framework as presented in WFP/EB.1/2009/5-C and accepted it as a basis for reporting in 2010. The Board requested that it be brought back to its First Regular Session in 2010 taking into account considerations raised by the Board during its discussion and experiences gained during roll-out in the field. The Board invited the Secretariat to prepare an information note/assessment on “lessons learned” during implementation.
  • WFP/EB.2/2007/9-C/4
    The Regional Director presented the two PRROs, which focused on disaster risk reduction and livelihood protection for vulnerable groups. The targeting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) techniques applied were in line with recommendations from assessments of other PRROs in the region. Mozambique was a pilot country for the"Delivering as One" reform process. The Board applauded the participatory design process used for the PRROs, which involved national and provincial governments, NGOs, other United Nations agencies and beneficiary groups. Board members welcomed the integration of PRROs with national government strategies, harmonization with national and international poverty reduction interventions and the focus on accurate targeting. The Board commended the national institutional arrangements for poverty reduction being developed in both countries and emphasized the need for sufficient capacity-building to ensure hand-over to national ownership. In response, the Regional Director underlined that the consultative process used for design would continue and would include capacity-building. The Malawi country director informed the Board of the Government's strategic grain reserve and recently approved food-security policy: WFP was supporting the Government in designing food aid and agricultural development policies. HIV/AIDS-affected people were included in food-for-work and food-for-assets projects after they had benefited from WFP food aid linked to anti-retroviral therapy. The Mozambique country director explained that aid would become more cash-based as beneficiaries' need for food aid declined. As part of WFP's local purchasing system, farmers and traders were receiving training to bring the quality of food products up to export standards.
    The Board approved the proposed PRRO Malawi 10586.0 “Assistance to Food-Insecure People Suffering from the Effects of Natural Disasters and HIV/AIDS” (WFP/EB.2/2007/9-C/4).
  • WFP/EB.2/2010/9-C/7
    1. The Board approved the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) PRRO 200167, noting the urgent need to increase the number of donors to ensure that adequate funding was available. Board members noted that the emphasis on development, which was essential in helping people to escape from chronic poverty, could affect the emergency-response objectives; the need for sustainable hunger and nutrition options was emphasized. Members also recommended further attention to refining the hand-over proposals. Detailed observations by observers referred to the need to identify lessons learned, targeting issues, beneficiary numbers, ration sizes for returnees, the risk of “mission creep”, the ratio of support costs and food costs and the outsourcing of M&E.2. The country director observed that several of the Board’s concerns arose from the realities of the situation on the ground: many areas were outside government control; humanitarian access was severely constrained by security considerations in the huge areas where armed groups were responsible for constant acts of violence, which often targeted women; and food and transport prices were very high because of the insecurity and lack of roads, which reduced delivery options. In answer to specific comments, the country director noted that: i) voucher options were being studied; ii) cash projects were inadvisable in view of the prevailing insecurity; iii) food insecurity could be a matter of availability or access, depending on the area concerned; iv) every effort was made to protect women, but in an area of 2.3 million km2 this aim was difficult to achieve; v) the gender balance of staff was affected by the dangerous, non-family nature of postings to DRC; vi) lessons had been learned and applied, but the situation on the ground tended to change rapidly; vii) UNHCR had significant responsibility concerning refugee figures and they were as accurate as they could be in the DRC circumstances; viii) the need for military escorts for humanitarian access was a severe constraint; ix) local procurement was a laudable aim, but the reality was that there were only localized surpluses and delivery costs could be extremely high, which explained the apparent imbalance between support and food costs; and x) new distribution modalities were expected to enable WFP to reach additional children under 2 as planned. The country director concluded by expressing his appreciation for the contributions received from donors.
    The Board approved the proposed protracted relief and recovery operation Democratic Republic of the Congo 200167 “Targeted Food Assistance to Victims of Armed Conflict and other Vulnerable Groups” (WFP/EB.2/2010/9-C/7).
