3 externe évaluations de la Charte PREGEC RPCA Dec

1. Third evaluation of
the PREGEC Charter
Results overview

2. 1. Evaluation
background
 Under investment, marginalized areas, failure to implement policies, and poor
governance
 Civil insecurity: massive population displacement, disruption of production
systems, food inflation
 Overlap of areas of civil and food insecurity
 Coping and resilience mechanisms shaken by recurrent shocks
Contexte
Persistent food
and nutrition
insecurity

3. 1. Evaluation background
 PREGEC Charter, early warning system
 Response plan / humanitarian response
 FSN - focused social protection programme
 UEMOA financial support mechanism
 Regional Food Security Reserve
 Africa Risk Capacity
 Endogenous responses (Cereal bank/feed, etc.)
7 instruments /
guides for response
• Efficiency
• Efficiency
• Capacity

4. 1. Evaluation background
Objectives and key questions
S.O. 1: To assess the effectiveness of
regional solidarity mechanisms in
responding to food and nutrition crises
S.O. 2: Assess the contribution of social
protection programmes to national
ambitions to eradicate chronic food
and nutrition insecurity.
Regional
solidarity
delivery
systems?
Monitoring
Evaluation,
Accountability,
and Learning
mechanisms?
Social protection
contribution to
food security and
nutrition ?
Tools / synergy
between
programmes?
Better coordination of
different forms of food
security and nutrition?

5. 2. Methodology
• Methodology
• Tools
• Orientation and validation
workshop
• Finalization of collection
and analysis tools
• Familiarization of tools
with focal points
•
• Secondary
documentation at
national and regional
level
• Data collection from
national and regional
actors
•
• Additional interviews
• Region Report
Inception phase
Data collection
Production of country
deliverables Regional report
01 02 03 04
• Characterization,
performance, SWOT of
production and supply
systems
• political and institutional
environment
• Food systems and food
and nutrition security
• Transformative actions of
food systems
•

6. Mal
i Burk
ina
Faso
Nig
er
Nigeria
Tchad
Sénégal
Sierra
Léone
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Last four years
• Trois zones: Centre Sahel, Bassin Lac Tchad, pays
côtiers,
• Instruments de réponse potentiels
• Types de chocs (sécheresse, inflation sur les
denrées alimentaires, inondations)
• Autres critères: poids dans l’insécurité
alimentaire et nutritionnelle dans la région,
bonnes pratiques
2. Methodology

7. Major findings of
the evaluation

8. 3. Major findings
 No verification mechanisms for all
data provided by countries to
solicit support to the Regional
Solidarity Mechanisms (RSM).
 Relatively short timelines for the
provision of RSM support;
underserved areas of insecurity.
 Limited coverage of SRM and
social protection, contributing
little to the response to food
and nutrition insecurity
 Programming not very
sensitive to shocks
 Inadequate support for
populations

 PNR overload
 Relevance of NRP actions
 Inconsistency in the cost of
NRPs vs social protection
packages
 Regional solidarity instruments
do not have an outcome-based
monitoring and evaluation
system
Functional solidarity
mechanisms with areas for
improvement
Low investments and non-
optimized orientations
Poor alignment of response
instruments and lack of an
Outcome Monitoring System
 Varying levels of coverage of social protection programmes, but generally low
 Maturity of the social protection programmes and their promising expandability capacity
Social
protection

9. 4. Current and potential articulation of different types of programmes
Closing the coordination
gap is instrumental for the
holistic governance of the
FSN
Policies and strategies
Structural and cyclical Food
Security and Nutrition
governance
Objectives
Entrance points
Content of responses
Beneficiaries
Lack of a unifying framework
to address poverty and food
insecurity
Disconnected social
protection programmes in
some countries and no
gateways to the NRP
Weak strategic articulation
between social protection
linked to the FSN and NRPs
Parallel programming
systems with little
communication

10. 4. Current and potential articulation of different types of programmes
 NRP / RSM: Geo-targeting
alignment
 Differenciate the targeting of
beneficiaries
 Unifying instrument: the
single social register /
single national register
 Social packages
harmonized
 Implementation
instruments (payment,
distribution, etc.).
 Shock-sensitive programming:
"Crisis modifier", budget allocation
for early response,
 adaptive social protection to
shocks: preventive interventions
Geographic and beneficiary
targeting
Tools to be shared Innovative instruments

