5th Africa Drought Adaptation Forum (ADAF5) Reducing Drought Risk in Africa: Measuring Impact, Strategizing for the Future

Transcription

1 5th Africa Drought Adaptation Forum (ADAF5) Reducing Drought Risk in Africa: Measuring Impact, Strategizing for the Future February, 2013 Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, Arusha, Tanzania

2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... iv Disclaimer... iv List of Abbreviations... v Executive Summary... vi 1. Background Africa Drought Adaptation Forum The UNDP Drylands Development Centre Forum Proceedings Session 1: Opening and Welcome (Chaired by Dr. Pedro Basabe, UNISDR) Welcome remarks Welcome address and opening Session 2: Introductory Session Outline of the forum objectives and structure Africa drought reduction framework: The guiding principles Key regional advocacy messages on drought resilience ECHO: Approach to drought resilience in the Horn of Africa Session 3: Community Based Resilience Assessment Methodology (CoBRA) Conceptual framework and quantitative impact assessment methodology for resilience Small group interactive session and feedback Findings and Lessons Learned from CoBRA field testing in Kenya and Uganda and Comparison of findings with group feedback, discussion on findings from field work Working group discussion (Continued), open discussions and feedback Session 4: Panel Discussion - Experiences on resilience indicators and measurement (Chaired by Paul Kimeu, NDMA): COOPIs experiences on Drought Risk Reduction Intervention Indicators: Impact Assessment for Fodder Production, Animal Health Interventions and NRM in Pastoralists and Agro-pastoralists Communities Resilience Indicators and Measurements: Remotely sensed variables A Joint Resilience Strategy for Somalia IFRC CBDRR Study, Phase 2: Latin America and the Caribbean Key Health Indicators of Drought Resilience: The Health Sector Perspective Question and Answer Break away discussion groups and presentations ii

3 2.5. Session 5: Community Resilience Recent Findings (Chaired by Dr. Emmanuel Chinyamakobvu, UNCCD) Assessing Resilience: Components, Relationships, Innovation, Continuity (CRIC) Cost-effectiveness study on DRR interventions in Health and Education sectors in the drylands of the HOA Community resilience to drought assessments: Tools and methodologies in Ethiopia Community resilience building -Kenya, Burkina Faso and Gambia Session 6: Way Forward Plenary Discussion: Way forward for CoBRA methodology Drought Online Discussion Forum Launch Key Discussion Issues for Regional Platform Session 7: Closing Session (Chaired by Ms. Anne Juepner, UNDP-DDC) Closing Remarks Forum Evaluation Appendices ADAF5 Agenda List of Participants Session 4 break way group presentation summary Evaluation Form iii

4 Acknowledgements The United Nations Development Programme Drylands Development Centre (UNDP DDC) greatly appreciates the participants who attended the Fifth Africa Drought Adaptation Forum (ADAF5) held in Arusha Tanzania for their time and for enriching the discussions with expertise and experience. Special thanks to the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) for partnering with us and ensuring that this forum was a success. We commend the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania for accepting to host ADAF5. Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations including the United Nations Development Programme, or its member states. Copyright UNDP 2013 April 2013 iv

5 List of Abbreviations ADDN ADAF5 CBDRR CoBRA COOPI DDC DFID DRM DRR DRRAP EAC EALA ECHO EU EWS FAO FGDs HoA IFRC ILRI KIIs LIME MDGs NGO REGLAP SLF UN UNDAF UNDP UNDPDDC UNICEF UNISDR VSLA WHO African Drought Risk and Development Network 5th Africa Drought Adaptation Forum Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction Community Based Resilience Assessment Methodology Cooperzone International Drylands Development Centre Department for International Development Disaster Risk Management Disaster Risk Reduction Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan East African Community East African Legislative Assembly European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection European Union Early Warning System Food and Agriculture Organization Focus Group Discussions Horn of Africa International Federation of Red Cross International Livestock Research Institute Key Informant Interviews Longitudinal Monitoring and Evaluation Millenium Development Goals Non-Governmental Organization Regional Learning and Advocacy Project for Vulnerable Dryland Communities Sustainable Livelihoods Framework United Nations United Nations Development Assistance Framework United Nations Development Programme United Nations Development Programme Drylands Development Centre United Nations Children's Fund United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Village Saving and Loan Schemes World Health Organization v