  • WFP/EB.1/2014/6-B/1
    The Country Director observed that WFP would support Haiti in coping with recurrent natural shocks through disaster preparedness; protect livelihoods through the use of cash or food for assets; and contribute to fighting malnutrition. An improved targeting mechanism developed in collaboration with NGOs, United Nations agencies and other partners would support the Government for the establishment and management of social safety nets. In collaboration with FAO, cash-for-asset activities would concentrate on watershed management.The Board commended the partnership approaches and the focus on supporting the Government. It further welcomed the attention to the poorest and most vulnerable populations and the reduction and prevention of malnutrition. The flexibility in the use of cash or food for assets was appreciated, as was the fact that cash for assets allowed beneficiaries to buy food in local markets. Board members asked for a robust M&E approach and requested clarification on nutrition and resilience-building activities.Thanking the Board for its observations, the Country Director noted that a dedicated M&E Officer had begun work. A household database for targeting was to be developed and handed over to the Ministry of Social Affairs in the context of capacity development through the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE)/Action contre la Faim (Action Against Hunger)/WFP consortium. Collaboration with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank would contribute to standardization of targeting. Under the nutrition component, vouchers for fresh local food products would be provided to the families of pregnant and lactating women. Resilience-building activities would target watershed areas to prevent flood damage and provide long-term protection.
    The Board approved the proposed protracted relief and recovery operation Haiti 200618 “Strengthening Emergency Preparedness and Resilience” (WFP/EB.1/2014/6-B/1).
  • WFP/EB.2/2010/9-C/2
    1. With regard to Zimbabwe PRRO 200162, Board members approved the move to food assistance embodied in the implementation of cash and voucher projects accounting for a quarter of the project, and sought further details as to the proposed hand-over approach and the split between groups affected by chronic and emergency food-insecurity. Board members were also encouraged by the focus on sustainable hunger and nutrition solutions and the coordinated approach adopted by WFP, the Government and partners. Board members expressed concern at proposals to invite funding at the cluster level: clusters were not legal entities, and donors could lose control over their contributions. Clarification was sought as to the envisaged capacity development modalities. Some members were concerned that the US$251 million budget was unrealistic in the light of funding probabilities. Observers cautioned against encroachment of the operations of FAO and other agencies and asked for clarification of the food security analysis and target figures for ART support.2. The country director observed that an effective consultation system was in operation: monthly meetings with partners led to sound coordination and regular information updates. The country office and the Resident Coordinator had agreed that funding at the cluster level was not a viable or acceptable option. The downsizing of operations as a result of assessments was being handled effectively, and the country director was confident that the size of the proposed operational budget was justified. The food security analysis had been based on all available data, including figures from the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee. The cash and voucher interventions would be scaled up as funding permitted. WFP was working with FAO and UNICEF in a developing food-security cluster: coordination was excellent and inadvertent encroachment was not a possibility. There was room for improvement in the HIV and AIDS component, but service quality was improving; WFP was a member of the health cluster, which was adopting new targeting modalities to improve the identification of beneficiaries.
    The Board approved the proposed protracted relief and recovery operation Zimbabwe 200162 “Assistance for Food-Insecure Vulnerable Groups” (WFP/EB.2/2010/9-C/2).
  • WFP/EB.1/2008/9/3
    The PRRO was introduced by the Regional Director of the Southern, Eastern and Central Africa Bureau. Frequent droughts affected harvests, while ongoing violence had led to a large number of IDPs. In addition, instability in the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo had driven refugees into Uganda. The operation would provide food assistance to crisis-affected populations.Board members asked about the impact the PPRO might have on local markets, and asked for greater clarification of the Government’s role and WFP’s hand-over strategy. They encouraged WFP to continue coordinating its work with other agencies, especially FAO, and to continue contingency plans in the event of an increased influx of refugees. Some Board members expressed doubt about some of the self-sufficiency activities, and requested more discussion of WFP’s role in recovery and helping communities return to work. Other members thought there were now fewer IDPs than was indicated in the PRRO document; they were concerned that general food distribution could discourage IDPs from returning to their places of origin. It was suggested that food-for-work programmes be considered as a way of rebuilding infrastructure. There was a request that the link between needs assessments and the PRRO be clarified. The Board emphasized the importance of dialogue with the Government and the strengthening of cooperation with donor countries, and strongly urged WFP to implement effective monitoring methods.The country director emphasized that the small rations currently provided to IDPs in the camps were unlikely to dissuade IDPs from returning home. He explained that because WFP was one of the few organizations present in the conflictive areas when the cessation of hostilities was signed, it was able to open up opportunities for the IDPs to participate in activities such as fish ponds and tree planting and could hand over those activities as more organizations moved in to work in the north. The local authorities would be empowered through training programmes in vulnerability analysis. Homes were being built for teachers to encourage them to live and work in difficult areas. WFP would focus on urgent areas of need, especially relief in the north, working with partners and non-governmental organizations; its response would be based on assessments of food security, land access and nutrition. It was hoped that a more comprehensive peace agreement would be signed soon.The Board asked that the Secretariat review the PRRO in the light of discussions on the Strategic Plan and the changing context and present its conclusions at the First Regular Session of the Executive Board in 2009.
