SABER School Feeding Namibia CR Final 2015docx...SCHOOL FEEDING SABER Country Report 2015 Policy...

THE WORLD BANK

Namibia

SCHOOL FEEDINGSABER Country Report

2015

Policy Goals Status1. Policy Frameworks

School feeding is mentioned in many of Namibia’s strategy documents and sectorial policies.A national school feeding policy in Namibia currently does not exist; however, there is astrong recognition for the need for such a policy.

2. Financial CapacityThe national education budget includes a budget line for the Namibian School FeedingProgramme (NSFP). The government contributes over 80 percent of the financial needs,while the remaining costs are covered by the community through cash and in kindcontributions. NSFP budget plans/lines are at the central level only, and there is a strongneed to put mechanisms in place to ensure the timely disbursement of funds.

3. Institutional Capacity and CoordinationCurrently, there is no steering committee in place to coordinate the implementation of NSFPin Namibia. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has the mandate of managing andimplementing NSFP, and a specific unit within the MOE exists. There is insufficient staff toundertake the required functions for school feeding at both the national and regional levels.

4. Design and ImplementationA comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan and a web based information system forNSFP were developed in collaboration with WFP in 2013. Beneficiary targeting criteriacorresponds to the objectives of the program and the country’s needs, and is reflected in theNSFP Reference Manual. There are national standards for food distribution and the foodbasket in place for all NSFP benefiting schools.

5. Community Roles-Reaching Beyond SchoolsEach school has a functioning school board involving parents, teachers and communitymembers. The expectations of communities and their respective roles and responsibilitiesare clearly defined in the NSFP Reference Manual. However, many communities feel theprogram relies too heavily on community contributions without proper incentives, whichmay contribute to a low level of participation.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

WB406484Typewritten Text100073

NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014

SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 2

IntroductionThis report presents an assessment of school feedingpolicies and institutions that affect young children inNamibia. The analysis is based on a World Bank tooldeveloped as part of the Systems Approach for BetterEducation Results (SABER) initiative that aims tosystematically evaluate education systems againstevidence based global standards and good practice tohelp countries reform their education systems to helpensure learning for all.

School feeding policies are a critical component of aneffective education system, given that children's healthand nutrition impacts their school attendance, ability tolearn, and overall development. A school feedingprogram is a specific school based health service, whichcan be part of a country’s broader school health program,and often a large amount of resources are invested in aschool feeding program. SABER School Feeding collects,analyzes, and disseminates comprehensive informationon school feeding policies around the world. The overallobjective of the initiative is to help countries designeffective policies to improve their education systems,facilitate comparative policy analysis, identify key areasto focus investment, and assist in disseminating goodpractice.

Namibia in BriefNamibia is an arid southern African country with apopulation of 2.2 million people spread across 318,625square miles.1 It is classified as an upper middle incomecountry; however, income inequality and structuralpoverty are still prevalent.2

The gross domestic product (GDP) of Namibia was $13.1million USD. The economy is dependent on its naturalresources and is vulnerable to natural disasters. Afterexperiencing negative economic growth in 2009,Namibia’s economy experienced an average GDP growthrate of six percent between 2010 and 2013.3 GDP percapita increased from $6,155 USD in 2000 to $9,377 USD(constant 2011 international USD) in 2013. 4 Whilepoverty in Namibia is declining, almost a third of thepopulation is still considered poor.5

1 Namibia Statistic Agency, 2013.2 Republic of Namibia, 2012a.3 World Bank, 2014.4 Ibid.5 Namibia Statistic Agency, 2013.

Considering the economic condition of the country,chronic under nutrition is a prevailing issue; 24 percentof Namibian children are stunted and 8 percent areseverely stunted. 6 Several strategies such as foodassistance, remittances, and social grants have beenestablished by the Government of the Republic ofNamibia to assist the 16 percent severely and 22 percentmoderately food insecure individuals and households inthe country.7 These statistics indicate an important andcontinued need for food based safety net programs,such as the Namibian School Feeding Programme (NSFP).

Education and Health in Namibia

Following the country’s independence in 1990, thegovernment placed a high priority on reducinginequalities by providing equal access to qualityeducation for all children in Namibia. Article 20 of theNamibian Constitution (1990)8 declares that education isa basic universal right for all Namibians and madeprimary education free and compulsory for all children.The Education for All: National Plan of Action (20022015)9 further enshrines the government’s commitmentto achieving universal education by outlining a strategyto improving access, equity, and quality in education.

Formal education in Namibia is divided into four phases:Lower Primary (pre primary to grade 4), Upper Primary(grades 5 7), Junior Secondary (grades 8 10) and SeniorSecondary (grades 11 12). In addition to the formaleducation system, the government also established theNamibia College of Open Learning to provide educationalopportunities for adults and out of school youth.10

Early childhood development centres are under themanagement of the Ministry of Gender Equality andChild Welfare, which targets children 5 years old andyounger. The Ministry has the mandate to oversee thedevelopment of various aspects of early childhood

6 Republic of Namibia, 2013a.7 Republic of Namibia, 2013b.8 Republic of Namibia, 1990.9 Republic of Namibia, 2002.10 Republic of Namibia, 2002.



development, care, and education as well as issues thataffect orphans and other vulnerable children (OVCs).11

Education in Namibia is a top priority and received 22.4percent of the national annual budget in the 2012/13fiscal year—the highest of any sector in Namibia. 12Primary school net enrolment rate is at 99.8 percent,with gender parity at all grades.13 Literacy rates are highcompared to regional standards: 95 percent for 15 to 24year olds and 88 percent for individuals 15 years old andolder. However, the promotion rate for primary grades is82 percent and 69 percent for secondary grades. Aconcern facing the education sector in Namibia is thehigh proportion of learners repeating grades—about 15percent for primary and 22 percent for secondarylearners. 14 The secondary school completion rate (47percent) is quite low compared to countries with similareconomic conditions.

The government recognizes the importance of qualityprimary education on positively influencing the country’seconomic and health indicators. Several strategies are inplace to strengthen the education sector in Namibia.

Health is another top priority for the Government ofNamibia. Although access to health care has improved,the health care system still faces several challenges. First,rural and urban residents have unequal access toinfrastructure and services. In 2012, only 17 percent ofthe rural population had access to improved sanitationfacilities compared to 56 percent of the urbanpopulation. The gap in access to an improved watersource is smaller with 87 percent of the rural populationhaving access to an improved water source in 2012compared to 98 percent of the urban population. 15

Access to clean water and sanitation facilities canimprove health outcomes.

