Enhancing Resilience to Food Security Shocks in Africa

1. Enhancing Resilience to Food Security Shocks in Africa Tim Frankenberger, TANGO International TOPS Knowledge Sharing Meeting Washington D.C. November 2012

2. Defining Resilience The ability of countries, communities and households to anticipate, adapt to and /or recover from the effects of potentially hazardous occurrences (natural disasters, economic instability, conflict) in a manner that protects livelihoods, accelerates and sustains recovery, and supports economic and social development

3. Defining Resilience “ A resilient system has the capacity to respond positively to change, maintaining or improving function; this includes monitoring, anticipating and managing known risks and vulnerabilities to existing shocks and stresses while being able to address uncertainties in the future. Changes and responses may be incremental or transformational.” IRWG 2012

4. Why ‘Resilience’? • Continuous cycles of crisis in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, south Asia; not enough time to fully recover between shocks • Crises not the result of weather-related events only; complex interactions between political, economic, social and environmental factors • Conflict and chronic poverty in many regions magnifies the impact of drought and other shocks • Current drought crisis exposed shortcomings of international aid practices and national/regional policies

5. Why ‘Resilience’? • Programming intended to enhance resilience is most necessary and appropriate where populations are chronically food insecure and are exposed to recurrent livelihood shocks and stresses • Specific strategies for enhancing resilience will be as diverse as the different contexts in which they are implemented • Improving resilience should not be defined by the “what” but much more by the “why” and the “where”

6. Resilience: a strategy for addressing immediate and long-term problems • Given: droughts, conflict, price increases and other stresses/shocks are likely to continue • Need for New Paradigm: climate change, political unrest, economic upheaval and other stresses/shocks do not need to become crises • When people are able to anticipate, cope with and respond positively to changes/shocks, the likelihood of shocks becoming disasters is minimized and the prospects for future livelihood security are increased.

7. A conceptual Framework for Assessing Resilience • Provides a comprehensive picture of the specific elements that contribute to resilience and clarifying the types of information that must be collected to measure it • Helps determine whether households, communities and larger populations are on a trajectory towards greater vulnerability or greater resilience

8. Resilience Framework Context e.g., social, ecosystems, political, religious, etc. Disturbance e.g., natural hazard, conflict, food shortage, fuel price increase Adaptive capacity e.g., ability to deal with disturbance Adaptive state to shock Reaction to disturbance e.g., survive, cope, recover, learn, transform Livelihood Outcomes Resilience pathway (-) Food Security Adequate nutrition Environmental security Food Insecurity Malnutrition Environmental degradation Shocks Bounce back better Exposure Bounce back Context Level of aggregation Structures/processes Livelihood Assets Livelihood Strategies Sensitivity Stresses Vulnerability pathway Recover but worse than before Collapse ( + ) TANGO 2012. Adapted from DFID Disaster Resilience Framework (2011) , TANGO Livelihoods Framework (2007), DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (1999) and CARE Household Livelihood Security Framework (2002)

9. Resilience Framework Context • Environmental, political, social, economic, historical, demographic and policy conditions • Affects and is affected by adaptive capacity (ability of HHs, communities, and governments to cope with shocks) • Resilient systems are affected less by future shocks (feedback loop)

10. Resilience Framework Level of aggregation - Resilience of what/who? • Level of Analysis: the individual, household, community, institution, government, ecosystem • nested hierarchy, i.e., resilient individuals and HHs are the foundation for resilient communities • Resilience at one level does not automatically result in resilience at higher levels, i.e., resilient households do not necessarily result in resilient communities

11. Resilience Framework Disturbance – Resilience to what? • Shocks • Rapid onset: floods, earthquakes, disease outbreaks, conflict, food price increases • Slow onset shocks: drought, food price volatility, environmental degradation • Stresses (trends: Climate change, food price volatility, environmental degradation, political instability, disease outbreaks, population increases) • Easier to mobilize resources for rapid onset shocks than slow onset shocks and stresses (sensational) • Idiosyncratic versus covariate • Resilience dependent on shock, i.e., no one-size fits all resilience

