37. Number of national policies, strategies, programmes and other system components contributing to ending hunger enhanced with WFP capacity strengthening

37. Number of national policies, strategies, programmes and other system components contributing to ending hunger enhanced with WFP capacity strengthening

VERSION

V5.0 - 2026.03 — Existing

INDICATOR CODE

37

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGS – CCS Workstream

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Sector Neutral

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is mandatory against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. Emergency preparedness and response CCS (EPR_CCS)

2. Ecosystem restoration, community infrastructure and livelihood opportunities CCS (ECL_CCS)

3. Financial solutions, information services and market access CCS (FIM_CCS)

4. Malnutrition management CCS (NTA_CCS)

5. Malnutrition prevention CCS (NPA_CCS)

6. National data and analytics CCS (NDA_CCS)

The selection of this indicator is also recommended against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. School-based programme CCS (SMP_CCS)

2. Social protection technical support (SP_CCS)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Number of national policies, strategies, programmes and other system components

DEFINITION

This indicator measures WFP’s contribution to strengthening national systems for lasting improvements in food security and nutrition. It tracks changes in national or sub-national policies, legislation, strategies, programme design, delivery and monitoring, institutional processes, and other system components to which WFP has provided capacity strengthening support. Each of these terms are defined below:

WFP capacity strengthening support: Engagements with national stakeholders aimed at enhancing the capacity of national systems and programmes to function efficiently, effectively and sustainably. WFP applies a mix of support types – from accompaniment to advocacy, convening, piloting, modeling, secondment, physical and financial assets, knowledge products and training – to address diverse needs and entry points.

N.B. WFP does not work alone as an enabling partner, and results cannot always be attributed exclusively to WFP. Contributions from other stakeholders should be acknowledged in narratives.

National system: The interconnected institutions, policies, processes and actors that work together to deliver a specific public sector function or service area that WFP supports – such as emergency preparedness, nutrition (including fortification), school feeding, social protection, food security analysis or supply chain management.

System components: Specific functions within a national system that contribute to the organization and delivery of public goods and services. System components may include the development of policies and laws; coordination and governance structures; planning and financing mechanisms; programme design, implementation and monitoring processes; and the human or technical capacities that support them. Each component represents a distinct area of responsibility within the wider system, which may be strengthened with WFP support. See the CCS Framework for a list of system components and their descriptions.

The system component descriptions below outline capacities commonly associated with strong system performance.

Policies: A national or sub-national public policy sets out a vision and solutions to address an important challenge affecting society. It necessarily requires hard choices: competing interests must be negotiated as not every issue can be the government or society’s top priority. A well-designed policy is informed by evidence and diverse stakeholder voices, responding to the needs and desires of citizens. It is revisited periodically, ensuring its continued relevance and that no one is left behind.

Legislation sets out the rules that people, organizations, and public institutions must follow, defining what is permissible and protecting rights. It creates enforceable obligations, grants powers, and regulates budgets, and can turn policy directions into binding law. A robust legal system ensures compliance through enforcement and actively involves the public in making laws through consultation and participation.

Strategies: A strategy or plan translates policy into actionable steps, guiding implementation at national and sub-national levels. It specifies timelines, milestones, and responsibilities for implementation, and includes measurable objectives and resource allocation (covering human, financial, and technical needs).

Programme design: A national or sub-national programme is designed so that its services, coverage, targeting, eligibility criteria and benefit levels are evidence‑based and responsive to needs. Designs integrate cross‑cutting priorities (e.g. gender equality, protection, disability inclusion, environmental sustainability) and innovative approaches or technologies to improve efficiency, flexibility and scalability. It is informed by engagement with relevant stakeholders, including affected populations, and supported by clear operational guidelines, procedures and quality standards.

Programme delivery: A national or sub-national programme is implemented safely, consistently and transparently, in line with national or organizational standards and guidelines, reducing the risk of errors, abuses, and inefficiencies. Procedures for beneficiary registration, enrolment, and access to entitlements are adapted to all literacy and education levels, free of charge, geographically accessible, time‑efficient, and designed to avoid harm or stigmatization. Identity‑verification mechanisms prevent fraud, while measures to minimize inclusion and exclusion errors promote fairness. Reliable delivery is supported by adequate distribution or payment points, ensuring that benefits are provided promptly and in the correct quantity and quality. Affected populations receive clear information on entitlements, responsibilities, and any changes to programme rules. An effective complaints and feedback mechanism enables citizens to raise concerns, and the resulting data are routinely analysed to strengthen programme implementation.

