Scaling-up Nutrition:
Developments, achievements & challenges.
Perspectives from MQSUN support
April 2014
•Introduce MQSUN Support Phases
•Highlight Progress in preparing for Scale-up
•Introduce key points from Planning and
Costing Paper
•Share current MQSUN activities
•Outline current challenges for MQSUN support
PATH Consortium – Call Down 3
Phase I
Policy review
Analytical framework (ACT): Programme classification, target groups, costs
Methodology for country visits
Phase II
Remote support to countries and SUN Movement Secretariat (SMS) 21
Country visits (stakeholder engagement, situational analysis, cost map)
Support SMS at International events
Phase III
Policy, legislation, and plan reviews and summaries
Support effective nutrition-sensitive implementation around a Common
Results Framework
Support financial tracking and resource mobilization
Applied Classification of Interventions
in the Country Plans
Specific Nutrition Actions
Good Nutrition Practices
Vitamin and Mineral Intake
Acute Malnutrition Management
Enrichment of diet nutrient density
for pregnant and lactating women
and children 6-23 months
• Food Security and Agriculture
• Care Environment
• Public Health and Water and
• Coordination and Information Management
• Policy and Legislation Development
• Advocacy and Communication
• System Capacity Building
TOTAL COST: US$ 4.0 billion
(timeframe 2011-2015)
US$ 2.4 billion for good nutrition practices (61%)
US$ 650 million for acute malnutrition management (21%)
US$ 717 million for vitamin and mineral intake (18%)
US$ 198 million for nutrient dense diet for PLW and young children
*Peru, Mozambique and Madagascar
TOTAL COST: US$ 28.9 billion
(timeframe 2011-2015)
US$ 19.6 billion for nutrition-sensitive food systems.
Note: Bangladesh alone is US$ 8.5 billion
US$ 89.5 million for interventions enhancing caring environments
US$ 9.2 billion for interventions in public health services, including
reproductive health and WASH
Nutrition sensitive – Food Systems
Nutrition sensitive – Public Health
GOVERNANCE TOTAL COST: US$ 2.3 billion (timeframe 2011-2015)
US$ 1.5 billion for system-wide capacity building (66%)
US$ 629 million for coordination and information management (28%)
US$ 143 million for policy development, advocacy and communication
Plan differences (caveats for comparison)
Existing government inputs (labor, infrastructure)
New versus existing interventions
Stakeholder and sector involvement
Assumptions for scale-up
Percentage increase
District rollout
National coverage
Cost methodologies
Total intervention costs (ingredients)
Marginal budgeting
Program unit costs
Cost estimations
Program planning
Country budgets
External budgets
Highlight Progress in preparing for Scale-up
Paper 1 Details of Progress in SUN Countries
Progress with Preparing for Scaling-up Nutrition
Process Indicator I – Bringing people into a shared space for action (the multisector, multi-stakeholder platform):
Process Indicator II – Ensuring a coherent policy and legal framework:
Process Indicator III – Aligning around a single set of Expected Results
[Common Results Framework CRF]:
Process Indicator IV - Financial Tracking and Resource Mobilisation:
Paper 1 Details of Progress in SUN Countries
Progress with Preparing for Scaling-up Nutrition
The impact of high-level political commitment:
Tanzania, Uganda, Benin and Namibia have placed nutrition directly under the
supervision of the Head of Government or State.
The President of Guatemala and the President of Peru have linked their
presidency mandate to the reduction of stunting.
Other countries including Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and The Gambia have their
Vice-Presidents as national Champions for Scaling Up Nutrition.
Many are focusing on the gender dimensions of under-nutrition and the
importance of empowering women for scaling up nutrition.
Progress with Preparing for Scaling-up Nutrition
National policies, legislation and strategies that impact on nutritional
outcomes :
Nutrition policies and strategies have been updated and endorsed
In Nepal, Mozambique, Madagascar, Benin, Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda the
approved national policies and strategies reflect a multi-sector approach
At least one third received legislative approval for a coherent multi-sector
framework (Niger, Mauritania, Indonesia, Burkina Faso and Peru)
The Gambia, Madagascar and Uganda have specific gender policies that will
contribute to nutritional outcomes.
Progress with Preparing for Scaling-up Nutrition
Aligning around a single set of expected results (Common Results
Framework) :
A priority for strategic focus on the most effective interventions
Aligning different programs to contribute to one set of expected results.
Alignment: the best means for translating commitments made by governments /
partners into synergized implementation. Roadmaps Shared.
