MOÇAMBIQUE
Date: Thursday 16th Feb 2017
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
Brief Update on FSC Achievements for January 2017
Cyclone Dineo: Latest Update and Response Options/Expectations from FSC Agencies
Timing of Harvests visa vie Phase-out/Continuation of Emergency Food Assistance
IPC Presentation by FAO Regional IPC Mission (Awareness Raising & Areas of Concern from
Previous IPC Analyses)
5. AOB
1.0 Brief Update on FSC Achievements for January 2017
 The FSC Coordinator provided highlights on the achievements of the cluster for the month
of January 2017. He noted that about 900,000 beneficiaries out of a planned target of 1.4
million were reached with food assistance. This was lower than the coverage for December
2016 during which 978,000 people were reached with food assistance. The reduced
coverage was mainly due to operational challenges faced by agencies during the month.
 In terms of seed distribution, about 68,000 households out of a target number of 99,000
were reached with seeds representing 69% of the target. However only 51% of the overall
planned seed assistance was delivered. The FSC Coordinator however mentioned that the
information does not include figures from FAO, which would most likely raise the number of
beneficiaries assisted to more than 75% as of January 2017.
2.0 Cyclone Dineo: Latest Update and Response Options/Expectations from FSC Agencies
 The FSC Coordinator reiterated that Cyclone Dineo was expected to hit Gaza and
Inhambane provinces on 16th February 2017. The Cluster Coordinator requested Antonio
the National Technical Manager (NTM) for FEWSNET to provide any updates that he has so
far on the impact of the cyclone.
 The FEWSNET NTM indicated that it was too early to determine the exact impact of the
cyclone although some destruction particularly to buildings was recorded.
 The NTM indicated that the cyclone had depressed in-land with heavy rains mainly
observed and less windy conditions recorded. However damages to crops, buildings and
roads will be expected in the aftermath of the cyclone.
 In addition, given that some crops such as maize and groundnuts are at maturation stage,
excessive moisture from heavy rains and flooding could inhibit crops from drying hence
affecting the quality and amount of harvests realized.
1
 Overall, there will be need to respond in the aftermath of the cyclone in form of food
assistance, WASH and Shelter.
 The FSC sought to clarify from DFID if potential carry over funds could be channeled to
address the needs arising from the cyclone. DFID indicated that NGOs under their funding
have an inbuilt crisis modifier in their projects and will hence be able to respond to new
needs without necessarily affecting drought funding.
 Members noted that the cyclones could change the scenario in terms of planned assistance
in the affected areas i.e. depending on the overall impact, it may be necessary to extend
assistance to the affected areas beyond March 2017. In Machanga and Govuro, INGC and
WFP have already been contacted to provide assistance with seeds.
 The FEWSNET National Technical Manager (NTM) noted that post flood crop production is
usually a success due to the availability of adequate moisture.
 Members observed that while Gaza and Inhambane have a heavy presence of humanitarian
organizations, most of the affected districts are located at the coastal areas and are most
likely not supported with food assistance. It will hence be important to target the newly
affected districts with emergency relief.
3.0 Timing of Harvests visa vie Phase-out/Continuation of Emergency Food Assistance
 The FSC Coordinator indicated that there is need to revisit the discussion on when to
actually phase out food assistance in light of the planned phase-out timeline of end of
March 2017. The reasons for this relate to the current cyclones, pockets in the country
receiving below average rainfall, late planting and planned continuation of food assistance
by WFP.
 DFID noted that there is need for a coherent policy on providing assistance at district level
especially in locations where more than one agency is operating. Members agreed that a list
of districts requiring assistance (including justification) should be compiled and shared with
cluster members as guidance on areas where the FSC will continue providing food
assistance. DFID indicated that the list of districts would be required urgently in order to
modify the grants.
 Members who visited some field locations particularly in the southern part of the country
noted that production looks good and given limited hazards, it is likely that food assistance
will not be required after the harvest.
 COSACA indicated that apart from pockets in Zambezia, much of their current food
assistance would be phased-out after March 2017. With regard to determining the actual
food rations, despite no concrete assessment to guide the process at the moment, the most
rational approach would be to reduce the ration sizes given the likelihood of a good
agriculture season.
2
4.0 IPC Presentation by FAO Regional IPC Mission (Awareness Raising & Areas of Concern
from Previous IPC Analyses)
 The regional IPC Mission from FAO/WFP accompanied by Antonio Paulo from SETSAN made
a presentation on the IPC process. The presentation was segregated into two parts. The first
part focused on the challenges and how the process can be improved while the second part
focused on the technical aspects of the IPC process.
 Following the first presentation, Joao Manja from WFP indicated that Mozambique is one of
the first three countries in the South African region that has successfully implemented the
IPC and using it as a tool for policy decisions.
 One of the issues that came up is the low participation of members in the IPC process,
which is a challenge given that IPC is a participatory process that requires consensus from
all stakeholders. DFID noted that it would be important to understand the reasons behind
the low participation by stakeholders.
 The FSC Coordinator indicated that participation is very critical in the IPC process and
encouraged members to fully participate and contribute to the subsequent IPC exercises in
March and May 2017.
 The second concern from cluster members was the estimation of the number of people in
need of assistance. Members noted that IPC results are only representative at provincial
level and the there is no accurate methodology for determining the district level results.
 The IPC team observed that given the large size of the country as well as numerous districts,
it is not practical undertaking a national IPC exercise at district level even with availability of
funds.
 Members proposed the use of livelihood zones to estimate the population affected in
various districts. FEWSNET noted that figures in the latest IPC (November 2016) were in fact
generated using a livelihoods approach.
 Joao Manja (WFP IPC expert) indicated that the alternative would be to undertake a very
thorough and comprehensive baseline for the country, as was the case with Zimbabwe. This
would make it easier for future analysis as spot checks would be used to compare the actual
situation against the baseline.
 The FSC Coordinator noted that there is a good presence of agencies in the field coupled
with a lot of information generated, which is most probably not used to beef up the IPC
analysis. The Cluster Coordinator urged members to participate actively in the subsequent
IPC processes and also share any assessments, reports or other information they may have
in order to make the IPC outcomes more robust and reliable.
5.0 Summary of Key Action Points
 Compile the list of districts in which assistance may still be required and share this with
members including key donors.
 Share the power point presentations on IPC with FSC members.
3
Participants
Name
Organisation/Title
Phone
Email
Inacio Pereira
Antonio Paulo
Leo Macgillivray
Kenneth Anyanzo
Quraishia Merzouk
Kudzayi Kariri
Joao Manja
Adelaide Ganhane
Ventura Mazula
Tamas Zaba
Juliet Lyon
Leonor Domingos
Edson Machevo
Rumbidzayi Machiridza
Antonio Mavie
Saul Butters
FAO
SETSAN
OCHA/RCO
Coordinator-FSC
SADCCRUAA
SADCCRUAA
WFP-RBJ (IPC)
World Vision
CHEMO/World Vision
UNICEF
JAM
USAID
CEDES
WFP
FEWSNET
COSACA
82 060 6660
82 396 7360
84 639 4724
82 988 4959
+27 618751162
+27 741788975
+263772139136
82 621 9160
82 301 8910
84 019 4119
84 577 4462
82 121 0510
84 900 9148
84 285 3588
82 410 7250
82 300 1019
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
4