EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 31.3.2010 
SEC (2010) 374 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE CO UNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
Humanitarian Food Assistance 
{COM(2010)126} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the Communication from 
the Commission to the Council and the Eur opean Parliament on Humanitarian Food 
Assistance 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 3 
2. The European Commission's Res ponse to Global Food Insecurity ............................. 3 
2.1. The Comparative Advantage of the EU's Humanitarian Food Assistance Instrument 4 
3. Programming................................................................................................................ 4  
3.1. Prioritisation............................................................................................................ ..... 4 
3.2. Needs Assessments ...................................................................................................... 5 3.3. Entry and Exit Criteria ................................................................................................. 6 3.4. Partnerships.............................................................................................................. .... 8 
3.5. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting ........................................................................ 9 4. The Commission's Humanitarian  Food Assistance Toolbox ..................................... 10 
4.1. Supporting Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Nutrition in Crises
............................................................................................................................... ..... 10 
4.2. Resource Transfer Modalities .................................................................................... 15 4.3. Targeting ................................................................................................................. ... 17 
4.4. Disaster Risk Reduction............................................................................................. 18 4.5. Capacity Building....................................................................................................... 20  
5. Coordination and Advocacy....................................................................................... 21 5.1. Coordination, Coherence and Complementarity........................................................ 21 5.2. Advocacy.................................................................................................................. .. 24 
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ ....... 27 
Annex A: Glossary.............................................................................................................. ..... 28 
Annex B: Acronyms.............................................................................................................. ... 31 
Annex C: The EU’s non-humanitarian inst ruments and programmes for addressing 
developmental food assistance and food security needs............................................ 33 
Annex D: Typology of food assistance responses ................................................................... 36 Annex E: Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 96 concerning humanitarian aid 40 
Annex F: References ............................................................................................................ .... 41 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
This Staff Working Document accomp anies the Commission Communication on 
Humanitarian Food Assistance a nd elaborates how the Commi ssion programmes, implements 
and coordinates humanitarian food assistance in  pursuit of the objectives and principles 
defined in the Communication. 
This operationally-focused paper will be subject  to regular review, a nd potential revision, as 
the Commission's experience and lesson-learning in  the sector evolves, and as theories of 
best-practice advance. 
2. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION 'S RESPONSE TO GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY  
The European Commission is responding to the global challenges of food insecurity and 
malnutrition. It has a range of budgetary instruments at its disposal to tackle the symptoms and causes of both transient and chronic food insecurity. Within the Commission services, 
humanitarian food assistance needs are now de alt with by DG ECHO, using its humanitarian 
instruments (the humanitarian and food-aid budget lines). In addition to using its own humanitarian budgets, DG ECHO can  draw on dedicated con tingency funds under country 
allocations of the European Development Fund (EDF) to respond to food and non-food needs in humanitarian crises. 
In immediate post-crisis situations, other EU instruments can contribut e to restoring national 
food security, including the Instrument for Stab ility (IfS). Longer term food-security support 
can be implemented as part of a broader stra tegy for poverty alleviation, and is financed by 
the Development Cooperation Instrument (D CI) and the European Neighbourhood Policy 
Instrument (ENPI), drawn from the EU budget, as well as by the European Development Fund (EDF) for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Any such food security 
strategies must be framed within five-year C ountry Strategy Papers (CSPs), and three-year 
rolling National Indicative Programmes (NIPs)  and Regional Indicativ e Programmes (RIPs), 
mutually agreed with beneficiary countries.  
In addition, notably in fragile  contexts or in countries wh ere these geographically-oriented 
instruments cannot be used, certain food securi ty objectives can be pursued through the Food 
Security Thematic Programme (FSTP). Additiona l temporary ad hoc financial instruments can 
also be established, such as the Water Facility (2004 - 2007), which can support water 
interventions in favour of agriculture and livelihoods, and the Food Facility, designed to 
address both causes and conseque nces of high food prices, in th e short-to-medium term, from 
2009 to 2011. For more information on these instruments, see Annex C. 
All these instruments for promoting food security  in development will henceforth be oriented 
under the policy framework set out in the Commission’s Communicati on on food security 
("An EU policy framework to assist deve loping countries addr essing food security 
challenges"). That Communication has been developed in close coordination with the 
Communication on Humanitarian F ood Assistance, recognising the distinct objectives of the 
humanitarian and development agendas, but al so the considerable overlapping interest 
between them, particularly on subjects such as Linking Relief with Rehabilitation and 
Development (LRRD), disaster ma nagement, livelihoods and nutrition. 
EN 4   EN 2.1. The Comparative Advantage1 of the EU's Humanita rian Food Assistance 
Instrument 
The scope of work covered by the EU's humanitarian food assistance instruments is 
determined by the humanitarian mandate a nd Regulation. However, within this legal 
framework the comparative advantages and di sadvantages of humanitarian assistance in 
responding effectively to any given c ontext must also be considered. 
The EU‘s humanitarian instruments are particularly effective in dealing with short-term, 
rapidly evolving, large-scale and finite needs.  Its mandate, regulation, instruments, partner-
base, orientation, versatility, flexibility, ski ll-set and time-horizon all render it best equipped 
to handle such situations. However, the prot racted nature of many crises also requires 
humanitarian actors to engage in lo nger-term humanitarian food assistance. 
Conversely, chronic food insecurity and its structural causes are best tackled through 
predictable social safety-nets, social transfer s, social-protection or sustainable livelihood 
development programmes, which in turn are best implemented over a long-term horizon, with strong national and local ownership. Such interv entions are clearly best suited to development 
actors working with multi-annual budgets, and not to humanitarian actors with short planning 
horizons and limited ability to engage with governments. 
As stated in the Humanitarian  Food Assistance Communication
2, "the Commission will not 
use humanitarian food assistance to addre ss chronic food insecurity, except: where non-
intervention poses immediate or  imminent humanitarian risk3 of significant scale and severity; 
where other more appropriate actors are e ither unable or unwilling to act, and cannot be 
persuaded to act; and where, in spite of its co mparative disadvantages, positive impact can be 
expected within the time limitations of its in tervention. In such cases, the Commission will 
only engage humanitarian food assistance on th e basis of dialogue, coordination and advocacy 
with potential development players, where they  exist, and with a clear and realistic exit-
strategy defined". 
3. PROGRAMMING  
3.1. Prioritisation 
With limited resources and a broad potential scope of work, the Commission prioritises EU 
humanitarian food assistance ac tivities and responses first and foremost to immediate life 
saving during emergencies and their aftermaths. 
As stated in the Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance4, Commission financing of 
EU humanitarian food assistance interventions  (immediate life-saving and beyond) will be 
prioritised according to (i) th e severity of the crisis and the scale of the unmet needs  (ii) the 
immediacy of the crisis, and (iii) the expected  impact considering, inte r alia, the comparative 
                                                 
1 See Glossary in Annex A 
2 See the Commission’s Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 5.1, para 4. 
3 See Glossary, Annex A 
4 See the Commission's Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 4, para 4 
EN 5   EN advantage5 of the EU's humanitarian instruments for responding, the risk  of doing harm, and 
the comparative cost-effectiveness of the re sponse compared to other response options. 
However, resource allocation must also be influenced by the expectation that the EU 
demonstrate solidarity on a global basis, share the burden of urgent unmet humanitarian needs 
in most crises, and particularly  respond to forgotten crises. 
3.2. Needs Assessments 
Except in the most exceptional circumstances (ie when they result in severe operational delays 
that would cost lives) the Commission expects all humanitarian food assistance interventions 
to be preceded by a detailed needs assessmen t / causal analysis, and designed accordingly. 
Needs assessments should focus on (a) the situa tional context, including socio-political and 
operational dimensions that both affect the leve l of need and determine the feasibility of 
response6; (b) routine information on food security derived from systematic monitoring and 
early-warning systems, set against established baselines7; and (c) ad hoc perspectives on the 
immediate emergency situation based on spec ific humanitarian food  and nutrition data 
collected through, emergency needs assessments  and, by way of follow-up, through project 
monitoring and reporting. A framework for a huma nitarian information system that covers 
these main components is presented below: 
 
                                                 
5 See Glossary in Annex A 
6 Assessments should particularly  consider factors influencing hum anitarian access and humanitarian 
space, as well as technical / abso rption capacity of available partne rs (local and international).  
7 The Commission acknowledges that in many emergency contexts, baselines on demography or 
livelihood profiles can be elusive, and that paucity of baseline information must be factored in when 
appraising the relevance, design and validity of needs assessments. 
EN 6   EN Internally, the Commission's decisions on the allo cation of humanitarian funds will take full 
account of internal analyses (including field as sessments carried out by its own staff, and the 
DG ECHO Global Needs Assessment) and assessm ents carried out by partners and other 
relevant response agencies. An annual Food-In security Needs Assessm ent exercise will be 
conducted by the Commission in all priority coun tries suffering, or at risk of, significant food 
crises, and will contribute to strategic planning, programming and resource allocation. 
The Commission and its partners will specifically  prioritise the integration of nutritional 
perspectives, and livelihoods pers pectives, into their emergency food needs analyses and into 
the design of their humanitarian food assistance responses. 
3.3. Entry and Exit Criteria  
As articulated in its Humanitarian Food A ssistance Communication, the Commission "can 
trigger a humanitarian f ood assistance response when: 
- due to inadequate food consumption, emergency8 rates of mortality or acute malnutrition 
have been reached or exceeded, or are an ticipated, on the basis of firm forecasts9; or 
- compromised livelihoods or ex treme coping strategies (includi ng sale of productive assets, 
stress migration, resorting to unsafe or insecu re survival practices) pose, or are firmly 
anticipated to pose, a severe thr eat to life, or a risk  of extreme suffering, whether arising from, 
or leading to, inade quate food consumption."10 
The decision to fund interventions w ill be based on criter ia that include: 
- the relative severity and scale11 of the crisis, and the unmet food needs within it, based on 
indicators of food consumption, availability of and access to nutritious food, coping strategies, 
and malnutrition rates; 
- the trend and anticipated future severity, based on similar indicators within a timeframe 
appropriate to the Commissi on's humanitarian's remit ;  
- the presence of other donors and/or partners and their resp ective comparative advantages; 
- the commitment and response capac ity of local authorities; and 
- the extent to which the core principles of humanitarian food assistance are respected, 
including humanitarian access, and the ability to monitor th e delivery of food assistance. 
The extensive information required to appraise an intervention should derive from detailed 
and reliable needs assessment and situation an alysis. Any decision to launch such needs 
assessments can obviously be made on the basi s of less exhaustive information, and based on 
the Commission's own informed judgement and knowledge of the context. 
                                                 
