FIGURE 4.4 CONTINUUM OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMING Sectoral (Line functioning)
This involves one sector work- ing alone to address a spe- cific problem or need.
Multisectoral (Cooperation)
This involves two or more sectors bringing their sep- arate sectoral expertise to address an issue.
Intersectoral (Collaboration)
This involves two or more sectors trying to understand each other’s methods and approaches in addressing an issue through joint planning and some resource sharing.
Source: Adapted from Harris and Drimie (2012).
well as cultural issues. Concern has recognized that program man- agers tend to focus on the practical and tangible issues, while not paying enough attention to the deeper and more difficult-to-resolve issues of process, power, inequality, and to a large extent, the trans- formation of institutions. Resilience cannot be built in a bubble. It requires multidis-
ciplinary thinking and multisectoral approaches. It also has to work at multiple levels, linking community institutions and governance with district governance and service delivery and national-level pol- icies and strategies. It is important to be clear about what integration means. In
Zambia, Concern’s efforts to support collaboration across various ministries to reduce stunting faced significant institutional inertia. Clarifying how community resilience links with sectoral plans is crit- ical here, if some entity is to take ownership of nutritional outcomes. Helping sectoral ministries understand and agree on their form of collaboration (Figure 4.4) is a key part of this. Nutritional outcomes, defined in a country’s national nutrition plan, and aligned with the Scaling Up Nutrition guidelines, should be a major driver of collab- orative work (SUN 2013).
Conclusion Community resilience is an outcome. It is about a community’s ability or capacity to anticipate, respond to, cope with, and recover from the effects of shocks and stresses without resorting to behaviors that negatively affect well-being or compromise its long-term prospects of moving out of poverty and hunger. Preventing local food and nutrition crises requires communities to analyze the crises’ underlying causes and to be involved in the design and implementation of initiatives to address those problems (Box 4.2). Recognizing more recent initiatives across both regions, includ-
ing Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (SHARE) and the Glob- al Alliance for Resilience Initiative (AGIR), the current approach to
chronic food crises in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa remains frag- mented, dysfunctional, and ineffective. In countries like Haiti, shat- tered by regular natural disasters, the framework is only just becoming part of the conversation. To date, such crises have not been analyzed sufficiently with a resilience lens. By encouraging systems-based thinking, the concept of resil-
ience may radically transform the compartmentalized ways in which humanitarian and development actors work. Building resilience requires an integrated approach across issues, sectors, and disci- plines. Such a collaborative multisectoral approach, and the creation of environments that promote such thinking and practices, are impor- tant steps toward improving our collective impact on undernutrition in the most difficult contexts.
Trans-sectoral (Integration)
This involves pulling together resources, personnel, strat- egy, and planning.
BOX 4.2 SOME PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGNING RESILIENCE PROGRAMS
These guiding principles may help make resilience program
design more practical: >Undertake systematic risk analysis including analysis and planning for future uncertainty and worst-case scenarios.
>Reduce the causes of vulnerability by building assets and supporting sustainable livelihoods.
> Address drivers of inequality. > Build up communities’ absorptive and adaptive capacities, including better access to safety nets and social protection.
> Support enhanced capacity for effective and timely emer- gency responses.
>Build institutions for governance, and instill a culture of inno- vation and learning.
2013 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 04 | Building Community Resilience to Undernutrition 45
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66