Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Humanitarian Food Assistance {COM(2010)126}
Date: 2010-03-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, cooperation policy, developing countries, development policy, emergency aid, food aid, food resources, humanitarian aid, security of supply

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 31.3.2010 
SEC (2010) 374 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Humanitarian Food Assistance 

{COM(2010)126} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the Communication from 
the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Humanitarian Food 
Assistance 

1. 

2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

The European Commission's Response to Global Food Insecurity ............................. 3 

2.1. 

The Comparative Advantage of the EU's Humanitarian Food Assistance Instrument 4 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Programming................................................................................................................ 4 

Prioritisation................................................................................................................. 4 

Needs Assessments ...................................................................................................... 5 

Entry and Exit Criteria ................................................................................................. 6 

Partnerships .................................................................................................................. 8 

Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting ........................................................................ 9 

The Commission's Humanitarian Food Assistance Toolbox ..................................... 10 

Supporting Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Nutrition in Crises
.................................................................................................................................... 10 

Resource Transfer Modalities .................................................................................... 15 

Targeting .................................................................................................................... 17 

Disaster Risk Reduction............................................................................................. 18 

Capacity Building....................................................................................................... 20 

Coordination and Advocacy....................................................................................... 21 

Coordination, Coherence and Complementarity........................................................ 21 

Advocacy.................................................................................................................... 24 

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 27 

Annex A: Glossary ................................................................................................................... 28 

Annex B: Acronyms................................................................................................................. 31 

Annex C: The EU’s non-humanitarian instruments 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 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Staff  Working  Document  accompanies 
the  Commission  Communication  on 
Humanitarian Food Assistance and elaborates how the Commission 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, and 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 dealt 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  contingency  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 contribute to restoring national 
food security, including the Instrument for Stability (IfS). Longer term food-security support 
can be implemented as part of a broader strategy for poverty alleviation, and is financed by 
the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI)  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  Country  Strategy  Papers  (CSPs),  and  three-year 
rolling National Indicative Programmes (NIPs) and Regional Indicative Programmes (RIPs), 
mutually agreed with beneficiary countries.  

In  addition,  notably  in  fragile  contexts  or  in  countries  where  these  geographically-oriented 
instruments cannot be used, certain food security objectives can be pursued through the Food 
Security Thematic Programme (FSTP). Additional 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 consequences of high food prices, in the 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  Communication  on  food  security 
("An  EU  policy  framework  to  assist  developing  countries  addressing  food  security 
challenges").  That  Communication  has  been  developed  in  close  coordination  with  the 
Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, recognising the distinct objectives of the 
humanitarian  and  development  agendas,  but  also  the  considerable  overlapping  interest 
between  them,  particularly  on  subjects  such  as  Linking  Relief  with  Rehabilitation  and 
Development (LRRD), disaster management, livelihoods and nutrition. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

2.1. 

The  Comparative  Advantage1  of  the  EU's  Humanitarian  Food  Assistance 
Instrument 

The  scope  of  work  covered  by  the  EU's  humanitarian  food  assistance  instruments  is 
determined  by  the  humanitarian  mandate  and  Regulation.  However,  within  this  legal 
framework  the  comparative  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  humanitarian  assistance  in 
responding effectively to any given context 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, skill-set and time-horizon all render it best equipped 
to  handle  such  situations.  However,  the  protracted  nature  of  many  crises  also  requires 
humanitarian actors to engage in longer-term humanitarian food assistance. 

Conversely,  chronic  food  insecurity  and  its  structural  causes  are  best  tackled  through 
predictable  social  safety-nets,  social  transfers,  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 interventions 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  Communication2,  "the  Commission  will  not 
use  humanitarian  food  assistance  to  address  chronic  food  insecurity,  except:  where  non-
intervention poses immediate or imminent humanitarian risk3 of significant scale and severity; 
where  other  more  appropriate  actors  are  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  act,  and  cannot  be 
persuaded to act; and where, in spite of its comparative disadvantages, positive impact can be 
expected  within  the  time  limitations  of  its  intervention.  In  such  cases,  the  Commission  will 
only engage humanitarian food assistance on the 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  activities  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) the severity of the crisis and the scale of the unmet needs (ii) the 
immediacy of the crisis, and (iii) the expected impact considering, inter alia, the comparative 

1 
2 
3 
4 

See Glossary in Annex A 
See the Commission’s Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 5.1, para 4. 
See Glossary, Annex A 
See the Commission's Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 4, para 4 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
advantage5 of the EU's humanitarian instruments for responding, the risk of doing harm, and 
the comparative cost-effectiveness of the response 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 assessment / causal analysis, and designed accordingly. 

Needs  assessments  should  focus  on  (a)  the  situational  context,  including  socio-political  and 
operational  dimensions  that  both  affect  the  level  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  specific  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  humanitarian  information  system  that  covers 
these main components is presented below: 

5 
6 

7 

See Glossary in Annex A 
Assessments  should  particularly  consider  factors  influencing  humanitarian  access  and  humanitarian 
space, as well as technical / absorption capacity of available partners (local and international).  
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 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Internally, the Commission's decisions on the allocation of humanitarian funds will take full 
account of internal analyses (including field assessments carried out by its own staff, and the 
DG  ECHO  Global  Needs  Assessment)  and  assessments  carried  out  by  partners  and  other 
relevant  response  agencies.  An  annual  Food-Insecurity  Needs  Assessment  exercise  will  be 
conducted by the Commission in all priority countries 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 perspectives, 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  Assistance  Communication,  the  Commission  "can 
trigger a humanitarian food assistance response when: 
-  due  to  inadequate  food  consumption,  emergency8  rates  of  mortality  or  acute  malnutrition 
have been reached or exceeded, or are anticipated, on the basis of firm forecasts9; or 

- compromised livelihoods or extreme coping strategies (including sale of productive assets, 
stress  migration,  resorting  to  unsafe  or  insecure  survival  practices)  pose,  or  are  firmly 
anticipated to pose, a severe threat to life, or a risk of extreme suffering, whether arising from, 
or leading to, inadequate food consumption."10 

The decision to fund interventions will be based on criteria 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 Commission's humanitarian's remit ;  

- the presence of other donors and/or partners and their respective comparative advantages; 

- the commitment and response capacity 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 the delivery of food assistance. 

