File 1_MODULE a - Rationale for FFA -20 July 2011

MODULE A

ODXP

PREVENTION & RECOVERY

WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME

MODULE A: THE RATIONALE FOR FFA – THE BIGGER PICTURE ON WHY WE DO FFA

Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual

This first module of the FFA Manual deals with the broader framework on why WFP does FFA, including the policies and key strategic elements that describe FFA’s relevance to WFP. This is a useful introduction to help determine if these broader concepts and arguments for FFA are appropriate in your country setting, and may also provide some of the strategic elements and parameters in your engagement with government and other stakeholders.

i

FFA Manual Module A: The Rationale for FFA

FFA Manual Module A (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 Please inform ODXP’s Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here. Any updates to Module A 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.

2

Food Assistance for Assets: Module A

MODULE A: THE RATIONALE FOR FFA – THE BIGGER PICTURE ON WHY WE DO FFA

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

A1. OVERVIEW: RATIONALE FOR FFA 4

THE RATIONALE FOR FFA 5

A2. FFA WITHIN WFP’S STRATEGIC AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS 8

LINKING FFA TO WFP’S STRATEGIC PLAN 8 LINKAGE OF FFA TO WFP POLICY: DRR, SAFETY NETS AND ENABLING DEVELOPMENT 12

A3. FFA IN PROGRAMME DESIGN 15

PROJECT DESIGN: LINKING FFA TO DIFFERENT PROGRAMME CATEGORIES 15 PROJECT DESIGN: STEPS IN FFA PROGRAMME RESPONSE AND DESIGN 16 PROJECT DESIGN: SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION 18 SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA AND OTHER FFA PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES & INITIATIVES 21

APPENDIX I. BANGLADESH’S COUNTRY DRR AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITIES 23

APPENDIX II. SIERRA LEONE’S SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA, NUTRITION AND SCHOOL FEEDING ACTIVITIES 24

APPENDIX III. PRC EXPERIENCES WITH FFA PROJECT DESIGN 25

APPENDIX IV. A NOTE ON DEPENDENCY 26

3


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 can not 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.

4


A1. OVERVIEW: RATIONALE FOR FFA

This module outlines the broader framework on why WFP does FFA, including the policies etc that describe FFA’s relevance to WFP. This is a useful introduction to help determine if these broader concepts and arguments for FFA are appropriate in your country setting, and may also provide some of the strategic elements and parameters in your engagement with government and other stakeholders. The module also provides helpful guidance on how to ensure that the arguments for FFA are well defined within your project design.

Key terms in this section: Food Assistance for Assets (FFA): is a use of food assistance (via one or more modalities) to establish or rehabilitate a livelihood asset (whether physical, natural and/or human).

FFA rationale: outlines the reasoning behind why FFA as an activity is considered a suitable entry point for food assistance, and helps to define the specific FFA interventions to undertake; is based on context analysis and research.

FFA activity: one of a project’s main entry-points to provide assistance to vulnerable food insecure groups.

FFA intervention: a site-specific intervention that falls within the FFA activity.

Land and environmental degradation are significant causes of high exposure to disaster risks even at normal

times. About twenty percent of the world's susceptible dry lands are affected by human-induced soil

degradation, putting the livelihoods of more than one billion people at risk. In Africa alone, 650 million

people are dependent on rain-fed agriculture in environments that are affected by water scarcity and land

degradation. (Fourteen African countries are subject to water stress or water scarcity due to land

degradation, and a further eleven countries will join them by 2025). These areas are also the area’s most

affected by recurrent droughts and floods, erratic weather patterns, and food insecurity.

The extreme level of fragility of many ecosystems where WFP operates is becoming the “levelling factor” of

vulnerability, gradually affecting food insecure and non food insecure alike, particularly in areas highly prone

to droughts and floods.

In most of the livelihood contexts where WFP operates, the ability of livelihood systems to maintain

productivity, when subject to disturbing forces, whether a “stress” or a “shock”, is highly diminished. Within

those contexts the poorest households are also the ones most affected by food insecurity, less resilient to

climate variability, and more involved in detrimental coping strategies. In dry land livelihood systems,

agrarian, pastoral or agro-pastoral alike, entire districts and communities may be threatened by advancing

sand dunes or crusting soils, significant crop failures due to dry spells, wind erosion, overgrazing and

reduction of tree and grass vegetation cover, depletion of water tables (from documented measurements,

etc), droughts and deterioration of water regimes during and after the short (high powered) rains (flash

floods, etc). In these environments the range and type of interventions chosen to address the food security

problem need to be linked together as part of an overall area-based (watershed, etc) or territorial units

development plan which in arid lands requires well defined technical approaches and consultative processes

within and between communities within these units. Climate change will only increase these extremes and

change weather patterns compounding these already severe problems.

5


Box 1. FFA nomenclature:

FFA is also commonly known in the field as Food for

Assets, Food for Work, Food for Training, Cash for

Work, and Cash for Training (etc). The reason for the

nomenclature change is to bring FFA within WFP’s

drive towards food assistance rather than food aid.

To help guide your reading through these modules,

consistent language is used to help understand the

concepts being addressed (and which will be

summarised also in the Key Terms boxes).

Importantly:

A FFA activity is the overall choice of doing FFA in

a country – just as Nutrition or School Feeding are

also activities.

A FFA intervention is an individual set of work for

a given location. In any country, you may have

many FFA interventions to implement within your

FFA activity.

Also, a FFA rationale will be mentioned within

these modules, and outlines the reason/s why you

have chosen to do FFA as a project activity – and

the specific interventions to meet this rationale.

Commonly, various terms have been used in the

field. In this manual, FFA refers to all: Food for

Work (FFW), Cash for Work (CFW), Food for

Training (FFT), Food for Work (light/soft), Food for

Recovery etc.

Within this context, FFA programmes can help to restore or build specific assets that reduce the impacts of

shocks that contribute to food insecurity. In this way FFA programmes can achieve multiple objectives. FFA

may be selected to offer employment and rebuild community infrastructure, support access to markets,

restore the natural resource base, or protect the environment, reclaim marginal or wasted land to provide

productive assets to land poor and food insecure households, assist marginalized groups and women to

improve and diversify income sources (e.g. nurseries development, etc), promote skills transfers, etc. Many

of these interventions also reduce disaster risk and increase the capacity of households to manage shocks –

building resilience and in some cases supporting climate change adaptation.

THE RATIONALE FOR FFA

Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) is one of the key

activities – or ways – in which WFP delivers food

assistance. FFA’s key focus is on building or

recovering assets that impacts people’s food

security. It is upon this framework that any

rationale for FFA is based.

Within the broader sphere of WFP’s mandate and

focus, the selection of doing FFA in any country

should thus be in line with the WFP’s overall

strategy. This includes WFP’s Strategic Plan,

guidelines on project design, as well as policies

that inform the organisation’s work in this arena.

The section of Module A helps explain these

strategic considerations to help determine

whether FFA is an appropriate consideration for a

particular setting – or falls outside of the bounds

of WFP’s mandate.