8 The Commission defines an emergency based on a combination of absolute thresholds (eg Sphere, 
WHO etc) and relative indicators set against a contextual norm. 
9 Such “anticipation” should be based on early warn ing indicators that show a critical inadequacy or 
deterioration in food consumption which, unless prompting an early response, will become life-
threatening within a timeframe consistent with the EC's humanitarian remit. 
10 See the Commission's Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 5.1, para 1. 
11 Scale is measured, in absolute terms, as the number of  people affected. Severity is measured as a factor 
of both absolute measures (in relation to established indicator thresholds that globally define alert and 
emergency situations) and relative measures (in relation to local contextual norms and baselines). 
EN 7   EN  
Operational Case-Study 1:  
"Responding Early and Effectiv ely on the Basis of Evidence"  
East Nusa Tenggara  in Indonesia , is one the most vulnerable provinces where a high risk of acute food and 
livelihood crises aggravates chronic food insecurity, resulting in high levels of acute malnutrition in children 
under the age of 5, and their mothers. Evidence of baselin e vulnerability is captured in a national Food Insecurity 
Atlas, whose information the Commission has sought to verify and update through the promotion of ad-hoc 
multiagency assessments in the region. Anthropometric su rveys recently identified pock ets of critical nutritional, 
food and livelihood-insecurity resulting from intertwined acu te and chronic factors (drought, locust infestations, 
high food and fuel prices), and the resultant detrimental coping mechanisms  (sale of assets and accumulation of 
debt) adopted by the most vulnerable. The prognosis predicted a deteriorating trend of malnutrition rising above 
the seasonal norm.  
Evidence further showed that this critical situation would not be sufficiently mitigated by ongoing or planned 
interventions (including the government's rice-based "raskin" social transfer mechanism). The Commission 
included this evidence, with a view to supporting analysis and decision-making, within it's Food Insecurity 
Needs Assessment Template (FINAT), which is comple ted for every country undergoing, or at risk of a 
humanitarian food crisis. The need for a gap-filling intervention was identified in order to protect livelihoods and 
prevent further deterioration of the nutritional status of those most vulnerable. €2 million was then mobilised to 
support 5 one-year projects that aimed at reinforcing livelihood assets (short-term support to irrigation and 
water-supply systems, land rehabilitation, training, provis ion of agricultural inputs) to increase immediate food 
and water access, promoting good nutriti on, and strengthening resilience to fu ture stresses (through community 
preparedness).  
One of the projects (implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and reinforced by funding 
from the "Response Analysis Framework" project financed from the Commission’s capacity-building budget) 
simultaneously undertook a comprehensive provincial  food and nutritional assessment, providing further 
evidence upon which district food security action plans were developed. These multi-stakeholder initiatives 
served as the basis on which the developmental needs of the populations in cris is were articulated, and 
contributed to increased allocations to food security within the 2 010 district budgets. 
The Commission recognises that, in  protracted crises, its humanitarian entry criteria may 
legitimise a sustained humanitarian engagement ove r several years. In such circumstances, the 
limitations of the Commission's necessarily  short-cycle humanitarian planning and 
programming cycles12 are acknowledged, and should be fact ored into any analysis of its 
comparative advantage, for the context, compared  to other instruments or sources of funding. 
Even where its instruments prohibit the prov ision of multi-annual fundi ng predictability, the 
Commission will encourage and accommodate part ners' multi-annual strategies and planning 
horizons in protracted crises.  
                                                 
12 Necessary to allow flexibility and capacity fo r ad-hoc emergency response and short-term 
reprioritisation on a global basis. 
EN 8   EN  
Operational Case-Study 2: "Op erating in Protracted Crises"  
Approximately 140,000 Burmese refugees  live in nine camps in Thailand  along the border with Myanmar. 
Since 1995, the Commission has been supporting humanitarian organisations in the provision of food and 
cooking fuel to these refugees . After 25 years there is still no obvious end in sight to this situation, and, under the 
Thai government's "containment" policy, refugees are rest ricted in their ability to establish livelihoods outside 
the camps, remaining fully dependent on humanitarian aid.  
With a view to identifying durable solutions for this cas eload, donors set up a working group in 2007 to explore 
longer-term options, and advocating for them with the government. By the end of 2009, implementing NGOs 
and UNHCR had prepared a challenging new five year  strategy, shifting away from short-term “care and 
maintenance” and promoting incr eased refugee self-reliance. 
In this context, and to facilitate this strategy, the Commission launched a Livelihoods Vulnerability Analysis  
study to gain a better understanding of the different livelihood strategies adopted by the refugees, the actual 
levels of self-reliance that they have, and the options to reinforce this self-reliance from within the humanitarian 
operation. This is expected to lead to more evidence-based and needs-based programming, over a more gradual 
timeframe, particularly in pursuit of alternative food a ssistance strategies to the current distribution of general 
food aid rations. Options to be explored include the scaling up of livelihood support within and around the 
camps, stimulating agricultural production an d increasing labour market opportunities. 
It is strongly advisable for th e Commission and its partners to  have a defined and realistic 
exit-strategy in place wherever possible, be fore delivering humanitarian food assistance. 
As stated within its Humanitarian Food Assistance Communication, the Commission will 
consider exiting or phasing out its humanita rian food assistance interventions "when 
indicators of acute malnutrition, mortality an d extreme coping (linked to inadequate food 
consumption or poor food utilisa tion), are stable below emergenc y levels, or are expected to 
stabilise below such levels. This should resu lt from the majority of  the crisis-affected 
population achieving, for a sustained period and for the foreseeable future, improvements in food consumption and food utilis ation, without resorting to de trimental coping strategies", 
and independent of any Commission humanitarian  support. This could imply that persisting 
needs are met either by other humanitarian donors, or by development or state actors.
13  
For situations deemed to be fragile with pe rsistent humanitarian ri sk, the Commission will 
ensure that it can monitor the humanitarian situ ation after its exit, and will keep all options 
open for re-engagement as necessary. 
3.4. Partnerships 
The Commission will maintain and work with a diversity of partners  in the delivery of 
humanitarian food assistance, according to their various competences and comparative 
advantages in the given context. This incl udes Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) on 
the basis of Framework Partners hip Agreements (FPA), and Inte rnational Organisations (the 
United Nations and its agencies , and the International Comm ittee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 
the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and national 
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) ba sed, respectively, on the Financial and 
                                                 
13 See the Commission's Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 5.1, paras 5 and 6. 
EN 9   EN Administrative Framework Agreement (FAFA) for UN agencies, and on a separate FPA for 
other international organisations. 
While the existing Humanitarian Regulation does not permit direct financial engagement with 
state actors or national civil soci ety organisations, such entities can be supported indirectly on 
the basis of sub-contracted arrangements. Wh ere such entities have credible and viable 
capacities as humanitarian actors, and wher e humanitarian principles would not be 
compromised, the Commission encourages its dire ct partners to support and strengthen them 
in the delivery of huma nitarian assistance. 
3.5. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting 
In pursuit of transparency, accountability and e ffectiveness, the Commission will strive to 
ensure that all humanitarian f ood assistance actions th at the EU finances are designed around 
targets and outcome indicators that are specif ic, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-
bound14. Such indicators will be routinely monitore d and should form the basis of systematic 
reporting by the partner, as we ll as any internal or external  evaluation of the operation. 
Operational Case-Study 3: "Indicators to measure results"  
The Commission is committed to a results based approach , requiring the measurement of project outcomes and 
impact. In practice this demands that the traditional emphasis on monitoring project activities is complemented 
by measuring the attainment of results or objectives. 
For example, a typical food assistance project may involve the delivery of food aid. Activity level monitoring 
usually measures and reports on the number of metric tonnes (MT) of food distributed, or number of 
beneficiaries assisted. However, the expected result is typically to ensure adequate food consumption at the 
household level. Quantities of food distributed may be poorly correlated with levels of actual consumption, if for 
example food is sold to meet other pressing needs or shared with other households.  
In the past few years there have been important developments in developing and testing indicators of food 
consumption.  As direct measurement is clearly impractical, simple and easy to collect proxy measures are 
available. Rigorous testing has demonstrated a strong correlation with actual food consumption levels. Such 
techniques include: 
- Household Dietary Diversity Score  (the simple count on the number of food groups that a household has 
consumed over the reference period)  
- Food Consumption Score  (Composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional 
importance of different food groups)  
- Coping Strategies Index  (A sum of the frequencies of the coping strategies adopted to ensure individual food 
consumption, weighted according to their severity)  
Anthropometric indicators (e.g. rates of acute malnutrition) can also provide important evidence on impact. 
However, malnutrition data may not reflect food assistance outcomes alone. In some cases a project may meet its 
purpose in improving food consumption, but malnutrition may persist as a consequence of disease. Well selected 
indicators, at various levels, can help clarify casual relationships and improve implementation and future project 
design.  
Where available, nutritional information and da ta should be monitored and reviewed within 
all food assistance operations. Where operations specifically seek to address malnutrition, 
nutritional outcome-indicators will be fully incor porated into the project cycle and log-frame. 
                                                 
14 SMART indicators 
EN 10   EN Result-oriented monitoring, evaluation and re porting exercises will be analysed by the 
Commission and its partners, alongside more qualitative narrative reporting15, not only to 
appraise the performance and outcome of a given intervention, but also to learn lessons which 
will be fed into the design, programming decisions and implementation of future operations. 
4. THE COMMISSION 'S HUMANITARIAN FOOD ASSISTANCE TOOLBOX  
4.1. Supporting Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Nutrition in 
Crises 
In line with the Commission's humanitarian ma ndate and the Humanita rian Regulation, this 
Staff Working Document considers the use of food assistance in crisis contexts where food 
consumption is insufficient or inadequate to av ert extreme negative manifestations of transient 
food-insecurity in cluding; excessive16 mortality, emergency rates17 of acute malnutrition, 
detrimental coping mechanisms (e.g. stress displacement or live lihood erosion). This 
assistance is provided for the time needed to m eet the humanitarian requirements, including in 
support of operations that prepare for identified humanitarian risks, that prevent or mitigate 
disasters, or that facilitate s hort-term recovery  post-emergency. 
The Commission will respond to the diverse sy mptoms and underlying causes of transient 
food insecurity and acute malnut rition with a variety of activities and to ols. Whilst problems 
of food availability, access and ut ilisation are considered distinc tly for simplicity's sake, they 
are in fact often interrelated an d overlaid, hence the responses s uggested may often need to be 
interchanged or combined, according to the context and the needs. 
Where the core problem to be addressed is a lack of food availability , for instance linked to 
disrupted agricultural producti on, response options include: 
- the distribution of free food commodities on a blanket18 basis (general food distributions); 
- the distribution of free food on a targeted19 basis (targeted food distributions); 
- the distribution of food on a ta rgeted and/or self-targeted20 basis, in exchange for a 
beneficiary's time or labour (e.g. food fo r work, food for training, food for assets)21; 
                                                 