The  extensive  information  required  to  appraise  an  intervention  should  derive  from  detailed 
and  reliable  needs  assessment  and  situation  analysis.  Any  decision  to  launch  such  needs 
assessments can obviously be made on the basis of less exhaustive information, and based on 
the Commission's own informed judgement and knowledge of the context. 

8 

9 

10 
11 

The  Commission  defines  an  emergency  based  on  a  combination  of  absolute  thresholds  (eg  Sphere, 
WHO etc) and relative indicators set against a contextual norm. 
Such  “anticipation”  should  be  based  on  early  warning  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. 
See the Commission's Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 5.1, para 1. 
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 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
Operational Case-Study 1:  

"Responding Early and Effectively 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 baseline 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 surveys recently identified pockets of critical nutritional, 
food and livelihood-insecurity resulting from intertwined acute 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  completed  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, provision of agricultural inputs) to increase immediate food 
and water access, promoting good nutrition, and strengthening resilience to future 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  crisis  were  articulated,  and 
contributed to increased allocations to food security within the 2010 district budgets. 

The  Commission  recognises  that,  in  protracted  crises,  its  humanitarian  entry  criteria  may 
legitimise a sustained humanitarian engagement over several years. In such circumstances, the 
limitations  of 
the  Commission's  necessarily  short-cycle  humanitarian  planning  and 
programming  cycles12  are  acknowledged,  and  should  be  factored  into  any  analysis  of  its 
comparative advantage, for the context, compared to other instruments or sources of funding. 
Even where its instruments prohibit the provision of multi-annual funding predictability, the 
Commission will encourage and accommodate partners' multi-annual strategies and planning 
horizons in protracted crises.  

12 

Necessary  to  allow  flexibility  and  capacity  for  ad-hoc  emergency  response  and  short-term 
reprioritisation on a global basis. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Operational Case-Study 2: "Operating 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  restricted  in  their  ability  to  establish  livelihoods outside 
the camps, remaining fully dependent on humanitarian aid.  

With a view to identifying durable solutions for this caseload, 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 increased 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  assistance  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 and increasing labour market opportunities. 

It  is  strongly  advisable  for  the  Commission  and  its  partners  to  have  a  defined  and  realistic 
exit-strategy in place wherever possible, before delivering humanitarian food assistance. 

As  stated  within  its  Humanitarian  Food  Assistance  Communication,  the  Commission  will 
consider  exiting  or  phasing  out  its  humanitarian  food  assistance  interventions  "when 
indicators  of  acute  malnutrition,  mortality  and  extreme  coping  (linked  to  inadequate  food 
consumption or poor food utilisation), are stable below emergency levels, or are expected to 
stabilise  below  such  levels.  This  should  result  from  the  majority  of  the  crisis-affected 
population achieving, for a sustained period and for the foreseeable future, improvements in 
food  consumption  and  food  utilisation,  without  resorting  to  detrimental  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  persistent  humanitarian  risk,  the  Commission  will 
ensure  that  it  can  monitor  the  humanitarian  situation 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 includes Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) on 
the basis of Framework Partnership Agreements (FPA), and International Organisations (the 
United Nations and its agencies, and the International Committee 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)  based,  respectively,  on  the  Financial  and 

13 

See the Commission's Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 5.1, paras 5 and 6. 

EN 

8 

   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 society organisations, such entities can be supported indirectly on 
the  basis  of  sub-contracted  arrangements.  Where  such  entities  have  credible  and  viable 
capacities  as  humanitarian  actors,  and  where  humanitarian  principles  would  not  be 
compromised, the Commission encourages its direct partners to support and strengthen them 
in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. 

3.5.  Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting 

In  pursuit  of  transparency,  accountability  and  effectiveness,  the  Commission  will  strive  to 
ensure that all humanitarian food assistance actions that the EU finances are designed around 
targets  and  outcome  indicators  that  are  specific,  measurable,  achievable,  relevant  and  time-
bound14. Such indicators will be routinely monitored and should form the basis of systematic 
reporting by the partner, as well 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  data should  be  monitored  and reviewed within 
all food  assistance  operations.  Where  operations  specifically  seek  to  address  malnutrition, 
nutritional outcome-indicators will be fully incorporated into the project cycle and log-frame. 

14 

SMART indicators 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
Result-oriented  monitoring,  evaluation  and  reporting  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. 

4.1. 

THE COMMISSION'S HUMANITARIAN FOOD ASSISTANCE TOOLBOX 

Supporting  Food  Availability,  Food  Access,  Food  Utilization  and  Nutrition  in 
Crises 

In  line  with  the  Commission's  humanitarian  mandate  and  the  Humanitarian  Regulation,  this 
Staff  Working  Document  considers  the  use  of  food  assistance  in  crisis  contexts  where  food 
consumption is insufficient or inadequate to avert extreme negative manifestations of transient 
food-insecurity  including;  excessive16  mortality,  emergency  rates17  of  acute  malnutrition, 
detrimental  coping  mechanisms  (e.g.  stress  displacement  or  livelihood  erosion).  This 
assistance is provided for the time needed to meet the humanitarian requirements, including in 
support  of  operations  that  prepare  for  identified humanitarian  risks,  that  prevent  or  mitigate 
disasters, or that facilitate short-term recovery post-emergency. 

The  Commission  will  respond  to  the  diverse  symptoms  and  underlying  causes  of  transient 
food insecurity and acute malnutrition with a variety of activities and tools. Whilst problems 
of food availability, access and utilisation are considered distinctly for simplicity's sake, they 
are in fact often interrelated and overlaid, hence the responses suggested 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 production, 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  targeted  and/or  self-targeted20  basis,  in  exchange  for  a 
beneficiary's time or labour (e.g. food for work, food for training, food for assets)21; 

15 

16 

17 
18 

19 

20 

21 

Particularly  in  contexts  where  capacity  constraints,  access  problems,  or  data  deficiencies  render 
quantitative reporting incomplete or unreliable. 
"Excessive" is considered to combine 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. 
As defined by the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) and WHO 
Distribution to everyone, or to all individuals fulfilling an easily-defined criteria, such as a specific age-
group (see section 4.3 of this document) 
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) 
When only those within a needy target beneficiary group choose, voluntarily, to participate in assistance 
scheme, usually because there is a disincentive in the form of the opportunity cost of labour exchange 
for less needy, non-target groups to get involved.  
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 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
-  the  provision  of  livelihood  support  to  ensure  that  self-production  capacities  affected  by 
crises  are  protected  or  boosted  (e.g.  distribution  of  agricultural  inputs,  training,  income-
generation,  veterinary  care,  water  and  fodder  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 affordable due to either high prices or interrupted 
incomes, response options include: 

-  the  provision  of  free  cash  or  vouchers  (commodity-based  or  value-based),  targeted  or 
distributed on a blanket basis (e.g. unconditional 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 incomes affected by crises are protected or 
boosted (e.g. distribution of agricultural inputs, training, income-generation, veterinary care, 
water and fodder for livestock, emergency 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). 

