1

]

MODULE B

ODXP

PREVENTION & RECOVERY

WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME

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

Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual

This module provides the analytical framework to examine and understand

your country and its local contexts.

FFA is based on helping communities mitigate or respond to shocks.

Identifying the rationale and appropriate entry points for FFA thus requires

wearing a specific “lens” of analysis to examine these issues.

Such a lens includes examining the type of environmental (agro-ecological)

zones in which one or more shocks may occur (or have occurred), any

factors that may aggravate the impacts of these shocks, and what type of

responses would be needed in that specific context - whether building

community resilience and/or recovery after a shock. This should also take

into account different livelihoods that exist within agro-ecological zones,

including how such groups cope with shocks and whether they have negative

coping strategies that further aggravate shock impacts which can be

supported through FFA.

Lastly, a consultative seasonal livelihood programme analysis will

determine programming rationales upon which specific FFA projects will

then be selected (Module C).

2

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FFA MANUAL:

Overall WFP uses approximately 12 to 15 percent of its yearly resources for assets restoration, rehabilitation

or creation under emergency, recovery and enabling development operations. Most countries receiving

food assistance increasingly promote policies and strategies requiring various forms of conditional transfers

(productive safety nets, special operations to improve access to food, disaster risk reduction, and resilience

building). It is therefore important for WFP staff (and its partners) to meet these challenges and emerging

demands. The purpose of this manual is to strengthen WFP staff understanding of the contexts that require

FFA, their selection and programmatic coherence to WFP global and local commitments, as well as main

design aspects.

The manual is divided into five modules and includes a number of Annexes:

Module A provides the overall rationale and framework for FFA within the WFP toolbox of assistance

Module B provides the analytical lens in which to determine if FFA is appropriate within specific

contexts

Module C helps define the specific FFA projects to be undertaken within these specific contexts,

depending on various factors

Module D provides the practical elements of implementing FFA

Module E provides the key elements that informs M&E for FFA

Caveats

. A limitation of this FFA manual is that it cannot be fully comprehensive – the nature of FFA can be so

diverse that it would be impossible to capture all possible approaches and interventions. Therefore, this

guidance focuses largely on the response options and assets that are commonly related to WFP operations.

. A second limitation relates to the range of response options and FFA interventions related to pastoral and

urban settings. These are simply insufficient as documented experience regarding FFA from these areas has

been limited. However, there has been increased attention in several CO to both pastoral and urban

livelihoods in recent years that will bring further lessons and best practices. Furthermore, the current FFA

guidance is largely built upon documented evidence from a few countries where FFA have demonstrated

significant impact and have been documented both in terms of the processes that lead to positive results to

technical standards and work norms. It became clear to the authors that there are several other countries

with important experience (past or recent) that could not be taken into consideration or only marginally in

the drafting of these guidelines because of insufficient information.

. Another limitation is the level of insufficient research information regarding FFA under different

programme contexts and the often anecdotal assumptions that tend to underplay the role and impacts of

FFA (positive and negative).

. A final limitation is the lack of guidance on Food for Training (FFT) which is largely absent in these

guidelines as cutting across all programme design components (school, feeding, HIVAIDS, nutrition, etc). In

relation to FFA, these guidelines include FFT only in relation to the range of assets that would impact on

disaster risk reduction and resilience building. FFA Manual Module D (2011): version 1.

3

In 2010 the Prevention and Recovery Unit of the Programme Service (ODXP) of the Programme Division

(ODX) in Headquarters begun to review the existing FFW/FFA Guidance of the PGM (Programme Guidance

Manual) with the objective to develop more context specific and livelihood based Food-For-Assets Guidance.

This module was published and made electronically available in July 2011. Where relevant, this module

supersedes previous guidance on FFA interventions. Please inform ODXP’s Prevention and Recovery team if

you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here.

Any updates to Module B will be outlined below (and include page numbers) to allow FFA practitioners with

an older version to identify where changes have occurred:

No changes as yet.

4

Table of Contents

B1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 6

B2. LINKING AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES TO SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS FOR FFA ............... 8

AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES .............................................................................................................................................. 8

SHOCKS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8

USING SHOCKS TO BUILD RATIONALES ............................................................................................................................ 9

LAND DEGRADATION WILL HEIGHTEN THE IMPACT OF SHOCKS ..................................................................................... 9

LIVELIHOOD TYPES AND COPING STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................. 9

ARID & SEMI-ARID LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT ............................................ 10

TROPICAL & SUB-TROPICAL LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT .............................. 11

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

THE SEASONAL ELEMENT: .............................................................................................................................................. 12

THE LIVELIHOOD ELEMENT: ........................................................................................................................................... 12

COMBINING SEASONALITY AND LIVELIHOODS IN PROGRAMMING .............................................................................. 13

WHY IS SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING IMPORTANT FOR FFA? ..................................................................... 14

USING SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING TO IDENTIFY RELEVANT FFA MEASURES ........................................... 15

1: LINKING SHOCKS, TARGETING AND LIVELIHOODS .................................................................................................... 16

1.1 EXPOSURE TO SHOCKS AND RELEVANCE ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETING ............................................. 16

1.2 REFINING TARGETING CRITERIA FOR POPULATION GROUPS .................................................................................. 18

1.3 LIVELIHOOD SEASONALITY AND PROGRAMME ENTRY POINTS ............................................................................... 20

2: IDENTIFYING INTERVENTION RATIONALES AND PROGRAMME TYPES ..................................................................... 22

2.1 BUILDING RATIONALES AND PRIORITY TIMES FOR INTERVENTIONS ....................................................................... 22

2.2 DETERMINING PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES AND TIMING ........................................................................................... 23

2.3 CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IDENTIFYING FFA PROGRAMMES ................................................................................... 26

3: POSITIONING OF FFA IN BROADER PROGRAMMING ................................................................................................ 27

3.1 SEQUENCING PROGRAMMES................................................................................................................................... 27

3.2 SYNTHESIZING PROGRAMMES INTO NATIONAL LEVEL PLANNING ......................................................................... 29

3.3 COMPLEMENTARITIES AND COORDINATION ........................................................................................................... 30

5

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

6

B1. OVERVIEW For WFP, the entry point for providing food assistance is based on food insecurity. In general terms FFA will:

I. Improve access to food during emergencies (linked to Strategic Objective 1 – ‘SO1’)

II. Improve access to food, and restore and rehabilitate destroyed or damaged productive assets and

social infrastructure for communities affected by shocks and in transition situations (SO3)

III. Improve access to food, reduce risks and build resilience to shocks (SO2)

Thus, when considering using FFA as a response the most common element will be people’s exposure to

shocks – and more specifically, whether FFA assistance is needed and appropriate before, during, or after a

shock event in order to meet the stated Strategic Objective.

To understand this exposure, it is essential to know the types, frequency, and regularity of these shocks that

people will face, and the agro-climatic zone in which they occur. Agro-climatic zones will determine the

types of livelihoods that people will have in these areas and how they may be affected by shocks.

