Response Analysis Institutional Linkages and Process – some examples from Afghanistan

FSNWG WorkshopNairobi April 2013

Conceptual space For food security Response Analysis

Process of selection of appropriate and feasible response options;

Response Analysis

Response Options Analysis

Response Planning

Problem-Cause Analysis

Situation Analysis

Current + Projected

Understanding the food security and nutrition problems; what are the proximate, underlying and structural causes

Key linkages: IPC / FS analysis – RA – FS Cluster

March – June 2012 : Drought response; CAP MYR; other appeals....

July – October 2012: CAP 2013

IPC RA Cluster(s) IPC RA Clusters

More effective and appropriate response

FSA FSA

Example

2012 Food Security Cluster Flood Contingency Planning

Background• From March to May 2012, the Food Security and

Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) conducted three (3) regional workshops to develop livelihood based flood preparedness plans for humanitarian actors in Afghanistan;

Background

• Objectives:• Identification of potentially flooded areas within each

region; • Better understanding of both the local livelihoods and

coping capacities to flood events. • Produce livelihood and flood hazard based contingency

plans.

In order to: • Reinforce the capacity of the FSAC community to

provide improved responses to flood events within Northern, Western and Eastern regions;

Participating agencies

Government: ANDMA, DAIL,

UN Agencies: WFP, FAO, UNHCR, IOM, OCHA

Red Cross: ARCS

International NGO: Action Aid, Tear fund, ACTED, DACAAR, Save the Children, Solidarities‘, Afghan Aid, ZOA, Johanniter;

National NGO: COAR, SWNHO, ADEO

Process• Step 1 - Presentation of the flood specific 3Ws tool:

Objective: to show the capacity and the geographical gaps to respond to a flood event at provincial level.

• Step 2 – Identification of most flood prone areas : Provincial working groups divided each province in three (3) different zones, namely most flood prone, medium and less prone areas to flood. IMMAP maps were used as a tool to guide the process.

Process• Step 3 – Identification of main livelihood patterns

with seasonality: cross checked, and validated with FEWSNet 2011 Livelihood zoning publication.

• Step 4 – Identification of potential impacts on livelihoods: Using IMMAP mapping information and simulation material and combining an understanding of seasonal impact of floods with seasonality of livelihoods to derive impact statements

Process• Step 5 – Identification of potential responses

(emergency, rehabilitation, mitigation): during these two sessions, working groups were requested to list the response options according to the livelihoods and the risks and key issues.

• Step 6 – Response Options Analysis – screening of most feasible response options against certain criteria.

Process• Step 7 – Sharing of existing disaster plans:

OCHA and ANDMA shared their information and plans on disaster management;

• Step 8 – Developing priority response plans:

Group works were requested to develop the response plan based on the priority. It provides details about the expected number of affected households need to be supported, modalities of implementation, timeliness, list the experienced agencies, and a rough estimation of budget.

Summary

Step 1 :3W matrixStep 1 :3W matrix

Step 2 :Flood-prone areas Step 2 :Flood-prone areas

Step 3 :Livelihood and seasonalityStep 3 :Livelihood and seasonality

Step 7 :Sharing of existing plans

Step 7 :Sharing of existing plans

Step 8 :Response Plan Development

Step 8 :Response Plan Development

Response Identification Matrix

Response Identification Matrix

Response Analysis Matrix

Response Analysis Matrix

Step 5 :Response Options Identification

Step 5 :Response Options Identification

Step 6 :Response Options Analysis / screening

Step 6 :Response Options Analysis / screening

Step 4 :Hazard – livelihood impact/ extent of vulnerability

Step 4 :Hazard – livelihood impact/ extent of vulnerability

Response Analysis Matrix – emergency phase

During Disaster (1st phase emergency)

. Agriculture . Livestock . Handcraft . Crop . Business . Gardening

. loss of actual and potential food from own production (crops + livestock) . No income from own production (crops + livestock) . No work opportunity

. Support immediate access to food and income

. Potable water

. First Aid Kits . Transfer of affected people to safe place . Transfer of livestock to safe place . Food distribution . Cash transfer

. Area is secure . accessible . Phone accessible . No internet

. ANDMA

. WFP

. FAO . Local people support

. Physically Accessible . tFood not available

. Prices high

. Potable water . First Aid Kits Food distribution . Transfer of people to safe place . Transfer of livestock to safe place

Phases

Livelihood Sources

Impact on livelihood

Key issues to be addressed

Possible response options

Is the Area secure?

Agencies with capacity to respond at scale?

Market dynamics favour cash/vouchers or in kind

Response Recommendation

. Market disrupted

Response Analysis Matrix – recovery phase

After Disaster (Recovery)

. Agriculture

. Livestock

. Handcraft . Crop . Business . Gardening

. loss of actual and potential food from own production . No income from own production . No work opportunity

. Continued food access support . Enable access to seeds and fertilizer . Increase access to business

. Seeds . Fodder . CFF . FFW . Cash grant

. Food distribution

. Area is secure . accessible . Phone accessible . No internet

. WFP

. FAO

. ANDMA

. Donor agencies . NGOs . Government

. Physically Accessible . Less food available . Prices lower .

. Cash . Voucher Seeds . Fodder . FFW

Phases

Livelihood Sources

Impact on livelihood

Key issues to be addressed

Possible response options

Is the Area secure?

A gencies with capacity to respond at scale?

Market dynamics favour cash/vouchers or in kind

Response Recommendation

Food distribution

Opportunities

• Proved very useful way of developing consensus around response options

• Based on livelihoods and likely impacts of a shock

• Was integrated into food security cluster led process

Challenges• Gap analysis (step 7) was problematic• Large numbers of participants made facilitation

difficult YET at the same time, some stakeholder groups not represented (academia, Community representatives).

• Insufficient time for training thus language barriers posed some problems for facilitation

• Insufficient time to build adequate understanding of response analysis technicalities