6 Executive Summary Under the framework of the African Drought Risk and Development Network (ADDN), the United Nations Development Programme Drylands Development Centre (UNDP DDC) and the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction s (UNISDR) Regional Office for Africa, jointly organized the 5th Africa Drought Adaptation Forum (ADAF5) that was held in Arusha s Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge in Tanzania between February 11 and 12, Since 2005, similar forums have been organized to create an enabling environment for knowledge sharing and to facilitate the up-scaling of proven practices among droughtprone countries, with an ultimate goal of mitigating the risks of drought, building resilience and improving human livelihoods in Africa. The drylands cover approximately 40 percent of the world where about 2.5 billon people live in nearly 100 countries. It accounts for up to 44 percent of all the world's cultivated systems. Many people living in drylands depend directly upon a highly variable natural resource base for their livelihoods, and about half of all dryland inhabitants - one billion people - are poor and marginalized. This accounts for close to half of the world's poor. The DDC takes a people centred approach, whose development objective is to contribute to rural poverty reduction and increased food security for the communities living in the rural drylands in the affected countries. The forum was sponsored by the UNDP DDC, The European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). The ADAF5 attracted 149 participants drawn from 44 Sub-Saharan African government Focal Points for DRR, experts from UN agencies, NGOs, academic and technical institutions, national, regional intergovernmental institutions, the East African Community and the Africa Union. The ADAF5 was held back to back with the Fourth Africa Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) hosted by the African Union Commission (AU) and UNISDR Regional Office for Africa. The ADAF5 ran through seven sessions. The first session was the official opening of the forum followed by an introductory session which outlined the forum objectives and expected outputs. The Community Based Resilience Assessment Methodology (CoBRA) was covered in session three with panel discussions on experiences on resilience indicators and measurements coming in session four. Recent findings on community resilience were presented in session five. Recommendations and closing of the forum were covered in sessions six and seven respectively. The objectives of ADAF5 were to; i) Understand methodologies and tools applied to build evidence of impacts e.g. Drought Risk Reduction (DRR) investments/drought risk reduction interventions, climate change adaptation practices etc. ii) iii) Exchange examples of proven impact/cost effectiveness of DRR practices Agree on a continental way forward to enhance DRR investments in the drylands based on proven good practices. Findings from the field testing of the CoBRA methodology in Marsabit (Kenya) and, Moroto and Nakapiripirit (Uganda) suggest that financial security was one of the key factors that were listed as leading to resilience. Respondents repeatedly described a resilient household as one that was engaged in successful business or trade, or had a waged family member, through government or NGO positions, or had access to capital/loans or received remittances. In order to strengthen and refine the CoBRA conceptual framework and methodology, the forum recommended that there is need: vi

7 For both generic and context specific indictors for resilience measurement To underscore the importance of context when deriving resilience indicators and their measurement For revision and wider testing of CoBRA methodology to compliment it with other methods and for comparative analysis. It was further suggested that a working group with different expertise from research and analysis be identified to strengthen the conceptual framework and methodology. For linkage with other impact assessment methodologies/tools. At the end of the forum, the key messages to be conveyed to the Fourth Africa Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction were also developed jointly as follows: Countries and institutions need to develop targets for building resilience across regions; Intra/inter sectoral coordination mechanisms/platforms must be enhanced for necessary output on drought resilience; Increased and sustainable funding for resilience is imperative to consolidate the gain made on DRR interventions; DRR initiatives must be better linked to the concept and principles of resilience; Knowledge regarding the gains made on resilience through various DRR interventions needs to be identified, documented and made available; Opportunity to replicate and scale up the proven DRR initiatives and interventions must be explored further; There is a need for sustainable funding for resilience building initiatives in Africa; The efforts to measure community resilience must be linked closely with existing regional conventions/strategies; Awareness must be improved on the community based/led approaches which are working well on resilience building in Africa; Resilience building requires a multi-sectoral and consortium-like arrangement; and African governments need to invest more on DRR and resilience building than what they are doing right now. vii

8 1. Background 1.1. Africa Drought Adaptation Forum Under the framework of the African Drought Risk and Development Network (ADDN), the United Nations Development Programme Drylands Development Centre (UNDPDDC) and the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction s (UNISDR) Regional Office for Africa, jointly organized the 5th Africa Drought Adaptation Forum (ADAF5) that was held in Arusha s Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge in Tanzania between February 11 and 12, Since 2005, similar forums have been organized to create an enabling environment for knowledge sharing and to facilitate the up-scaling of proven practices among droughtprone countries, with an ultimate goal of mitigating the risks of drought, building resilience and improving human livelihoods in Africa. The ADAF5 featured methods and tools for measuring the impact of drought risk reduction practices across the region. It also provided practical examples regarding impact and cost-effectiveness of drought risk reduction measures. The first three forums featured a wealth of good practices with ADAF4 focussing on the need for enhanced coordination, early warning and early action. The ADAF5 focussed on elements of a standardized methodology and broad introduction of applicable indicators that evaluate and aggregate short and long term changes and trends in drought resilience. The ADAF5 was held back to back with the Fourth Africa Regional Platform for DRR. Forty four Sub-Saharan African government Focal Points for DRR attended both forums along with experts from UN agencies, NGOs, academic and technical institutions, national, regional intergovernmental institutions and the African Union. ADAF5 was held over two days. The first day focussed on methodologies and tools for measuring drought resilience. The second day presented existing examples and findings which were complemented by key regional advocacy messages and examples of community level drought resilience as well as project impact indicators from the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and the Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) partners working on drought risk reduction in the Horn of Africa. 1.2 The UNDP Drylands Development Centre The Drylands Development Centre (DDC) is a thematic centre of UNDP dedicated to fighting poverty and achieving sustainable development in the drier regions of the world. It recognizes that achieving sustainable development in the drylands has significant implication for reducing poverty and hunger worldwide. The drylands cover approximately 40 percent of the world where about 2.5 billon people live in nearly 100 countries. It accounts for up to 44 percent of all the world's cultivated systems. Many people living in drylands depend directly upon a highly variable natural resource base for their livelihoods, and about half of all dryland inhabitants - one billion people - are poor and marginalized. This accounts for close to half of the world's poor. The DDC takes a people centred approach, whose development objective is to contribute to rural poverty reduction and increased food security for the communities living in the rural drylands in the affected countries. The immediate objective is to catalyse and energize the implementation of the MDGs in the affected countries by It is expected that this will result in improved livelihoods and social-economic well-being of communities in drylands. This will be achieved through: 1