In many countries, the increased frequency and intensity of shocks caused by extreme weather events

compound on already degraded landscapes and fragile livelihood settings. The role of FFA in arresting soil

erosion, reducing floods, increase moisture into the soil profile, harvest water, and increase vegetation

cover, are all aspects linked to the reduction of the impact of shocks, and increase the ability of households

to diversify their sources of income.

FFA can strengthen communities and households’ resilience in impoverished and depleted environments,

and if applied at a significant scale can support adaptation against recurrent extreme weather events, largely

attributed to climate change. Given that most FFA interventions requires participants to work, it becomes

essential that timing in which FFA activities are implemented will not disrupt on-going livelihood activities.

To do this, Seasonal Livelihood Programming consultations should be undertaken to identify and sequence

the most appropriate and priority intervention times with associated objectives and rationales; livelihoods

and the most suitable times for labour-engagement; and the appropriate times in which to conduct specific

FFA activities based on seasonality and objectives.

The purpose of Module B of the FFA PGM is to outline how to:

1. Consider shocks, agro-climatic zones, and livelihoods when planning FFA; and

2. Use Seasonal Livelihood Programming consultations to identify and tailor FFA to the specific

contexts based on clearly identified and developed rationales and objectives.

Module B highlights the importance of understanding these different contexts, and how to apply the findings

from the range of analyses described in the technical ‘How to’ components of the PGM Chapeau, namely:

1. PGM Pillar 1 –‘How to’ conduct Food Security Trend Analyses

2. PGM Pillar 2 –‘How to’ conduct Context and Risk Analyses

3. PGM Pillar 3 –‘How to’ conduct Seasonal Livelihood Analyses

7

8

B2. LINKING AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES TO SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS FOR FFA AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES

The agro-ecological zone together with the types of shocks and livelihoods found in the zone greatly

influence the choice and design of FFA. Such design is further strengthened by taking into account the status

of the natural environmental and negative coping strategies used, which further heighten the impact of

shocks. Broadly, there are two types of agro-ecological zones WFP operates in:

I. Arid / semi-arid zones; and

II. Tropical / sub-tropical zones

Each of these broad agro-ecological zones1 will have differences, with rainfall and altitude driving

seasonality. For instance, rainfall patterns will determine ‘wet, or rainy’ and ‘dry’ seasons; higher altitudes

will have cold winters, whilst low-lying areas are likely to experience hotter or more moderate temperatures

all year round. Such differences influence the types of (natural) shocks that are likely to occur and the

livelihoods that will be found within these zones – which in turn affect the choice of FFA, including the

timing, the transfer modality, and the gender of people participating in these interventions.

SHOCKS

Within the agro-ecological zones any number of diverse shocks can occur that would influence the possibility

– and type - of using FFA as a response. These shocks (see Annex B-1) could be broadly classified as:

Natural shocks – e.g. droughts, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.

Man-made shocks – e.g. conflicts

Economic shocks – e.g. high food prices, etc.

Shocks can occur as single events (such as a drought), or as a set of multiple shocks such as the outbreak of

conflict and high food prices during a drought, or the occurrence of floods when rains start after a drought.

All shocks can either happen very rapidly (i.e. a rapid onset shock such as a flood) or begin to unfold more

slowly (i.e. a slow onset shock such as a drought).

When planning the use of FFA, knowing the ‘type’ of shock/s that can occur in the agro-ecological zone, and

whether they are rapid or slow onset, is important. This assists in identifying the rationales for selecting FFA

as a response to be used to:

Improve access to food, reduce risks and build resilience to shocks before they occur (SO2)

Improve access to food during an emergency, or shock (SO1)

To improve access to food and for early recovery once a shock has passed (SO3)

1 An Agro-ecological Zone is a land resource mapping unit, defined in terms of climate, landform and soils, and/or land

cover, AND having a specific range of potentials and constraints for land use.

FAO AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONING Guidelines; FAO Soils Bulletin 73; 1996

9

USING SHOCKS TO BUILD RATIONALES

It is difficult to predict with any certainty when a shock will occur. Some shocks, particularly rapid-onset ones

such as earthquakes or tsunami’s are impossible to predict, and hence difficult to build arguments for

resilience building (SO2) activities, although once they occur FFA can be used during the emergency, and for

early recovery efforts (SO1 and SO3).

Others, such as droughts and tropical storms are also not ‘predictable’ although the likelihood of them

occurring again in the future can be established through a historical trend analysis of these events. Such

findings can be used to anticipate where such shocks could occur, and the frequency or regularity of their

past occurrence used as a proxy for predictability and hence to build rationales for SO2.

Other shocks – in particular man-made or economic ones – can either be rapid or slow onset depending on

circumstances. The ability to anticipate these events through historical trend analyses are unlikely to work

and these shocks will be picked up either as they begin to occur (i.e. rapid onset, such as outbreak of

conflict) or through monitoring (for slow onset, such as increasing food prices). FFA as a response to these

shocks will likely be limited to SO1 and SO3 activities.

LAND DEGRADATION WILL HEIGHTEN THE IMPACT OF SHOCKS

Poor status of the natural environment can aggravate the impact of shocks. Heavily degraded and fragile

lands – that is, land that has lost its vegetation cover, soils are exposed, and is greatly eroded – is unable to

capture, absorb, and withstand the impact of heavy rainfall which in turn raises the risk of floods and

landslides during tropical storms and after droughts, particularly in areas with steep slopes. Loss of

vegetation greatly increases soil erosion to wind and other elements, further heightening the impact of

shocks as well as the loss of productive land. Given that people draw on the surrounding natural

environments for their livelihoods and to cope during times of crisis, understanding the link between land

degradation and its capacity to magnify the impact of a shock is crucial. See Annex B-2.

LIVELIHOOD TYPES AND COPING STRATEGIES Each agro-ecological zone will have its own broad livelihood groups. Arid and semi-arid lands contain

pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, and farming communities on marginal lands. Tropical and sub-tropical zones

mostly contain settled agrarian livelihoods. If these agro-ecological zones are next to coastlines or contain

large water-bodies then livelihoods could be based predominantly on fishing. Urban livelihoods will be found

in all agro-ecological zones. What is important to note for FFA is that livelihoods will follow seasonal patterns

depending on the agro-ecological zone they are in, and are at risk to and respond to the specific shocks

experienced in those zones which, for natural weather-based shocks, will occur at specific times of the year.

During times of difficulties or shocks, the poorest and most vulnerable people resort to a number of negative

coping strategies. What should be considered in FFA are those that further aggravate the impacts of shocks

on the natural environment, and how these can be addressed. For example, negative coping strategies could

be the cutting down of trees for charcoal-making and sales in sub-tropical zones, which accelerates land

degradation, erosion, and greatly increase the risk of floods and landslides during a cyclone; or the

congregation of animals in depleting pastures in arid/semi-arid zones which strips vegetation cover and

increases soil erosion, and further loss of vegetation. See Annex B-3.

10

ARID & SEMI-ARID LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT

Arid and semi-arid lands can, overall, be described as follows:

(i) Arid lands (200-400 mm rainfall/year) with valley bottoms cultivated under specific land and

water management schemes by specialized agriculturalists or agro-pastoralists (e.g. irrigation

schemes resulting from water development schemes, etc); or with rangelands used for livestock

production by pastoralists, and characterized by seasonal transhumance movements in search of

pastures and water to maintain animal herds.

