-
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 3
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 4
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 5
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 6
Figure 1: Policy goals and policy levers for school feeding
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 7
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 8
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 9
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 10
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 11
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 12
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 13
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 14
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 15
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
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 16
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 pre- andin-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
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 17
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
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 18
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.
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 19
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
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 20
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
-
NAMIBIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2014
SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 21
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