Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual

MODULE C
MODULE C: PLANNING OF FFA
PROCESSES IN SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION

Once you have conducted your context analysis and built your FFA rationale (Module B), the next step is to identify the specific FFA interventions you plan for your country. Your plan will need to consider the prioritization of your interventions according to geographical, livelihood and capacity factors. Involved throughout this process is the involvement of the communities whom will benefit from your intervention. This includes participatory planning at the community level to validate and fine-tune individual intervention details and to ensure they fit into the longer-term goals of the community.

ODXP PREVENTION & RECOVERY World Food Programme

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

FFA Manual Module C (2011): version 1. 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 Please inform ODXPs Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here.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 C 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.

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

MODULE C: PLANNING SPECIFIC FFA INTERVENTIONS IDENTIFYING THE APPRORIATE FFA INTERVENTION TABLE OF CONTENTS:
C1. OVERVIEW FROM RESEARCH TO PLANNING C2. IDENTIFYING, SELECTING & PRIORITISING SPECIFIC FFA INTERVENTIONS USING YOUR FFA RATIONALE AND OUTLINING YOUR FFA PLAN MENU OF FFA INTERVENTIONS TARGETING: SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION FOR THE CONTEXT OPTIMIZE SELF-HELP AND COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION PARTNER COVERAGE AND CAPACITY, AND LOW/HIGH-TECH INTERVENTIONS C3. PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES AND PLANNING WHY PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ARE IMPORTANT FOR FFA INTERVENTIONS WHAT A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE TYPES OF PARTICIPATORY CONTEXTS 2 2 3 3 4 6 7 9 14 14 17 18

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

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 programmed 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 programmed 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 C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

C1. OVERVIEW
Once you have conducted your context analysis and built your FFA rationale (Module B), the next step is to identify the specific FFA interventions you plan for your country. Your plan will need to consider the prioritization of your interventions according to geographical, livelihood and capacity factors. Involved throughout this process is the involvement of the communities whom will benefit from your intervention. This includes participatory planning at the community level to validate and fine-tune individual intervention details and to ensure they fit into the longer-term goals of the community.

FROM RESEARCH TO PLANNING

Based on your context analysis (Module B), where research has helped you identify the seasonal livelihood programming rationale most appropriate to help communities respond to shocks within specific environmental zones, the next step is to plan your specific FFA interventions. Your FFA rationale at this stage has identified broader objectives. Within these objectives, various specific intervention options may exist a FFA menu of possible interventions which could achieve these objectives. It is necessary to review these various options and identify and plan the best options for actual implementation. In this module, this menu of options is outlined based on the broader course/objective selected. At the same time, your overall rationale may be relevant for a broad range of locations and communities, but due to lack of resources, needs, capacities and time on the ground, will likely require prioritization of interventions to only a sub-set of such locations and communities. This module helps guide you on how to prioritize FFA in your specific country setting and programmed category (e.g. EMOP, PRRO, CP/DEV). In particular is the need to ensure that the communities where specific interventions are to be implemented continue to be consulted throughout the whole process. Participatory planning is especially important. A powerful tool in the FFA toolbox, participatory planning can help the practitioner validate with the community which intervention is relevant or requires refinement, in particular to ensure it would meet the

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

communitys longer-term objectives. If done well, it also ensures community buy-in and empowerment for the interventions implementation. The participatory tool as specifically relevant to FFA is outlined in this module. And with this, implementation can begin (as in Module D).

C2. IDENTIFYING, SELECTING & PRIORITISING SPECIFIC FFA INTERVENTIONS

Once you have a rationale for doing FFA within your country/project (Module B), the next step is to begin to identify specific FFA intervention options that WFP with partners and communities may implement. This involves first reviewing your FFA rationale to ensure that any interventions you identify from the menu of options available, do indeed fit within this broader context analysis. Simply choosing from a menu of possible FFA interventions is however not typically so easy. Very often, there is a high demand for FFA but a limited amount of resources to make implementation possible everywhere and for everyone. Decisions have to be made to prioritize where and with whom specific interventions will be planned, with targeting becoming a necessary step at this stage. Coupled with this is the practical consideration of partner capacity to help implement the interventions, and this may influence whether a specific intervention should be of low or high tech (and low or high risk). In this section of this module, we explore these issues. Key terms: Targeting: defines the specific vulnerable groups to be assisted. May involve three tiers: (i) during context analysis, identifying the characteristics of most vulnerable groups; (ii) during planning and selection of FFA interventions, the prioritizing groups and locations; and (iii) during implementation, outlining the targeting criteria for beneficiaries to know who is eligible. Partner capacity: is the ability of a partner to be involved in the implementation of a FFA intervention; such capacity may be high or low depending on levels of resources, staff (including numbers and skills) and other resources, and community engagement/access in FFA intervention sites.

USING YOUR FFA RATIONALE AND OUTLINING YOUR FFA PLAN

Module B provides the building blocks of FFA rationales based on analyses of shocks, risks and livelihoods to determine entry-points for FFA within a complementary programming framework. Module C provides a set of planning tools that will further fine tune targeting as well as promote community and households participation. Local level plans can then be developed and constitute a powerful tool for i) supporting with FFA the most vulnerable and strengthen social cohesion, ii) improve the quality of assets and their design, iii) build sense of ownership and greater sustainability, and iv) provide an important benchmark for monitoring.

