|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
Home
- List of Acronyms
- List of Cooperating Sponsors
- Conversion Tables
Part One
Section I:
Commodities
- Commodity Availability
- Commodity Characteristics
- References
Section II:
Food Commodity
Fact Sheets
- Beans, Black
- Beans, Great Northern
- Beans, Kidney (Light Red, Dark Red, All types)
- Beans, Navy (Pea Beans)
- Beans, Pink
- Beans, Pinto
- Beans, Small Red
- Bulgur (BW)
- Bulgur, Soy Fortified (SFBW)
- Corn (bagged, bulk)
- Cornmeal
- Cornmeal, Soy-Fortified (CMSF)
- Corn Soy Blend (CSB)
- Corn Soy Milk (CSM)
- Corn Soy Milk, Instant (ICSM)
- Lentils
- Non Fat Dry Milk (NFDM)
- Peas
- Rice
- Rice (Parboiled)
- Sorghum
- Sorghum Grits, Soy-Fortified (SFSG)
- Fortified Refined Vegetable Oil
- Wheat
- Wheat Flour
- Wheat Soy Blend (WSB)
- Wheat Soy Milk (WSM)
Section III:
Storage/Shelflife
Specifications
- Storage Specifications
- Storage Inspection Checklist
- Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities
- References
Section IV:
Controlling
Damage to Food
Commodities
- Cleaning and Inspecting
- Insect Control
- Rodent Control
- Reference Chart for Controlling Damage to Food Commodities
- References
Part Two
An Overview
Part Three
|
|
|
|
|
Part II: Module 2: Food for Work |
|
Updated
January 2006
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
overarching objective of
USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) is to improve food security of
vulnerable populations in developing countries around the world. Food
security exists when people have access to sufficient food to meet
their nutrition needs for a healthy and productive life.
The
programming of food aid
through Food-for-Work (FFW) activities can help improve food security
by addressing temporary household food insecurity while supporting key
construction and rehabilitation activities that lead to longer term,
more sustainable food security results. Usually, the major
consideration in FFW activities is the income transfer value of a food
ration as a wage equivalent or incentive. However, depending on the
problems being addressed, the nutritional value of the food provided
may also be a major consideration. FFW can be used to support a range
of objectives primarily in non-emergency, development contexts, but
also in some emergency programs where both rehabilitation projects and
nutritional support receive high priority.
FFW
programs include the
construction or repair of farm-to-market and urban roads, schools,
health clinics, irrigation systems, public water and sanitation systems
and other infrastructure and environmental protection and conservation
activities. FFW's self targeting feature is useful in rehabilitation
following disaster situations, where needy individuals will contribute
their labor for food while helping to return the community's
infrastructure to normal.. FFW interventions are particularly
appropriate when faced with the combination of widespread and/or
seasonal food deficits and high unemployment rates. FFW is also common
when drought, dislocation or introduction of valuable new technologies
in the local area temporarily disrupts productive activities of a
farming community.
Good
practice dictates that the
community should participate in the FFW decision-making process and
should view the activity as creating a valuable community asset, such
as tree planting on common property.
II.
GUIDELINES FOR COMMODITY SELECTION FOR FFW PROGRAMS
This
module is intended to be
flexible enough to permit the selection of food aid rations that are
appropriate for each FFW situation. The box below identifies five key
steps in the development of a FFW ration:
Box 1 - Five Steps for Selecting FFW Commodity Rations:
|
STEP 1: PROGRAM DESIGN
The
five key components in the
design of a FFW program proposal are: (1) carrying out a needs
assessment; (2) determining whether FFW is appropriate; (3) identifying
the target group; (4) developing the FFW objectives; and (5)
determining the distribution mode and frequency. For detailed
guidelines on proposal development see FFP's Title II Guidelines for
Development Programs. Also refer to the Food Aid Management
website. An explanation of each design component follows:
1.