Linked with the above, some key principles guide

decisions on doing FFA. These include:

Principle 1: Adherence to WFP’s Strategic Plan

and overall programme design guidance

processes

This first principle builds upon the Strategic

Plan’s Strategic Results Framework (SRF) and

work undertaken by WFP’s ODXP Branch to

strengthen the overall approach towards programme design through the Programme Category Review. This

guidance on project design centres on ensuring each project addresses the elements of assessed needs,

programme quality, synergies, consensus-building, and measurable results. The work has become

http://go.wfp.org/web/strategicplanimplementation/strategicplan20082013


http://wiki.wfp.org/M_and_E_Kit/index.php/SRF

http://one.wfp.org/eb/docs/2010/wfp220540~2.pdf

6


Box 2. Livelihoods types:

In each module there are specific references to the

three main livelihood types that may require food

assistance and FFA: Agrarian, Pastoral and Urban.

There is significant experience in agrarian or settle

agricultural systems and less in pastoral and urban

settings, partially because both in pastoral and urban

settings there have been limited investments in assets

creation using food assistance. Pastoral areas have also

been neglected by governments and international aid

assistance (except for emergency relief at times of

shocks) for decades and rarely understood in their

complexity and relevance for national and regional

economies. Urban poverty and food crisis, as

dramatically shown in 2008 during the high food prices

crisis and in 2010 during the Haiti earthquake, demand

increased levels of preparedness and response in urban

settings, particularly in countries emerging from

conflict, those relying on imports of staples produced

in limited amounts in the country, and others affected

by climatic or multiple shocks. To this effect, the FFA

guidance manual provides a number of analysis,

potential response options and experiences that can be

used to guide field staff in the selection and design of

FFA both in pastoral and urban settings.

instrumental in aligning project design with the objectives of the Strategic Plan, and incorporates all

activities, including FFA, nutrition, school feeding etc. (See the next sections of Module A).

Principle 2: Livelihood-based approaches for physical, environmental and natural resource management

The second principle requires FFA to be designed

and programmed with an understanding of the

type/s of livelihood system any intervention

would support. The broader rationale of FFA, and

the choice of specific FFA interventions, is highly

influenced by these socio-environmental factors,

and which lies at the core of disaster risk

reduction and resilience-building efforts

(including adaptation to climatic shocks). The

focus provided in these modules has come about

due to a recognised gap in previous years, with

limited attention paid to FFA in pastoral settings

(largely supported through relief) and in urban

areas. Even within broader agricultural settings,

little distinction and guidance was available on

appropriate approaches and technologies for arid

or semi-arid areas as opposed to sub-tropical and

tropical environments, mountainous or flood

prone areas, rapid or slow onset disaster prone

environments. This FFA guidance provides specific

descriptions and recommendations regarding

these livelihood settings and the overall relevance

of the sustainable use of the natural resource

base and of the environment at large. See

Module B - Seasonal Livelihood Programming.

Principle 3: Using experience and partnerships: building upon what works and consensus-building

processes

The third principle underlines the need to focus on ensuring FFA interventions do not re-create the wheel –

they build on what works, and in particular what works after WFP support terminates in a given area, region

or country. Within the various modules, examples and approaches are provided that relate to experiences

where FFA has been particularly relevant. These experiences are not solely WFP-supported programmes but

also emanate from a vast array of other partners and agency experiences with which WFP had and often

continues to have significant partnerships.

Implementing FFA is also highly linked to the participatory and capacity building efforts made by WFP and

partners with the communities benefiting from a specific intervention, and can be the factor that leads to

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp238105.pdf

7


Box 3. Participation nomenclature:

Participation of communities, government and other stakeholders is considered an essential ingredient in successful project implementation. Nevertheless, the use of this popular term of “participation” can get confusing, given the numerous ways in which it is used. There are three key types of participatory processes – each occurring at different levels – that are explained in these modules: - Strategic participation: this ensures coherence with major commitments WFP has made (as

outlined in Module A); this may involve consultations with government and donors to ensure congruence with their major policy frameworks

- Programming participation: involves various stakeholders and experts to identify the contextual facets that help to define appropriate seasonal livelihood programming for the broader FFA activity rationale; outlined in Module B.

- Community participation: the on-the-ground participatory approaches used with communities and local stakeholders to ensure validation and mobilisation in the design and implementation of specific FFA interventions; outlined in Module C.

either success of failure of an activity in the field. More information on participatory planning and the

capacity building that can be achieved from such community work is provided in Module C.




8


A2. FFA WITHIN WFP’S STRATEGIC AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS

WFP’s mandate is to help groups and communities who are vulnerable to food insecurity; this is achieved

through WFP’s tool-box of food assistance and logistical support. WFP’s Mission Statement specifically

outlines that such food assistance should aim:

“ - to save lives in refugee and other emergency situations;

- to improve the nutrition and quality of life of the most vulnerable people at critical times in their

lives; and

- to help build assets and promote the self-reliance of poor people and communities, particularly

through labour-intensive works programmes.”

As agreed with WFP’s governing body (the Executive Board), a set of parameters is used to govern and

measure WFP’s work, and which help to ensure WFP stays within its mandate and mission. These

parameters include (i) the Strategic Plan, (ii) policies adopted by the Executive Board, along with (iii) internal

management processes including the Project Review Committee and various guidance documents (including

the Programme Category Review and these modules) to ensure the best possible outcomes for the

beneficiaries WFP aims to assist.

This part of the module helps explain how the strategic and policy parameters – or frameworks – relate

specifically to FFA.

Key terms in this section: Strategic Plan: lays the framework for potential action for WFP. [The Strategic Plan 2008-2013 marks a historic shift from WFP as a food aid to a food assistance agency.]

Strategic Results Framework: outlines the measurement of WFP’s performance against the Strategic Plan.

Policy framework: a set of policies, each policy approved by the Executive Board that outline WFP’s role in a given area of work.

LINKING FFA TO WFP’S STRATEGIC PLAN

WFP’s Strategic Plan (2008-2013) draws on WFP's operational experience and establishes the organisation's

direction and management priorities. It acknowledges that WFP no longer acts solely as a food aid agency,

but one that provides enhanced analysis on the causes of hunger, works in partnership by supporting

governments and the global work on long-term hunger solutions and alleviates hunger and nutrition needs

through food related and cash modalities. It is a framework for action based on five Strategic Objectives

(SOs).

The Strategic Results Framework (2008-2013) is the basis of WFP’s measurement of its performance against

the Strategic Plan, and which enables WFP to translate its mandate and strategy into tangible outcomes. The

framework helps WFP to demonstrate to what degree it has achieved its Strategic Objectives and the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

http://www.wfp.org/about/mission-statement


http://wiki.wfp.org/M_and_E_Kit/index.php/SRF

9


FFA is a core component of WFP’s priorities. FFA primarily is aligned to Strategic Objectives (SO) 2 and 3, but

can also have a specific role during emergencies (SO1) and in capacity development (SO5). The main

relevance of FFA to the Strategic Objectives is summarised as:

- Improving access to food during emergencies (linked to SO1)

- Improving access to food, and restore and rehabilitate destroyed or damaged access to food,

productive and social infrastructure for communities affected by shocks and in transition situations

(SO3)

- Improving access to food, reduce risks and build resilience to shocks (SO2)

Further details on the alignment of FFA’s relevancy to the Strategic Objectives are shown in Table 1. This

relevancy should be considered against the framework of any project design incorporating FFA activities.

