Food security: WFP, FATA Secretariat sign MoU worth $132m

Funds to be spent in 2016-18 on food, cash-based transfers


Our Correspondent February 23, 2016
Funds to be spent in 2016-18 on food, cash-based transfers. PHOTO: APP

PESHAWAR: World Food Program (WFP) Country Director Lola Castro signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) worth $132 million related to its operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) over the next three years.  The MOU was signed at FATA Secretariat on Tuesday. FATA Projects Director General Islam Zeb Khan represented the secretariat at the ceremony.

Malnutrition

According to WFO officials, $132 million will be spent on nutrition; stunting; Community Based Management on Acute Malnutrition (CMAM); school feeding; nutrition support for pregnant and nursing mothers; livelihood support under Food For Assets (FFA) project; and support in return and rehabilitation through cash-based transfers (CBT).

During the Protracted Relief and Rehabilitation Operation’s three-year period (2016-18), 82,964 metric tonnes (MT) of food will be provided at a cost of $102 million and CBT worth $30.39 million, in addition to other costs.

WFP plans to assist 328,532 families under FFA, feed 461,986 students in 2,485 schools, including other projects in all seven agencies of FATA and Frontier Regions (FR) subject to security. Both WFP and Fata will continue to look for additional resources to cover the FRs in consultation with potential donors.

Castro said, “PRRO’s ‘Transition towards sustainable food and security and resilience in Pakistan’ aims to ensure the success of government-led efforts to improve food security among communities affected by law and order.” Castro added, “The programme attempts to build their resilience, address malnutrition and support an enabling environment for women to increase their social and economic equality.”

Published in The Express Tribune, February 24th, 2016.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