Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual

ANNEX C-2
ANNEX C-2: BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

ODXP PREVENTION & RECOVERY World Food Programme

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

FFA Manual Annex C-2 (2011): version 1. This module was published and made electronically available in July 2011. Where relevant, this Annex 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 Please inform ODXPs Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here.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 Annex C-2 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.

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

ANNEX C-2: BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

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.

In low capacity contexts, the introduction of simple and practical participatory planning guidelines is suggested as a first step to shift from an activity focus to a more output and outcome focus. A simple basic village/community level participatory planning approach improves peoples participation and increased sense of ownership over assets created or rehabilitated, which has a positive impact on the management and sustainability of the intervention. A local level plan also acts as a baseline by including the information WFP and partners will track the performance of the different measures implemented and the progresses made in terms of food security. Such a planning approach also strengthens community-level decision-making and targeting, particularly the involvement of the most vulnerable and of youth and women in FFA projects selection, design and implementation. Participatory planning has also a positive effect in promoting self-help efforts. Stakeholder arrangements within planning As a FFA practitioner, it is important you advocate the use of participatory planning tools and of practical methodologies within WFP programmers and interventions. These may be incorporated into standard Field Level Agreements (FLAs) with partners, as well as within FFA plans of operation. The introduction of simple and practical participatory planning guidelines is also suggested, providing a first step to shift from a focus solely on an activity alone, and rather focusing on achieving outputs and outcome. Sometimes, NGOs or government partners already use participatory planning methods. It is recommended such methods are reviewed to ensure they meet the standards of WFP participatory principles. Where such approaches are absent, or do not meet WFP standards, WFP can share some of the basic participatory principles and tools (see Table 2 - Module C).

The basic participatory planning approach is required to select and design appropriate FFA interventions some of these interventions require that more than one community develops its plan. For instance one mini-plan can be developed for each of the two to five or more localities/villages crossed by a feeder road planned to be constructed in a given district. These plans can be developed by the community with little help from implementing partners staff or by local extension workers or other staff working at district level. WFP and/or partners field staff can support a village level planning team selected by each community to develop these plans. In a number of villages, existing facilitation teams can expand their role and carry out the planning work with the support of district level and NGO staff, when available.

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

Basic planning should focus on low tech-low risk activities: The need for low-tech and low-risk activities derives from the need to avoid designing projects that require significant expertise that is not realistically possible to ensure in a given context, especially if FFA activities are intended to be implemented at larger scale.

In some instances specific low tech approaches have been developed. For example, a Soft-FFW approach was developed in one country where relief distributions extends beyond a 3-6 months period and beneficiaries are requested to provided some work in exchange of their entitlement. This approach focuses on simple repairs of assets and lighter activities. Albeit it may have some context specific merits, such an approach appears to focus on the work itself rather than the assets to be created or restored/repaired. Work should not be an end in itself. Besides, the use of soft as a terminology may not be appropriate as easily confused with something that requires little attention and is easy to work on therefore potentially detrimental in relation to other FFA programmers operating in the same country or area as setting up examples of lower standards and work norms.

Low-tech, low-risk FFA interventions may include: Repair of feeder roads using adequate materials (stones and soil) . Clearing of drainage and irrigation canals . Clearing debris and safe disposal . Separation of materials from debris . Stone collection and piling for future use in construction . Rough stone shaping (local know-how) . Compost making (local know-how) . Plastering of local stores using local materials impregnated with insect/pest repellent natural products (local know-how) . Bricks making with local materials for construction of various assets (local know how) . De-siltation of silted water ponds and dams . Dry fencing for control grazing + Vegetative fencing using local materials (local know how) . Collection of indigenous seeds (e.g. specific species of interest to be then raised in local nurseries based on local know how) . Local house construction for poorest families (based on availability of materials) . Other works based on local knowledge (may include very context specific assets)

