PROGRAMMING 11
looks to capture important lessons learned from comple- mentary sectoral interventions, context-specific research, development policies, and funding priorities.
Strengthening Social Capital
Previous research demonstrates that the extent and application of social capital is an important element in determining the nature of resilience at the community level (Aldrich 2012; Krishna 2002; Magis 2010; Narayan 1999), and a number of NGOs in this review include initiatives to strengthen social capital in program design and implementation. Project activities encourage collec- tive action, collaboration, and self-organization. Examples vary, from establishing village savings and loan associa- tions (VSLAs), which promote self-sufficiency, enhance decisionmaking, and increase asset bases (TANGO International 2011), to facilitating interclan social rela- tionships that broaden the networks from which com- munities may draw in order to cope with complex shocks (TANGO International 2013d).
CASE STUDIES: RESILIENCE STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED BY NGOS
Given the context-specific and dynamic nature of resilience, there are no “resilience” interventions per se. Rather, resilience programming should prioritize contex- tualized approaches that address resilience of whom (for example, households, communities, women, the elderly) and resilience to what (for example, drought, food inse- curity, poverty). Strategies for enhancing resilience will be as diverse as the local, regional, and national contexts in which they are implemented and in which response decisions are made by individuals, households, and com- munities. NGOs employ a wide array of strategies and interventions to build resilience capacity, a number of which are detailed below. Some of these examples high- light NGO efforts to enhance the resilience capacity of a specific vulnerable population to a specific shock. Others highlight programs that do not address resilience per se as an overarching goal but instead integrate, sequence, and layer activities such that they support and protect core programming goals (for example, food/nutrition
security, poverty reduction) and contribute overall to building resilience through improved absorptive, adap- tive, and transformative capacity of chronically vulner- able populations. No formal cost-benefit analyses were carried out for any of the case studies, though informa- tion on total project costs, number of beneficiaries, or cost per beneficiary might provide some insights into replicability for those governments interested in pursuing similar approaches.
Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion
Led by a consortium of NGOs,2 the Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion (PRIME) project aims to mitigate the causes of vulnerability at the community and household levels for pastoralists and those transitioning out of pastoralism in the Afar, Oromia, and Somali regions of Ethiopia. Te objectives of PRIME (2012–2016) are to increase household incomes and enhance resilience to climate change. Market linkages are the primary venue through which PRIME intends to realize project objectives, and implementation includes both “push” and “pull” interventions to ensure that resources important to the livelihoods of pastoralists are available and accessible (Mercy Corps 2012). PRIME supports its push-pull strat- egy through complementary partnerships with a number of other programs and stakeholders, including the Livestock Growth Project; Knowledge, Learning, Documentation, and Policy; the Ethiopian Land Administration Program; Ethiopian government ministries (such as Agriculture, and Trade and Industry); and other major livestock projects in the region. Such coordination should theoretically contrib- ute to complementarity of the project’s resilience-building efforts and learning. Prior to project design, PRIME partners conducted
a holistic risk assessment that built on existing evidence including policy research, strategic impact inquiry by con- sortium members, and lessons learned in relevant program- ming efforts carried out by consortium members (examples include Mercy Corps’ RIN and Strengthening Institu- tions for Peace and Development programs, as well as the PSNP Plus /GRD program led by CARE). Partners then used holistic analysis to form evidence-based hypotheses about the primary constraints to absorptive, adaptive, and
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