(ii) Semi-arid lands (rainfall usually 400-600 mm rainfall/year) cultivated by settlers and/or by agro-

pastoralists (pure agriculturalists in semi-arid and arid lands are rare as all depend in one way or

another on livestock). Rangelands for pasture are also used by pastoralists.

(iii) Semi-arid or arid lands agriculturalists cultivating around rivers and lakes. These riverine and lake

dependent communities are often critical elements of pastoral livelihood systems albeit maintaining

a typical agricultural system mixed with fisheries. It is also possible to find households only

specializing in fisheries and trade within these contexts.

(iv) Depending on altitude and proximity to coastlines, arid and semi-arid lands can have hot summers

and mild, wet winters (higher altitudes and close to coastlines) or hot summers and cold winters

(higher altitudes and continental interiors).

Main natural shocks experienced in this agro-ecological zone that can be ‘predicted or anticipated’ with

which to use FFA to build resilience (SO2) will be related to droughts (slow-onset), and in some areas

twinned with floods (rapid-onset) once rains start. Programmes with SO1 and SO3 objectives can be used

during and after all shocks, be they natural, man-made, or economic.

Depending on the level of environmental degradation, the severity of the impacts of the shock can be

heightened. Highly eroded areas will have less vegetation cover and ability to capture water, resulting in

even less natural resources to sustain animals and peoples livelihoods during crises. This leads to increased

congregation of people and animals around limited water points and pastures, further eroding the

environment and raising the risk if conflict. In lands with slopes or steep topographies, the risk of floods is

accentuated once rains start.

Pastoral livelihoods are characterized by seasonal transhumance movements, so understanding ‘who’ is

‘where’ and ‘when’ and doing ‘what’ is considered in project design and implementation. It is noted that

urban settlements - and as such more ‘urban-based’ livelihoods reliant on income – occur in arid and semi-

arid lands. In particular, many pastoralists that have lost their animals due to repeated shocks (i.e. their

livelihood) begin to settle around urban areas in arid and semi-arid lands. The numbers of these ‘ex-

pastoralists’ is greatly increasing in this agro-ecological zone.

In summary, in arid and semi-arid lands, a range of land rehabilitation and water harvesting measures should

be considered the essential and foremost important factor able to reduce pressure on scarce land resources,

increase productivity, improve resilience to shocks, stimulate employment and prevent further

environmental degradation.

11

TROPICAL & SUB-TROPICAL LANDS: CONSIDERING SHOCKS AND LIVELIHOODS IN THIS CONTEXT

These are mainly humid and sub-humid tropics, known for their year round high temperatures and large

amounts of rain. In this agro-ecological zone, the following subgroups can be found:

(i) Rainforest climate in spite of short, dry season in monsoon type cycle

(ii) There may be a dry season in the summer of the respective hemispheres

(iii) Areas where there is no significant dry season and it is wet all year around

A subset of the above would be the wet-moist highlands. Highland climates are cool to cold, found in

mountains and high plateaus. Climates changes rapidly on mountains, becoming colder the higher the

altitude gets. These areas are important as water storage areas. In drier mountainous areas, snow is kept

back until spring and summer when it is released slowly as water through melting.

Annual rainfall is usually sufficient, but the zones can be affected by the following factors:

steep and/or deforested and degraded slopes

occurrence of cyclones and hurricanes

significant seasonal variations and dry spells

a combination of these three which influence the stability of such ecosystems

Main natural shocks that can be ‘predicted or anticipated’ with which to use FFA to build resilience (SO2) will

be related to droughts (slow-onset) and tropical storms such as cyclones (rapid-onset). Accompanying these

storms are floods and landslides, especially in those heavily degraded lands with slopes. Programmes with

SO1 and SO3 objectives can be used during and after all shocks, be they natural, man-made, or economic.

Levels of environmental degradation can greatly aggravate the impacts of shocks in these zones. Loss of

vegetation and high erosion, particularly on sloping lands, can lead to devastating results with flash-flooding

and landslides often occurring even with moderate rainfall. Mountainous and hilly terrains are usually

problematic when increased population pressure, high frequency of cyclones and fragile soils push farmers

to cut trees and cultivate areas previously covered by forests or high vegetation. The continuous use of slash

and burn (shifting cultivation) and the modification of this practice are responsible for significant changes

regarding reduction of vegetation cover, and decrease of crop production, soil acidification and loss of

nutrients.

Overall, livelihoods in this agro-ecological zone relates to farming, although some populations also rely on

fisheries and other off-season activities that can range from hunting gathering, logging, mining and migration

to commercial farms as well as other sources of employment.

In summary, in tropical and sub-tropical zones, a range of land rehabilitation and stabilization measures

should be considered the essential and foremost important factor able to reduce risk and increase

agricultural productivity, improve resilience to shocks, and prevent further environmental degradation.

12

B3. SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING

Seasonal livelihood programming is the approach, or way in which seasonal and livelihood aspects are

combined to identify the most appropriate and complementary range of interventions throughout the

year, taking into account what programmes can be conducted when, by whom, and for which objectives.

Seasonal livelihood programming offers the opportunity to identify how different programmes can

complement each other for maximum and/or added impact, by providing entry points for all partners who

may have different mandates and funding sources to work together to reach common goals in the same

project areas.

The approach also provides the opportunity for enhanced coordination by bringing together communities,

partners, Governments, and donors through a harmonized programming planning framework.

THE SEASONAL ELEMENT:

This aspect relates to understanding the time in which different events occur that will affect or impact on

livelihoods and (for WFP) how this could affect food security and nutrition during the course of the year.

Equally important is to understand how seasonality changes between typical, bad, and good years and the

effect that this will have on livelihood systems.

Identifying seasonality in programme design provides the information needed to guide the ‘when’ or the

‘most appropriate time’ for a specific intervention(s) to best reach the strategic objective and outcome of

the intended programme targeted to address a specific problem.

THE LIVELIHOOD ELEMENT: Identifying the links between livelihood activities and seasonality will further refine the types of

interventions that may be required, the target groups that should be considered, and to reduce any

inadvertent negative impact on livelihood activities by those trying to access FFA programmes.

Understanding how seasonality affects livelihood systems in typical, bad and good years provides a longer-

term vision for programme planning. It gives an understanding of which programmes may or may not be

affected by deteriorating or improving conditions, allowing for more flexible programme adjustments in

advance once it is known whether a year is shifting from a bad (i.e. a shock) to a typical year, or a good to a

bad year, etc.

By then identifying livelihood strategies and activities along a seasonal timeline will provide the information

needed to link the ‘who’ and ‘why’ together with the ‘when’ in programme design. This process contributes

to identifying and building arguments and rationales for specific intervention(s) at different times of the

year, and in different years, whilst trying to minimize any negative impacts on livelihood activities to

beneficiaries in accessing FFA projects.