12. Resilience Framework Exposure – a function of theduration, magnitude, and frequency of shocks • Duration – length of time that a shock lasts • Magnitude – the severity and extent of a shock • Frequency – how often a shock occurs; high frequency of the same types of shock undermines ability to respond • Ability to manage shocks varies by communities, i.e., how many times a community has experienced the same type of shock may impact ability to respond • Disaster risk reduction approaches are aimed at reducing exposure

13. Resilience Framework Adaptive Capacity – Access to and use of resources and strategies in order to deal with disturbance • Affect and are affected by contextual factors • Livelihoods Assets • Transforming structures and processes • Livelihoods Strategies

14. Livelihood Assets • Tangible and intangible assets allow households to meet their needs and objectives • Livelihoods depend on a combination of six assets: • Financial • Physical • Political • Human • Social • Natural • Most vulnerable households have fewer assets; least resilient

15. Transforming structures/processes • Institutions operating within or have jurisdiction over community functions • National, regional, local governments • NGOs, CBOs • Religious institutions • Trade associations • Shared customs and norms • Formal/informal governance mechanisms to manage resources, target safety nets, mitigate conflict • Government policies • Crop/livestock insurance • Access to Social protection (safety nets)

16. Livelihood Strategies • Production/income generating activities • Household resource investment strategies (e.g., small enterprises, savings, insurance) • Risk reduction and risk management strategies • Coping strategies - +/- strategies

17. Sensitivity • Degree to which a unit (e.g., individual, HH, community) is able to cope with shock or stress due to access to assets, access to external support(safety nets, etc.) and livelihood strategies • Limited adaptive capacity leads to high sensitivity • Poor access to assets, income generating opportunities, and social safety nets, results in increased vulnerability • Actors within a system vary in their sensitivity to the same shock (e.g., women, youths, elderly, children)

18. Reaction to Disturbance: Resilience Pathway vs. Vulnerability Pathway • Households or communities that are able to use their adaptive capacity to manage the shocks or stresses they are exposed to are less sensitive and are on a resilient pathway. If they manage to improve their adaptive capacity by learning from the experience they are very resilient. • Households that are not able to use their adaptive capacity to manage shocks or stresses are very sensitive and are likely to go down a vulnerability pathway.

19. Livelihood Outcomes • These are the needs and objectives that households are trying to realize. • If they are resilient, they will be able to meet their food security needs, they will have access to adequate nutrition, their environment will be protected, they will have income security, health security, and they will be able to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. • If they are not resilient and are chronically vulnerable then they will likely be food insecure, malnourished, they will not have income security, they will be unhealthy, etc.

20. Resilience: A New Paradigm for Programming • To enhance resilience, governments, donors, and implementing agencies should promote integrated strategies that ensure support for three separate but complementary components • Adaptive Capacity • Disaster risk management • Governance and other enabling conditions

21. Resilience Outcomes Improved adaptive capacity Improved capacity to manage risks Improved development indicators • Governance and Enabling Conditions for Achieving Scale • Support government ownership of resilience strategies - Promote responsive social and economic policies that support resilience • Strengthen administrative and technical capacity among - Advocate for formal social protection mechanisms (including emergency • key institutions to promote resilience programming response, productive safety nets and risk insurance) • Provide basic social services (health, education, rule of law) - Improve national early warning systems and capacity for risk analysis • Support climate change adaptation - Improve access to productive infrastructure (roads, water, markets, • Promote national peace building and conflict resolution communication) • initiatives - Promote multi-sector partnerships across agencies (government, U.N. • - Advocate for long-term funding for resilience initiatives NGOs, private sector) • Household and Community • Adaptive Capacity • Promote diverse livelihood strategies • Promote asset accumulation and diversification • Improve human capital (health, education, nutrition) • Enable improved access to credit • Support smallholder market linkages • Improve access to technologies and potential for innovation • Strengthen diverse social networks • Promote gender empowerment • Support for healthy ecosystems (land, water, biodiversity) • Household and Community • Disaster Risk Management • - Strengthen and maintain informal safety nets • Support local peace building, conflict mitigation and natural resource management through informal governance structures • Strengthen risk reduction, risk mitigation and risk coping mechanisms (community-based early warning, contingency plans, household savings) • Strengthen capacity for community organization and collective action Joint Problem Analysis Involving diverse stakeholders and contextualized at the sub-national level Multi-Sectoral Resilience Assessment Among chronically vulnerable populations exposed to food security shocks