Carrying Out A Needs Assessment
As
the food aid component of the
program is designed, it is important to articulate why food aid is
needed and how it will be used to meet program goals. A needs
assessment will provide information relevant to the design of the
overall technical intervention (e.g. in agriculture or water and
sanitation) and specific information necessary for designing the FFW
component.
A
needs assessment will help to
determine the nature, extent, severity, and distribution of the food
need. It should include an analysis of the degree of food accessibility
and availability and other information that would inform to what foods
might be useful in a FFW "payment" package. It should collect
information on the local labor market, including seasonality in the
supply and demand for labor, and local wage rates. The assessment
should also consider who is most in need of food and during what
seasons to have a basis for describing criteria for selection of
beneficiaries, the geographic areas to be targeted, and the period of
time during which FFW should be offered. The ideal timing for FFW
activities is during periods of food scarcity when local labor
opportunities are limited.
Primary
Data Collection:
Primary data may be collected using survey methods that gather
information about food consumption, nutritional status, food
availability, agricultural production patterns or migration.
Qualitative data gathering techniques are also helpful. These may
include techniques such as in-depth interviews, focus group
discussions, participatory rural appraisal, or observation. Tips for
collecting primary data are provided in USAID/CDIE's Performance Monitoring and
Evaluation Tips. Other informational resources may be found in the
Resource List at the end of this module.
Secondary
Data Collection:
Secondary data may be collected from various sources including reports
from the USAID/Africa Bureau-funded Famine Early Warning System (FEWS);
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) crop and food supply
reports; UN World Food Program (WFP) food aid assessment reports;
international and local PVO reports and other donor reports.
2.
Determining whether a FFW component is appropriate
FFW
may be an appropriate
component of an emergency or non-emergency program where the assessment
identifies the need for the following: 1) public infrastructure, such
as roads, irrigation systems, public water supply systems, schools and
health clinics and environmental protection or conservation activities;
2) remuneration of participant's time for training; 3) compensation for
decreases in food production while improved technologies are being
implemented; 4) support for household food need while rehabilitating
agriculture or damaged infrastructure following a disaster or
resettlement..
The
assessment should document
that food and labor opportunities are scarce in the program areas, and
show that FFW activities (in-kind transfer of food resources) would not
interfere with local labor markets, act as a disincentive to local
enterprise, including farm production, and would reinforce forms of
community initiative rather than simply replace community labor with
FFW paid labor.
The
assessment should also
document the likelihood that in-kind transfer of food would result in
preventing the following: 1) divestiture of productive assets by
households (or other negative coping strategies), 2) out-migration,
and/or 3) increased prevalence of malnutrition.
3.
Identifying and Targeting a Group
Typically,
FFW programs are
implemented in communities facing seasonal food deficits that can
benefit from improved infrastructure and to accelerate economic
development. Population groups undergoing reconstruction following and
emergency are also candidates. Whereas whole communities are often
targeted, within these communities the focus is often on poor
households with unemployed or underemployed adult men or women.
To
the extent feasible, the FFW
ration should be designed to be self-targeted to these groups. FFW
rations can be self-targeted by developing a ration with a value
slightly less than prevailing local wage, and including less preferred
commodities. Selection of a food used in child feeding may also help in
self-targeting women.
Clearly,
a FFW ration set too
high will attract a greater spectrum of the available workers, but will
cut into local labor markets, and the food may not benefit the most
needy individuals, women, and families. For instance, men may take the
bulk of the work in situations where women heads of household are in
greater need. However, rates set too low while targeting the poorest
well, may be unjust and will not get the job done.
4.
Developing Program Activity Objectives
USAID's
Managing for Results
terminology in Annex 1 of Part III should be reviewed prior to
drafting a proposal for submission to FFP. Program objectives in the
food aid program proposal should be result statements, that is, what is
the end result to be achieved by the intervention? For example, one
results-oriented objective might be "improved access to food by
households living in communities served by new or improved
farm-to-market roads."