22 

23 
24 

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.  
Please  see  DG  ECHO's  Funding  Guidelines  for  "The  Use  of  Cash  and  Vouchers  in  Humanitarian 
Crises", adopted April 2009 
As per footnote 20.  
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 should, wherever possible, be seasonally appropriate, 
and should contribute to the benefit of vulnerable communities, fulfilling either response, recovery or 
resilience-building objectives.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
Operational Case-Study 4: "Alternatives 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 functional, food availability is good and 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 higher international prices and high costs for transportation 
and  distribution,  means  that  the  cost  to  donors  is  much  more  than  the  value  of  cash  that  ends  up  in  the 
beneficiary's pocket. In Darfur, it was calculated that wherever onward selling of rations was happening, the loss 
of value was extremely high (estimated value loss of 92% for oil and 60% for cereals, factoring all costs to final 
distribution). Milling vouchers were thus conceived, to protect the value of the food assistance distributed and to 
safeguard beneficiaries’ adequate food consumption, whilst ensuring that a necessary service was maintained. 

Milling vouchers are given to beneficiaries along with in-kind food rations, and can be used for that distribution 
only. Experience in pilots suggests that vouchers that specify 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  participating  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  and  reinforce  livelihoods,  since  these  are  the 
primary  means  by  which  households  secure  their  food  consumption.  In  order  to  feed 
themselves,  food  insecure  households  often  resort  to  negative  coping  mechanisms  (e.g.  sell 
their  productive  assets,  abandon  livelihood  pursuits  in  favour  of  migration,  or  undertake 
transactional  sex),  all  of  which  can  further  compromise  their  health  and  longer-term  food-
security. A household's adequate food consumption in the short-term should, where possible, 
be  achieved  without  it  having  to  resort  to  negative,  detrimental  coping  mechanisms  that 
compromise its longer-term food security. 

Therefore,  as  stated  in  the  Communication  on  Humanitarian  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 emergency 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  negative  coping  mechanisms  (such  as  the  sale  of 
productive  assets,  or  the  accumulation  of  debts)  that  could  engender  either  short-term  or 
longer-term harmful consequences for their livelihood base, their food-security status and/or 
their nutritional status. 

Given  the  seasonal  nature  and  duration  of  agricultural  and  livestock  production  cycles,  the 
Commission  will  pay  close  attention  to  the  duration  and  sequencing  of  its  emergency 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
livelihood work. While the objectives and targets must still be achievable within limited and 
finite timeframes which are compatible with its regulation and instruments, the Commission 
will  ensure  that  (a)  emergency  livelihood-support  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 response and not just at its final phase. 

Operational Case-Study 5:  

"Restoring disaster-affected livelihoods, and building back better" 

On 15 November 2007 Cyclone SIDR and its accompanying tidal surge, 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 precious 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 insecurity 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 and to plan on how to acquire further assets. In order to 
meet the challenge of ambitious objectives with the restricted timeframe of emergency response, emphasis was 
placed on securing effective linkages with long-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  profits  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 preparation and food storage materials (e.g. safe-water, cooking sets, 
fuel); 

- training and awareness building on nutrition and feeding practices. 

EU  humanitarian  food  assistance  interventions  implemented  by  the  Commission  will  seek 
opportunities  to  uphold  and  promote  favourable  infant  and  child-feeding  practices. 
Specifically,  EU-funded  humanitarian  food  assistance  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  severely  acutely  malnourished  individuals  (e.g. 
Therapeutic Feeding Centres (TFCs) and Stabilisation Centres); 

- community-based therapeutic feeding for severely acutely malnourished individuals without 
medical complications (e.g. Community Management of Acute Malnutrition – CMAM); 

EN 

13 

   EN 

-  supplementary  or  complementary  feeding,  either 
to  moderately  acutely 
malnourished  individuals,  or  provided  on  a  blanket  basis  to  all  at-risk  individuals  (e.g. 
Blanket Supplementary Feeding Programmes –BSFPs - for all under-5s);  

targeted 

- provision of micronutrient supplementation (e.g. distribution of Vitamin A or folic acid, or 
micronutrient fortification of general foods); 

- promotion of nutritional awareness and dietary diversity. 

On operations that seek to address acute malnutrition, the Commission will promote existing 
nutritional best practices (e.g. Community Management of Acute Malnutrition). Where safe, 
appropriate and feasible, the Commission will support innovative approaches and/or the use 
of new nutritional commodities25 in order to strengthen the evidence 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 addresses other causal and exacerbating factors. Rarely 
are such products justified as a stand-alone solution.  

As stated within the Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance (section 5.2, para 1), 
the  Commission  will  facilitate  complementary  and  integrated  programming  to  ensure  that 
humanitarian  needs  are  addressed  holistically  and  effectively26.  Alongside  food  assistance 
measures that directly address food consumption requirements, complementary or supporting 
measures (e.g. Public Health measures) are considered vital, even though 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  human  body  is  able  to  utilize  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 the burden of diseases strongly 
linked to acute malnutrition (e.g. diarrhoeal 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 "remedial" 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 abuse and exploitation at 
distribution points). 

25 
26 
27 

Such as Ready-to-Use therapeutic Food (RUF) for the treatment of Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM) 
Nb conceptual framework in the Commission's Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 3, para 5 
See DG ECHO's Funding Guidelines for Humanitarian Protection; 21 April 2009 

EN 

14 

   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 livelihoods programme was based on a range of assessments 
that  informed  the  design  of  the  various  activities  and  components.  Focused  assessments  and  investigations 
included  milk  market  surveys;  a  household  economy  assessment;  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 malnutrition causal analysis assessment showed that malnutrition 
in the area was attributed to poor household food security, poor social and care practices, 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  the  other  indirect  factors 
aggravating malnutrition: 

- Nutritional support was provided to the acutely malnourished through Supplementary Feeding Programmes and 
Outreach Therapeutic Programmes, while simultaneously improving access to health services through supporting 
the Ministry of Health to provide 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-urban  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 Community 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  assistance  response  options  for  contexts  and 
populations  that  fulfil  the  "entry  criteria"  for  humanitarian  food  assistance  as  elaborated  in 
section 3.3 in this document), see Annex D below. 