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

Participatory planning is therefore critical for FFA design and implementation in this module and related annexes various planning methods are described and examples provided through links. A number of experiences are also collected (e.g. Table 2). Field staff and partners need to apply what is defined as a non-divisive local level planning and targeting approach when preparing specific FFA interventions. Such an approach advocates for inclusion of the entire community in the processes of planning and implementation, where specific partnerships might also address the needs of those not-so-vulnerable groups that are not to be assisted by FFA interventions, and especially those living "on-the-edge of severe vulnerability or that are seasonally vulnerable (the latter being at risk of sliding to the level of severe vulnerability if no support is provided to restore or improve their asset base). The inclusion of the entire community in planning, even when most vulnerable households are targeted to benefit the most from the assets created, is critical to provide a sense of inclusion in decisionmaking and to advocate for the transformation of the entire range of livelihood systems that connect people and their aspirations. Planning approaches should not inadvertently divide people along artificial lines that deny the very intent to overcome the causes of food insecurity as these causes do not discriminate between people but tend to unite or level vulnerability. It should be noted that pastoral and watershed contexts are very specific in terms of planning approaches, with Annex C-1 and Annex C-3 providing a synthesis of such approaches within these contexts.

MENU OF FFA INTERVENTIONS

There is a menu of options available for deciding on specific FFA interventions in a given location. Such decision-making should fall within the broader FFA rationale or objectives identified for your project, but are normally focused on one or more of the below seven broader foci: (i) Physical soil and water conservation (ii) Flood control and improved drainage (iii) Water harvesting (iv) Soil fertility management and biological soil conservation (v) Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry (vi) Gully Control (vii) Feeder roads. The options within each of these broader objectives may be further refined based on the agro-climatic and livelihood contexts for a specific intervention. The technical design of the intervention may also be altered depending on the location, be it: - arid/semi-arid land - tropical, sub-tropical and highland environments - flood-prone environments - broader community and market infrastructure and other assets. Such technical considerations are detailed further in Module D. The menu of options includes:

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

MAIN INTERVENTION AREAS (AND COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES) 1. Physical soil and water conservation 1.1. Level Soil Bund 1.2. Stone Bunds 1.3. Stone Faced Soil Bund 1.4. Level Fanya Juu 1.5. Bench Terracing 1.6. Conservation Tillage using local plow 1.7. Broad Bed and Furrows Maker (BBM) 1.8. Hillside Terraces 1.9. Hillside Terrace with Trenches 3. Water harvesting 3.1. Hand-dug Wells 3.2. Low cost Water Lifting 3.3. Low Cost Micro-ponds 3.4. Underground Cisterns (Hemispherical, Dome cap, Bottle Shape, Sphere, Sausage shape) 3.5. Percolation pit 3.6. Percolation Pond 3.7. Farm Pond Construction 3.8. Spring Development 3.9. Family Drip Irrigation System 3.10. Roof Water Harvesting System 3.11. Farm Dam Construction 3.12. River-bed or Permeable Rock Dams 3.13. Small Stone Bunds with Run-on and Run- off Areas 3.14. Narrow Stone Lines Along the Contours (Staggered Alternatively) 3.15. Stone Faced/Soil or Stone Bunds with Run-off/ Run-on Areas 3.16. Conservation Bench Terraces (s) (CBT(s)) 3.17. Tie Ridge (s) 3.18. The Zai and Planting Pit System 3.19. Large Half Moons (Staggered Alternatively) 3.20. Diversion Weir Design and Construction 5. Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry 5.1. Area Closure 5.2. Micro-basins (MBs) 5.3. Eyebrow Basins (EBs) 5.4. Herring bones (HBs) 5.5. Micro-trenches (MTRs) 5.6. Trenches 5.7. Improved Pits (IP) 5.8. Multi-storey Gardening 5.9. Seed Collection 7. Feeder roads 7.1 R1 Earth road on flat and rolling terrain stable soils 7.2 R2 Earth road on mountainous terrainstable soils 7.3 R3 Graveled road on flat and rolling terrain sandy or weak soils 7.4 R4 Graveled road on mountainous terrain weak soils 2. Flood control and improved drainage 2.1. Waterways (Vegetative and Stone Paved) 2.2. Cut-off Drains 2.3. Graded Soil Bund 2.4. Graded Fanya Juu 2.5. Improved Surface Drainage for Increasing Productivity of Vertisols and Soils with Vertic Properties

4.

Soil fertility management and biological soil conservation 4.1. Compost Making 4.2. Fertilization and Manuring 4.3. Live Checkdams 4.4. Mulching and Crop Residues Management 4.5. Grass Strips along the Contours 4.6. Stabilization of physical Structures and Farm Boundaries 4.7. Vegetative Fencing 4.8. Ley Cropping 4.9. Integration of Food/Feed Legumes into Cereal Cropping Systems 4.10. Intercropping 4.11. Crop Rotation 4.12. Strip Cropping

6. Gully Control 6.1. Stone Checkdams 6.2. Brushwood Checkdams 6.3. Gully Reshaping, Filling and Re-vegetation 6.4. Sediment Storage and Overflow Earth Dams (SS Dams) for Productive Gully Control 6.5. Sediment Storage and Overflow Soil Bunds (SS Bunds)

7.5 R5 Graveled road on flat and rolling terrain black cotton soils 7.6 R6 Road on escarpment 7.7 R7 Typical pipe culvert using concrete rings 7.8 R8 Standard drift

