6 RESILIENCE PROGRAMMING AMONG NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
of a given shock with respect to a critical event (for example, planting, growing, harvesting) is important, as is the duration of the shock.
• A multidimensional capacity: As is the case with most complex constructs, resilience is multidimen- sional. Resilience is a capacity that draws on an array of resources, including human, social, economic, physical, programmatic (for example, safety nets), and ecologi- cal. As a multidimensional capacity, resilience draws atention to the need to understand the optimal con- figuration of capacities for a given shock at different levels of aggregation, in a given context, for particular target populations.
• Resilience functions: Preparing for and responding to a particular type of disturbance or configuration of disturbances may require different types of absorp- tive, adaptive, and transformative capacities. Although absorptive capacity is occasionally excluded from the functions served by resilience, withstanding the effect of a shock is oſten the only option available, and the capacity to do so is essential for survival.
• Outcome-indexed capacities: Resilience should be indexed to a given well-being outcome, and the specific capacities drawn upon for resilience may vary depending on the outcome of interest. Te outcome of interest would typically include, for example, some dimension of well-being such as basic health, food security, or poverty status.
• A multilevel and systems-based approach: Resilience is observed at a given level (such as household or com- munity) but is understood as a multilevel construct. Terefore interventions should be sensitive to nested dependencies between, for example, households and communities or communities and regions. Dependen- cies that involve higher-level features, such as macroeco- nomic policies implemented at the national level, may also be considered.
Although these five principles are well substantiated by
the theoretical literature on resilience (Gunderson, Al- len, and Holling 2010), they remain abstract and detached from the everyday practical work of NGOs. Tey can, however, be used to examine a selection of interventions
implemented by NGOs. Te extent to which a given NGO intervention or program can be said to be using a resilience perspective to address the challenges of poverty, food secu- rity, health, or another well-being outcome can seemingly be judged in relation to the above principles. NGO initiatives illustrate the various resilience prin-
ciples in a number of ways. For the sake of illustration, we consider Mercy Corps, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), CARE, and World Vision initiatives that include one or more of the resilience principles. A later section of this paper provides more detailed analyses.
• Mercy Corps: Mercy Corps’ project titled Revital- izing Agricultural/Pastoral Incomes and New Markets for Enhanced Resilience and Recovery (RIN) used assets and a livelihoods diversification approach to protect against future shocks, thereby contributing to both absorptive and adaptive capacities. Mercy Corps’ Micro-insurance Catastrophe Risk Organization (MiCRO), implemented in Haiti, provides another ex- ample of how data on shocks are used as integral parts of programming. Within MiCRO, insurance payouts are explicitly linked to shocks, thereby providing an opportunity to observe the effect of shocks mediated by an intervention that is meant to enable absorp- tive capacity as part of enhanced resilience capacity. Mercy Corps has also recently made use of cell-phone platforms to collect real-time data on the impact of shocks, thereby enabling more focused interventions and more precise measurement of the effects of and response to shocks. Tis strategy represents a signifi- cant improvement over the typical approach of recall- ing shocks that are oſten many months removed from the moment of reporting.
• Catholic Relief Services: Working in Garissa County, Kenya, with the Fafi Integrated Development Associa- tion and the Relief, Reconstruction and Development Organization, CRS assessed the impact of droughts on livestock and its related effects on livelihoods. Restora- tion of goat herds lost as a consequence of drought was a major focus of the project and represents an example of how strengthening absorptive capacity can lead to posi- tive results. To strengthen adaptive capacity for reduc- ing environmental degradation, CRS implemented an
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