9 i) Effective mainstreaming of drylands issues into development frameworks leading to budgetary allocation for implementing livelihoods options on the ground; advocacy, awareness creation and policy dialogue at national and sub-national levels. ii) Improving living standards for rural communities living in the drylands through strengthening the rural economy and creating and implementing livelihood opportunities; lessons learnt from these will inform policy and programming processes. iii) Increasing resilience and sustainability of the rural livelihoods system through improved capacity of local communities for governance and sustainable management of local resources. The DDC has a track record of over 40 years of supporting drylands development. Support from DDC is provided through its framework programme, the Integrated Drylands Development Programme (IDDP). This is delivered through the UNDP country offices in line with the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and the UNDP Country Programme Action Plans. The programme is currently operational in 15 countries in sub-saharan Africa and the Arab States and focuses on: i) Mainstreaming dryland issues including adaptation and mitigation to climate change risks into development frameworks at national and regional and local levels ii) Improving community capacity for livelihood enhancements and diversification iii) Building resilience of local communities to manage disaster risks and adapt to/mitigate the impacts of climate change iv) Promoting policy advocacy on key land governance issues and building and building capacity of decision-makers and sub-regional organizations to develop and manage sustainable land and agrarian reform programmes v) Enhancing decentralised governance of natural resources as a basis for mitigating conflicts and promoting resource based economic opportunities. 2. Forum Proceedings 2.1. Session 1: Opening and Welcome (Chaired by Dr. Pedro Basabe, UNISDR) Welcome remarks The welcome remarks were delivered by Dr. Calleb Wegoro, (Director for Productive Sectors, East African Community) on behalf of the Hon. Jesca Eriyo, (Deputy Secretary General for Productive and Social Sectors, East African Community) and Mr. Philippe Poinsot (Country Director, UNDP Tanzania). Dr. Wegoro warmly welcomed the participants to Arusha, the seat of the East African Community (EAC) and thanked the UNDP DDC, UNISDR and ECHO for organizing the forum in Arusha and inviting the EAC Secretariat to participate. He noted that although drought was a normal feature occurring virtually in all climatic regimes, its impacts in Africa had been devastating owing to Africa s high vulnerability and weak coping and response mechanisms. This phenomenon, he noted, had negatively affected all socio-economic sectors leading to poor productivity, stagnation of economic growth, famine and social conflicts, wildfires, diseases and malnutrition, human migrations, cross border conflicts, stress and discomfort and rise in crime rate. Drought also accelerate HIV/AIDS epidemic combined with high levels of food insecurity, reduced income, poverty and weak capacities for delivery of critical services by the States. He further noted that the science of weather and climate forecasting had made huge strides reliably forecasting impending droughts and that mitigation efforts therefore, required proactive approaches through preparedness, planning and management of resources once the early signals/indicators of drought were observed since the challenge of drought and 2

10 other hazards such as floods and climate change were beyond the capacity of any one country to tackle. He proposed some initiatives that could be considered in minimizing drought emergencies and food insecurity (some of which the EAC Secretariat has already put in place). These would include but not limited to: i) Drought adaptation policies and programs, if implemented effectively and at multiple scales, could help avert the negative impacts of drought and Climate Change. Adaptation must take into account existing social, political and economic tensions and avoid exacerbating them; ii) Development of autonomous drought management institutions with the necessary funding and government facilitation; iii) Development of Food Security Action Plan and establish an Early Warning System (EWS) for monitoring food shortage in the respective regions; iv) Develop and operationalize Regional Emergency plans for Pastoralists in arid and semi-arid areas addressing migrations and cross borders dynamics; v) Promoting Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) as a proactive approaches to drought risk management and climate change adaptation; vi) Sharing innovations and approaches for drought mitigation and adaptation with other regions and continents; vii) Promote joint efforts between nations and Communities in the management of natural resources; viii) Integration of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) in drought early warning systems for managing drought and post-harvest storage management; ix) Accelerate development of drought proofing structures to improve on the regional water security and storage capacities, i.e., Rain Water harvesting and better agronomical practices; and x) Making full use of Drought Advisories - Alert, Alarm and Warnings from national Meteorological and hydrological services and other providers He also reported that the EAC had developed several policy documents and instruments geared towards addressing drought, food insecurity, and natural resources managment in the region. These include: i) The EAC Climate Change Strategy ii) The EAC Climate Change Master Plan iii) The EAC Climate Change Fund iv) THE EAC Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Protocol v) The Early Warning Systems to Monitor Food Security in the region; vi) The EAC Disaster Risk Reducation and Management Strategy vii) The EALA Act on Transboundary Ecosystems; viii) The EAC Livestock Policy While extending a warm welcome to the participants on behalf of the UN team in Tanzania, Mr. Poinsot thanked the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania for hosting the forum in Arusha. He also appreciated the Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department of the European Commission for their generous financial support and for making the forum a reality. He noted that many of the countries represented at the forum had witnessed recurrent severe droughts or floods or other natural disasters with increased damage and loss which posed serious obstacles to sustainable development. He also observed that these occurrences had taught us harsh lessons of how progress on achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) could be rapidly reversed if no action was taken to further strengthen the coping mechanisms of developing countries. He further noted that while no country is fully immune to disasters associated with climate variability and climate change, we are all well aware that there is more that can be done to reduce their impacts by better preparing citizens and communities to withstand the related shocks and disruption. 3

