Erin C. Lentz

Market information and food insecurity response analysis

Food aid is no longer the only, or even the dominant, response to widespread food insecurity. Donors, governments, NGOs and recipient communities exhibit rapidly growing interest in and experimentation with cash-based alternatives, both in the form of direct cash distribution to food insecure persons, and of local or regional purchase of food using cash provided to operational agencies by donors. But humanitarian assistance and development communities lack a systematic, field-tested framework for choosing among food- and/or cash-based responses to food insecurity. This paper outlines the rationale for “response analysis” and introduces a new, field-tested, systematic approach to this emergent activity. The Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis (MIFIRA) framework provides a logically sequenced set of questions, and corresponding analytical tools to help operational agencies anticipate the likely impact of alternative (food- and/or cash-based) responses and thereby identify the response that best fits a given food insecurity context.

Food Aid Targeting, Shocks and Private Transfers Among East African Pastoralists

Public transfers of food aid are intended largely to support vulnerable populations in times of stress. We use high frequency panel data among Ethiopian and Kenyan pastoralists to test the efficacy of food aid targeting under three different targeting modalities, food aids responsiveness to different types of shocks, and its relationship to private transfers. We find that self-targeting food-for-work or indicator-targeted free food distribution more effectively reach the poor than does food aid distributed according to community-based targeting. Food aid flows do not respond significantly to either covariate, community-level income or asset shocks, nor to idiosyncratic, household-level income or asset shocks. Rather, food aid flows appear to respond mainly to more readily observable rainfall measures. Finally, food aid does not appear to affect private transfers in any meaningful way, either by crowding out private gifts to recipient households nor by stimulating increased gifts by food aid recipients.

Food Aid and Dependency: Implications for Emergency Food Security Assessments

Discussions on food aid and dependency often draw on what appears to be a broad body of evidence, but closer inspection reveals that much of this does not in fact demonstrate a causal link between the two. This desk review has three objectives: (i) to identify the pathways through which negative dependency might arise; (ii) to outline how the targeting and management of food aid might affect the likelihood of negative dependency as a result of emergency operations or follow-on protracted relief and recovery operations; and (iii) to suggest indicators that assessment teams might employ in context-sensitive evaluations to reduce the risk of fostering negative dependency through food aid.

Cash, Food or Vouchers in Urban and Rural Kenya? An Application of the Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis Framework

This paper uses data on food market intermediation and on consumer behavior and preferences to clarify whether market-based cash and voucher programs are likely to prove effective for addressing food insecurity in rural and urban study sites in Kenya. The findings carry important implications for food security interventions by government and operational agencies. We find that context matters when undertaking a response analysis. Markets in surveyed urban settlements can respond better to a much larger injection of cash or vouchers than the surveyed rural areas can. Moreover, household vulnerabilities are associated with household preferences in different ways across the two sites. In rural areas, female headed households and households reporting a physical limit to market access strongly preferred food aid to cash or vouchers while in urban areas, households with these characteristics preferred the flexibility of cash or vouchers to food.

Cash, food, or vouchers? An application of the Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis Framework in urban and rural Kenya

This paper uses the Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis Framework to analyze data on food market intermediation and on consumer behavior and preferences in order to clarify whether market-based cash and voucher programs are likely to prove effective for addressing food insecurity in rural and urban study sites in Kenya. The findings carry important implications for food security interventions by government and operational agencies. We confirm that context matters when undertaking a response analysis. While we find that cash and/or vouchers are appropriate in both urban and rural locations, markets in surveyed urban settlements can respond better to a large injection of cash or vouchers than can surveyed rural areas. Moreover, household vulnerabilities are associated with household preferences in different ways across the two sites. In rural areas, female headed households and households reporting a physical limit to market access were among the groups that strongly preferred food aid to cash or vouchers while households with these characteristics in urban areas preferred the flexibility of cash or vouchers to food.

A Market Analysis and Decision Tree Tool for Response Analysis: Cash, Local Purchase and/or Imported Food Aid? The Decision Tree Tool

This document provides the Decision Tree Tool itself for the analysis of response options - cash, local purchase or imported food aid. The framework is kept simple for ease of communication: a sequence of specific questions to be answered, each matched with data needs and diagnostic tools commonly useful for effectively answering the question at hand. Maxwell, Lentz and Barrett (2007) explain the rationale for the Tool and its constituent questions. Users will want to consult that document for essential background information and for supplemental considerations that fall outside the scope of this tool. The extensive appendices to this document enumerate common secondary data sources (Appendix 1), primary data collection methods (Appendix 2), and offer more detail (and appropriate technical references) on the specifics of individual diagnostic tools (Appendix 3). Users will want to consult the appendices in detail before trying to implement the tool.

Responding to Food Insecurity: Employing the Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis Framework in Rural Northern Kenya

Abstract Aid agencies are increasingly advocating for cash transfers as a substitute or complement to food transfers when responding to both emergency and chronic food insecurity. Yet, cash is not always optimal. In this article, we demonstrate how a newly developed response analysis tool, the Marketing Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis (MIFIRA) framework can guide evidence-based identification of appropriate transfers. We present findings from a MIFIRA analysis in Marsabit; a remote and generally food-insecure district of northern Kenya. As a demonstration of the analytical versatility of MIFIRA, we utilise a variety of data, ranging from rigorously-collected household data, to market surveys and rapid assessments in focus groups. As a proof of concept, this article shows how MIFIRA can be effectively deployed in other regions facing chronic or emergency food insecurity to help response agencies make systematic decisions on a solid evidence base.

A Market Analysis and Decision Tree Tool for Response Analysis: Cash, Local Purchase and/or Imported Food Aid? Background Paper

This paper attempts to build on that framework to develop practical tools for field decision makers, although these decision tools are related specifically to the question of a food access shortfall at the household level, which may be related to a food availability shortfall at market, regional or national level.