Other health challenges include the high burden ofcommunicable diseases. In 2012, approximately 47percent of deaths were caused by either communicablediseases or poor maternal, prenatal, and nutrition

11 Ibid.12 UNESCO, 2014.13 Republic of Namibia, 2012b.14 Ibid.15 World Bank, 2014.16 Ibid.17 Ibid.

conditions. Communicable diseases in Namibia includeHIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. Namibia has one of thehighest rates of HIV globally. The prevalence of HIVamongst individuals between the ages of 15 49 hasgradually declined from 17 percent in 2003 to 14 percentin 2013.16 However, the reported number of tuberculosiscases has increased within the same time period. Noncommunicable diseases, such as hypertension anddiabetes, are also becoming a problem. In 2012,approximately 43 percent of deaths were caused by noncommunicable diseases.17

The maternal mortality ratio and infant mortality ratehave not made significant improvements since 2000. Thematernal mortality ratio increased from 225 deaths per100,000 live births in 1992 to 449 deaths in 2007 mainlydue to HIV/AIDS and the lack of access to emergencyobstetric care services. 18 Infant mortality rates havedecreased slowly. In 2013, the infant mortality rate was35.2 per 1,000 live births, which is a slight decrease fromthe previous year. The neonatal mortality rate remainedsteady at 21.8 deaths per 1,000 live births from 2012 to2013. The under 5 mortality rate decreased very slowlybetween 2010 and 2013, with rates of 56 deaths and 50deaths per 1,000 live births respectively.19

Nutrition is a priority and a multi sectoralimplementation strategy was developed in 2012 toaddress stunting in children under the age of five yearsold. Approximately 29 percent of children under five arestunted, which may make them more susceptible todisease and have a negative effect on cognitivedevelopment. 20 Micronutrient deficiency is also aproblem with the highest rate of anemia amongstpreschool aged children and several regions withpopulations that are iodine deficient.21

The Case for School FeedingSchool feeding programs, defined here as the provisionof food to schoolchildren, can increase schoolenrollment 22 and attendance—especially for girls. 23When combined with quality education, school feeding

18World Health Organization and Republic of Namibia’s Ministry of Health andSocial Services, 2010.19 World Bank, 2014.20 Namibia Alliance for Improved Nutrition, 2013.21 Ibid.22 Ahmed, 2004; Gelli, Meir, and Espejo, 2007.23 Jacoby, Cueto, and Pollitt, 1996; Powell et al., 1998; Kristjansson et al., 2007.



programs can increase cognition 24 and educationalsuccess. 25 With appropriately designed rations, schoolfeeding programs can improve the nutrition status ofpreschool and primary school aged children byaddressing micronutrient deficiencies. Combined withlocal agricultural production, these programs can alsoprovide small scale farmers with a stable market. Schoolfeeding programs can provide short term benefits aftercrises, helping communities recover and build resilience,in addition to long term benefits by developing humancapital.26 School feeding programs can be classified intotwo main groups: in school feeding (when children arefed in school) and take home rations (when families aregiven food if their children attend school regularly). Amajor advantage of school feeding programs is they offerthe greatest benefit to the poorest children. Severalstudies27 have indicated that missing breakfast impairseducational performance.

Present data suggests that almost every country isseeking to provide food to its schoolchildren. Therefore,especially for low income countries where most foodinsecure regions are concentrated, the key issue is notwhether a country will implement school feedingprograms but rather how and with what objectives.

Social shocks of recent global crises led to an enhanceddemand for school feeding programs in low incomecountries as they can serve as a safety net for foodinsecure households through an income transfer. Inresponse to this amplified request, the United NationsWorld Food Programme (WFP) and the World Bankjointly undertook an analysis titled Rethinking SchoolFeeding. 28 This initiative sought to better understandhow to develop and implement effective school feedingprograms as a productive safety net that is part of theresponse to the social shocks, as well as a fiscallysustainable investment in human capital. These effortsare part of a long term global goal to achieve EducationFor All and provide social protection to the poor.

The Government of Namibia took ownership of theNamibian School Feeding Programme (NSFP) from theUnited Nations World Food Programme (WFP) in 1996;

24 Whaley et al., 2003; Kristjansson et al., 2007; Jukes et al., 2008.25 Tan, Lane, and Lassibille, 1999; Ahmed, 2004; Adelman et al., 2008.26 WFP, 201327 Simeon and Grantham McGregor, 1989; Pollitt, Cueto, and Jacoby, 1998;Simeon, 1998.

the government has fully funded and managed theprogram since then.29 NSFP has grown into an importantstrategy that the government utilizes to increaseeducational opportunities for vulnerable children;increase attendance, retention, and promotion rates;and to provide a safety net to food insecure students.30

NSFP provides a daily mid morning meal of fortifiedmaize meal to approximately 320,000 pre primary andprimary school children in vulnerable areas throughoutall 14 regions in Namibia. The Directorate of Programmesand Quality Assurance (PQA), under the Ministry ofEducation, is the formal government body thatcoordinates, manages, and implements the schoolfeeding program in Namibia. The NSFP unit’s mainfunctions include food procurement, monitoringimplementation, and maintaining oversight and externalcontrol of the feeding program.

In 2012, the Ministry of Education (MOE) conducted anoperational review on NSFP, with technical assistancefrom WFP. The resulting NSFP Case Study 31 revealedsignificant gaps and challenges that threatened thequality of school feeding in Namibia. In an effort toimprove the effectiveness of the program, the MOEestablished a strategic partnership with WFP to gettechnical support in four main areas: policy guidance,capacity building and program support, knowledgegeneration, andmanagement and system strengthening.

There are five core policy goals that form the basis of aneffective school feeding program. Figure 1 illustratesthese policy goals and outlines respective policy leversand outcomes that fall under each goal.

The first goal is a national policy framework. A solidpolicy foundation strengthens a school feedingprogram’s sustainability and quality of implementation.National planning for school feeding as part of thecountry’s poverty reduction strategy (or other equivalentdevelopment strategies) conveys the importance thegovernment places on school feeding as part of itsdevelopment agenda. For most countries that are

28 Bundy et al., 2009.29 Republic of Namibia, 2012a.30 Ibid.31 Ibid.



implementing their own national programs, schoolfeeding is included in national policy frameworks.32

The second policy goal for school feeding is financialcapacity. Stable funding is a prerequisite forsustainability. However, where need is greatest,programs tend to be the smallest and themost reliant onexternal support. Funding for these programs can comefrom a combination of sources, such as nongovernmental organizations (i.e., WFP) and thegovernment. When a program becomes nationalized, itneeds a stable and independent funding source, eitherthrough government core resources or developmentfunding. In the long term, a national budget line forschool feeding is necessary for an effective and stableprogram.