All  humanitarian  food  assistance  and  complementary  activities  must  be  linked  to  a  food-
intake  intervention  logic28,  and  should  strive  to  demonstrate  a  cost-effective  impact  on  the 
food consumption and/or nutritional status 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 emergency response tools, including cash, vouchers, 
in-kind food aid, and other commodities or services. 

28 

Intervention logic = the core rationale for responding. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  explained  in  the  Communication  on  Humanitarian  Food  Assistance,  “the  choice  of  the 
most appropriate intervention and 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: "Context-specific needs-based interventions" 

In food aid operations, a large proportion of the caloric intake comes from cereals, a basic 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 baking. 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  conflict  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  and  found  refuge  in  surrounding  towns.  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 that 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 remaining bakeries that were working, 
and they delivered bread directly to the collective centres where IDPs had been accommodated. 

When  cash,  or  value-based  vouchers,  are  considered  as  a  response  tool  to  improve 
populations'  access  to  food,  important  pre-conditions  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  respond  to  increased  demand  without  inflationary 
consequences; assessments to consider the security, protection and corruption implications of 
transporting,  handling  and  distributing  large  quantities  of  cash;  and  adequate  skills  within 
implementing  agencies  to  utilise  this  relatively  novel  response  option29.  Equally,  risks  (that 
may affect markets, security, or protection) associated with alternative 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  Communication  on  Humanitarian  Food  Assistance 
(section 4, para 6), the Commission is a leading 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  farmers  in  countries  where  purchases  are  made. 
However, the operational challenges (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 

30 

Please see DG ECHO's Funding Guidelines for "The Use of Cash and Vouchers in Humanitarian Crises", adopted 
April 2009 
Importation of excessive quantities of in-kind food aid can have a deflationary effect on local food prices, to the 
detriment of local producers. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
Regarding  GMOs  (Genetically  Modified  Organisms),  and  in  support  of  the  “do  no  harm” 
principle, humanitarian food assistance partners are expected to safeguard the interests of their 
beneficiaries in the selection of food commodities and agricultural inputs (concerning safety, 
appropriateness and effectiveness), whilst also conforming with the relevant 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 and most efficiently, on a blanket basis (i.e. to everyone, or to 
all  individuals  fulfilling  an  easily-defined  criteria,  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  used  with  maximum  effectiveness  and  efficiency. 
Limited resources require that humanitarian food assistance is well targeted so that it is used 
only where it is most urgently required, by those 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 distorting markets.  

At  the  project  level,  targeting  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 criteria that are optimally sensitive, specific, and 
feasible31. Furthermore, the likelihood and, in some contexts, acceptable practice of assistance 
later being shared or redistributed, post-distribution, 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 humanitarian 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 nutritional vulnerability32, depending on the 
context and the means by which needs have been identified and analysed.  

31 

32 

Sensitive (ensuring that those eligible are not excluded), specific (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 
Caution needs to be exercised in the use of proxy indicators of vulnerability for targeting. 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 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
Operational Case-Study 8: "Targeting in emergencies" 

Accurate  targeting  should  ensure  that  people  most  in  need  of  the  assistance  offered  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.  However,  since  malnutrition was often  more  directly 
linked  to  ill  health,  this resulted  in households  that  were not  necessarily food  insecure 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 beneficiaries 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 significant internal displacements, while hundreds of thousands of refugees have 
flown  to  neighbouring  countries.  In  Syria,  humanitarian  food  assistance  agencies  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 centres are located in the outskirts 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. People wait seated in a large hangar that is heated in the 
winter, all the logistics has been arranged 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  Supplementary  Feeding  programme  was  that  anthropometric 
targeting was usually done in advance of the hunger gap, so that children who became malnourished as the lean 
season progressed could not access assistance. This was addressed by increasing the frequency of the screening 
and targeting exercise in highly vulnerable areas. 

In  addition  to  determining  "who"  should  receive  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  when  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 should involve beneficiary communities in identifying the criteria 
by which food-assistance can be most effectively 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 effectiveness and impact of emergency 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 their own food needs, as well as the capacities of 
national  systems  to  sustainably  promote  and  maintain  food-security.  More  fundamentally, 

33 
34 

Maxwell et al, "Emergency Food Security Interventions", December, 2008 
In turn requiring close assessment of commodity prices on local markets. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EU's humanitarian food assistance will seek to avoid undermining community resilience and 
coping capacity.  

In this regard, the EU's humanitarian food assistance should aim for: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

incorporation  of  disaster-risk  analysis  in  all  food  assistance  assessments  (for 
example, assessing the risk of flooding on land to be cultivated using seeds and 
tools provided as humanitarian food assistance);  

short-term reinforcement of early-warning systems, particularly to incorporate 
an  appropriate  range  of  indicators  related  to  emergency  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  price  trends,  or  changes  in  the  wage-
labour  markets,  as  possible  indicators  of  the  poorest  populations'  diminishing 
access to food); 

systematic  respect  of  the  "do  no  harm"  principle  so  as  to  make  sure  that  a 
response  to  one  crisis  does  not  increase  beneficiaries'  risk-exposure  and 
vulnerability to other crises (for instance ensuring that food distributions do not 
lead  to  overcrowded  settlement  around  distribution  points,  promoting  HIV 
awareness campaigns for food aid transporters) ; 

disaster-proofing  emergency  response  interventions  to  minimize  future  risks 
(for instance ensuring that emergency food storage facilities are strong enough 
to withstand extreme climatic conditions); 

developing  capacities  for  preparedness  and  building  resilience  during  the 
response  and  recovery  stages  (for  instance  by  promoting  disaster  or  HIV 
awareness  when  communities  are  assembled  at  food  distribution  points,  or 
"building back better", for instance by ensuring improved flood protection for 
previously flooded agricultural land).  

EN 

19 

   EN 

Operational Case-Study 9: "Risk 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 hikes the price of staple foods (eg cereals, rice) and water. 
Such  poor  terms  of  trade  for  pastoralists  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 demand 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 nutritional 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 reinforcement, piloting or scaling-up of DRR 
initiatives that it undertakes, are coordinated carefully with them. 

