Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual

MODULE B
MODULE B: UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT
THE ANALYTICAL LENS NEEDED TO DO SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING

This module provides the analytical framework to examine and understand your country and its local contexts. FFA is based on helping communities mitigate or respond to shocks. Identifying the rationale and appropriate entry points for FFA thus requires wearing a specific lens of analysis to examine these issues. Such a lens includes examining the type of environmental (agro-ecological) zones in which one or more shocks may occur (or have occurred), any factors that may aggravate the impacts of these shocks, and what type of responses would be needed in that specific context - whether building community resilience and/or recovery after a shock. This should also take into account different livelihoods that exist within agro-ecological zones, including how such groups cope with shocks and whether they have negative coping strategies that further aggravate shock impacts which can be supported through FFA. Lastly, a consultative seasonal livelihood programme analysis will determine programming rationales upon which specific FFA projects will then be selected (Module C).

ODXP PREVENTION & RECOVERY WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME

1

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FFA MANUAL:

Overall WFP uses approximately 12 to 15 percent of its yearly resources for assets restoration, rehabilitation or creation under emergency, recovery and enabling development operations. Most countries receiving food assistance increasingly promote policies and strategies requiring various forms of conditional transfers (productive safety nets, special operations to improve access to food, disaster risk reduction, and resilience building). It is therefore important for WFP staff (and its partners) to meet these challenges and emerging demands. The purpose of this manual is to strengthen WFP staff understanding of the contexts that require FFA, their selection and programmatic coherence to WFP global and local commitments, as well as main design aspects. The manual is divided into five modules and includes a number of Annexes: Module A provides the overall rationale and framework for FFA within the WFP toolbox of assistance Module B provides the analytical lens in which to determine if FFA is appropriate within specific contexts Module C helps define the specific FFA projects to be undertaken within these specific contexts, depending on various factors Module D provides the practical elements of implementing FFA Module E provides the key elements that informs M&E for FFA Caveats . A limitation of this FFA manual is that it cannot be fully comprehensive the nature of FFA can be so diverse that it would be impossible to capture all possible approaches and interventions. Therefore, this guidance focuses largely on the response options and assets that are commonly related to WFP operations. . A second limitation relates to the range of response options and FFA interventions related to pastoral and urban settings. These are simply insufficient as documented experience regarding FFA from these areas has been limited. However, there has been increased attention in several CO to both pastoral and urban livelihoods in recent years that will bring further lessons and best practices. Furthermore, the current FFA guidance is largely built upon documented evidence from a few countries where FFA have demonstrated significant impact and have been documented both in terms of the processes that lead to positive results to technical standards and work norms. It became clear to the authors that there are several other countries with important experience (past or recent) that could not be taken into consideration or only marginally in the drafting of these guidelines because of insufficient information. . Another limitation is the level of insufficient research information regarding FFA under different programme contexts and the often anecdotal assumptions that tend to underplay the role and impacts of FFA (positive and negative). . A final limitation is the lack of guidance on Food for Training (FFT) which is largely absent in these guidelines as cutting across all programme design components (school, feeding, HIVAIDS, nutrition, etc). In relation to FFA, these guidelines include FFT only in relation to the range of assets that would impact on disaster risk reduction and resilience building. FFA Manual Module D (2011): version 1.

In 2010 the Prevention and Recovery Unit of the Programme Service (ODXP) of the Programme Division (ODX) in Headquarters begun to review the existing FFW/FFA Guidance of the PGM (Programme Guidance Manual) with the objective to develop more context specific and livelihood based Food-For-Assets Guidance. This module was published and made electronically available in July 2011. Where relevant, this module supersedes previous guidance on FFA interventions. Please inform ODXPs Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here. Any updates to Module B will be outlined below (and include page numbers) to allow FFA practitioners with an older version to identify where changes have occurred: No changes as yet.

Table of Contents
B1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 6 B2. LINKING AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES TO SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS FOR FFA ............... 8
AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES .............................................................................................................................................. 8 SHOCKS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 USING SHOCKS TO BUILD RATIONALES ............................................................................................................................ 9 LAND DEGRADATION WILL HEIGHTEN THE IMPACT OF SHOCKS ..................................................................................... 9 LIVELIHOOD TYPES AND COPING STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................. 9 ARID & SEMI-ARID LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT ............................................ 10 TROPICAL & SUB-TROPICAL LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT .............................. 11

B3. SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING................................................................................... 12

THE SEASONAL ELEMENT: .............................................................................................................................................. 12 THE LIVELIHOOD ELEMENT: ........................................................................................................................................... 12 COMBINING SEASONALITY AND LIVELIHOODS IN PROGRAMMING .............................................................................. 13 WHY IS SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING IMPORTANT FOR FFA?..................................................................... 14 USING SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING TO IDENTIFY RELEVANT FFA MEASURES........................................... 15 1: LINKING SHOCKS, TARGETING AND LIVELIHOODS ....................................................................................................16 1.1 EXPOSURE TO SHOCKS AND RELEVANCE ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETING ............................................. 16 1.2 REFINING TARGETING CRITERIA FOR POPULATION GROUPS .................................................................................. 18 1.3 LIVELIHOOD SEASONALITY AND PROGRAMME ENTRY POINTS ............................................................................... 20 2: IDENTIFYING INTERVENTION RATIONALES AND PROGRAMME TYPES .....................................................................22 2.1 BUILDING RATIONALES AND PRIORITY TIMES FOR INTERVENTIONS ....................................................................... 22 2.2 DETERMINING PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES AND TIMING ........................................................................................... 23 2.3 CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IDENTIFYING FFA PROGRAMMES ................................................................................... 26 3: POSITIONING OF FFA IN BROADER PROGRAMMING................................................................................................27 3.1 SEQUENCING PROGRAMMES................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 SYNTHESIZING PROGRAMMES INTO NATIONAL LEVEL PLANNING ......................................................................... 29 3.3 COMPLEMENTARITIES AND COORDINATION ........................................................................................................... 30

MODULE B: UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT - THE ANALYTICAL LENS NEEDED TO DO SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING

B1. OVERVIEW
For WFP, the entry point for providing food assistance is based on food insecurity. In general terms FFA will: I. II. III. Improve access to food during emergencies (linked to Strategic Objective 1 SO1) Improve access to food, and restore and rehabilitate destroyed or damaged productive assets and social infrastructure for communities affected by shocks and in transition situations (SO3) Improve access to food, reduce risks and build resilience to shocks (SO2)