15 Particularly in contexts where capacity constraint s, access problems, or data deficiencies render 
quantitative reporting incomplete or unreliable. 
16 "Excessive" is considered to comb ine absolute measures in relation to established emergency thresholds 
(as defined by the Sphere handbook, UNICEF and the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN)), 
and relative measures in relation to context-specific baselines. Nb established emergency thresholds for 
the prevalence of moderate and severe acute malnutrition in under-5s will be subject to adjustment in light of the revised WHO growth standards from 2009. 
17 As defined by the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) and WHO 
18 Distribution to everyone, or to all individuals fulfilli ng an easily-defined criteria, such as a specific age-
group ( see section 4.3 of this document) 
19 Distribution of specific commodities to specific individuals or sub-groups of a population group, 
differentiated according to need ( see section 4.3 of this document) 
20 When only those within a needy target beneficiary gr oup choose, voluntarily, to  participate in assistance 
scheme, usually because there is a disincentive in the form of the opportunity co st of labour exchange 
for less needy, non-target groups to get involved.  
21 Such activities should be planned on the basis of a good understanding of the availability, or lack of 
availability, of time and labour amongst specific vulnerable groups (eg child-headed households, 
EN 11   EN - the provision of livelihood support to ensure th at self-production capacities affected by 
crises are protected or boosted (e.g. distribution of agricultu ral inputs, training, income-
generation, veterinary care, water and f odder for livestock, emergency destocking or 
restocking). 
Where the core problem to be addressed is a lack of access to food , for instance when 
available food on the local markets is not affordab le due to either high prices or interrupted 
incomes, response options include: 
- the provision of free cash or vouchers (co mmodity-based or value-based), targeted or 
distributed on a blanket basis (e.g. un conditional cash or voucher transfers)22; 
- the provision of cash or vouchers, on a blanket, targeted or self-targeted23 basis, in exchange 
for a beneficiary's time or labour24 (e.g. cash for work); 
- the provision of livelihood support to ensure that inco mes affected by crises are protected or 
boosted (e.g. distribu tion of agricultural  inputs, training, income-gen eration, veterinary care, 
water and fodder for livestock, emer gency destocking or restocking); 
- projects to improve access to, and functioning of, markets in crisis affected areas for 
disaster-affected populations (e.g. emergency road  / bridge rehabilitation, market-information 
support). 
                                                                                                                                                         
elderly etc). Furthermore, work tasks undertaken should, wherever possible, be seasonally appropriate 
and should contribute to the benefit of vulnerable  communities, fulfilling either response, recovery or 
resilience-building objectives.  
22 Please see DG ECHO's Funding Guidelines for "The Use of Cash and Vouchers in Humanitarian 
Crises", adopted April 2009 
23 As per footnote 20.  
24 Such activities should be planned on the basis of a good understanding of the availability, or lack of 
availability, of time and labour amongst specific vulnerable groups (eg child-headed households, elderly etc). Furthermore, work tasks undertaken sh ould, wherever possible, be seasonally appropriate, 
and should contribute to the benefit of vulnerable  communities, fulfilling either response, recovery or 
resilience-building objectives.  
EN 12   EN  
Operational Case-Study 4: "Alterna tives and Complements to Food Aid"  
Cash and voucher transfers are becoming increasingly recognised as an appropriate response to address food 
access problems where markets are func tional, food availability is good an d vulnerable households have access 
to markets. However, vouchers can also be used as a complementary transfer when  food availability is not 
assured. An example comes from milling voucher initiatives in Darfur  internally displaced persons (IDP) 
camps, Sudan , where the vouchers are increasingly being used as a complement to General Food Distributions. 
Before vouchers were distributed, it was found that IDPs were trading a proportion of their food ration to pay for 
milling of the whole grains distributed, or paying for milling from other scarce income resources. From the IDP 
point of view, this impacts both on the net amount of food available in the household due to the sale of part of 
the ration, and less available income for use on other essential services. From the programme efficiency 
perspective, low local retail food prices compared to high er international prices and high costs for transportation 
and distribution, means that the cost to donors is much more than the va lue of cash that ends up in the 
beneficiary's pocket. In Darfur, it was calculated that wh erever onward selling of rations was happening, the loss 
of value was extremely high (estimated value loss of 92% fo r oil and 60% for cereals, f actoring all costs to final 
distribution). Milling vouchers were thus conceived, to pr otect the value of the food assistance distributed and to 
safeguard beneficiaries’ adequate food consumption, wh ilst ensuring that a necessa ry service was maintained. 
Milling vouchers are given to beneficiaries along with in-k ind food rations, and can be used for that distribution 
only. Experience in pilots suggests that vouchers that sp ecify the quantity of grain to be milled are less tradable 
than those that have a monetary value. The immediate impact on beneficiaries has been an increase in the 
availability of grain in the household, and reduced pressure on income sources that can be used for basic services 
(health, education etc). 
Challenges include ensuring sufficient availability of pa rticipating grain millers; the potential for vouchers to 
become a secondary ‘currency’ and be traded; and the risk of forgeries demanding fairly sophisticated, and 
expensive, printing of vouchers.  
Food assistance should also aim to protect a nd reinforce livelihoods, since these are the 
primary means by which households secure th eir food consumption. In order to feed 
themselves, food insecure households often reso rt to negative coping mechanisms (e.g. sell 
their productive assets, abandon livelihood pursuits in favour of migration, or undertake 
transactional sex), all of whic h can further compromise thei r health and l onger-term food-
security. A household's adequate food consumpti on in the short-term should, where possible, 
be achieved without it having to resort to ne gative, detrimental coping mechanisms that 
compromise its longer-term food security. 
Therefore, as stated in th e Communication on Humanitari an Food Assistance (section 5.2, 
para 4) “the reinforcement or protection of agricultural and non-agricultural livelihoods (eg 
providing veterinary services for vulnerable livestock herds, or improving agricultural crop 
storage) is a legitimate and appropriate emerge ncy response in some humanitarian contexts”, 
to boost food access or food availability, “so long  as it is prompted by emergency needs and 
meets humanitarian objectives within an appropriate and finite timeframe”. 
Food assistance can be used to protect and strengthen the livelihoods of a crisis-affected 
population in order to prevent or reverse negati ve coping mechanisms (such as the sale of 
productive assets, or the accumulation of debts)  that could engender ei ther short-term or 
longer-term harmful consequences for their livel ihood base, their food-secu rity status and/or 
their nutritional status. 
Given the seasonal nature and duration of agri cultural and livestock production cycles, the 
Commission will pay close at tention to the duration and sequencing of its emergency 
EN 13   EN livelihood work. While the objectives and target s must still be achievable within limited and 
finite timeframes which are compatible with its regulation and instru ments, the Commission 
will ensure that (a) emergency livelihood-suppo rt and livelihood-recovery interventions are 
afforded sufficient and realistic timescales, and (b) that they are started in good-time, as an 
integral part of a humanitarian res ponse and not just at its final phase. 
Operational Case-Study 5:  
"Restoring disaster-affected live lihoods, and building back better"  
On 15 November 2007 Cyclone SIDR  and its accompanying tidal surg e, hit coastal communities in Southern 
Bangladesh  hard. In addition to a death toll estimated to be as high as 10,000, tens of thousands more people 
lost homes, livestock and property - and with it preci ous livelihoods. One such group were fishing communities 
whose means of livelihood - fishing craft and nets - were lost to the storm. 
Following on from immediate food assistance, it was clear that restoring fishing livelihoods was an important 
step to restoring food security. However, while fishing had an important role to play, it was apparent that the 
structures of ownership for fishing craft, were essentially exploitative. Since assets and profits had previously 
remained in the hands of the local elite and money lenders, the majority of those affected had been living in a 
state of chronic poverty and food insecu rity even before Cyclone SIDR struck. 
As part of the recovery process supported by EU humanitarian assistance, partners such as Concern 
commissioned the construction of fishing craft and, through dialogue with communities, established fishing 
cooperatives which guaranteed joint ownership of boats and equipment by fisher-folk themselves.  
To ensure sustainability, cooperatives were formed from groups  of local women, and trained to hold regular 
meetings to discuss operational issues, resolve disputes an d to plan on how to acquire further assets. In order to 
meet the challenge of ambitious obj ectives with the restricted timeframe  of emergency response, emphasis was 
placed on securing effective linkages with lo ng-term development programmes in the area.  
The impact of the operation has therefore not only been to restore, as a humanitarian objective, an important 
livelihood activity – it has simultaneously established a powerful working example of alternative structures of 
ownership whereby greater control of assets and prof its is placed in the hands of poor people, thereby 
simultaneously addressing an underlying cause of chronic food-insecurity. 
Where the core problem to be addressed is poor food utilisation , response options include: 
- the provision of food prepar ation and food storage material s (e.g. safe-water, cooking sets, 
fuel); 
- training and awareness building on nutrition and f eeding practices. 
EU humanitarian food assistance interventi ons implemented by the Commission will seek 
opportunities to uphold and promote favourable  infant and child-feeding practices. 
Specifically, EU-funded humanitarian food assistan ce interventions will avoid discouraging 
or disrupting the breastfeeding of infants. 
Where the problem to be addressed is a high prevalence of acute malnutrition or micro-
nutrient deficiencies , response options include: 
- facility-based therapeutic feeding for seve rely acutely malnouris hed individuals (e.g. 
Therapeutic Feeding Centres (TFC s) and Stabilisation Centres); 
- community-based therapeutic feeding for seve rely acutely malnourished individuals without 
medical complications (e.g. Community Mana gement of Acute Malnutrition – CMAM); 
EN 14   EN - supplementary or complementary feeding, either targeted to moderately acutely 
malnourished individuals, or pr ovided on a blanket basis to all at-risk individuals (e.g. 
Blanket Supplementary Feeding Prog rammes –BSFPs - for all under-5s);  
- provision of micronutrient supp lementation (e.g. distribution of Vitamin A or folic acid, or 
micronutrient fortification of general foods); 
- promotion of nutritional awar eness and dietary diversity. 
On operations that seek to address acute ma lnutrition, the Commission will promote existing 
nutritional best practices (e.g. Community Management of Acut e Malnutrition). Where safe, 
appropriate and feasible, the Commission will s upport innovative approaches and/or the use 
of new nutritional commodities25 in order to strengthen the ev idence base for a broader range 
of effective interventions. In most cases, the Commission will only support the use of specific 
nutritional products as part of an integrated strategy for the prevention and management of 
acute malnutrition that simultaneously addresse s other causal and exacerbating factors. Rarely 
are such products justified as a stand-alone solution.  
As stated within the Communication on Humanita rian Food Assistance (section 5.2, para 1), 
the Commission will facilitate complementary and integrated programming to ensure that 
humanitarian needs are addresse d holistically and effectively26. Alongside food assistance 
measures that directly  address food consumption requireme nts, complementary or supporting 
measures (e.g. Public Health measures) are cons idered vital, even t hough they do not impact 
directly on food availability, access or use. They  have a critical influence on the outcome of 
food intake, particularly affecting how the hum an body is able to uti lize food to determine 
nutritional outcomes.  
Complementary response options  include: 
- direct provision, to populations affected by food  or nutrition crises, of health services, safe 
water, sanitation and other public  health measures, to reduce th e burden of dis eases strongly 
linked to acute malnutrition (e.g. diarrhoe al diseases, malaria, and measles). 
- provision of cash transfers to ensure that a household's diverse multi-sectoral needs are 
covered (eg for health care, household items, sanitation, education) so as to prevent 
displacement of household food expenditure. 
- support to "responsive" and "remed ial" humanitarian protection actions27, where protection 
concerns may trigger, or arise from, acute food insecurity (for instance,  ensuring safe passage 
to agricultural fields outside refugee camps, or  safeguarding against a buse and exploitation at 
distribution points). 
                                                 
