Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
JIM HARVEY
AND MR
JONATHAN LINGHAM
17 JUNE 2008
Q80 John Bercow: Minister, should
cash and food transfers be adopted as a primary approach to helping
poor households cope with food price increases? I do not know
whether you have a sense of the criteria DFID will expect the
World Food Programme to deploy in deciding whether a cash or food
transfer should take place?
Mr Thomas: I am not going to say
that in every circumstance social protection systems should be
the primary way in which we respond to an emergency involving
a lack of food or high food prices. It really does depend on the
particular situation in-country. Let us take an area that you
have been very interested in, the issue of Burma, where there
is significant devastation of livelihoods, of farms, because of
an external event—in this case flooding brought on by the
cyclone. Then there are occasions when you do need to bring food
directly in. We would ideally want that food to be procured locally.
Where you are dealing with more ongoing challenges around famine
then there may still be a case for that direct food aid; but more
likely you need to build up the resilience of particular communities
to cope with that ongoing famine situation. That is where social
protection, cash for work, is perhaps more efficient and effective
in the long-run. You obviously need to do that alongside much
greater investment in agriculture more generally as well.
Q81 John Bercow: The distinction,
in broad terms, would be between a sudden crisis and a slow burn
crisis, rather than between a humanitarian crisis, on the one
hand, and food insecurity or worse that resulted directly from
a grievous human rights abuse by a dictatorship?
Mr Thomas: I think that is perhaps
a good way to put it, but I would use your caveat "in broad
terms". You need to look at the particular circumstances
in each country. Yes, I agree with food aid where there is a particular
immediate humanitarian crisis, as opposed to a more ongoing challenge
around famine, absolutely.
Q82 Richard Burden: The global crisis/challenge
around food security has obviously focussed attention once again
on the multiplicity of UN agencies, boundaries between them, overlaps
between them, and so on. You have touched on that in some of your
answers so far. I will come in a minute to ask you a bit more
about the taskforce you referred to. Could I start off by just
asking what actually the UK really wants to see in terms of reform
there? Simon Maxwell[5],
when he came to see us, put it quite interestingly and said, "It
would be helpful if the large countries like the UK were to say
to the UN system, `We want one 10-page summary of what you want
to do as a UN system', signed by the Secretary General, delivered
to the series of meetings that is happening through the summer,
the Call to Action, the G8 and so on". If you were to summarise
(and I am not asking you to come up with ten pages) what specific
actions the UK might see in terms of UN reform what would they
be?
Mr Thomas: I suggest to you, Mr
Burden, that is a whole select committee inquiry of itself. Essentially
we want the UN to bring together the different expertise of its
different agencies to work, at country level in particular, more
effectively than in many cases they are doing at the moment. We
want the UN agencies "to deliver" in the jargon—to
deliver as one. If you think about the different agencies, and
just look at the differences between those based in Rome, you
have got WFP in particular focussing on the short-term immediate
humanitarian needs; you have got IFAD looking at the longer term
financing needs; you have got the FAO[6]
providing, in theory, policy advice to developing country governments.
At different times you are going to need all three to be in place;
then you could usefully use the expertise of the World Bank with
all their additional finance and expertise again around long-term
needs of countries and their good use of public financial management
systems et cetera. UNICEF[7]
has got particular expertise around the needs of children and
nutrition, for example. Do you also bring in UNHCR[8]
which has particular responsibility around helping the hunger
needs of refugees and internally displaced people? There are a
huge number of agencies that have a role to play in responding
to particular needs at particular times. What we want to do is
to try and empower the lead person for the UN in those contexts—be
it the humanitarian coordinator or the resident coordinator—to
be able to corral those agencies into giving advice in a way that
best suits the needs of the country governments and looks at their
medium-term and their long-term needs. That is why we are putting
as much effort in as we are to the whole UN reform process—be
it a humanitarian system of reform which Hilary Benn, when he
was Secretary of State, initiated in particular; through to a
development system reform which Gordon Brown set up—a high
level panel on development system coherence back in 2005 to look
at this and which Douglas and I are now trying to take forward
still further in our current roles.
Q83 Richard Burden: Do you favour one
UN agency being the lead agency? Some have suggested that could
be a role for WFP in the future. Or do you think it is a question
of horses for courses and it depends on the situation as to who
should be the lead player in the leadership team?