11 He highlighted that facilitating South-South exchanges and cooperation was a centrepiece of UNDP s mandate with the goal of enabling developing countries to work together to find solutions to common development challenges such as those that were slated for deliberation at the ADAF5. In conclusion, Dr. Wegoro noted that together, we must build on and take the achievements of the Hyogo Framework for Action further and adopt a robust joint vision and concrete action, which will expand opportunities, tackle poverty and inequality, and build the resilience of countries and their communities to shocks. Reducing drought risk and building resilience offers a way for people everywhere to be equipped with the capacity to cope, to act and to rise to the daunting development challenges of the 21st century Welcome address and opening The forum s opening address was given by Mrs. Nachaghe Anna Konyo Nanai (Assistant Director, Disaster Management Office, Prime Minister's Office, Government of the United Republic of Tanzania). She thanked the UNDP DDC, ECHO and UNISDR and the other stakeholders for organizing the forum and for inviting her to officially open the forum. She gave a warm welcome to all participants and informed them that Arusha was the gateway to Tanzania s northern tourist circuit. She invited participants to take advantage of their close proximity to the Ngorongoro Crater, Mount Kilimanjaro and Lake Manyara to visit and sample the attractions. Since past droughts in sub-saharan Africa had negatively affected food security in the region 1 she hoped that the outputs of the ADAF5 would pave the way towards an agreement on a continental approach towards enhancing DRR investment and building resilience of the African continent. She lamented that the traditional approach to drought by most governments and especially those in Africa was reactionary crisis management through provision of relief or emergency assistance to the affected areas or sectors. With this approach, drought only receives the attention of decision makers when it is at the peak, which usually coincides with a time when management options are quite limited. This scenario is complicated by the fact that many African countries face institutional problems that hinder the effectiveness of national Early Warning Systems (EWS) as a consequence of lack of drought policies and strategies and political will; poor integration of knowledge and information into government structures; complex relationships between donors and governments; lack of coordination between existing local and international food security information systems and focus on emergency response rather than mitigation. She noted that the vulnerability of rural livelihood systems to drought in Africa highlights the need for any development plan to consider the issues of climate, as most of the rural poor are dependent on traditional rain-fed agriculture. She hoped that the ADAF5 would help influence African countries to come up with drought policies that emphasize on risk identification, early warning systems, awareness, knowledge management strategies, and effective mitigation and preparedness measures. With those remarks, she wished participants successful and fruitful deliberations and declared the 5th Africa Drought Adaptation Forum officially open. 1 The droughts of and , which caused widespread famine in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, affecting 25 African countries and the droughts that affected Southern Africa resulting in severe food shortages. The Horn of Africa was again severely affected in and in and more recently in , 2009 and 2011, the East African region was again hit by drought which resulted in acute hunger and malnutrition, loss of productive assets, and increased vulnerability to other risks. 4

12 2.2. Session 2: Introductory Session Outline of the forum objectives and structure The structure and objectives of the ADAF5 were outlined by Ms. Yuko Kurauchi (UNDP DDC). She pointed out that the forum hoped to: iv) Understand methodologies and tools applied to build evidence of impacts e.g. Drought Risk Reduction (DRR) investments/drought risk reduction interventions, climate change adaptation practices etc. v) Exchange examples of proven impact/cost effectiveness of DRR practices vi) Agree on a continental way forward to enhance DRR investments in the drylands based on proven good practices. She noted that the expected outputs of ADAF5 were: i) Landscape of existing methodologies and tools for impact assessments in the region ii) Exchange of proven practices iii) Action Plan to enhance DRR investments in the drylands of Africa iv) Basis for impact assessments of DRR in the drylands of Africa v) Increased capacity to integrate community DRR impact analysis methodology Ms. Yuko also took the participants through the agenda (schedule) for the ADAF5 (see appendix 5.1) Africa drought reduction framework: The guiding principles Ms. Rhea Katsanakis (UNISDR) made a presentation of the Africa drought reduction framework and the proposed elements of DRR. 5

