PROGRAMMING 23
Additionally, the technical (and administrative) capaci-
ties of government ministries and agencies to develop, im- plement, coordinate, and monitor resilience programming, as well as manage it financially, oſten need strengthening and differ at various levels of government. In particular, lower levels of government (local and district levels) oſten do not have the capacity or resources to implement national-level strategies for enhancing resilience or reduc- ing risk. As a result, program implementation lags, and donors who are under pressure to exhaust their develop- ment budget lines may then seek “easier” opportunities to deplete their budgets, such as through humanitarian activities (Mitchell 2013).
Given the increasing frequency and severity of climate-
related crises, governments and donors oſten push pro- grams to simply reach more people, oſten puting at risk the quality of interventions by spreading implementing part- ners—especially NGOs—too thin. NGO programming oſten atempts too much in what it intends to do (number and type of interventions), the number of beneficiaries it at- tempts to reach, or both. Effective integration of synergistic, cross-sectoral initiatives that have cross-sectoral outcomes is difficult without sufficient investment of time and effort by NGOs’ implementing partners, and lack of such integra- tion is not likely to boost the impact of resilience capacity– building 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