    The Board approved the proposed PRRO Uganda 10121.2 “Targeted Food Assistance for Relief and Recovery of Refugees, Displaced Persons and Other Vulnerable Groups” (WFP/EB.1/2008/9/3). In addition, it requested that the Secretariat review this PRRO in light of the outcome of the discussions on the Strategic Plan and of the changing context, and present its conclusions to the Board at its First Regular Session of 2009.
  • WFP/EB.1/2013/11/Rev.1
    The Secretariat expressed its appreciation of the independent evaluations carried out by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), noting that the JIU had issued seven new reports for WFP action since the last report to the Board. The Secretariat thanked the Executive Board Bureau for its collaboration on recommendations for legislative body action and reported that 53 percent of outstanding recommendations for management and Board action had been closed, compared to 28 percent in 2011. The Secretariat noted that in the spirit of transparency and information-sharing, it had for the first time included an annex of JIU Notes, which were sent for the attention of the Executive Head and were not required to be reported to the Board.Board members acknowledged the value of JIU reports and thanked the Secretariat for the progress made in following up recommendations. Board members requested and received clarification about updating the framework for the administration of trust funds, geographic representation among staff, and funding for mandatory ethics training.The Secretariat updated the Board on the status of the JIU recommendation tracking system. WFP implemented the system on a pilot basis in 2012, and would fully implement it in 2013. The system was “live” and had significantly improved communication with JIU about recommendation implementation. The JIU was developing a portal for read-only access for Member States; the Secretariat would inform Board members of the access protocol when it became available.
    The Board took note of the information and recommendations in “Reports by the Joint Inspection Unit Relevant to the Work of WFP” (WFP/EB.1/2013/11/Rev.1).
  • WFP/EB.2/2008/8-B/1
    The Regional Director for Southern, Eastern and Central Africa presented the two PRROs, which were both results-oriented and in line with WFP Strategic Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Burundi PRRO focused on support for stabilization and recovery in the country’s post-conflict situation, while that for Ethiopia on food assistance to Sudanese, Somali and Eritrean refugees.The Board supported both PRROs, commending the government collaboration and ownership involved and the PRRO’s use of local procurement and cash and voucher schemes. Members stressed the need to cooperate with other agencies working in Ethiopia and Burundi. Some Board members expressed concern about increased ration sizes in Ethiopia; and the targeting strategy, use of general food distributions rather than food for work (FFW) and lack of non-food items in Burundi.Responding to the Board, the Burundi country director explained that the targeting strategy was based on the findings of very recent food security assessments and consultations with partners in the country. A participatory approach had been used to evaluate the previous PRRO and identify the needs for preparing Burundi for a country programme in 2010. It had recommended general food distributions to save lives and reduce vulnerability during the transition, with increased FFW activities and the introduction of voucher and cash schemes during 2010. Seed protection rations were not applicable in Burundi, as hungry farmers were eligible for general food distributions. School feeding would be used in the recovery component, and not for relief.
    The Board approved the proposed PRRO Burundi 10528.1 “Support for Stabilization and Recovery: Protecting and Creating Livelihoods and Improving the Nutritional Status of the Most Vulnerable” (WFP/EB.2/2008/8-B/1).
  • WFP/EB.1/2011/16
    The Board approved the document “Draft Summary of the Work of the First Regular Session of the Executive Board, 2011”, the final version of which would be embodied in the document WFP/EB.1/2011/16.