The third policy goal is institutional capacity andcoordination. School feeding programs are betterexecuted when an institution is mandated andaccountable for the implementation of such a program.Effective programs also include multi sectoralinvolvement from sectors such as education, health,agriculture, and local government, as well as acomprehensive link between school feeding and otherschool health or social protection programs andestablished coordination mechanisms.

The fourth policy goal is sound design andimplementation. In order to maximize effectiveness,school feeding programs should clearly identify countryspecific problems, objectives, and expected outcomes.The country’s context and needs should determine theprogram’s beneficiaries, food basket (menus), foodmodalities and supply chain. Countries and partnersshould work towards creating a delicate balance amonginternational, national, and local procurement of foodsto support local economies without jeopardizing thequality and stability of the food supply.

The last policy goal is community roles reaching beyondschools. School feeding programs that are locally owned,incorporate contributions from local communities, andrespond to specific community needs are often thestrongest. These programs are most likely to make asuccessful transition from donor assistance to nationalownership. Community participation should be

32 Bundy et al., 2009; WFP, 2012.

considered at every stage, but without overburdeningcommunity members.

The primary focus of the SABER School Feeding exerciseis gathering systematic and verifiable information aboutthe quality of a country’s policies through a SABERSchool Feeding Questionnaire. This data collectinginstrument helps to facilitate comparative policyanalysis, identify key areas to focus investment, anddisseminate good practice and knowledge sharing. Thisholistic and integrated assessment of how the overallpolicy in a country affects young children’s developmentis categorized into one of the following stages,representing the varying levels of policy developmentthat exist among different dimensions of school feeding:

1. Latent: No or very little policy development2. Emerging: Initial/some initiatives towards policy

development.3. Established: Some policy development4. Advanced: Development of a comprehensive

policy framework

Each policy goal and lever of school feeding ismethodically benchmarked through two SABER analysistools. The first is a scoring rubric that quantifies theresponses to selected questions from the SABER SchoolFeeding questionnaire by assigning point values to theanswers. The second tool is the SABER School FeedingFramework rubric that analyzes the responses, especiallythe written answers, based on the framework’s fivepolicy goals and levers. For more information, please visitthe World Bank’s website on SABER School Health andSchool Feeding and click on the “What Matters”Framework Paper under Methodology.



Figure 1: Policy goals and policy levers for school feeding



Findings

Policy Goal 1: PolicyFrameworks in Namibia

Policy Lever

Overarching policies for school feeding in alignmentwith national level policy

A policy foundation helps strengthen the sustainabilityand accountability of a school feeding program as well asthe quality of its implementation. Nearly all countrieswith national ownership of programs have wellarticulated national policies on the modalities andobjectives of school feeding.33

The recognition of the Namibian School FeedingProgramme (NSFP) as an important safety net isdemonstrated by the inclusion of the program in sevennational strategy documents and sectoral policies/plans,including Namibia's Fourth Development Plan (NDP4) for2012/13 2016/17, 34 Education and Training SectorImprovement Plan (ETSIP) in 2005,35 Education for AllPolicy (EFA) for 2002 2015,36 National Plan of Action forOVCs in 2006, 37 National Policy for School Health in2008,38 National Drought Policy & Strategy in 1997,39 andthe National Policy on HIV/AIDS for the Education Sectorin 2003.40 The National Strategic Plan for Nutrition alsostates that theMinistry of Education oversees the qualityand safety of the food served for the school feedingprogramme.41 However, a separate national policy onschool feeding in Namibia is not yet in place. TheMinistryof Education is partnering with WFP to begin work ondeveloping a NSFP policy.

33 WFP, 201234 Republic of Namibia, 2012c.35 Republic of Namibia, 2005.36 Republic of Namibia, 2002. Pg. 3837 Republic of Namibia, 2006.

1. Policy Frameworks is EMERGING

Indicators Score Justification1A. National levelpoverty reductionstrategy as well aseducation sectoralpolicies and strategiesidentify school feeding asan education and/orsocial protectionintervention, with clearlydefined objectives andsectoral responsibilities

School feedingincluded in PRSPand EducationSector Plan; butwithout targets,strategies,definedobjectives andsectoralresponsibilities.

1B. An evidence basedtechnical policy related toschool feeding outlinesthe objectives, rationale,scope, design, andfunding and sustainabilityof the program andcomprehensivelyaddresses all four otherpolicy goals.

A national policyon school feedingis not developed;however there isa strongrecognition of itsimportance and itis listed in theNSFP 5 year RoadMap (2012 2017)as a milestoneand action item.

38 Republic of Namibia, 2008. Pg. 639 Republic of Namibia, 1997.40 Republic of Namibia, 2003. Pg. 541 Republic of Namibia, 2011. Pg. 46.



Policy Goal 2: FinancialCapacity in Namibia

Policy Lever

Governance of the national school feeding programthrough stable funding and budgeting

Stable funding is necessary for the long termsustainability of a school feeding program, especially onethat transitions from being donor funded to governmentfunded. School feeding programs supported by externalpartners generally rely on food aid, government in kinddonations, and/or government cash contributions. Inorder for the program to be sustainable and nationallyowned, the school feeding program should have a budgetline and be part of the government’s budgeting andplanning process.

The budget for the Namibian School Feeding Programme(NSFP) is incorporated within the national educationbudget. It is listed under ‘Other Services’ (item 027),42

which also includes catering, workshops, training,publishing, etc. While NSFP technically has its ownbudget line, it is not listed under programs, which limitsits sustainability and recognition as an integralintervention for quality learning. The Ministry ofEducation’s goal is to list NSFP separately as a programline item under Primary Education and SecondaryEducation, as the beneficiary target group expands.

The current budget for NSFP mainly covers the purchaseand distribution of food/maize blend (98 percent). Theremaining 2 percent covers the cost of staff and theoverall management of NSFP, which is considered verylow in comparison with other countries. This leaves nofunds available for non food items or infrastructureneeds (i.e., adequate storage places, kitchens, stoves,pots, and utensils).

The government contributes over 80 percent of thefinancial needs for the school feeding program, while theremaining costs are covered through communitycontributions, most of which are in kind. As the budgetpriority is procuring food, the limited budget remains aconstraint against diversifying the food basket,

42 Republic of Namibia, 2012a. pg. 5743 The ‘San’ people are group of former hunter gatherer communities that aremade up of different ethnic groups. The San population has the highest level

expanding the staffing capacity, and incorporatingadditional monitoring activities.

From 2011 2014, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB andMalaria financed the NSFP food needs (maize meal) foronly two regions with a high population of the Sanpeople, specifically Kunene and Otjozondjupa. 43 Theycontributed approximately 123,810 USD, which was onepercent of investment in school feeding. The provision offunds ended in 2013/2104.