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

There are also Info-techs (one page per intervention) provided in Annex D-1 that provide a basic set of info for planning and implementation. More elaborate one to two page Info-techs are also found in Part 1 of the Ethiopia Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) Planning Guidelines (Ethiopia MOARD, 2005) which is indicated as a main reference document for participatory watershed planning. The CBPWD is fully owned by the Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MOARD) and developed by a number of stakeholders, including a significant WFP contribution through the MERET1 programmed. Each info-tech uses a standard format that provides basic information about the intervention. Such technical guides do not apply to all contexts where WFP operates, although their application in the described form has proven to be relevant in a number of countries and can be replicated in many more. It is therefore recommended that at the initial stages, the measures outlined in the info-techs are tested at a small scale and their performance observed. Many of these techniques make reference to possible modifications to their original design and integration requirements. Choosing from your menu of options is however not just linked to the best-fit technical solution to a setting, as practical elements such as those to help undertaken the implementation may significantly influence the final choice. Of particular importance is the coverage and capacity of partners in the local setting.

TARGETING: SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION FOR THE CONTEXT
FFA targeting normally involves two main tiers. At the highest level, during the context-analysis of project design (Module B), the targeting exercise focuses on outlining the groups most vulnerable and in need of WFP assistance. The second tier is explained in this module, and uses the broader context-analysis as its parameters to help prioritize by selecting locations and groups that would benefit the most from a FFA intervention. Additional technical considerations (see for example Gender in Module D) are then used to fine tune targeting criteria for specific FFA interventions that may target specific groups or the broad community (ies) to fulfill specific technical requirements and objectives (for example a feeder road or water dam). In this second tier, the FFA practitioner is likely to face the situation where there is a limited amount of resources (including food, partner and government capacity and complementary assistance), and yet a high demand for FFA interventions. In such scenarios, questions of prioritization need to focus on the questions of whether your FFA interventions target: (i) The geographical locations which best-fit your FFA rationale. Based on your context analysis, is the intervention site more affected by the impact/frequency/likelihood of the shock to be addressed, compared to other locations? Such a shock may have been particularly prevalent in a certain agroclimatic zone does this location fall within this zone?
1

Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transitions MERET means also Land in the national language Amharic. MERET is largely a risk reduction programme through participatory community based watershed rehabilitation of degraded lands and community empowerment.

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

(ii)

The vulnerable groups which best benefit from the intervention. Does the group that will participate in the intervention match those identified in your context analysis as being highly vulnerable? (Taking into consideration that this definition of vulnerability should fall within WFPs focus on food and nutrition insecurity).

Considering these questions can be assisted by working with your Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) colleagues in the country; maps can even be produced to help identify where the highest congruence of these two issues overlap the most, so as to focus your attention in these locations. In addition to these factors, targeting of FFA interventions should also consider the questions of: (iii) Does your FFA rationale target communities or households? Based on this, the choice of FFA interventions may be different. For example, restoration interventions usually focus on community assets and basic infrastructure, while resilience-building interventions usually require a combined focus on household and community assets. (See Box C-1for more on the community vs household division.) Does your FFA intervention involve the mobilisation and capacity building of the community in its implementation? For example, if large-scale terracing is to be selected as a FFA intervention in a degraded watershed, it needs the participation of many people, including households that may not strictly falling into the category of the poorest-of-the-poor but also those on-the-edge of such poverty. If only targeted households are involved, one of the key investments of FFA - community mobilisation and technical quality - will be unlikely to take place or be incomplete and largely ineffective. (See Box 1 and document on Sustainable Land Management: gaps, dichotomies and opportunities (WFP, Ethiopia - 2006)

(iv)

OPTIMIZE SELF-HELP AND COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION

Self-help are those efforts that communities themselves will contribute to developing assets without the need for transfers, or payments (i.e. food, cash, or vouchers). It is important that FFA does not depress or substitute self-help efforts rather FFA needs to be designed as an enabler of these efforts. A number of FFA activities can be associated with small contributions targeted towards supporting the neediest households, as indicated above. Furthermore, self-help efforts should be included at the early stages of FFA activity design, not only as management measures (e.g. maintenance of assets created) but as an integral part of self-help contributions during implementation. These can be light or substantial. In some countries, one day per week during FFA implementation periods is dedicated to community works and self-help efforts. In other countries, a fixed number of days per year per able bodied household are established to support community efforts. Some of these programmes are considered rather top down but can be reformed through their inclusion in participatory planning processes.

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

Box 2: Complementary assistance, incentives, self-help and entitlements: Incentives coupled with self-help efforts should be considered necessary across land uses, including private lands as required. Examples of properly-used incentives abound. A cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of the FFW project in Ethiopia (MERET), which uses food-for-work within a participatory watershed development approach, indicated economic and financial rates of return were over 12 percent, and reported an overall positive impact on productivity and downstream effects of conservation measures in cultivated lands, particularly in moisture stressed areas but also on steep slopes. This result would have not been obtained without treatments across land uses, solid technical support and the concomitant self-help contribution of the community, accounting for 20-40 percent of the total investment. India and China have used food assistance, and they continue to use large numbers of cash incentives to rehabilitate degraded watersheds, which include degraded cultivated areas, as part of safety net schemes and various development programmes. The Indian Government also supports the rehabilitation of degraded watersheds with cash incentives to treat eroded cultivated and private lands, based on slope ranges, as one-off exercises and within rigorous management rules. Tax reduction has also been used in various parts of the world to encourage investment in conservation and greening. This does not mean incentives are always needed in private lands but they can be an essential form of support in many contexts and need to be provided with in-built self-help contributions, participatory decision-making, management obligations and other incentives related to secure the tenure rights of the land users.