Thus, when considering using FFA as a response the most common element will be peoples exposure to shocks and more specifically, whether FFA assistance is needed and appropriate before, during, or after a shock event in order to meet the stated Strategic Objective. To understand this exposure, it is essential to know the types, frequency, and regularity of these shocks that people will face, and the agro-climatic zone in which they occur. Agro-climatic zones will determine the types of livelihoods that people will have in these areas and how they may be affected by shocks. In many countries, the increased frequency and intensity of shocks caused by extreme weather events compound on already degraded landscapes and fragile livelihood settings. The role of FFA in arresting soil erosion, reducing floods, increase moisture into the soil profile, harvest water, and increase vegetation cover, are all aspects linked to the reduction of the impact of shocks, and increase the ability of households to diversify their sources of income. FFA can strengthen communities and households resilience in impoverished and depleted environments, and if applied at a significant scale can support adaptation against recurrent extreme weather events, largely attributed to climate change. Given that most FFA interventions requires participants to work, it becomes essential that timing in which FFA activities are implemented will not disrupt on-going livelihood activities. To do this, Seasonal Livelihood Programming consultations should be undertaken to identify and sequence the most appropriate and priority intervention times with associated objectives and rationales; livelihoods and the most suitable times for labour-engagement; and the appropriate times in which to conduct specific FFA activities based on seasonality and objectives. The purpose of Module B of the FFA PGM is to outline how to: 1. Consider shocks, agro-climatic zones, and livelihoods when planning FFA; and 2. Use Seasonal Livelihood Programming consultations to identify and tailor FFA to the specific contexts based on clearly identified and developed rationales and objectives. Module B highlights the importance of understanding these different contexts, and how to apply the findings from the range of analyses described in the technical How to components of the PGM Chapeau, namely: 1. PGM Pillar 1 How to conduct Food Security Trend Analyses 2. PGM Pillar 2 How to conduct Context and Risk Analyses

3. PGM Pillar 3 How to conduct Seasonal Livelihood Analyses

B2. LINKING AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES TO SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS FOR FFA AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES
The agro-ecological zone together with the types of shocks and livelihoods found in the zone greatly influence the choice and design of FFA. Such design is further strengthened by taking into account the status of the natural environmental and negative coping strategies used, which further heighten the impact of shocks. Broadly, there are two types of agro-ecological zones WFP operates in: I. II. Arid / semi-arid zones; and Tropical / sub-tropical zones

Each of these broad agro-ecological zones1 will have differences, with rainfall and altitude driving seasonality. For instance, rainfall patterns will determine wet, or rainy and dry seasons; higher altitudes will have cold winters, whilst low-lying areas are likely to experience hotter or more moderate temperatures all year round. Such differences influence the types of (natural) shocks that are likely to occur and the livelihoods that will be found within these zones which in turn affect the choice of FFA, including the timing, the transfer modality, and the gender of people participating in these interventions.

SHOCKS
Within the agro-ecological zones any number of diverse shocks can occur that would influence the possibility and type - of using FFA as a response. These shocks (see Annex B-1) could be broadly classified as: Natural shocks e.g. droughts, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. Man-made shocks e.g. conflicts Economic shocks e.g. high food prices, etc.

Shocks can occur as single events (such as a drought), or as a set of multiple shocks such as the outbreak of conflict and high food prices during a drought, or the occurrence of floods when rains start after a drought. All shocks can either happen very rapidly (i.e. a rapid onset shock such as a flood) or begin to unfold more slowly (i.e. a slow onset shock such as a drought). When planning the use of FFA, knowing the type of shock/s that can occur in the agro-ecological zone, and whether they are rapid or slow onset, is important. This assists in identifying the rationales for selecting FFA as a response to be used to: Improve access to food, reduce risks and build resilience to shocks before they occur (SO2) Improve access to food during an emergency, or shock (SO1) To improve access to food and for early recovery once a shock has passed (SO3)

An Agro-ecological Zone is a land resource mapping unit, defined in terms of climate, landform and soils, and/or land cover, AND having a specific range of potentials and constraints for land use. FAO AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONING Guidelines; FAO Soils Bulletin 73; 1996

USING SHOCKS TO BUILD RATIONALES

It is difficult to predict with any certainty when a shock will occur. Some shocks, particularly rapid-onset ones such as earthquakes or tsunamis are impossible to predict, and hence difficult to build arguments for resilience building (SO2) activities, although once they occur FFA can be used during the emergency, and for early recovery efforts (SO1 and SO3). Others, such as droughts and tropical storms are also not predictable although the likelihood of them occurring again in the future can be established through a historical trend analysis of these events. Such findings can be used to anticipate where such shocks could occur, and the frequency or regularity of their past occurrence used as a proxy for predictability and hence to build rationales for SO2. Other shocks in particular man-made or economic ones can either be rapid or slow onset depending on circumstances. The ability to anticipate these events through historical trend analyses are unlikely to work and these shocks will be picked up either as they begin to occur (i.e. rapid onset, such as outbreak of conflict) or through monitoring (for slow onset, such as increasing food prices). FFA as a response to these shocks will likely be limited to SO1 and SO3 activities.

LAND DEGRADATION WILL HEIGHTEN THE IMPACT OF SHOCKS

Poor status of the natural environment can aggravate the impact of shocks. Heavily degraded and fragile lands that is, land that has lost its vegetation cover, soils are exposed, and is greatly eroded is unable to capture, absorb, and withstand the impact of heavy rainfall which in turn raises the risk of floods and landslides during tropical storms and after droughts, particularly in areas with steep slopes. Loss of vegetation greatly increases soil erosion to wind and other elements, further heightening the impact of shocks as well as the loss of productive land. Given that people draw on the surrounding natural environments for their livelihoods and to cope during times of crisis, understanding the link between land degradation and its capacity to magnify the impact of a shock is crucial. See Annex B-2.

LIVELIHOOD TYPES AND COPING STRATEGIES

Each agro-ecological zone will have its own broad livelihood groups. Arid and semi-arid lands contain pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, and farming communities on marginal lands. Tropical and sub-tropical zones mostly contain settled agrarian livelihoods. If these agro-ecological zones are next to coastlines or contain large water-bodies then livelihoods could be based predominantly on fishing. Urban livelihoods will be found in all agro-ecological zones. What is important to note for FFA is that livelihoods will follow seasonal patterns depending on the agro-ecological zone they are in, and are at risk to and respond to the specific shocks experienced in those zones which, for natural weather-based shocks, will occur at specific times of the year. During times of difficulties or shocks, the poorest and most vulnerable people resort to a number of negative coping strategies. What should be considered in FFA are those that further aggravate the impacts of shocks on the natural environment, and how these can be addressed. For example, negative coping strategies could be the cutting down of trees for charcoal-making and sales in sub-tropical zones, which accelerates land degradation, erosion, and greatly increase the risk of floods and landslides during a cyclone; or the congregation of animals in depleting pastures in arid/semi-arid zones which strips vegetation cover and increases soil erosion, and further loss of vegetation. See Annex B-3.