Mr Thomas: I do not favour one
agency having the overall lead. Different agencies have different
strengths and different areas of expertise. All their experiences
and talents et cetera are going to be needed in different places
at different times. What I think we need is commitment from all
those agencies to work together and to work under the leadership,
as I say, of the key UN lead person in-country, which will be
either the humanitarian coordinator, if there is an immediate
crisis, or the UN resident coordinator. They need to be willing
to accept the leadership of that person in-country and provide
their expertise behind the work that resident coordinator, or
humanitarian coordinator, sets out to do. Again, that must be
in support of what the developing country government themselves
want to see.
Q84 Richard Burden: Could I just
ask you a little bit about the taskforce that Sir John Holmes
has been coordinating. You described it potentially as something
of a "marriage broker" in terms of having a relationship
between the needs of the particular developing country, the country
facing the emergency and so on, and the different range of UN
organisations and potentially other donors. Do you see that work
being essentially one of coordinating the front door, or have
you got hopes for it in terms of changing the architecture behind
the front door?
Mr Thomas: I described the International
Partnership for Agriculture and Food, which the Secretary of State
called for at the Rome Summit, as being a potential marriage broker;
but we do see that hopefully emerging from the UN-World Bank taskforce,
which the Secretary General has got, which John Holmes and David
Nabarro are about to be leading. What we wanted to see was both
a ramping-up of the UN systems response to the so-called food
crisis; and in the longer term we want there to be an easier port
of call for developing country governments to go to when they
recognise they need particular expertise. That is where we see
the partnership playing a role. If you break down the different
elements of that partnership you will need more money for long-term
investment in agriculture; and that is partly potentially through
the World Bank, partly through regional development banks and
partly through IFAD. Then you do need better policy advice available
to developing country governments; and that is where we think
the FAO has a key role to play going forward. As I say, you will
have particular needs in particular areas of the response, so
UNICEF can respond in terms of nutrition, or UNHCR in terms of
refugees. Do I hope that there will be a greater appetite for
working as one as a result of this taskforce? Yes, absolutely.
There is no doubt that particular bits of the UN system need to
accelerate their efforts to reform themselves; and FAO is the
classic in that sense. Josette Sheeran and Lennart Båge,
Head of IFAD, in different ways have led reform drives within
their own organisations. We do need Jacques Diouf at the FAO to
accelerate the reform efforts that have begun within FAO but are
still behind the curve in terms of where the others are at.
Q85 Richard Burden: In the current
status of the taskforce's recommendations, its draft action plan
was presented at Rome. It is still in draft, so what is the next
stage?
Mr Thomas: We met with the Secretary
General yesterday and he was telling us he was due to report back
Wednesday, I think, to the UN. We are obviously waiting to see
what his conclusions are from that. We then want to use the European
Council, the G8 and then the meeting on the Millennium Development
Goals that the Secretary General has called in September to take
forward the work of the taskforce both in raising additional finance
and in getting the policy response right as well. That is where
we are going to be taking forward our ideas around an international
partnership to try and see if we can make that happen.
Q86 Chairman: Mr Thomas, according
to Bob Zoellick, I think, the increase in food prices has probably
put 70-100 million people back into the hungry bracket, as he
put it, wiping out almost ten years of achievements on development.
I am not criticising because I think what you have said is entirely
understandable within the framework of policymakers, and policy
advocators, but if you are a hungry person or a representative
of hungry people in a poor country being led through a cat's cradle
of acronyms and UN agencies does not sound like a very dynamic
approach to tackling world hunger. Simon Maxwell of the ODI said
that this is the moment where we really need to cut through all
of that, take the opportunity of the crisis to simplify the process
and perhaps suggest that hunger should be tackled under the leadership
of one organisation. In other words, they deal with all these
acronyms and bringing all these people in, but from the external
agency people know who is leading. In that context, would that
not logically be the role for the World Food Programme?
Mr Thomas: At one level the easy
answer is to say, yes, Chairman, to your question; but I think
the idea that you would get one single agency leading the response
to hunger and putting in place the longer term responses to issues
around food prices is just simply unlikely. With respect, I think
our idea of trying to get a partnership going to see that you
do bring the different agencies and the different developing countries
and the different parts of developing country governments who
have particular needs for particular policy advice, or for particular
pots of money, together in a way that I have described, with a
light touch secretariat rather than a great new body, or a great
new reform process that takes up huge amounts of time and uses
huge amounts of political energy, we know that people in a range
of UN agencies—within the World Bank, within other donors,
do want to help. The question is: how do we make that help available
more quickly? Our sense is that this light touch secretariat as
part of an international partnership is the way to do it: to bring
the needs, on the one side, together with the people who have
got both the money and the ideas to respond.