  • WFP/EB.2/2009/4-C
    Introducing the corporate action plan for the gender policy, the Executive Director confirmed WFP's commitment to embedding a gender perspective throughout its work. Among other things, WFP and partners were seeking to resolve many of the challenges, including security issues, facing women in camps. The Secretariat further explained that the action plan took into account comments received from the Board. Collaboration had been sought from other United Nations agencies and other institutions, including universities and research centres, regarding implementation of the policy and action plan. The plan identified six priority areas: i) strengthening capacity; ii) improving accountability; iii) promoting partnerships; iv) advocacy; v) targeted actions for women and girls; and vi) new programming priorities. It was a living document that would evolve as WFP continued to conduct meetings with partners, consultations and training of staff and partners. The budget for the action plan was US$7 million, which did not include the country-level mainstreaming activities that were already being carried out. The Board congratulated WFP for the excellent document and for its work on gender, including its recognition of the importance of raising gender awareness among staff and partners. Members emphasized the need to back up activities that empower women with awareness raising, training and other efforts that ensured the sustainability of this empowerment and its extension to other vulnerable groups. It was critical to promote joint efforts by both women and men, and to integrate women in the food-for-work (FFW) programmes. It was suggested that qualitative indicators be included for measuring impact. The Board requested more information on internal WFP policy, including how the Secretariat would attract and retain staff in hardship posts and senior positions, and what the accountability mechanisms would be. In response, the Secretariat recalled that gender issues in WFP's staff recruitment were dealt with in the human resources policy, which sought to achieve gender balance at all levels. WFP would continue to use its gender focal points, but in a new role as gender advocates to avoid the risk of responsibility for gender issues being assigned to an individual rather than being embraced by all staff. A system would be introduced to recognize country offices that demonstrated commitment and innovation in addressing gender issues; a gender innovation fund would be established as an incentive to innovate at the country level. Memoranda of understanding and field-level agreements with partners would include responsibility for implementing the gender policy and action plan. WFP would be supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to track and report on the use of allocations for gender actions. Gender training, including gender audit training, was planned for staff throughout 2010 and 2011.
    The Board took note of “WFP Gender Policy: Corporate Action Plan (2010–2011)” (WFP/EB.2/2009/4-C).
  • WFP/EB.2/2014/6-E
    The Director of OEV introduced the synthesis of 12 single-operation evaluations that represented a cross-section of WFP’s Programme of Work. WFP’s operations were relevant, aligned with national policies and addressed food security and nutrition needs; planning for nuanced specific needs was sometimes inadequate. Limited evidence and challenging operational contexts made efficiency assessment difficult, but positive impacts from innovations were noted. Results were inadequately documented, especially at the outcome level, and achievements – and under-achievements – were not fully represented in the monitoring systems. Positive shifts driven by corporate reorientation were under way; however WFP business processes and operational culture were slower to adapt. Significant gaps remained in assumptions and risk analysis, gender-sensitive programming, capacity development and robust data management for improved design and reporting.The Board welcomed the document, noting its usefulness beyond the individual evaluations. Board members commended the relevance and alignment assessment, but recommended that greater attention be given to gender issues, systematic monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and targeting, particularly with regard to regional and cultural food preferences. Board members called for better reporting of outcomes and data management for WFP to find ways to report on achievements.The Board approved the focus on effective monitoring to maximize accountability and improve the evidence base to achieve accurate reporting. Board members recommended that WFP seek to optimize its management of operational risks, for example by extrapolating results of completed operations.The Director of OEV thanked the Board members, and agreed to provide annual synthesis reports of operation evaluations. She noted Board members’ points made about paying greater attention to commonalities of operational contexts and gender in future syntheses.WFP management welcomed the recommendations and would work to introduce more structured M&E in line with the Strategic Results Framework (SRF); the introduction of COMET would have a significant effect on the quality of data management and reporting. Standard operating procedures had been developed, and risk management was a standard element in operational planning. WFP would adopt holistic approaches while ensuring value for money.
    The Board took note of “Synthesis Report of Operation Evaluations (July 2013–July 2014)” (WFP/EB.2/2014/6-E) and encouraged the Secretariat to take into account the lessons included in the report and the considerations raised by the Board during its discussion.