ARID & SEMI-ARID LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT
Arid and semi-arid lands can, overall, be described as follows: (i) Arid lands (200-400 mm rainfall/year) with valley bottoms cultivated under specific land and water management schemes by specialized agriculturalists or agro-pastoralists (e.g. irrigation schemes resulting from water development schemes, etc); or with rangelands used for livestock production by pastoralists, and characterized by seasonal transhumance movements in search of pastures and water to maintain animal herds. Semi-arid lands (rainfall usually 400-600 mm rainfall/year) cultivated by settlers and/or by agropastoralists (pure agriculturalists in semi-arid and arid lands are rare as all depend in one way or another on livestock). Rangelands for pasture are also used by pastoralists. Semi-arid or arid lands agriculturalists cultivating around rivers and lakes. These riverine and lake dependent communities are often critical elements of pastoral livelihood systems albeit maintaining a typical agricultural system mixed with fisheries. It is also possible to find households only specializing in fisheries and trade within these contexts. Depending on altitude and proximity to coastlines, arid and semi-arid lands can have hot summers and mild, wet winters (higher altitudes and close to coastlines) or hot summers and cold winters (higher altitudes and continental interiors).

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Main natural shocks experienced in this agro-ecological zone that can be predicted or anticipated with which to use FFA to build resilience (SO2) will be related to droughts (slow-onset), and in some areas twinned with floods (rapid-onset) once rains start. Programmes with SO1 and SO3 objectives can be used during and after all shocks, be they natural, man-made, or economic. Depending on the level of environmental degradation, the severity of the impacts of the shock can be heightened. Highly eroded areas will have less vegetation cover and ability to capture water, resulting in even less natural resources to sustain animals and peoples livelihoods during crises. This leads to increased congregation of people and animals around limited water points and pastures, further eroding the environment and raising the risk if conflict. In lands with slopes or steep topographies, the risk of floods is accentuated once rains start. Pastoral livelihoods are characterized by seasonal transhumance movements, so understanding who is where and when and doing what is considered in project design and implementation. It is noted that urban settlements - and as such more urban-based livelihoods reliant on income occur in arid and semiarid lands. In particular, many pastoralists that have lost their animals due to repeated shocks (i.e. their livelihood) begin to settle around urban areas in arid and semi-arid lands. The numbers of these expastoralists is greatly increasing in this agro-ecological zone. In summary, in arid and semi-arid lands, a range of land rehabilitation and water harvesting measures should be considered the essential and foremost important factor able to reduce pressure on scarce land resources, increase productivity, improve resilience to shocks, stimulate employment and prevent further environmental degradation.

10

TROPICAL & SUB-TROPICAL LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT
These are mainly humid and sub-humid tropics, known for their year round high temperatures and large amounts of rain. In this agro-ecological zone, the following subgroups can be found: (i) (ii) (iii) Rainforest climate in spite of short, dry season in monsoon type cycle There may be a dry season in the summer of the respective hemispheres Areas where there is no significant dry season and it is wet all year around

A subset of the above would be the wet-moist highlands. Highland climates are cool to cold, found in mountains and high plateaus. Climates changes rapidly on mountains, becoming colder the higher the altitude gets. These areas are important as water storage areas. In drier mountainous areas, snow is kept back until spring and summer when it is released slowly as water through melting. Annual rainfall is usually sufficient, but the zones can be affected by the following factors: steep and/or deforested and degraded slopes occurrence of cyclones and hurricanes significant seasonal variations and dry spells a combination of these three which influence the stability of such ecosystems

Main natural shocks that can be predicted or anticipated with which to use FFA to build resilience (SO2) will be related to droughts (slow-onset) and tropical storms such as cyclones (rapid-onset). Accompanying these storms are floods and landslides, especially in those heavily degraded lands with slopes. Programmes with SO1 and SO3 objectives can be used during and after all shocks, be they natural, man-made, or economic. Levels of environmental degradation can greatly aggravate the impacts of shocks in these zones. Loss of vegetation and high erosion, particularly on sloping lands, can lead to devastating results with flash-flooding and landslides often occurring even with moderate rainfall. Mountainous and hilly terrains are usually problematic when increased population pressure, high frequency of cyclones and fragile soils push farmers to cut trees and cultivate areas previously covered by forests or high vegetation. The continuous use of slash and burn (shifting cultivation) and the modification of this practice are responsible for significant changes regarding reduction of vegetation cover, and decrease of crop production, soil acidification and loss of nutrients. Overall, livelihoods in this agro-ecological zone relates to farming, although some populations also rely on fisheries and other off-season activities that can range from hunting gathering, logging, mining and migration to commercial farms as well as other sources of employment. In summary, in tropical and sub-tropical zones, a range of land rehabilitation and stabilization measures should be considered the essential and foremost important factor able to reduce risk and increase agricultural productivity, improve resilience to shocks, and prevent further environmental degradation.

11

B3. SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING

Seasonal livelihood programming is the approach, or way in which seasonal and livelihood aspects are combined to identify the most appropriate and complementary range of interventions throughout the year, taking into account what programmes can be conducted when, by whom, and for which objectives. Seasonal livelihood programming offers the opportunity to identify how different programmes can complement each other for maximum and/or added impact, by providing entry points for all partners who may have different mandates and funding sources to work together to reach common goals in the same project areas. The approach also provides the opportunity for enhanced coordination by bringing together communities, partners, Governments, and donors through a harmonized programming planning framework.

THE SEASONAL ELEMENT:

This aspect relates to understanding the time in which different events occur that will affect or impact on livelihoods and (for WFP) how this could affect food security and nutrition during the course of the year. Equally important is to understand how seasonality changes between typical, bad, and good years and the effect that this will have on livelihood systems. Identifying seasonality in programme design provides the information needed to guide the when or the most appropriate time for a specific intervention(s) to best reach the strategic objective and outcome of the intended programme targeted to address a specific problem.

THE LIVELIHOOD ELEMENT:

Identifying the links between livelihood activities and seasonality will further refine the types of interventions that may be required, the target groups that should be considered, and to reduce any inadvertent negative impact on livelihood activities by those trying to access FFA programmes. Understanding how seasonality affects livelihood systems in typical, bad and good years provides a longerterm vision for programme planning. It gives an understanding of which programmes may or may not be affected by deteriorating or improving conditions, allowing for more flexible programme adjustments in advance once it is known whether a year is shifting from a bad (i.e. a shock) to a typical year, or a good to a bad year, etc. By then identifying livelihood strategies and activities along a seasonal timeline will provide the information needed to link the who and why together with the when in programme design. This process contributes to identifying and building arguments and rationales for specific intervention(s) at different times of the year, and in different years, whilst trying to minimize any negative impacts on livelihood activities to beneficiaries in accessing FFA projects.