13 She noted that the UN Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) observes that although the causes and impacts of droughts are increasingly being understood, the escalating losses associated with these events indicate that most governments have yet to find effective ways of reducing and managing the risks they pose. She further noted that; Countries with weak governance are likely to find it difficult to address underlying risk drivers which include degradation of hazard-regulating ecosystems such as wetlands, mangroves, and forests, and high levels of poverty. Drought impacts most visibly on agricultural production, with significant losses spilling over into other economic sectors. Globally, drought is still a hidden risk and locally its social and economic impacts are disproportionately concentrated on poor rural households. Despite progress in forecasting, early warning and response, few countries had integrated policies or institutional frameworks to address the drivers of drought risk with drought being rarely included within broader policy and institutional frameworks for disaster risk management (DRM). Meteorological agencies may be well equipped to provide increasingly accurate hazard assessments and warnings, but they are not responsible for addressing other risk drivers such as land use, water management, urban development and social protection. Strengthening drought risk management as an integral part of risk governance is fundamental to sustaining the quality of life in affected countries. The proposed main elements for DRR converge around the linkages between policy and governance, risk identification and early warning, awareness and education and mitigation and preparedness. Ms. Katsanakis also presented the critical elements of a contingency plan and the need for standard operating procedures. 6

14 Key regional advocacy messages on drought resilience Mr. Achiba Gargule (Regional Learning and Advocacy Project for Vulnerable Dryland Communities-REGLAP) made a presentation on resilience in the Horn of Africa (HoA). He reported that REGLAP works through three main channels: i) Regional Learning Groups which aim at developing good practice models and strengthening the base for dryland resilience promotion through Community Based approaches to DRR (CBDRR), Water Development for DRR and Strengthening the evidence base for DDR Advocacy; ii) Country Advocacy Groups which promote appropriate roll out and community consultation on country action plans for ending drought emergencies in Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda; and iii) Secretariat. Mr. Achiba made a case for key resilience principles and why they are important for the drylands. These are: i) Putting communities and local government at the centre of development and humanitarian efforts which requires that we (a) understand, respect communities, institutions and knowledge systems, (b) build the capacity and resources for local governments and (c) start from where communities are and plan with them; ii) Recognising and responding to different needs, capabilities and aspirations of different individuals, households and communities; iii) Understanding and focusing on social and ecological systems rather than individual components; iv) Promoting integrated multi-sectoral approaches across different sectors and scales; v) Increasing emphasis on longer term investments and addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability; and vi) Doing things differently, but learning from the past. There are however challenges in realising these principles. For instance, how do we: Put these principles at the centre of the resilience agenda? Make these fundamental shifts in the way we work? Improve our knowledge management so we really reflect on and learn from our mistakes donors, NGOs and governments alike? Move forward on a common vision for drylands areas with a balanced livelihood development, vibrant commercialised extensive livestock production complemented by alternative livelihoods and careful use of irrigated crop that promotes local food security and a balanced model? He observed that the current and urgent issues in resilience include securing land, education, governance and peace building and empowerment ECHO: Approach to drought resilience in the Horn of Africa Ms. Sylvie Montembault (European Commission - Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection-ECHO) presented the EU/ECHO approach to DRR. The EU defines resilience as the ability of an individual, a household, a community, a country or a region to withstand, adapt and to quickly recover from stresses and shocks. Ms. Montembault listed some steps that might increase resilience and reduce the vulnerability of the world s most vulnerable people. These include: 7

15 i) Support to the design of National resilience strategy ii) Disaster management plans and efficient early warning systems in disaster prone countries iii) Putting forward innovative approaches to risk management iv) Building on the promising results of the commission s resilience initiative: AGIR- Sahel and SHARE The DRR framework should have a multi-sectoral approach aimed at reducing risks (mainstream DRR) and improving rapid coping and adaptation at all levels such as DRR between droughts to maximise resilience to the next drought. It should also align humanitarian action with longer term development processes such as expansion/contraction rather than start/stop approaches. The framework should have an in-depth understanding of the underlying causes of vulnerability and a long-term approach to build capacity to better manage future uncertainty and change, while retaining early response capacity. It also requires a focused effort to identify resilience, of whom to what? The ECHO DRR Programming in the HoA involves a community-based approach with articulation to policy level through: Building on the achievement of past decisions, continuing to support DRR and community-based operations; Developing a library of well-documented, context-specific experiences through good monitoring, evaluation, and operational research critical for advocacy (capitalisation); and Dissemination of lessons learnt, sharing of good practices. She stressed that in order to increase the impact of our actions, we need to think of the processes beyond the project, think of transition (or transformation) rather than exit, anchor any CDRR action within existing contextual system (government), frameworks (e.g., PRSP, MDGs) and processes (decentralization) and find the balance between government-led/top down processes and community-driven/bottom-up measures. She also noted that measuring resilience was difficult and not much work had been done. This is because resilience is multi-dimensional, is temporal and there are difficulties in aggregating units of analysis and attribution of any changes in resilience to specific factors such as programmes. Ms. Montembault listed ECHO s preconditions in DRR engagement. These include the need to: 8