Overall, a low tech-low risk approach continues to focus on assets and on how to address through those assets, some of the peoples needs and priorities. This approach does not mean low quality works but a set of tasks that demand of less technical inputs while others are selected for meeting specific time demands of beneficiaries. It is also important to underline that some of the low risk activities can also be high tech if intended to build upon traditional measures that can be very sophisticated in terms of technical standards and construction methods. However, as these measures are well mastered by local communities they are also easily scalable by those community members using food or cash for work. A simple guidance note on low-tech & low-risk activities can be developed in different contexts and rapid reference tool kits prepared based on the identification of what is possible to achieve at community level, during different periods of the year, that require only limited technical support and that largely rely on local knowledge and skills. In other words a number of possible low-tech & low risk interventions that require minimum external support.

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

Developing an action plan: In addition to the set of interventions placed against a seasonal calendar and set of clear purposes, each plan can also include activities such as training for a given number of farmers or youth to be trained on specific FFA interventions, and other potential activities that may require FFA support. To be included in the plan, however, some of these activities require a minimum of expertise which WFP or partners need to provide. Each plan also provides information on estimated amount of work to be provided on a self-help basis and a crude sketch map of the area.

Figure 1: Village level mapping showing assets, boundaries and planned interventions

More elaborated planning methods can be introduced subsequently, and evolve towards integrated subwatershed or area based local level plans. Basic participatory planning is largely a simple community based planning approach which should strengthen community cohesion, promote self-help efforts and identify critical needs for complementary assistance from other partners. The planning process is participatory and uses very simple techniques. The planning teams should be composed largely by women (50%) and the youth but also include members from different social strata to ensure greater acceptance and cohesion. This is not always possible because of power structures and local culture. On average a community is able to prepare a three to four year plan in one week or less, depending on the time available for planning. Each quarter the plan is evaluated and upgraded by the planning team using general assembly meetings. Every year a new planning team may be elected. Examples of formats for basic planning are provided in Annex C-4.

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

An example of village mapping exercises conducted during training and planning work is shown below.

Fig. 2 Farmers village ground development maps and women planning team members showing their plans on paper. This technique helps communities to plan together while prioritizing specific interventions for the poorest. It is also easy to reproduce on paper and used as a rough community map.

terraces

Feeder road

A Note Regarding Participation: Participation of rural people in local level planning has increasingly taking root in the last two decades following the push from PRA and related approaches. Successes are mixed with significant progresses observed in some countries while in others the impact of participatory planning is at best anecdotal and often small scale. However, participatory planning that works ends up achieving concrete assets that generate concrete benefits and assets that are managed by participants. To reach such results participation whether using a simple or more complex approach need to be seen as a straightforward and mature dialogue between the promoters of the planning approach and the land users. This is important to avoid ending up with approaches that the following remark describes: Much participatory methodology becomes condescending and patronizing of local populations, just the opposite of the original intent . Rather than treating local people with respect and as colleagues, participatory methods sometimes treat them more like school children by playing titillating games, drawing exercises, etc. Robert E. Rhodes IIED. In other words, participatory planning is nothing more than organized common sense and is made of dedicated efforts to solve problems. Capacity for dialogue and negotiation is therefore as important to sufficient technical capacity and a minimum of resources to make things happen. This combination of dialogue-technical capacity-resources makes participation something meaningful. Regarding resources these are intended not only as external but also internal actually, internal resources (e.g. self-help, etc) may be become largely internal as progress towards tangible results is achieved.

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

Example of a basic planning approach introduced in Haiti (2009) (i) Description of the area, environmental risks and food insecurity: The community of Chauffard is the perfect illustration of a community in a state of extreme risk of being devastated by the next heavy tropical storm or hurricane. The community has also been affected by the 2010 earthquake which has destroyed the local school and damaged over 30% of homes.