Regions and schools do not have a dedicated budget linefor NSFP, nor do they budget for NSFP activities. Someschools do make provision under the SchoolDevelopment Fund or Universal Primary Education Fundfor NSFP expenses. A few regions have begun toincorporate NSFP activities within the regional educationbudget, although this is not standardized.

Previously, late release of funds to service providers hascaused delayed delivery of food to schools, threateningthe impact and the integrity of the program. There is astrong need to put mechanisms in place to ensure thedisbursement of funds to school feeding implementers ina timely and effective manner.

2. Financial Capacity is EMERGING

Indicators Score Justification2A. National budgetline(s) and funding isallocated to schoolfeeding; funds aredisbursed to theimplementation levelsin a timely andeffective manner.

The Namibian SchoolFeeding Programmeis funded from acentral governmentbudget. Funds arenot enough to coverall the needs. Thereis no budget line forschool feeding in theregional and schoollevels. There is aneed to putmechanisms in placeto ensure thedisbursement offunds for schoolfeedingimplementers in atimely and effectivemanner.

of poverty than any other ethnic/tribal group in Namibia, and severalinterventions and strategies are targeted to the San community, especiallyprogrammes around increasing educational outcomes for San learners.



Policy Goal 3: InstitutionalCapacity and Coordinationin Namibia

Policy Levers

School feeding inter sectoral coordination andstrong partnershipsManagement and accountability structures, stronginstitutional frameworks, and monitoring andevaluation

Implementing a school feeding policy requires significantinstitutional capacity because the program is a complexschool health intervention. The policy should clearlydefine the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders andactors at all levels. Methodically increasing governmentcapacity to manage a school feeding program isimportant to the program’s long term sustainability. Anational institution that is mandated and accountable forthe implementation of the school feeding program isconsidered to be a best practice. This institution shouldhave a specific unit that has adequate resources andknowledgeable staff to manage the school feedingprogram. Moreover, policies that detail accountabilityand management mechanisms can help ensure programquality and efficiency, especially if the school feedingprogram is decentralized.

Currently, Namibia does not have a steering committeein place that coordinates the implementation of theNamibian School Feeding Programme (NSFP). TheMinistry of Education (MOE) has the mandate ofimplementing the school feeding program to preschoolsand primary schools in Namibia. Under the MOE, theDirectorate of Programmes and Quality Assurance (PQA)is responsible for the oversight of NSFP; however, themain duties fall under the NSFP unit within the divisionof Management Planning Appraisal and Training (MPAT).The NSFP unit’s responsibilities are heavily focused oncommodity procurement, and little monitoring andstrategic activities are performed. Monitoring andimplementation activities are clearly highlighted in theNSFP Reference Manual (2013)44 and integrated at allMOE levels (central, region, circuit and school). At boththe national and regional levels, there are insufficientstaff members to undertake the required functions forschool feeding.

44 Republic of Namibia, 2013d.

There are formal coordination mechanisms andstructures in place among national, regional, circuit andschool levels, although strong communication is lacking.At the school level, the school board is responsible forthe management of school feeding with guidance fromregional and circuit levels.

The 2013 Namibian School Feeding ProgrammeReference Manual details the guidelines, standards andprocedures for effectively implementing the schoolfeeding program. From 2013 to 2014, training wasprovided to all MOE staff involved in NSFP managementand implementation at central, regional, circuit, andschool levels. The trainings focused on the NSFPstandards, procedures, processes, monitoring activities,and roles and responsibilities of stakeholders toimplement the school feeding program efficiently andeffectively. In early 2014, service providers were alsotrained on their roles and responsibilities within NSFP.

There are three main national coordinationplatforms/bodies where school feeding issues arediscussed. The first is the Namibia Alliance for ImprovedNutrition, a multi sector, multi stakeholder platformthat develops and coordinates the implementation of amulti sectoral national nutrition strategy and managesnational nutrition promotion activities. The second is theEducation and Training Sector Improvement Programme(ETSIP), which is a strategy within MOE that is designedto accelerate the improvement of the education andtraining sector in Namibia. NSFP developments arediscussed during ETSIP meetings. The third nationalcoordination platform that incorporates NSFP issues isthe Namibia Vulnerability Assessment Committee(NAMVAC). NAMVAC conducts vulnerabilityassessments, the findings of which contribute todecisions made regarding school feedingimplementation and design.



3. Institutional Capacity and Coordination isESTABLISHED

Indicators Score Justification3A. Multi sectoralsteering committeecoordinatesimplementation of anational schoolfeeding policy

A steeringcommittee is not inplace to coordinatethe implementationof NSFP in Namibia.There are nationalcoordinationplatforms/bodieswhere schoolfeeding issues arediscussed.

3B. National schoolfeeding managementunit andaccountabilitystructures are inplace, coordinatingwith school levelstructures.

An NSFP unit underMOE has themandate ofimplementing andmanaging NSFP.Formal coordinationmechanisms are inplace and functionproperly in mostinstances.

3C. School levelmanagement andaccountabilitystructures are inplace.

Mechanisms formanaging schoolfeeding at theschool level areuniform through anational referencemanual that hasbeen revised in2013 and is in placein most schools.



Policy Goal 4: Designand Implementationin Namibia

Policy Lever:

Quality assurance of programming and targeting,modalities, and procurement design, ensuringdesign that is both needs based and cost effective

A well designed school feeding policy that is based onevidence is critical to the implementation of a qualityschool feeding program. The policy can include details ontargeting the correct beneficiaries, selecting the propermodalities of food delivery, and choosing a quality foodbasket. Over time, the school feeding policy may beredesigned or modified according to reassessments ofthe school feeding program.

The Ministry of Education (MOE), with technical supportfrom the World Food Programme (WFP), has developedand initiated a comprehensive monitoring andevaluation (M&E) plan45 for the Namibian School FeedingProgramme (NSFP) that includes data collection tools,data analysis, reporting, evaluations, budget planning,and a web based system, known as the Namibian SchoolFeeding Programme Information System (NaSIS). NaSIS isan online data capturing system, where important NSFPinformation is captured and stored. NaSIS is accessible toall NSFP actors, including MOE staff and serviceproviders. In addition to the monitoring information, thesystem also captures information on commoditymanagement and tracking. Data collection takes place atthe school level, verification occurs at the circuit level,data entry occurs at the regional level, and reportingtakes place at both the regional and national levels. TheM&E plan and system were recently operationalized inthe second scholastic term of 2014; therefore, the datahas not yet been used to refine and update the program.

Previously the NSFP targeted orphans and othervulnerable children (OVCs) and learners in vulnerableareas; however, the targeting criteria and methodologyhave since been adjusted. The beneficiaries of NSFP nowinclude all pre primary and primary students in foodinsecure areas, particularly in rural areas. Targeting is

45 Republic of Namibia, n.d.46 Republic of Namibia, 2013e.

geographical, not at an individual level. Secondarylearners are not eligible for school feeding.

