Linking Relief with Rehabilitation and Development for Food Security

1. Linking Relief with Rehabilitation and Development for Food Security The European Commission’s Policies and Practices

2. Humanitarian Food Assistance Communication • CONSULTATION • Commission Consultation (ECHO, DEV, RELEX, AIDCO, RELEX, JRC) • Specific coherence with DEV’s food-security Communication • Availability, access, utilisation. • Nutrition. • Disaster Risk Reduction. • Disaster Management. • LRRD. • External Consultation (member states, other donors, partners, research/academics) • Questionnaire (Jan ’09) and Stakeholders’ Roundtable (June ’09) • ADOPTION – March 31st 2010 • COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS AGREED – May 11th 2010

3. From FOOD AID to FOOD ASSISTANCE • Addressing availability, access, and utilisation of quality food. • Acknowledging the importance of other non-food dimensions (e.g. public health, education) in determining nutritional outcomes and vulnerability. • Understanding the role of livelihoods and coping strategies. • Delivering more appropriate and effective assistance, based on diversified responses using a variety of potential tools (eg cash, agricultural inputs, food).

4. Developmentally Sensitive Humanitarian Assistance • Appropriate, needs-based responses, based on holistic understanding of symptoms and causes. • Centrality of livelihoods in emergencies. • Livelihood reinforcement, protection and recovery • Principle of “do no harm”. • Protecting markets • Avoiding dependency • Minimising environmental and conflict risks • Seize concurrent opportunities to benefit local farmers and promote self-reliance (but not an entry-point). • Local / regional procurement • Protect / strengthen local capacities for self-reliance and coping, and national capacities for disaster mitigation

5. Developmentally Sensitive Humanitarian Assistance • Mainstream Disaster Risk Reduction in Humanitarian Food Assistance • Disaster-risk analysis in food assistance assessments. • Short-term reinforcement of early-warning systems. • Disaster-proofing and building back better) • Consideration of Comparative Advantage • Limitations of humanitarian instruments (timeframe, predictability, national partnerships) • For chronic needs and DRR and disaster management – development actors more appropriate. • Linking Relief with Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) • Optimal coverage of coexisting humanitarian and development needs in contiguum and/or continuum. • Advocacy • State responsibilities; development actors as per comparative advantage; good governance; conducive trade policies. • Coordination • Emergency Food Security Cluster with links to global governance architecture.

6. Food Security Communication • Title: ‘An EU Policy Framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges’ • Adopted by Commission on 31 March 2010 (COM(2010)127 • Agreed to by EU Ministers 10-11 May 2011 • Comprehensive approach, addressing all four pillars of food security • Focus on countries most-off track in reaching MDG1; predominantly Africa; often fragile situations • Small-scale agriculture important -> invest in sustainable and ‘ecologically efficient’ intensification

7. Crisis Prevention and Management in Development • Building resilience of (rural) communities, e.g. through • Invest in productive capacities • Small-farmer oriented research & extension • Develop (flexible) safety nets • Expand use of insurance mechanisms

8. Crisis Prevention and Management in Development • Enhance crisis preparedness • Improve food security information system (decision-oriented; incorporating local information) • Build crisis management capacities • Regional integration • Reduce price volatility • Enhance food stocks & management (including at local level, through warehouse receipts systems, and through reduction in post-harvest losses) • Improve market functioning and transparency at national and regional levels

9. LRRD in ActionDrought Management in Kenya EDF Drought Management Initiative {IX EDF (EUR 17.7M) 2007/2013} and ECHO Drought Preparedness Programme and Emergency Response Activities

10. Background • Devastating socio-economic impact of recurrent drought (+100M$ of losses / dry year). • Assets of communities undermined. • Political willingness from Government to address the problem. • But difficulties for preparing effective and timely response once confronted with the crisis – hence need for ECHO and humanitarian actors.

11. EC : Kenya Partnership on Drought Management • Support to a Drought Contingency Fund (DCF) managed by the WB. • Support for improving capacities of bodies involved in policy formulation and in drought management planning (+ awareness + work on the relevant legislations). • Support to flexible community-based projects implemented by humanitarian partners.

12. Activities of the D.C.F • Focus on the most arid and marginalised parts of Kenya. • Rely on District Steering Groups who receive money to implement their contingency plans. • The projects financed can include different types of investments: • Emergency livestock purchase, animal slaughter and meat distribution, • Food and cash for work programmes • Veterinary interventions • Human healtH • Water supplies • Education (keeping children at school) • Rapid response to conflict • National parks and reserves for grazing • Seed distribution • Stockpiling cereals • Supplementary feeding of livestock • Tree planting • Rapid needs assessments

13. Coordination and Capacity Building • Close coordination mechanism between all drought management institutions. • DCF funding • Support to District Steering Groups. • Support to the formulation and adoption of contingency plans and policy documents. • ECHO funding • Grass roots capacity building to inform District Steering Committees and Contingency Plans, and to provide additional implementation capacity.

14. LRRD Continuum and Contiguum Ensured • DCF and ECHO grants for H+ projects (preparedness, resilience, risk reduction) through locally based humanitarian implementing agencies: • to ensure flexibility to switch between prevention, preparedness, emergency response and recovery according to the situation. • to pilot innovative approaches that can be replicated/scaled up by development actors once they prove their efficiency and effectiveness.

15. Humanitarian/Development Partnership Improved • ECHO funded preparedness and emergency response for 2009 drought were closely coordinated with the Drought Contingency Fund. • Constructive dialogue with humanitarian actors on the use of available development instruments for continuity and complementarity: a) Food facility -picking up ECHO funded projects, b) On-going discussion on the Water Facility, c) Call for proposal for Non-State actors.