  • WFP/EB.1/2010/9/1
    1. The Regional Director focused his remarks on certain issues in the Asia region. In Sri Lanka IDPs were returning to their homes, but 100,000 were still in camps and dependent on food assistance; conflict had resulted in serious damage to WFP premises in the Vanni region. In Pakistan, security concerns had obliged WFP to relocate some staff to Bangkok, but all operations were ongoing: IDPs were being assisted, WFP’s immediate-response capacity was intact and early-recovery programmes were being implemented. In the Philippines, the flood relief operation had been a success, but 200,000 IDPs in Mindanao still awaited resettlement. WFP’s continued presence in Timor-Leste was in doubt: the Regional Director had proposed to the Government that the joint school feeding and mother-and-child health and nutrition (MCHN) programmes be continued for three years to build local capacity with a view to hand-over, but WFP might have to exit well before that. The Asia regional bureau was broadening the use of ready-to-eat and micronutrient-fortified foods, and was looking to develop more options. The Regional Director thanked donors for their generous support. 2. Presenting the evaluation of Afghanistan PRRO 104270, the Director of OE noted that it addressed all five Strategic Objectives with 16 kinds of activity; the strategy was relevant to the situation in Afghanistan and to international development agendas. Some design weaknesses had been identified such as the large number of components and inadequate definition of underlying risks and assumptions, but the PRRO had reached 70 percent of the intended 8.7 million beneficiaries. Geographical targeting had been sound and WFP had operated flexibly to deal with security constraints; its food-for-work (FFW) programmes had been successful. There had been negative effects resulting from the diversity of activities and delivery shortfalls because of pipeline breaks and severe weather. 3. Management had accepted and was addressing the recommendations of the evaluation, which had provided valuable insights for the preparation of a new PRRO. 4. Afghanistan PRRO 200063 built on lessons from the evaluation in addressing immediate humanitarian needs and enhancing resilience in all 34 provinces. It was designed to build government and community ability to survive emergencies, and included investments in warehouses, and supporting the Government’s strategic results as well as local food production with cash and voucher programmes. The need to improve monitoring and evaluation (M&E) was recognized, and the number of offices was being increased in spite of insecurity; in unsafe areas, monitoring would be outsourced to private companies trained by WFP. Helicopters would be leased to transport staff for M&E purposes: the option was expensive but justified in terms of safety and improved operational capability. 5. The Board welcomed the presentations and documents. With regard to PRRO 200063, Board members recommended that WFP increase the food stocks, outsource beneficiary needs assessment and monitoring activities to reliable partners, ensure transparency in post-distribution monitoring and maximize coordination with other actors. Some members cautioned that food production in Afghanistan varied with circumstances such as changes in the area under irrigation and asked what alternatives were being considered. The need to ensure government ownership of processes was noted with a view to enhancing the sustainability of operations such as school feeding; more attention to raise health awareness in the schools and capacity-building was recommended. Some members were concerned at the high cost of operating helicopters and asked for further details of the reasons for using them; the manageability of the PRRO was also questioned in view of the diversity of components. WFP was urged to cooperate with expert agencies in implementing the cash-based projects and to ensure that processes were in place to address possible manipulation of food prices. Board members expressed approval of the gender aspects of the PRRO components and the fact that the operation was well aligned with national priorities and strategies. The importance of working with communities and using nutritious food products was stressed; Board members also recommended that resources be shifted from relief to recovery in line with the changing situation. A question was raised as to the expected effects on food production of illicit cultivation of poppies for narcotics. 6. Regarding the summary evaluation report of the previous PRRO, Board members urged greater prioritization of activities in such large and complex operations and asked for clarification as to the proportion of food costs in relation to overall costs. Concern was expressed about diversions of food aid and clarification was sought as to measures to address them. Board members noted the need to enhance staff capacities, which should be reflected in the new PRRO. Several Board members noted the advantages of having evaluations that supported the planning of new operations: 14 of the 21 evaluation recommendations had been addressed in developing the next PRRO. 7. The Regional Director thanked Board members for their observations. He acknowledged that the cost of PRRO 200063 was high, but drew attention to the large cash component and the support for the national grain reserve, which involved the building of warehouses and small food stores, and the establishment of several new sub-offices; the use of helicopters was fully justified in terms of staff safety and improved monitoring and targeting. 8. In response to specific comments from Board members, the Secretariat noted that increased food storage capability and field presence resulted in improved preparedness and beneficiary assessments as well as enhanced monitoring to prevent diversions of food. Post-distribution monitoring would be systematic, but the very large number of distribution points was acknowledged to be a challenge. Coordination with the Government and other actors was a fundamental element of PRRO 200063; it would be supported by the already established joint WFP/Government of Afghanistan steering committee. Harvest permitting, WFP planned to buy 150,000 mt of wheat over five years, which was well within national capabilities; P4P and other forms of collaboration with farmers would be combined with watershed management in partnership with development agencies; Afghanistan’s extreme weather had been taken into account. The range of activities was dictated by the varied needs of the 8 million beneficiaries. Illicit poppy cultivation was being addressed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) with whom WFP continued to cooperate.
