Public review of the revised Feed the Future indicator definitions is now closed. We thank you sincerely for your input!
We invite you to:
Please view the list below (or under Resources at right) of the Revised FTF Indicators;
Click the hyperlinked title of each indicator to see its definition...
Your Input is Requested: The new Global Food Security Strategy Indicators
Information:
See final list of GFSS indicators submitted to the U.S. Congress in October 2017. [Note: Now that the indicators have been sent to Congress, the other documents and links on this website are out of date and were only used for the external feedback survey conducted back in June 2017. The final list of GFSS indicators above incorporates feedback received in the survey.]
Watch a recording of the webinar.
Your input is needed to help select the new indicators for the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS)! An interagency Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning working group (MEL WG) has developed a draft set of indicators to be used for performance monitoring of the GFSS. These indicators will be used for annual or periodic reporting to support accountability and learning on what programs have achieved and assess progress against the Results Framework. The MEL WG developed this proposed list through a four-month consultative process that included USG technical experts.
What you need to do:
1. Read the background information, below.
2. Listen to the short audio messages that are relevant to the indicator(s) you plan to provide feedback on.
- Note - we do not expect you to provide feedback on every indicator proposed. Using the image below, select the indicator(s) you want to provide feedback on, click on the indicator(s) and listen to that message. We do ask that if you intend to provide feedback on an indicator, please do listen to the audio message first to ensure we have not already addressed your feedback/question in our explanation.
3. Take the survey to provide your input
4. Still have questions and were not able to join the live webinar? Listen to the webinar recording here and check out the transcript (in event resources).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
How were the proposed indicators selected and what is their purpose? We worked to limit the total number of indicators and strike a balance between measuring all facets of the Results Framework and keeping the reporting burden manageable. The aim was to make the indicator set more outcome-oriented, including one to three outcome-oriented indicators associated with each result of the new Results Framework. At the intermediate result level, the indicators measure results among program participants or among the broader population in the targeted geographic Zone of Influence (ZOI) or at a national-level. Measuring at these levels allows us to capture both direct outcomes and higher-level outcomes occurring through the transformative effect of our programs. This progression of results will help us better articulate the causal flow from outputs to activity outcomes to population-level outcomes to goal-level impacts. Output indicators are not listed under specific results as they were typically associated with more than one result across the Results Framework.
Another critical aspect of the Theory of Change we are striving to capture with selected indicators is changes to agri-food systems. Learning from our previous work and recommendations from the Feed the Future Global Performance Evaluation, we recognize the need to better capture how our work is transforming the agri-food system in a country, which we believe means more sustainable change for food security and nutrition. Yet developing standard indicators for systems has been difficult. We recognize gaps in our set of indicators and commit to working with partners over the coming year to develop and support data generation for systems indicators in these key areas: Market development, Agricultural productivity, Resilient systems, and Organizational and individual performance. Link here for full indicator workbook or see attached file on the right side bar of this screen to view the PLACEHOLDER indicators only.
Because change in systems is very context-specific and dynamic, it is important to develop methods and processes besides standard indicators to track desired changes. Feed the Future is also working to develop guidance and tools for non-standardized methods to measure change in agri-food systems.
Additionally, to both better capture our contributions to changes in systems and better support partner countries in their attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), we are currently proposing to also track our goal level indicators for hunger, malnutrition, and poverty at the national level and at the level of our sub-national Zone of Influence in each target country. All three goal indicators are SDG indicators.
Finally, we have identified a number of context indicators that we will use to periodically assess the performance of our programs and progress of the national agri-food systems we are supporting. We will not set targets for these indicators or collect primary data, but instead gather values for these indicators when they become available and use them in standard processes like annual portfolio reviews or to assess the population-based survey data captured in our targeted Zones. All context indicators we propose to track are all measured at the national level (except for the "OECD DAC food-security funding", which is global, and the "Proportion of Women who are empowered..." one, which is at the ZOI-level and is aligned with how we collect the A-WEAI). Link here for full indicator workbook or see attached file on the right side bar of this screen to view the CONTEXT indicators only.
Thank you in advance for your feedback and support! Now, listen to the audio recordings by clicking on the different Results Framework sections in the image below and take the survey to provide your input.
Filed Under:
Permalink
06/21/2017 - 3:16pm
It seems to me that there is a significant component missing from this framework, i.e. strengthening the ability of nations producing excess agricultural goods to fulfill SPS requirements for international trade. Considering the UN population growth projections for Africa (I've worked there several decades), the growth by 2100 is 3.7X (3.7 times, not 3.7%). The Malabo Declaration of 2014 indicates that agricultural production must double by 2025 and trade in agricultural commodities must treble. From 2025 onwards similar growth in production and trade is necessary. In my view, both meeting SPS requirements for pest and pathogen (P&P) control and meeting WTO requirements is best done at Regional Economic Community level - not at national level. RECs typically are comprised of nations with similar production systems, so regional control of P&P makes sense both economically and technically - much more bang for the buck. To meet the needs as stated by Malambo, leveling the trading field of operations across the African continent is very important. A Standard Methods and Procedures approach has been proven effective for livestock and could be made to work for all agricultural production systems, not just for animal production and trade.
Best regards - Andrew A. Clark, Pendleton Oregon
Permalink
06/22/2017 - 5:02am
Thank you Andrew for an honest and insightful piece. I am completely in agreement with you when it comes to nations capacity to fullfilling SPS requirements. SPS amongst individual nations in RECs still have different capacities levels to fairly trade. I think stengthening nations capabilities to meet SPSshould be included.
Permalink
06/22/2017 - 12:05pm
Daniel, spot-on, bwana!! And many thanks for your comment.
In the Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health project, implemented by AU-IBAR, there was a great deal of strengthening of capacities of national departments in surveillance, epidemiology, laboratory diagnostics, etc etc and also strengthening of the higher level laboratories for the more complex and expensive diagnostics so that each nation would not need to have the burden of that expense - one regional lab with higher level capabilies and a network of competent laboratories in each nation. Those regional labs then also act as the training institutions for the lower level lab personnel, so both technical expertise at higher levels and training for lower levels became sustainable components of the system. My view is that this model can work all over Africa - or anywhere else - to improve productivity and SPS compliance for any agricultural commodity. Working on the basis of a Regional Economic Community and/or a production ecosystem can be more effecive and less expensive than having every nation doing everything separately. The same applies to higher level expertise - someone who has higher level training can be shared among nations of the REC.
Permalink
06/27/2017 - 12:51pm
Thank you, Andrew and Daniel for your feedback here. Since there are so many comments, we're unable to manage things posted here or emailed directly, and we don't want to miss your valuable input, so could you please fill out the survey with your comments here? Taking the survey can be very short -- you only need to click on the link above, fill in your demographic info (so we know which sector you're from), click "Next" at the bottom of the survey page, and fill in your general comment and submit. If you do this (without checking any of the boxes of the Results Framework (RF) on the homepage), then it will only ask you the one question about having general comments, so it should take you 10 seconds to fill out. Of course, if you do have comments on specific indicators, feel free to check the applicable part of the RF so you can add your comments there as well. Thanks! Kate West
Comments