12

COMBINING SEASONALITY AND LIVELIHOODS IN PROGRAMMING

Identifying and bringing these elements together into an overall programme approach is done through a consultation process which brings together communities and partners at the local level, to jointly identify context specific geographical areas and times of the year where: Different rationales can be developed for different strategic objectives for WFP and partners such as resilience building prior to difficult months, relief during lean seasons, or early recovery after a difficult season or shock. For WFP, the primary entry point will be to provide food assistance for the most food insecure groups. Different FFA programmes will be more effective and greater success is ensured for example planting tree seedlings at the start of a dry season when there will be no rains will likely result in a low survival rate, whilst planting at the start of a rainy season greatly increases the success of a reforestation programme. Participation in FFA programmes will not have negative impacts on livelihoods as dedicated time and labour on a programme is time away from other livelihood activities. For example, having to participate in feeder road construction FFA during a cultivation season could result in reduced agricultural production. Different population groups would be able to access programmes at different times based on gender, and/or labour availability and existing workloads. For example, pastoral men and young adults are moving with livestock during the dry season and unlikely to be able to participate in labour-based FFA, whilst the women left behind at the homestead could work on programmes. Different FFA interventions could improve livelihoods and reduce hardships faced by women and girls for example, women and girls are responsible for maintaining the homestead including the collection of firewood and water. In many communities, due to a depletion of natural resources, this can require travelling great distances consuming valuable time that could be better used for income generating activities (IGAs) or productive works. In some parts of Africa, women spend eight hours daily collecting water (FAO 2010) and often young girls are pulled from school to do these tasks so mothers can conduct other productive work. Travelling such distances increases women and girls vulnerability to being sexually assaulted as they are often travelling in remote and desolate locations. FFA measures could be jointly identified that would reduce the hardships faced by women and girls (such as walking long distances to collect water or firewood) and increase access to productive opportunities through IGAs and control over resources (land use rights). Different transfer modalities can be employed such as cash at times when market prices are low or households need to build up savings; or food at critical times during hunger gaps when market prices and household expenditures are high.

13

WHY IS SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING IMPORTANT FOR FFA?

Combining the understanding of seasonality and livelihoods through a consultative process allows the identification of what could be the most appropriate asset creation programmes, the preferred transfer modalities by season, and where, when, and how to place them within other programmes implemented by WFP and partners, and other humanitarian and development actors. Bringing these elements together to formulate solid programme plans leads to greater complementary and harmonized programming at the local (and ultimately national) levels, and increases overall outputs of individual programmes in ways that are not achievable if such programmes were done in isolation or not linked to an overall programme intervention strategy. Results reached through seasonal livelihood programming can be summarized as follows: FFA can be tailored to the most appropriate periods for interventions within typical and bad years, taking into account livelihood activities, gender, and aspects of conditionality (i.e. labour-based or unconditional). Builds context specific rationales and justifications for the Strategic Objectives (for WFP) with which FFA will be used to address, and identifies the links between different SOs. Identified and highlighted inter-connections between short, medium, and longer-term actions required to achieve stated objectives, as a contribution in developing strategic national (and/or local) programme frameworks. Opportunities to build partnerships through joint programming, by identifying complementary activities which support and are harmonized to the actions of others Identifying the entry points for different partner mandates, funding sources, and programme objectives within the same geographical area, in order to reach maximum positive impact Providing a visual timeline of programme activities to facilitate local level coordination of activities by communities and authorities, and can guide the development, planning, and implementation of safety net programmes by national governments

14

USING SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING TO IDENTIFY RELEVANT FFA MEASURES

How to conduct a Seasonal Livelihood Programming consultation is found in PGM Pillar 3 How to [106] The subsequent sections discuss how to use the findings from a seasonal livelihood programme consultation for FFA, covering the following aspects: 1. Linking shocks, targeting, and livelihoods Exposure to shocks and relevance to assistance objectives and targeting Refining targeting criteria for population groups Livelihood seasonality and programme entry points 2. Identifying intervention rationales and programmes types Building rationales and priority times for interventions Determining programme activities and timing Considerations when identifying FFA programmes 3. Positioning of FFA in broader programming Sequencing programmes Synthesizing programmes into national level planning Complementarities and coordination

Examples of field-based Seasonal Livelihood Programming exercises can be found in the following reports:

Somali Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations Afar Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations SNNPR Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations Borena Zone of Oromia Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations Gaza and Maputo Provinces (Ethiopia) Agrarian Consultations

15

1: LINKING SHOCKS, TARGETING AND LIVELIHOODS

1.1 EXPOSURE TO SHOCKS AND RELEVANCE ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETING

Trend analyses of shocks to identify areas where they recur generally use data that cover large geographical areas. This means that they may not necessarily pick up smaller or shock-like conditions. By capturing the occurrence of shocks at sub-national levels through the seasonal livelihood programming consultation will overcome this problem, highlighting the differences in the number of times people will have experienced these shocks in different parts of the country. For example, Table 1 below shows the shocks - as good (highlighted in green) and bad (red) years experienced in the Somali, Afar, and SNNPR Regions of Ethiopia since 1992. Typical years are not shaded:
Table 1: Comparison of good, bad, and typical years between three pastoral regions of Ethiopia From: To: Somali Region Afar Region SNNPR April March Name & translation Name & translation Name & translation 2010 --2009 2010 Millennium drought Eron (severe drought / hunger) 2008 2009 Odey Kafaa (helplessness) Ekaru Karoyan (year of disease) 2007 2008 2006 2007 Godi mali (axe - trees cut) 2005 2006 Ekaroolo (year of prosperity) 2004 2005 Muur Kalad (slaughtering) Dula hoganefana (migrate) 2003 2004 2002 2003 Karu Aremu (drought & conflict) 2001 2002 2000 2001 Bodi (Etho/Eritrean war) Akoroo (main rains on time) 1999 2000 Siigo As (red wind) 1998 1999 Biyo Badan (full of water) 1997 1998 1996 1997 Dad Isbara (people mixing) Dai Kle (year of hunger) 1995 1996 Marmaris (wandering) 1994 1995 1993 1994 1992 1993

The table shows localized shocks (in the case above primarily droughts) that may not have been captured in an overall national trend analysis - for example, 2007-2008 where an outbreak of CCBP amongst livestock spread from Kenya in the SNNPR; or 2003-2004 will not have been identified as an overall drought year in Ethiopia, yet the Afar Region experienced a severe drought that forced people to migrate to other regions (the translation of the local name Dula hoganefana in Afari). Similarly, local knowledge highlights different shocks that would occur within the same year - take for example 1999-2000 where the Somali Region experienced a drought, The Afar Region was affected by the Ethiopian / Eritrean conflict, and the SNNPR experienced a good year due to excellent main rains.

16

What is the relevance of shocks to FFA identification and planning? When major shocks on livelihoods occur frequently, the period between the end of one shock and the start of another may become too short. This not only places people at greater risk to experiencing these shocks, but prevents the rebuilding and accumulation of lost assets before the next one occurs. The more regularly that a group of people experience shocks and has shortened recovery periods between them, the greater the erosion of coping strategies and assets takes place which leads to an eventual loss of livelihoods. Frequent and regular shocks ultimately make people more vulnerable to food insecurity and hamper their development opportunities to move out of poverty. If these people are not assisted to cope with regular shocks, they eventually collapse into poverty and persistent (chronic) food insecurity. In programme response terms, this can provide the entry points to: consider the differences between relief, early recovery, and resilience building assistance to mitigate the impacts of shocks the types of activities required for early recovery to rebuild assets and those that strengthen resilience to shocks; and when (in terms of years and seasons) and where (in terms of exposure to shocks) different response options would be more appropriate.