    The Board approved the proposed protracted relief and recovery operation Afghanistan 200063 “Relief Food Assistance to Tackle Food Security Challenges” (WFP/EB.1/2010/9/1).
  • WFP/EB.1/2007/13
    1. The Secretariat presented the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) reports relevant to the work of WFP. The document was in matrix form as requested previously by the Board. The Secretariat welcomed any comments or questions from the Board. 2. Members of the Board suggested that with regard to the JIU/REP/2006/2 document, WFP should give special consideration to (i) recommendation 4 on ACABQ members and appointments in United Nations organizations for which they had had oversight responsibilities, (ii) recommendation 5 on term limits for external auditors and (iii) recommendation 10(d) on involvement of governing bodies in termination of the contracts of heads of internal oversight. The Board recognized that the report Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System was the most significant in terms of relevance to WFP. 3. In view of the fact that JIU/REP/2006/2 also related to the report on governance, which would be discussed at a subsequent Board session, members of the Board would consider future discussion on how best to present both documents to the Finance Committee before they came before the Board for consideration.
    The Board took note of the information and recommendations in “Reports by the Joint Inspection Unit Relevant to the Work of WFP” (WFP/EB.1/2007/13).
  • WFP/EB.2/2014/5-A/1
    The Assistant Executive Director (AED) for Resource Management and Accountability observed that the draft Management Plan had benefitted from extensive consultation with the Board and presented a clearer association between inputs and results, a more realistic – as opposed to aspirational – programme of work based on funding estimates, the integration of trust funds reporting and the incorporation of value-for-money concepts. Four Level 3 emergencies accounted for 40 percent of the projected operational requirements of USD 7.45 billion for 2015. The Management Plan proposed to raise the target level of the IRA from USD 70 million to USD 200 million to enable WFP to seek contributions to meet the needs of beneficiaries in life-threatening situations. Significantly, WFP had modified its cost metrics, moving the focus from beneficiary numbers to daily rations. Following identification of savings in most offices and subsequent strategic reallocations, the Secretariat would maintain a zero nominal growth budget in 2015.The Board commended the extensive consultative process ensuring that the Board’s concerns were reflected in the final document, and welcomed the Management Plan’s commitment to zero nominal growth as a sensitive response to financial constraints. Members appreciated both the shift in focus from beneficiaries to rations and the provisional prioritized plan of work. While accepting that certain offices and programmes had had to be exempted from cuts, the Board also hoped that investments in critical corporate initiatives would bear fruit in future by reducing the need to draw down for this purpose from the Programme Support and Administrative (PSA) Equalization Account. A call was also made for effective reporting tools to monitor the IRA.The Board further welcomed WFP’s efforts to broaden the donor base and enhance the predictability of contributions, and it encouraged an increase in unearmarked contributions. Some concern was expressed that decreasing attention was being paid to Strategic Objectives 3 and 4, which contributed to saving lives in the longer term and to interrupting inter-generational hunger, and to middle-income countries affected by climate change. Members also emphasized the importance of WFP’s collaboration with other United Nations agencies and clusters. In line with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Finance Committee advice, members suggested revisiting decision viii, which enables the Executive Director to adjust the PSA budget if operational requirements were to increase by 10 percent through an informal process during 2015.The AED assured the Board that WFP was working to analyse the reasons for donor restrictions, which would enable WFP to engage with donors on this matter. He reiterated WFP’s commitment to Strategic Objectives 3 and 4 as fundamental to the shift towards food assistance, but noted that much was dependent on project funding levels. Welcoming initial feedback on the use of rations as a metric, he looked forward to engaging in further discussion on rations and beneficiaries in 2015. The AED also agreed that improved reporting to the Board on the IRA was critical for giving greater visibility on its use and that more reporting on efficiency gains was intended for inclusion in the next Annual Performance Report.