There are national standards on food distribution andthe food basket46 that correspond to program objectives,nutritional content requirements, local habits and tastesand availability of local food. These standards are knownand implemented at the school level in most instances.Food safety standards remain an issue since the processof storage and preparation of food at school levels arenot monitored properly.

There are national standards on food management,procurement and logistics 47 that include procuring aslocally as possible and taking into account the requiredfactors of cost, capacity of implementing parties, andproduction capacity in the country. The procurement ofthe maize meal occurs at the central level, while tendersare awarded to three service providers for the following:i) procurement of sugar, salt, and soya protein blend, ii)procurement of maize meal, blending, packaging maizemeal blend, and transportation to regional warehouses,and iii) transportation to schools from regionalwarehouses.

Approximately 75 percent of the total food used forschool feeding is produced locally, while 100 percent isprocured locally from Namibian businesses. The currentservice provision model of NSFP creates job andeconomic opportunities for Namibians and localbusinesses. There have been discussions on possibleprocurement modalities for school feeding that can bemore locally appropriate, such as linking school feedingto local small scale farmers. However, given the aridityof Namibia, it has been decided that this may not be thebest option for commodity procurement for NSFP.

47 Republic of Namibia, 2013d.



4. Design and Implementation is ESTABLISHEDIndicators Score Justification

4A. A functionalmonitoring andevaluation system is inplace as part of thestructure of the leadinstitution and usedfor implementationand feedback

A web based M&Esystem, supportedby an M&E plan, islaunched andstarting to befunctional. Trainingto inspectors hastaken place.

4B. Program designidentifies appropriatetarget groups andtargeting criteriacorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and thesituation analysis

An operationalreview has beenundertaken thatassesses schoolfeeding needs,which has fed therevision of targetingcriteria andmethodology.

4C. Food modalitiesand the food basketcorrespond to theobjectives, local habitsand tastes, availabilityof local food, foodsafety, and nutritioncontent requirements

National standardsfor food modalitiesand the food basketare set andfunctional in mostinstances.

4D. Procurement andlogistics arrangementsare based on procuringas locally as possible,taking into account thecosts, the capacities ofimplementing parties,the productioncapacity in thecountry, the quality ofthe food, and thestability of the pipeline

National standardson procurement andlogisticsarrangements occurat the central level,and are establishedand functioning.



Policy Goal 5:Community Roles –Reaching Beyond Schoolsin Namibia

Policy Lever:

Community participation and accountability

The role of the community should be clearly defined in aschool feeding policy because community participationand ownership improves the school feeding program’schances of long term sustainability. If the governmentplaces the responsibility of sustaining the school feedingprogram on the community, the school feeding policyshould detail the guidelines, minimum standards, andsupport for the community to implement the program.The school feeding policy can also include mechanismsfor the community to hold the government accountable.

At the school level, there may be a school managementcommittee composed of parents, teachers, and studentsthat acts as a liaison between the school and communityand that manages the school feeding program. Careshould be taken not to overburden the community,because in some cases the communitymay introduce feesto support the local school feeding program, which cannegatively impact enrollment rates. Community assistedschool feeding programs are usually most successful infood secure areas.

In Namibia, every school has a school board that includesparents, teachers, principals, and other communitymembers. Within the school board, the school feedingsub committee is directly responsible for coordinatingthe operations of the program on a daily basis. They areexpected to solve implementation problems, fundraise,and mobilize the community to volunteer as cooks. Theroles of the community, school board, and school feedingsubcommittee are clearly outlined in the NSFP ReferenceManual.48

In practice, there is a low level of communityparticipation throughout the country, mainly due to thecommunities’ perception of high expectations forminimal incentives. One of the major challenges schoolsface is in mobilizing the community members/parents to

48 Republic of Namibia, 2013d. Pg. 17 21

cook the daily meal. Community members often requestcash payment rather than the in kind incentives theyreceive in the form of food. Options for cash payment ofcooks/volunteers should be considered, as it willincrease community participation. Awareness ofcommunity participation and expectations should beraised.

Community members are encouraged to participate inthe implementation of school feeding at their respectiveschools through the school board, the school feedingsub committee, or volunteering for NSFP. Communitymembers are able to hold the school feeding programaccountable by either reporting issues (i.e.,mismanagement or abuse) to the school board or schooladministration.

5. Community Roles Reaching Beyond Schools isEMERGING

Indicators Score Justification5A. Communityparticipates in schoolfeeding programdesign,implementation,management andevaluation andcontributes resources

There are schoolcommittees inplace, and theirroles are identifiedin the NSFPReference Manual,2013. In practicethese roles are notfully utilized.Awareness ofcommunityparticipation isneeded. Other thanparticipation in theschool board, thereare no mechanismsfor the communityto hold the schoolfeeding programaccountable.

To view the scores for all indicators and policy goals inone table, please refer to Appendix 1.



ConclusionBased on the above findings, there are areas that couldbe strengthened moving forward. The following policyoptions represent possible areas where school feedingcould be strengthened in Namibia. The conclusions ofthis report and have been reflected in a revised roadmapof the Namibian NSFP.

Policy Options:

Establish a National School Feeding Policy forNamibia.Budget should correspond with program expansionand include non food based activities (i.e., M&E,non food items, and capacity building of staff).Establish a separate budget line for NSFP, andregional education and school budgets shouldintegrate NSFP related activities.Establish a multi sectoral NSFP Steering Committeeto coordinate the implementation and improvementof NSFP.Mobilize resources from the government and othersources for the diversification of the school feedingfood basket.Mobilize community participation by educatingthem about their roles and responsibilities and theimportance of the NSFP.