The frequency in which people have been exposed to shocks is also helpful in determining targeting criteria for FFA activities. For example, in the pastoral areas of Ethiopia participants in four separate consultations concluded that that there needed to be a minimum of 3 to 4 years between major shocks for a household to recover if the time between shocks is shorter, then households have insufficient time to recover and rebuild lost assets. If the next shock then occurs before the household has been able to recover, their asset erosion during the new shock is deeper, making it that much harder for them to recover. In practical terms, this means that households experiencing at least 2 major shocks in the last 5 years would either be at the very edge of recovery before the next shock, or still be within a recovery phase as there would have been insufficient time for the required 3 to 4 year recovery period. Within such a group, a certain set of socio-economic criteria would determine whether they would be poor or vulnerable households, such as the size of the household or the number of dependents, and the ownership of or access to a specific set of assets. If such criteria are met, they would be a justified group for early recovery and resilience building activities outside of relief interventions. Understanding these elements leads guides rationales and justifications for specific programme types. They guide who should be targeted with and could participate in early recovery and resilience building programmes in the years between shocks, and those where longer-term social protection may be required. The following section shows the practical application of linking the repeated exposure to shocks with targeting of programmes.

17

1.2 REFINING TARGETING CRITERIA FOR POPULATION GROUPS

Understanding links between programmes and project types that would be appropriate for early recovery, resilience building, and longer-term social assistance requires reflection on vulnerability and exposure to shocks. A graphic overall profiling of potential programming assistance from a vulnerability perspective is depicted in Figure 1 below, whereby the Y-axis represents the household vulnerability status, and the X-axis represents time (or seasonality).
Resilient benefiting from growth and development

A B

BETTER TIMES (I.E. HARVESTS)

Food secure under no major shocks with moderate resilience
SHOCK

Highly food insecure -from last shocks/emergency or consecutive shocks

REPEATED SHOCKS

Highly food insecure - including destitute

Figure 1: Vulnerability profiling for FFA programming

Figure 1 acts as a guide to determine where to target specific types of programmes to (i) provide relief during emergency periods only and (ii) to support efforts of resilience building that could enable vulnerable households to better cope with shocks when they occur to prevent further slips into vulnerability. It is also recognized that there will be times for all groups when conditions are better, such as after harvests or during peak milk and animal sales at good prices. There will also be periods where conditions deteriorate, either during shocks (for food secure groups that are moderately resilient) or as food insecure households move away from the good harvests and sales times. As shocks increase in frequency and intensity, households will not have sufficient time to rebuild lost assets before the next shock occurs, and over time coping capacities erode pushing them deeper into vulnerability. Thus, it becomes imperative that programming supports the strengthening of existing assets and building resilience, particularly amongst groups C and D shown in Figure 1. The following summarizes a description of these groups:
Group A Resilient Already benefit from growth and development Group B Food secure under no major shocks Moderate resilience. Become highly food insecure in case of shocks; some post-crisis caseloads move downward without developmental assistance. Group C Highly food insecure from last / consecutive shocks Caseload for recovery and complementary support. Can slide downwards into destitution/negative coping strategies without support. Group D Highly food insecure, including destitute Caseload for social protection - conditional and unconditional support needed. Focus on alternative livelihoods where possible.

18

Thus, the major focus of FFA programming should be geared towards groups C and D as follows:
Group B Group C Group D Resilience building and Recovery (outside of Relief in case of shocks) A mix of GFD and F/CFW or F/CFA

Relief (GFD) or F/CFW; and/or Largely through F/CFW and F/CFA if shelf projects available F/CFA NOTE: Food/Cash for Work (F/CFW) and Food/Cash for Assets (F/CFA)

When determining vulnerability profiles and defining targeting criteria for different programme rationales as shown above, references to the historical timeline of good, typical, and bad years (e.g. those in Table 1) provides links between the need for recovery times between shocks, and the impacts this has on vulnerability if recovery periods are insufficient. For example, the continuous erosion of coping strategies if recovery time between shocks is insufficient pushes people (i.e. those in category C) deeper into food insecurity (i.e. those households in category D). In Ethiopia, pastoral households need a minimum of 3 to 4 years between major shocks to recover. If the time between shocks is shorter, then households have insufficient time to recover and rebuild lost assets. To make the distinction between groups C and D, the exposure to recent shocks or the period of time that a household has faced a certain set of conditions, combined with socio-economic factors, were identified as criteria to consider when targeting for various programmes:
Group C Households that experienced at least 2 major shocks in the last 5 years would either be at the very edge of recovery before the next shock, or still be within a recovery phase as there would have been insufficient time for the required 3 to 4 year recovery period. Within this group, a certain set of socio-economic criteria would determine whether they would be poor or vulnerable households, such as the size of the household or the number of dependents, and the ownership of or access to a specific set of assets. If these criteria are met, they would be a justified group for early recovery and resilience building activities outside of relief interventions. The majority of these households would fall into Category C. Group D Households which have exhibited a set of poor socio-economic criteria for at least the last 4 years would place them beyond the time needed to recover before the next shock, suggesting they have been unable to recover from a recent shock, or have persistently faced high food insecurity. Socio-economic criteria should reflect conditions requiring external continued/longer-term support, such as single parent HHs with high dependents, with no fixed income, labour, and no productive assets. Such characteristics suggest that if HHs have been unable to recover/adapt/find alternative livelihoods in a four year period, then vulnerability status is unlikely to be due to a recent event (i.e. a shock) and programmes for early recovery are not as applicable. Rather, such HHs could be persistently (chronically) food insecure and require a different set of programming support (e.g. social protection and alternative livelihoods). The majority of these households would fall into Category D.

19

1.3 LIVELIHOOD SEASONALITY AND PROGRAMME ENTRY POINTS

Conducting a seasonal livelihood analysis through a consultation involves participants discussing and agreeing when certain events occurred that would affect livelihoods and vulnerability, and by capturing this along a monthly timeline (as shown in Figure 2 - following page). By doing this, major patterns and key differences at various times of the year will be found, and will start guiding the times, and types, of different interventions that may be required. This should be done for typical and bad years as this indicates how conditions may change, and determines broad programming entry points that are needed to better support lives and livelihoods for example, the differences identified in the Somali Region of Ethiopia show: A typical year
THE MONTHS DURING AND AFTER THE SHORT RAINS Own food production for pastoralists is better, yet food balances must be purchased whilst HHs need to save cash for the coming high expenditure months, and trying not to sell animals to build up livestock. Agro-pastoralists will try to save cash to purchase farm inputs for the March cultivation season. (Seen as a second priority time for interventions).