    Having considered WFP’s Management Plan (2015–2017), as submitted by the Executive Director in document WFP/EB.2/2014/5-A/1, the Board: i) took note that the 2015 Programme Support and Administrative appropriation and the provisional prioritized plan of work assume a funding level of USD 4.4 billion in 2015; ii) took note of the projected operational requirements of USD 7.45 billion for 2015, excluding any provision for unforeseen emergencies and including direct support costs, as outlined in Section III; iii) approved a 2015 Programme Support and Administrative appropriation of USD 281.8 million, to be allocated as follows: Programme support: regional bureaux and country offices USD 99.3 million Programme support: Headquarters USD 52.1 million Management and administration USD 130.4 million Total USD 281.8 million iv) approved a supplementary Programme Support and Administrative appropriation of USD 9.2 million for critical corporate initiatives, as outlined in Section IV; v) approved expenditure in 2015 of USD 750,000 from the General Fund for investment management costs; vi) approved a new Immediate Response Account target level of USD 200 million; vii) approved an indirect support cost recovery rate of 7.0 percent for 2015; and viii) authorized the Executive Director to adjust the Programme Support and Administrative component of the budget in accordance with any variation in the volume of operational requirements of more than 10 percent from levels outlined in Section III. The Board also took note of the comments of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) (WFP/EB.2/2014/5(A,B,C,D,E)/2) and the FAO Finance Committee (WFP/EB.2/2014/5(A,B,C,D,E)/3).
  • WFP/EB.A/2012/5-B*
    Introducing the document, the Secretariat noted that it constituted the first step in preparing for the next Strategic Plan and establishing WFP’s future direction. The document was based on extensive consultations and quantitative analysis of changes since the Strategic Plan was enacted, and on reviews of the Strategic Plan from the country perspective in Ecuador, Kenya and Pakistan. The mid-term review found that WFP needed to match staff skill sets with the needs of a broader toolbox of modalities, and to promote effective partnerships.The Board welcomed the document and commended the Secretariat for a transparent and consultative approach in developing the report. Board members approved the focus on enhancing the reporting of qualitative as well as quantitative outcomes, but observed that some of the changes noted in the document should be explained in greater detail. Clarification of the details of WFP’s partnerships and identification of the constraints on capacity development for small-scale farmers were also requested. The needs to improve monitoring and to avoid overlaps with the operations of other agencies were noted by several members. In view of funding constraints, some Board members recommended that WFP prioritize its interventions and ensure that hand-over strategies were built in at the design stage.Board members observed that the document reflected WFP’s approach to addressing complex issues and that it promoted the adoption of new policies and processes in response to changing circumstances. The need to match human and other resources with the requirements of each context was stressed by several members. Coordination with governments and partners was identified as a priority by some Board members with a view to keeping abreast of needs and developments. Clarification was sought as to the effects on operations of the shortcomings in the current funding model and the need for advocacy to maximize the proportion of multi-year unearmarked contributions was noted. Some Board members recommended that WFP develop special approaches to addressing chronic crises, and that it enhance its needs assessment and monitoring procedures. The Board approved the “do no harm” humanitarian principle on which WFP operations were based. Board members urged WFP to continue its work to maximize transparency and to make itself fully accountable to beneficiaries and donors.The Secretariat thanked the Board for its observations, noting that local procurement had decreased in 2011 because suppliers had been affected by disasters, and needs had declined in Pakistan, where WFP had purchased a significant amount of wheat in previous years. The Secretariat recognized the need for clearer monitoring indicators. WFP would continue to seek new funding modalities, especially multi-year commitments, and would continue to develop results-based reporting approaches. A policy on protracted crises was being prepared on the basis of a number of case studies. WFP was working to identify constraints on achieving the objectives of the Strategic Plan. Consultations with Board members were already being planned to begin work on planning for the next Strategic Plan.
    The Board took note of “Mid-Term Review of the The Board took note of “Mid-Term Review of the WFP Strategic Plan (2008–2013)” (WFP/EB.A/2012/5-B*), and encouraged the Secretariat to take its findings and recommendations into account, in particular for the development of the next Strategic Plan.

Review of CSPs

Draft country strategic plans are now available for review here.

Deadline: 20 April 2018.