Appendix 1

Table 1. Levels of Development of SABER School Health Indicators and Policy Goals inNamibia

Latent Emerging Established Advanced

National-level povertyreduction strategy orequivalent nationalstrategy as w ell assectoral policies andstrategies (educationsector plan, nutritionpolicy, social protectionpolicy) identify schoolfeeding as aneducation and/or socialprotection intervention,clearly definingobjectives and sectoralresponsibilities

There is recognition ofschool feeding as aneducation and/or socialprotection intervention,but school feeding is notyet included in thepublished national-levelpoverty reductionstrategy, equivalentnational policy, orsectoral policies andstrategies

School feeding discussedby members and partnersduring preparation ofnational-level povertyreduction strategy,equivalent nationalpolicy, or sectoral policiesand strategies but not yetpublished

School feeding includedin published national-levelpoverty reduction strategyor equivalent nationalpolicy (includingspecif ications as to w hereschool feeding w ill beanchored and w ho w illimplement); publishedsectoral policies orstrategies have clearlydefined objectives andsectoral responsibilities

School feeding included inpublished national-levelpoverty reduction strategyor equivalent national policy(including specif ications asto w here school feeding w illbe anchored and w ho w illimplement andaccompanied by targetsand/or milestones set by thegovernment); publishedsectoral policies orstrategies have clearlydefined objectives andsectoral responsibilities,including w hat schoolfeeding can and cannotachieve, and aligned w iththe national-level povertyreduction strategy orequivalent national strategy

An evidence-basedtechnical policy relatedto school feedingoutlines the objectives,rationale, scope,design, and fundingand sustainability of theprogram andcomprehensivelyaddresses all four otherpolicy goals(institutional capacityand coordination,f inancial capacity,design andimplementation, andcommunityparticipation)

There is recognition ofthe need for a technicalpolicy related to schoolfeeding, but one has notyet been developed orpublished

A technical policy andsituation analysis underdevelopment by therelevant sectors thataddress school feeding

A technical policy relatedto school feeding ispublished, outlining theobjectives, rationale,scope, design, fundingand sustainability of theprogram and coveringsome aspects of all fourother policy goals,including links w ithagriculture development

A technical policy related to school feeding is published,outlining the objectives,rationale, scope, design,funding and sustainability ofthe program andcomprehensively coveringall four other policy goalsw ith a strategy for localproduction and sourcing,including links w ithagriculture development andsmall holder farmers; policyis informed by a situationanalysis of needs andaligned w ith national povertyreduction strategies andrelevant sectoral policiesand strategies

Governance of thenational schoolfeeding program -stable funding andbudgeting

National budget line(s)and funding areallocated to schoolfeeding; funds aredisbursed to theimplementation levels(national, district and/orschool) in a timely andeffective manner

There is recognition of theneed to include schoolfeeding in the nationalplanning process, but thishas not yet happened; thegovernment is fully relianton external funds anddoes not have provision inthe national budget toallocate resources toschool feeding; there isrecognition of the need formechanisms fordisbursing funds to theimplementation levels, butthese are not yet in place

School feeding isincluded in the nationalplanning process andnational funding isstable through a budgetline but unable to coverall needs; there is nobudget line at regionaland school levels;existing school feedingfunds are disbursed tothe implementationlevels intermittently

School feeding is includedin the national planningprocess and is fully fundedthrough a national budgetline; all ministries involvedin the programimplementation have abudget line or fundsallocated; budget linesalso exist at regional andschool levels; schoolfeeding funds aredisbursed to theimplementation levels in atimely and effectivemanner

School feeding is included inthe national planningprocess and is fully fundedthrough a national budgetline consistent w ith theschool feeding policy andsituation analysis includingoptions for engaging w iththe private sector; budgetlines and plans also exist atregional and school levels,suff icient to cover all theexpenses of running theprogram ; school feedingfunds are disbursed to theimplementation levels in atimely and effective mannerand implementers have thecapacity to plan and budgetas w ell as request resources from the central level

EMERGING

Policy Goal 1: Policy frameworks

Policy Goal 2: Financial Capacity

Overarching policiesfor school feeding -

sound alignmentw ith the national

policy

EMERGING

Systems Approach for Better Education Results: School Feeding Policy Framework

POLICY LEVER INDICATORSTAGE OVERALL SCORE PER

DOMAIN



School feedingcoordination - strongpartnerships andinter-sectorcoordination

Multisectoral steeringcommittee coordinatesimplementation of anational school feedingpolicy

Any multisectoral steeringcommittee coordinationefforts are currently nonsystematic

Sectoral steeringcommittee coordinatesimplementation of anational school feedingpolicy

Multisectoral steeringcommittee from at leasttw o sectors (e.g.education, socialprotection, agriculture,health, local government,w ater) coordinatesimplementation of anational school feedingpolicy

Multisectoral steeringcommittee from at leastthree sectors (e.g.education, social protection,agriculture, health, localgovernment, w ater)coordinates implementationof a national school feedingpolicy; this government-ledcommittee providescomprehensive coordination(across internationalagencies, NGOs, the privatesector and local businessrepresentatives as w ell) andis part of a w ider committeeon school health and nutrition

National school feedingmanagement unit andaccountabilitystructures are in place,coordinating w ithschool level structures

A specif ic school feedingunit does not yet exist atthe national level;coordination betw een thenational, regional/local (ifapplicable), and schoolsis lacking

A school feeding unitexists at the nationallevel, but it has limitedresources and limitedstaff numbers and lacksa clear mandate; w hilecoordinationmechanisms betw eenthe national,regional/local (ifapplicable), and schoollevel are in place, theyare not fully functioning

A fully staffed schoolfeeding unit w ith a clearmandate exists at thenational level, based onan assessment of staff ingand resources needs;coordination mechanismsbetw een the national,regional/local (ifapplicable), and schoollevel are in place andfunctioning in mostinstances

A fully staffed schoolfeeding unit exists at thenational level, based on anassessment of staff ing andresources needs, w ith aclear mandate, and preandin-service training;coordination mechanismsbetw een the national,regional/local (if applicable),and school level are in placeand fully functioning

School levelmanagement andaccountabilitystructures are in place

Mechanisms formanaging school feedingat the school level arenon-uniform and nationalguidance on this islacking

National guidance onrequired mechanismsfor managing schoolfeeding are available atthe school level, butthese are not yetimplemented fully

Most schools have amechanism to manageschool feeding, based onnational guidance

All schools have amechanism to manageschool feeding, based onnational guidance, w ith preandin-service training forrelevant staff

A functional monitoringand evaluation (M&E)system is in place aspart of the structure ofthe lead institution andused forimplementation andfeedback

The importance of M&E isrecognised, butgovernment systems arenot yet in place for M&Eof school feedingimplementation

A government M&E planexists for school feedingw ith intermittent datacollection and reportingoccurring especially atthe national level

The M&E plan for schoolfeeding is integrated intonational monitoring orinformation managementsystems and datacollection and reportingoccurs recurrently atnational and regionallevels

The M&E plan for schoolfeeding is integrated intonational monitoring orinformation managementsystems and data collectionand reporting occursrecurrently at national,regional and school levels;analysed information isshared and used to refineand update programs;baseline is carried out andprogram evaluations occurperiodically

Program designidentif ies appropriatetarget groups andtargeting criteriacorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and the situationanalysis

The need for targeting isrecognised, but asituation analysis has notyet been undertaken thatassesses school feedingneeds and neithertargeting criteria nor atargeting methodologyhas been established asyet

Targeting criteria and atargeting methodology isbeing developedcorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy; a situationanalysis assessingneeds is incomplete asyet

Targeting criteria and atargeting methodologyexists and is implementedcorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and a situationanalysis assessing needs

