A Shift in Policy Debate
I
n recent years, policy debate in the development field has increasingly centered on the concept of resilience. Resilience is defined as “a capacity that ensures
stressors and shocks do not have long-lasting adverse development consequences” (Constas, Frankenberger, and Hoddinot 2014).
Tis conceptual shiſt associated with the interest in
resilience—and the resulting changes to donor and imple- menting partner strategies—has come about for two main reasons. First and foremost, it has resulted from a recogni- tion that, although having saved lives and contributed to improved well-being outcomes, previous humanitarian assistance efforts and development initiatives have not increased the capacity of vulnerable populations to adapt to dynamic social, economic, and environmental change in a manner that substantially reduces the risks associated with future shocks and stresses. Resilience has become an oſt-heard word of late, particularly in the wake of the 2011 droughts that affected the food and nutrition security of millions in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel. It is used by different actors to portray a more coordinated and ef- fective response to large-scale events—drought, conflict, political instability, and price increases—in a manner that purports to bridge the divide between emergency and development silos. Second, the increasing focus on resilience among
donors, governments, and other policy actors has also been fueled by funding scarcity and the limited cost-effectiveness of emergency assistance in response to large-scale disaster. Te call for a shiſt in aid architecture toward greater sup-
port for longer-term initiatives to build resilience capacity has been prompted by studies demonstrating that the cost of immediate damage to life and property, coupled with the resources spent on emergency response, can be several times greater than effective disaster risk management and development programming. This Food Policy Report seeks to enhance our under-
standing of resilience processes, activities, and outcomes by examining initiatives to enhance resilience capacity that are designed and implemented by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The report examines the theo- ries of change developed by various NGOs that support resilience programming, the means by which NGOs are measuring program outcomes and impact, the challenges encountered, and the lessons learned. To demarcate resilience as a distinctive approach to development, the report then offers a set of basic principles, which in turn are used to illustrate how a selection of NGOs have implemented programs that demonstrate practical enactment of one or more of the resilience principles. Based on these analyses, the report identifies potential opportunities for effective resilience programming and highlights implications for policy as well as tackling remaining knowledge gaps.
1
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