A bad year
THE MONTHS AT THE HEIGHT OF THE LONG DRY SEASON REQUIRE EMERGENCY INTERVENTIONS Conditions are severe this entire period as the cold dry season leads directly into the long dry season, without the relief of the short rains. HHs are stressed, experiencing extended periods of acute food shortages and high expenditures, malnutrition rates rise, and distress sales and extreme coping strategies are used. Workloads for both men and women are high as they are fully engaged in water and food collection, looking after animals, and trying to cope with the severity of the shock. Assistance is needed to cover basic needs and prevent the depletion of assets that will affect long-term livelihoods. (Regarded as the most critical and main priority time for interventions).

THE MOST DIFFICULT MONTHS OF THE LONG DRY SEASON Households experience the most acute food shortages, expenditures peak, income opportunities are limited and cash mostly comes from distress sales of livestock at poor prices, and malnutrition rates rise. (Regarded as the first priority period for interventions).

MONTHS DURING THE MAIN RAINS Family members return at the start of the main rains and men and women are available for labour-based works. These are the best months and conditions improve, so programmes should be geared towards early recovery (if the preceding season was difficult/had shock) and/or resilience and asset building programmes. This allows HHs to offset expenses related to any accrued debts from the preceding long dry season, and treatment of animal diseases later in the cold dry season to protect livestock assets. (Regarded as the third priority time for programming).

THE MONTHS BEFORE AND AFTER THE MOST DIFFICULT TIMES OF THE LONG DRY SEASON Assistance geared towards mitigating the impacts of a severe long dry season are essential to strengthen households abilities to cope. There is a need to address current rising malnutrition, human diseases, and major difficulties leading to asset depletion in the severe months. Both men and women are available for labour-based schemes, although HHs should have flexibility to decide on which family member can participate. Before the long dry season resilience building is needed; those after the most difficult months where relief is required should be more early recovery in nature. (Regarded as the second priority period for assistance).

20

Figure 2: Typical Year in the Somali Region - Seasonal Calendar

21

2: IDENTIFYING INTERVENTION RATIONALES AND PROGRAMME TYPES

2.1 BUILDING RATIONALES AND PRIORITY TIMES FOR INTERVENTIONS

The seasonal livelihood consultation should determine the times of the year when assistance may be required, based on what factors are affecting food security, and what livelihood activities people would be engaged in at these times. Furthermore, the times where assistance may be needed can be prioritized according to the severity of conditions at different times. Using this information, rationales for assistance can be determined with partners. Building on the previous example from the Somali Region (Ethiopia), the table below shows how priority times, rationales, and programme objectives converge. Similarly, this should be done for typical and bad years to show how these objectives and rationales change: A Typical Year
Priority 1 - During the most difficult time of the year: This is the most important period for food assistance throughout the year to pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and ex-pastoralists. Assistance at this time will be protective that is, seasonal support during the most difficult times to protect lives and livelihoods. Protective assistance to save lives and livelihoods is critical at this time. This is regarded as the most important period to assist households, both to meet severe food shortages and to prevent the loss of assets to such levels that recovery from this period is hampered, forcing people into deeper levels of food insecurity and poverty.

A bad Year
Priority 1 - During the most difficult time of the year:

Priority 2 - During the months preceding the most difficult time of the year: This is an optimal time for programming to prevent asset sales, and assist households to build resilience, strengthen coping strategies, and to prepare for the difficult months ahead. This will safeguard livelihood assets and minimize the erosion of coping strategies. Priority 3 Months following the difficult periods: Investments allow for asset and savings accumulation during a good time, meaning that the risk of immediate depletion is reduced as people are facing better conditions. This period provides the best opportunity for asset creation and resilience building activities for the longer term, and for households to be able to invest in assets that can be managed, built, and strengthened in good times. If this period comes after a bad year or a particularly difficult season, the programme shift is to one of early recovery.

Priority 2 The months preceding and following the most difficult time of the year: The primary objective of these programmes is to save livelihoods, preserve, and rebuild assets. Projects should be geared towards asset creation and resilience building as the mechanism in which to provide these transfers.

22

2.2 DETERMINING PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES AND TIMING

All potential programmes should be captured during the consultation, and can be done by firstly identifying broad themes that participants feel will address the problems and needs in the area, and then the programmes within those. There is no specific listing of themes, although they should capture the key issues and problems i.e. land and water, access and infrastructure, etc. The links between the importance of the natural resource base (i.e. the land and all the resources on or within it) and the different types of shocks that is, the risks associated with the occurrence of different typologies of shocks on degraded landscapes should be considered. Thus, when developing broad themes within which to determine the types of FFA programmes that could be required, it is important to ensure that the element of land degradation and those activities that could rehabilitate or strengthen its resilience to shocks is captured. Table 2 shows two examples of broad themes captured in agrarian and pastoral settings, and outlines some of the programmes within those:
Table 2: Example of programming themes and activities between agrarian and pastoral settings

Agrarian setting example Mozambique

Natural resources Erosion control, nurseries and reforestation, sensitization to fire control etc. Water management and harvesting Includes repairing of dams, roof water harvesting, cisterns, water wells, etc.)

Pastoral setting example Ethiopia

Natural resource management Land: terracing, nurseries, erosion control etc. Water harvesting: roof water harvesting, cisterns, water wells, etc. Livestock management Market infrastructure: construction of centres with related livestock facilities, etc. Health facilities: cattle dipping, vaccinations etc. Stocking: re-stocking, emergency de-stocking etc. Social programmes Health: constructing health posts, wat-san training etc. Education: school feeding, girls incentives, etc. Income generation: small scale drip systems, fishing, bee-keeping, small animals/poultry etc. Infrastructure: construction of community grain stores, feeder roads etc.

Agriculture & Livestock Includes training in farming techniques, irrigation schemes, small poultry rearing, livestock distributions, livestock dipping and vaccinations etc. Homestead development Includes compost making, small scale drip irrigation, fruit tree production, fish ponds etc. Access to food Construction of market stands, community grain stores, feeder roads etc.

Reviewing Table 2, it is evident that similar programmes will be captured irrespective of what themes emerge for example, agrarian communities identified homestead development as a key programme area and within that small-scale drip irrigation; pastoralists identified this same programme under income generation through social programmes, and so on. Compiling identified programmes within these broad themes from consultation findings held in different regions will show which areas specific FFA programmes can address: for example, drip irrigation was an activity in homestead development AND income generation and thus, two rationales for the same programme have been identified.

