PROGRAMMING 9
through which project activities would lead to the achieve- ment of strategic objectives. Teories of change are a critical outcome of a comprehensive risk analysis in that they allow for an iterative, adaptive, and nonlinear approach that is necessary for resilience programming. Although ample lip service is oſten given to conducting
comprehensive analysis, many NGOs rely heavily on par- ticipatory rural appraisal methods. Such reliance on qualita- tive data means they fail to capture important contextual information that is oſten available through secondary sources. For example, economies can improve or decline, environments can become degraded or be restored, and long-term weather paterns can change, all of which may be quantified by national or regional market surveys, political economy studies, or early warning systems. An example of going beyond mere qualitative data is CARE’s Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis tool, which integrates community knowledge with scientific data, providing a deeper understanding of climate change impacts at the local level from both a cultural and a scientific perspective (CARE International 2009). Unfortunately, comprehensive risk analyses are costly,
and even though effective program design depends on such analysis, many NGOs are hesitant to incur such costs with no guarantee of future funding for programming. One ap- proach for dealing with this conundrum is DFID’s Build- ing Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRCED), a program to build the resilience of vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, to climate extremes (for example, drought, floods). Te award is made in two phases, the first for designing risk-informed programming and the second for implementation. Such an approach helps ensure that program design is actually based on comprehensive risk analysis.
Integrated Approaches
Resilience building relies on integrated programming—a cross-sectoral approach with a long-term commitment to improving the three critical capacities: absorptive capacity (disaster risk management), adaptive capacity (longer- term livelihood investments), and transformative capacity (improved governance and enabling conditions) (Béné et al. 2012). Programs with an integrated approach ensure that partners and sectors work together to address key leverage
points and adopt complementary, synergistic strategies to promote resilience; that is, cross-sectoral programming sup- ports and protects a core programming focus (for example, food security, poverty, peace building), ultimately strength- ening resilience. While many NGOs claim their programs are integrated,
not all integrated approaches are equal. UNICEF suggests that cross-sectoral outcomes are a critical element when considering how to integrate program initiatives (UNICEF 2014). Multisectoral programming oſten includes layer- ing or sequencing of interventions, or implementation of activities in the same geographic location. However, effective integration requires more than simply combining cross-sectoral interventions in either time or space, because such approaches do not necessarily result in the synergistic effects expected from programming whose interventions in one sector actually interact with—and depend on—those in another sector in order to effect desired change out- comes. Co-location of program interventions in the same area, commonly practiced by NGOs and encouraged by donors in order to get “more bang for the buck,” makes cer- tain sense. Again, however, interventions may or may not be operating in concert with each other and thus may not be
“integrated” to maximal effect. A common strategy employed in NGO resilience-
enhancing programs is to emphasize improving the absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacity of households, communities, and higher-level systems affected by shocks and stresses. NGO programming to strengthen absorptive capacities at the household or community level promotes initiatives that minimize exposure to shocks and stresses (ex ante) where pos- sible and assist with quick recovery aſter exposure (ex post), in essence preserving the stability of livelihood systems (Béné et al. 2012). To strengthen absorbtive capacities at the household or community level, NGO resilience capacity–building initiatives help households and communities learn from past experiences and make adjustments that reduce their vulnerability to future shocks. Given the predominance of agricultural and pastoral livelihoods in many disaster-prone areas of the world, many NGOs promote climate change adaptation. Others—depending on their institutional mandates and operating environments—emphasize the capacity to
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