Programme monitoring: A clear monitoring framework or plan defines roles and responsibilities (e.g. across central and decentralized levels) and identifies the outputs, outcomes and indicators required to assess progress. Procedures ensure that data are collected regularly, digitized where possible, and subject to quality‑assurance checks for accuracy, timeliness and completeness, with safeguards in place to protect personal data and prevent misuse. Monitoring information is routinely analyzed to assess programme performance, identify risks or issues and support timely course correction. Stakeholders, including communities, are actively involved in planning, collecting, reviewing, interpreting and using monitoring data.

Institutional processes: Refers to how institutions and other stakeholders within a national system work together – through clear mandates, adequate physical assets, robust management information systems, effective human resource management, strong coordination and partnerships, and the generation and use of high-quality evidence. (See CCS Framework Pathway 2.)

Other system components: This category refers to capacities not covered under the system components defined above. In the CCS Framework, it includes components that are not part of institutional processes (Pathway2) and not captured under policy, legislative, strategic, or programme-related functions. Examples include budgeting, financing models, financial management, international dialogue, dissemination or engagement of non‑state actors. For full descriptions, see Annex I of the CCS Framework.

RATIONALE

This indicator captures WFP’s contribution to strengthening national and sub‑national systems by tracking progress across key system components that are essential for effective, equitable, and sustainable public services to end hunger and malnutrition, such as policies, legislation, strategies, programme design and delivery processes, monitoring systems, and institutional arrangements.

System change is often incremental and spread across multiple functions. Recording how many components within a system advance through meaningful stages (e.g. drafting, endorsement, or implementation) provides a practical way to make these shifts visible and measurable. By aggregating these results, the indicator reflects the breadth and depth of WFP’s capacity strengthening support and demonstrates how improvements across different components contribute to stronger national systems.

While the indicator presents an aggregated view of system change, all underlying entries are documented in COMET at the level of individual system components. This detailed record allows teams to trace how policies, strategies, and other processes have progressed over time and to articulate the pathways through which WFP’s capacity strengthening support contributes to broader institutional improvements. The availability of granular data strengthens both accountability and learning.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

It is recommended that the activity manager and monitoring staff maintain a single Excel file for the duration of the CSP, stored on the CO shared drive or other agreed shared platform. This sheet should record the granular information needed to support COMET entries for this indicator, including:

• the system being strengthened (e.g. emergency preparedness and response, nutrition, school feeding, social protection)

• the system components (policies, legislation, strategies, programme design, programme delivery, monitoring, institutional processes, or other)

• the stage reached annually (see the section below for the stage options applicable to each component)

• the number of items advancing to each stage

• the date or time period when the progress occurred

• the source(s) of evidence supporting the stage reached

• qualitative notes summarizing WFP’s technical, advisory, or facilitative contribution

• file references or links to supporting documents (e.g. meeting minutes, email confirmations, draft texts, endorsed documents)

Data should be obtained and verified through the activity manager responsible for overseeing WFP’s capacity strengthening support to the system, drawing on engagement records, government documents, and stakeholder confirmation where available. Because COMET does not host qualitative analysis, the Excel data‑collection tool (and any linked folder) serves as the repository for this information. A brief qualitative analysis note, summarizing insights from sources such as key informant interviews, meeting minutes, email exchanges or annotated drafts, should be recorded alongside each quantitative entry, with links to the underlying documents stored on the CO shared drive. Maintaining this file regularly ensures that entries remain accurate, traceable, and supported by the qualitative evidence needed for credible interpretation.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

Measurement of this indicator follows the steps below.

1. Record results using the appropriate stage for each component type.

Use the stages corresponding to each system component, as shown in the table below.

