Enhancing Resilience to Food Security Shocks

1. Enhancing Resilience to Food Security Shocks

2. Defining Resilience “...the ability of individuals, households, communities or systems to bounce back or recover following a shock or stress, and build positively on this experience.” Frankenberger et al. 2007 “…the capacity to anticipate, manage, adapt to, cope with, and recover from risks to livelihoods…the capacity of a system to absorb a disturbance and reorganize so as to still retain essential functions, structure, identity and feedbacks.” FAO/WFP/UNICEF 2012 “…the ability of countries, communities, and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses – such as earthquakes, drought or violent conflict – without compromising their long-term prospects.” DFID 2011

3. 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 • Recent drought crises in the HoA and the Sahel exposed shortcomings of international aid practices and national/regional policies

4. Understanding of the Conceptual Framework for Resilience Context e.g., social, environment, political, 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 Context Bounce back Level of aggregation Structures/processes Livelihood Assets Livelihood Strategies Sensitivity Vulnerability pathway Stresses 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)

5. Resilience: a new paradigm for development • Given: natural disasters, conflict, price increases, political instability and other stresses/shocks are likely to continue • Consensus: temporary shocks should not have permanent adverse consequences for vulnerable households • New Paradigm: humanitarian emergency assistance and longer-term development programming can and should be further integrated with the common goal of helping people anticipate, cope with and respond positively to changes/shocks and avoid future disasters.

6. Resilience is a process It 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.

7. Common Characteristics of Resilience Programming • Integrated and complementary partnerships, networks and strategies Formation of mutually advantageous partnerships among a range of actors (communities, civil society, academic research institutions, government and the private sector) with complementary capacities and skills • Achievement of sustainable impact through adequate scale and duration Strengthening linkages between local, national, regional and international levels and implementing multi-sectoral resilience strategies over a period of 7-10 years. • Promotion of healthy ecosystems Adoption of ecosystem-based planning, payment for environmental services, farmer-managed natural regeneration, and other climate-smart agricultural practices.

8. Common Characteristics of Resilience Programming - continued • Effective formal and informal governance Commitment to representative, responsive, transparent and accountable governance structures, inclusive and participatory decision making, and resolution of conflicts/power imbalances. • Gender equity Creation of opportunities for women to control resources, diversify livelihoods, acquire education and skills training, and achieve greater influence in problem assessment, development planning and policy formulation • Social Protection Provision of reliable food and non-food (cash, vouchers) transfers to enable vulnerable households to cope with temporary shocks and make investments in longer-term food and livelihood security

9. Core Principles for Resilience Programming • Support a transition, over time, in the balance of effort and resources from humanitarian assistance toward disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, livelihood diversification, and social protection. • Recognize/respond to different needs, abilities, and aspirations of vulnerable groups (e.g., women, children, elderly, disabled, orphans) • Support greater investment in human capital to enable households to maintain health, diversify livelihood options and exercise their individual and collective rights. • Enable community participation by identifying and engaging customary institutions and valuable forms of traditional knowledge for coping with climate variability, conflict, and food insecurity.

10. Core Principles for Resilience Programming – continued • Facilitate livelihood diversification through improved access to public and productive infrastructure (roads, markets, water infrastructure, power, etc.), access to financial services and greater participation in markets. • Utilize a broader range of assistance modalities, including (but not limited to) distribution of cash and/or vouchers. • Strengthen smallholder access to and participation in value chains through creation of market infrastructure, greater access to price information, and provision of assets and financial services. • Look for means of engaging the private sector in order to complement donor funding and provide market incentives for investment in livelihoods. • Contribute to improved knowledge management by ensuring that evidence gained through comprehensive and consistent monitoring and evaluation is reflected in improved policy and project design

11. Challenges to Resilience Programming Community Challenges • Environmental degradation • Insecure rights of access to and use of natural resources (land, water) • Imbalanced power relations in prevailing social structures • Gender inequality Government Challenges • Ineffective policies and strategies • Lack of political will • Corruption Donor Challenges • Lack of flexible and timely funding mechanisms • Limited geographic overlap between funding for emergency and development operations • Potential for competition, negative trade-offs between humanitarian and development initiatives

12. Key Entry Points for Resilience Programming • Ecosystem-based planning for improved access to and management of natural resources; will require addressing cross-border issues • Compensate communities for conserving landscapes and ecosystem services • Effectively link humanitarian and development activities (e.g., PSNP, HABP, and value chains in Ethiopia) • Risk financing mechanisms (e.g., weather-indexed crop and livestock insurance) • Skills training for off-farm income generation, especially for vulnerable populations (e.g., women, youths, displaced)

13. Key Entry Points for Resilience Programming - continued • Increased opportunities for cash/voucher approaches • Address multiple aspects of malnutrition rather than just treating the symptoms • Support pastoralists/agro-pastoralists in livelihood diversification (e.g., value addition, out-migration) • Enable greater participation in markets by pastoralists and small-holder farmers through improved access to financial services, market information and infrastructure • Create opportunities for more public-private partnerships to increase investment