Targeting criteria and atargeting methodologyexists and is implementedcorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and situation analysis(including costings forvarious targeting anddesigns); M&E informationis used to refine and updatetargeting and coverage on aperiodic basis

Food modalities andthe food basketcorrespond to theobjectives, local habitsand tastes, availabilityof local food, foodsafety (according toWHO guidelines), andnutrition contentrequirements

There is recognition of theneed for nationalstandards for foodmodalities and the foodbasket, but these do notexist yet

National standards onfood modalities and thefood basket have beendeveloped andcorrespond to tw o ormore of the follow ing:objectives, local habitsand tastes, availability oflocal food, food safety(according to WHOguidelines), and nutritioncontent requirements

National standards onfood modalities and thefood basket have beendeveloped and correspondto objectives, local habitsand tastes, availability oflocal food, food safety(according to WHOguidelines), and nutritioncontent requirements

National standards on foodmodalities and the foodbasket have beendeveloped and correspondto objectives, local habitsand tastes, availability oflocal food, food safety(according to WHOguidelines), and nutritioncontent requirements; M&Einformation is used to refineand update food modalitiesand food basket on aperiodic basis

Procurement andlogistics arrangementsare based on procuringas locally as possible,taking into account thecosts, the capacities ofimplementing parties,the production capacityin the country, thequality of the food, andthe stability of thepipeline

There is recognition of theneed for nationalstandards forprocurement and logisticsarrangements, but thesedo not exist yet

National standards onprocurement andlogistics arrangementshave been developedand are based on threeor more of the follow ing:procuring as locally aspossible, taking intoaccount the costs, thecapacities ofimplementing parties,the production capacityin the country, thequality of the food, andthe stability of thepipeline

National standards onprocurement and logisticsarrangements have beendeveloped and are basedon procuring as locally aspossible, taking intoaccount the costs, thecapacities of implementingparties, the productioncapacity in the country,the quality of the food, andthe stability of the pipeline

National standards onprocurement and logisticsarrangements have beendeveloped and are based onprocuring as locally aspossible, taking into accountthe costs, the capacities ofimplementing parties, theproduction capacity in thecountry, the quality of thefood, and the stability of thepipeline; M&E information isused to refine and updateprocurement and logisticsarrangements

Policy Goal 3: Institutional Capacity and Coordination

ESTABLISHED

Policy Goal 4: Design and Implementation

Management andaccountability

structures, includingstaff ing - strong

institutionalframew orks forimplementation

ESTABLISHED

Quality assurance ofprogramming and

targeting,modalities, and

procurement design,ensuring design thatis both needs-basedand cost-effective



Communityparticipation andaccountability -strong communityparticipation andow nership(teachers, parents,children)

Community participatesin school feedingprogram design,implementation,management andevaluation andcontributes resources(in-kind, cash or aslabor)

Systems andaccountabilitymechanisms are not yetin place for consultationw ith parents andcommunity members onthe design, monitoringand feedback of theschool feeding program

A school feedingmanagement committeeexists but parent andcommunity memberparticipation could bestrengthened andaw areness on theopportunity to monitorand feedback on theschool feeding program islacking

The school feedingmanagement committeecomprisesrepresentatives ofteachers, parents, andcommunity members andcommunities haveaccountabilitymechanisms to holdschool feeding programsaccountable at the schoollevel

The school feedingmanagement committeecomprises representativesof teachers, parents, andcommunity members andhas clearly definedresponsibilities and periodictraining. Accountabilitymechanisms are in place byw hich communities can holdschool feeding programsaccountable at the school,regional, and national levels

EMERGING

Policy Goal 5: Community roles--reaching beyond schools



AcknowledgementsThis report is part of a joint World Bank Group andWorldFood Program effort to help countries strengthen theireducation system policies and institutions specifically inrelation to school health and school feeding. The SABERSchool Feeding tools were applied by the World FoodProgram and this report was prepared from a SABERSchool Feeding questionnaire completed by staff of theMinistry of Education, Namibian Agronomic Board,UNICEF, and World Food Programme.

We thank the Ministry of Education in Namibia, thedepartment of Programme Quality and Assurance fortheir cooperation in completing the SABER SFquestionnaire. We extend our thanks to the DeputyDirectors of Education, Chief Inspectors of Education,Inspectors of Education, Regional Hostel Officers and therepresentatives from the Office of Prime Minister, theMinistry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare, NamibianAgronomic Board, Council of Churches in Namibia andUNICEF who participated in validating the answers of thequestionnaire.

The discussions allowed MOE and WFP to determine thestage for each indicator and policy goal during theNamibia School Feeding Programme Review Meeting,hosted by the Ministry of Education in Windhoek on July17 18, 2014.

We thank themany people that have served as reviewersincluding Arun R. Joshi, Patricio V. Marquez, Andy ChiTembon, and Michelle Louie (World Bank); DinaAburmishan (World Food Programme); and Bachir Sarr(Partnership for Child Development).

AcronymsEFA Education for All

ETSIP Education and Training Sector ImprovementPlan

GDP Gross Domestic Product

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MOE Ministry of Education

NAMVAC Namibia Vulnerability AssessmentCommittee

NaSIS Namibian School Feeding ProgrammeInformation System

NDP4 National Development Plan IV

NSFP Namibian School Feeding Programme

OVC Orphans and vulnerable children

PQA Directorate of Programmes and QualityAssurance

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan

SHN School Health and Nutrition

WFP World Food Programme

ReferencesAdelman, S., H. Alderman, D. O. Gilligan, and K. Lehrer.

2008. “The Impact of Alternative Food for EducationPrograms on Learning Achievement and CognitiveDevelopment in Northern Uganda.” IFPRI,Washington, DC.

Ahmed, A. U. 2004. “Impact of Feeding Children inSchool: Evidence from Bangladesh.” InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Bundy, D. A. P. 2011. “Rethinking School Health: A KeyComponent of Education for All.” Directions inDevelopment. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Gelli, A., U. Meir, and F. Espejo. 2007. “Does Provision ofFood in School Increase Girls’ Enrollment? Evidencefrom Schools in Sub Saharan Africa.” Food andNutrition Bulletin. 28 (2): 149 55.

Jacoby, E., S. Cueto, and E. Pollitt. 1996. “Benefits of aSchool Breakfast Programme among AndeanChildren in Huaraz, Peru.” Food and NutritionBulletin 17 (1): 54 64.

Jukes, M. C. H., L. J. Drake, and D. A. P. Bundy. 2008.“School Health, Nutrition and Education for All:Levelling the Playing Field.” CABI Publishing,Wallingford, UK.