13

COMBINING SEASONALITY AND LIVELIHOODS IN PROGRAMMING Identifying and bringing these elements together into an overall programme approach is done through a

consultation process which brings together communities and partners at the local level, to jointly identify

context specific geographical areas and times of the year where:

Different rationales can be developed for different strategic objectives for WFP and partners – such as

resilience building prior to difficult months, relief during lean seasons, or early recovery after a difficult

season or shock. For WFP, the primary entry point will be to provide food assistance for the most food

insecure groups.

Different FFA programmes will be more effective and greater success is ensured – for example planting

tree seedlings at the start of a dry season when there will be no rains will likely result in a low survival

rate, whilst planting at the start of a rainy season greatly increases the success of a reforestation

programme.

Participation in FFA programmes will not have negative impacts on livelihoods as dedicated time and

labour on a programme is time away from other livelihood activities. For example, having to participate

in feeder road construction FFA during a cultivation season could result in reduced agricultural

production.

Different population groups would be able to access programmes at different times based on gender,

and/or labour availability and existing workloads. For example, pastoral men and young adults are

moving with livestock during the dry season and unlikely to be able to participate in labour-based FFA,

whilst the women left behind at the homestead could work on programmes.

Different FFA interventions could improve livelihoods and reduce hardships faced by women and girls

– for example, women and girls are responsible for maintaining the homestead including the collection

of firewood and water. In many communities, due to a depletion of natural resources, this can require

travelling great distances consuming valuable time that could be better used for income generating

activities (IGA’s) or productive works. In some parts of Africa, women spend eight hours daily collecting

water (FAO 2010) and often young girls are pulled from school to do these tasks so mothers can conduct

other productive work. Travelling such distances increases women and girls vulnerability to being

sexually assaulted as they are often travelling in remote and desolate locations. FFA measures could be

jointly identified that would reduce the hardships faced by women and girls (such as walking long

distances to collect water or firewood) and increase access to productive opportunities through IGA’s

and control over resources (land use rights).

Different transfer modalities can be employed – such as cash at times when market prices are low or

households need to build up savings; or food at critical times during hunger gaps when market prices

and household expenditures are high.

14

WHY IS SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING IMPORTANT FOR FFA?

Combining the understanding of seasonality and livelihoods through a consultative process allows the

identification of what could be the most appropriate asset creation programmes, the preferred transfer

modalities by season, and where, when, and how to place them within other programmes implemented by

WFP and partners, and other humanitarian and development actors.

Bringing these elements together to formulate solid programme plans leads to greater complementary and

harmonized programming at the local (and ultimately national) levels, and increases overall outputs of

individual programmes in ways that are not achievable if such programmes were done in isolation or not

linked to an overall programme intervention strategy.

Results reached through seasonal livelihood programming can be summarized as follows:

FFA can be tailored to the most appropriate periods for interventions within typical and bad years,

taking into account livelihood activities, gender, and aspects of conditionality (i.e. labour-based or

unconditional).

Builds context specific rationales and justifications for the Strategic Objectives (for WFP) with which

FFA will be used to address, and identifies the links between different SO’s.

Identified and highlighted inter-connections between short, medium, and longer-term actions

required to achieve stated objectives, as a contribution in developing strategic national (and/or local)

programme frameworks.

Opportunities to build partnerships through joint programming, by identifying complementary

activities which support and are harmonized to the actions of others

Identifying the entry points for different partner mandates, funding sources, and programme objectives

within the same geographical area, in order to reach maximum positive impact

Providing a visual timeline of programme activities to facilitate local level coordination of activities by

communities and authorities, and can guide the development, planning, and implementation of safety

net programmes by national governments

15

USING SEASONAL LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMMING TO IDENTIFY RELEVANT FFA MEASURES

How to conduct a Seasonal Livelihood Programming consultation is found in PGM Pillar 3 –‘How to’ [106]

The subsequent sections discuss how to use the findings from a seasonal livelihood programme consultation

for FFA, covering the following aspects:

1. Linking shocks, targeting, and livelihoods

Exposure to shocks and relevance to assistance objectives and targeting

Refining targeting criteria for population groups

Livelihood seasonality and programme entry points

2. Identifying intervention rationales and programmes types

Building rationales and priority times for interventions

Determining programme activities and timing

Considerations when identifying FFA programmes

3. Positioning of FFA in broader programming

Sequencing programmes

Synthesizing programmes into national level planning

Complementarities and coordination

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

Somali Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations

Afar Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations

SNNPR Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations

Borena Zone of Oromia Region (Ethiopia) Pastoral Consultations

Gaza and Maputo Provinces (Ethiopia) Agrarian Consultations

16

1: LINKING SHOCKS, TARGETING AND LIVELIHOODS

1.1 EXPOSURE TO SHOCKS AND RELEVANCE ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETING

Trend analyses of shocks to identify areas where they recur generally use data that cover large geographical

areas. This means that they may not necessarily pick up smaller – or shock-like conditions.

By capturing the occurrence of shocks at sub-national levels through the seasonal livelihood programming

consultation will overcome this problem, highlighting the differences in the number of times people will

have experienced these shocks in different parts of the country. For example, Table 1 below shows the

shocks - as good (highlighted in green) and bad (red) years – experienced in the Somali, Afar, and SNNPR

Regions of Ethiopia since 1992. Typical years are not shaded:

Table 1: Comparison of good, bad, and typical years between three pastoral regions of Ethiopia

From:

April

To:

March

Somali Region

Name & translation

Afar Region

Name & translation

SNNPR

Name & translation

2010 ---

2009 2010

2008 2009 Odey Kafa’a (helplessness) Millennium drought Eron (severe drought / hunger)

2007 2008 Ekaru Karoyan (year of disease)

2006 2007

2005 2006 Godi mali (axe - trees cut)

2004 2005 Muur Kalad (slaughtering) Ekaroolo (year of prosperity)

2003 2004 Dula hoganefana (migrate)

2002 2003

2001 2002 Karu Aremu (drought & conflict)

2000 2001

1999 2000 Siigo As (red wind) Bodi (Etho/Eritrean war) Akoroo (main rains on time)

1998 1999 Biyo Badan (full of water)

1997 1998

1996 1997 Dad Isbara (people mixing)

1995 1996 Dai Kle (year of hunger)

1994 1995 Marmaris (wandering)

1993 1994

1992 1993

The table shows localized shocks (in the case above primarily droughts) that may not have been captured in

an overall national trend analysis - for example, 2007-2008 where an outbreak of CCBP amongst livestock

spread from Kenya in the SNNPR; or 2003-2004 will not have been identified as an overall drought year in

Ethiopia, yet the Afar Region experienced a severe drought that forced people to migrate to other regions

(the translation of the local name Dula hoganefana in Afari). Similarly, local knowledge highlights different

shocks that would occur within the same year - take for example 1999-2000 where the Somali Region

experienced a drought, The Afar Region was affected by the Ethiopian / Eritrean conflict, and the SNNPR

experienced a good year due to excellent main rains.

17

What is the relevance of shocks to FFA identification and planning? When major shocks on livelihoods

occur frequently, the period between the end of one shock and the start of another may become too short.

This not only places people at greater risk to experiencing these shocks, but prevents the rebuilding and

accumulation of lost assets before the next one occurs. The more regularly that a group of people

experience shocks and has shortened recovery periods between them, the greater the erosion of coping

strategies and assets takes place which leads to an eventual loss of livelihoods.