Without such an alignment, justification of FFA may not be clear enough to the Project Review Committee

(PRC) as it reviews a project document, and can hinder the approval of a project containing FFA. See the PRC

Survival Guide (Box 6) below for some hints in preparing your project document.

Core elements of FFA against Strategic Objectives:

Three core elements emerge out of FFA’s potential contributions to WFP’s Strategic Objectives, as is

highlighted above. These involve the concepts of improving access and resiliency through asset building,

restoration or rehabilitation.

Importantly, FFA activities that focus on building resilience, reducing disaster risk, and where possible

supporting climate change adaptation need to directly address food security needs, and food access in

particular. Making this link is critical in grounding WFP programmes within the policy framework of the

organisation. FFA rationales should balance the requirements of the relevant programme category the

project falls within, with the strategic objectives the project aims to support, while directly linking improved

food security with reduced disaster risk and climate change adaptation outcomes.

Access:

FFA can improve access to food through activities such as feeder roads and specific

rehabilitation works. Such activities may be the correct measure to apply across all of

the different programme categories to meet different or multiple objectives.

During an emergency, the repair of feeder roads allows access to food and avoids

interruptions in relief supply. During early recovery phases roads enable people access

to food in poorly served markets or allow the delivery of food and cash handouts faster.

For longer term recovery and development, feeder roads enable the flow of goods

produced in a reclaimed area to move to other markets and help raising income levels

of farmers or commercially off take livestock from a pastoral area affected by drought.

10


Resilience:

FFA can strengthen communities and households’ resilience in impoverished and

depleted environments, and to support adaptation against recurrent extreme weather

events, largely attributed to climate change. In many countries, the increased

frequency and intensity of shocks caused by extreme weather events compound on

already degraded landscapes and fragile livelihood settings see details in Module B.

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. If applied at a significant scale, FFA can also contribute to

reduce climatic risks or foster adaptation to climate change induced effects.

Box 4. Livelihood Assets

FFA aim at reinforcing, restoring or rebuilding a number of community and household assets

and, to the extent possible, household capabilities.

Household assets relate to 5 different types of capital:

Physical capital: livestock; tools, equipment, and draught power; infrastructure such as

roads, schools, health centres etc.

Natural capital: land size and quality of the plots such as their fertility and productivity,

availability of livestock, grazing land, pastures and/or fodder sources, sufficient source of

energy and construction materials (woodlots, trees, subsidized means, etc), availability of

water for domestic and productive use, tools and often, draught power, etc;

Economic or Financial capital: cash, credit/debt, savings, and other economic assets.

Human capital: the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health and physical

capability;

Social capital: the social resources (networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations,

associations) upon which people draw when pursuing different livelihood strategies

requiring coordinated actions.

Household capabilities relate to farming and/or herding skills, access to market information and technology, ability to manage credit, status and propensity to innovation.


11


Table 1: Aligning FFA with WFP’s Strategic Objectives

SO Description of FFA’s relevancy to WFP’s Strategic Objectives

SO1

1.1.1.1 Save lives and protect livelihoods in emergencies

FFA may be critical during emergencies to restore life-saving food supply lines and access to food,

helping people and communities rebuild assets after the disaster.

SO2

1.1.1.2 Prevent acute hunger and invest in disaster preparedness and mitigation measures

FFA for resilience building and disaster risk reduction can be relevant as robust disaster

mitigation, risk reduction and adaptation to increased climate variability interventions. In this

regard, FFA interventions can be implemented as major efforts to reduce environmental

hardships and increase access to food while restoring natural and physical assets. Grassroots

based coalitions of partners can be developed based on their respective comparative advantage

for more integrated and complementary FFA interventions.

FFA are often selected to tackle food insecurity in areas already affected by severe land

degradation and multiple shocks – i.e. increasingly recurrent extreme weather events (e.g.

storms, floods, droughts), conflicts (e.g. competition over natural resources), and economic crisis

(e.g. high food prices). In this regard, specific FFA activities would support targeted responses

together with partners. For example, environmental awareness, risk reduction and mitigation

planning, nursery establishment, homestead agro-forestry and vegetative fencing, treatment of

sub-watersheds with high value trees, women groups sensitization and empowerment, feeder

road construction and enhanced skills for repairs of roads, productive ravine/gully treatment,

seed collection and storage of specific valuable seed species, etc.

SO3

Restore and rebuild lives and livelihoods in post-conflict, post-disaster or transition situations

FFA will contribute to restore and rebuild lives and livelihoods in post disaster and transitional

situations. FFA (cash and/or food based) are particularly relevant after rapid onset shocks and

flood affected areas, through labour-based restoration of key assets, but also to restore and

rehabilitate key productive and social assets following conflict or multiple shocks, and transitional

investments following a protracted crisis and the return to stability.

SO4 Reduce chronic hunger and undernutrition

The link between SO4 and FFA is indirect (and potentially complementary).

SO5

Strengthen the capacities of countries to reduce hunger, including through hand-over strategies and local purchase

FFA based on lessons learned from integrated and effective responses can also become

instrumental in policy and strategic guidance, capacity building and experience sharing. In

particular to strengthen the capacities of governments, etc for example to reduce hunger through

the incorporation of livelihood assets restoration, preparedness and risk reduction efforts, as well

as resilience building interventions into policies (e.g. PSRP) and strategies, as well as into

government sectors’ plans (e.g. environment and agriculture). Lessons learned from FFA

programmes can be adopted as national or sub-national tools for grassroots level planning and

methodological approaches able to inform targeted programmes for the most vulnerable strata of

the population. These efforts can also provide relevant inputs and frameworks for the design and

implementation of productive safety net programmes.

12


LINKAGE OF FFA TO WFP POLICY: DRR, SAFETY NETS AND ENABLING DEVELOPMENT

In addition to FFA’s linkage to the Strategic Plan and relevant programme categories, three policies provide a

broader paradigm upon which FFA rests within WFP’s mandate. These outline WFP’s role in the areas of:

(i) Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR);

(ii) Safety Nets; and

(iii) Enabling Development.

Each of these policies are outlined below.

(i) Policy on Disaster Risk Reduction (WFP, 2011):

DRR results from a wide range of measures taken to prevent, mitigate or reduce the likelihood of disasters

occurring and/or to lessen the impacts of those that do occur. It implies the need to minimise the negative

impact of natural and other hazards. Similarly,

considerable DRR is achieved through good

preparedness measures and preventative Early

Warning Systems. For example, communities

are provided with timely information about

the likelihood of a disaster and know where to

take refuge during a flood or cyclone event.

However, reducing risks of disasters also

means the ability to induce or generate,

amongst communities and households, the

capacity to withstand their impact and

significantly reduce their effect. In this regard,

FFA created or rehabilitated in disaster prone

areas can protect communities from the

effects (or limit the damage) of natural

disasters, while contributing to increase their

resilience to shocks (e.g. reduced household

vulnerability). In other words, better

adaptation against climatic shocks.

The DRR policy:

The link between food insecurity and natural disasters, and the importance of preparing for, preventing and

mitigating the impact of disasters are central to WFP’s mission. In both emergency and development

contexts, the overall aim of WFP assistance is to build the resilience and self-reliance of the most food-

insecure populations.