Each
result statement should
have at least one performance indicator to track progress. Performance
indicators are variables designed to measure progress toward
achievement of the stated result. Sample food security indicators may
be found in Annex II. USAID/CDIE's Performance Monitoring and
Evaluation Tips include guidance for developing result statements
and performance indicators.
When
possible, both impact
(performance) and output indicators should be developed and monitored,
although many of the output level indicators may not be reported to
USAID. The benefits of having both are self-evident. For example, it is
important for the PVO to know the amount of infrastructure constructed
(e.g. km of farm-to-market roads improved - an output). It is also
important to determine how the economic situation and/or food access
and/or utilization of the target group improved (impact).
5.
Determining the Distribution Mode and Frequency
The
mode and frequency of FFW
payments should be based on recipients' needs, program objectives, the
type and quantity of the ration and commodity transport and
distribution costs. Generally, FFW rations are distributed as take-home
rations (dry, uncooked rations.)
FFW
activities should be
designed to increase the recipient's self-reliance and self-esteem.
This may be accomplished by encouraging the affected populations to
provide their comments on the mix and size of the ration, food payment
ratios, and the distribution and monitoring systems. The latter
programming approach helps preserve the dignity of the recipients while
contributing to increased program efficiency and effectiveness.
Back to Steps for Selecting Commodity Rations
STEP 2: SUITABILITY OF FOOD COMMODITIES
The
suitability of the food aid
should be assessed with regard to the needs and preferences of the
targeted individuals, households, and community. A ration is suitable
if it can be used effectively to achieve intended objectives. Managers
should judge the suitability of food rations to the local food
consumption patterns, nutritional requirements, locally available
foods, food processing and storage capacities, and local market prices.
Below are key suitability factors to be taken into consideration in
developing rations for FFW programs:
Cultural
Suitability: It
is important to consider food consumption patterns, taste preferences,
and traditional taboos of the target population when designing the FFW
ration package. For example, Brazilians prefer black beans while
Nicaraguans prefer red beans. Clearly, food that is not eaten does not
have any nutritional value to the beneficiary. Foods that are totally
foreign to the local diet are not recommended, and they should not be
introduced without sensitizing the recipients about the new food
commodity.
Nutritional
Values:
Although FFW is intended primarily as an in-kind income-transfer,
hunger and nutritional factors should also be considered. For example,
one might consider the dietary needs of working women of childbearing
age and those of their children by including fortified soy-blended
cereals and fortified vegetable oil in their ration. The program should
also insure that the amount of energy required to do the work is not
greater than the amount of energy provided by the ration.
Availability
of Processing and/or Storage Facilities:
Consider factors that will affect food preparation, such as access to
mills, processing and storage facilities, access to fuel for cooking
and preparation time. For example, it would not be appropriate whole
grains when milling facilities are not available, or to use beans
(which require considerable energy to cook) in an area where there is a
shortage of fuel. The means participants will transport rations to
their homes and their facilities for storing them might also be
considered. transport the commodities to their home.
Timing
of Harvests and Seasonal Shortages:
Methods for obtaining the required information on harvests and seasonal
availability of food include market analyses, and focus group and key
informant interviews. Other considerations include whether labor
requirements will impact negatively on local agricultural production or
the local labor market. If so, variations in the FFW work schedule
and/or distribution schedule in response to these needs should be made
accordingly.
Back to Steps for Selecting Commodity Rations
STEP 3: RATION SPECIFICATIONS
Generally,
income transfer
(monetary) value is a primary consideration in determining the ration
in FFW programs. The income transfer value of a commodity is equivalent
to the price of a similar food in the local market. For example, if a
household buys whole grain wheat and processes it at home, and the
commodity under consideration is whole grain wheat, then the value of
the commodity will be the market price of the whole grain wheat. If the
commodity is wheat flour, the value is the market price of wheat flour
or of whole grain wheat plus an allowance for costs of milling.
FFW
food rations are given as a
wage payment (based either on time worked or output produced) or as an
incentive. Their nutritional value is usually a secondary
consideration, depending on the situation. The recipients'
participation costs, such as transportation, can also be considered in
determining the quantity of FFW food to be provided. Past program
experience and conversations with local authorities and community
leaders may be used to factor in "participation costs" before agreeing
upon a minimum FFW ration level.