Examples include: 3N initiative in Niger, Hambre Zero in Guatemala, CRECER
para Incluir in Peru and Aba Grangou in Haiti.
The Focal Points in Mozambique, Tanzania, Madagascar and Indonesia have
shared their experiences of prioritisation at the sub-national level.
Progress with Preparing for Scaling-up Nutrition
Estimation of the cost for scaling-up and analysis of shortfalls :
Information within SUN Country Templates about estimated costs, domestic and
external contributions, and financing gaps, is incomplete.
Most SUN countries provided an indication of the costs of nutrition-specific
interventions, mostly those provided through the health sector.
National authorities & donor agencies struggling to establish consistent
methods for tracking expenditures on nutrition outcomes across sectors.
Nevertheless country focal points from Bangladesh, Niger, Indonesia, Sierra
Leone, Peru, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Mozambique, The Gambia and Nepal have
reported on efforts to estimate overall financial investments for nutrition.
Planning and costing for the acceleration of
actions for nutrition: experiences of countries
in the Movement for Scaling Up Nutrition
April 2014
Brief History of SUN – Costing Processes
•2010 – Movement Led by Governments – NOW 45 countries
•Provided context for existing support groups to align behind national policies
•National plans need core elements as well as investors language
•Framework for Scaling-up Nutrition (What will it cost – Susan Horton) –
Stunting as an indicator
•2013 Refinements in costs of specific interventions / WHO Costing
•June 2013 G8 – costs pulled together from national plans to show elements,
costs and gaps where plausible
G8 Commitments – 2013
• Global Nutrition for Growth Compact endorsed by a total of 94
• 15 Governments committed to increase the domestic resources
12 Governments announced national stunting-reduction targets.
• Donors today have secured new commitments of up to GBP £2.7 billion
(USD $4.15 billion) to tackle undernutrition up to 2020, GBP £1.9 billion
(USD $2.9 billion) of which is core funding with the remainder secured
through matched funding.
• An estimated GBP £12.5 billion (USD $19 billion) committed for improved
nutrition outcomes from nutrition-sensitive investments between 2013 and
G8 Commitments – 2013
• New partnerships between business and science
• Commitment to develop a new catalytic financing facility for nutrition.
• Launch an annual Global Report on Nutrition from 2014,.
• Hold annual global nutrition meeting in margins of UN General
Assembly, from September 2013.
Contribution of National Nutrition Plans to Stewardship of
Multiple Actors and Synergised, Effective Actions
The process through which a plan is developed has a critical influence on
the utility of the plan for stewardship of multiple actors.
The development of a national nutrition plan is a “directed negotiation”.
A national nutrition plan is often an amalgam of multiple sector plans.
Contribution of Nutrition Plans to Effective Implementation of
Interventions to Scale Up Nutrition
Local level plans informed by national recommendations
Plans are especially useful if then basis for monitoring progress
Most likely to yield synergised and effective efforts if attention paid to nutritionally
vulnerable individuals and communities.
Most plans currently focus on enabling pregnant women and young children to
access specific nutrition interventions in the 1,000 day window
Cost Calculations in National Plans Should be Based on Explicit
Principals and Assumptions
Increasing need for costing to be undertaken in an inclusive way.
The assumptions that underlie costings are made explicit and can be
examined by all:
Intervention directly relates to nationally agreed targets for implementation
rather than to general objectives for improvement,
…and if expected expenditure is spelt out year by year.
Strategy for Increase the Potential Utility of Costed National
Plans for Scaling Up Nutrition
Emphasis on the processes for planning, implementation and monitoring
rather than on the plan itself.
The systematic engagement of domestic and international decision makers
in planning and costing work.
The evolution of principles that should be reflected in different stages of the
planning cycle (from design to costing, managing implementation and
National Nutrition Planning Processes are Likely to be most
Useful if Based in the Following Principals
Agreement around a national Common Results Framework (CRF) helps to
shape multi--‐stakeholder working.
The role of government is to convene all stakeholders, coordinate their
engagement, lead strategy, maintain shared ownership (national and sub)
Tracking the use of resources involves the development of systems for
gathering data on expenditure.
National plans should incorporate the investments of the NGOs contributing
to national targets and Common Results Frameworks.
The design of a financial tracking system should at all times reflect the
interests of decision –makers. Type / regularity and level of info needed?
Next Steps – Strengthening the capacity of SUN countries for
planning, costing, managing implementation, tracking
expenditure and monitoring progress.
