## Annex C

## 

## An Expanded Conceptual Framework

FFP and its partners developed an expanded conceptual framework that
adds the dimension of risk and vulnerability to the conceptual framework
that was laid out in the 1995 "Food Aid and Food Security Policy." The
conceptual framework laid out in the 1995 Policy, with its focus on food
availability, access and utilization, provided a good underpinning for
the new directions that were given to the program at that time. It also
was a useful place to start in the development of this Strategy.
However, this basic framework does not provide a way to take into
account the vulnerability of countries, communities and households to
risk \-- a shortcoming that seems particularly serious in retrospect, in
the aftermath of the many natural and manmade disasters that
characterized the 1990s.

The dimension of risk is implicit in USAID's definition of food
security. That is, the inclusion of the phrase "at all times" in the
definition suggests that food security can only be achieved when the
risk of falling below adequate levels of availability, access and
utilization is very low. Operationally, however, the focus has been on
increasing the levels of food availability, access and utilization --
with less emphasis given to the risk of losing the ability to obtain and
use food. In contrast, this Strategy will require FFP and its partners
to pay more attention to addressing food insecurity through a focus on
reducing vulnerability and risk.

Vulnerability means that food security can be lost as well as gained.
Vulnerability also can be thought of as the inability to manage risk.
When countries, communities and households are unable to cope
effectively with shocks or hazards, in fact or potentially, they are
vulnerable and potential candidates for assistance. Reducing exposure to
risks, such as shocks that affect the many (e.g., droughts or floods) or
shocks that affect the individual (e.g., death of the head of a
household) can help reduce vulnerability. Increasing the ability to
manage risks also reduces vulnerability. (See Annex II for a further
discussion of vulnerability and its relationship to food secure,
fragile, failing and failed states).

All states are subject to shocks -- occasional and recurrent. What
distinguishes a food secure state from fragile, failing or failed states
is its ability to cope with these shocks. The level of economic
development has a major influence on a country's ability to cope.
Wealthier countries normally cope better with shocks than poorer
countries, for example, but wealth or income alone is a poor indicator
of vulnerability. Other political, social, and economic factors also are
important. States where large inequities in incomes and assets (access
to resources) exist are likely to be more vulnerable, as are states with
large ethnic populations (also religious groups) that are not well
integrated economically, politically or socially. Weak institutions, or
the absence of key institutions, also increase vulnerability, as does
poor governance. Armed conflict can also be an indicator as well as a
consequence of the failure of countries to deal effectively with shocks,
and it also increases the vulnerability of countries, communities and
households to future shocks. In a food security context, in other words,
states can be fragile as a result of underlying political, social and
economic factors, and not just weak institutions.

High levels of chronic under-nutrition can also be an indicator of the
vulnerability of countries, communities and households to shocks. During
emergencies the focus is on acute undernutrition \-- i.e., people who
are wasted (too thin for their height). This form of undernutrition is a
serious problem because individuals who are severely wasted,
particularly young children, can easily die. But chronic undernutrition,
which is the term used to describe people who are stunted (i.e., too
short for their age), can also be a serious problem. Chronic
undernutrition reduces people's ability to cope because it reduces their
productivity while increasing their vulnerability to illnesses. Children
who are chronically undernourished are also more vulnerable to illness
and death. In addition, when chronic undernutrition affects children
early in life (between six and 24 months), it will also reduce their
ability to cope as adults, make them more vulnerable to chronic
illnesses throughout their lives, and impair their motor skills,
cognitive abilities and productivity.

This focus on vulnerability helps clarify the rationale for assistance
prior to, as well as during and immediately after, a shock. Countries,
communities and households will need assistance when they are in the
midst of an emergency, overwhelmed by a shock (e.g., a hurricane,
drought, or financial or political crises). But for the more vulnerable,
assistance *prior* to major shocks is also needed to help them take
preventative actions to reduce risk, increase coping capacity and reduce
the likelihood that they will be overwhelmed by the next shock and need
emergency assistance.

To rectify this shortcoming, and after extensive technical analyses and
stakeholder consultations, FFP is proposing to add the dimension of
vulnerability to this Strategy. Conceptually, this will mean expanding
the basic food security framework to include a new dimension -- risk --
that makes explicit the risks that constrain or threaten food
availability, access and utilization. Operationally, this will mean
reorienting programs so that the vulnerability of food insecure
households and communities is addressed more directly, focusing more on
prevention and helping countries, communities and households cope or
manage risk better.

This expanded framework is laid out in Figure 1. The basic food security
framework is presented in the upper part of the diagram, with the
desired food security outcomes leading to the goal of improved food
security. And, the major risks that must be tackled to achieve food
security and their links to the desired program and food security
outcomes are identified in the bottom of the framework. As this expanded
conceptual framework demonstrates, understanding risk is essential to
understanding the concept of food security -- it underlies everything.
Unmanaged risk leads to food insecurity, while managing risks can
protect and enhance food security.

Risks, as the expanded framework makes clear, come from many sources.
Food supply can be affected by climatic fluctuations, for example,
depletion of soil fertility, or the loss of a household's productive
assets. Factors that can disrupt access to markets include changes in
policies or global terms of trade, a disruption of markets during
crises, or risks stemming from the insecurity of non-farm incomes. Food
access can be negatively affected by physical insecurity stemming from
conflict, for example, loss of livelihood or coping options (such as
border closings that prevent seasonal job migration) or the collapse of
safety-net institutions that once protected people with low incomes.
Factors that can impair food utilization include epidemic diseases, lack
of appropriate nutrition knowledge or socio-cultural practices that
affect access to nutritious foods according to

age or gender. Political risks, including the lack of good governance,
can exacerbate natural, economic, social and health risks.

The expanded conceptual framework encourages a stronger emphasis on
livelihoods and assets, and the need to support consumption indicators
and invest in nutrition, education and skills development, roads and
other public works, and social capital. It also encourages a greater
focus on prevention, including prevention of damage to physical assets
and livelihoods. The focus on prevention also has a generational
dimension, encouraging early investment in infant nutrition to prevent
undernutrition. The expanded framework also provides a logic for
providing emergency assistance to food secure states, as well as
emergency and non-emergency assistance to fragile, failing and failed
states. In addition, it incorporates a rationale for responding to
HIV/AIDS and for interventions targeted to food insecurity in urban
areas, if analyses of risk and vulnerabilities indicate that these are
the areas where the new priorities lie.