23

What is important when capturing potential programme information and the possibilities and types of FFA within them, is the following: 1. The time in which the programme can be conducted: this should include seasonality (e.g. rainy or dry seasons, etc.) and livelihoods (e.g. what would people be doing at this time, and would they be able to participate in the programme?). This will also build rationales for resilience building and early recovery programmes. For example, river bank stabilization before the onset of the rains in floods-prone areas (sudden onset shock contexts) or the rehabilitation of agricultural lands after the flooding season (in the event the shock has occurred). 2. Who would participate in the programme: depending on the programme type and livelihood activities during the season, who would the programme be targeted to? For example, should the programme be targeted to pastoralists or agro-pastoralists, or both? Should it targeted to men because women have higher workloads collecting water at that time, etc.? 3. Which vulnerable group(s) should the programme reach: Which are the target groups for the programme? Is it the highly food insecure that have recently experienced shocks are those that are considered to be chronically food insecure? Is it those generally food secure groups that experience seasonal food insecurity and that are vulnerable and at risk to shocks? 4. Who are the partners already implementing these programmes: determine which of these programmes are already being conducted in the area, and by whom. As there will be a number of partners that may be doing the same programmes (although in different parts of the area) it is important to determine the existing partnerships, and ascertain which of the partners would be the technical leader (e.g. Table 3). For example, an NGO may be implementing an erosion control programme under the technical leadership of the Ministry of Agriculture (MA). As such, the NGO has an implementation capacity whilst the MA would be a technical lead. This is important when exploring opportunities for scale-ups in other areas.
Table 3: Example of partner implementation (red is technical lead) information from a consultation Natural resource management Rehabilitation of lands Terracing Check-dam Flood diversion When and who December - January (Dry season) Pastoralists & Agro-pastoralists Men October - November Pastoralists & Agro-pastoralists Men and women April (Rainy season) Pastoralists, Agro- & Ex-pastoralists Men and women When and who December January (Dry season) Pastoralists, Agro- & Ex-pastoralists Men and women Main partners Ministry of Agriculture PSNP PSNP HAVOYOCO Ministry of Agriculture SORPARI Main partners PSNP Mercy Corp OXFAM SC-UK Mercy Corp OXFAM-GB SC-UK

Fodder production

Water harvesting Hafar dam Pond construction

COOPI Mercy Corp SC-UK

24

Table 3 is a subset of the FFA programmes identified for pastoralists in the Somali Region, Ethiopia (full list in the Somali Region Pastoral Consultation Report) showing the seasonal timings, and the suitability for livelihood group (i.e. pastoralist, agro-, and ex-pastoralist) and gender. It also indicates who is already implementing these programmes, and highlighting (in red) who could take on a technical lead if these programmes are to be expanded. Note however that although it appears that there are a large number of partners already implementing these programmes, in reality they are limited to specific areas and there are substantial gaps in coverage in the Somali Region. Figure 3 is an example from an agrarian setting in Mozambique which shows overall target groups (i.e. Groups C & D discussed in the targeting section) linked to specific household targeting criteria with rationales and justifications (see Mozambique Livelihood Consultation Report 2009):

Figure 3: Seasonal livelihood programming in agrarian areas Gaza Province, Mozambique

In summary, potential FFA activities can be identified through a seasonal livelihood programming consultation to capture the full range of possible programmes in the area, and then determining: Whether the most appropriate time (season) to implement the project to ensure its success will not disrupt on-going livelihood activities by those people participating in the programme Which livelihood group is to be targeted, and who the participants in the programmes will be Which vulnerable groups the programmes will reach within the overall target population Whether there is existing capacity amongst partners to implement these programmes and who the partners are that could provide technical leadership for either scaling up or expanding these programmes into new areas.

Module C and Module D of the FFA PGM provides a more detailed menu of possible2 F-CFA
interventions by focus target groups and complementary measures

This list is not exhaustive and focusing largely on what F-CFA can support within the context of semi-arid lands. The range of complementary measures is also simplified around main intervention areas (such as CA) within which numerous packages and designs are developed by partners (FAO, GTZ, AAA, etc) and possible to modify based on local contexts.

25

2.3 CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IDENTIFYING FFA PROGRAMMES

When identifying the range of potential programmes, it is important not to single out FFA activities alone as this will reduce the ability to find complementary interventions. Rather, all types of programmes that could be required should be listed, and those that could be supported by FFA within these. When identifying overall potential programmes, the following should be done: 1. Avoid wish lists of highly technical and expensive programmes: When identifying programmes there is the tendency to list activities that communities and partners wish to have for example, the construction of large dams and roads. Although such programmes may have obvious benefits, they are generally not feasible programmes that can be handled by partners at local levels as they are extremely technical in nature, require heavy machinery, and have high costs. Although these can be identified and passed on to Government as identified programmes by communities, they are unlikely to be implemented by communities, NGO, and WFP partners. 2. Identify programmes that have already been implemented and where experience exists: By identifying these types of programmes, it is then possible to discuss which ones have been most effective and which partners already have the technical expertise to implement them. This allows for identifying those that can be scaled-up based on existing experience, and the partners with the technical capacity to do so or to share experiences/act as technical leads to others that may want to implement such programmes in new areas. It is likely that most of the programmes identified within the consultation will fall into this category as they will be raised by communities that have had these programmes in the past, or by partners that are currently implementing them. What will also be noted when identifying these programmes is that they will likely only be found in the geographical areas of operation of the implementing partner. For example, land terracing may be the key programme of a specific NGO, yet it is only being implemented in the few Districts in which they operate. For other Districts in the area, such programmes may not be available not because they are not relevant, but because there is no implementing partner. 3. Identify potential new (feasible) programmes yet where local experience does not exist: Such programmes may not have been implemented in the area in the past, but may have been run elsewhere by partners and where the experience may be brought to the area. For example, terracing in agrarian settings or water harvesting in pastoral areas may have been implemented by specific partners in other parts of the country, but not in the areas in which the consultation is being held. If such programmes are known to be successful and feasible, they should be identified for later exploration with partners to assess the potential of introducing such interventions in the area. 4. Other programmes that may not be identified by participants during the consultation that would be instrumental in addressing vulnerability, food insecurity, and risk management but will only become apparent when reviewing the information later on. For example, the need to link early warning information collected by partners or at a central level and the need for conflict resolution during the seasonal movements of pastoralists. Such interventions once identified and if feasible, should be incorporated into overall programme selection, design, and implementation with/by the relevant partners.

