PROGRAMMING 7
integrated watershed management program in Harbu, Ethiopia. With a focus on climate change adaptation, the program promotes on-farm tree planting to help protect against extreme winds and as shade to protect crops from excessive heat. CRS is investigating ways to use its Integral Human Development Framework as a platform on which to base resilience programming and measure- ment. Te framework’s multidimensional discussion of assets provides a productive point of departure for thinking about resilience capacities, and its inclusion of structure and systems provides a potentially good point of reference to translate the multilevel resilience principle into a programmatic objective.
• CARE: Building on Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP), CARE’s Graduation with Resil- ience to Achieve Sustainable Development (GRD) program is designed to build adaptive capacity by focusing on vulnerability in food-insecure regions that are affected by climate change. Exemplifying a multi- level approach, the GRD program considers connec- tions between households and the markets in which they work. CARE’s Adaptation Learning Program also addresses shocks and stresses associated with climate change. Te Pathways to Empowerment program works to build resilient livelihoods among women smallholder farmers and exemplifies how investing in human capital, with a special focus on women, is a key dimension of resilience capacity.
• World Vision: World Vision has combined a DRR approach with conflict sensitivity and climate change adaptation to conceptualize programs focused on resilience. Its Somalia Holistic Rangeland Management Project, implemented in Mudug, Nugal, and Goldogbo, exemplified the multilevel principle of resilience. By working with local actors, government officials, and institutions, the program demonstrated how the effects of drought could be mediated.
Tis brief review of the initiatives of four NGOs in-
dicates how the basic principles of resilience have been enacted programmatically. It is important to note that this brief analysis does not represent a comprehensive review of NGOs or a comprehensive treatment of interventions and programs within NGOs.
DETAILED ANALYSIS: CENTRAL THEMES, PRINCIPLES, AND APPROACHES
Tere are common themes, principles, and approaches emerging from the initiatives to build resilience capacity promoted by NGOs. Tese include comprehensive risk analysis, integrated and holistic approaches, regional strate- gies, complementary partnerships and knowledge manage- ment within these relationships, and a social capital focus. Each is examined, in turn, below.
Comprehensive Risk Analysis
Designing interventions to address resilience requires good program design. Good program design depends on a theory of change that correctly identifies appropriate leverage points needed to effect desired change, which in turn depends on a thorough multihazard, multisector assessment of all the con- textual factors that affect the system(s) under study. Analysis begins with a comprehensive understanding of the environ- mental, political, social, economic, historical, demographic, religious, conflict, and policy conditions that affect, and are affected by, how households, communities, and governments prevent, cope with, and recover from shocks and stresses. A comprehensive assessment is necessary to fully understand the constantly changing relationship between risk and vulnerability on the one hand and livelihood outcomes and resilience on the other (Figure 2). NGOs oſten begin program design with a holistic
assessment of risk and vulnerability. Examples of NGOs that based their resilience capacity–building initiatives on comprehensive analysis are presented below, some of whom specifically used a resilience framework to design programs that are risk informed (that is, reflect that shocks and stresses were included). Others carried out comprehen- sive, contextually specific risk and vulnerability analysis—at many levels of society—even though their conceptual framework was not specifically considered a resilience framework (that is, a resilience lens was used). Hypotheses about the most vulnerable populations and the primary constraints to their absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities were then used to develop theories of change that identify key leverage points (“domains of change”) for en- hancing resilience and to illustrate the causal mechanisms
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