4.5. 

Capacity Building 

Identifying  challenging  capacity  gaps  in  the  humanitarian  system35,  the  Commission  will 
contribute  to  strengthening  the  capacity  of  its’  humanitarian  partners  to  design,  deliver  and 
coordinate more varied, effective and appropriate forms of food assistance. In this regard, the 
Commission's humanitarian food assistance should support: 

(a) 

(b) 

the  development  of  methodologies  to  assess  and  select  the  most  appropriate 
response options in any given context; 

capacitating  managerial  staff  tasked  with  implementing  varied  forms  of  food 
assistance (such as cash and vouchers); 

35 

See Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance, section 5.3, para 3 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

supporting sectoral coordination efforts in the food sector; 

strengthening monitoring and evaluation capacities (including identification of 
outcome  indicators  and  establishing  baselines)  to  ensure  that  actors  work 
collectively to measure, document and disseminate best practice, and integrate 
lessons learnt into humanitarian operations; 

developing  the  capacities  for  nutritional  surveillance,  nutritional  surveys,  and 
cross-sectoral causality studies and assessments, 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 insecurity situation, determine its level of severity, identify causes and provide tools for 
decision-makers.  There  are  many  information  systems  and  analysis  tools  that  try  to  do  this.  But  the  IPC  is 
particularly  innovative.  Originally  developed  in  2004  for  use  in  Somalia,  the  IPC  is  a  tool  for  classifying  the 
severity  of  food  security  situations,  using  a  common  classification  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 transparent 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 transitory food insecurity is the most severe. However, 
one risk associated with the IPC is that by generalizing 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  responses  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  greater  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  articulated  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 international donors, and national actors, delivering 
food  assistance  and  support  for  food  security  (in  line  with  the  Paris  Declaration  on  Aid 
Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action).  

It  is  increasingly  understood  that  chronic  food  insecurity  and  emergency  food  or  nutrition 
needs arising from transient food insecurity are often interlinked and over-layered. This raises 
significant  challenges  to  defining  entry-  and  exit-points,  and  to  establishing  boundaries,  as 
well as synergies, between various response agencies 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 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
therefore essential to consider the means by which the various institutions working in the food 
assistance  sector  can  work  together  most  effectively,  whilst  respecting  their  mandates  and 
avoiding either duplicating or undermining each other, or leaving unmet gaps. 

As  stated  in  the  Communication  on  Humanitarian  Food  Assistance  (section  5.3,  para  5), 
“effective integration of humanitarian and development assistance will be promoted through 
Linking Relief with Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD), ensuring that the international 
aid  system  operates  consistently,  coherently  and  transparently  to  address  hunger  and 
transitional  and  developmental  needs 
vulnerability”.  This  should  “span  emergency, 
simultaneously,  and  should  promote  enabling  conditions  linked  to  good  governance  and 
conducive national and international policies (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  humanitarian  actors  with  a  handover-  /  exit-strategy.  Accordingly, 
LRRD should be undertaken through effective cooperation between the Commission and all 
development  actors,  including  national  authorities  and  other  donors,  and  not  just  internally 
between Commission services.  

The  various  EU  instruments  for  addressing  humanitarian  food  assistance  needs  and 
developmental food security needs in protracted crises, post crisis situations and situations of 
chronic  food  insecurity37  will  therefore  be  managed  in  a  coherent  and  coordinated  manner. 
Specifically,  humanitarian  food  assistance  interventions  should  always  be  designed  and 
implemented  in  close  coordination  with  the  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  development  actors  through  the  entire  project  cycle, 
especially through joint needs assessments, and joint programming exercises. 

37 

See Annex C 

EN 

22 

   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)  undertaking  constant  advocacy  to  raise  awareness  about  the  damage  done  by  under-
nutrition, and so encourage governments and development 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, Mauritania 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-nutrition, to the promotion of subsidised access to basic health services for the 
most vulnerable and to advocacy to place 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).  Considerable  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  governments.  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  policy,  other  EU  humanitarian  policies  and 
guidelines, and related development policy frameworks, particularly those focusing on food-
security, nutrition, social transfers, social protection, and disaster-risk reduction. 

The Commission will continue to coordinate with EU Member States on humanitarian food 
assistance  issues  in  the  Council  Working  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  all  anticipated  funding  and  expected  assistance 
strategies  provided  by  other  donors  and  actors.  In  pursuit  of  well-coordinated  strategies,  as 
well  in  the  spirit  of  good  humanitarian  donorship,  the  Commission  will  participate  actively 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
within  joint  donor  fora,  initiatives  and  exercises  (including  needs-assessments  and 
evaluations). 

The Commission encourages the full participation of its humanitarian food 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  Humanitarian  Food  Assistance  (section  5.3,  para  6),  the 
Commission  “supports  the  idea  of  inclusive  coordination  under  strong  and  capacitated 
leadership. Within the framework of UN and Humanitarian Reform, the Commission endorses 
the cluster approach to coordination, 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-insecurity  are  not  affected  by  humanitarian 
crises,  nor  do  they  reside  in  contexts  where  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  structural  causes,  including  poverty,  low  incomes, 
inadequate health and sanitation conditions, poor infrastructure, lack of education and the lack 
of  empowerment  of  women. 
solutions  are  primarily 
developmental38.Those who are already food insecure are more vulnerable to future crises and 
more  likely  to  require  future  humanitarian  assistance.  Increasing  levels  of  chronic  food 
insecurity, if unchecked, will multiply the demands on limited humanitarian resources. 

situations 

these 

the 

In 

Given  limited  progress  in  reducing  global  levels  of  food  insecurity,  the  Commission  has  an 
obligation and an operational requirement to advocate on behalf of the chronically poor and 
food insecure. 

In the first instance, as iterated in the Humanitarian Food Assistance Communication (section 
5.3, para 4) “advocacy will be directed 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)  specifically  in  relation  to  the  developmental 
needs  of  populations  in  crisis  contexts”.  The  Communication  also  states  that  “advocacy 
should further argue for an effective integration of humanitarian and development assistance 
through  LRRD,  ensuring  that  the  international  aid  system  operates  consistently,  coherently 
and  transparently  to  address  hunger  and  vulnerability.  This  should  span  emergency, 
transitional and developmental needs simultaneously, 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 Communication on Humanitarian Food Assistance 

EN 

24 

   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 agricultural 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  requesting  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  humanitarian  support,  three  agencies  targeted  the  hardest  hit 
districts of the State with basic food assistance 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 government's response could be made 
more effective. 