16 i) Align humanitarian action with development frameworks, such as the Partnership Framework Contracts and work closely with development partners (especially the European Commission's Development Aid Department) and governments; ii) Profile wealth groups and livelihoods in order to design appropriate strategies that focus on geographic areas and specific target groups; iii) Have a joint humanitarian-development framework to develop common understanding of underlying factors; and iv) Have multi-sectoral and multi-level engagements. In the interactive session at the end of Session 2, participants recommended that in presentations, it would be important to write DRR in full because when abbreviated, it is not clear whether it refers to DRR as a framework or as a hazard. From presentation 2.2.3, a participant sought to know whether there were any internal key messages from the communities themselves as what had been presented looked very much external. On the same presentation, another participant sought to know why we should focus on dropouts rather than learn from champions. All clarifications were adequately handled by the respective presenters Session 3: Community Based Resilience Assessment Methodology (CoBRA) Conceptual framework and quantitative impact assessment methodology for resilience Ms. Catherine Fitzgibbon presented the conceptual framework and methodology on behalf of her colleague Ms. Courtenay Cabot Venton who was unable to make it for the forum. She noted that the aim of the CoBRA methodology was to come up with a quantitative impact assessment framework that would: Develop a rigorous conceptual framework and standardized methodology for measuring and assessing the impacts of community-based disaster risk reduction (DRR) interventions on local/national resilience building; and Introduce broadly applicable and comparable indicators/indexes that evaluate and aggregate short - and long-term changes and trends in drought resilience as a result of various interventions comprehensively in quantitative values. This methodology will also support the development of two further aims: Capacity Development: Improve the capacity of local/national/regional disaster management institutions to plan, implement and monitor drought interventions against their contributions to long-term community resilience building. Policy Advocacy: Raise awareness among decision-makers at local, national and regional levels in the potentials of community-based DRR for drought vulnerability reduction in the Horn of Africa (HOA) and enhancing their capacity to integrate proven practices into policy and planning processes. In attempting to measure resilience, it will be importance to note that it is a: i) Multi-dimensional factor of many things e.g. development; ii) Dynamic concept and constantly changing; iii) Factor of both long term and short term interventions and strategies; and iv) Factor that varies at household level because there is need to identify the nature, scale and impact of the systemic shock(s) that affect the wider community. Drought may not be the only shock to the system. Ms. Fitzgibbon reported that the CoBRA methodology was adapted from the DFID/TANGO and EC-FAO models. These two methodologies are presented below. 9

17 The EC-FAO Model Taken from: Measuring Resilience: A Concept Note on the Resilience Tool. Alinov, Mane and Romano, 2010 Ms. Fitzgibbon made a case for a methodology to measure resilience because: i) Currently no tools exist to measure resilience as a long-term multi-dimensional concept. ii) There is need for a multi-faceted approach to prioritise interventions as appropriate. iii) Key indicators affecting resilience are not comprehensively collected using any widespread agreed methodology, e.g., insecurity or environmental degradation. iv) If resilience is to be built and development accelerated in the most disaster prone areas ( fragilesub-states ), these require closer monitoring than national data collection processes usually provide. 10

18 The following are some characteristics of a resilient community: Agricultural Practice and Technologies Adaptive Capacity Formal and informal governance Infrastructure Livelihood Strategies Ecosystem Health Access to Basic Services Income and Food Security Stability Assets Social Safety Nets The CoBRA framework was presented as shown in the following figure. The CoBRA methodology is based on the premise that resilience can be measured in two ways: i) An overall or universal measure or indicator(s) of resilience which enables us to understand whether resilience is increasing, declining or staying the same; and ii) Contextually, specific indicators or components of resilience enable us to understand how local drivers of resilience are expanding or contracting Since there is currently no accepted impact indicator to measure resilience, there is a strategic need to agree upon a meta-indicator of resilience. The following five capitals (Social, Financial, Human, Physical and Natural) were given as mapping components of resilience in a cobweb-like diagram. 11

19 The nine steps of the CoBRA methodology were summarised as given in the table below. Phase I: Preparation Step 1: Identify target groups and baseline resilience Step 2: Prepare for data collection Phase II: Field Work: Data Collection Step 3: Define characteristics of resilience Step 4: Score characteristics Step 5: Investigate pathways to resilience Step 6: Identify interventions that build resilience Phase III: Data Analysis and Reporting Step 7: Data analysis Step 8: Taking action Step 9: Repeat Monitoring of Impact and Change Small group interactive session and feedback After the CoBRA methodology presentation, each participant was asked to score resilience statements given out to them using bean-seeds. Four scoring stations/ booths were provided within the auditorium for the scoring exercise. After scoring and tallying, year round access to clean water was ranked first with 74 beans, followed by safe and secure with 57 beans. The full results of this exercise are given in the table below. Record sheet for scoring resilience statements in small groups Total score for group Statement Station1 Station2 Station3 Station4 Total Year round access to clean water Safe and secure Income has increased, diversified Household not reliant on outside help, food secure Strong community management systems, associations Access to healthcare Good governance Good land use Access to markets-can sell and buy easily, good prices Community organization, contingency planning Educated to tertiary level Access to credit/loans Quality road system Women have a leadership role Healthy animals Transformed relationships Access to communication-internet, phones etc Remittances Ecosystem health livestock (numbers, breeds, viability) Note: Statement in bold were added to the list by participants 12