26

3: POSITIONING OF FFA IN BROADER PROGRAMMING

3.1 SEQUENCING PROGRAMMES

Placing all identified programmes along a timeline shows which months specific FFA and other programmes should be implemented. This allows for the exploration of complementarities between programmes, for example by seeing when terracing should be done and when seed distributions are required; or nursery establishment in relation to reforestation. Sequencing programmes on a timeline will link them to the different priority times for support, the rationales for the interventions, and the types of potential transfer modalities (e.g. food, cash, and vouchers). This will show the entry points for different partners, who may have different mandates, objectives, and funding. For example, feeder road construction with FFA during the difficult season where food assistance is needed is an entry point for WFP. The same project may also be identified as appropriate during better times of the year where food assistance is not required (although households would benefit from labour-based programmes to build savings and assets) and thus an entry point for partners whos mandates and funding sources are more development orientated. This provides opportunities to WFP and a development partner to jointly motivate for the programme, yet to implement it at different times using different rationales, yet with the same overall objective - which is to build the roads and improve access. By coordinating activities it is possible to increase the time available to construct roads and more quickly improve access for communities, and at the same time providing two opportunities for households to engage in asset creation activities during the year. Figure 4 on the following page shows how programmes have been sequenced for agro-pastoralists in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. When looking at Figure 4, consider: 1. The priority times and rationales for interventions have been placed along the top of the table. This allows for linking programmes to rationales, which will allow the identification for various entry points for different partners, according to mandates and funding sources. 2. It is possible to see how priority times and transfer modalities may change during the course of the programme for example, terracing needs to be done during the dry season. For the first half of the season, agro-pastoralists require cash-based inputs which they can save and invest in the difficult season ahead, whilst in the latter half of the season food assistance becomes essential, and a preference for food inputs is stated as food prices in the markets increase. This information allows, where possible, to tailor responses and modalities to needs and preferences. 3. Programmes outside of periods where (food) assistance is required are shaded in grey, indicating which activities although beneficial to a community, are outside of WFP FFA rationales or risk being cut-short and negatively impact their success. For example, fodder production can be done for 3 months, yet only the first month can be motivated for under WFP food assistance. In this instance, WFP may look for a partner and share the programme, whereby the partner would continue the activity with their own funds for the last two months, or WFP may not consider engaging in the project yet motivate for another partner to implement it in its entirety.

27

Figure 4: Typical Year possible programming for Agro-pastoralists in the Somali Region - Seasonal Calendar

28

FFA Manual Module B: Understanding the Context

3.2 SYNTHESIZING PROGRAMMES INTO NATIONAL LEVEL PLANNING

Consolidating the findings of all programmes will show the role of FFA and its relation to other interventions. Figure 5 (Mozambique) indicates the appropriate times for FFA, preferred transfer modalities, their overlap with relief during the hunger gap and/or in the event of a shock, with school feeding and nutrition, and other non-food interventions that support agrarian livelihoods.

Figure 5: Programme synthesis Maputo and Gaza Provinces, Mozambique (2009)

Such an overall synthesis also contributes to pipeline planning, logistics, and identifying staff time in food distribution and monitoring so that M&E, evaluations, assessments, and participatory planning activities with communities / partners can be planned accordingly. Additionally, this consolidation shows how responses relate to strategic objectives and are embedded within the programme categories. For example the Haiti PRRO (planned for 2010-2011) had as the overall goal to support Government efforts to save the lives and reduce or stabilize acute malnutrition of disaster affected victims (the Relief component), and to reduce risks and improve food security of those affected by protracted humanitarian crises (the Recovery component). Specific objectives were to effectively prepare and respond to complex emergencies while investing in nutrition and school based social protection, community based risk reduction and adaptation to climate variability (synthesized in Figure 5), through: 1) 2) 3) 4) Emergency preparedness and rapid response to shocks; School based social and transitional safety nets; Nutrition safety nets; and Post- disaster early recovery and labour intensive productive safety nets (FFA)

Figure 5: Proposed seasonal programming for Haiti PRRO (2010-2011)

29

FFA Manual Module B: Understanding the Context

3.3 COMPLEMENTARITIES AND COORDINATION

Coordination is always a challenge in complementary and joint programming, as various implementers will have their own project plans and timings for the activities they are implementing. The seasonal livelihood programming approach, and in particular the sequencing of programmes along a timeline is a useful tool to raise and discuss issues of coordination and complementarities, in particular at local and sub-national levels. By stock-taking the who does what and where through the consultation immediately highlights in a comprehensive manner when specific programmes are taking place, where there are gaps in seasonal responses, where activities may need to be realigned for optimal impact, and where new partnerships can be developed to further harmonize response planning and implementation. When using FFA programmes to rebuild/build assets for communities a combination, or package of different complementary activities at various times of the year is required if greater and longer-term benefits are to be achieved (see an example from Zimbabwe in Table 6 of Module D). It is likely that most if not all of these programmes that will constitute such a package and which are identified through the consultation are already being implemented by WFP, partners, and others. However, it is also likely that the coverage of these programmes will be limited to the location in which programme implementers and partners are working. This results in certain geographical areas and communities having a greater number of these activities taking place, whilst there would be fewer or even none in others. By listing, or ideally mapping out, all existing on-going activities will identify any programme gaps in relation to geographic coverage. Additionally, this stock-taking of who does what and where can also form the basis of defining roll-out and scale-up strategies for example by identifying which areas already have the greatest number of partnerships and activities, what would be required to enhance complementarities and coordination, and use these as pilots for fine-tuning programme harmonization which could then be rolledout to other areas once lessons have been learnt and processes established. Although such programme stock-taking exercises can be done throughout the course of the consultations (e.g. by making a map available at the workshop) not all partners may be present so gaps in information will still occur. Other alternatives could be through any existing regular local-level coordination meetings and structures (e.g. District level food security monthly meetings, etc.). Where they do not exist, they should be established under the auspices of local authority. Such coordination meetings provide the venue to fill data gaps, but more importantly also act as a forum to discuss and identify further opportunities for complementary programming, harmonization, and partnerships. These outputs from consultative programming processes also provide a ready tool for local authorities to see the what, where, and when, as well as the for whom and by whom of programme interventions in their areas, once they have been finalized. This allows for the tracking of what activities are happening where, which areas are being covered, and where gaps exist, enhancing local coordination and advocacy efforts to request and motivate for projects and funds. Where local-level development plans exist, the outputs from seasonal livelihood programme consultations can be integrated into or used to refine local-level development plans. At the national level, such information identified through field-level seasonal programming consultations is a significant contribution to providing the building blocks that can be used to formulate safety nets and food

30

FFA Manual Module B: Understanding the Context

security frameworks, as well as realign on-going activities that may not be part of a safety net programme per se, but can complement and support safety net activities. For example the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) of Ethiopia began expanding into pastoral areas in 2010 with the aim to provide support to the most food insecure pastoralists during the critical dry season. Seasonal livelihood programme consultations conducted in the four main pastoral regions of Ethiopia showed that these critical seasons vary depending on the regions, and between pastoralists and agropastoralists. This information allows for consideration to possible adjustments to the timing of the PSNP in different areas in order to bring programmes more in line with hunger gaps and needs, labour availability and gender, and the most appropriate timing for specific asset-creation activities. Furthermore, by identifying which programmes are being conducted by partners outside of the PSNP i.e. in the months and/or areas that the PSNP does not provide assistance it becomes possible to see how they fit into the overall programme response strategy and how they can be align (if necessary) to support PSNP activities.

31