25 Such as Ready-to-Use therapeutic Food (RUF) for th e treatment of Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM)  
26 Nb conceptual framework in the Commission's Communicati on on Humanitarian Food Assi stance, section 3, para 5  
27 See DG ECHO's Funding Guidelines for  Humanitarian Protection ; 21 April 2009  
EN 15   EN  
Operational Case-Study 6: "Integrated Programming"  
In Mandera District  of Kenya,  the Commission supported a programme that concentrated on direct nutrition 
and food security support to vulnerable populations, whilst addressing at the same time some of the public-health 
dimensions of malnutrition.  
This integrated nutrition, health, food security and liv elihoods programme was based on a range of assessments 
that informed the design of the various activities and components. Focu sed assessments and investigations 
included milk market surveys; a household economy asse ssment; a causal analysis of malnutrition; a market 
assessment; an economic evaluation of restocking; nutritional anthropometric and mortality surveys; and a 
nutrition and health services assessment. The malnutriti on causal analysis assessment showed that malnutrition 
in the area was attributed to poor household food security , poor social and care pract ices, a poor public health 
environment and marginalisation of the most vulnerable. Hence, the following programme components were 
supported, aimed at addressing access, availability and utilisation of food, and th e other indirect factors 
aggravating malnutrition: 
- Nutritional support was provided to  the acutely malnourished through Su pplementary Feeding Programmes and 
Outreach Therapeutic Programme s, while simultaneously improving access to health services  through supporting 
the Ministry of Health to provi de extended health outreach. 
- Communities were supported to detect, prevent, treat and refer sick and malnourished children and pregnant 
women at risk, in the most remote rural communities. Health and nutrition education was also provided on good 
feeding and caring practices aimed at improving dietary practices of young children and mothers. Community 
case- management of diarrhoea in communities was also promoted. 
- Access to food was improved through distribution of food vouchers to vulnerable households to obtain milk, 
meat and beans. 
- Targeted households were supported to restore, protect and improve their livelihoods through better livestock 
production. This included (i) training on best husbandry practices, fodder production at household level and milk 
quality management (ii) distribution of fodder to peri-urb an destitute households during the dry spell, (iii) 
support and capacity building for households involved in the trade of safe milk and (iv) animal health service 
delivery carried out by existing Comm unity Animal Health Workers.  
While the above mentioned programme components were funded by EU humanitarian assistance, another donor 
financed a complementary programme to  support the Ministry of Health in the provision of basic preventative 
and curative health care services, through existing health facilities and through the community 
For a full overview of humanitarian food assi stance response options for contexts and 
populations that fulfil th e "entry criteria" for humanitarian food assistance as elaborated in 
section 3.3 in this document), see Annex D below. 
All humanitarian food assistance and compleme ntary activities must be linked to a food-
intake intervention logic28, and should strive to demonstr ate a cost-effective impact on the 
food consumption and/or nutritional st atus of targeted beneficiaries. 
4.2. Resource Transfer Modalities 
The Commission will strive to provide flexible  resources to support the use of the most 
appropriate and efficient combination of em ergency response tools, including cash, vouchers, 
in-kind food aid, and other commodities or services. 
                                                 
28 Intervention logic = the core rationale for responding. 
EN 16   EN As explained in the Communication on Humanita rian Food Assistance, “the choice of the 
most appropriate intervention a nd transfer instrument (e.g. cash based or in-kind) must be a 
context-specific  and evidence-based  choice which is regularly reviewed. The relevance and 
comparative advantage of the proposed response option – and the combination of tools to be 
used – must be demonstrated for the specific situation, based on needs assessments and causal 
analyses that are as accurate and up to date as possible”, according to the urgency and complexity of the situation on the ground. 
Operational Case-Study 7: "Contex t-specific needs-based interventions"  
In food aid operations, a large proportion of the caloric intake comes from cereals, a ba sic commodity in the diet 
of crisis-affected populations. In many  contexts, cereals are often used for bread making – elsewhere it is cooked 
as a staple meal. However care is often not taken to ascertain whether beneficiaries habitually bake their bread 
and whether they have proper cooking facilities for baki ng. When markets are functioning and beneficiaries can 
buy bread, particularly in urban areas, lack of such facilities can lead very often to the resale of the flour, often at 
poor terms of trade. 
On the 8th of August 2008, war erupted in Georgia  between Georgian and Russian military forces, as well as 
South Ossetian militias. By 18 August , agencies estimated that the conf lict had displaced 30,000 ethnic 
Ossetians from their homes, almost all to Russia’s North Ossetia republic. A further 128,850 ethnic Georgians 
were displaced from their villages a nd found refuge in surrounding town s. Humanitarian food assistance 
agencies moved quickly to respond to the crisis, using food stocks from an existing operation. On 9th of August, 
they provided a standard ration intended to cover 10 days and consisting of wheat flour, vegetable oil, beans and 
sugar. By the end of August, they had reached more than 138,000 people. However, following a rapid food 
security assessment in early September, it was realised th at beneficiaries did not have the possibility to use the 
wheat flour distributed, since Georgians traditionally consumed bread, and had no means to prepare it as such. 
Therefore, from September, agencies instead distributed flour to the few re maining bakeries that were working, 
and they delivered bread direc tly to the collective centres wh ere IDPs had been accommodated. 
When cash, or value-based vouchers, are cons idered as a response tool to improve 
populations' access to food, important pre-conditi ons must be fulfilled, including: thorough 
market analyses to ensure that sufficient food is available on the market at a reasonable price, 
or that markets function adequately to res pond to increased demand without inflationary 
consequences; assessments to consider the secu rity, protection and corruption implications of 
transporting, handling and distributing large quan tities of cash; and adequate skills within 
implementing agencies to utilise this relatively novel response option29. Equally, risks (that 
may affect markets, security, or protection) a ssociated with alternat ive response options like 
the distribution of in-kind commodities, must also be carefully appraised and considered. 
For in-kind food aid, as stated in the Co mmunication on Humanitarian Food Assistance 
(section 4, para 6), the Commission is a leadi ng advocate for local procurement, based on the 
need to reduce costs, limit transportation delays and prevent market distortions30; and to 
provide economic opportunities for small farmer s in countries where purchases are made. 
However, the operational challe nges (e.g. the urgency and speed  with which bulk purchases 
need to be made) and risks (e.g. of raising the expectation of long-term demand on the back of 
a short-term operation) need to be carefully  managed to avoid inflationary impacts and 
disrupting the development of efficient local markets. 
                                                 
29 Please see DG ECHO's Funding Guidelines for "The Use of Ca sh and Vouchers in Humanitarian Crises", adopted 
April 2009  
30 Importation of excessive quan tities of in-kind food aid can have a defla tionary effect on local food prices, to the 
detriment of local producers.  
EN 17   EN Regarding GMOs (Genetically Modified Orga nisms), and in support of the “do no harm” 
principle, humanitarian food assistance partners ar e expected to safeguard the interests of their 
beneficiaries in the selection of food commod ities and agricultural inputs (concerning safety, 
appropriateness and effectiveness), whilst also conforming with the rele vant national policies 
and legislation in the country of operation. 
4.3. Targeting 
Where needs are uniform and spread across the majority of a population group, assistance can 
be delivered most effectively a nd most efficiently, on a blanket ba sis (i.e. to everyone, or to 
all individuals fulfilling an easily-defined criter ia, such as age). However, more often than 
not, crises affect different people in different ways, resulting in variations, within a population 
group, in the nature and depth of need. In these circumstances, careful targeting of assistance 
is critical to ensure that resources are us ed with maximum effectiveness and efficiency. 
Limited resources require that humanitarian food a ssistance is well targeted so that it is used 
only where it is most urgently required, by thos e that most need it. Conversely, poor targeting 
to those that do not need it is associated with excessive disincentive effects such as 
undermining production and di storting markets.  
At the project level, targe ting can be done according to a variety of methodologies, which 
vary in practicality and effectiveness, according to the context. A balance needs to be struck 
between speed, ease and practicality on one side, and effectiveness in reducing inclusion and 
exclusion errors on the other, with targeting crit eria that are optimally sensitive, specific, and 
feasible31. Furthermore, the likelihood and, in some c ontexts, acceptable practice of assistance 
later being shared or redistributed, post-distr ibution, according to household or social norms, 
needs to be acknowledged and considered. This should influence the design of the operation, 
the setting of the levels of assistance to be provided, and the rigor of pre-distribution targeting 
expected. The Commission accepts that humanitari an food assistance is usually targeted on a 
geographical basis, and then expects it to be directed on the basis of socio-economic, physical, 
or anthropometric measures of food insecurity or nutri tional vulnerability32, depending on the 
context and the means by which needs ha ve been identified and analysed.  
                                                 
31 Sensitive (ensuring that those eligible are not excluded), spec ific (ensuring that those not eligible are excluded) and 
feasible (ensuring that there is a way to recognise the necessary characteristic, and that its use is politically, 
socially, and culturally acceptable, as well as practically manageable, in the given context): Maxwell et al, 
"Emergency Food Security Interventions ", December, 2008 
32 Caution needs to be exercised in the use of proxy indicat ors of vulnerability for targe ting. For instance, old-age, 
women-headed households, disability, and chronic illness (including HIV/AIDS) do not necessarily correlate with 
high levels of food insecurity or nutritional vulnerability  
EN 18   EN  
Operational Case-Study 8: "Targeting in emergencies"  
Accurate targeting should ensure that people most in  need of the assistance o ffered are not excluded. DG 
ECHO's monitoring of EU-funded food assistance projects in Haiti  in 2009 revealed exclusion errors linked to 
inappropriate targeting criteria. Agricultural inputs were being targeted exclusively to households with 
malnourished children attending nutritional programmes. Ho wever, since malnutrition was often more directly 
linked to ill health, this resulted in households that were  not necessarily food insecu re receiving food security 
support, whilst food insecure households without malnourished children were excluded. This finding prompted a 
review and refinement of the criteria used. 
Often, self-targeting mechanisms can be  used to prevent the inclusion of be neficiaries that do not actually need 
assistance. Since the 2003 war, Iraq  has faced a dire security situation characterised by sectarian violence and 
ongoing warfare. It resulted in signifi cant internal displacements, while hundr eds of thousands of refugees have 
flown to neighbouring countries. In Syria , humanitarian food assistance agen cies have been assisting Iraqi 
refugees since 2006. Most of them reside in urban areas, particularly in the capital Damascus. For these groups, 
self-targeting  has been deemed effective, since distribution centr es are located in the out skirts of the city, and 
whilst agencies have made all necessary arrangements to facilitate access and to preserve the dignity of refugees, 
the whole process takes half a day and is cumbersome. Peopl e wait seated in a large hanga r that is heated in the 
winter, all the logistics has been arra nged for the refugees to return home with their ration and non-food items, 
and special arrangements have been made for handicapped and old persons. However due to time constraints, 
and the opportunity cost of attending distributions, wealthier refugees do not bother spending their morning at 
the distribution point. A 25% no-show rate to the distribution was confirmed in 2009, and more than 25,000 
refugees did not come to two distributions in a row. These no-shows have been assessed to be the less needy 
refugees. 
Considerations of how to target also need to be balanced by considerations of when to target. In Ethiopia , an 
identified weakness in the national Targeted Suppleme ntary Feeding programme was that anthropometric 
targeting was usually done in advance of the hunger ga p, so that children who became malnourished as the lean 
season progressed could not access assi stance. This was addressed by incr easing the frequency of the screening 
and targeting exercise in highly vulnerable areas. 
In addition to determining "who" should receiv e assistance, and "where", due consideration 
should be given to the timing of humanitarian  food assistance actions ("when" and "for how 
long") to ensure that they are implemented wh en they are most needed, and when they can 
have most impact and do least harm. Needs- based programme design should then ensure 
optimal appropriateness of  "what" and "how much"33 is provided, in terms of both the nature 
of the transfer itself (eg the ration composition, the amount of cash required34, or the cash-in-
kind ratio), and the quantity (eg the ration size, or the cash value). 
The Commission's partners shoul d involve beneficiary communitie s in identifying the criteria 
by which food-assistance can be most e ffectively targeted, wherever possible. 
4.4. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 
In accordance with policy lines laid down in  the Communication on Humanitarian Food 
Assistance (section 5.3, para 2) where the effect iveness and impact of em ergency assistance is 
not compromised, humanitarian food assistance should consider simultaneous opportunities to 
reinforce crisis-affected communities’ resilience to future disasters, and to protect or strengthen their existing capacities to meet thei r own food needs, as well as the capacities of 
national systems to sustainably promote and maintain food-security. More fundamentally, 
                                                