Disaster risk reduction is cross-cutting and bridges emergency response, recovery and development. This is

recognized in the WFP Programme Category Review, which stresses that many relief and recovery

Box 5. Linking FFA to WFP policies: considerations

Some important considerations in the linkage of FFA

activities to WFP policies incorporate the below two core

points:

FFA needs to contribute towards addressing a real

food security issue – primarily this is access to food –

while contributing to one or more of the Strategic

Objectives outlined above which in turn are

programmatically disciplined by the Programme

Category Review work.

The use of terms such as “resilience” and “reducing

impact of shocks” or “risk reduction” and

“adaptation” are often used with great flexibility in

explaining similar and often complementary

objectives and desired outcomes. One of the most

essential underlying elements is that these outcomes

inform the status of the natural resource base and

the overall fragility of ecosystems currently under

pressure. See the Programme Note on Resilience

Building, Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to

Climate Change

Ensuring these concepts are incorporate builds credibility

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfpdoc061382.pdf

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webfragments/wfp246431.pdf



13


operations present unique formal and informal opportunities to assist communities and local institutions in

building their resilience and capacities against shocks. The programme category review also highlights three

priorities for WFP development programmes that directly support disaster risk reduction for food-insecure

households: i) mitigating the effects of recurring natural disasters in vulnerable areas; ii) helping poor

families to gain and preserve assets; and iii) helping households that depend on degraded natural resources

to shift to more sustainable livelihoods, improve productivity and prevent further degradation of the natural

resource base.

“In 2005, more than 180 countries adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), followed in 2007

by the Bali Action Plan to combat climate change. These represented a global emphasis on reducing

disaster risk, leading WFP to take more concerted and coherent action to support governments’

disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation efforts”.

A number of interventions related to building resilience at households and/or communities levels are

directly related to the capacity to better adapt to the increased recurrence of weather hazards and

predictable disasters, hence also to the weather variations induced by climate change. Some countries such

as Bangladesh illustrate the need to build resilience as a survival imperative (see Appendix A-I: Bangladesh).

Other countries, like Ethiopia, Haiti and Burundi, depict the close relationship between land degradation and

the increased exposure either to droughts and/or to tropical storms.

In most countries prone to disasters, the choice of the type of FFA interventions will be logically driven by a

sequence of interventions. Such interventions may move from quick repairs during and after shocks (for

example a storm), to the restoration of essential infrastructure significantly damaged by some of these

shocks, and thereafter towards more consolidated works aimed at building resilience over a longer period

of time, which is important to avert or mitigate the impact of similar disasters.

More specific references to the role of WFP in Disaster Risk Reduction

http://go.wfp.org/web/wfpgo/thematicareasclimatechange and Adaptation to Climate Change

http://go.wfp.org/web/wfpgo/thematicareasclimatechange are found in the PGM link. These references

also include a range of new tools such as the Weather Index and Insurance Schemes pilots, and various links

to papers and case studies related to WFP efforts in DRR and adaptation.

(ii) WFP and Safety Nets: Concepts, Experiences and Future Programming Opportunities – WFP 2004):

The Safety Nets policy refers to FFA in the form of public (community) labour-intensive works that provide

conditional transfers to unemployed beneficiaries or people able to provide labour during specific periods of

the year and create assets to benefit the community or public at large.

In terms of FFA, public and community works can function as a safety net by providing wage employment for

vulnerable groups with surplus labour, while building assets that benefit households and communities. FFA is

likely to be most effective as a safety-net activity in settings with high unemployment, need for labour-

intensive works and capacity to oversee design and implementation.

http://go.wfp.org/web/wfpgo/thematicareasclimatechange

http://go.wfp.org/web/wfpgo/thematicareasclimatechange

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfp039212.pdf

14


Consistent with the Enabling Development policy, WFP's FFA programmes are Community based

interventions that have clear exit strategies, and benefit both the local community and individual

households.

(iii) Enabling Development Policy (WFP, 1999)

The Enabling Development policy is most relevant for FFA within the context of Country Programmes (CP)

and Development Projects (DEV) aligned to UNDAF, One UN efforts, PRSP and other strategic frameworks.

FFA supports three of the five priority areas that relate to the policy:

Help poor families to gain and preserve assets. All WFP asset creation interventions should result in

a lasting asset for the poor family or community. The assets created should result in a permanent

improvement in the beneficiaries’ life or livelihoods. Targeted beneficiaries (those receiving the food

aid and undertaking the intervention) should gain the major benefits from the assets created.

Mitigate the effects of recurring natural disasters in vulnerable areas. In countries subject to

recurring natural disasters, WFP development food aid should help prevent or mitigate disasters that

pose threats to food production or livelihoods. These activities will be targeted to populations in

disaster-prone areas whose coping strategies are insufficient to meet food needs when a natural

disaster occurs.

Helping households that depend on degraded natural resources to shift to more sustainable

livelihoods, improve productivity, and prevent further degradation of the natural resource base. This

includes measures to support shifts from unsustainable to sustainable natural-resource

management practices and to stabilize areas subject to slow resource degradation.

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfp000029.pdf

15


A3. FFA IN PROGRAMME DESIGN

Designing any project requires a contextual understanding of the situation to build a solid rationale for WFP

response. Given the high complexity of issues that FFA addresses, such context analysis can be particularly

in-depth and involves a large amount of stakeholder consultation to define the FFA rationale. Some of the

broader design elements for project design – and their specific relevancy for FFA – are outlined in this

section of the module.

As a start, however, some guidance on the “bigger picture” of project design – identifying the appropriate

programme category – is provided; this stems from a recent review process to help ensure WFP keeps within

its mandate. Introductory information for consideration in selecting the right FFA interventions is also

provided here (and outlined more in Annex A-1, Module B, Module C and Module D).

Key terms in this section: Programme category: is the category given to a project – either EMOP, PRRO or CP/DEV – that outlines WFP’s focus of assistance in terms of humanitarian or development objectives.

Project Review Committee (PRC): is the body that reviews and/or agrees upon a project’s design (as presented in a project document) for formal approval at a higher level.

Synergies: where different activities designed together can achieve more coordinated/comprehensive and targeted outcomes for beneficiaries.

PROJECT DESIGN: LINKING FFA TO DIFFERENT PROGRAMME CATEGORIES

Whether in an emergency or developmental context the overall aim of WFP assistance is to build the

resilience and self-reliance of the most food insecure populations (WFP Mission Statement). The corporate

shift from food aid to food assistance, including the inclusion of new tools such as cash and vouchers, has

changed the programming landscape for WFP. The development of food assistance programmes is currently

regulated by the recommendations of the Programme Category Review, including what is required in terms

of consultative processes that inform a better (and shared) understanding of the causes of food insecurity,

and the selection of adequate programme responses and their design for quality implementation.

The Programme Category Review (EB 2010) was an exercise conducted to help ensure that project design

was more in line with WFP’s corporate strategy, as outlined in the Strategic Plan. This came about due to

difficulties for countries to translate project activities and Strategic Objectives to WFP’s programme

categories – i.e. emergency operations (EMOPs), protracted relief and recovery operations (PRROs) and

country programme (CP) or development (DEV) projects. The work on programme categories was

presented to the Executive Board in June 2010, helping to bring discipline WFP activities within these major

programme categories.





http://www.wfp.org/about/mission-statement

http://one.wfp.org/eb/docs/2010/wfp220540~2.pdf

16


Box 6. Which programme category does FFA fit in my project?

