Assessing the Implementation of the Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises (FFA) in Jordan
Summary Report
- Background
Despite the absence of violent conflicts within the Jordanian borders, the impact of the current neighboring conflicts on food security and the socio-economic situation remains significant. Jordan is surrounded by three conflict inflicted Arab states (Palestine, Syria, Iraq) and is close to several other unstable countries. The most critical factor affecting Jordan in terms of the crises is the resulting displacement that affects the lives of refugees and host communities alike. Jordan is the second largest recipient of refugees worldwide as compared to the size of its population (89 refugees per 1000 inhabitants). This is causing immense pressure on Jordan’s very limited resources. Despite the return of a significant number of refugees to Syria, Jordan still hosts more than 700,000 Syrian refugees, 80% of which live below the poverty line and 51% of which are children. The sudden influx of refugees has augmented the demand for infrastructure and public services and exacerbated unemployment, poverty, and food insecurity. Jordan, which imports around 97% of its cereal intake, witnessed rising food prices because of the growing demand but also due to the drop in Syrian food imports by at least 50%. Furthermore Jordanian agricultural and food exports which pass through Syrian lands, were completely halted for a number of years. At the end of year 2018 Jordan and Syria agreed to the reopening of the vital trade route (Jaber crossing) but improvements need time to be seen. Recovery of the food and agricultural sectors needs major efforts by national and international efforts. Attention must be given to the needs of local farmers and food producers which has not yet been done.
While there are many development partners working in Jordan, an analysis of their programs is minimal. Interventions by development partners have often had negative consequences, and rarely are these programs assessed to ensure that they “do no harm” or aggravate food insecurity. This ineffectiveness is usually the result of both, cooperation partners overlooking national agendas and priorities, but also the lack of guidance and accountability mechanisms set to remedy these occurrences. Moreover, there is very little exchange between local CSO, development cooperation partners, donors, government representatives and international organizations on the best policies and programs required to tackle food insecurity and enhance the agricultural sector.
The Arab Group for the Protection of Nature held a multistakeholder workshop in 2018 to address the implications of conflict on food security and agriculture in Jordan and raise awareness on the CFS-endorsed Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises. This national assessment complements the workshop by mapping a number of responses taken by stakeholders (ie. projects, policies, etc) to address food security in the context of conflict and examine their coherence to FFA.
- Methodology
(i)Major actors were mapped, and 3 organizations were identified for interviewing.
(ii) In depth Interviews were scheduled with high-level personnel in each organization
1) World Food Programme (WFP)
Name of Interviewee : Mr. Mohammad Ismael
Position : Head of Programme
2)Food and Agricultural Administration (FAO),
Name of Interviewee : Nasredin Hag Elamin
Position: FAO Representative in Jordan
3)Jordanian Government- Ministry of Agriculture
Name of Interviewee: Nada Freihat
Position: Head of Organizations Division, Directorate of Agreements and International Cooperation Department
Organizations were interviewed on:
· their programs and policies based in Jordan;
· their level of knowledge of the FFA;
· their own assessment of compliance.
(iii) Additional research made on the organization (mainly via their communication content (e.g. website, reports, strategies etc.)
(iv) Each organization’s compliance with the FFA principles was analyzed from APN’s perspective
(v) Main Conclusions and Recommendations Identified
Based on the previous analyses APN identified which principles require more attention in future programming by the three actors. It also recommended next steps to further disseminate knowledge and enhance implementation of the FFA.
- Summary of Findings
The main objective of WFP is to provide short-term solutions for hunger. Its programming in Jordan reflects this. Taking a longer-term approach, through advocacy, could enhance the sustainability of its work. WFP should and could raise further awareness of the need for protection and peacebuilding to benefit the Jordanian and refugee communities with which it works. In this way, it could better implement FFA Principles 4 and 9 without deviating from its mandate. For instance, it could communicate with the 36 member states on its executive board to strengthen state commitments to realizing national and extraterritorial obligations that align with the FFA.