Q87 Chairman: I do not know what
Simon Maxwell will be doing when he leaves the ODI next year,
but I suspect he will not be disappearing off the scene. He said
to us that, "It would be very helpful if the large countries
like the UK would say to the UN system, `We want one 10-page summary
of what you want to do as a UN system', signed by the Secretary
General, delivered to the series of meetings that is happening
through the summer, the Call to Action, the G8 and so on".
Do I take it from your last answer that DFID is not planning to
do that?
Mr Thomas: Not in quite such a
direct way. We are pressing the different bits of the system to
do more in the areas where they can do more. For example, the
World Bank have provided $200 million immediately available for
helping developing country governments buy more seed and buy more
fertiliser to help farmers who are short of resources as the planting
season begins. That is an immediate response. We have worked with
the World Food Programme, both directly providing additional resources
ourselves, and encouraging other governments to put money up.
We are encouraging the different bits of the UN system that provide
the policy advice to developing countries to do more themselves.
The longer term issues around the mismatch in terms of poor incentives
for developing countries to plant more food so they can sell it
for export—through the Doha round of trade talks there is
obviously a huge amount of effort that has gone into (and is still
going into) trying to secure a deal in that round of trade talks,
which potentially would help to sweep away some of the tariffs
and export subsidies which do act as a major disincentive for
some developing country governments to scale-up their investment
in agriculture.
Q88 Hugh Bayley: Does DFID really
support the role of WFP in relation to non-emergency intervention,
such as nutrition and school feeding? Or would you like to see
them spend a greater proportion of their time and money on responding
to emergencies?
Mr Thomas: We would certainly
like them to continue to focus on responding to emergencies. We
think that they have a critical role to play in post-conflict
situations too. They are very good at providing logistics and
to help in all sorts of humanitarian situations, not just in terms
of the food context but, for example, the road building programme
in southern Sudan which they have helped to generate, which has
provided all sorts of agencies with the ability to get assistance
to the people of southern Sudan much more effectively. You are
right in the premise of your question when you say are we less
positive about their developmental work. We see that certainly
being an area where they have less of a comparative advantage
to other bits of the international community; but we are one voice
among many on the WFP board, and we have to recognise that others
on that board do want WFP to continue to play a role in a developmental
context. We accept that there is a role for them to play, but
we think where they bring real added value into the response is
in getting aid to deal with the acute needs of very hungry people.
Q89 Hugh Bayley: I want to pursue
the question of malnutrition and under-nutrition. Perhaps the
best starting point is in relation to your own Department. Robert
Zoellick said in his recent speech about the food crisis that
hunger and malnutrition are the forgotten Millennium Development
Goal. In your Department's PSA[9],
in relation to Development Goal One, DFID is required to use as
an indicator the percentage of a population living on less than
$1 a day; but Millennium Development Goal One is specifically
about hunger and the indicators that are tied to it are to do
with the percentage of a population who have a sufficient, adequate,
minimum calorie intake and the prevalence of underweight children.
If the Department was seeing reducing hunger as a lead goal, as
one of its most important outcomes then, surely to goodness, you
would use as an indicator something more closely tied to hunger
when assessing your performance against Millennium Development
Goal One?
Mr Thomas: I accept you are not
putting it in these terms, but I think the suggestion that we
have not done enough on trying to tackle hunger is one that I
would want to challenge. I accept that there is always more we
can do, but we have always sought to provide for the immediate
humanitarian needs. We have always been a significant funder of
the World Food Programme; the largest funder of the CERF. We have
always championed the ability of the UN and the World Bank to
provide policy advice to developing country governments to help
them get their own agricultural policies right. Again, we remain
a very significant funder of all sorts of different UN agencies.
In terms of long-term finance for tackling problems around the
shortages of food, we are now the biggest funder of the
World Bank; a significant funder of IFAD; and a very significant
funder of the regional development banks; and that is in addition
to all the different things we do directly as a bilateral donor,
be it through social protection and schemes in-country, or by
the agricultural policy paper, for example, that we published
in 2005 to try and provide greater policy support to our staff
in-country, working themselves directly with developing country
governments. Agriculture is an area where the Department has worked.