A common question asked by field and programme staff is to which programme category their FFA activity would fall within. Is the FFA activity more suited to an early or an extended recovery phase, or to an enabling development setting?

Overall, the below rules should apply: (i) EMOPs respond to sudden, slow onset and/or complex

emergencies (ii) PRROs respond to recurrent emergencies while investing

on the recovery of populations affected by the shocks and the persistence or a combination of aggravating factors

(iii) CPs and development projects invest in preventing hunger and food insecurity in areas where food assistance can create the enabling conditions required to access developmental opportunities and capacitates Government to take over these responsibilities.

There are obvious linkages and context specific nuances to be taken into consideration when applying these criteria. However, there are aspects such as recovery linked to shocks that need to be adhered to – recovery linked to shocks means these shocks should have occurred within a reasonable time span (2-5 years maximum) and the food insecurity status of affected populations is largely related to the shock (s) and not to other subsequent or different causes.

Within this framework, FFA specifically

translates to either:

(i) Supporting immediate access to food

and protect livelihoods at times of crisis

(EMOP);

(ii) Protecting and enhancing livelihoods

during and after protracted emergencies

(PRRO) for early recovery, and/or;

(iii) Enabling development opportunities

that offset future shocks and strengthen

resilience (CP/DEV projects).

Annex A-1 provides summary tables that

match the broader selection criteria for FFA

against specific programme categories. It is

not prescriptive and should be used flexibly,

taking into consideration the guidance in

Module B, Module C, and Module D which

elaborate on specific FFA interventions

based on livelihood contexts and typologies

of shocks, and the practical elements of

implementing FFA in a specific context.

PROJECT DESIGN: STEPS IN FFA PROGRAMME RESPONSE AND DESIGN A FFA response is the result of a number of analysis and consultative processes as any other programme

activity. The set of processes that apply for overall programme design as per the Programme Guidance

Chapeau also apply for FFA.

In project design, any FFA response should address the following questions:

Is there a major food insecurity issue (e.g. problems in access to food), a major depletion of assets, and

known causes that may require FFA as a response?

Does the context and risk analysis indicate a role for FFA to restore household and community assets?

Has a livelihood seasonal programming exercise taken place with stakeholders to identify and discuss

broad response options, including FFA? If not, how to organize one.

Have capacity aspects been analysed and FFA response options calibrated against these elements of

programming? Have FFA responses been chosen accordingly and their description and design accurately

done?





http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp237152.docx

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp237152.docx

17


Are policies and strategies of government conducive to programme responses that include FFA as

integral part of reconstruction, resilience building or labour based productive safety net strategies and

programmes? What gaps exist and how to address them?

Are lessons from best practices and evaluations, including cost effectiveness and efficiency, being

incorporated into the response and design of FFA?

The context analysis of and risk factors and seasonal facets (Module B) help outline the broader concepts for

then commencing FFA project design and intervention options (Module C), and finally to implementation

(Module D). The following diagram explains in broader terms the process of FFA programming.

Once the potential response option is identified, FFA components may needs to consider: (i) the transfer modality (i.e. food and/or cash/voucher); (ii) the type of conditionality which is attached to any FFA; (iii) the capacity to design and implement specific FFA; and (iv) the period (i.e. seasonal pattern) that will, overall, improve access to food through FFA.




18


Box 7. PRC Survival Guide

If you’ve prepared your project document and are about to share it with the Project Review Committee, it’s

worthwhile to run through the below checklist one final time…

Proposed objectives linked to the food security status of vulnerable population and local contexts.

Project objectives clearly linked to achieving food security outcomes.

Strong analysis of climate and disaster risk, and their impact on food security.

Livelihood types, seasonality, and livelihoods strategies at the centre of programme design.

Not all FFA programmes will have DRR and/or adaptation to climate change objectives or benefits.

Where DRR and support to climate change adaptation will be given a focus, FFA projects should

demonstrate that adequate partnerships and capacity to ensure that timely material, technical and

human resources will be provided is in place.

When programmes focus on adaptation to recurrent climatic shocks attributed or exacerbated, amongst

other factors, to climate change, clear links with national policies and plans, including National

Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs) must be made.

Capacity of WFP, government, and partners clearly assessed and spelled out.

Humanitarian interventions are linked to the shock(s) that the population is coping with or recovering

from.

Target households have insufficient coping capacity to ensure they can meet their food needs in the

face of a disaster.

FFA programmes are at a scale required to achieve a realistic impact.

A realistic timeframe to achieve the desired results is provided.

See Appendix III for some further “lessons learnt” experiences in PRC approvals of projects with FFA activities.

PROJECT DESIGN: SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION

Several key factors characterise the options of different FFA project types and interventions to be selected.

A broad set of four intervention domains can be outlined, based on context and typology of shocks, the

level and causes of vulnerability, the capacity of partners to support different interventions, and the

comparative advantage of WFP in such contexts. In short, the choice of “what type” of intervention must be

driven by what is suitable within each context.

These four main FFA intervention domains are outlined below. Note that there is a degree of complexity

when moving from “protection” to “restoration”, and “rehabilitation” to “reclamation”. However, many of

19


these intervention areas are also incremental or complementary as two or more can also occur together or

simultaneously. What is important to understand is what the interventions intend to achieve.

1. Livelihood protection: protecting assets at times of or immediately after shocks. For

example, providing households with seasonal transfers in exchange of productive efforts in

improving land productivity, reinforce shelters and clear drainage lines, etc. These

interventions may consider seed protection in areas with clear and ascertained need for this

specific activity.

2. Assets Restoration: Restoring productive and social assets, particularly those which impact

access to food and to social services. Many of these interventions occur immediately after

sudden onset or recurrent shocks.

3. Assets Rehabilitation: they imply rebuilding and reinforcing productive assets required to

improve access to food, land productivity, and to increase resilience. Rehabilitation often

implies a level of quality which is higher that “restoration” – the latter often used to indicate

post emergency repairs of main assets. Rehabilitation, particularly if intended as land

rehabilitation and natural resources management, implies a level of quality and integration

that is often much higher than simple restoration. It also implies a level of quality and

strength of assets that is higher than the one that existed prior to the shock.

4. Reclamation: rebuild or re-generate/create assets previously without or with very low

productivity to a productive or protective livelihood function.

Most relevant in the considerations of complexity are the aspects related to capacity, with the need to select

FFA interventions that match existing and expected levels of capacity, particularly for FFA required during

and immediately after emergencies and/or in contexts where capacities are low. For low capacity locations,

one should adopt a gradual process from simpler interventions to more complex ones based on capacity

development.

Simplistically, viewing the context within the limitations of capacity, FFA can be divided into two broader

types of intervention:

(i) Low tech-low risk interventions: require limited capacity building and can be undertaken by

communities and households with little training and external support (with the exception of tools).

These activities do not create major environmental risks or require specific health and hazard prevention

facets (with the exception of some basic precautions and protection gear in specific contexts; Module C

provides examples of this, such as cleaning canals, etc).