11. 4. Current and potential articulation of different types of programs
+ productive
support through
regional solidarity
mechanisms
 Crisis modifier
 Productive social
protection
 Shock-responsive
social protection
+
Resources sharing
(targeting instruments, payment delivery
mechanisms, etc.)
Extension of social protection in its
geographic intervention area
(new beneficiaries or same beneficiaries in the
same area of ​​intervention)
+
Vertical extension (productive social protection)
Support for development programs with
productive support for chronically food
insecure populations (inclusive productive
packages)
Extension of social protection in an area not
yet covered
(new beneficiaries in areas not covered by
social protection)
+
Vertical extension (productive social protection)
- +
Geographical
overlap
Social protection programme maturity level

12. Policy messages
and
recommendations

13. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
+ productive
support through
regional solidarity
mechanisms
 Crisis modifier
 Productive social
protection
 Shock-responsive
social protection

14. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
Aux IOG CILSS, ECOWAS, UEMOA : (3)
 Improve the quality of information triggering solidarity mechanisms, indicators of geographical and individual
targeting, and the content of the national response plan.
Align information systems
and tools used and revise
trigger indicators
Develop the capacity to
control the quality of
data provided by
countries
Harmonized targeting
indicators and thus
develop differentiated
response packages
Harmonize the content of
the national response plan
using the minimum
response packages

15. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
Aux IGO CILSS, ECOWAS, UEMOA :
 Shift from an output tracking system to performance monitoring on
food and nutrition security with regional solidarity mechanisms
Quantifiable targets
for meeting the food
security needs of
States (number of
people supported with
the appropriate
recommended
package)
Joint review and
implementation
support missions to
generate lessons and
develop planning,
implementation and
monitoring and
evaluation guides

16. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
Aux IGO CILSS, ECOWAS, UEMOA :
 Ensuring a better contribution to the response to chronic food insecurity by addressing the structural
causes of food insecurity
Define the strategic
contribution of IGOs
to social protection
related to food and
nutrition security
(expansion of the regional
framework of SP within IGOs)
Supporting States in
the implementation
of the extension of
productive social
protection (economic
inclusion - connection to other
productive programmes, including
IGOs by reorienting their
approach or projects)
Supporting countries
in adopting shock-
sensitive
programming
approaches (crisis
modification and budget
allocation in development
programmes, social protection
reactive to shocks, etc.)
Developing
transparent and
Innovative Resource
Mobilization
Mechanisms for Social
Protection related to
food and nutrition
security.

17. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
To RPCA:
 Support the strategic evolution of food security governance in countries and the region in order to better
respond to chronic food insecurity.
Develop and promote a
methodology and
dashboard on the
investment gap for food
and nutrition security (chronic
and cyclical – OECD mapping, capacity
States, CH, studies, etc.)
Facilitate dialogue
between actors on the
extension of social
protection. A regional task
force can be set up to
develop a roadmap and
support its
implementation (productive
and reactive social protection to shocks)
Facilitating resource
mobilization for the
extension of social
protection related to food
and nutrition security,
including a strategic
contribution from regional
solidarity mechanisms.

18. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
 To the States.
 Better articulate strategies to combat cyclical and chronic food insecurity.
 Allocate necessary financing and/or develop synergies with other interventions to expand social protection in
order to gradually cover a significant segment of the population in chronic food insecurity.
A holistic vision, strategic
framework and governance
mechanisms of the FSN by
articulating the
instruments of cyclical
response (PNR) and
structural (social protection
interventions related to the
SAN)
Shock-sensitive
programming of
development actions,
social protection reactive
to shocks, economic
inclusion. Study or
dialogue/roundtable on the use of the
register as a common tool, the
development of dashboards with alert
indicators, and the establishment of risk
financing mechanisms.
Extension of social protection
Productive support integrated into
social protection programmes or in
complementarity with existing
development interventions.
Graduation of households

19. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
To the States:
 Pool common functions and operationalizing tools for food crisis response
mechanisms.
 Strengthening the single social register,
 Interoperability, and access to data
 Payment and distribution platforms for existing
social protection programmes

20. 5. Policy messages / recommendations
To the states
 Conduct holistic planning and strengthen coordination of
food and nutrition security
Analysis of the investment
gap on food and nutrition
security in chronic areas
Orientation of cyclical,
structural and resilience
food security investments
(strategic steering tool).
Joint and complementary
planning of interventions,
starting with the
identification of chronic
food insecure areas and
cyclical food insecurity.