Notes:

i. The implementation of policies, legislation or strategies is recorded under the relevant downstream system component (e.g. programme delivery, monitoring, institutional processes, other), not under the policy component itself. Once a policy or standard is approved, its rollout – such as developing tools, training staff, updating procedures or establishing compliance mechanisms – constitutes changes in these operational components rather than an additional stage of the policy.

ii. Drafts are counted only for policies, legislation and strategies, where a formally shared draft represents a clear milestone on the path to adoption. For programme design, delivery, monitoring, institutional processes and other components, results are recorded once a mechanism has been endorsed (formally approved) and, subsequently, implemented (in routine use). Draft versions of these operational mechanisms are not counted, as they are iterative working documents; this approach prevents inflated counts and ensures results remain verifiable and comparable over time.

2. Count how many distinct results are at each stage.

For each system component, enter the number of results achieved at each relevant stage. A single component can have results in different stages within the same reporting year (e.g. two sub‑national strategies drafted and one endorsed, or one programme delivery tool endorsed and a guideline implemented).

Therefore, record the counts of results (1, 2, 3, etc.) for each component – not yes/no entries.

3. Aggregate across components for a portfolio view.

The COMET system will automatically sum results across all components to show the total number of WFP‑supported system‑changes in the reporting period, i.e. the number of national policies, strategies, programmes and other system components contributing to ending hunger enhanced with WFP capacity strengthening support.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values are recorded in the logframe. Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:

• Sub-activity

• Country

Follow-up values are reported in COMET as shown in the table below. Please do not enter data in any field marked “not applicable”. These fields should be left blank as the category does not apply to the system component.

Country offices actively using the CCS Framework can do more detailed analysis or break down results by all 20 capacity components outside COMET. This is because the indicator groups all Pathway 2 components under ‘institutional processes’, while the ‘other’ category serves as a placeholder for CCS components not captured separately in the indicator structure.

BASELINE

Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points:

1. At the beginning of the CSP, or

2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or

3. When there is a change in target, location and/or modality that triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator.

Baselines remain fixed for the entire CSP period and are not recalculated annually, unless applicable above.

The baseline for this indicator should reflect the number of WFP‑supported processes already at a measurable stage (e.g. drafted, endorsed, implemented) at the time the CSP is approved. If WFP’s engagement in a system component begins during the CSP and no processes have yet reached a measurable stage, the baseline for that component is recorded as 0. Results are only counted once a process enters its first defined stage.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

Annual targets should be set based on the country context and on progress achieved in previous years, ensuring they remain realistic given the time, complexity and multi‑stakeholder nature of capacity strengthening processes. Annual targets are not cumulative, and the total of annual targets across the CSP should not exceed the CSP end‑line target.

End of CSP target:

The CSP end‑line target should be informed by a joint analysis of CCS workplans developed by WFP and national stakeholders and reflect what is realistically achievable within the CSP period. The end‑line target may be adjusted only when these workplans or formal agreements with national stakeholders are updated; WFP should not change targets unilaterally.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Annual data collection

INTERPRETATION

This indicator measures the number of system components that have advanced through key stages (drafted, endorsed, or implemented) with WFP capacity strengthening support during the reporting period. An increase in the number of components progressing may reflect improvements in national systems’ governance, planning, evidence use, coordination, or service delivery capacities. While the indicator shows what progressed, it does not convey why it progressed or how significant each change is. Interpreting results credibly therefore requires reviewing the underlying entries in COMET and drawing on relevant qualitative evidence to understand WFP’s contribution and the importance of each system change.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In 2019, WFP signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Health to initiate a structured, multi‑year capacity strengthening project focused on the national food fortification system. WFP supported the Ministry in developing a national fortification strategy, which provided the roadmap for prioritizing and organizing institutional capacity strengthening efforts throughout the partnership.

By 2024, WFP’s collaboration with government resulted in major advancements in national regulations. The Ministry introduced updated fortification standards, approved by Parliament, which were co‑developed with WFP technical advice and evidence. To support implementation, WFP helped refine the training curriculum for Food Safety Inspectors and co‑facilitated nationwide training sessions that prepared inspection teams across all provinces to enforce the new standards.

WFP also supported improvements in financing for food fortification. By generating evidence, including an investment case and cost‑and‑feasibility modelling, and by facilitating structured government–donor consultations, WFP contributed to the Ministry’s adoption of a diversified financing model to expand national production of fortified foods. This financing model was formally approved in 2024. USD 3 million in concessional financing and USD 3 million in private‑sector co‑financing were mobilized in 2025 under the new arrangement.