(ii) High tech-high risk interventions: implies that these FFA require some specific training or capacity to be

in place. The use of the term “high-tech” may provide the impression of complicated activities.

CO

MP

LEX

ITY


20


Box 8. A note on low-tech, low-risk FFA:

Low-tech, low-risk FFA should not be considered equivalent to low quality FFA but as way to provide food to beneficiaries for something useful: they can be designed to accommodate an emergency and/or low capacity context. This is what is defined as low-tech low-risk activities: simple, useful interventions, identified as valuable labour-based interventions by stakeholders and communities.

For example, if clearing canals or de-silting water pans are selected as an appropriate FFA activity to provide employment to food insecure and shock-affected people, then like any other FFA intervention, one should establish proper work norms, agreements on working periods and targeting criteria.

Conversely, road sweeping and filling pot holes are not acceptable FFA interventions, and exposes WFP to considerable criticism, especially in regards to the argument of creating “dependency” (see Appendix IV) once people get used to receiving a wage in exchange for poor quality work that does not meet WFP’s objectives. This is even more problematic when the very same beneficiaries are moved to involvement in more complex FFA interventions; people may be reluctant to accept higher work standards for the same entitlement. This can also apply also when FFA in the form of FFW (or CFW) becomes a compulsory response modality within a country policy – and it calls for the establishment of proper standards and work norms for any planned intervention using food assistance, including those considered as “simple” interventions.

There may be other types of interventions (i.e. low tech-high risk and high tech-low risk), yet the majority of

FFA fall into the two main categories indicated above. The degree of complexity of FFA may also vary

depending on the circumstances, however in all cases a standard level of quality needs to be guaranteed for

all FFA activities. In other words, low technical FFA should not be confused as low quality efforts.

More information on these options is outlined in Module C and Module D – the latter also providing useful

info-techs in Annex D-1 to help with quality FFA implementation.

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.



http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp237790.pdf


21


Box 9. FFA and Gender:

The range of FFA interventions most appropriate for women or

most vulnerable and marginalized households will be discussed in

detail in Module C, particularly at planning and selection of the

interventions stages. Many of the synergies identified earlier,

regarding FFA and nutrition as well as school feeding, benefits

women, girls and most vulnerable groups.

It is important that FFA and assets rehabilitation in rural settings

(i.e. watershed rehabilitation) involves the community at large,

and follow a logical sequence of interventions which includes the

modalities for targeting and support. Specific priorities for women

such as access to clean and safe water may only be possible only

after an entire section of a catchment is treated - for example

with trenches for tree planting and terracing to protect cultivated

fields – with the ultimate result being the replenishment of the

water table enabling shallow wells to be dug, or excess runoff

diverted into water ponds. In this case, a top priority for women

such as water is achieved through a mix of interests equally

shared between men (cultivated fields protection) and women

(woodlots establishment).

SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA AND OTHER FFA PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES & INITIATIVES

FFA is a programme component that is highly complementary and synergetic with other programme

activities and initiatives. For instance:

GFD: FFA during an emergency can repair roads, allowing the provision of GFD or nutritional support to

needy isolated or previously cut off communities.

DRR: FFA is closely linked to disaster risk reduction in flood prone areas and the range of measures such

as construction of shelters on higher grounds, flood control systems and water catchment protection.

Protection and safety-nets: FFA in early recovery provides livelihood protection and restoration

opportunities, supporting access to food and markets while complementing activities such as school

feeding and nutrition.

School Feeding: FFA can complement a variety of efforts such as school feeding through school gardens,

creation of school-based woodlots, take-home “green rations” in the form of fuel efficient stoves or tree

seedlings for planting at homestead level, environmental training and awareness, etc.

Nutrition: With regards to nutrition, FFA linked to the rehabilitation of watersheds enable a range of

measures that can (or should) improve the overall nutritional condition of targeted communities, of

children in particular. For example, stabilised catchments replenish water tables that provide clean and

safe water through springs that can be developed, enables the introduction of water harvesting systems

and horticulture production,

beekeeping and increased

amount of fodder or improved

grazing areas. The introduction of

fruit trees and other species such

as legume shrubs often increase

the protein intake or enable

extension efforts in the area of

nutrition to advocate or create

better awareness at community

level. (Appendix II shows an

example of synergies between

FFA, School Feeding, and

Nutrition in Sierra Leone).

Local purchases: Other major

synergies include FFA and local

purchases. For instance,

interventions such as feeder

roads, swamp land rehabilitation


22


and other land management interventions with P4P type of efforts or possible home-grown school

feeding programmes. As the watersheds will start generating surpluses of specific commodities, a P4P

pilot could actually start in these sites and support a virtuous cycle of local purchase-expansion of

watershed rehabilitation, hence the development of the natural resource base which also benefits from

carbon credits.

Gender: FFA and synergies with gender aspects – FFA in rural contexts are key to:

- Reduce environmental hardships of women and girls who are tasked, for example, to collect water

and firewood – tasks that become major burdens during droughts or in depleted ecosystems where

several hours are dedicated to fulfil these heavy duty works

- Rehabilitate assets that target women groups, or are divided equally between men and women. For

example: rehabilitation of overgrown cocoa plantations, or establishment of women groups to

manage nurseries, woodlots, and water development.

- Promote livelihood investments at homestead level – privileged areas for women, the elderly, the

land poor, and the landless. There are a number of major investments that can be made at

homestead levels, which can impact most favourably on livelihoods, improved resilience and

increased incomes for these target groups. These efforts are linked to other wider community level

interventions but specifically geared towards optimizing space and capacities around homesteads.

Complementary partnerships: Synergies built around FAO-IFAD-WFP complementary partnerships in

specific districts or communities can be an excellent entry point for multiple and integrated assets

creation. These areas can lead the way for interventions of scale, and also become training centers for

local technicians and farmers’ groups. A number of similar efforts can be initiated with organizations

such as UNEP, UNDP, ILO, GTZ and various NGOs. FFA using food or cash resources can complement and

often accelerate the expansion and adoption of a number of activities and techniques provided these

are: 1) integrated and offer immediate benefits to farmers, 2) implemented in a technically sound

manner, and 3) established and maintained by the beneficiaries of the interventions.

Carbon financing opportunities: Participatory watershed development including tree planting, land

management and energy saving efforts can become an important source of revenue for communities

engaged in these activities. There are a number of procedures that need to be followed to access these

revenues and that need specific training or specialized institutions to undertake them.

23


APPENDIX I: BANGLADESH’S COUNTRY DRR AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITIES Considerations for Country Strategy Development (2010)

Bangladesh is one of the countries in the world most at risk of weather induced shocks, such as floods,

tropical storms and cyclones, river erosion and droughts. These disasters are compounded by fragile

geophysical characteristics (sandy soils, sea level altitude, and geographical position at the ‘end outlet’ of

major regional water basins, etc), very high population pressure, and high incidence of extreme poverty.

As a result, Bangladesh has perhaps one of the highest levels of vulnerability regarding the longer term

effects of climate change, particularly in terms of rising sea levels and its potential catastrophic effects.