School and Church at

risk

Landslide direction

The community is surrounded by a range of very steep hillsides constituted by landslide prone sections, rocky outcrops and unstable soils. The deforestation of the hills is almost complete and a series of ravines have already discharged massive amounts of debris into downstream areas, burying large sections of the localities cultivated land and destroying homes. The first major discharge of accumulated debris by the ravine occurred in 1994 during hurricane Gordon, followed by many others since. In 2001, 2005 and 2007 additional landslides occurred in various drainage lines destroying more fields, including around 30-40% of the main watercress producing area which provides income to some 50% of the local population. The debris of the last landslide managed to reach the outer fence of the local church compound which also hosts the primary school of Chauffard (see figure above). Both these assets are placed directly into the trajectory of two major ravines overflows, hence the high risk of major landslides destroying these assets is not to be underestimated. By all accounts the locality of Chauffard is extremely vulnerable and in significant need for disaster risk reduction and adaptation efforts. During planning and transect walks it was estimated that over 80% of suitable arable land has been buried by stone debris, often several meters deep. A few farmers free-up small plots of poorly fertile land from the debris, at the expense of huge efforts (see following pictures). The cutting down of the few remaining trees continues unabated, largely because of the need for extra income to compensate for the loss of fields and the food crisis caused by multiple shocks. Charcoal making is very common and used largely to increase income (see below). The use of woody biomass for cooking and building material is also the norm and impinges on the few small bushes and trees left around compounds and steepest slopes.

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

Figure 3: Farmer working field covered by debris Figure XX. Charcoal making in the site

(ii)

Participatory planning and seasonal livelihood analysis Participatory Planning: Two exercises have been undertaken, one descriptive of the main problems, including a seasonal analysis and elements of vulnerability, and one visual through a community mapping exercise. Both exercises allowed for a better comprehension of the community problems and potential solutions (see pictures below on problem and solution identification, and community mapping).

Figure 4: (1) and (2) phases of the problem identification and vulnerability ranking exercises; (3) community mapping; and (4) transect walks and observations of degradation features

Seasonal Livelihood Analysis: A seasonal analysis exercise to determine and review the assumptions in the mission report in relation to the timing of programming interventions was conducted. It was found during the exercise that there is a seasonal migration of men from the community to the Dominican Republic in

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

January to work on the sugar cane plantations, and returning home at the end of June. During this period, the women remain behind and are responsible for the planting and cultivation of crops, and try to find paid labour on other peoples farms in order to get cash to buy seeds and other inputs to cultivate their own plots. The women identified this period (from March to May) as the most difficult time for them, due to trying to find paid labour and from increased workloads due to cultivating theirs and other peoples lands. In terms of difficulties in meeting food needs, this occurs in May, June, and July, until the maize harvests start in August. The men return at the end of June and in July, and cash from paid labour in the Dominican Republic should support household needs until the August harvests. There is a peak of difficulty in September related to school expenses, after which the pulse, millet, and yam harvests begin which peak in December, and which is regarded as the best time of the year in this community. Interpreting this information for programming purposes, the following should be considered and taken into account: 1. Labour-based interventions should be planned for women in the first half of the year, and for men in the second once they have returned from the labour migrations. 2. Labour-based activities for women should not be considered in March, April and May as they will be engaged in cultivation season. For men, the ideal time would be September through October, coinciding with the need of increased expenditures needed for schooling, and before the Christmas period. 3. Cash transfers for women in January and February when they can be engaged in labour-based activities would begin addressing the need for money required for cultivation inputs In March and April. For men, cash-based interventions should be considered in September through November when expenditures for the households are higher. 4. Food-based transfers, either through GFD or lighter FFW/FFA would be appropriate for women in March through June, to coincide with increased workloads, and the difficult periods between harvests and whilst men are away. Where cash-based inputs are not available for the September-November periods where men can work, then targeted FFW for the most vulnerable should be considered. Alternatively, FFW can be provided based on agreements with the Community if they adopt solidaritybased works i.e. FFW can be provided for one or two months, and the Community dedicates half or an equal amount of time through their own labour contributions. 5. Chauffard is a good example for the need of complementary programming with partners as it highlights the value of providing both cash and food inputs, at specific times of the year, to support community needs and works. The people of Chauffard should also be considered as partners, and solidarity-based inputs from the community should also be part of the response. The example of Chauffard highlights the variation that will be found in different parts of the country based on livelihoods and seasonality. For example, it is noted that the difficult period where households experience the highest problems is May to July, rather than the country aggregate of March to May. However, the livelihood profiling of this community is that of Zone dAgriculture de Montagne Humide, and a review of the CFSVA data showing household perception of food difficulties in this zone indicates that for most households, this is experienced primarily in May to July, with a smaller number of households indicating problems in the September period.