Descriptions
of each situation are presented below.
1.
Income Transfer Value as Wage Payment:
FFW projects use commodities as wage equivalent payments in activities
where the workers are not the sole or direct beneficiaries of the
infrastructure being created. In these situations, FFW is the wage they
receive for their work. Wage equivalent payments may also be
appropriate in situations where the workers do benefit directly from
the infrastructure, but providing the amount of labor required would
not be feasible without some sort of remuneration.
Payments
are made daily (rare),
weekly or monthly if the workers are engaged for a significant period
of time. The frequency of FFW payments is likely to be greater in
emergency situations. If the FFW program involves a major construction
activity with a high degree of technical input and performance
standards (e.g., major roads, etc.), it may be necessary to provide a
full wage payment using a high value commodity in order to attract
qualified labor. However, many programs work with local governments to
cover the skilled labor requirements with counterpart funding.
2.
Income Transfer Value as an Incentive:
FFW may be provided as an incentive when individuals benefit directly
from a work project or training. The FFW payment under incentive type
programs is meant to motivate beneficiaries to participate in the
construction activity or attend education or training activities.
Income transfer value should be based on the real and opportunity costs
of participation, for example, to compensate the cost of public
transportation or the time used to walk to/from the FFW site, or to
provide an incentive to attend an educational activity. The opportunity
cost of time is based on prevailing local wages. However, since the
participant is also receiving direct benefits from the activity, the
value of the food provided could be less than the equivalent of a full
wage If the program is incentive-based, it is important to know the
customs under which individuals would normally donate their labor to a
project.
3.
Work Norm Approach:
FFW is provided as a specified task is completed. Despite the
additional work required to define and measure tasks, introduction of
task-based compensation can be more efficient than a daily wage
approach. This approach requires more extensive negotiations on
individual work assignments and close, skilled supervision. Further,
with this approach, parts of a task must be valued in food terms and
work apportioned according to an individual's capacity to contribute to
the work group. For more detailed information on the latter subject,
please see Food for Work: A Review of the 1980s with Recommendations
for the 1990s, which may be found in the Resource List at the end of
this module.
4.
Nutritional Value:
Food needs and nutritional value should not be ignored in FFW projects,
and in some instances they are of major importance to help fill gap in
the target group's diets. In this instance, the nutritional value of
the ration must be more carefully considered along with the work
objectives. In such cases, a low market value commodity might reach
more people with appropriate food. A low value food commodity, such as
sorghum, may self-target individuals who will be more likely to eat
rather than sell the commodity. Some experience also shows that food
provided for women's work is more likely to contribute to household
nutrition than would food or cash provided to men. FFW with hunger and
nutrition objectives are most common in emergency and transition
situations. For details on how to determine the nutritional value of a
general ration refer to Module 1 - MCHN
Programs, or for emergencies, see Module 5
- Emergency Programs.
Additional
information necessary to determine the value of the FFW ration
includes:
Local
Wage for Full Day's Work: Determine what a laborer would
receive for a full day's work in local currency. This value should be
based on the prevailing local wage. The official minimum wage may also
be used, but in cases where the minimum wage is not well-enforced, this
may lead to offering FFW rations with values well in excess of
prevailing local wages. This will likely lead to negative effects on
labor market.
Portion
of Day Worked:
Determine the portion of a day that a beneficiary will work. FFW
beneficiaries may work an entire day or a portion of the day on a FFW
activity. If the FFW ration is being offered as an incentive, the
amount of time individuals will spend in the activity needs to be
determined.
Person
Hours Required for Output:
If a norm-based approach will be used, the number of person/hours
required to produce each output (e.g. person hours per meter of trench
dug) will need to be determined.
Transportation
Costs: If
the program includes the cost of transportation (either by public
transportation or by foot) as part of the payment, determine what the
local costs for transportation are.