Every year at least 20% of the country is flooded, while during bad years, flooding can reach over 60% of the

total land. Moreover, seasonal and localized droughts affect over 40% of the country and 50% of the

population. The twinning between droughts and floods is also common and creates major hazards. The most

vulnerable and food insecure population lives near river banks, landslide prone areas and areas with high

incidence of destructive flooding and cyclone hazards.

A DRR focused approach recognizing seasonality as a key variable of hunger for the fragile and shock prone

livelihood settings of Bangladesh should focus on:

(i) The systematic use of existing vulnerability and food security analytical capabilities of the VAM unit,

particularly the strengthening of VAM’s critical role in Early Warning and of increasingly integrated

vulnerability and food security analysis; and

(ii) The need to build resilience of most food insecure districts, unions, communities and households against

the increased recurrence and incidence of extreme weather hazards while offsetting seasonal hunger

and providing a complementary safety net to most vulnerable ultra-poor households.

DRR with a strong focus on seasonality can be envisaged to provide a major contribution:

(i) To protect livelihood assets and the gains achieved by Gvt and other partners’ investments in increased

productivity, safety nets and income growth;

(ii) To improve and maintain access to food and related infrastructure at times of recurrent shocks; and

(iii) To strengthen the ability of vulnerable communities to adapt to extreme weather hazards induced by

climate change.

24


APPENDIX II: SIERRA LEONE’S SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA, NUTRITION AND SCHOOL FEEDING ACTIVITIES

The architecture of WFP food assistance in Sierra Leone operates is embedded within two programme

categories – a CP and a PRRO - has three main programmatic axis:

1. School feeding (in the CP) which supports girls and children to return or access to school and retention

2. Nutrition (in the PRRO) interventions protect malnourished children and their mothers (often very

young) to avert the long lasting effects of malnutrition and subsequent negative impacts on productivity

3. FFA (in the PRRO) activities targeted to the rehabilitation of productive areas and feeder road

construction. These activities aim to provide the opportunities for increased production and food supply,

which can eventually be locally purchased and/or processed and produced into commercialized

nutritious products - which in turn may be used in nutrition and school feeding programmes.

Aligned, these three activities result in a ‘triangle of opportunity of mutually reinforcing interventions’ as

shown in the diagram below:

WFP Food Assistance

Livelihood assets rehabilitation (PRRO)

- Access to markets (roads) - Productive assets - Youth owning/sharing benefits - Local purchase - Partnerships

Nutrition – Targeted Supplementary Feeding (PRRO) - Protection < 5’s and PLW - Nutrition messages - Community efforts - Partnerships

School Feeding (CP)

- Retention - Access - Home gardens - Seasonal safety nets (THR) - Partnerships

Wome

n

Childre

n

M&E

Institut. Cap Bld

PcP Plannin

g

25


APPENDIX III: PRC EXPERIENCES WITH FFA PROJECT DESIGN

The Project Review Committee has documented reasons for why projects are not immediately approved,

when they contain a rationale to do FFA as an activity – and in particular when they focus on DRR/Climate

Change objectives. These are highlighted here to help check whether your project addresses these issues –

or not – prior to submission to the PRC.

A lack of basic understanding of what disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation entail,

how the two concepts relate to each other, and how they fits in with WFP programming and

programming categories.

The term “climate change adaptation” is used in specific programme objectives without a clear link

to food insecurity and explanation of the proposed food security outcomes of the project and their

relation to adaptation outcomes.

Lack of clarity between a primary objective (e.g. reducing the risk of shocks through building specific

assets) and some of the potential desired benefits (e.g. better adaptation against specific climatic

risks).

Clear analysis of the impacts of disasters on the food security of populations, and in a recovery

context of the specific disaster that caused the crisis, is not presented.

The causes of food insecurity are not disaggregated, and socio-economic drivers are not separated

from the disaster-related drivers

Timelines for the implementation of the handover strategies in disaster risk reduction project

components are not defined.

The rational, analysis, and justification of many projects with a climate change component lacks a

strong analytical element, with specific weather shocks wrongly attributed to climate change, and

often poor linkages to selected programme activities. For example, climate science suggests an

increase of floods in a country, but the proposed WFP programme targets drought risk reduction.

Projects with a climate change component are often not linked to national climate change plans,

specifically the National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPA).

Targeting and implementation information of food for assets activities is often lacking, which results

in a weak link between the food security problem being addressed, disaster risk reduction, and

climate change adaptation.

Food for assets programmes that focus on reducing disaster risk or climate change adaptation

through natural resource management activities are often not concentrated enough or large scale

enough to have an adequate impact – or they are not long enough in terms of implementation

timeframe to achieve the proposed impact.

26


APPENDIX IV: A NOTE ON DEPENDENCY

FFA and the dependency issue

This section relates to an issue that does not concern only FFA but food assistance in general. However,

selecting FFA (and FFW in particular) as a programme response option had often triggered the question

about the risk of creating dependency. This is also common nowadays. The perception of dependency is

often rooted in anecdotal evidence - such as “food insecure households have become dependent on

handouts of food aid, particularly by the persistent use of FFA/FFW”. This perspective runs deep – asserting

that not only are they dependent, but they have given up hope that this can be changed. So people reduce

their struggle and ask for more help. This in turn reinforces dependency, resulting ultimately in an attitude

and practice of permanent and increasing reliance on external food assistance support. This attitude has

been often described as “the dependency syndrome” and the view is reinforced by a variety of actors,

including some donors and academia, and has been recognized as a fundamental issue by some

governments.

Understanding this debate and the various aspects related to the dependency discussion will support field

staff defend and contextualize the use of food assistance and FFA whenever this response is indicated as

suitable. The following provides an example about how this debate could be addressed through constructive

discussions with the Government and partners.

i) Common Perceptions on Dependency

Donor critics point to decades of food aid, and link this with ongoing food insecurity. Some believe that food

aid cannot be developmental; some even see it as inimical to development. Others recognize that food aid

has not been balanced with cash based development programmes, which is largely correct but now

changing. All acknowledge that overall assistance to countries like the ones WFP is persistently engaged

with is inadequate to escape the poverty trap – Official Development Assistance for Africa remains

unacceptably low – but point to multiple factors (domestic policies, wars and unproductive civil conflict,

donor deficits, aid ineffectiveness) that inhibit their contributions in reversing this. At the end of this

discussion, all agree that the right investments have not yet been made, and food aid remains a visible target

and scapegoat of an overall insufficient global assistance.

Part of the academic and intellectual community dislikes food aid intensely. Many have fuelled donor views

that food assistance and development are incompatible. Further, in some countries food aid has been

viewed as degrading, rooted in its shameful association with begging. Pictures of starving people, used

relentlessly in the media, have become a major defining symbol of poor countries. The cumulative impact on

human dignity is devastating and these countries’ leadership and people have had enough – they want an

end to this cycle. Food aid again becomes the visible symbol of humiliating failure.

Many Governments have responded to these pressures. Various officials have pronounced that “the

dependency syndrome” must be reversed, and these Governments have moved decisively in terms of

programme reform, institutional reorganization, and budgetary reallocations. This leadership is welcome.