Building  on  community  level  data  regarding  the  relevance  and  effectiveness of public  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  awareness  sessions,  capacity  building  and  training 
workshops  for  government  staff  and  government  /  inter  agency  /  civil  society  interaction  at  state  level  to 
facilitate policy dialogue.  

This  small  but  nevertheless  significant  component  of  the  overall  emergency  response  highlighted  the  valuable 
opportunities for awareness-building 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  collaboration  with  other  international  partners. 
This includes advocating for the most efficient and effective use of resources, including the 
use of varied food assistance response options, according 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  untying  of  food  aid,  in  line  with  the  EU  position 
within the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) trade talks. It also includes 
advocating  for  chronic  needs  in  stable  contexts  to  be  met  with  predictable,  multi-annual 
resources  (and  not,  by  implication,  humanitarian  resources)  delivered  preferably  through 
national government-led social protection and safety net programmes, 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 resources on the basis of need, and not on the basis of 
predetermined  commitments,  some  of  the  humanitarian  food  assistance  resources  that  it 
provides  contribute  to,  and  are  reported  against,  the  Commission's  portion  of  the  EU 
commitment under the Food Aid Convention (FAC). The Commission will advocate for the 

39 

For instance by delivering food commodities that are incompatible with local dietary preferences, or by incurring 
excessively long lead-times for international processing, transportation and delivery. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
FAC  to  promote  the  most  effective  and  appropriate  use  of  resources  disbursed  from  within 
FAC commitments, according to the needs of the 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  (which  is  an  extension  of  the  1999  Convention)  is  being 
undertaken by the Commission. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

ANNEXES 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
Annex A: Glossary 

Humanitarian 
crisis 

Food crisis 

Food assistance 

A  humanitarian  crisis  is  an  event  or  series  of  events  which 
represents  a  critical  threat  to  the  health,  safety,  security  or 
wellbeing  of  a  community  or  other  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. 

A  humanitarian  crisis  arising 
food 
consumption, poor food utilisation or high prevalence of acute 
malnutrition.  

inadequate 

from 

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  tools,  including  the  transfer  or 
provision of relevant services, inputs or commodities, cash or 
vouchers, skills or knowledge. 

Humanitarian  food 
assistance 

Food  Assistance  provided  to  assist  victims  of  humanitarian 
crises. 

Food Aid 

Food security 

Food access 

Assistance in the form of food commodities, or in the form of 
financing  that  supports  the  centralised  procurement  and 
distribution of food to beneficiaries.  

 When  all  people,  at  all  times,  have  physical  and  economic 
access  to  sufficient,  safe  and  nutritious  food  that  meets  their 
dietary  needs  and  food  preferences  for  an  active  and  healthy 
life. (World Food Summit, 1996) 

The extent to which resources can be used to obtain adequate 
and appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Depends on income 
available  to  the  household,  on  the  distribution  of  income 
within the household, and on the price of food. 

Food availability 

The  extent  to  which  sufficient  quantities  of  adequate  and 
appropriate  food  can  be  secured  from  household  production, 
other domestic output, commercial imports or food aid. 

Food consumption 

The  act  of  transferring  food  commodities,  and  the  nutrients 
within them, to the body. 

Food utilisation 

to 
The  physical  use  of  food  by  an 
consumption  (including  storage,  and  processing),  and  the 

individual  prior 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
food, 

its  energy  and 

body’s  biological  use  of 
its 
micronutrients,  after  consumption.  Determinants  of  food 
utilisation  are  as  diverse  as  access  to  water  and  adequate 
sanitation, access to cooking utensils, health status and disease 
burden,  as  well  as  knowledge  within  the  household  of  food 
storage, basic principles of nutrition, and proper child care and 
child feeding practices. 

intake,  specifically 

An uncomfortable or  painful sensation caused by insufficient 
food 
food  energy 
to 
consumption.  Scientifically,  hunger  is  referred  to  as  food 
deprivation. 

insufficient 

Vulnerability  comprises  the  characteristics  of  population 
groups 
to 
them  more  or 
experiencing,  stress,  harm  or  damage  when  exposed  to 
particular hazards. 

less  susceptible 

that  make 

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 insecure in the future if exposed 
to a shock. 

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  associated  with,  amongst  other 
factors, structural poverty, low incomes, inadequate health and 
sanitation  conditions,  lack  of  education  and  the  lack  of 
empowerment of women.  

Periods  of  intensified  pressure  caused  by  a  specific  shock 
including;  natural  disasters,  economic  collapse,  governance 
failures  or  conflict.  It  implies  a  precipitous  decline  in  access 
and consumption against baseline 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). 

Hunger 

Vulnerability 

Chronic food 
insecurity 

Transient food 
insecurity 

Malnutrition 

Malnutrition results from deficiencies, excesses or imbalances 
of energy, protein and other nutrients. 

individuals 

the 
The  vast  majority  of  malnourished 
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).  

in 

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 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chronic 
malnutrition 

Adequate food 
consumption 

Humanitarian risk 

wasting  is  relatively  quick  once  optimal  feeding,  health  and 
care are restored. Wasting results from short-term but usually 
critical  deficiencies  in  macronutrients  (fat,  carbohydrate  and 
protein)  and  micronutrients  (vitamins  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, 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  failure  in  emergencies  as  it 
does  not  reflect  recent  changes  and  requires  a  long-term 
response. 41 

An  ultimate  determinant  of  'food-security',  adequate  food 
consumption  is  defined,  for  humanitarian  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). 