Frequent and regular shocks ultimately make people more vulnerable to food insecurity and hamper their

development opportunities to move out of poverty. If these people are not assisted to cope with regular

shocks, they eventually collapse into poverty and persistent (chronic) food insecurity.

In programme response terms, this can provide the entry points to:

consider the differences between relief, early recovery, and resilience building assistance to mitigate

the impacts of shocks

the types of activities required for early recovery to rebuild assets and those that strengthen

resilience to shocks; and

when (in terms of years and seasons) and where (in terms of exposure to shocks) different response

options would be more appropriate.

The frequency in which people have been exposed to shocks is also helpful in determining targeting criteria

for FFA activities. For example, in the pastoral areas of Ethiopia participants in four separate consultations

concluded that that there needed to be a minimum of 3 to 4 years between major shocks for a household

to recover – if the time between shocks is shorter, then households have insufficient time to recover and

rebuild lost assets. If the next shock then occurs before the household has been able to recover, their asset

erosion during the new shock is deeper, making it that much harder for them to recover.

In practical terms, this means that households experiencing at least 2 major shocks in the last 5 years would

either be at the very edge of recovery before the next shock, or still be within a recovery phase as there

would have been insufficient time for the required 3 to 4 year recovery period.

Within such a group, a certain set of socio-economic criteria would determine whether they would be poor

or vulnerable households, such as the size of the household or the number of dependents, and the

ownership of or access to a specific set of assets. If such criteria are met, they would be a justified group for

early recovery and resilience building activities outside of relief interventions.

Understanding these elements leads guides rationales and justifications for specific programme types. They

guide who should be targeted with and could participate in early recovery and resilience building

programmes in the years between shocks, and those where longer-term social protection may be required.

The following section shows the practical application of linking the repeated exposure to shocks with

targeting of programmes.

18

1.2 REFINING TARGETING CRITERIA FOR POPULATION GROUPS

Understanding links between programmes and project types that would be appropriate for early recovery,

resilience building, and longer-term social assistance requires reflection on vulnerability and exposure to

shocks. A graphic overall profiling of potential programming assistance from a vulnerability perspective is

depicted in Figure 1 below, whereby the Y-axis represents the household vulnerability status, and the X-axis

represents time (or seasonality).

Figure 1: Vulnerability profiling for FFA programming

Figure 1 acts as a guide to determine where to target specific types of programmes to (i) provide relief

during emergency periods only and (ii) to support efforts of resilience building that could enable vulnerable

households to better cope with shocks when they occur to prevent further slips into vulnerability.

It is also recognized that there will be times for all groups when conditions are better, such as after harvests

or during peak milk and animal sales at good prices. There will also be periods where conditions deteriorate,

either during shocks (for food secure groups that are moderately resilient) or as food insecure household’s

move away from the good harvests and sales times.

As shocks increase in frequency and intensity, households will not have sufficient time to rebuild lost assets

before the next shock occurs, and over time coping capacities erode pushing them deeper into vulnerability.

Thus, it becomes imperative that programming supports the strengthening of existing assets and building

resilience, particularly amongst groups C and D shown in Figure 1.

The following summarizes a description of these groups:

Group A

Resilient

Group B

Food secure under no major

shocks

Group C

Highly food insecure from

last / consecutive shocks

Group D

Highly food insecure,

including destitute

Already benefit from growth and development

Moderate resilience. Become highly food insecure in case of shocks; some post-crisis caseloads move downward without developmental assistance.

Caseload for recovery and

complementary support. Can

slide downwards into

destitution/negative coping

strategies without support.

Caseload for social

protection - conditional and

unconditional support

needed. Focus on alternative

livelihoods where possible.

Food secure under no major shocks – with moderate resilience

Resilient – benefiting from growth and development

Highly food insecure - including destitute

A

B

C

D

BETTER TIMES (I.E. HARVESTS)

SHOCK

REPEATED SHOCKS

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

19

Thus, the major focus of FFA programming should be geared towards groups C and D as follows:

Group B Group C Group D

Resilience building and Recovery (outside of Relief in case of shocks)

Relief (GFD) or F/CFW; and/or

F/CFA if shelf projects available

Largely through F/CFW and

F/CFA

A mix of GFD and F/CFW or F/CFA

NOTE: Food/Cash for Work (F/CFW) and Food/Cash for Assets (F/CFA)

When determining vulnerability profiles and defining targeting criteria for different programme rationales as

shown above, references to the historical timeline of good, typical, and bad years (e.g. those in Table 1)

provides links between the need for recovery times between shocks, and the impacts this has on

vulnerability if recovery periods are insufficient.

For example, the continuous erosion of coping strategies if recovery time between shocks is insufficient

pushes people (i.e. those in category C) deeper into food insecurity (i.e. those households in category D).

In Ethiopia, pastoral households need a minimum of 3 to 4 years between major shocks to recover. If the

time between shocks is shorter, then households have insufficient time to recover and rebuild lost assets.

To make the distinction between groups C and D, the exposure to recent shocks or the period of time that a

household has faced a certain set of conditions, combined with socio-economic factors, were identified as

criteria to consider when targeting for various programmes:

Group C Group D

Households that experienced at least 2 major shocks

in the last 5 years would either be at the very edge of

recovery before the next shock, or still be within a

recovery phase as there would have been insufficient

time for the required 3 to 4 year recovery period.

Within this group, a certain set of socio-economic

criteria would determine whether they would be

poor or vulnerable households, such as the size of

the household or the number of dependents, and the

ownership of or access to a specific set of assets.

If these criteria are met, they would be a justified

group for early recovery and resilience building

activities outside of relief interventions. The majority

of these households would fall into Category C.

Households which have exhibited a set of poor

socio-economic criteria for at least the last 4 years

would place them beyond the time needed to recover

before the next shock, suggesting they have been

unable to recover from a recent shock, or have

persistently faced high food insecurity.

Socio-economic criteria should reflect conditions

requiring external continued/longer-term support,

such as single parent HH’s with high dependents, with

no fixed income, labour, and no productive assets.

Such characteristics suggest that if HH’s have been

unable to recover/adapt/find alternative livelihoods

in a four year period, then vulnerability status is

unlikely to be due to a recent event (i.e. a shock) and

programmes for early recovery are not as applicable.

Rather, such HH’s could be persistently (chronically)

food insecure and require a different set of

programming support (e.g. social protection and

alternative livelihoods). The majority of these

households would fall into Category D.

20

1.3 LIVELIHOOD SEASONALITY AND PROGRAMME ENTRY POINTS

Conducting a seasonal livelihood analysis through a consultation involves participants discussing and

agreeing when certain events occurred that would affect livelihoods and vulnerability, and by capturing this

along a monthly timeline (as shown in Figure 2 - following page). By doing this, major patterns and key

differences at various times of the year will be found, and will start guiding the times, and types, of different

interventions that may be required.