Mass or social participation for various assets building is commonly practiced in various regions of Ethiopia, with an estimated 30 million labour days or more being generated. Most of this labour is used for soil and water conservation and feeder roads. Performance varies widely due to problems of supervision and poor design and quality of works. As suggested in the Ethiopia report of the Horn of Africa Initiative for Food Security, (GOE/MOARD,2007) it is important to re-think mass participation as a value added component to existing packages and other forms of FFA support, particularly to help the most food insecure and re-build or strengthen traditional forms of social cohesion and solidarity.

With this latter question, issues are raised on incentives versus entitlements, as well as self-help and the local provision of complementary assistance. It should also be noted that focusing debates on resources (food and/or cash) rather than on improved modalities in the use of such resources can penalize the realization of higher standards, and inhibit large-scale coverage in resilience building and sustainable land rehabilitation and management. Focusing on incentives and self-help are important contributors to help overcome these challenges (see Box 2). In such a process, one should avoid the major risk of disconnecting landscapes from coordinated investments, and having self-help efforts standardized by land use. For example, by thinking along qualitative criteria with an effective approach to land rehabilitation and sustainable land management (SLM), conservation of cultivated lands with slopes above 15-20 percent gradient is not simple and an individual business alone. The amount of work required to reach adequate standards is significant, and cannot be done in isolation from other households within a common subwatershed unit. As not all households sharing the same land-use unit have the same labour profile and wealth, incentives or a combined form of support can help enable the different households within this unit to work to conserve the land. An important aspect of incentives is that they manage to aggregate and extend labour availability to ensure coverage and a rapid fix to the problem. The overall public welfare system (which also depends on

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

private asset development) is also affected by the no incentives approaches as it shifts attention from what it takes to rehabilitate degraded lands and put back (and maintain) communities into the development rail, to issues of principle and rhetorical perspective. When applied in situations of top-down approaches, limited or insufficient technical standards and support, tenure insecurity and without a legal framework, incentives are not only ineffective but also would often be detrimental for ownership building and sustainability.

PARTNER COVERAGE AND CAPACITY, AND LOW/HIGH-TECH INTERVENTIONS

FFA is particularly influenced by the capacities of stakeholders on the ground, and which can dictate the technical complexities and types of interventions to be chosen for implementation. This section deals with these different low capacity and high capacity scenarios, and while having specific relevance to agrarian systems, the same considerations and approaches can be considered within other contexts. FFA is highly dependent on having partners on the ground to carry out the planning and then management of an interventions implementation. This dependence has a specific implication on the FFA intervention options that are available for selection in a given context, with the coverage of partners in certain locations, and their capacity to carry out basic or more complex work, helping to define these options. FFA options may often be divided between low-tech, low-risk interventions, and those that are high-tech, high-risk interventions. This division can usually be related to partner capacity and coverage on the ground, although it is recognized this is a simplification, as other facets may also influence the selected complexity and risk of a particular intervention. Nevertheless, this conceptual division of complexity aids in a FFA practitioners selection from the menu of options available. (i) Low capacity contexts: low-tech, low-risk FFA interventions using simpler planning techniques

In low capacity contexts, one should avoid designing interventions that require significant expertise that is known to not be realistically available. In such contexts, it is almost always recommended to devise low-tech and low-risk interventions. Such interventions do not mean low quality work, but involve instead a set of tasks that involve less technical inputs. They will also consider the specific time commitments to which participants can contribute. If you are considering such interventions, you can find more information on your options within Annex C-2. (ii) High capacity contexts: higher-tech, higher-risk FFA interventions using sustainable land management and watershed planning In high capacity contexts, more sophisticated and integrated approaches can be considered. Sustainable Land Management (SLM), for example, is a comprehensive concept that integrates ecological and social approaches through a set of land management principles and interventions encompassing community-based approaches with households, groups and communities, within defined landscape units. Similarly, watershed planning bring people and their livelihoods together with the natural environment by focus on water catchments as the focus of planning of activities, working beyond simple administrative boundaries that often cut across watersheds and hence the natural resource base on which livelihoods are built. More

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

information on planning such interventions (including more information on watersheds in general) is found in Annex C-3. Based on the different levels of partner capacity, a number of planning approaches are available for field staff and partners to select, adapt and develop according to the local context. Such planning options are summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Participatory planning methods in relation to partner capacity

Context
1 Low capacity for planning (overall)

Planning approach method

Simple approach largely focusing on a few tools and modalities for planning and overall focus on low tech-low risk FFA interventions that require limited supervision and external technical inputs Simple approach in areas with low capacity but introduce/use more integrated approaches in areas with greater capacity (by government and/or NGOs) and then gradually expand these integrated approaches into low capacity areas using training and the strengthening of local and institutional capacity Select best approaches that suit local contexts and have the potential to be institutionalized through capacity development and dissemination of best practices (e.g. participatory watershed planning etc)

Mix of high and low capacity for planning (e.g. good in some districts and limited in others)

High capacity for planning (overall)

10

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

Box 3. Different planning approaches available in low or sufficient partner capacity contexts
The actual planning approach used, depending on whether capacity has been assessed as high or low capacity, involves different methodologies. The following provides a summary of the suggested approaches. Option 1: Areas with low local capacity of partners and communities on FFA planning, design and implementation Approach suggested: use of simple planning methods and low tech/low risk activities a) The type of activities in areas with low capacity will be low tech/low-risk and focus on restoring access to social infrastructure and repair of housing for most vulnerable households, clearing of irrigation canals, and road repairs.

b) Urban centers, districts, and communities in most affected areas may already have local level disaster management committees established with local plans for use of FFA activities in areas with no such committees, they can be established and partners support the development of simple disaster management plans. c) A one page format can be prepared by the CO as a planning tool to provide each locality/village an outline of offthe-shelf low tech/low risk projects to be activated using FFA following a cyclonic and flood event.