14. Key Entry Points for Resilience Programming - continued • Cluster investments for greater geographic coherence and economies of scale • More timely, efficient, and flexible procurement of resources (e.g., crisis modifiers) based on early warning trigger indicators • Scale-up initiatives with promising results to provide “quick wins” • Contribute to knowledge management by addressing research gaps, replicating and bringing to scale promising resilience programs

15. Measuring Resilience • Context specific • M&E systems must be tailored to the specific programming context and the nature of the shock (e.g., drought, price volatility, conflict). • Shock dependent • Resilience outcomes can’t be measured without adequate baseline assessments and in the absence of a shock. • Inclusive and participatory • Priority should be given to approaches that involve the affected communities themselves in assessing the success of interventions in ways that are meaningful to them • Robust indicators • Learning “what works” and “what doesn’t” for building resilience is dependent on a robust mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators. • Outcome-oriented • Rather than focus on outputs (e.g., emergency programming) resilience programming must prioritize measurement of outcomes and impacts.

16. Promising Practices for Building Resilience • The Sahel Plan • Applies funding from the Humanitarian Food Assistance (HFA) budget of ECHO to a coordinated regional approach to addressing the underlying causes of malnutrition. • Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative (PLI) • Uses crisis modifier approach to fund support for improved livestock production and marketing, alternative livelihoods, and early warning systems. • Arid and Marginal Lands Recovery Consortium (ARC) • A consortium of five implementing NGOs, the program combines various funding streams (EC, USAID) to implement short- and long-term approaches for building the capacity of pastoralists to deal with drought-related shocks. • PSNP Plus • 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). • 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.

17. Promising Practices for Building Resilience - continued • Using Food Aid to Stimulate Local Markets Project in pastoral areas of northern Kenya is aimed at achieving sustainable improvements in food security by utilizing vouchers to stimulate growth of, and participation in local markets • Enhancing Resilience to Drought in Southern Africa OFDA’s Regional Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Strategy for Southern Africa Region is based on four major components: conservation agriculture; small-scale water harvesting and irrigation; crop diversification; and holistic land and livestock management (HLLM). • Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) The HSNP uses cash transfers to help communities build resilience through increasing asset retention, reducing the poverty gap, increasing social inclusion, diversifying livelihoods, stimulating the local cash economy and providing better access to health and education. • Enabling livestock-based economies in Kenya to adapt to climate change Initiated by ILRI and partners in 2011, this project employs a payment for environmental services (PES) approach to solicit compensation for pastoralist communities in Kenya promoting wildlife conservation to attract tourists and generate income while simultaneously managing rangelands for their livestock.

18. Promising Practices for Building Resilience - continued • Cross Border Drought Preparedness Project (ICRD) Implemented by Vétérinaires San Frontières (VSF), the ICRD project helps communities avoid conflict through development of reciprocal resource agreements for management of water a and grazing areas. • Strengthening Institutions for Peace and Development (SIPED) Funded by USAID, the peace-building process utilized by Mercy Corps in the SIPED project, included strengthening government and customary institutions, community dialogues (including clan leaders, elders, women and youths), joint livelihood activities, formation of peace committees, and development of peace accords and resource use plans. • Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP) Supported by the World Bank, the Arids Land Resource Management Project is a community-based drought management project of the Government of Kenya. The components of the drought management system includes development and operationalization of relevant polices and strategies, an early warning system, a funded contingency plan and overall drought coordination and response structure.

19. Moving the Resilience Agenda Forward Constraint:Lack of clarity on how donors and policy makers can best prioritize investment in resilience building in light of scarce resources. Next steps: • Carry out resilience assessments based on contextually appropriate resilience framework • Improve knowledge management by identifying and addressing critical knowledge gaps, making program-based knowledge available in a timely fashion and reader-friendly format. • Contribute to integrated, long-term resilience strategies by identifying the proper (most effective) sequencing and combination of interventions.

20. Moving the Resilience Agenda Forward - continued Constraint:Lack of inclusive and integrated institutional framework for implementing resilience oriented programs Next steps: • Seek consensus on a locally appropriate framework for resilience • Identify and advocate for mutually beneficial outcomes of resilience among diverse range of stakeholders (government, civil society, community leaders, academic institutions, private sector) • Ensure internal and external coherence of resilience strategies with policies at the national, regional and international levels.

21. Moving the Resilience Agenda Forward - continued Constraint: Competition and/or ‘trade-offs’ between investments in vulnerability reduction and economic growth Next steps: • Provided evidence to overcome stereotypes and misconceptions regarding the potential of private investment in marginal rural areas. • Work with government and civil society to identify and create direct and indirect incentives for private investment in resilience building initiatives. • Seek opportunities to cluster investments in social protection, disaster risk reduction, livelihoods, and climate change adaptation within specific geographic areas.