The
formula in the box below can be used to determine the wage payment or
incentive equivalent.
Box 2 - Formula for Determining FFW Wage/Incentive
Payment Equivalent
Local
wage for full day's work x Portion
of day Worked + Transportation/Incentive Costs (if applicable) = Value
of wage full day's work costs (if applicable) payment
(may be
calculated at 90-95% of local wage to self-target)
|
The
box below provides an example of how to calculate a wage payment for
use in determining the ration specification.
Box 3 - Calculating the Ration Equivalent for Men on Road
Construction in Ghana.
1) The
local wage for road construction in Ghana is 12,000 cedis per day
(figure is made up).
2) FFW
recipients will be employed to work on the road for ½ day.
12,000 cedis / ½ = 6,000 cedis.
3) Each
laborer will receive 500 cedis a day for transportation costs.
Thus,
the wage payment will be 6,500 cedis per recipient per day.
|
The
wage (or incentive) payment
will be the value of the commodity package provided to the FFW
recipient. For example, if the wage payment for the FFW recipients is
6,500 cedis, the quantity of the food aid commodities they receive
should be equivalent to the quantity of similar, locally available
foods that one can buy for 6,500 cedis.
Some
programs decide to combine
food and cash payments (food-for-work and cash-for-work - FFW/CFW). In
Title II-funded FFW programs, the cash element is generally no more
than 50 to 60 percent of the wage. Discussions should be held with
local government authorities on this subject, as some governments may
have already established standardized FFW rations.
Back to Steps for Selecting Commodity Rations
STEP 4: RATION CALCULATION
After
determining
the value of a proposed ration package, the following will need to be
determined: (1) type of food commodities (ration package) to be
provided; (2) total tonnage of commodities needed; and (3) the
cost-effectiveness of the commodities selected. It is generally prudent
to consider alternative rations in the event the desired commodities
are not available in the quantities required.
Ration
calculators that compute the quantity of foods necessary to provide a
population all micronutrients at the lowest cost can help in the design
of appropriate diets given locally available and affordable
commodities. There are a number of calculators in existence or in
development, including NutriSurvey
(www.nutrisurvey.de/lp/lp.htm). These tools can be helpful in
determining an appropriate population-level ration, but are not
appropriate for therapeutic feeding, replacement feeding, or individual
ration calculation.
1.
Calculating the Ration Package
The
food aid commodities that
form the ration package should be selected. The following guidance may
be used to develop ration packages that meet the FFW ration value
established in Step 3 above.
- Select
commodities that meet the suitability criteria described in Step 2.
- Determine
the local retail market price for the commodity or commodities
selected.
- Calculate
the ration package amount by dividing the minimum wage payment by the
local price of the commodities.
- If
there are nutrition considerations as part of the FFW program, refer to
Module 1 - MCHN
Programs, or for emergencies, Module 5 -
Emergency Programs.
Box
4
below provides an example of how to calculate the ration package for
the target group in Box 3.
BOX 4 - CALCULATING A RATION PACKAGE FOR GHANAIAN FFW
RECIPIENTS
1) The
minimum wage payment is 6,500 cedis per person per day (from Box 3)
2) Rice
and cow peas are the two food aid commodity selected for the ration
package
3) Local
cost of rice is 2,000 cedis per
kilogram (kg); blackeye beans (cowpeas) are 1,750 cedis per kg. (the
prices are hypothetical)
4) One
and one-half kg of rice and 2 kg of
cowpeas will provide the minimum wage payment per recipient per day.
((1½ kg rice x 2,000) + (2 kg cowpeas x 1,750) = 6,500 cedis)
Thus, for
½ day labor on a road
construction activity, a FFW recipient will receive 1½ kg of
rice and 2 kg of cowpeas per day as payment for the labor provided.
|
2.
Calculate the Total Amount of Food Commodities Needed
Once
the ration is calculated,
determining the tonnage of commodities required for a wage payment or
an incentive type FFW program is fairly straightforward:
- Multiply
the number of
kilograms of the commodity per recipient per day times the total number
of persons to receive the commodity.