Optimising the use of communications and advocacy to maintain political
commitment and support institutional change,
Establishing guidance for countries on nutrition-sensitive investments,
planning, costing and managing the implementation of actions and
establishing robust systems
Mobilising additional external and domestic resources for nutrition, and
tracking the effectiveness and efficiency of these funds.
Share current MQSUN activities
1. Policy, legislation and plan reviews and summaries
2. Support effective nutrition-sensitive implementation around a Common
Results Framework (CRF) to maximise impact
3. Support financial tracking and resource mobilization
4. Aggregate and document the lessons learned from the work with
Yemen – Contextual analysis and prioritisation of nutrition-sensitive
intervention within the national plan.
Malawi – Monitoring and Evaluation support / financial tracking,
especially in the area of nutrition sensitive
Ghana – Support the review process of the National Nutrition Policy,
provide training on costing processes and identify features of
financial tracking
Benin – Support development of the multi-sector M&E framework
Chad - Costing of the National Action Plan (scoping exercise)
El Salvador – Review and considering alignment of the Capacity
Building Strategy to the Nutrition and Food Security Strategy
Other ToR (Haiti and Indonesia)
Ensuring capacity of the movement within national settings
Efficient use of MQSUN resources – country selcection and ToR
Understanding and enhancing service provision capacity
Assessing the exponential growth for coverage
How to correctly select nutrition-sensitive interventions within a ‘nutrition
Assessing impact of nutrition-sensitive (Columbia and List)
Promotion of learning between national platforms
Understanding the links between existing budgets
Designing and installing pooled or ‘top-up’ mechanisms
Links with private industries
National level resource development (CS )
Global Targets for Nutrition
Average Annual Rate
of Reduction (AARR)
Multi-sectoral Nutrition
Intervention Framework
Strategic Objective (SO) 1. MOPIC (Suggested Results)
•Multi-sectoral commitment and resources for nutrition are increased
•Nutritional information management and data analysis strengthened
•Nutrition capacity of implementing agencies is strengthened
SO 2. Ministry of Health
and Population
The intergenerational transmission of growth
failure: When to intervene in the life cycle
Community 14 High
Impact Interventions
ANC, Malaria, LBW
Water & Sanitation
Education (Health
SO 3. Ministry of Water &
•Potable water supply
and sanitation (20m)
•Distribution of water
filters at household
level (8m) (social fund
for development)
•Social mobilization
programme (10m)
•Regulate private sector
in service delivery
SO 4. Ministry of Education
•Specific girls education
•School nutrition relevance
•Take home food rations
•Free school materials
Child growth
failure/ death
Low Birthweight
Early pregnancy
Low weight &
height in teenagers
Small adult
Small adult man
SO 6. Ministry of Fisheries
•Project to feed the targeted population sardines
•Awareness programme to promote the
consumption of fatty fish (1m)
•Conservation and fish drying (including
women) (2m)
SO 5. Ministry of Agriculture
•Support home gardening
for poor families in rural
areas (2m) (women)
•Bee keeping & livestock
•Support food processing in
rural areas (3m)
•Introduction of improved
crop varieties of cereals,
pulses, fruit and vegetables
(2m)(challenge qat)
•Support production and
marketing of fresh dairy
products in rural areas
Introduction (Susan Horton)
Opportunity to attract even greater support
The food price crisis of 2007 helped reverse international complacency
We know more about “what works” – Lancet Interventions (direct)
MDG’s have helped to focus attention on investment not only social benefits,
but also economic benefits
Amassing international funding for nutrition came from global costing
Exercises – World Bank
The 2013 “Nutrition for Growth” – ambitious targets
Individual country costing efforts are the essential next step.
Costing a plan is key to the process of prioritisation – actions / sequence / then
adaptation and decentralisation
20 Countries have invested in this process
Overview David Nabarro
National plans for scaling-up nutrition include:
(a) Improvements in people’s access to nutrition specific interventions,
(b) The adoption of nutrition - sensitive strategies in related sectors,
(c) Explicit functions to enable stewardship & synergised working of stakeholders.
The costing of these plans is most valuable if it includes the following
•A well-defined population for enhanced access to nutrition interventions
•Clarity of national targets well as up to date estimates of projected coverage
•Definition of multi-stake holder platforms & performance monitoring mechanisms
•Reliable unit costs for interventions
•Well justified costs for the stewardship of joint actions
•Incorporating costs of existing plans including labour and fixed costs

similar documents