 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,  food  consumption  patterns,  meal 
frequencies,  expenditure  patterns,  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 effectively 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 linear 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 

41 

Helen Young, Susanne Jaspers: "The Meaning and Measurement of Acute Malnutrition in Emergencies – A Primer 
for Decision-Makers": November, 2006 
Idem 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
Annex B: Acronyms 

ACP  African, Caribbean and Pacific States 

BSFP  Blanket Supplementary Feeding Programme 

CFW  Cash For Work 

CMAM 

Community-Based Management 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 General for Humanitarian Aid  

EDF  European Development Fund 

ENPI  European Neighbourhood and 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 Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 

ICRC  International Committee of the Red Cross 

IDPs 

Internally Displaced Persons 

IFRC  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 

IfS 

Instrument for Stability 

EN 

31 

   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 

32 

   EN 

Annex  C:  The  EU’s  non-humanitarian  instruments  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  instability  through  a  single  financing  instrument,  until  programming 
under  one  of  the  general  instruments  for  cooperation  and  assistance  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 early recovery after a natural disaster. Whilst the 
IfS  does  not  directly  provide  humanitarian  food  assistance  in  emergency  situations,  EU-
funded  humanitarian  food  assistance  strategies  should  be  coherently  aligned  with  activities 
funded under the emergency response 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 economic and social development and the smooth and gradual 
integration  of  developing  countries  into  the  world  economy,  in  line  with  the  Millenium 
Development Goals (MDGs) and the European Consensus on Development.  

The DCI is implemented through geographic programmes, 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 Development Fund (EDF), are also supported by the 
DCI's thematic programmes.  

For the geographic programmes, the Commission 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 programmes, 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  sustainable  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  exceptional  situations  of 
transition, and in fragile and failed states, where other EU food security instruments may not 
be adequate or appropriate. A transition from humanitarian assistance to this type of thematic 
programme is warranted in the following circumstances: 

where it is difficult to agree on food security measures with partner governments due to food 
insecurity  being  concentrated  either  in  areas  not  under  state  control,  or  among  internally 
displaced persons;  

EN 

33 

   EN 

if cooperation has been suspended or no cooperation framework is in place;  

"forgotten crises" or "fragile states" in which 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 regional 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, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and Overseas 
Countries  and  Territories  (OCT).  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  Agreement contain two  components: programmable 
support under the so-called A-envelope, which are 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  emergency  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 the envelope to respond to humanitarian crises, 
which amounts to € 150 million.  

European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI): 

Since  1  January  2007,  EU  assistance  to  the  countries  covered  by  the  European 
Neighbourhood  Policy  (and  the  Strategic  Partnership  with  Russia)  is  provided  under  the 
European Neighbourhood  and  Partnership Instrument (ENPI). This  is  a  much  more  flexible, 
policy-driven instrument designed to target sustainable development and approximation to EU 
policies and standards.  

Under the ENPI, as well as the ENP Governance Facility and the Neighbourhood Investment 
Facility,  EU  assistance  priorities  are  identified,  together  with  the  countries  concerned  and 
other  relevant  actors,  in  general  Country  Strategy  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 instruments to deal with specific food-related 
problems. Most notable at the time of drafting is the EU Food Facility, designed to address 
both  causes  and  consequences  of  high  food  prices  from  2009  to  2011,  by  improving 
agricultural  production  (for  example  through  distribution  of  agricultural  inputs)  and 

EN 

34 

   EN 

mitigating  the  impacts  of  high  and  volatile  prices  through  social-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 

35 

   EN 

Annex D: Typology of food assistance responses and their appropriateness to different 

contexts 

Problem 

Response option 

Conditions  under  which 
appropriate 

response  may  be 

Inadequate 
food 
and/or 
availability  

access 

a 

of 

calorific 

constituting 
value 

Unconditional  Food  Transfers 
food 
basket 
(where 
a 
commodities 
specific 
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 available 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 

basket 

Conditional  (or  “linked”)  food 
transfers  (eg.  Food  For  Work 
(FFW),  Food  for  Training  (FFT), 
Food for Assets (FFA)):- where a 
certain 
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.  

of 

mobilising food aid would take a long time, and 

risk of inflation due to an injection of cash is low. 

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 
food 
alternative 
an 
commodities. 

to 

As for FFW but; 

food is available in the area, and  

the risk of inflationary pressure is low. 

42 

43 

Please  see  the  DG  ECHO  guidance  note  on  the  use  of  cash  and  vouchers  for  further  details  on  the 
conditions that apply. 
Please  see  the  DG  ECHO  guidance  note  on  the  use  of  cash  and  vouchers  for  further  details  on  the 
conditions that apply. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
/ 

conditional 
Unconditional 
(commodity-based  or 
vouchers 
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 the 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 
such 
pastoral 
as 
veterinary  care 
,  provision  of 
fodder  and  water  ,  or  emergency 
restocking,  are 
destocking  or 
provided  to  boost  or  protect  the 
short-term 
or 
productive  asset  base,  of  crisis-
affected populations.  

production, 

services 

Complementary  activities,  such 
as  provision  of 
safe  water, 
education, 
sanitation,  hygiene 
health  services,  or  public  health 
interventions,  nutrition  education, 
awareness 
for 
improved  child-care  and  feeding 
practices, 
road/market 
infrastructures.  

campaigns 

and 

Also, support to emergency food-
security  monitoring,  assessment 
and early warning systems. 

Poor 
utilization 

food 

of 

Food 
Milling 
storage 
preparation  and 
for 
Items 
materials. 
preparing  food,  such  as  cooking 
sets, cooking fuel and water.  

cereals. 
food 
required 

Where  targeted  households  have  access  to  natural 
resources and productive capacity, and 

there is a lack of availability 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. 

Where  beneficiaries  receiving  assistance  to  improve 
access and availability of food 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 specific 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.  

Where  beneficiaries  are  displaced  or  refugees,  or  other 
situations  where 
is 
compromised. 

to  prepare  food 

their  means 

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 
safe  water, 
as  provision  of 
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 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in-patient  care 

for 
Providing 
malnourished 
acutely 
children/adults  with  medical 
complications through: 

Significant  numbers  or  an  evident  increase  in  numbers 
of  acutely  malnourished  individuals  (children  and/or 
adults)  with  medical  complications  (often  severely 
malnourished), and 

Acute 
Malnutrition 

based 

Therapeutic 
Facility 
Centre 
Feeding 
(TFC)/Stabilization  Centre  (SC). 
Services being rendered at TFC or 
a  SC  in  the  hospital/  paediatric 
wards  or  through  a  MCH,  or  a 
post  with  medical 
health 
supervision.  

geographically 
concentrated 
establishing TFCs or SCs, and 

case-loads  warrant 

trained  health  staff  are  available  (or  can  be  made 
available) to supervise TFCs / SCs 

and 

treatment 
feeding 

with 
Providing 
products 
therapeutic 
routine 
(RUTF) 
medical 
for 
children/adults  with  severe  acute 
malnutrition  without  medical 
complications through: 

simple 
treatment 

therapeutic 
Community  based 
programme 
Outpatient 
or 
Therapeutic  Programme  (OTP): 
in  particular 
OTP  sites  based 
areas  or  villages  with  high 
malnutrition, or in targeted health 
posts. 
is 
empowered 
facilitate 
identification  and  referral  of  the 
malnourished cases to the OTP or 
the  SC,  (if  showing  medical 
complications), for treatment with 
therapeutic feeding products. 