At different times it has had media profile and profile in Parliament.
I do not think it would be fair to imply (and I accept that you
have not implied it, as such) that we are not taking it seriously.
I do accept, however, we can always do more.
Q90 Hugh Bayley: I am glad to hear
you saying that final point. As a large development agency with
a rapidly expanding budget, I would certainly accept that DFID
does a lot in this field; but I think my conclusion—and
I hope our report reflects this when it is published—is
that DFID does not focus closely enough on under-nutrition directly;
and that given rising food prices that that is a policy correction
I hope could come about (and I hope we will see coming about)
in the Government's response to our report. A third of children
who die under the age of five die because of under-nutrition.
This is a very serious problem. If you care about child deaths
you had better have a policy on nutrition. We know that is going
to get worse because of rising food prices. Is there work being
done currently within your department to look at indicators that
you could use to focus your poverty alleviation policies more
specifically on malnutrition, for instance using the prevalence
of underweight children as an indicator?
Mr Thomas: There are two responses,
Mr Bayley, that I would give. Firstly, in response to the consultation
on our HIV/AIDS and health policies, one of the clear messages
coming back from both developing country governments and civil
society with whom we spoke was that they would welcome DFID giving
more policy attention to nutrition. As a result we have set up
a policy team on nutrition to look specifically at what else we
should be doing in this area. In terms of the actual response
in developing countries, our support for social protection, our
support for investment in education, our support for investment
in health, our support for championing economic growth in developing
countries, all of those help to tackle the issues around child
nutrition. I would not accept that we have not taken the issue
seriously, but I do accept that we could give higher profile to
the work on nutrition. That is why we have set up a nutrition
taskforce to look at what else we need to do.
Q91 Hugh Bayley: Just one last question
to do with the UN system and where responsibility for tackling
this problem lies. It is clear from the answers you have given
already that a number of different UN agencies have responsibilities:
UNICEF—but they have a responsibility only to children.
To quote Bob Marley, "A hungry man is an angry man",
and you can see what angry men do in Bangladesh, in southern Africa
or a number of other places. Should there not be one clear UN
lead agency that regards its role, one of its primary purposes,
as ensuring—in a world where there is enough food to feed
everybody if only it could be distributed to the right people—that
that happens? To ensure that under-nourishment is not the daily
and life-stunting grind that it is for millions and millions of
people?
Mr Thomas: If you look at the
mandates of the three Rome agencies—never mind some of the
agencies that are headquartered in New York or in Geneva—WFP,
IFAD and FAO all have at the heart of their mission the purpose
of responding to the needs of hungry people. The question is:
in the immediate and short-term is it possible to get just one
rationalised agency across the whole of the UN system? My judgment,
given how difficult UN reform has been to this point (and we have
put substantial effort in, and we are going to continue to put
substantial effort in) is that there is not an immediate prospect
of one specific UN food agency. Our sense therefore has been:
can we marry the different responsibilities, different talents
and different financial flows from the banks and the different
UN agencies more effectively and more quickly to the needs of
different developing country governments, and different bits of
those developing country governments? Absolutely we think we can
do, and that is why we want an international partnership, as Douglas
Alexander set out, to take forward that ambition; whilst at the
same time we are continuing to champion UN reform, given how long
we know that is going to continue to take.
Q92 Hugh Bayley: I would agree with
you. I would have the ambition for one UN food and nutrition department,
but it is not going to happen in the short-term. The FAO has not
taken a lead and is not seeing itself as having a key responsibility
in addressing nutrition needs directly; and, I would say, it is
one of the less functional UN agencies. WFP is one of the more
effective agencies; it is doing work on school feeding and nutrition
in non-emergency situations. Should not our government then say,
"For the time being, until we have a better, more fit for
purpose UN structure, since WFP has capacity we ought to be more
supportive of them using their capacity to remove the burden,
scar, of under-nourishment from sections of the global population"?