 
33 Maxwell et al, " Emergency Food Security Interventions ", December, 2008  
34 In turn requiring close assessment of commodity prices on local markets . 
EN 19   EN EU's humanitarian food assistance will seek to  avoid undermining community resilience and 
coping capacity.  
In this regard, the EU's humanita rian food assistance should aim for: 
(a) incorporation of disaster-r isk analysis in all food a ssistance assessments (for 
example, assessing the risk of flooding on land to be cultivated using seeds and 
tools provided as humanita rian food assistance);  
(b) short-term reinforcement of early-warning systems, particularly to incorporate 
an appropriate range of i ndicators related to emer gency food-insecurity and 
acute malnutrition, and linking these systems to rapid preparedness and mitigation (for instance, looking beyond agricultural production figures for food availability, and analysing food pr ice trends, or changes in the wage-
labour markets, as possible indicators of the poorest populations' diminishing 
access to food); 
(c) systematic respect of the "do no harm" pr inciple so as to make sure that a 
response to one crisis does not increa se beneficiaries' risk-exposure and 
vulnerability to other crises  (for instance ensuring that  food distributions do not 
lead to overcrowded settlement ar ound distribution points, promoting HIV 
awareness campaigns for food aid transporters) ; 
(d) disaster-proofing emergenc y response interventions to minimize future risks 
(for instance ensuring that emergency food storage facilities are strong enough 
to withstand extreme climatic conditions); 
(e) developing capacities for preparedness and building resilience during the 
response and recovery stages (for in stance by promoting disaster or HIV 
awareness when communities are assemb led at food distribution points, or 
"building back better", for instance  by ensuring improved flood protection for 
previously flooded agricultural land).  
EN 20   EN  
Operational Case-Study 9: "Ris k reduction in food assistance"  
During the evolving drought between end-2008 and mid-2009 in Kenya , EU humanitarian assistance supported 
three rounds of livestock de-stocking in Turkana, to reduce the risk of further deterioration in the short-term and 
mid-term food security situation.  
Drought leads to less water, less pasture and heightened risk of disease in animals, which in turn has a severe 
negative impact on the body condition of livestock. This deterioration then impacts negatively on the food 
security of herders. The diminished condition of their animals (less weight, lower quality of meat) and the higher 
number of animals on the market (as herders try to sell them before they deteriorate further) leads to a dramatic 
fall in animal prices, whilst, at the same time, scarcity hi kes the price of staple foods (eg cereals, rice) and water. 
Such poor terms of trade for pastoralis ts forces them to sell more and more of their livestock assets just to 
survive. Should the drought continue, livestock deaths deplete the herders' asset base with no short- or mid-term 
return. Short-term food consumption is seriously compromised, and mid-term livelihood capacity can be 
severely depleted, heightening herders' vulnerability to future crises.  
By facilitating pre-emptive destocking, and creating a de mand for animals when they are still in a condition to 
command a reasonable price, the impact of drought on short-term food-security and longer-term livelihoods can 
be mitigated. De-stocking in Turkana aimed at: 
- providing some immediate cash for the affected pastoralists, in order to cover basic household food 
requirements, but also to pay for water, fodder and veterinary services to maintain their remaining livestock 
holdings;  
- increasing the possibility for herders to recover from their losses by themselves, using cash from de-stocking 
for re-stocking once the drought is over; 
- reducing the size of herds and thus the pressure on natural resources so as to prolong the availability of 
remaining water and pasture.  
Furthermore, meat from slaughtered animals gathered during the emergency destocking can be targeted and 
redistributed to nutritionally vulnerable children, as a short-term, small but high-protein complement to rations 
and commodities received through other nutr itional or general feeding programmes. 
The Commission will advocate for routine support to DRR initiatives to be integrated into the 
risk-reduction agenda of development actors, but will also ensure that its own disaster-
mitigation work, and any short-term, emergency re inforcement, piloting or scaling-up of DRR 
initiatives that it undertakes, are coordinated carefully with them. 
4.5. Capacity Building 
Identifying challenging capacity ga ps in the humanitarian system35, the Commission will 
contribute to strengthening the capacity of its’ humanitarian pa rtners to design, deliver and 
coordinate more varied, effectiv e and appropriate forms of food a ssistance. In this regard, the 
Commission's humanitarian food assistance should support: 
(a) the development of methodologies to as sess and select the most appropriate 
response options in any given context; 
(b) capacitating managerial staff tasked w ith implementing varied forms of food 
assistance (such as cash and vouchers); 
                                                 
35 See Communication on Humanitarian F ood Assistance, section 5.3, para 3  
EN 21   EN (c) supporting sectoral coordination efforts in the food sector; 
(d) strengthening monitoring and evaluation capacities (including identification of 
outcome indicators and establishing base lines) to ensure that actors work 
collectively to measure, document and di sseminate best practice, and integrate 
lessons learnt into humanitarian operations; 
(e) developing the capacities for nutritional surveillance, nutritional surveys, and 
cross-sectoral causality studies and asse ssments, and formulating assistance of 
an appropriate nutritional quality that is adapted to the needs of specific groups. 
Operational Case-Study 10:  
"Capacity building for improved identification and assessment of need"  
EU humanitarian funding has been used to support the development and roll-out of the Integrated Food Security 
Phase Classification ( IPC) system.  To effectively address food insecurity in humanitarian crises, it is crucial to 
clearly assess each food insecu rity situation, determine its level of se verity, identify causes and provide tools for 
decision-makers. There are many info rmation systems and analysis tools that try to do this. But the IPC is 
particularly innovative. Originally developed in 2004 fo r use in Somalia, the IPC is a tool for classifying the 
severity of food security situations, using a common cl assification scale. It summarises a great deal of 
information, and triangulates it to determine the Food Security Phase. This assists decision making by making it 
possible to compare across countries and periods, and makes analysts accountable for conclusions and 
recommendations through a tran sparent analysis. The IPC is evolving as it is applied in different contexts. While 
the IPC is so far primarily an analytical tool and a help  for decision makers, it also has the potential to become a 
programming tool by highlighting the "red" areas where tran sitory food insecurity is the most severe. However, 
one risk associated with the IPC is that by generalizin g the food security status in a geographical area, it may 
lead to the exclusion of food insecure groups within general food secure areas.  
5. COORDINATION AND ADVOCACY  
5.1. Coordination, Coherence and Complementarity 
With a broader range of concerns, and with re sponses that are more inter-related with the 
development agenda, the Commission’s shift to  a humanitarian food assistance orientation 
from a food aid orientation implies an even gr eater responsibility to  coordinate its work 
carefully with others. To promote coordination, coherence36 and complementarity, the 
Commission will ensure, as far as possible, that short-term and longer-term food security 
needs are addressed in an integrated and articu lated way to prevent gaps in assistance, to 
prevent duplication, to ensure continuity, and to maximise sustainability. To do this, close 
coordination will be promoted with other inte rnational donors, and national actors, delivering 
food assistance and support for f ood security (in line with the Paris Declaration on Aid 
Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action).  
It is increasingly understood th at chronic food insecurity and emergency food or nutrition 
needs arising from transient food insecurity are often interlinked and over-lay ered. This raises 
significant challenges to defining entry- and exit-points, and to establishing boundaries, as 
well as synergies, between various response agenci es and actors with different mandates. It is 
                                                 
36 However, it should be recognised that DG ECHO needs to deliver assistance in a manner that is neutral, impartial 
and independent , and so full coherence with policies of other actors is not always possible.  
EN 22   EN therefore essential to consider the means by which the various institutions working in the food 
assistance sector can work together most e ffectively, whilst respecting their mandates and 
avoiding either duplicating or undermini ng each other, or leaving unmet gaps. 
As stated in the Communication on Humanitari an Food Assistance (s ection 5.3, para 5), 
“effective integration of humanitarian and de velopment assistance will be promoted through 
Linking Relief with Rehabilitation and Developm ent (LRRD), ensuring that the international 
aid system operates consistently, coherently  and transparently to address hunger and 
vulnerability”. This should “span emerge ncy, transitional and developmental needs 
simultaneously, and should promote enabling conditions linked to good governance and conducive national and international polic ies (e.g. for trade and migration)”. 
LRRD should be pursued to the end of ensuring optimal impact for shared beneficiaries, and 
not solely to provide human itarian actors with a handover- / exit-strategy. Accordingly, 
LRRD should be undertaken through effectiv e cooperation between th e Commission and all 
development actors, including national authori ties and other donors, and not just internally 
between Commission services.  
The various EU instruments for addressi ng humanitarian food assistance needs and 
developmental food security needs in protracted cr ises, post crisis situati ons and situations of 
chronic food insecurity
37 will therefore be managed in a coherent and coordinated manner. 
Specifically, humanitarian food assistance interventions shoul d always be designed and 
implemented in close coordination with th e Commission’s country and regional support 
strategies, as defined in the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs), National Indicative Programmes 
(NIPs) and Regional Indicative Programmes (RIPs). The Commission will promote joint 
working between humanitarian and developm ent actors through the en tire project cycle, 
especially through joint n eeds assessments, and joint programming exercises. 
                                                 