The mandate of FAO–with its focus on sustainable development–naturally orients the organization toward several aspects of the FFA. It is unclear if FAO comprehensively analyzes underlying determinants of food insecurity in Jordan. It does seem to do so at the international level. In Jordan, FAO could improve its programming and messaging to align with FFA Principles 2, 4, 8, and 9 (on nutrition, protection, flexible financing, and peacebuilding). Of particular note, FAO’s work and budget in Jordan are limited in comparison to other country portfolios. As Jordan has the second-highest per-capita refugee population and a very high food import rate, FAO could significantly expand its presence.
FAO and WFP collaborate with the Jordanian government to implement programmes for the benefit of refugees and host communities, fulfilling parts of FFA Principles 1, 5, and 7. While programmes have been designed and implemented in collaboration with state institutions, by failing to involve civil society organizations and affected communities in the consultations, WFP and FAO only partially fulfilled Principle 7.
The Jordanian Ministry of Agriculture would have more strongly complied with FFA had it retained the specialized food security unit that was dissolved a year before our interview. This specialized unit was replaced with the "Capacity Building and Rural Woman Fund" granted to the Jordanian government by the Japanese government. Regardless of the importance of this new department, its creation leaves a gap in the Ministry and proves that governance can be guided by development partners rather than the national agenda (in violation of Principle 7). Several of the FFA principles are not directly relevant to the Ministry of Agriculture because of this governmental fragmentation.
The Ministry should have a much larger role in ensuring that foreign humanitarian and development assistance aligns with country priorities as per Principle 7 of the FFA. There is no national process to ensure aid supports local food security. The Ministry of Planning generally reviews program grants, including for agriculture and food relief. There is also a need for a multistakeholder platform to facilitate communication between different government institutions, CSO, donors, and development partners. This platform could enhance participation in adopting, implementing, and monitoring the FFA, in alignment with Principle 6.
The Ministry could better support local food systems (covered in Principle 1) by enhancing the national cultivation of basic food crops, building food reserves, and supporting small farmers' access to local markets. The urban sprawl in Jordan also necessitates a strong response from the Ministry to enact Principle 10 and protect agricultural lands. Other principles the Ministry should organize a response to include 2, 6, 8, 10, and 11 (on nutrition, comprehensive analysis and research, flexible funding for preparedness and disaster risk reduction, natural resource management, and good governance).
Our research has revealed that some FFA principles are not covered by any of these three groups. None are strongly in line with Principle 2 (on nutrition), which should be well within their mandates. It can be argued that the FFA principles related to root cause remediation are out of their mandates. If these organisations adopt that stance, they must partner with other specialized local, national, and intergovernmental institutions to create comprehensive responses to the unique challenges facing the Jordanian food system.
- Concluding Remarks
To conclude, some recommendations APN has for implementation in the future are as follows:
1. Do a better job disseminating the FFA to all parties including:
a. All institutions and groups that impact food security and nutrition in Jordan in order to ensure compliance.
This could include organizing a number of training workshops to various groups working within Jordan including: decision makers; donors and development partners; local and international CSO; the private sector, etc. Ministries of Agriculture; Planning; and Foreign Affairs should be involved. To have an impact there needs to be greater attempts to explain the FFA to employees in different departments and at different levels (management, programming, technical assistance etc.)
The training should ideally aim to induce the integration of the FFA principles in the different actors’ formal processes.
b. Affected communities:
Training affected communities on the FFA will enable them to know their rights; shape their demands and actions to enhance their own food security and nutrition.
2. The government needs to do a better job to make sure that they are completing their two-fold job.
a. Making sure their programs better align with the FFA
b. Ensuring that those functioning within their borders also follow the FFA (e.g. cooperation partner, private sector, CSO, etc.
3. CSO should demand that a special unit within the Jordanian Government for food security and nutrition is created. This unit should host a multi-stakeholder forum or platform that includes all actors to facilitate ownership, communication, and participation.
4. As for the principles that are not being covered by any party, there needs to be an exploration into which bodies would be responsible- specifically in terms of the aspects that aim to ensure the protection of those affected as well as merging food and nutrition with peacebuilding. This also includes establishing accountability and involving bodies that will work on resolving the underlying causes of hunger. For example, the Human Rights Council; Security Council; General Assembly, ICC, and Ministries of Foreign Affairs.