Examples of activities: Applicable to agrarian and urban livelihoods: - Removal of debris, clean-up operations, screening / separation of items at dumping sites - Collection and shaping of stones for road / other infrastructure repair Applicable to agrarian and urban and to some extent pastoral - livelihoods: - Repair of roads and light bridges - Repair of social infrastructure (schools, health posts, etc) Construction / erecting of temporary shelters and infrastructure for the neediest people following a major shock. Option 2: Areas with sufficient local capacity of partners and communities on disaster management planning, availability of local level development plans and some capacity in FFA planning, design and implementation Approach suggested: use of local level development plans or post emergency disaster management and mitigation plans In areas with sufficient local capacity and/or NGOs with experience in labour intensive activities or specific initiatives linked to environmental rehabilitation, the choice of FFA can expand and be directly linked to ongoing partners development plans. In this regard, an umbrella agreement between WFP, Government and key NGO partners should be developed to: 1) 2) using existing NGO/partners development plans to use food resources for early recovery and/or longer term mitigation activities; and in case the shock does not occur, use pre-positioned food stocks from preparedness plans to support on-going developmental activities prioritized to specific vulnerable people and in particular vulnerable women.

Examples of activities: Applicable to agrarian and urban livelihoods: - Drainage and irrigation canals clearing - Higher ground establishment (dike-type of measures) - Major road construction and maintenance/repairs - Shelters construction and cyclone proof enhanced housing - Food for Training activities: disease prevention training (e.g. cholera, dengue) etc. Applicable to agrarian and pastoral livelihoods: - Bridges and culverts - Dikes

Option 1: Areas with low local capacity of partners and communities on FFA planning, design and implementation

Option 2: Areas with sufficient local capacity of partners and communities on disaster management planning, availability of local level development plans

11

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

As a useful guide, Table 2 provides a rapid reference to some of the planning approaches that have been practically developed and implemented in selected countries. The list is not exhaustive and there are additional approaches that have been developed by WFP and partners in other countries.

Table 2 Examples of key participatory planning approaches of major relevance for FFA
Context
Low capacity requires some minimum amount of initial training and awareness creation

Planning Approach
Basic Participatory Planning for low capacity contexts Low-tech and low risk approaches

Examples 1) The Basic Participatory Planning approach is developed by WFP to suit contexts with low capacity but where local communities with very limited support can prepare simple local level plans that include rough village maps. This approach can constitute the first level of participatory planning upon which to build increasingly robust methods see Annex C-2 and Annex C-4 Note: A number of low tech-low risk activities can be implemented in contexts with low capacity, and are largely suitable within a context of basic participatory planning. As indicated in earlier sections these activities also suit areas affected by rapid onset shocks which require simpler planning, off-the-shelf projects and the possibility to rapidly activate such type of activities (e.g. removal of debris from canals, de-siltation of water ponds, compost making, vegetative fencing, stone collection, etc) 1) The Local Level Participatory Planning Approach (LLPPA) was developed initially in Ethiopia and extensively used for community level participatory planning linked to WFP FFW land rehabilitation works the guideline (Main guideline for TOT and formats) is available through the following link. LLPPA requires technical training and basic expertise to start. 2) Planification Participative pour la Gestion Durable des Terres Guidelines developed in Burundi based on LLPP and adapted in Haiti. Planning Approach and Planning Formats 1) The Community-based Participatory Development Planning (CBPWD) guidelines Ethiopia MOARD, 2005. These guidelines are the result of a major joint effort between the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MOARD), WFP, GTZ, ILRI and USAID based NGO work to develop comprehensive guidelines based on field rooted and effective planning experiences. These guidelines include planning procedures and modules as well as a number technical information kits on over 60 interventions which are most relevant in a number of degraded and food insecurity contexts. 2) The India Integrated Watershed Planning Guidelines that have been adopted at a very large scale and constitute a relevant source of information.

Mixed low and medium capacity

Local Level Participatory Planning Approach (LLPPA)

High capacity

Community based Participatory Watershed Planning

12

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

Context

Planning Approach

Examples 3) FAO Management & Sustainable Mountain Development Working Paper (Asia Experience - 2005). This manual offers a number of important perspectives on overall watershed management efforts from district to community level. http://www.mountainpartnership.org/common/files/pdf/A0270E.pdf 1) Community based food aid targeting and distribution in Kenya (2004) these targeting guidelines are developed for relief operations and include a number of steps that are precursors of participatory planning, as the promote the creation of relief committees that also have early recovery functions 2) FFW Implementation Manual for Kenya - these guidelines have been produced in Kenya as national policy makes strong recommendation for the use of conditional transfers for able bodied beneficiaries receiving food assistance at times of shocks these guidelines builds on the first guideline and can be used/adapted to suit emergency and early recovery FFW efforts 1) This link provides interesting definitions and tools for PRA, recommending its use largely on problem identification rather than actual planning of interventions. http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/par-tech.htm 2) The Rural Economic Advancement Programme (REAP) in Buthan offer interesting and simple village level planning guidelines. http://www.unpei.org/PDF/Bhutan-Guidelines-participatory-villageplanning.pdf 1) WFP manual (draft) on Local Level Participatory and Implementation Approach (LLPIA) Tanzania (2011) a complete community based planning approach building upon WFP experience in the region. 2) Participatory land use planning in Tanzania useful on main description methods and mapping: http://www.mpl.ird.fr/crea/tallercolombia/FAO/AGLL/pdfdocs/tanzania.pdf 3) The Opportunities and Obstacles to Development - A Community Participatory Planning Methodology Hand Book Tanzania, 2004) this handbook offer an interesting and easy to read set of principles, definitions and procedures for local level planning. However, the guideline is more geared towards overall community development and is not focused on food security. Some tools like transects and village mapping interesting. Others such as wealth ranking and related tools also possible to adapt to other contexts and link to the prioritization of FFA activities.

