Monitoring the food security situation and working to ensure effective implementation of the strategic response plan is a core function of any country FSC.
The Coordinator should be aware of and distinguish between different but complementary monitoring systems to track evolution/progress of 1) the food security situation (e.g. assessments and analysis see chapter 6); 2) the cluster’s performance (e.g. CCPM see 5.9.1) and finally; 3) the food security response (e.g. Flash Appeal and/or HRP – see 9.5) – described here below.
FSC Response Monitoring: Response monitoring is a key part of the HPC. This is a continuous process which tracks the progress of a Cluster’s response against the targets and objectives of the Flash Appeal and/or the HRP, and which seeks to determine if the Cluster is doing what it committed to in the HRP (see more from OCHA).
FSC response monitoring has two main objectives:
- To identify achievements and shortcomings in the delivery of food security assistance as planned in the HRP, i.e. providing the FSC with an evidence base for making decisions about what actions should be taken to strengthen the humanitarian response, redress shortcomings, fill gaps and/or adjust the HRP.
- To improve accountability towards FSC members, national governments, donors (and the affected population).
FSC response monitoring builds mainly on the 5W matrix (see the text box below on 5Ws) and derived information management products (e.g. presence map, response overview and gap analysis).
What is the role of the FSC Coordinator? In close collaboration with the IMO, the Coordinator is responsible for ensuring adequate FSC response monitoring both for internal purposes and in accordance with HPC monitoring requirements.
The Coordinator and IMO jointly monitor the collective food security response through data collection (5Ws) and analysis, with the Coordinator reviewing the IMO’s work and leading on the programmatic verification and analysis of the shared information. Specifically, the Coordinator should:
- Consult partners and agree on a logical framework, including a (simple) monitoring framework (SMART indicators, frequency, etc). This is done during the HRP discussion (see 9.5.2).
- Work with the IMO to ensure the logframe is reflected in the 5W matrix to monitor partners’ activities that contribute to implementation of the FSC Strategic Plan. In setting up the 5W system, consider existing reporting systems to: 1) avoid duplications and/or double reporting (check with the Cash Working Group and Early Recovery Cluster where it exists); and 2) strengthen available capacities, including national authority systems, if any.
- If the FSC decides to conduct a response-wide outcome monitoring, define together with partners key indicators, and advocate for M&E support (staffing) for the cluster to lead the joint exercise in terms of data collection and analysis for the whole response (contact the GST for up-to-date information and feasibility analysis on this).
- In the early stages of crisis: even in the absence of a dedicated IMO, swiftly initiate a rapid and simple monitoring system (3/4W).
- Conduct field monitoring visits, and, whenever possible, engage sub-national level clusters, local actors and affected communities in monitoring activities to increase accountability and diversity, and advocate for context-specific solutions.
- Follow up on and encourage partners to regularly share updates on funding through the financial tracking system (FTS).
- Consolidate the reporting and information needs of various stakeholders (e.g. OCHA, FSC, donors), coordinate with the ICCG.
- If requested, handle information confidentially and ensure anonymity to partners (e.g. ICRC, see 3.6.3, see also the text box below on the importance of data protection).
- Get clearance for external information (e.g. food security sitreps, dashboards) from CLAs.
Resources:
- The FSC IM Handbook/Toolbox (gFSC, Placeholder, 2023) includes details on IM requirements, standards and templates.
- Food Assistance Monitoring Tools: Onsite, Post distribution and Market tools (gFSC, 2015 – note that an updated document is currently under review).
- See also the FSC website on response monitoring.
- For an overview of HPC monitoring requirements see 9.7.
The WHO does WHAT, WHERE (3Ws), WHEN (4Ws), and to WHOM (5Ws) is a key FSC tool (for data collection and management) and product. Although the responsibility of the IMO, the Coordinator should be keenly aware of the content as it should reflect the logical framework of the HRP.
As a management tool, it provides a useful geographic and thematic overview to highlight major gaps as well as overlaps. These data are often displayed using simple maps (e.g. partners presence maps, activity maps). Usually, Common Operational Datasets (CODs) (and geographic identification codes [P-codes] for locations) are used to support the work of humanitarian actors across multiple sectors (note: CODs and P-codes links may change once content on HumanitarianResponse.info shifts to ReliefWeb during 2023). The disaggregation of data by sex and age (SADD) and information on people with special needs help to understand who is affected and to inform decision-making and response.
Note: The 5W tool can also be used to collect information on partners’ planned interventions, which is useful for both operational coordination and advocacy.
The 5W matrix contains all information shared by partners and is not shared with OCHA without partners’ agreement. OCHA receives a consolidated analysis in line with FSC objectives and indicators.