5. More specific recommendations for each of the three interviewed organizations can be found in the comprehensive report in the sections on Main conclusions and Findings and Analysis of compliance to the FFA principles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts of Principle 1, Principle 5 and Principle 7 of the FFA were implemented by FAO and WFP in Jordan through specific programmes for the benefit of refugees and host communities in collaboration with the Jordanian government.
Principle 7 was only partially implemented because the programmes were designed and implemented in collaboration with state institutions. However, FAO, WFP did not involve civil society organizations/affected communities in the consultations or the programmes.
The World Food Programme should and could bring further attention to principles 4 (on Protection), and principle 9 (on Peace building) of the FFA.
Generally, the majority of WFP’s programs are only short-term, quick fix, solutions for hunger and while that is the main objective of the World Food Programme, their work and efficiency could be enhanced by including a more long-term approach, mainly via advocacy work. They could for instance further communicate with their executive board which is made of 36 member states to influence state actions and ensure commitment to realizing obligations within national borders and beyond (i.e. extraterritorial obligations). WFP needs to ensure that their food deliveries are not going to be used in political gain or held against people in protracted crises.
FAO does a decent job complying to several aspects of the FFA, particularly because they are mandated to focus on sustainable development. They could also do a better job with principles 2 (on Nutrition) , 4 (on Protection) , 8 (on Flexible financing) and 9 (Peacebuilding) . It is unclear if FAO is undergoing comprehensive analysis in Jordan (Principle 6) to identify underlying determinants of food insecurity however they seem to focus on that at the international level. FAO’s work and budget in Jordan is very limited in comparison to other country portfolios and could be much further expanded considering Jordan has the second highest share of refugees compared to its population in the world, and has one of the highest food import rates.
Lastly, the Ministry of Agriculture’s compliance with the FFA could be a lot better has there been a specialized food security unit in the ministry. There was a unit that was dissolved a year ago that was responsible of addressing food security in all of its complex aspects. Consequently, several of the FFA principles are not directly relevant to this particular ministry due to the fact that the government is fragmented in its overall organization. However, there are many principles that the Ministry could work harder to execute in terms of complying with the FFA. As of now, the Ministry does not comply with principles 2 (on Nutrition) , 6 (on Comprehensive analysis and research) 7( on Country ownership and participation), 8 (On flexible funding) that is linked to preparedness and disaster risk reduction, 10 (on Natural resource management) and 11 (On Good Governance). It could also develop its compliance with Principle 1 (Supporting resilience and local food systems) by enhancing the cultivation of basic food crops, building food reserves, supporting small farmers access to local markets; and Principle 10 by protecting agricultural lands from urban sprawl.
Particularly, the ministry should have a much larger role in making sure that the development assistance received for both programs and research is aligned with country priorities as per principle 7 of the FFA (on Country Ownership and Participation). Perhaps one of the main problems deriving from the absence of a strong specialized food security unit, is the lack of a national process that could align foreign assistance with country priorities to ensure local food security. Grant are generally received through the Ministry of Planning. Had there been a food security unit it could have also developed a much needed multistakeholder platform that facilitates communication between the different government institutions (e.g. the ministries of environment, water and irrigation, and social development) ;CSO; donors and development partners. This platform could enhance participation in designing, adopting, implementing and monitoring frameworks, policies and projects including the FFA.
This specialized unit on Food Security used to exist but was replaced with the Capacity Building and Rural Woman fund that was granted to the Jordanian government via the Japanese government. Regardless of the importance of this new department, it is does not cover tasks of a specialized and comprehensive food security unit and proves that the work of the ministry is guided by the grants given by development partners rather than a national agenda.
Overall and in conjunction with these conclusions, it has become evident that some principles of the FFA are not covered by any organization. None of the organizations are in line with principle 2 (on Nutrition) which should be within their mandate. It also can be argued that principle 4 (on Protection) and principle 9 (on Peacebuilding) are out of their mandates which brings the necessity of involving other specialized national and intergovernmental institutions such as the Human Rights Council; Security Council; General Assembly, ICC, and Ministries of Foreign Affairs.