Low capacity however it requires sufficient NGO capacity for minimum support

Community Based Food Aid Targeting and Distribution Guidelines and FFW guidelines

Mixed low and medium capacity

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools

(largely for problem identification stages only)

Tools that may be applicable to different contexts

Others

13

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

C3. PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES AND PLANNING

Beneficiary participation is an essential ingredient in the successful and effective implementation of recovery activities. Through participatory approaches, WFP can initiate developmental activities that strengthen community organizational capacity for economic, social and physical recovery. (WFPs From Crisis to Recovery policy, 1998) Key terms in this section: Participation: a people-centered approach which has the highest probability of success because it offers the potential to strengthen the voice of the most vulnerable. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): a method of involving rural people, their knowledge and views within the planning, implementation and management of projects that aim to assist them.

The importance of planning with communities: A simple basic village or community-level participatory planning approach improves peoples participation and increased sense of ownership over assets created or rehabilitated, with a positive impact on management and sustainability. Participatory planning procedures can be used by communities to identify viable projects, enhance participation of food insecure households and of the community. Community level decision-making and targeting may be strengthened, particularly if the most vulnerable, youth and women are involved in FFA project selection, design and implementation. The approach can also help identify and promote self-help efforts within the community on needs outside of the FFA intervention scope. Participatory planning approaches are required to select and design appropriate FFA interventions. Some of these interventions require that more than one community develops its plan (e.g. one mini-plan can be developed the five villages a feeder road plans to cross in a given district). Depending on the circumstances, plans can be developed by the community with limited help from local partners, with support instead provided to a village level planning team selected by each community to develop these plans. In a number of villages, existing facilitation teams can also expand their role and carry out the planning work with the support of district level and NGO staff. A local level plan also acts as a baseline of what exists prior to an intervention, providing WFP and partners with the information that will allow tracking of the performance of the different measures implemented and the progresses made in terms of food security.

WHY PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ARE IMPORTANT FOR FFA INTERVENTIONS

One of the most essential elements that determines success or failure of FFA interventions throughout the world is peoples participation. There is ample literature regarding participatory planning in Africa, Asia and Latin America. During the last two to three decades, most NGOs and UN agencies have developed participatory planning approaches and tools; some of these approaches have been very good and practical while others have been cumbersome and difficult to apply. The PGM includes various tool kits that can be

14

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

referred to for overall guidance. However, the following focus on the relevance of participatory planning specific to FFA. Most specifically, this section explains a variety of strategies and tools used for CommunityBased Participatory Planning (CBPP) as well as the minimum requirements for engaging in CBPP. Considerable attention to participatory planning is necessary also from a gender perspective, as it often emerges that one of the most important elements in planning is working to know how to involve women and improve their participation in FFA design, implementation and especially management. Planning approaches range from simple to moderately complex, based upon local capacity and experience from partners and/or government technical staff. These approaches have the aim to achieve five key objectives, to: 1. Improve targeting and seasonal livelihood analysis for enhanced response analysis and design: Participatory planning allows discussions around vulnerability issues and makes provision for the participation of most vulnerable groups in planning and as priority groups for food assistance. It also helps identify what FFA activities are required and when, based on seasonal calendars and priorities. 2. Enhance women and most vulnerable households participation in planning, decision-making and implementation: The introduction of local level planning should empower women and marginalized groups as they become an integral part of planning teams. These groups should participate in the decisions on the range of FFA interventions to implement, and to benefit from specific assets that contribute to improve their social status and level of food security. 3. Prioritize FFA interventions and improve their technical design and implementation: Local level planning allows for better prioritization of FFA and their selection based upon, needs, realistic targets and technical requirements based on local capacity (which need to include both community level and implementing partners capacity). 4. Improve the quality and sustainability of FFA interventions: Local level planning allows for greater social and technical interactions (such as the description of land use, farming system and watershed delineation and interactions, technical standards and integration of interventions, etc) which have a positive effect on the design of different FFA and on quality aspects. It also increases sense of ownership over assets created and their management, hence sustainability. 5. Improve FFA effectiveness and foster partnerships at the local level to improve food security: Local level planning helps WFP and stakeholders to optimize the use of existing resources, often promoting self-help efforts, and building a strong case for additional support through developing partnerships, as local level plans can include a number of interventions that require other partners inputs and support. There is close link between participatory planning, capacity development, contexts & risks (slow or rapid onset disasters) and seasonal livelihood analysis. These aspects will influence the type of approach to choose for planning, and the design of FFA interventions in different contexts, including the possibility to expand or reduce specific FFA interventions during a shock. It is important to underline that for FFA participatory planning is intended to include technical aspects as an integral part of what makes participation work this is an aspect not often well covered in participatory planning approaches. Commonly, considerable efforts are put into participatory planning tools, problem