This should be done for typical and bad years as this indicates how conditions may change, and determines

broad programming entry points that are needed to better support lives and livelihoods – for example, the

differences identified in the Somali Region of Ethiopia show:

A typical year A bad year

THE MONTHS DURING AND AFTER THE SHORT RAINS

Own food production for pastoralists is better, yet

food balances must be purchased whilst HH’s need to

save cash for the coming high expenditure months,

and trying not to sell animals to build up livestock.

Agro-pastoralists will try to save cash to purchase

farm inputs for the March cultivation season.

(Seen as a second priority time for interventions).

THE MOST DIFFICULT MONTHS OF THE LONG DRY

SEASON

Households experience the most acute food

shortages, expenditures peak, income opportunities

are limited and cash mostly comes from distress sales

of livestock at poor prices, and malnutrition rates rise.

(Regarded as the first priority period for

interventions).

MONTHS DURING THE MAIN RAINS

Family members return at the start of the main rains

and men and women are available for labour-based

works. These are the best months and conditions

improve, so programmes should be geared towards

early recovery (if the preceding season was

difficult/had shock) and/or resilience and asset

building programmes. This allows HH’s to offset

expenses related to any accrued debts from the

preceding long dry season, and treatment of animal

diseases later in the cold dry season to protect

livestock assets.

(Regarded as the third priority time for

programming).

THE MONTHS AT THE HEIGHT OF THE LONG DRY

SEASON REQUIRE EMERGENCY INTERVENTIONS

Conditions are severe this entire period as the cold

dry season leads directly into the long dry season,

without the relief of the short rains. HH’s are

stressed, experiencing extended periods of acute

food shortages and high expenditures, malnutrition

rates rise, and distress sales and extreme coping

strategies are used. Workloads for both men and

women are high as they are fully engaged in water

and food collection, looking after animals, and trying

to cope with the severity of the shock. Assistance is

needed to cover basic needs and prevent the

depletion of assets that will affect long-term

livelihoods.

(Regarded as the most critical and main priority time

for interventions).

THE MONTHS BEFORE AND AFTER THE MOST

DIFFICULT TIMES OF THE LONG DRY SEASON

Assistance geared towards mitigating the impacts of a

severe long dry season are essential to strengthen

household’s abilities to cope. There is a need to

address current rising malnutrition, human diseases,

and major difficulties leading to asset depletion in the

severe months. Both men and women are available

for labour-based schemes, although HH’s should have

flexibility to decide on which family member can

participate. Before the long dry season resilience

building is needed; those after the most difficult

months where relief is required should be more ‘early

recovery’ in nature.

(Regarded as the second priority period for

assistance).

21

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

22

2: IDENTIFYING INTERVENTION RATIONALES AND PROGRAMME TYPES

2.1 BUILDING RATIONALES AND PRIORITY TIMES FOR INTERVENTIONS

The seasonal livelihood consultation should determine the times of the year when assistance may be

required, based on what factors are affecting food security, and what livelihood activities people

would be engaged in at these times. Furthermore, the times where assistance may be needed can be

prioritized according to the severity of conditions at different times. Using this information,

rationales for assistance can be determined with partners.

Building on the previous example from the Somali Region (Ethiopia), the table below shows how

priority times, rationales, and programme objectives converge. Similarly, this should be done for

typical and bad years to show how these objectives and rationales change:

A Typical Year A bad Year

Priority 1 - During the most difficult time of the year:

This is the most important period for food assistance

throughout the year to pastoralists, agro-pastoralists

and ex-pastoralists. Assistance at this time will be

protective – that is, seasonal support during the

most difficult times to protect lives and livelihoods.

Priority 1 - During the most difficult time of the year:

Protective assistance to save lives and livelihoods is

critical at this time. This is regarded as the most

important period to assist households, both to meet

severe food shortages and to prevent the loss of

assets to such levels that recovery from this period is

hampered, forcing people into deeper levels of food

insecurity and poverty.

Priority 2 - During the months preceding the most

difficult time of the year:

This is an optimal time for programming to prevent

asset sales, and assist households to build resilience,

strengthen coping strategies, and to prepare for the

difficult months ahead. This will safeguard livelihood

assets and minimize the erosion of coping strategies.

Priority 2 – The months preceding and following the

most difficult time of the year:

The primary objective of these programmes is to

save livelihoods, preserve, and rebuild assets.

Projects should be geared towards asset creation and

resilience building as the mechanism in which to

provide these transfers.

Priority 3 – Months following the difficult periods:

Investments allow for asset and savings accumulation

during a good time, meaning that the risk of

immediate depletion is reduced as people are facing

better conditions. This period provides the best

opportunity for asset creation and resilience building

activities for the longer term, and for households to

be able to invest in assets that can be managed, built,

and strengthened in good times. If this period comes

after a bad year or a particularly difficult season, the

programme shift is to one of early recovery.

23

2.2 DETERMINING PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES AND TIMING

All potential programmes should be captured during the consultation, and can be done by firstly

identifying broad themes that participant’s feel will address the problems and needs in the area, and

then the programmes within those. There is no specific listing of themes, although they should

capture the key issues and problems – i.e. land and water, access and infrastructure, etc.

The links between the importance of the natural resource base (i.e. the land and all the resources on

or within it) and the different types of shocks – that is, the risks associated with the occurrence of

different typologies of shocks on degraded landscapes should be considered. Thus, when developing

broad themes within which to determine the types of FFA programmes that could be required, it is

important to ensure that the element of land degradation and those activities that could rehabilitate

or strengthen its resilience to shocks is captured. Table 2 shows two examples of broad themes

captured in agrarian and pastoral settings, and outlines some of the programmes within those:

Table 2: Example of programming themes and activities between agrarian and pastoral settings

Agrarian setting – example Mozambique Pastoral setting – example Ethiopia

Natural resources

Erosion control, nurseries and reforestation,

sensitization to fire control etc.

Natural resource management

Land: terracing, nurseries, erosion control etc.

Water harvesting: roof water harvesting, cisterns,

water wells, etc.

Water management and harvesting

Includes repairing of dams, roof water harvesting,

cisterns, water wells, etc.)

Livestock management

Market infrastructure: construction of centres with

related livestock facilities, etc.

Health facilities: cattle dipping, vaccinations etc.

Stocking: re-stocking, emergency de-stocking etc.

Agriculture & Livestock

Includes training in farming techniques, irrigation

schemes, small poultry rearing, livestock

distributions, livestock dipping and vaccinations etc.

Social programmes

Health: constructing health posts, wat-san training etc.

Education: school feeding, girl’s incentives, etc.

Income generation: small scale drip systems, fishing,

bee-keeping, small animals/poultry etc.

Infrastructure: construction of community grain stores,

feeder roads etc.

Homestead development

Includes compost making, small scale drip irrigation,

fruit tree production, fish ponds etc.

Access to food

Construction of market stands, community grain

stores, feeder roads etc.

Reviewing Table 2, it is evident that similar programmes will be captured irrespective of what

themes emerge – for example, agrarian communities identified homestead development as a key

programme area and within that small-scale drip irrigation; pastoralists identified this same

programme under income generation through social programmes, and so on.