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

Furthermore, Chauffard is located in the Commune of Carrefour which in the trend analysis, is classified as having been generally food secure in most of the FEWSNET quarterly outlooks in the last year since the CFSVA. However, it has also been identified as a Commune with a high storm frequency and hence at high risk to storms. Given the precarious location of the village in relation to the environmental degradation surrounding it, and the high risk of flooding and landslides in the event of storms, the village is a high candidate for disaster mitigation and preparedness interventions, and as such should be considered by WFP for support. These factors underscore the need for identifying pockets of vulnerability, linked to seasonal livelihood analyses, and the planning of complementary programming with partners on response through the running of the workshops that have been recommended in each of the four sub-offices in the country. Vulnerability profiling: A community exercise to classify vulnerability was conducted. Interestingly, vulnerability criteria used was related to the type of housing that people had as a determinant of poverty. Four groups were identified, namely: 1. The most vulnerable (approximately 70% of the households in Chauffard): these households lived in houses made from woven grass mats and plastered with mud, and palm frond roofing. The highest level of female-headed households was found in this group, although this was more related to the seasonal labour outmigration of men rather than widows. Single, elderly people also constituted a large part of this group. Households have little to no land, and labour is primarily linked to cultivating and working in the plots of others. For this labour, workers are paid and also provided with a meal. 2. There is a second group of vulnerable households (approximately 20%) who have similar characteristics as the first group, yet with a few differences: they live in houses made of the strongest parts of the palm leaves, and roofing is made of second hand corrugated iron. This group also owns small plots which they cultivate. 3. The third and fourth groups are regarded as the medium to better-off groups, and constitute the balance of households in the community. These families have houses made of concrete blocks or stone, set with cement, and either have second-hand (the medium group) or new (the better-off) corrugated iron sheeting for roofing. These households own land, they cash crop watercress, and are petty traders. The high level of vulnerable households (90%) in the community and vulnerability criteria is based on housing emphasizes the impact that flooding and landslides have had on Chauffard. Clearly, many homes and agricultural land have been destroyed by flooding in 2004 and again in 2007, and the community has not recovered. That vulnerability is linked to housing underscores the community perception of risk, and the lack of recovery from these events. Thus, when discussing targeting criteria, although community members recognized that female-headed and elderly households are the most vulnerable, they also emphasized and indicated that those households that have not recovered from the shocks of the last five years are equally at risk. iii. Land rehabilitation techniques and field testing The planning work included 1-2 days of practical field work on a range of low-tech land management techniques adapted to steep slopes. The measures discussed are but a few of those possible in the complex Haitian milieu. However, they include forestry and agroforestry efforts, taking advantage of an existing

Annex C-2

BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

nursery, including activities on steep and degraded sloping lands. These measures combine physical and vegetative efforts aimed to significantly reduce soil loss and runoff while conserving moisture and enabling growth of both trees and specific local cash crops. Simple techniques such as eyebrow basins, microbasins, and trenches (of various types) are included. All of these structures allow the growth of both fruit and other trees for various uses (e.g. timber, fodder, firewood).

Total number of days to prepare the plan and run the field exercises: 4

Figure 5: Haiti Approach: Seasonal livelihood in Chauffard For more on seasonal livelihoods, see Module B.