Mr Thomas: That is why we are
giving more money to the World Food Programme. What we do not
want the World Food Programme to do—perhaps by scaling-up
its work in another part of responding to the food crisis, the
long-term development challenges—is to lose its focus from
how it can continue to help very quickly and very effectively,
as you rightly say it does do, the needs of the very, very hungry
now. Our worry would be that if we asked Josette Sheeran to suddenly
completely change the mandate of the World Food Programme you
actually risk making it less effective in the area where it has
got an internationally recognised reputation for doing a very
good job. I would also say that there are parts of FAO that do
work well. There are many, many parts of IFAD that are doing a
very good job. We certainly have not written off any agency by
any means. Where I would agree with you is that we do need the
UN system to continue to reform, to continue to improve the way
it operates. We see both the long-term work that has emerged within
the UN as a result of the high level panel on development system
coherence, which we were big supporters of and are continuing
to champion, alongside the international partnership that Douglas
has called for, taken forward to deal with the immediate situation.
Both the processes are in hand and, we believe, are making a difference
in terms of UN reform already; and we think the international
partnership can continue to help us make progress in the long-term
as well. Then there are individual conversations that you can
have with agencies. For example, as well as WFP being my responsibility,
FAO is my responsibility; so we have gone to Rome; we have challenged
Jacques Diouf both in private and in public, in the public meetings
of the board, to support reform and to accelerate the reform efforts.
The fact that there is a reform process underway in FAO I would
like to think is partly because of UK efforts working with allies.
I would not write off any agency, but I agree with you that there
some which are more effective than others.
Q93 Chairman: Just as a footnote,
in your own Department's submission you quite explicitly say that
"the UK does not support WFP's non-emergency food aid activities,
and our view on school feeding is that it needs to be carefully
considered in relation to other policy interventions".[10]
That is pretty explicit. There is a divergence of view I think
between what the WFP can do and what the Department thinks it
can do. Unless you want to comment on that, I would just leave
it as a difference of view.
Mr Thomas: In that sense, Chairman,
you are right there is a difference of view. Our sense is that
there are many different ways of making sure that, for example,
school feeding takes place. Our sense is that WFP has got a particular
leadership role to play on responding to the immediate humanitarian
needs, as opposed to developmental needs. We would not want to
lose that clear focus that WFP has on responding to the needs
of the very hungry. On school feeding, we would say you need to
build school feeding into the longer-term education programmes
that developing countries have. There may be a role for WFP but
there are other agencies that can also play a crucial role and
are regarded as effective in this area, be it UNDP[11],
be it on occasion UNESCO.[12]
All those different agencies have a role to play in education.
You can bring in expertise from those agencies to help to deal
with particular issues around school feeding. Let us not lose,
has been our message to WFP, any focus from your clear skills
and your clear comparative advantage in helping the very, very
hungry immediately.
Q94 Richard Burden: On the situation
of humanitarian emergencies, that is one area where, if I read
you right, you feel that WFP does play a useful role?
Mr Thomas: A very, very useful
role, we think.
Q95 Richard Burden: In relation to
is its performance as the sector lead in the cluster relating
to logistics can you tell us any more about what your assessment
is of that performance; and if there are any lessons that can
be learned in the way WFP goes about its role in that cluster,
either for other clusters or some of these broader questions we
have been talking about?
Mr Thomas: In a sense I think
their effectiveness in the logistics cluster and their effectiveness
in terms of dealing with immediate food needs and humanitarian
emergencies point to the success of the cluster system. Where
you have an effective agency in the lead then you can get a much
more improved response to that emergency on the ground. I think
the lesson, frankly, from the scenarios that you describe is that
we need to continue to champion that humanitarian reform agenda
which Hilary Benn set out back in December 2004 or 2005. We think
there has been a lot of progress, both in terms of the CERF and
in terms of agencies stepping up their work around the cluster
leads, but we do not think we have cracked humanitarian reform
completely by any stretch of the imagination. I suppose the lesson
from the success WFP has had is we need to bank that success but
also challenge not only WFP but other bits of the UN system to
continue to do more.
Q96 Mr Singh: The scale of the problem
is really quite staggering, is it not? It is really hard to take
in when you realise there are 850 million or 860 million people
who are suffering from some form of malnutrition. An easy way
to understand it is that one child dies every six seconds from
malnutrition, and yet the World Food Programme is only able to
cater for 73 million people in terms of meeting their nutritional
needs. What is happening to the rest?