Domestic production of fortified staples expanded in 2025 and is expected to meet national demand by early 2026, supporting integration of fortified rice and salt into school meals and other social protection programmes. Altogether, the regulatory reforms and investments in fortification are expected to benefit more than six million people nationwide.

In 2025, WFP continued to provide technical assistance, supporting the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Affairs in identifying gaps in programme delivery at the sub‑national level. This collaboration led to the establishment of a new joint coordination mechanism between the two ministries, formally approved in 2025, to oversee the rollout of fortified foods and ensure aligned roles, information flows and accountability arrangements at national and sub‑national levels. Through this mechanism, WFP will continue to provide targeted support to strengthen local implementation capacities.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

This indicator should be analyzed together with CCS output indicators that describe different dimensions of WFP’s capacity strengthening support, such as:

• C.25 on the number of people engaged

• C.26 on the number of capacity strengthening initiatives delivered

• C.27 on the number of tools or products developed

• C.8 on the value of assets and infrastructure handed over

• C.28 on the number of national institutions engaged

Each of these indicators captures a distinct aspect of WFP’s engagement: the scale of participation (C.25), the volume of initiatives implemented (C.26), the tangible outputs produced (C.27), the material inputs transferred (C.8), and the breadth of institutional engagement (C.28).

Analyzing these outputs alongside the system‑component results helps explain why specific policies, strategies, programmes or institutional processes progressed to new stages. For example, progress in a system component may be associated with increased stakeholder engagement, a higher number of initiatives delivered, the development or revision of key tools and guidance, the provision of critical assets or infrastructure, or the involvement of a broader set of national institutions.

Reviewing these outputs alongside the system‑component results strengthens the narrative of how WFP’s engagement contributed to measurable system change.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Supporting qualitative evidence should include confirmation of WFP’s contribution from national stakeholders or partners, such as key informant interviews, meeting minutes, email correspondence, or written acknowledgements. These sources help verify WFP’s technical, advisory, or facilitative role, which numerical counts by stage alone cannot demonstrate. Complementary qualitative evidence also helps clarify the significance of each system change and the pathways through which WFP contributed, for example through draft or endorsed texts showing WFP inputs, technical analyses used by government, records of coordination meetings, or documentation of pilots that informed the change.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

Data from this indicator can help country offices identify where progress in system strengthening is gaining momentum and where additional engagement or technical support may be needed. It can highlight areas requiring renewed facilitation, evidence generation, or coordination with government and partners to help system components move toward endorsement or implementation. These insights can guide adjustments to CCS strategies and shape decisions on where to focus advocacy, analytical work and partnership efforts to sustain or accelerate system‑level improvements.

VISUALIZATION

Visualizations can help summarize results from this indicator by highlighting where progress is occurring across system components and stages. Because components have different applicable stages, visuals should focus on simple patterns, such as the number of components advancing within each stage or the distribution of progress across components in a given year, rather than direct comparisons between components. These visuals can support interpretation and planning but should always be read alongside qualitative evidence that explains why each component progressed and how significant the change is.

LIMITATIONS

Potential limitations of this indicator include:

• Difficult attribution. System change is influenced by many actors; the indicator alone cannot confirm WFP’s specific contribution to each result.

• Does not assess quality or significance. All results within a stage (e.g. “drafted”) are counted equally, even though the robustness, quality of evidence, or stakeholder engagement may vary widely.

• Does not measure implementation fidelity or outcomes. Reaching the “implemented” stage does not indicate how consistently a mechanism is applied, its coverage, or whether it leads to better services or outcomes for affected populations.

• Annual values may reflect timing rather than effort. Formal approvals or implementation milestones may cluster in certain years even when most work occurred earlier, making annual figures sensitive to timing rather than the actual pace of system‑strengthening progress.

• Reflects breadth, not strategic importance. Countries with many small system components may report high counts, while those supporting fewer but more transformative changes may report lower numbers.

• Relies on consistent interpretation over time. Changes in how teams classify system components or judge when a stage is reached can affect comparability across reporting periods within the same country.

• Aggregated totals can obscure nuance. The top‑line number simplifies complex, context‑specific processes; understanding the significance of individual system changes requires consulting detailed COMET records and complementary qualitative information.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Refer to the CCS Framework, 9 Types of Capacity Strengthening Support, and additional resources in the CCS section of the Programme Guidance Manual.