Kristjansson, E., V. Robinson, M. Petticrew, B.MacDonald, J. Krasevec, L. Janzen, T. Greenhalgh, G.Wells, J. MacGowan, A. Farmer, B. J. Shea, A.Mayhew, and P. Tugwell. 2007. “School Feeding forImproving the Physical and Psychosocial Health ofDisadvantaged Elementary School Children.”Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1.

Namibia Alliance for Improved Nutrition. 2013. Multisectoral Nutrition Implementation Plan, ResultsFramework, and Dashboard of Indicators. Accessedfromhttp://www.unicef.org/namibia/Namibia_Report_on_the_Multi sectoralCIP_100913).pdf.

Namibia Statistics Agency. 2013. Profile of Namibia:Facts, Figures and Other Fundamental Information.

Windhoek, Namibia.Politt, E., S. Cueto, and E. R. Jacoby. 1998. “Fasting and

Cognition in Well and Under nourishedSchoolchildren: A Review of Three ExperimentalStudies.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 67(4): 779s 784s.

Powell, C. A., S. P. Walker, S. M. Chang, and S. M.Grantham McGregor. 1998. “Nutrition andEducation: A Randomized Trial of the Effects ofBreakfast in Rural Primary School Children.”American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 68: 873 9.

Republic of Namibia. 2013a. Namibia Demographic andHealth Survey. Windhoek, Namibia.

Republic of Namibia. 2013b. Emergency Food andNutrition Survey.Windhoek, Namibia.

Republic of Namibia. Ministry of Education. 2013d.Namibian School Feeding Programme ReferenceManual. Windhoek: Directorate of Programmes andQuality Assurance.

Republic of Namibia. Ministry of Education. 2013e.Tender Specifications for: Provision of Sugar, Proteinand Salt; Provision of Maize Meal, Blending andTransportation; and Transporters. Windhoek:Directorate of Programmes Quality and Assurance.

Republic of Namibia. Ministry of Education. 2012a. “TheNamibian School Feeding Programme: A CaseStudy”. Accessed fromhttp://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp252281.pdf.

Republic of Namibia. 2012b. Strategic Plan 2012 2017.Windhoek, Namibia.

Republic of Namibia. 2012c. Namibia’s Fourth NationalDevelopment Plan 2012/2013 – 2016/2017.Accessed fromhttp://www.npc.gov.na/?wpfb_dl=37.

Republic of Namibia. 2011. Strategic Plan for Nutrition2011 2015. Ministry of Health and Social Services:Windhoek, Republic of Namibia. Accessed fromhttps://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/files/NAM%202011%20Final_strategic_Plan_for_Nutrition_14_March_2011%20%282%29.pdf

Republic of Namibia. Ministry of Health and SocialServices. 2008. National Policy for School Health.Windhoek: Primary Health Care Services.

Republic of Namibia. Ministry of Education. 2006.Education Sector Policy for Orphans and VulnerableChildren. Accessed fromhttp://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/files/NPAforOVC Vol1.pdf.

Republic of Namibia. 2005. The Strategic Plan for theEducation and Training Sector ImprovementProgramme: 2005 2020. Accessed fromhttp://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Namibia/Namibia_ETSIP_2005 2020.pdf.

Republic of Namibia. Ministry of Basic Education, Sport,and Culture. Ministry of Higher Education, Training,and Employment Creation. 2003. National Policy onHIV/AIDS for the Education Sector. Accessed fromhttp://www.safaids.net/files/National%20HIVAIDS%20and%20Education%20Policy.pdf.

Republic of Namibia. 2002. Education For All NationalPlan of Action 2002 – 2015. Accessed fromhttp://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Namibia/Namibia%20EFA%20NPA.pdf.

Republic of Namibia. National Drought Task Force. 1997.“National Drought Policy & Strategy”. Accessedfromhttp://www.mawf.gov.na/Documents/app.htm.

Republic of Namibia. 1990. Constitution. Accessed fromhttp://www.orusovo.com/namcon/.

Republic of Namibia. N.d. “Namibian School FeedingProgramme Monitoring and Evaluation Plan”.Ministry of Education.

Simeon, D. T., and S. M. Grantham McGregor. 1989.“Effects of Missing Breakfast on the CognitiveFunctions of School Children of Differing Nutritional



Status.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 49(4): 646 53.

Simeon, D. T. 1998. “School Feeding in Jamaica: A Reviewof its Evaluation.” American Journal of ClinicalNutrition 67 (4):790s 794s.

Tan, J. P., J. Lane, and G. Lassibille. 1999. “StudentOutcomes in Philippine Elementary Schools: AnEvaluation of Four Experiments.” World BankEconomic Review 13 (3): 493 502.

UNESCO. 2014. Education for All Global MonitoringReport 2013/2014. Paris: UNESCO.

Whaley, S. E., M. Sigman, C. Neumann, N. Bwibo, D.Guthrie, R. E. Weiss, S. Alber, and S. P. Murphy.2003. “The Impact of Dietary Intervention on theCognitive Development of Kenyan School Children.”Journal of Nutrition 133 (11): 3965S 71S.

World Bank. 2014. World Development Indicators 20002013 [statistics]. “Namibia”. Available from theWorld Bank World Development Indicatorsdatabase.

World Food Programme (WFP). 2013. ‘’WFP RevisedSchool Feeding Policy’’. World Food Programme,Rome.

World Food Programme (WFP). 2012. “Global SchoolFeeding Survey”. World Food Programme, Rome.

World Health Organization and Republic of Namibia’sMinistry of Health and Social Services. 2010.“Namibia Country Cooperation Strategy”.Windhoek: World Health Organization. Accessedfromhttp://www.afro.who.int/en/namibia/countryprogrammes.html.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2003. “Skills forHealth, Skills Based Health Education Including LifeSkills: An Important Component of a ChildFriendly/Health Promoting School.” InformationSeries on School Health. WHO, Geneva



The Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiativeproduces comparative data and knowledge on education policies andinstitutions, with the aim of helping countries systematically strengthentheir education systems. SABER evaluates the quality of educationpolicies against evidence based global standards, using new diagnostictools and detailed policy data. The SABER country reports give all partieswith a stake in educational results—from administrators, teachers, andparents to policymakers and business people—an accessible, objectivesnapshot showing how well the policies of their country's educationsystem are oriented toward ensuring that all children and youth learn.

This report focuses specifically on policies in the area of School Feeding.

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusionsexpressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of TheWorld Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governmentsthey represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bankconcerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

www.worldbank.org/education/saber

SABER School Feeding Namibia CR Final 2015docx...SCHOOL FEEDING SABER Country Report 2015 Policy...

Documents

Transcript of SABER School Feeding Namibia CR Final 2015docx...SCHOOL FEEDING SABER Country Report 2015 Policy...