20 Findings and Lessons Learned from CoBRA field testing in Kenya and Uganda and Comparison of findings with group feedback, discussion on findings from field work Ms. Catherine Fitzgibbon made this presentation and pointed out that field work was undertaken in Kenya (Marsabit) and Uganda (Moroto and Nakapiripirit) using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). The findings were mapped according to Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) categories. Marsabit findings Financial security was one key factor that was listed as leading to resilience with respondents repeatedly describing a resilient household as one that is engaged in successful business or trade, or has a waged family member, through government or NGO positions, or has access to capital/loans or receives remittances. Pastoralists highlighted some additional characteristics of a resilient household as one that: Has a large livestock holding. Has access to markets. Has a manageable household size. Sells animals in a timely manner. Has access to good pasture. Resilience building interventions were reported to have increased resilience among peri-urban/agro-pastoral households while resilience was decreasing among pastoralists. Conclusions from the Kenya study suggest that: i) The characteristics of a resilient household from communities perspective are relatively common yet unique. ii) Aspirations as to what would make them resilient are not unrealistic. iii) Most communities score incredibly poorly on their identified characteristics in good as well as bad years. iv) Resilient households are strongly associated with those that have financial security. v) The links between interventions that build resilience is better understood or clearer in communities that have access to or benefit from greater resilience building interventions. Moroto and Nakapiripirit findings A resilient household was described as one that has financial flexibility and multiple income sources, higher levels of educational attainment, a large herd size and a large household size. Resilience building initiatives included: Education particularly scholarships for secondary and tertiary education Improved health care better drug supply and in-patient facilities Access to clean water more boreholes and pumps that work year round Peace initiatives Village Saving and Loan Schemes Activities to support agriculture. 13

21 Conclusions from the study in Uganda suggest that: i) The statements/factors that make up resilience from communities perspective are relatively common and regularly cited. ii) In Karamoja, there was no clear good or bad year (not systemically disaster affected) iii) Key informant interviews reinforced these factors. iv) The interventions that are valued most highly or most desired by communities correlate closely with the most highly rated statements/ characteristics of resilience Lessons from the field testing of the draft CoBRA methodology i) There is need to map interventions in more detail There were many interventions that were not captured by FGDs or resilient households There is need for additional key informant questionnaires It may be prudent to add an extra session to FGDs for evaluative purposes ii) There is need for more systematic application There is need for expanded trialling to improve methodology There is need for sampling criteria for different populations/ livelihood zones There is also need to analyse how these data compares with large scale household surveys iii) Policy and Advocacy Information collected can inform wider debates Further funding required to continue field trialling The suggested way forward would be to expanded field testing required to address all the unknowns and systematise the methodology as well as on-going dissemination and sharing lessons with national government and other impact monitoring agencies Working group discussion (Continued), open discussions and feedback Ms. Fitzgibbon observed that the results from resilience statements scored by participants were almost similar to the findings from Kenya and Uganda. Some participants however observed that security should have ranked first because insecurity complicates all those other statements on resilience. With good security, households and communities can achieve much on their own. Other participants felt that while the list was not exhaustive, it was duplicative with many statements addressing the same thing e.g. finance. Another observation was that the statements were contextual and would therefore change from community to community. There was a rich discussion on the methodology and findings. A participant sought to know why the presenter suggested for a meta-indicator while characteristics of resilience were contextual. There was also a feeling that sampling for the test needed to have been more inclusive because it was strange that education was being listed first before livelihood streams. A participant sought to know what alternative livelihood strategies were most suitable for communities to build resilience. Another participant sought to know how the methodology introduced the concept of resilience to the community and that given the results, there was need to triangulate quantitative and qualitative data. Should we measure resilience at individual or at community level? These questions and points of clarification informed a very fruitful discussion with the conclusion that the CoBRA methodology was a good start to 14

22 measuring community resilience although much more needs to go into it before it can become robust. Participants were grouped into four units to discuss specific questions about the methodology. Group 1: Establish an overall meta-indicator of resilience. Can it be done? What should it be? This group reported that there was need for multiple indicators since the five capitals vary in different contexts/disasters. But even if a meta-indicator would be agreed upon, what would be the context? Would it be the drylands? In relation to what? What would be the unit of analysis? (Household or community?) and who sets the indicators? The group cautioned that context is important. Group 2: How can this methodology support or complement other efforts to measure resilience? The group reported that indicators used were quite broad and there was need to focus on drought. Could we look at the poverty indicator as a benchmark? Should the methodology use qualitative or quantitative approaches? The group also observed that other complimentary methodologies existed such as the technical consortium Horn of Africa, DFID, TANGO, FAO (food security), HEA, LIME (Longitudinal Monitoring and Evaluation), etc. There is however need to define whether CoBRA would be used at household or community level and the time duration (snapshots vs. continuous learning). The group also observed that CoBRA conceptual framework and methodology is already a blend of DFID/TANGO, FAO methodologies and that it was simple enough for use in understanding of resilience. The group proposed that CoBRA methodology needs to be combined with other conventional tools e.g., for statistical analysis and should be adapted to the needs of the communities. Although there is need for validation with other approaches, the methodology can inform cross-national processes. Group 3: How can the tool support specific programme evaluation? The group noted that the CoBRA methodology could supplement/complement evaluations. It could also be used to countercheck community target group priorities and provide a good baseline for subsequent evaluations. The challenges the methodology may face include too short timeframes for projects and low funding to build resilience. The group proposed that programmes should not be sector specific because resilience is multi-sectoral/programmatic. Group 4: Going forward, how should the methodology be further trialled and tested? There group noted that there is need to define the application of the methodology according to characteristics of the site such as pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, agriculturalists, urban settings and country settings/context. Other dynamics that need to be addressed by the methodology include; Time and timing e.g., should it be used before or after drought? Sampling was not clearly presented Testing and feedback Limitations There is also need to further define resilience framework at household, community and country levels and the methodology should be dynamic so as to take care of the evolution of resilience changes, e.g., past, present and future. CoBRA should also look at the resilience thresholds, e.g., low, medium and high resilience. The group proposed that there is need to use more tools to compliment the methodology such as Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), ranking as well as household interviews, mapping and standardized questionnaires. The group noted that the analysis seemed good although there was need to invest more in data collection as well as establish a multi-disciplinary technical team to look at the methodology. The group suggested that perhaps the methodology needs to be peer-reviewed and validated. 15

