Sphere in Practice - Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response

Français

Español

HOME

HANDBOOK

Monitoring food distribution in Turkana, Kenya, 2000

Background

Kenya has suffered food insecurity caused by drought since late 1999. The situation worsened in 2000 when the long rains failed early in the year, with Turkana district among the most seriously affected in the country.

The Turkana are pastoralists and have been marginalised in the country's development process. As a result, their access to employment and to basic services is limited. Many have become destitute because of repeated droughts and now live along Lake Turkana, where they fish and make handicrafts from doum palm products. Some traditional fishermen also live alongside the Lake.

Food aid is provided by the Government of Kenya (GoK) and the World Food Programme (WFP). Each District has a lead NGO for food distribution, which in Turkana is World Vision, with Oxfam Great Britain (GB) carrying out a general food distribution in the Lokitaung sub-district. Food assistance at national level is coordinated by the Food Security Coordination Group, which includes the Government of Kenya, UN agencies and NGOs.

The problem

Early in 2000, this group determined the percentage of the population to be targeted in each of the drought-affected districts. However, in Lokitaung sub-district, the percentage of the population targeted increased to 84% in July 2000 from the previous target figure of 71%, suggesting that needs were not being met. The WFP had used a Government census to calculate the percentage of population to be targeted, but Oxfam GB meanwhile had registered a much higher number of people for food distribution. Since the census had been carried out in October 1999, Oxfam GB considered it to be an underestimate of the actual population because many people had migrated out of Lokitaung at that time because of food insecurity. The official Government of Kenya census figures were increased in July 2000.

In general, the amount of food available for distribution was well below estimated needs, even for the intended targeting figure. Taking the population registered with Oxfam GB, 25-98% of needs for cereal, 0-83% for pulses and 0 - 99% for oil were met between December 1999 and September 2000. In addition to the general ration, Oxfam GB purchased and distributed fortified blended foods to all children under five.

How Sphere was used

The Oxfam GB country office in Kenya asked the agency's Food and Nutrition Advisor to monitor the performance and impact of the agency's food distribution programmes.

Oxfam GB uses a community-based distribution system that they first developed in the 1980s in Sudan and Uganda, and this approach was adopted by the WFP in Kenya in 2000. Community-based relief committees identify those most in need of food aid and manage the distribution. The committees receive and sign for food aid, inform beneficiaries of the date of distribution and ration levels, and ensure that the right ration is received. Almost every distribution point also has an Oxfam GB monitor.

The Sphere indicators for food aid standards were used to monitor the food distribution. A table was prepared with all standards (except for resource management and logistics, since the logistics officer was not present at the time). The indicators for each of the standards were summarised in the table, and Oxfam GB's food distribution was monitored against this, as Table 1 shows.

Table 1 - Monitoring the food distribution in Turkana using the indicators for minimum standards in food aid

Standard Indicators Oxfam Comments

Analysis standard 1:
Initial assessment.
Before any programme decisions are made, there is a demonstrated understanding of the basic conditions that create risk of food insecurity and the need for food aid. 1.Initial assessment carried out.
2. Multi-sectoral
3. Information collected on access to food and nutrition.
4. recommendations on need for external assistance etc 1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes 1. GOK/UN/NGO assessment in Sept.99Oxfam nutrition and livelihoods assessment in March 2000.
3. Oxfam GB nutritional survey which incorporates food security assessment.
4. Oxfam assessment recommended improved general ration distribution and blended foods for all under fives.

Analysis standard 2: Monitoring and evaluation.

The performance and effectiveness of the food aid programme and changes in the context are monitored.
1. Monitoring information is timely, recorded and analysed.

2. Commodity tracking

3. End use monitoring

4. Regular reporting on impact of programme on nutrition

5. Information sharing

6. Men, women, children consulted and involved in monitoring
1. No

2.

3. no

4. no

5. in part

6. yes
1. Distribution reports are not analysed.
2.
3. Not done. Assumed that presence of food monitors during distribution is sufficient.
4. Nutritional data available from ALRMP (Arid Lands Response Management Program) but not analysed in relation to programme and underlying causes of malnutrition.
5. Good information sharing between Oxfam and beneficiaries, not always between agencies.
6. Community relief committees composed of men and women, who are consulted about who to target and who manage the distribution.

Analysis standard 3: Participation.
The disaster affected population has the opportunity to participate in the design and implementation of assistance programme.
1. Women and men from disaster affected populated consulted and included in decision making.
2. Women and men from affected population receive information about the programme, and have opportunity to comment on it. 1. In part

2. yes 1. Initial targeting decisions made in Nairobi, but disaster affected population identified beneficiaries.

2. Oxfam GB monitors provide information from relief committees and receive comments. Comments also elicited during monitoring visits such as this one.

Requirement standard:
The food basket and rations are designed to bridge the gap between the affected populations requirements and their own food sources. 1. Planning figure of 2100 kcals used
2. Planning figure adjusted on basis of nutritional status and access to food.
3. Cultural acceptability taken into account 1. Yes

2. No

3. 1.