Mr Thomas: Whether you use the
figure of 850 million or for example you use some of the other
figures around development that are there, the one billion who
live on less than a dollar a day or the two billion who live on
less than two dollars a day, what those statistics are a reminder
of is just the sheer scale of the development and humanitarian
challenge that we face as an international community. That is
in part why Gordon Brown has sought to use this year, when we
are half way to the MDGs, to persuade the UN and the international
community more generally to refocus on what we need to do to meet
those Millennium Development Goals. It is not just the hunger
goal that we are going to be off track on; it is all the other
goals that we are potentially not going to meet in particular
countries. Many of those goals have both a direct and an indirect
impact on the needs of some of the most hungry people. We have
sought not only to do more in terms of our role on the issue of
rising food prices, but also to look more broadly at what we can
do to ramp up attention on responding to the Millennium Development
Goals. That is one of the reasons why there is this meeting taking
place on 25 September and why the European Council and the G8
are going to be looking at how the rich nations of the world can
do more to help progress on the MDGs.
Q97 Mr Singh: Out of that 850 million
or whatever figure you want to use, there is certainly a proportion
that we cannot reach either because of conflict, the nature of
the regime or some other factors. What proportion is it that we
cannot reach because of certain factors and what proportion are
we leaving unreached that we could reach?
Mr Thomas: I do not have a direct
figure for you. To be honest, it would change on a daily or a
monthly basis. Even in countries like Zimbabwe or Burma, where
the governments treat their people—let me put it delicately—extremely
poorly, we still can get interventions in to help those often
very hungry people by working with UN organisations, and people
like the Red Cross and NGOs who work in that context. There are
always things that we believe we can try to make happen. You are
right in a sense in hinting that there is not only an immediate
how do we help the very hungry people now but, in a sense, how
do we try and reduce the number of hungry people worldwide. There
must be more to our response than just more money to the World
Food Programme. We also have to look at what are the trade rules
which discourage developing country farmers from perhaps expanding
their operations. That is why we want a trade deal. It is how
do we get increased investment in agricultural research so that
we are increasing agricultural productivity in developing countries.
We are helping developing countries adapt their agriculture systems
to the climate change that is happening. We need to look at how
we can get the private sector to do more in agriculture and that
is looking at what the investment climate is like in developing
countries. You need the immediate response which WFP has been
doing a fantastic job in leading, but you also need the medium
and long term response. Frankly, we need to do more as an international
community in all of those areas. That is why Douglas Alexander
has been saying that, out of this UN worldwide task force, can
we establish an international partnership that brings together
different people with their talents in particular agencies and
access to pots of money in the different financing arms of the
international community, the World Bank and the RDBs with developing
country governments and the particular people in developing country
governments who need help to deal with particular parts of their
food crises or shortages.
Q98 Mr Singh: You are saying that
the only way we will be able to confront this problem on any kind
of scale that is required is if our and the world's poverty reduction
strategies work in country. Without those working we will never
meet this problem, will we?
Mr Thomas: Absolutely. We have
welcomed for example, as part of countries looking at what they
can do on poverty reduction strategies, the commitment that countries
in Africa have made to increase their own investment in agriculture.
They have set a target of 10%. The encouraging thing is that a
whole series of countries—Mali, Madagascar and Namibia,
just to give three examples—are already investing at that
level. We know a number of other countries are increasing their
amounts of money going into agriculture too. There is a series
of encouraging long term signs about the future direction of agriculture
but, as you rightly say, there are still 850 million and potentially
another 70 million to 100 million who need our immediate help
as well.
Q99 Mr Singh: The World Food Programme
uses some kind of mapping exercise to direct resources at those
in most need. How confident are you in the rigour of that mapping
that we are reaching the ones who have the most need?
Mr Harvey: We have a lot of confidence
in this because they have not done this simply by themselves.
They have involved other agencies in developing this modelling
that I think you heard about when you visited Rome. They have
brought in the World Bank and they have consulted a number of
NGOs in getting that right. It is a fairly simple set of models
which look at the vulnerability of different countries, looking
at how much they depend on imports, how much they are also affected
by energy price and oil import costs. What that now needs to be
matched up with is in country beneficiary assessment surveys which
they are now getting into, to then precisely target, having identified
the countries at risk. The model continues to evolve. Last week
they presented a slightly more sophisticated version than the
one you heard about when you visited. We also use it ourselves.
They share this data with us and our own humanitarian advisers
in country are using this and ground truthing it with WFP in country.
5 Director of the Overseas Development Institute Back
6
Food and Agriculture Organisation Back
7
UN Children's Fund Back
8
UN Refugee Agency Back
9
Public Service Agreement Back
10
Ev 41 Back
11
UN Development Programme Back
12
UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Back
|