27


Care must be taken however to retain the advantages that food aid and now food assistance offers. First we

need to put the issue of dependency into context, in a constructive, balanced manner. Next, on the basis of

facts, shared dialogue, and strategic partnerships, we need to position ourselves to take full advantage of

the unique role of food assistance.

It is important to discuss dependency through some commonly asked questions, and provide a starting point

for additional discussions on this issue with our partners, particularly the government.

ii) Why is food aid so closely associated with dependency?

• Time and scale of assistance: Food aid assistance has been significant in many countries since the

1970’s. It scaled up during the 1980’s during the big droughts of the Sahel, and although there were

remarkable food security gains during late 90’s, by the beginning of the 21st century, food assistance

requirements had reached record levels. Except for a few years, the annual average food aid requirement

has grown relentlessly. This provokes understandable concern. Many people, who received food aid as

teenagers in 1970, now have grandchildren that are assisted by food aid in 2010. Three generations of

millions of people requiring food aid is an unacceptable situation for any responsible government.

• Lack of alternatives: Many countries have suffered decades of internal and external conflict, poor

governance, very high population growth, recurrent weather shocks, and ineffective development

investment. Official Development Assistance has been low, with the only consistent priority being

emergency supplies of relief food aid. Multi year cash based investment was not of adequate scale, was

subject to discontinuities and shifts in donor priorities, and was heavily constrained by donor conditionality

and bureaucracy. Therefore programmes for food insecurity have not been effective. Food aid is

conspicuously alone in the arena, and is therefore disproportionately blamed for the failure in sustainable

development.

Questions and perceptions around dependency at the grassroots level:

• Food Aid and the Dependency Label: Using “dependency syndrome” to label beneficiaries receiving

food aid is at least controversial and probably unfair. Why beneficiaries requesting food assistance should be

accused of being dependent if food aid is the only form of support they receive? Why blame poor

households of dependency if they have no other choice? A syndrome is usually associated with a disease and

this term should be used more carefully. Food aid utilization surveys, as well as impact assessments, offer

information counter to dependency: targeting is quite good, and almost all food is domestically consumed.

In programmes where multi-year food aid is applied through community planning and technical rigour,

assets created have had positive impacts on livelihoods, and the need for food handouts has decreased.

• Food aid and disincentives to productivity: There is little evidence that relief or programme food

assistance is a disincentive to productivity. Rather, farmers throughout the world continue, very active, with

consistent efforts to plant crops and produce more, even during years of large emergency food assistance. In

fact, continual encroachment on ever more marginal land is a major issue. Even in the most vulnerable

years, farmers strive to find seeds to plant for the following season, worry about draught power or labour,

and make arrangements for their fields to be ploughed, hoed and sown.

28


• Food Aid and the Farmers’ Context: Furthermore, “coping” is confused with “dependency”. We

need to understand farmers - as in most parts of the world, they are the targets of various state sponsored

planning. They remain in one place, prey for tax, for labour, for the army, etc. They have learned over the

centuries how to survive, how to cope with adversity, how to defend themselves against the odds of nature

and context. This includes asking for support - this should not be confused with dependency. Concluding that

dependency exists when people answer “yes” to questions such as “do you need food aid to establish or

maintain assets” or “do you need more food aid to feed your family” is absurd. The fact that many still

answer no to these leading questions is a remarkable sign of strength; most human beings in the same

conditions of poverty as the many of farmers that benefit from a few months of WFP assistance would

multiply such demands ten-fold. As unpleasant as it may be to see farmers asking for food aid (they will do

the same with cash), we need to understand better why they do so, and we need to empower communities

to build self-esteem and sustainable self reliance. This usually happens through multiple long-term supports,

framed within participatory and technically sound approaches.

iii) Dependency arguments: are we using the right approach to this discussion?

• Lack of long-term commitments: There have been no sustained investments at an adequate scale

(for millions of beneficiaries) to enable households to overcome poverty. Institutional capacity to handle

cash through credit, cash injections, or cash for work, has not been sufficiently built. There is inadequate

understanding on how to support government institutions and build community level capacity. Meanwhile,

governments could do more to establish solid “action-based” dialogue platforms to build mutual

understanding and confidence. Ultimately however, the “absorptive capacity” for cash will not increase until

the cash resources increase and capacity is built: behaviour does not change without resources.

• Lost opportunities: Paradoxically, the reduction of development assistance began at the same time

as the top-down 80’s approaches were being replaced by community based interventions. If for example

many countries in Africa had had ten years of balanced food aid and complementary cash, invested in multi

year development activities and FFA (using food and cash), the asset base and vulnerability profile of

countless communities could have been remarkably different. This is however hypothetical.

• Food aid and markets: Food aid (GFD, FFW) is widely viewed as distorting markets and creating

additional dependency through low farm gate prices and production disincentives. It is clear that food

resources in large amount affect markets; it is however unclear to what extent this is true in many contexts

where WFP operates. There is also a major shift in WFP approach from food aid to food assistance. The

amount of food produced locally or regionally is around 60% of the total food WFP provides annually.

Besides, the possibility to use cash resources together or instead of food is opening major opportunities for

farmers and vulnerable households to access markets. It is also important to place food transfers within their

correct perspective through proper market analysis and beneficiary preference criteria, amongst others.

Consideration for where WFP operates is also key as it is often where there are high transaction costs, poor

infrastructure (roads and information), and inadequate consumer income to create market demand. The

wider and more fundamental issue of how to address the competing needs of producers and consumers has

not been systematically addressed.

29


iv) Arguments on the potential effects of the dependency syndrome

a. Negative perceptions and their consequences

• Stigmatizing food aid jeopardizes adequate response during times of crisis. This is potentially

devastating if shocks occur recurrently and with increased intensity, as lower or delayed commitments will

negatively impact longer-term food security schemes through resources being pulled out from development

assistance to cover immediate needs.

• Similarly, denigrating food assistance is a potential killer factor in designing multi-annual food

security initiatives (e.g. safety nets). Food assistance will continue to be a requirement for many countries

over the next few years, while local structures and capacity to handle cash grow in scale. Logistically, some

countries now can manage food aid. This now needs to be used as a bridge to scale up cash based responses,

including in FFA.

• The simplistic reduction of food assistance to ‘grain bags destroying markets’, distracts from

disciplined analyses of markets, reforms, infrastructure, in the context of competing needs of producers and

vulnerable consumers. Attacking food assistance may reduce its volume, but unless a compensating

framework of market structures takes its place, the exercise may be counterproductive and potentially put

at risks the lives of vulnerable people.

b. Food assistance can protect livelihoods, reduce risks, and contribute to development: the potentials

unseen

• While use of food assistance in saving lives is clear, its application in food security interventions

remains controversial. Well-targeted, well-designed food interventions have proven potential to improve

nutrition, expand access to education, and build productive assets for the poor. Food assistance has

particular advantages in addressing the needs of women, a disproportionate percentage of the world’s

poorest. The “dependency” language should not build walls against these opportunities and dialogue on

these arguments need to be rooted on evidence and adequate understanding of context. However, WFP and

its partners need to make all best possible efforts to ensure that FFA does not create indeed forms of

dependency in terms of detrimental coping strategies and behaviour.

File 1_MODULE a - Rationale for FFA -20 July 2011

Documents

Transcript of File 1_MODULE a - Rationale for FFA -20 July 2011