23 2.4. Session 4: Panel Discussion - Experiences on resilience indicators and measurement (Chaired by Paul Kimeu, NDMA): COOPIs experiences on Drought Risk Reduction Intervention Indicators: Impact Assessment for Fodder Production, Animal Health Interventions and NRM in Pastoralists and Agropastoralists Communities Mr. Isaac Kamau Wamugi of Cooperzone International (COOPI) presented results of three different interventions by COOPI in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia. These were: i) Enhancing livestock production to support vulnerable populations along Daua Riverine in greater Mandera District, Northern Kenya. Progress showed that prices of animals fed with supplement hay had over 50% to 200% increase in market sale price compared with free range animals. For the same animals, there was more than 100% improvement in milk yields. Farmers were also able to sell hay at prices of Ksh. 400 to 600 due to the prevailing drought situation and hence fetched more than the targeted Ksh. 5,000. ii) Support to drought affected pastoralists and agro-pastoralist in Mandera County, Northern Kenya. Results show that during the period, a total of 154,953 animals were given prophylactic treatment to enhance their resilience to drought. It is estimated that at least 95% of the treated animals (150,000) remained at productive state by the end of the project. iii) Enhanced drought preparedness adaptive strategies in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia. The project is expected to extend the usage of about 35,000 hectares of underutilized wet season grazing areas, by at least 4 months per year (calculated using 3.14r 2 assuming a modest usage of 4 km radius for each pan, where 1km 2 equals 100ha). From their experience, Mr. Wamugi listed good practices that contribute to resilience. These include: Appreciating the traditional mechanisms of survival and improving them, e.g., traditional early warning systems Realising that Pastoralism is a way of life- Don t kill it, strengthen it Strategic planning and placement of NRM support infrastructure using the Do no harm approach (water points, market structures, settlement centres, new agriculture land) Participatory planning and implementation of projects Resilience Indicators and Measurements: Remotely sensed variables Dr. Said Mohammed of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) presented comparative results for rainfall trends in Turkana (Lodwar) and Garissa based on 12 months Standardized Precipitation Index. The trends indicated more synchronized rainfall between Garissa and Lodwar between 1998 and 2011 whilst the period 1960 and 1998 had large variations of rainfall between the 2 districts. The presentation also covered: i) Crop indicator-length of Growing Period (LGP), ii) Vegetation dynamics in Borena, Southern Ethiopia, iii) Adaptation to climate variability in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, iv) Forage and Livestock Dynamics and v) National Drought Management Authority s Early Warning System 16

24 A Joint Resilience Strategy for Somalia Ms. Eugenie Reidy (UNICEF) presented a joint strategy for Somalia by FAO, WFP and UNICEF which involves three building blocks of concerted actions that will help the at-risk Somali society cope with crises on the basis of community initiatives. These include (a) enhanced productive sectors, (b) access to basic social services and (c) safety nets for social protection. These three building blocks contribute to resilience through improved household income, enhanced human capital, and meeting of basic needs. She observed that it is important to consider both qualitative and quantitative methods to measure resilience through household questionnaires, community consultations and other qualitative methods IFRC CBDRR Study, Phase 2: Latin America and the Caribbean Ms. Flora Tonking (IFRC) listed the objectives of the study as (a) confirm the characteristics and key determinants identified in the first phase of the CBDRR Study (conducted in Asia), to begin to identify similarities and differences between geographical regions, (b) identify and document lessons learned in the design and implementation of previous CBDRR projects in the LAC zone and (c) contribute to the technical knowledge of the IFRC. Fieldwork was carried out in 24 communities using the following methodology Key Health Indicators of Drought Resilience: The Health Sector Perspective Dr. Kalula Kalambay (WHO Regional Office in Brazzaville) noted that the WHO had spent 55 million USD on life saving operations in the African region in Of this amount, 60% went to climate (drought and floods) related interventions, 23% on socio-political related interventions, 16% on health system related interventions and 1% on risk management. He also presented the health sector drought risk measurement tools as Health Management Information System/Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response, Health VRAM, Specific surveys, e.g., malaria, HIV, Demographic Health Survey, and mortality. The key components of the Common Country Assessment were listed as: 17