37 See Annex C 
EN 23   EN  
Operational Case-Study 11: "LRRD in Action"  
Lessons learned from the 2005 Niger  food crisis and in particular the need to articulate humanitarian food 
assistance with development food security policies lead to the Commission adopting a strategy based on the 
LRRD framework to fight under-nutrition across the  Sahel region  in 2007. Under-nutrition in the Sahel kills 
300,000 children under-5 years of age every year (UNICEF). Increasingly erratic rains, persistently high food 
prices and political and security instability have combined with very low levels of economic and social 
development and poor governance to create a "perfect storm" of conjunctures driving high levels of acute under-
nutrition and consequent extremely high levels of infant and maternal mortality.  
The response strategy is based upon 3 pillars: 1) expanding the knowledge base and improving understanding of 
the multi-sectoral causes of under-nutrition, 2) supporting innovative and replicable pilot actions to respond to 
under-nutrition and 3) under taking constant advocacy to raise aw areness about the damage done by under-
nutrition, and so encourage governments and developmen t partners to place it on the development agenda. There 
was close coordination between Commission humanitarian and development services in the design of the 
strategy.  
Over €100 million has already been committed by the Commission to implement this strategy since 2007. 
Initially 5 Sahel states (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Maurita nia and Niger) were prioritised. All had Global Acute 
Malnutrition rates above the alert threshold.  
Working through its NGO, UN and Red Cross partners, the Commission has funded a wide range of activities 
from methods to improve and carry out more accurate nutritional surveys to the expanded use and development 
of appropriate foods to treat under-nutr ition, to the promotion of subsidised access to basic health services for the 
most vulnerable and to advocacy to pl ace nutritional security as a strategic objective in sector priorities on the 
development agenda.  
Progress has been made. Most Sahel governments have upgraded the status of the nutrition departments in the 
Ministries of Health and have started to commit considerable national resources to the fight against under-
nutrition, and to increase access to basic health services . A major effort to engage development agencies in a 
dialogue on nutrition issues is showing results. The Commission has promoted a joint-working orientation 
between humanitarian and development actors, undertaking needs assessments together, and involving each 
other in programming processes. Under-nutrition, and its long-term impact, is increasingly mentioned in 
development strategies (the Commission's Country Strategy Papers for Mali  and Burkina Faso  now have 
"nutrition security" as a strategic objective). Consider able additional financial commitments have since been 
provided through the EU Food Facility and the European Development Fund, as well as from the World Bank 
through budget support operations with Sahel governme nts. These have all taken forward initiatives started 
under EU humanitarian funding. 
At policy-level, the Commission will strive to  ensure full coherence and complementarity 
between its humanitarian food assistance pol icy, other EU humanitarian policies and 
guidelines, and related development policy fr ameworks, particularly those focusing on food-
security, nutrition, social tr ansfers, social protection, and disaster-risk reduction. 
The Commission will continue to  coordinate with EU Member  States on humanitarian food 
assistance issues in the Council Worki ng Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid 
(COHAFA). 
Coordination and cooperation with EU Member  States and other major humanitarian donors 
will also be maximised at all levels to ensure  that financing decisions can be made on the 
basis of actual, unmet needs, factoring in a ll anticipated funding and expected assistance 
strategies provided by other donors  and actors. In pursuit of we ll-coordinated strategies, as 
well in the spirit of good humanitarian donor ship, the Commission will participate actively 
EN 24   EN within joint donor fora, ini tiatives and exercises (including needs-assessments and 
evaluations). 
The Commission encourages the full participation of its humanitarian fo od assistance partners 
in “inclusive, sector-specific,  operational coordination forums at field level. This includes 
close coordination with relevant  and viable national and local humanitarian actors”. As stated 
in the Communication on Huma nitarian Food Assistance (section 5.3, para 6), the 
Commission “supports the idea of inclusiv e coordination under strong and capacitated 
leadership. Within the framework of UN and Humanitarian Reform, the Commission endorses 
the cluster approach to coordina tion, and supports all efforts to make it work effectively for 
the food and nutrition sectors.” 
5.2. Advocacy 
Globally, the majority of people facing food-in security are not aff ected by humanitarian 
crises, nor do they reside in contexts wher e the EU's humanitarian instruments have a 
comparative advantage for direct intervention. For the majority, food-insecurity, and related 
under-nutrition, are a consequence of structur al causes, including poverty, low incomes, 
inadequate health and sa nitation conditions, poor infrastructure , lack of education and the lack 
of empowerment of women. In these situations the solutions are primarily developmental
38.Those who are already food insecure are more vulnerable to future crises and 
more likely to require future humanitarian a ssistance. Increasing levels of chronic food 
insecurity, if unchecked, will multiply the demands on limited humanitarian resources. 
Given limited progress in reducing global levels  of food insecurity, the Commission has an 
obligation and an operational re quirement to advocate on behalf  of the chronically poor and 
food insecure. 
In the first instance, as iter ated in the Humanitarian Food Assistance Communi cation (section 
5.3, para 4) “advocacy will be direct ed to state actors to fulfil their fundamental responsibility 
in safe-guarding the food-security of their people. Advocacy will also be directed at 
development actors (including governments) speci fically in relation to the developmental 
needs of populations in crisis contexts”. The Communication also states that “advocacy 
should further argue for an effective integrati on of humanitarian and development assistance 
through LRRD, ensuring that the international aid system operates cons istently, coherently 
and transparently to address hunger and vul nerability. This should span emergency, 
transitional and developmental needs simultane ously, and should promote enabling conditions 
linked to good governance and conducive national and international policies (e.g. for trade 
and migration)”. 
                                                 
38 See section 5.1 of the Commission’s Comm unication on Humanitarian Food Assistance  
EN 25   EN  
Operational Case-Study 12: "Working with States"  
Across hilly regions of S Asia , the bi-centennial flowering of bamboo can lead to a massive and sudden increase 
in the rodent population with devastating impact as rats consume crops and food stocks. In 2007, in India's 
northeastern state of Mizoram, around a million people were  affected by acute food shortages as rats ate up the 
entire paddy crop, and farmers virtually stopped agricultu ral activity in the knowledge that all production would 
simply be lost.  
Recognising the scale of emergency, the state government. declared Mizoram a ‘disaster area’ and responded 
with a multi-sectoral response programme as well as requ esting the scaling up of existing centrally sponsored 
schemes such as public distribution of subsidised rice (PDS), and employment creation through labour intensive 
public works (NREGS). However, assessments by DG ECHO's partners confirmed that due to various factors 
including weak governance and the challenges involved with implementation in very poor and remote areas, 
many households were surviving solely on available wild foods, while having no choice but to sell off 
productive assets and accumulate heavy debts. 
In response to the prevailing crisis, with EU humanita rian support, three agencies targeted the hardest hit 
districts of the State with basic food a ssistance in the form of cash, grain, seeds and livestock, to ensure that lives 
were saved and the most urgent humanitarian needs met. In recognition of the extent to which needs were 
determined by gaps in the government response capacity, as the response unfolded partners increasingly strove 
to coordinate around a basic awareness and advocacy strategy so that the go vernment's response could be made 
more effective. 
Building on community level data regarding the relevanc e and effectiveness of pub lic assistance received, the 
aim was both to ensure that communities better understood their entitlements, while government stakeholders as 
various levels were in a better position to learn from  experience and strengthen their responsiveness and 
accountability. Activities included community level awar eness sessions, capacity building and training 
workshops for government staff and government / inter agency / civil society inte raction at state level to 
facilitate policy dialogue.  
This small but nevertheless significant component of the overall emergency response highlighted the valuable 
opportunities for awareness-bu ilding and advocacy with state actors that  exist in many emergency contexts.  
The Commission will also contribute to the EU  framing a global agenda, and advocating for 
action against hunger and under-nutrition in collabo ration with other inte rnational partners. 
This includes advocating for the most efficien t and effective use of resources, including the 
use of varied food assistance response options, a ccording to the needs. Since tied food-aid is 
often deemed to compromise efficiency, appropriateness and effectiveness39, this, in turn, 
implies advocacy to secure the complete untyi ng of food aid, in line with the EU position 
within the Doha round of the World Trade Orga nisation (WTO) trade talks. It also includes 
advocating for chronic needs in stable contex ts to be met with pr edictable, multi-annual 
resources (and not, by implication, humanitarian  resources) delivered preferably through 
national government-led social protection and safety net prog rammes, through expanded rural 
development and poverty reduction actions, or through other long-term actions aimed at 
reducing chronic malnutrition.  
While the EU allocates its humanitarian resource s on the basis of need, and not on the basis of 
predetermined commitments, some of the huma nitarian food assistan ce resources that it 
provides contribute to, and are reported against, the Co mmission's portion of the EU 
commitment under the Food Aid Convention (F AC). The Commission will advocate for the 
                                                 
39 For instance by delivering food commodities that are incompat ible with local dietary preferences, or by incurring 
excessively long lead-times for internati onal processing, transportation and delivery. 
EN 26   EN FAC to promote the most effective and appropri ate use of resources disbursed from within 
FAC commitments, according to the needs of th e most vulnerable, in line with humanitarian 
principles and best humanitarian food assistance practice, and in a way that is coherent with 
its own policy framework. In this regard, review  and possible renegotiation and reform of the 
FAC from its current form (w hich is an extension of the 1999 Convention) is being 
undertaken by the Commission. 
EN 27   EN  
ANNEXES  
EN 28   EN Annex A: Glossary 
Humanitarian 
crisis 
 
 A humanitarian crisis is an ev ent or series of events which 
represents a critical threat to the health, safety, security or wellbeing of a community or ot her large group of people, 
usually over a wide area. A humanitarian crisis can have natural or manmade causes, can have a rapid or slow onset and can be of short or protracted duration. 
Food crisis A humanitarian crisis arising from inadequate food 
consumption, poor food utilisati on or high prevalence of acute 
malnutrition.  
Food assistance 
 Any intervention designed to tackle food insecurity, its 
immediate causes, and its various negative consequences. Food assistance may involve the direct provision of food, but 
may utilize a wider range of tool s, including the transfer or 
provision of relevant services, inputs or commodities, cash or 
vouchers, skills or knowledge. 
Humanitarian food 
assistance Food Assistance provided to assi st victims of humanitarian 
crises. 
Food Aid 
 Assistance in the form of food commodities, or in the form of 
financing that supports the centralised pr ocurement and 
distribution of food to  beneficiaries.  
Food security 
 
  When all people, at all times, have physical and economic 
access to sufficient, safe and nut ritious food that meets their 
dietary needs and food preferen ces for an active and healthy 
life. (World Food Summit, 1996) 
Food access 
 
 The extent to which resources can be used to obtain adequate 
and appropriate foods for a nutri tious diet. Depends on income 
available to the household, on the distribution of income 
within the household, an d on the price of food. 
Food availability 
 
 The extent to which sufficien t quantities of adequate and 
appropriate food can be secu red from household production, 
other domestic output, commer cial imports or food aid. 
Food consumption The act of transferring food co mmodities, and the nutrients 
within them, to the body. 
 
Food utilisation The physical use of food by an individual prior to 
consumption (including stor age, and processing), and  the 
EN 29   EN body’s biological use of food, its energy and its 
micronutrients, after consumption. Determinants of food utilisation are as diverse as access to water and adequate sanitation, access to cooking uten sils, health status and disease 
burden, as well as knowledge within the household of food storage, basic principles of nut rition, and proper child care and 
child feeding practices. 
Hunger 
 
 An uncomfortable or painful se nsation caused by insufficient 
food intake, specifically to  insufficient food energy 
consumption. Scientifically, hunger is referred to as food deprivation. 
Vulnerability 
 
 Vulnerability comprises the characteristics of population 
groups that make them more  or less susceptible to 
experiencing, stress, harm or damage when exposed to particular hazards. 
Therefore those who are vulnerable to  food insecurity  may 
currently be able to maintain  an acceptable food intake, but 
are at risk of becoming food ins ecure in the futu re if exposed 
to a shock. 
Chronic food 
insecurity 
 
 A persistent inability to access adequate food and nutritional 
intake, either on a constant basis or on a periodic seasonal basis. (Maxwell, D. et al. 2008, see References). Chronic hunger and malnutrition are asso ciated with, amongst other 
factors, structural poverty, low in comes, inadequate health and 
sanitation conditions, lack of education and the lack of 
empowerment of women.  
Transient food 
insecurity 
 