community 
to 

The 

basic 

Providing  dry  take  home  rations 
and 
for 
children/adults  with  moderate 
without 
acute  malnutrition 
medical complications through:  

treatment 

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.  

blanket 

Blanket  nutritional  interventions 
(eg 
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 
widespread 
to 
malnutrition  and  related  mortality 
in nutritionally vulnerable groups.  

prevent 

Significant  numbers  of  severely  acutely  malnourished 
individual  (children  and/or  adults),  or  an  evident 
increase  in  numbers  of  severely  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 

Significant numbers of moderately acutely malnourished 
individual  (children  and/or  adults),  or  an  evident 
increase in numbers of moderately acutely malnourished 
individuals; and 

it  is  possible  to  identify  and  target  malnourished 
individuals, and 

Trained staff are available to supervise the SFP activities 

When global acute malnutrition 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 acute crisis before a reliable 
pipeline  can  be  established  for  an  adequate  general 
ration, and 

severe  acute  malnutrition 

treatment  of 
through 
TFC/SC/OTP  would  still  be  required  in  addition  to  a 
blanket feeding. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
of 

Provision 
micronutrient 
supplementation (eg Vit A, Vit B, 
Vit  C, 
or 
fortification of general foods.  

Iron,  Niacin) 

Complementary  activities,  such 
safe  water, 
as  provision  of 
sanitation,  nutrition  and  hygiene 
education,  health  services,  or 
other  public  health  interventions, 
within  nutrition  facilities,  and  at 
level. 
household 
Provision 
for 
malnourished  children  is  a  basic 
requirement  for  the  treatment  of 
malnutrition. 

/  community 
of 

healthcare 

Also, 
surveillance and surveys. 

nutritional 

screening, 

Also,  provision  of  protection  / 
take  home  /  family  rations  for 
families 
malnourished 
individuals.  

of 

Where  rates  of  micronutrient  deficiency  and  associated 
diseases are very high; 

and access to / availability of local or relief food sources 
containing the requisite micronutrients is compromised; 

and products / approaches used are certified as safe and 
effective.  

Where  beneficiaries  receiving  nutritional  care  do  not 
benefit  fully  from  the  assistance  provided  due  to  ill-
health, which severely impacts 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 
to  blanket 
nutritional interventions)  

targeted  as  opposed 

And where all interventions are linked to improved food 
consumption / food utilisation / nutritional outcomes. 

EN 

39 

   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  emergencies  and  their  immediate  aftermath  and  natural 
disasters  that  have  entailed  major  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 fighting or wars, producing the same effects as those 
described in subparagraph (a), especially where their own governments prove unable to help 
or there is a vacuum of power; 

(c) to help finance the transport of aid and efforts to ensure that it is accessible to those for 
whom it is intended, by all logistical means available, and by protecting humanitarian goods 
and personnel, but excluding operations with defence implications; 

(d) to carry out short-term rehabilitation and reconstruction work, especially on infrastructure 
and equipment, in close association 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 population movements (refugees, displaced people and 
returnees)  caused  by  natural  and  man-made  disasters  and  carry  out  schemes  to  assist 
repatriation to the country of origin and resettlement there when the conditions laid down in 
current international agreements are in place; 

(f)  to  ensure  preparedness  for  risks  of  natural  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 international agreements. 

EN 

40 

   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  Assessment  of  the  Developmental  Effectiveness  of 
Food  Aid  and  the  Effects  of  its  Tying  Status,  Report  to  the  Working  Group  on  Aid 
effectiveness and Donor Practices,  of the  DAC.  (DCD/DAC/EFF(2004/9)  Development  Co-
operation Directorate, OECD. Paris.  

Devereux,  S.  (2006)  Distinguishing  between  chronic  and  transitory  food  insecurity  in 
emergency needs assessments. SENAC, WFP, Rome.  

Department  for  International  Development  (2002)  Eliminating  Hunger-  Strategy  for 
Achieving the Millennium Development Goal on Hunger, May 2002 

Department for International Development (2006) Saving lives, relieving suffering, protecting 
dignity: DfID's Humanitarian Policy, 2006. 

Dilley  M.  and  Boudreau  T.E.  (2001)  Coming  to  terms  with  vulnerability:  a  critique  of  the 
food security definition. Food Policy, Volume 26, Number 3, pp. 229-247(19) 

European  Commission  (2001)  Linking  Relief,  Rehabilitation  and  Development  –  An 
Assessment, COM (2001) 153 final of 23.04.2001 

European  Commission  (2004)  Communication  from  the  commission  to  the  council  and  the 
European Parliament Financial Perspectives 2007 - 2013 COM(2004) 487 final, 14.7.2004 

European Commission (2007) Food security thematic 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 Insecurity 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 Humanitarian Practice Network at ODI 

Maxwell  D.  et  al.  (2008)  Rethinking  Food  Security  in  Humanitarian  Response,  Paper 
Presented to the Food Security Forum Rome, April 16-18, 2008 

EN 

41 

   EN 

Oxfam GB (2002) Guiding Principles for Response to Food Crises 

PARTICIP  GmbH  (2004)  Thematic  Evaluation  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 Essay on Entitlements and Deprivation. Oxford: 
Clarendon Press.  

Smith,  L.  and  Lawrence  Haddad  (2000)  Overcoming  Child  Malnutrition  in  Developing 
Countries: Past Achievements and Future Choices. 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 systems 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-nutrition  Initiative:  Global  Framework  for 
Action, Executive Board Second Regular Session Rome, 6–10 November 2006 

WFP (2009) Gender Policy- Promoting Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women in 
Addressing  Food  and  Nutrition  Challenges,  Presented  at  Executive  Board  First  Regular 
Session, Rome, 9–11 February 2009 

WFP  (2009)  WFP  Policy  on  Disaster  Risk  Reduction,  Presented  at  Executive  Board  First 
Regular Session, Rome, 9–11 February 2009 

World Bank (1986) Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing 
Countries. 

EN 

42 

   EN