15

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

identification and mapping exercises, while insufficient attention is provided on technical matters, such s what and how activities are to be designed and integrated. The contrary is also possible, with planning approaches strong on technical aspects and weak on genuine participation of people in planning. The latter tend to come up with already-made solutions that tend to impose on communities specific packages of interventions that may not be relevant in their specific contexts. Experience has shown that a balanced combination of participation and technical rigour, including integration of measures, generates long lasting results. Participatory planning also needs to be interactive and to include the possibility to explain concretely to communities what specific FFA activities looks like (e.g. through demonstrations). Rural communities usually prefer practical action, thus while they may enjoy thorough discussions and sharing of ideas, they may not appreciate lengthy and cumbersome procedures for planning. In several instances specific planning approaches have failed because over-focusing on participatory processes aimed to explain detailed social dynamics has not focused on what land users demand on how to fix real problems. Field staff engaged in participatory planning should be able to address some of the technical challenges that relate to specific problems raised by community members. As it is impossible to address all of the technical challenges, field staff (from partners, government and WFP) should aim to both not raise expectations, and to agree about what is feasible to implement with available capacity and likely expertise and resources. Often it helps if WFP and partners staff carry with them a set of technical descriptions, standards and work norms for each of the main potential measures possible to apply in different contexts (which are adjusted to suit the local agro-climatic conditions). Annex D-1 provides helpful info-techs that can be used (and adapted) for use in different contexts. The following sections do not attempt to exhaustively provide the best set of approaches and tools regarding participatory planning for FFA but a range of processes, key tools and examples based on field work that can be used and modified by field staff under different conditions.
Box 4. WFP corporate guidance on participation can be found in the following PGM site

http://pgm.wfp.org/index.php/Topics:Participation#WFP.27s_commitment_to_participation

Amongst a number of useful references, the following main levels of participation, as identified below, are key stages in a participatory process and are critical to retain: I. Information sharing; II. Consultation (two-way flow of information); III. Collaboration (shared control over decision-making); IV. Empowerment (transfer of control over decisions and resources). An IFPRI/WFP brief (2008) explains the relevance of community participation and capacity development aspects this reference further supports the rationale for pursuing local level planning in FFA design and implementation:
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/Strengthening-capacity_2008.pdf

Regarding participatory tools and toolkits the following link offers a number of instruments which may be useful to field staff, including a generic description of various participatory techniques and tools, and references to approaches used in different countries. Some of these can support CO to develop context specific guidelines others to refine a planning approach which already exists and is implemented through WFP partners such as government and NGOs
http://pgm.wfp.org/index.php/Topics:Participation#Participatory_techniques_and_tools:_a_WFP_guide.

16

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

WHAT A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE

A community-based participatory plan should comprehensively capture and outline various technical pieces of information. Methodologically, the following components of planning should be considered and described: Planning unit description (community and related sub-watersheds, groups, linkages) Community and related sub-watershed mapping Agro-ecological systems description (climate, rainfall, vegetation, land use and sub-watershed boundaries, basic hydrology, degradation features, based maps) Seasonal livelihood analysis (crops, markets, expenditures, events, labour, gender aspects) Problem identification and socio-economic conditions FFA intervention identification and design (including description of FFA interventions and maps) Partnerships identification Targets and phasing of FFA and complementary interventions Capacity building requirements These elements constitute the main architecture of any good planning approach developed in consultation with communities. There are however trade-offs, where some of the commonly-desired features in a comprehensive participatory plan may not be possible. A common mistake is to develop comprehensive planning approaches in areas with low capacity. They are often impossible to use. Annex C-2 and Annex C-3 provide information and specific examples on different planning methods, weblinks to consult for guidance, and practical recommendations for community based planning. It should be noted that many NGO partners have also developed specific planning approaches that may be very sitespecific and small scale. As WFP is often called upon to support a large number of beneficiaries using FFA, it is recommended to ensure that at initial stages of participatory planning, basic or minimum standard requirements are developed for NGO or government partners to use for FFA interventions. With experience and capacity development, these approaches can then be refined and incorporate additional elements, to feed into broader strategies for the dissemination of participatory planning.

17

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

Box 5. Technical considerations for participatory planning: Considering the common situations and the key questions (above), five technical aspects are required to be analyzed when selecting or developing a planning approach: (i) Biophysical context and livelihoods. Planning will follow different approaches and territorial units based on whether communities are located in areas that are arid, semi-arid, mountainous, flood prone, or peri-urban. The different type of livelihood will significantly influence whether to focus on the entire community, groups and/or single households depending on social cohesion, land tenure issues, cultural dynamics and seasonal patterns. (ii) Institutional approach and involvement. Participatory planning will be influenced by whether government institutions follow a top-down or bottom-up approach (or a mix of both); whether it has a well organized extension system or not, a centralized or decentralized structure; and whether there are specific planning approaches already in place that can be followed or are largely absent. Capacity of partners (government, NGOs, etc) and WFP. There are countries with robust capacity for grassroots level planning because of years of experience in promoting different planning methods through pilots and community based planning efforts. There are also countries where this experience is largely found within government structures while others in NGOs or both. Capacity for participatory planning within WFP is also variable specific CO have robust capacity because they have assisted institutions and partners develop participatory planning approaches, while other CO have minimal or no capacity. (iv) Vulnerability profile. Planning approaches will be influenced by the type of vulnerability and by who are the most affected. Some approaches will require a very inclusive modality as food insecurity is highly pervasive while other approaches will need to reconcile the need to target specific affected marginalized groups while meeting overall community demands. Partnership level. The type of planning approach is also influenced by the range of partners present in specific parts of the country where FFA are intended to be implemented. In general, participatory approaches that tend to integrate different components require competent local institutions and/or NGOs partners able to deal with the complex range of demands that communities provide through the planning process. If this is not possible, planning approaches need to be simple and developed to address a few problems.