 Periods of intensified pressu re caused by a specific shock 
including; natural disasters, economic collapse, governance failures or conflict. It implies a precipitous decline in access and consumption against baselin e conditions. (Maxwell, D. et 
al. 2008). Such a decline can be sudden (e.g. following a natural disaster) or gradual (e.g. in protracted crises). 
Malnutrition 
 Malnutrition results from defici encies, excesses or imbalances 
of energy, protein and other nutrients. 
The vast majority of malnourished individuals in the 
developing world experience under-nutrition  (a deficiency of 
energy, proteins, or vitamins and minerals) as opposed to over-nutrition
 (an excess of certain food components such as 
saturated fats and added sugars in combination with low levels 
of physical activity, normally resulting in obesity).  
Acute malnutrition Acute malnutrition, with its main  characteristic of wasting, 
occurs as a result of rapid weight loss or a failure to gain weight within a relatively short period of time. Recovery from 
EN 30   EN wasting is relatively quick onc e optimal feeding, health and 
care are restored. Wasting results  from short-term but usually 
critical deficiencies in macr onutrients (fat, carbohydrate and 
protein) and micronutrients (vita mins and minerals), and is 
often linked to disease. Usually  divided into moderate acute 
malnutrition (MAM) and severe acute malnutrition (SAM), which combine as global acute malnutrition (GAM).
40 
Chronic 
malnutrition Chronic malnutrition, with its main  characteristic of stunting, 
is a slow, cumulative process,  resulting from sustained, but 
sometimes subtle nutrient and micro-nutrient deficiencies. 
Stunting is a failure to grow in stature, and occurs as a result 
of inadequate nutrition over a longer time period, which is 
why it is also referred to as chronic malnutrition. Stunting is 
not a good indicator of growth fa ilure in emergencies as it 
does not reflect recent changes and requires a long-term response. 
41 
Adequate food 
consumption An ultimate determinant of 'food-security', adequate food 
consumption is defined, for hum anitarian purposes, as the 
bodily intake of sufficient food (in terms of quantity and quality) to avoid excessive (in absolute and relative terms) 
mortality, acute malnutrition, or other life-threatening effects 
and consequences (e.g. stress migration). 
Humanitarian risk  The probability of a life-threatening humanitarian crisis 
developing. The specific risk of transient food-insecurity, 
malnutrition or compromised livelihoods may be assessed and measured by indicators reflecting food access, availability and 
utilisation (e.g. food prices, f ood consumption patterns, meal 
frequencies, expenditure patter ns, climate forecasts, coping 
behaviours etc.) and related trend analysis. 
Comparative 
advantage For the context of this paper, this refers to the relative ability 
of one actor to efficiently and e ffectively meet a defined set of 
needs, on the basis of their mandate and operational parameters, compared to another actor. 
Relief-development 
continuum A situation where there is a lin ear consecutive transition from 
emergency needs to recovery needs to development needs. 
Relief-development 
contiguum A situation where emergency, recovery and development 
needs co-exist simultaneously. 
                                                 
40 Helen Young, Susanne Jaspers:  "The Meaning and Measurement of Acute Malnutrition in Emergencies – A Primer 
for Decision-Makers": November, 2006 
41 Idem 
EN 31   EN  
Annex B: Acronyms 
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific States 
BSFP Blanket Supplementary Feeding Programme CFW Cash For Work CMAM Community-Based Manage ment of Acute Malnutrition 
COHAFA Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid 
CSP Country Strategy Paper DCI Development Cooperation Instrument DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DG ECHO Directorate Genera l for Humanitarian Aid  
EDF European Development Fund ENPI European Neighbourhood a nd Partnership Instrument 
EU European Union FAC Food Aid Convention FAFA Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FPA Framework Partnership Agreement FSTP Food Security Thematic Programme GAM Global Acute Malnutrition GFD General Food Distribution GMO Genetically Modified Organism HIV/AIDS Human Immunodefici ency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IDPs Internally Displaced Persons IFRC International Federation of Re d Cross and Red Crescent Societies 
IfS Instrument for Stability 
EN 32   EN LRRD Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development 
MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition MCH Maternal and Child Health MDG Millennium Development Goals NGO Non Governmental Organisation NIP National Indicative Programme OCT Overseas Countries and Territories OTP Outpatient Therapeutic Programme RIP Regional Indicative Programme RUF Ready to Use therapeutic Food SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition SC Stabilization Centre TFC Therapeutic Feeding Centre UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees  UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFP World Food Programme  WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organization 
EN 33   EN Annex C: The EU’s non-humanitarian inst ruments and programmes for addressing 
developmental food assistance and food security needs. 
Instrument for Stability (IfS):  
Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of 15 November  2006 established the IfS, implemented 
through DG RELEX. The purpose is to deliver an  effective, immediate, and integrated 
response to crises and instabil ity through a single financing instrument, until programming 
under one of the general inst ruments for cooperation and a ssistance can resume. The 
instrument is thus seen as a transitory measure before normal cooperation can resume through 
one of the geographic instruments. Through its  emergency response component, the IfS is a 
rapid and flexible tool at the disposal of the Commission to prevent conflict, support post-
conflict political stabilisation and to ensure ea rly recovery after a natural disaster. Whilst the 
IfS does not directly provide humanitarian fo od assistance in emergency situations, EU-
funded humanitarian food assistan ce strategies should be cohere ntly aligned with activities 
funded under the emergency res ponse phase of the IfS.  
Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)  
The DCI (2007-2013) is the main EU budget financing instrument for development 
cooperation, and improves the previous development cooperation framework by merging the 
different geographic and thematic instruments into  a single instrument. Its main objectives are 
poverty reduction, sustainable eco nomic and social development and the smooth and gradual 
integration of developing countries into th e world economy, in line with the Millenium 
Development Goals (MDGs) and the Eu ropean Consensus on Development.  
The DCI is implemented through geographic progr ammes, which cover Latin America, Asia, 
Central Asia, the Middle East  and South Africa, and through thematic programmes also 
covering these regions. In addition, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP), eligible for geographic support under the European Develo pment Fund (EDF), are also supported by the 
DCI's thematic programmes.  
For the geographic programmes, the Commissi on draws up a Country Strategy Paper (CSP) 
and a multiannual indicative programme, and adopts an annual action programme for each partner country or region. For thematic progra mmes, it draws up thematic strategy papers and 
adopts annual action programmes, which focus on the 5 following areas: investment in human 
resources; the environment and the sustainabl e management of natural resources; non-state 
actors and local authorities; cooperation in the area of migration and asylum; and the 
improvement of food security through the Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP). 
Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP):
 
The FSTP was established under the legal basis of the Development Cooperation Instrument 
(DCI) in 2007. The FSTP's mandate is to address food security in excep tional situations of 
transition, and in fragile and fa iled states, where other EU food security instruments may not 
be adequate or appropriate. A tr ansition from humanitarian assist ance to this type of thematic 
programme is warranted in the following circumstances: 
where it is difficult to agree on food security m easures with partner gove rnments due to food 
insecurity being concentrated either in areas not under state control, or among internally 
displaced persons;  
EN 34   EN if cooperation has been suspended or no cooperation framework is in place;  
"forgotten crises" or "fragile states" in wh ich cooperation with national governments may be 
difficult to establish through geographical instruments.  
The main programmatic pillars of the FSTP are as follows: Promoting research and technology Strengthening information systems to improve food-security decision-making 
Supporting continental and region al programmes and approaches 
Supporting LRRD for transitional contexts Promoting innovative approaches to combat food-insecurity 
Advocacy for the advancement of the food-security agenda Promoting harmonisation and alignment. 
European Development Fund (EDF)
 
The European Development Fund (EDF) is the main instrument for providing Community aid 
for development cooperation in the African, Cari bbean and Pacific States (ACP) and Overseas 
Countries and Territories (O CT). The tenth EDF, under the (revised) Cotonou Agreement 
covers the period from 2008 to 2013 and provides an overall budget of € 22 682 million. 
Country Allocations under the Cotonou Agreem ent contain two components: programmable 
support under the so-called A-envelope, which ar e resources programmed in the framework of 
a country's CSP and NIP, and additional support under the B-envelope, which is an allocation 
to cover unforeseen needs such as emerge ncy assistance where such support cannot be 
financed from the EU budget. Under the 10th EDF (2008-2013), ECHO can draw down up to 
25%, or more in exceptional circumstances, of th e envelope to respond to humanitarian crises, 
which amounts to € 150 million.  
European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI):  
Since 1 January 2007, EU assistance to th e countries covered by the European 
Neighbourhood Policy (and the Strategic Partne rship with Russia) is provided under the 
European Neighbourhood and Partne rship Instrument (ENPI). This  is a much more flexible, 
policy-driven instrument designed to target su stainable development and approximation to EU 
policies and standards.  
Under the ENPI, as well as the ENP Governan ce Facility and the Neighbourhood Investment 
Facility, EU assistance prioriti es are identified, together w ith the countries concerned and 
other relevant actors, in general Country St rategy Papers (CSPs) covering 7 year periods, 
National and Regional Indicative Programmes (NIPs and RIPs) covering 3 years and detailed 
annual programmes, which can include food security responses. 
Other Instruments:  
The EU has also developed time-bound, ad hoc inst ruments to deal with specific food-related 
problems. Most notable at the time of drafti ng is the EU Food Facility, designed to address 
both causes and consequences of high f ood prices from 2009 to 2011, by improving 
agricultural production (for ex ample through distribution of  agricultural inputs) and 
EN 35   EN mitigating the impacts of high and volatile prices through so cial-protection measures and 
safety-nets.  
Another instrument with possible relevance to the food sector includes  the Peace Facility 
established in 2003 to support African-led peace- keeping operations in cooperation with the 
African Union. 
EN 36   EN  
Annex D: Typology of food assistance respons es and their appropriateness to different 
contexts 
Problem Response option Conditions under which response may be 
appropriate 
Inadequate 
food access 
and/or 
availability  Unconditional Food Transfers 
(where a basket of food 
commodities constituting a 
specific calorific value is 
distributed for free to households, 
either on a blanket basis (General 
Food Distributions GFD), or 
targeted according to specific 
criteria / locations. When a significant proportion of households lack access 
to food, and 
there is a lack of food avai lable in local markets, & 
many target households are not able to participate in a 
labour-based projects, either due to their socio-economic 
characteristics (eg. elderly) or they are fully employed in 
their usual livelihood activities.  
 Unconditional ( or “unlinked”) 
cash transfers42 - as above, but 
using cash as an alternative to 
food commodities. 
 Where food is available in local markets but households 
lack means to purchase without depleting essential 
assets, and  
the costs of procuring and transporting food to affected 
area are high, and 
mobilising food aid would take a long time, and 
risk of inflation due to an injection of cash is low. 
 Conditional (or “linked”) food 
transfers (eg. Food For Work 
(FFW), Food for Training (FFT), 
Food for Assets (FFA)):- where a 
certain basket of food 
commodities is given in exchange 
for a beneficiary's time or labour, 
often used towards the creation of 
productive skills or community 
assets, either on a blanket basis, 
or targeted, or self-targeted.  Households lack access to food, and  
food availability in the area is limited in quantity and/or 
variety, and;  
there is surplus labour and available time in target 
households, and  
the necessary non-food inputs (materials, equipment and 
technical supervision) can be assured, and 
assets created will be properly maintained after project 
completion, or following a disaster when there is need 
for clean-up ops and the population has capacity to work 
without technical supervision. 
  
Conditional (or “linked”) cash 
transfers43 (eg Cash for Work 
(CFW)):- as above, but using cash 
as an alternative to food 
commodities.  
As for FFW but; 
food is available in the area, and  
the risk of inflationary pressure is low. 
 
                                                 
42 Please see the DG ECHO guidance no te on the use of cash and vouchers for further details on the 
conditions that apply. 
43 Please see the DG ECHO guidance no te on the use of cash and vouchers for further details on the 
conditions that apply. 
EN 37   EN  Unconditional / conditional 
vouchers (commodity-based or 
value-based):- as above, but using 
vouchers redeemable against a 
specific set of commodities or 
services.  
 In a situation similar to cash transfer programmes but 
where; 
it is important to restrict th e use of the resource transfer, 
and 
local retailers are willing to cooperate in the scheme and 
receive vouchers against subsequent reimbursement. 
 
 Emergency livelihood support:- 
where agricultural/pastoral inputs 
such as seeds, fertiliser, and tools, 
or agricultural services such as 
training or irrigation, or other 
income-generating activities, or 
pastoral services such as 
veterinary care , provision of 
fodder and water , or emergency 
destocking or restocking, are 
provided to boost or protect the 
short-term production, or 
productive asset base, of crisis-
affected populations.  Where targeted households have access to natural 
resources and productive capacity, and 
there is a lack of availabi lity of productive inputs of the 
right quality, and  
this is limiting production. 
Where there is sufficient time to accrue the benefits of 
production, and 
there are other means of ensuring adequate food 
consumption until such  benefits accrue. 
 
