PROGRAMMING 21
to specific shocks. Strong barriers to transformation exist, given that such changes typically require alteration of systems that are maintained and protected by influential stakeholders (Béné et al. 2012). While NGO program- ming may be quite effective in promoting transformative capacity at a local level, other actors (for example, govern- ments, UN agencies, donors) are oſten beter placed to address transformative capacity at national and regional levels. Tus, NGO efforts to build resilience capacity may be greatly enhanced through participation in higher-level task forces that include government, UN actors, and donors (for example, the Regional Inter-agency Standing Commitee [RIASCO], the Food Security Information Network, the Food Security Network, and Kenya’s Food Security and Nutrition Working Group). There are, however, positive exceptions to the limita-
tions many NGOs face in promoting transformative capacity, such as the PSNP Plus /GRAD projects, which promote a transformational response on the part of the government of Ethiopia and other financial struc- tures, ultimately contributing to enhanced resilience for the poor. Another example of collective effort by NGOs to improve governance and enabling conditions is evidenced by the work of the Regional Learning and Advocacy Programme for Vulnerable Dryland Commu- nities (REGLAP) consortium, which aims to influence the development and implementation of national and regional DRR and related policies. If successful, these efforts could lead to systemic changes in the structural constraints contributing to household and community vulnerability to shocks.
Funding Mechanisms
Hindering many NGO efforts to enhance the resilience capacity of vulnerable populations is their focus on short- term, stand-alone projects rather than on longer-term programs that comprise multiple, integrated, complemen- tary, and oſten sequential projects, all working toward a cohesive goal. Although change is afoot, much of the short-term project focus can be traced to funding mecha- nisms. Financing for development efforts still predomi- nantly focuses on demonstrating impact in the short term even though effective resilience programming integrates short- and longer-term programming based on analysis of
the underlying causes of chronic vulnerability to recurrent shocks and stressors. Short funding cycles, such as those that typify humanitarian responses and DRR-focused ini- tiatives, oſten do not allow the time required to effectively promote and improve adaptive and transformative capaci- ties. Tis is particularly true for those that address longer- term enabling conditions necessary to remove structural causes of vulnerability. As an example of the longer-term focus resilience re-
quires, World Vision employs long-term area development programs to address root causes of chronic vulnerability. Te area development program approach involves commu- nity assessment of needs and long-term programming (typi- cally three consecutive program cycles of approximately five years each) to allow communities time to become sufficiently empowered to “manage, monitor, and evaluate progress” (Brennan 2013) toward their goals aſter World Vision phases out. CARE is also shiſting to a longer-term program approach in order to achieve sustainable impact on the root causes of poverty, particularly by empowering marginalized women and girls. As a strategic approach, resilience programming is best
funded through a combination of short-, medium-, and long-term funding streams that allows programs the flex- ibility to adapt to an evolving risk landscape. For example, Welthungerhilfe’s long-term presence in Haiti (almost 40 years), which includes a 21-year focus on a specific food-insecure region (the North-West Department), has allowed the NGO to purposefully link sequential projects that focus on relief, rehabilitation, and development. In a 10-year span (2000–2011), Welthungerhilfe implemented 21 projects funded by diverse donors, effectively consti- tuting an integrated program approach to food security (von Grebmer et al. 2013). Differences in programming timelines and procurement
processes between humanitarian assistance and develop- ment interventions also hamper efforts to adopt a com- bined approach to enhancing resilience (Haver et al. 2012). Resilience-focused programming in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere has been successful in part because of innovative approaches to funding (for example, donor sequencing, crisis modifiers, risk pooling) that allow for quick access to humanitarian funding in response to periodic emergencies without undermining development initiatives.
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