2. Mis-conception that 2100 kcals is considered the minimum standard.

3. Always difficult if depending on WFP resources.

Targeting standard:
Recipients of food aid are selected on the basis of food need and/or vulnerability to food insecurity. 1. Objectives agreed between co-ordination bodies, affected population and implementing agencies.
2. Targeting criteria clearly documented.
3. Monitoring to ensure that targeting criteria respected
1. No

2. No

3. no

1. Targeting criteria not agreed with affected population. No agreement between Oxfam GB and WFP.

2. determined locally based on percentage of population that can be targeted.

3. How do you do this if targeting is based on socio-economic criteria?

Distribution standard:
The method of distribution is equitable and appropriate to local conditions. Recipients are informed of their ration entitlement and its rationale. 1. People are aware of quantity and type of ration.
2. People receive quantities and types of commodities planned.
3. Distribution is readily accessible, and minimises disruption to daily activities.
4. Recipients are involved in deciding the most efficient and equitable method of distribution.
5. Frequency of distribution takes into account cost of transport, time bens have to travel, and security.
1. Yes

2. No

3. Yes

4. no.

5.
1. Relief committees and monitors are informed in advance of distribution date and rations.
2. WFP pipeline problems and disagreement over number of beneficiaries between WFP and Oxfam GB.
3. Accessible because 32 distribution points for population of 70,000.
4. Distribution methods determined by WFP.
5. Large number of distribution points minimises time taken to travel to distribution points, and monthly distributions minimises cost.

Lessons learned

The first main lesson was for the Oxfam GB programme. Although performance on assessments was good, the monitoring found that Oxfam GB did not meet the food aid standards for monitoring and evaluation. A number of improvements were recommended and systems were put in place for Oxfam GB staff to analyse distribution reports, carry out end-use monitoring, and to monitor the impact of the food distribution using the local food security information system.

The second lesson related to the use of the standards themselves. The experience of the Lokitaung programme showed that even if one agency performs well against the standards, the performance of the operation as a whole may well be different. There was no consensus between the four agencies involved on the population in need and, in the absence of targeting criteria, the beneficiaries did not receive the recommended ration. However, it could be said that Oxfam GB met the minimum standards because it did all it could to ensure that everyone in need of food aid received the recommended rations. This included lobbying WFP and the Government of Kenya to increase the number of people targeted and Oxfam GB itself purchasing food for general distribution.

However, taking the operation as a whole, people did not receive food aid of the quality and in quantities recommended in the Sphere handbook. Oxfam GB found that if the minimum standards are used to measure achievement of an individual agency, the findings could well be very different if used for the wider operation.

A third lesson was that many of the indicators were difficult to apply because they were too vague or could not be assessed objectively. More specific indicators were drawn up, as the following example shows.

Table 2 - Suggestions for alternative indicators for Analysis standard 2

Sphere indicators in handbook Suggestions for more precise indicators

Information collected for monitoring is timely, recorded and analysed in accurate, logical, consistent and transparent manner

Systems are in place that enable stock levels, movements and distributions to be monitored.

Supply chain monitoring is established and identifies problems that require corrective action.

The quality of food distribution is monitored

End-user monitoring through household level visits and interviews ensures people can provide feedback on the effectiveness of the food aid intervention.

There is regular analytical reporting on the impact of the emergency and of the programme on the nutrition situation. There is reporting of any contextual changes and other factors that may necessitate adjustment to the programme.

Systems are in place that enable an information flow between the programme, other sectors, the affected population, the relevant local authorities, donors and others as needed.· Women, men and children from the affected population are regularly consulted and are involved in monitoring activities.

The programme is evaluated with reference to stated objectives and agreed minimum standards to measure its overall effectiveness and impact on the affected population.

Performance:

Food distributions are monitored by analysing distribution reports, on site monitoring and end-use monitoring.

Self-monitoring by information systems that make sure all actors know the ration and distribution method.

Men, women, children are regularly consulted and involved in monitoring activities.

Food distribution reports are produced at least on a monthly basis.

Distribution reports include information on stock levels, quantity distributed, lost, damaged, and beneficiaries that received food.

Distribution reports are analysed for over or under distribution and for large differences between food aid recipients, and people registered for food distribution.

If distributions are more than 5% over or under what is recommended, the cause of this is investigated and acted on.

The implementing agency has monitors in place during the distribution.

Monitor the equity of the food distribution by weighing the rations of a number of randomly selected households.

Effectiveness/impact:

End use monitoring through household visits.

Minimum household information: whether and what food aid was received, and how the food was used.

Analysis of the nutritional composition of the ration received.

Ensure different social/economic/political groups are monitored to assess if all vulnerable groups received the recommended rations.

Depending on the objectives of the food distribution, monitor the impact on nutrition and food security.

The programme is evaluated with reference to stated objectives and agreed minimum standards to measure effectiveness and impact.

Contact: Susan Jaspars. Email: sjaspars@oxfam.org.uk