 Complementary activities , such 
as provision of safe water, 
sanitation, hygiene education, 
health services, or public health 
interventions, nutrition education, 
awareness campaigns for 
improved child-care and feeding 
practices, and road/market 
infrastructures.  
Also, support to emergency food-
security monitoring, assessment 
and early warning systems. Where beneficiaries receiving assistance to improve 
access and availability of f ood do not benefit fully from 
the assistance provided due to ill-health, poor food 
consumption and feeding habits, poor distribution of 
food at household level, inability to access markets to 
buy available food or sell production accruing from 
emergency assistance; 
Or where identification of sp ecific individuals or groups 
facing transient food-insecure , and prioritisation of 
geographic areas, is necessary (ie for targeted as 
opposed to blanket feeding interventions);  
And where all interventions are linked to improved food 
consumption / food utilisation / nutritional outcomes.  
 
Poor food 
utilization Milling of cereals. Food 
preparation and food storage 
materials. Item s required for 
preparing food, such as cooking 
sets, cooking fuel and water.  Where beneficiaries are displaced or refugees, or other 
situations where their means to prepare food is 
compromised. 
 Training and awareness raising on 
nutrition, dietary management, 
and feeding practices. Where malnutrition and hunger is related to poor 
hygiene, care practices and knowledge of nutrition; 
 
 Complementary activities , such 
as provision of safe water, 
sanitation, hygiene education, 
health services, or public health 
interventions. Where beneficiaries receiving assistance to improve 
utilisation of food do not benefit fully from the 
assistance provided due, for instance, to ill-health 
And where all interventions are linked to improved food 
consumption / food utilisation / nutritional outcomes. 
EN 38   EN  
Acute 
Malnutrition Providing in-patient care for 
acutely malnourished 
children/adults with medical 
complications through: 
Facility based Therapeutic 
Feeding Centre 
(TFC)/Stabilization Centre (SC). 
Services being rendered at TFC or 
a SC in the hospital/ paediatric 
wards or through a MCH, or a 
health post with medical 
supervision.  Significant numbers or an evident increase in numbers 
of acutely malnourished indi viduals (children and/or 
adults) with medical complications (often severely 
malnourished), and 
geographically concentrated case-loads warrant 
establishing TFCs or SCs, and 
trained health staff are available (or can be made 
available) to supervise TFCs / SCs 
 Providing treatment with 
therapeutic feeding products 
(RUTF) and simple routine 
medical treatment for 
children/adults with severe  acute 
malnutrition without medical 
complications  through: 
Community based therapeutic 
programme or Outpatient 
Therapeutic Programme (OTP): 
OTP sites based in particular 
areas or villages with high 
malnutrition, or in targeted health 
posts. The community is 
empowered to facilitate 
identification and referral of the 
malnourished cases to the OTP or 
the SC, (if showing medical 
complications), for treatment with 
therapeutic feeding products. Significant numbers of severely acutely malnourished 
individual (children and/or adults), or an evident 
increase in numbers of seve rely acutely malnourished 
individuals, and  
populations may be dispersed and/or difficult to access, 
and  
trained health staff are available (or can be made 
available) to for supervision of  OTPs in health structures 
or in the community 
 
 Providing dry take home rations 
and basic treatment for 
children/adults with moderate  
acute malnutrition without 
medical complications  through:  
Supplementary feeding 
programme – moderate acute 
malnutrition cases identified in 
the community or referred from 
TFC/SC/OTP are managed here. 
Often the SFP is attached to a 
TFC/OTP/SC.  Significant numbers of modera tely acutely malnourished 
individual (children and/or adults), or an evident 
increase in numbers of mode rately acutely malnourished 
individuals; and 
it is possible to identify and target malnourished 
individuals, and 
Trained staff are available to supervise the SFP activities 
 Blanket nutritional interventions 
(eg blanket Supplementary 
Feeding programmes (BSFP)):- 
where nutritional commodities are 
distributed to all individuals of a 
certain age, in a certain area 
deemed to be facing or at risk of a 
nutritional crisis. The main aim is 
to prevent widespread 
malnutrition and related mortality 
in nutritionally vulnerable groups.  
 When global acute malnutriti on rates are very high and 
food availability and quality, through general food 
rations or other sources, are considered to be inadequate, 
and 
if access to an area is difficult and regular on-site 
supervision is not easy, and 
during the early stages of an ac ute crisis before a reliable 
pipeline can be established for an adequate general 
ration, and 
treatment of severe acu te malnutrition through 
TFC/SC/OTP would still be required in addition to a 
blanket feeding. 
EN 39   EN  Provision of micronutrient 
supplementation (eg Vit A, Vit B, 
Vit C, Iron, Niacin) or 
fortification of general foods.  Where rates of micronutrient deficiency and associated 
diseases are very high; 
and access to / availability of  local or relief food sources 
containing the requisite micr onutrients is compromised; 
and products / approaches used  are certified as safe and 
effective.  
 Complementary activities , such 
as provision of safe water, 
sanitation, nutrition and hygiene 
education, health services, or 
other public health interventions, 
within nutrition facilities, and at 
household / community level. 
Provision of healthcare for 
malnourished children is a basic 
requirement for the treatment of 
malnutrition. 
Also, nutritional screening, 
surveillance and surveys. 
Also, provision of protection / 
take home / family rations for 
families of malnourished 
individuals.  Where beneficiaries receiving nutritional care do not 
benefit fully from the assistance provided due to ill-
health, which severely impa cts on nutritional status. 
Or where poor food consumption and feeding habits and 
poor distribution of food, or sharing of the nutrition 
ration, at household level; 
Or where identification of specific malnourished / at-risk 
cases, and prioritisation of geographic areas, is 
necessary (ie for targeted as opposed to blanket 
nutritional interventions)  
And where all interventions are linked to improved food 
consumption / food utilisation / nutritional outcomes. 
EN 40   EN  
Annex E: Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning 
humanitarian aid 
Article 2 The principal objectives of the humanitarian aid operations referred to in  Article 1 shall be: 
(a) to save and preserve life during emergenc ies and their immediate aftermath and natural 
disasters that have entailed ma jor loss of life, physical, psychological or social suffering or 
material damage; 
(b) to provide the necessary assistance and relief  to people affected by longer-lasting crises 
arising, in particular, from outbreaks of fighti ng or wars, producing the same effects as those 
described in subparagraph (a), especially wher e their own governments prove unable to help 
or there is a vacuum of power; 
(c) to help finance the transport of aid and effo rts to ensure that it is accessible to those for 
whom it is intended, by all logi stical means available, and by protecting humanitarian goods 
and personnel, but excluding operati ons with defence implications; 
(d) to carry out short-term rehabilitation and re construction work, especially on infrastructure 
and equipment, in close associati on with local structures, with a view to facilitating the arrival 
of relief, preventing the impact of the crisis from  worsening and starting to  help those affected 
regain a minimum level of self-sufficiency, taking long-term development objectives into 
account where possible; 
(e) to cope with the consequences of popula tion movements (refugees, displaced people and 
returnees) caused by natural and man-made di sasters and carry out schemes to assist 
repatriation to the country of or igin and resettlement there wh en the conditions laid down in 
current international agr eements are in place; 
(f) to ensure preparedness for risks of na tural disasters or comparable exceptional 
circumstances and use a suitable rapid early-warning and intervention system; 
(g) to support civil operations to protect  the victims of fighting or comparable emergencies, in 
accordance with current in ternational agreements. 
EN 41   EN Annex F: References 
ACFIN (2006) Position Paper on Political Aspects of Food Aid, Policy Paper – Technical and 
Research Department, June 2006 
Barrett C. & D. Maxwell (2005) Towards A Global Food Aid Compact, Cornell University. 
Clay E., B Riley & I. Urey (2005) An Assessm ent of the Developmental Effectiveness of 
Food Aid and the Effects of its Tying St atus, Report to the Working Group on Aid 
effectiveness and Donor Practices, of th e DAC. (DCD/DAC/EFF(2004/9) Development Co-
operation Directorate, OECD. Paris.  
Devereux, S. (2006) Distinguishing between ch ronic and transitory food insecurity in 
emergency needs assessment s. SENAC, WFP, Rome.  
Department for International Developmen t (2002) Eliminating Hunger- Strategy for 
Achieving the Millennium Development Goal on Hunger, May 2002 
Department for International Development ( 2006) Saving lives, relievi ng suffering, protecting 
dignity: DfID's Huma nitarian Policy, 2006. 
Dilley M. and Boudreau T.E. (2001) Coming to terms with vulnerability: a critique of the 
food security definition. Food Polic y, Volume 26, Number 3, pp. 229-247(19) 
European Commission (2001) Linking Relief, Rehabilitati on and Development – An 
Assessment, COM (2001) 153 final of 23.04.2001 
European Commission (2004) Co mmunication from the commissi on to the council and the 
European Parliament Financial Perspec tives 2007 - 2013 COM(2004)  487 final, 14.7.2004 
European Commission (2007) Food security them atic programme thematic strategy paper and 
multi-annual indicative programme 2007-2010 Document C/2007/1924 4.05. 2007 
FAO (1996) World Food Summit: Rome Declaration and Plan of Action. October 1996. 
http://www.fao.org/wfs/  
FAO (2006) The State of Food In security in the World. Rome 
GHD (2003) Principles and Good  Practice of Humanitarian  Donorship. Endorsed in 
Stockholm, 17 June 2003 
Maxwell D et al. (2008) Emergency Food Security Interventions, Commissioned and 
Published by the Humanitari an Practice Network at ODI 
Maxwell D. et al. (2008) Rethinking Food S ecurity in Humanitarian Response, Paper 
Presented to the Food Security  Forum Rome, April 16-18, 2008 
EN 42   EN Oxfam GB (2002) Guiding Principl es for Response to Food Crises 
PARTICIP GmbH (2004) Thematic Eval uation of Food Aid Policy and Food Aid 
Management and Special Operations in  Support of Food Security. July 2004. 
Sen, A.K. (1981) Poverty and Famines: An E ssay on Entitlements and Deprivation. Oxford: 
Clarendon Press.  
Smith, L. and Lawrence Haddad (2000) Over coming Child Malnutrition in Developing 
Countries: Past Achievements and Future Choi ces. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment. 
Discussion Pa per 30. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 
James Tefft, Mark McGuire and Nick Maunder (2006) Planning for the Future. An 
assessment of food security early warning syst ems in sub-Saharan Africa. Synthesis Report. 
FAO, Rome, 2006 
UN Millennium Project, Task Force on Hunger (2005) Halving Hunger: It Can Be Done; 
Achieving the Millennium Development Goals 
Welthungerhilfe (2008) The Struggle  Against Hunger is Determined in Rural Areas, Policy 
Paper No 2/2008 
WFP (2006) Ending Child Hunger and Under-nut rition Initiative: Gl obal Framework for 
Action, Executive Board Second Regular  Session Rome, 6–10 November 2006 
WFP (2009) Gender Policy- Promoting Gender E quality and the Empowerment of Women in 
Addressing Food and Nutrition Challenges, Pr esented at Executive Board First Regular 
Session, Rome, 9–11 February 2009 
WFP (2009) WFP Policy on Disaster Risk Re duction, Presented at Executive Board First 
Regular Session, Rome, 9–11 February 2009 
World Bank (1986) Poverty and Hunger: Issues a nd Options for Food Security in Developing 
Countries.