Compiling identified programmes within these broad themes from consultation findings held in

different regions will show which areas specific FFA programmes can address: for example, drip

irrigation was an activity in homestead development AND income generation – and thus, two

rationales for the same programme have been identified.

24

What is important when capturing potential programme information and the possibilities and types

of FFA within them, is the following:

1. The time in which the programme can be conducted: this should include seasonality (e.g. rainy

or dry seasons, etc.) and livelihoods (e.g. what would people be doing at this time, and would

they be able to participate in the programme?). This will also build rationales for resilience

building and early recovery programmes. For example, river bank stabilization before the onset

of the rains in floods-prone areas (sudden onset shock contexts) or the rehabilitation of

agricultural lands after the flooding season (in the event the shock has occurred).

2. Who would participate in the programme: depending on the programme type and livelihood

activities during the season, who would the programme be targeted to? For example, should the

programme be targeted to pastoralists or agro-pastoralists, or both? Should it targeted to men

because women have higher workloads collecting water at that time, etc.?

3. Which vulnerable group(s) should the programme reach: Which are the target groups for the

programme? Is it the highly food insecure that have recently experienced shocks are those that

are considered to be chronically food insecure? Is it those generally food secure groups that

experience seasonal food insecurity and that are vulnerable and at risk to shocks?

4. Who are the partners already implementing these programmes: determine which of these

programmes are already being conducted in the area, and by whom. As there will be a number

of partners that may be doing the same programmes (although in different parts of the area) it is

important to determine the existing partnerships, and ascertain which of the partners would be

the technical leader (e.g. Table 3). For example, an NGO may be implementing an erosion

control programme under the technical leadership of the Ministry of Agriculture (MA). As such,

the NGO has an implementation capacity whilst the MA would be a technical lead. This is

important when exploring opportunities for scale-ups in other areas.

Table 3: Example of partner implementation (red is technical lead) information from a consultation

Natural resource management

Rehabilitation of lands When and who Main partners

Terracing

Check-dam

December - January (Dry season)

Pastoralists & Agro-pastoralists

Men

Ministry of

Agriculture

PSNP

Mercy Corp

OXFAM

SC-UK

Flood diversion October - November

Pastoralists & Agro-pastoralists

Men and women

PSNP

HAVOYOCO

Mercy Corp

OXFAM-GB

SC-UK

Fodder production

April (Rainy season)

Pastoralists, Agro- & Ex-pastoralists

Men and women

Ministry of

Agriculture

SORPARI

Water harvesting When and who Main partners

Hafar dam

Pond construction

December – January (Dry season)

Pastoralists, Agro- & Ex-pastoralists

Men and women

PSNP COOPI

Mercy Corp

SC-UK

25

Table 3 is a subset of the FFA programmes identified for pastoralists in the Somali Region, Ethiopia

(full list in the Somali Region Pastoral Consultation Report) showing the seasonal timings, and the

suitability for livelihood group (i.e. pastoralist, agro-, and ex-pastoralist) and gender. It also indicates

who is already implementing these programmes, and highlighting (in red) who could take on a

technical lead if these programmes are to be expanded. Note however that although it appears that

there are a large number of partners already implementing these programmes, in reality they are

limited to specific areas and there are substantial gaps in coverage in the Somali Region.

Figure 3 is an example from an agrarian setting in Mozambique which shows overall target groups

(i.e. Groups C & D discussed in the targeting section) linked to specific household targeting criteria

with rationales and justifications (see Mozambique Livelihood Consultation Report 2009):

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

In summary, potential FFA activities can be identified through a seasonal livelihood programming

consultation to capture the full range of possible programmes in the area, and then determining:

Whether the most appropriate time (season) to implement the project to ensure its success will

not disrupt on-going livelihood activities by those people participating in the programme

Which livelihood group is to be targeted, and who the participants in the programmes will be

Which vulnerable groups the programmes will reach within the overall target population

Whether there is existing capacity amongst partners to implement these programmes and who

the partners are that could provide technical leadership for either scaling up or expanding these

programmes into new areas.

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

2 This list is not exhaustive and focusing largely on what F-CFA can support within the context of semi-arid

lands. The range of complementary measures is also simplified around main intervention areas (such as CA) within which numerous packages and designs are developed by partners (FAO, GTZ, AAA, etc) and possible to modify based on local contexts.

26

2.3 CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IDENTIFYING FFA PROGRAMMES

When identifying the range of potential programmes, it is important not to single out FFA activities

alone as this will reduce the ability to find complementary interventions. Rather, all types of

programmes that could be required should be listed, and those that could be supported by FFA

within these. When identifying overall potential programmes, the following should be done:

1. Avoid ‘wish lists’ of highly technical and expensive programmes: When identifying programmes

there is the tendency to list activities that communities and partners ‘wish’ to have – for

example, the construction of large dams and roads. Although such programmes may have

obvious benefits, they are generally not feasible programmes that can be handled by partners at

local levels as they are extremely technical in nature, require heavy machinery, and have high

costs. Although these can be identified and passed on to Government as identified programmes

by communities, they are unlikely to be implemented by communities, NGO, and WFP partners.

2. Identify programmes that have already been implemented and where experience exists: By

identifying these types of programmes, it is then possible to discuss which ones have been most

effective and which partners already have the technical expertise to implement them. This

allows for identifying those that can be scaled-up based on existing experience, and the partners

with the technical capacity to do so or to share experiences/act as technical leads to others that

may want to implement such programmes in new areas. It is likely that most of the programmes

identified within the consultation will fall into this category as they will be raised by communities

that have had these programmes in the past, or by partners that are currently implementing

them. What will also be noted when identifying these programmes is that they will likely only be

found in the geographical areas of operation of the implementing partner. For example, land

terracing may be the key programme of a specific NGO, yet it is only being implemented in the

few Districts in which they operate. For other Districts in the area, such programmes may not be

available – not because they are not relevant, but because there is no implementing partner.

3. Identify potential new (feasible) programmes yet where local experience does not exist: Such

programmes may not have been implemented in the area in the past, but may have been run

elsewhere by partners and where the experience may be brought to the area. For example,

terracing in agrarian settings or water harvesting in pastoral areas may have been implemented

by specific partners in other parts of the country, but not in the areas in which the consultation

is being held. If such programmes are known to be successful and feasible, they should be

identified for later exploration with partners to assess the potential of introducing such

interventions in the area.

4. Other programmes that may not be identified by participants during the consultation that

would be instrumental in addressing vulnerability, food insecurity, and risk management but will

only become apparent when reviewing the information later on. For example, the need to link

early warning information collected by partners or at a central level and the need for conflict

resolution during the seasonal movements of pastoralists. Such interventions once identified

and if feasible, should be incorporated into overall programme selection, design, and

implementation with/by the relevant partners.

27

3: POSITIONING OF FFA IN BROADER PROGRAMMING

3.1 SEQUENCING PROGRAMMES Placing all identified programmes along a timeline shows which months specific FFA and other

programmes should be implemented. This allows for the exploration of complementarities between

programmes, for example by seeing when terracing should be done and when seed distributions are

required; or nursery establishment in relation to reforestation. Sequencing programmes on a

timeline will link them to the different priority times for support, the rationales for the interventions,

and the types of potential transfer modalities (e.g. food, cash, and vouchers). This will show the

entry points for different partners, who may have different mandates, objectives, and funding.