(iii)

(v)

TYPES OF PARTICIPATORY CONTEXTS

Before choosing a participatory planning approach, considerations should be given towards: The key criteria to consider before choosing a given approach Feasibility of participatory planning for FFA during emergencies, short duration PRROs, or in coercive contexts The approach and tools that should be chosen based on local capacity To reconcile participatory planning with the need to reach many beneficiaries and communities at once (e.g. can starting small and doable interventions match the imperative of reaching scale?) Whether participatory planning will foster self-help efforts

Tailoring the participatory approach to your context:

There are various types of participatory contexts that may be seen around the world. FFA and related planning approaches need to be developed based on the common situations where WFP operates and that

18

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

relate specifically to FFA. Below are four common situations found in the WFP context (although there are many more contexts possible to consider): The understanding of these common situations helps field staff to respond to determine the following, Situation 1: Top-down or largely coercive institutional environments that follow specific government directives regarding extension and planning approaches in the field. Rural communities and farmers have limited decision-making and follow orders from the top. Under such contexts, participatory approaches are often pursued via NGOs (when available) albeit often in limited number and coverage. In such contexts it is common that policies of the government require that WFP and any other partners resources are used as conditional transfers in the form of labour-based FFA. Situation 2: A mix of semi-coercive institutional environments and attempts of bottom-up planning coexists in a number of countries where WFP operates. This is often the result of years of interaction and relationships built by WFP and partners with specific institutions (particularly ministries of agriculture, natural resources, environment and others) that have resulted in piloting new approaches and the gradual dissemination of lessons learned. In these contexts, there are often new policies and strategies that are conducive to or include elements of participatory planning, that declare the need to empower vulnerable groups, and that acknowledge the need to pursue more integrated food security efforts. A greater number of NGOs and UN partners closely work with government institutions. This is often an evolution from situation 1 above. Situation 3: A largely non-coercive institutional environment, supportive of participatory approaches, but with limited capacity at various levels, or lacking robust and decentralized outreach with insufficient and poorly equipped staff. In several of these contexts there are numerous NGOs operating in the field, not always closely supportive of government institutions and directly focused at community level. There are many different approaches followed, limited coordination and lack of common technical and planning standards. There is often a tendency to have numerous small projects, few well integrated efforts, and insufficient attention paid to capacity development of local institutions. Situation 4: A weak or highly-constrained institutional environment, particularly in countries emerging from conflict and/or years of complex emergencies. Often, government institutions are receptive to bottom-up approaches but are inadequately staffed and lack trained personnel, particularly at district and community levels. Most of the NGOs will have experience in humanitarian assistance and only few on recovery and longer-term food security interventions.

Some starting points will include: (i) Stocktaking what is available in terms of planning: In most countries there are a number of participatory planning approaches that have been or are currently in use by different partners, often also during emergencies or protracted emergencies. Many of them include FFA (CFW or FFW) and can be used as entry points. Stocktaking and learning from these approaches should be a first step.

19

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

(ii)

Adapt from existing experiences: WFP or WFP partners have developed planning tools in a number of countries tailored to different contexts they may not be entirely replicable but they include aspects of planning and technical elements that can be used and adapted to local contexts. When capacity is low make it simple: The approaches to use in contexts with low capacity need to be very simple as simple need to be the type of FFA to select and implement. It is often within this scenario that several FFA projects fail because impossible to implement with existing low capacity. Participation in top-down environments is possible: It is possible to introduce participatory planning at community level in countries where institutional settings and approaches are largely coercive or top-down. These approaches, however, need to be carefully packaged and introduced through well accepted NGOs or Government institutions open to test or introduce participatory approaches and tools. It can be as simple as establishing a relief and planning committee in each community, undertake a mapping exercise, and completing a plan that captures the needs and priorities of different groups. Scaling up participatory planning is possible for simple approaches that relate to a limited and low-tech range of FFA interventions: Simple processes can be identified and formats and planning tools provided to implementing partners. Although simple, these approaches and their scaling up/application will require some time depending on the capacity of implementing partners. Specific set of FFA related to resilience building, land degradation, risk reduction and adaptation to climate shocks often requires community-based participatory watershed planning: In agrarian systems, attention to watershed principles and interactions is critical for planning, designing and implementing FFA and complementary interventions. Ideally, community-based participatory watershed planning should be adopted as a main approach for FFA in most degraded agrarian systems. This is not always possible due to capacity constraints. However, field staff and partners should be made aware of basic watershed principles and use them for both simple or more complex form of planning. To this effect, the description of the relevance of watershed principles included in Module B of the FFA guidelines is a good starting point to think FFA interventions as integral part of watershed and peoples planning.

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

Participatory planning supports self-help efforts: any participatory planning process should generate self-help efforts which are provided in addition to FFA. Communities and individual households can contribute a significant amount of the planned assets as self-help, mass mobilization and solidarity driven efforts targeted to assist the poorest members of a community. A number of such initiatives are generated from participatory planning processes and dialogue.

20