- Multiply
the total
number of commodity needed for the target group (all recipients working
on the FFW activity) times the total number of days that the ration
package will be provided.
- Determine
the
number of metric tons (MT) of commodity needed by dividing the total
number of kilograms of commodity by 1,000 (number of kg in one MT).
- Complete
the same calculation for each commodity in the ration package.
Box
5
below provides an example
of how to calculate the total amount of commodities needed to provide
the two-commodity ration package example in Box 4.
Box 5: Calculating the Amount of Commodities Needed for
1,500 FFW Recipients for a 60 Day Road Construction Activity
For rice:
1) 1½ kg rice x 1,500 recipients = 2,250 kg rice per day
2) 2,250
kg rice per day x 60 days = 135,000 kg rice per FFW activity
3)
135,000 kg rice / 1,000 (number of kilograms in one MT)= 135 MT of rice
For
Cowpeas:
1) 2 kg cowpeas x 1,500 = 3,000 kg cowpeas per day
2) 3,000
kg cowpeas per day x 60 days = 180,00 kg
3)
180,000 kg / 1,000 = 180 MT of cowpeas
|
3.
Determining Cost Effectiveness of Ration Package
Occasionally,
cost may not be
the primary consideration in selecting the commodities. Food
preferences, availability and potential disincentive effects may
outweigh cost considerations. In this regard, a reexamination of the
primary objective of the proposed FFW program and a further examination
of the cost of the commodity vis-a-vis its income transfer or nutritive
value may help reach a decision whether the program is sufficiently
cost-effective and responsive to the needs of the targeted population
group.
Cost
effectiveness is determined
by calculating the difference between the local value of the ration
package and the cost of delivering the ration package under the
proposed program. For example, if a recipient receives a commodity that
replaces one that would cost $0.50 in the local market, the provision
of this commodity is a $0.50 value to the family. If providing the same
commodity via a Title II FFW program costs $0.25, then the program
would be considered cost-effective as the value provided is higher than
the actual cost of the commodity to the program. (See full example in
the Part Two Overview section).
Back to Steps for Selecting Commodity Rations
STEP 5: RANKING AND SELECTION
The
various FFW ration packages
proposed should be ranked in order to select the most cost-effective
and appropriate combination to meet program objectives. In examining
the primary cost elements, commodity price estimates (sources for
obtaining commodity prices are listed in Annex V) and various
in-country transportation and storage costs can be used. Other factors
to consider are:
- Minimizing
Market Disruptions:
The Bellmon determination should confirm that local markets would not
be disrupted. For example, it may be less disruptive to provide certain
foods in the lean season rather than during the harvest season. In
fact, every effort should be made to use Title II food aid to increase
the productivity and sustainability of the targeted groups. Guidance on
conducting the Bellmon analysis may be found online at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/bellmon.htm.
- Logistics,
Packaging and Storage Considerations:
The Bellmon determination should also include an assessment of the
country's transportation and storage capacity. Further, some
commodities may impose undue management or cost burdens due to unusual
local conditions -- such as storage, or pilferage problems -- or
unsuitable packaging or a very limited shelf life (e.g., six-months or
less).
The
usual sources of data and
information for examining potential market disruptions and logistical
problems include past evaluations of similar programs, interviews with
local government authorities, USAID missions, USDA Agricultural
Attaches and Economic/Commercial Officers at U.S. Embassies.
The
next is to rank the
alternative packages by total FFW program cost, income transfer value,
nutritional value, and any other factors identified in the program
design process. Subsequently, decisions to change ration packages can
be made easily and less arbitrarily when alternative rations and their
main attributes have been worked out in advance.
Back to Top of Page
III.
RESOURCE LIST
1.
Food and Nutrition Technical
Assistance (FANTA) Project, Academy for Educational Development, 1825
Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20009-5721. Tel:
202-884-8000; Fax 202-884-8432. E-mail: fanta@aed.org;
Web site www.fantaproject.org.