For example, feeder road construction with FFA during the difficult season where food assistance is

needed is an entry point for WFP. The same project may also be identified as appropriate during

better times of the year where food assistance is not required (although households would benefit

from labour-based programmes to build savings and assets) and thus an entry point for partners

who’s mandates and funding sources are more development orientated. This provides opportunities

to WFP and a development partner to jointly motivate for the programme, yet to implement it at

different times using different rationales, yet with the same overall objective - which is to build the

roads and improve access. By coordinating activities it is possible to increase the time available to

construct roads and more quickly improve access for communities, and at the same time providing

two opportunities for households to engage in asset creation activities during the year.

Figure 4 on the following page shows how programmes have been sequenced for agro-pastoralists

in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. When looking at Figure 4, consider:

1. The priority times and rationales for interventions have been placed along the top of the table.

This allows for linking programmes to rationales, which will allow the identification for various

entry points for different partners, according to mandates and funding sources.

2. It is possible to see how priority times and transfer modalities may change during the course of

the programme – for example, terracing needs to be done during the dry season. For the first

half of the season, agro-pastoralists require cash-based inputs which they can save and invest in

the difficult season ahead, whilst in the latter half of the season food assistance becomes

essential, and a preference for food inputs is stated as food prices in the markets increase. This

information allows, where possible, to tailor responses and modalities to needs and preferences.

3. Programmes outside of periods where (food) assistance is required are shaded in grey, indicating

which activities although beneficial to a community, are outside of WFP FFA rationales or risk

being cut-short and negatively impact their success. For example, fodder production can be

done for 3 months, yet only the first month can be motivated for under WFP food assistance. In

this instance, WFP may look for a partner and share the programme, whereby the partner would

continue the activity with their own funds for the last two months, or WFP may not consider

engaging in the project yet motivate for another partner to implement it in its entirety.

28

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

29

FFA Manual Module B: Understanding the Context

3.2 SYNTHESIZING PROGRAMMES INTO NATIONAL LEVEL PLANNING

Consolidating the findings of all programmes will show the role of FFA and its relation to other interventions.

Figure 5 (Mozambique) indicates the appropriate times for FFA, preferred transfer modalities, their overlap

with relief during the hunger gap and/or in the event of a shock, with school feeding and nutrition, and other

non-food interventions that support agrarian livelihoods.

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

Such an overall synthesis also contributes to pipeline planning, logistics, and identifying staff time in food

distribution and monitoring so that M&E, evaluations, assessments, and participatory planning activities with

communities / partners can be planned accordingly.

Additionally, this consolidation shows how responses relate to strategic objectives and are embedded within

the programme categories. For example the Haiti PRRO (planned for 2010-2011) had as the overall goal to

support Government efforts to save the lives and reduce or stabilize acute malnutrition of disaster affected

victims (the Relief component), and to reduce risks and improve food security of those affected by

protracted humanitarian crises (the Recovery component). Specific objectives were to effectively prepare

and respond to complex emergencies while investing in nutrition and school based social protection,

community based risk reduction and adaptation to climate variability (synthesized in Figure 5), through:

1) Emergency preparedness and rapid response to shocks;

2) School based social and transitional safety nets;

3) Nutrition safety nets; and

4) Post- disaster early recovery and labour intensive productive safety nets (FFA)

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

30

FFA Manual Module B: Understanding the Context

3.3 COMPLEMENTARITIES AND COORDINATION

Coordination is always a challenge in complementary and joint programming, as various implementers will

have their own project plans and timings for the activities they are implementing. The seasonal livelihood

programming approach, and in particular the sequencing of programmes along a timeline is a useful tool to

raise and discuss issues of coordination and complementarities, in particular at local and sub-national levels.

By stock-taking the ‘who does what and where’ through the consultation immediately highlights in a

comprehensive manner when specific programmes are taking place, where there are gaps in seasonal

responses, where activities may need to be realigned for optimal impact, and where new partnerships can

be developed to further harmonize response planning and implementation.

When using FFA programmes to rebuild/build assets for communities a combination, or ‘package’ of

different complementary activities at various times of the year is required if greater and longer-term

benefits are to be achieved (see an example from Zimbabwe in Table 6 of Module D). It is likely that most if

not all of these programmes that will constitute such a package and which are identified through the

consultation are already being implemented by WFP, partners, and others. However, it is also likely that the

coverage of these programmes will be limited to the location in which programme implementers and

partners are working. This results in certain geographical areas and communities having a greater number of

these activities taking place, whilst there would be fewer or even none in others.

By listing, or ideally mapping out, all existing on-going activities will identify any programme gaps in relation

to geographic coverage. Additionally, this stock-taking of ‘who does what and where’ can also form the basis

of defining roll-out and scale-up strategies – for example by identifying which areas already have the

greatest number of partnerships and activities, what would be required to enhance complementarities and

coordination, and use these as pilots for fine-tuning programme harmonization which could then be rolled-

out to other areas once lessons have been learnt and processes established.

Although such programme stock-taking exercises can be done throughout the course of the consultations

(e.g. by making a map available at the workshop) not all partners may be present so gaps in information will

still occur. Other alternatives could be through any existing regular local-level coordination meetings and

structures (e.g. District level food security monthly meetings, etc.). Where they do not exist, they should be

established under the auspices of local authority. Such coordination meetings provide the venue to fill data

gaps, but more importantly also act as a forum to discuss and identify further opportunities for

complementary programming, harmonization, and partnerships.

These outputs from consultative programming processes also provide a ready tool for local authorities to see

the ‘what’, ‘where’, and ‘when’, as well as the ‘for ‘whom and by whom’ of programme interventions in their

areas, once they have been finalized. This allows for the tracking of what activities are happening where,

which areas are being covered, and where gaps exist, enhancing local coordination and advocacy efforts to

request and motivate for projects and funds. Where local-level development plans exist, the outputs from

seasonal livelihood programme consultations can be integrated into or used to refine local-level

development plans.

At the national level, such information identified through field-level seasonal programming consultations is a

significant contribution to providing the building blocks that can be used to formulate safety nets and food

31

FFA Manual Module B: Understanding the Context

security frameworks, as well as realign on-going activities that may not be part of a safety net programme

per se, but can complement and support safety net activities.

For example the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) of Ethiopia began expanding into pastoral areas

in 2010 with the aim to provide support to the most food insecure pastoralists during the critical dry season.

Seasonal livelihood programme consultations conducted in the four main pastoral regions of Ethiopia

showed that these critical seasons vary depending on the regions, and between pastoralists and agro-

pastoralists. This information allows for consideration to possible adjustments to the ‘timing’ of the PSNP in

different areas in order to bring programmes more in line with hunger gaps and needs, labour availability

and gender, and the most appropriate timing for specific asset-creation activities. Furthermore, by

identifying which programmes are being conducted by partners outside of the PSNP – i.e. in the months

and/or areas that the PSNP does not provide assistance – it becomes possible to see how they fit into the

overall programme response strategy and how they can be align (if necessary) to support PSNP activities.