22. Components of an Integrated Resilience Program • Improving the Adaptive Capacity of Households and Communities • Diversification of livelihood strategies, productive assets, and social networks • Participation in well functioning markets • Access to credit • Access to innovative technologies • Improved human capital (health, education, nutrition) • Promote gender empowerment • Support for healthy ecosystems (land, water bio-diversity)

23. Components of an Integrated Resilience Program • Disaster Risk Management at the Household and Community Levels • Disaster risk management strategies (ex-ante and ex post) • Promote community-based early warning systems, contingency plans • Promote household and community savings • Support informal safety nets • Contribute to peace-building and conflict mitigation • Strengthen capacity for community organization and community action

24. Components of an Integrated Resilience Program • Governance and Enabling Conditions for Achieving Scale • Government ownership of resilience strategies • Responsive social and economic policies that support resilience • Formal social protection mechanisms (emergency response, productive safety nets, risk insurance) • Improved access to infrastructure (roads, water, markets, communication) • Multi-sector partnerships across agencies • Provision of basic social services

25. Intensity of change/transaction costs stability Absorptive coping capacity (persistence) flexibility Adaptive capacity (incremental adjustment) change Transformative capacity (transformational responses) Resilience Source: Béné, Christophe, Rachel Godfrey Wood, Andrew Newsham and Mark Davies. 2012. Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes. IDS Working Paper, Volume 2012 Number 405. CSP Working Paper Number 006. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Centre for Social Protection (CSP). September 2012.

26. Temporal Dimensions of 3 Resilience Outcomes • Improved disaster risk management is aimed to improving absorptive capacity to reduce disaster risk and absorb the impacts of shocks short-term (stability) • Strengthen the adaptive capacity to improve response to social, economic and environmental change in the medium term (flexibility) • Strengthen governance structures and enabling conditions to improve the transformative capacity of socio-ecological systems to achieve resilience at scale in the long term (change)

27. Resilience programming requires: • Projects implemented at scale and over long timeframes in order to have lasting impact. • Projects that empower communities, i.e., promote community engagement, solidarity, ownership of resources, and capacity to organize. • A shift from humanitarian responses to longer-term responses that build capacity to cope with current and minimize future stresses and shocks. • Mechanisms for long-term funding (e.g., sequencing, layering, pre-positioning). • Healthy ecosystems and effective governance structures.

28. Principles of Resilience Programming • Promote resilience as a common perspective and a common objective with government ownership • Prioritize selective and focused implementation of resilience building initiatives • Commitment to integrated multi-sector approaches • Support a transition toward longer-term investments in disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, livelihood diversification and social protection

29. Measuring Resilience • M&E systems for measuring resilience involve in-depth analysis of indicators under three broad resilience outcomes: • Improved capacity to manage risks • coping strategy index • reduction in emergency responses • establishment of risk management structures • institutions and systems

30. Measuring Resilience • Improved adaptive capacity • diversification of livelihood strategies and assets • diverse social networks • access to information on changing market and climatic conditions • openness to new practices and innovation • Aspirations • Improved development indicators • diet diversity • nutritional status • poverty outcome measures (proxies for income)

31. Promising Practices for Building Resilience • Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative (PLI)and Prime • Uses crisis modifier approach to fund support for improved livestock production and marketing, alternative livelihoods, and early warning systems. • African Risk Capacity Project (ARC) • Provides a framework to finance drought risk responses through the provision of fast-dispersing contingency funds to governments across Africa. • PSNP + • Combines food and cash transfers with market-oriented support to achieve beneficiary graduation. Lessons learned through PSNP+ will be scaled up through the Household Asset Building Program (HABP).

32. Moving the Resilience Agenda Forward • Facilitate and promote political will to adopt approaches that are different that the past • Agree on common objectives across agencies regarding building resilience • Address immediate needs and longer-term development objectives simultaneously • Seek consensus on contextually appropriate frameworks for resilience • promote greater investment in resource poor environments by creating direct and indirect investment incentives for the private sector • Cluster investments in social protection, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaption and market linkages in the same geographical areas