FANTA has the following publications:
- Agricultural
Productivity Indicators Measurement Guide. Patrick Diskin
- Anthropometry
Indicators Measurement Guide. Bruce Cogill
- Food
For Education Indicator Guide. Joy Miller del Rosso and Gilles
Bergeron
- Food
Security Indicators and Framework for Use in the Monitoring and
Evaluation of Food Aid Programs. Frank Riely, Nancy Mock, Bruce
Cogill, Laura Bailey, and Eric Kenefick
- General
Indicators of Appropriate Feeding of Children 6 through 23 months from
the KPC 2000+. Mary Arimond and Marie T. Ruel
- HIV/AIDS: A Guide for Nutritional Care and
Support 2004. FANTA
- Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide. Anne
Swindale and Paula Bilinsky.
- Improving
the Use of Food Rations In Title II Maternal/Child Health and Nutrition
Programs. Serena Rajabiun, Beatrice Rogers, Margarita Safdie, Anne
Swindale
- Measuring
Household Food Consumption: A Technical Guide. Anne Swindale and
Punam Ohri-Vachaspati
- Months of Inadequate Household Food
Provisioning (MIHFP) for Measurement of Household Food Access:
Indicator Guide. Paula Bilinsky and Anne Swindale.
- Potential
Uses of Food Aid to Support HIV/AIDS Mitigation Activities in
Sub-Saharan Africa. FANTA.
- Recommendations for the Nutrient
Requirements for People living with HIV/AIDS. FANTA.
- Sampling
guide. Robert Magnani
- Water
and Sanitation Indicators Measurement Guide. Patricia Billig, Diane
Benahmane and Anne Swindale
2.
Food
Aid Management (FAM),
1625 K Street, NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20006. Tel: (202) 223-4860,
Fax: (202) 223-4862; Web site www.foodaid.org.
Provides USAID documents (FY 1990-ongoing).
3.
Linkages Project. Recommended Feeding and Dietary Practices to
Improve Infant and Maternal Nutrition also see Facts for Feeding
(English, Spanish, French). Academy for Educational Development, 1825
Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20009-5721. Tel:
202-884-8000; Fax: 202-884-8977; E-mail: linkages@aed.org; Web site: www.linkagesproject.org.
4.
National Research Council. Recommended Dietary Allowances.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
5. SARA Project.
SARA Project.
Nutrition and HIV/AIDS: Evidence, Gaps and Priority Actions.
Ellen Piwoz. SARA Project, Academy for Educational Development. Web site:
(http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/SARA_Nutrition&HIVbrief.pdf).
6.
SUSTAIN. Final Report of the Micronutrient Assessment Project.
1999. Executive Summary available on Web site: www.sustaintech.org.
7.
USAID/DCHA/FFP. Commodities Reference Guide (CRG): Section 1-4.
April 1999. Web site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/crg.
8.
USAID/DCHA/FFP. Food for Work: A Review of the 1980s with
Recommendations for the 1990s. Washington, DC, February
1991.
9.
USAID/DCHA/FFP. U.S. International Food Assistance Report 1999.
January 2000. Web site:
http:www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/usintlfoodrpt2001.pdf.
10.
USAID/DCHA/FFP. Monetization Field Manual P.L. 480 Title II Programs.
October 1998. Web site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/monetiz.htm.
11.
USAID/DCHA/FFP. Title II Guidelines for Development Programs.
January 2000. Web site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/fy04_dpp.html.
12.
USAID/CDIE. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips. 1996.
Web site: www.usaid.gov/pubs/usaid_eval/#02.
13.
WHO. Energy and Protein Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO Expert
Consultation, WHO; Geneva, 1985.
14.
WHO. The Management of Severe Malnutrition. Geneva, 1999.
15.
WHO. Nutrient Requirements for
People Living with HIV/AIDS: Report of a technical consultation. World
Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 13-15 May 2003, www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB116/B116_12-en.pdf.
Back to Top ^
|