MODULE A
ODXP
PREVENTION & RECOVERY
WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME
MODULE A: THE RATIONALE FOR FFA – THE BIGGER PICTURE ON WHY WE DO FFA
Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual
This first module of the FFA Manual deals with the broader framework on why WFP does FFA, including the policies and key strategic elements that describe FFA’s relevance to WFP. This is a useful introduction to help determine if these broader concepts and arguments for FFA are appropriate in your country setting, and may also provide some of the strategic elements and parameters in your engagement with government and other stakeholders.
i
FFA Manual Module A: The Rationale for FFA
FFA Manual Module A (2011): version 1. This module was published and made electronically available in July 2011. Where relevant, this module supersedes previous guidance on FFA interventions. Please inform ODXP’s Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here. Any updates to Module A will be outlined below (and include page numbers) to allow FFA practitioners with an older version to identify where changes have occurred:
No changes as yet.
2
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
MODULE A: THE RATIONALE FOR FFA – THE BIGGER PICTURE ON WHY WE DO FFA
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
A1. OVERVIEW: RATIONALE FOR FFA 4
THE RATIONALE FOR FFA 5
A2. FFA WITHIN WFP’S STRATEGIC AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS 8
LINKING FFA TO WFP’S STRATEGIC PLAN 8 LINKAGE OF FFA TO WFP POLICY: DRR, SAFETY NETS AND ENABLING DEVELOPMENT 12
A3. FFA IN PROGRAMME DESIGN 15
PROJECT DESIGN: LINKING FFA TO DIFFERENT PROGRAMME CATEGORIES 15 PROJECT DESIGN: STEPS IN FFA PROGRAMME RESPONSE AND DESIGN 16 PROJECT DESIGN: SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION 18 SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA AND OTHER FFA PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES & INITIATIVES 21
APPENDIX I. BANGLADESH’S COUNTRY DRR AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITIES 23
APPENDIX II. SIERRA LEONE’S SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA, NUTRITION AND SCHOOL FEEDING ACTIVITIES 24
APPENDIX III. PRC EXPERIENCES WITH FFA PROJECT DESIGN 25
APPENDIX IV. A NOTE ON DEPENDENCY 26
3
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FFA MANUAL:
Overall WFP uses approximately 12 to 15 percent of its yearly resources for assets restoration, rehabilitation
or creation under emergency, recovery and enabling development operations. Most countries receiving
food assistance increasingly promote policies and strategies requiring various forms of conditional transfers
(productive safety nets, special operations to improve access to food, disaster risk reduction, and resilience
building). It is therefore important for WFP staff (and its partners) to meet these challenges and emerging
demands. The purpose of this manual is to strengthen WFP staff understanding of the contexts that require
FFA, their selection and programmatic coherence to WFP global and local commitments, as well as main
design aspects.
The manual is divided into five modules and includes a number of Annexes:
Module A provides the overall rationale and framework for FFA within the WFP toolbox of assistance
Module B provides the analytical lens in which to determine if FFA is appropriate within specific
contexts
Module C helps define the specific FFA projects to be undertaken within these specific contexts,
depending on various factors
Module D provides the practical elements of implementing FFA
Module E provides the key elements that informs M&E for FFA
Caveats
. A limitation of this FFA manual is that it can not be fully comprehensive – the nature of FFA can be so
diverse that it would be impossible to capture all possible approaches and interventions. Therefore, this
guidance focuses largely on the response options and assets that are commonly related to WFP operations.
. A second limitation relates to the range of response options and FFA interventions related to pastoral and
urban settings. These are simply insufficient as documented experience regarding FFA from these areas has
been limited. However, there has been increased attention in several CO to both pastoral and urban
livelihoods in recent years that will bring further lessons and best practices. Furthermore, the current FFA
guidance is largely built upon documented evidence from a few countries where FFA have demonstrated
significant impact and have been documented both in terms of the processes that lead to positive results to
technical standards and work norms. It became clear to the authors that there are several other countries
with important experience (past or recent) that could not be taken into consideration or only marginally in
the drafting of these guidelines because of insufficient information. Another limitation is the level of
insufficient research information regarding FFA under different programme contexts and the often
anecdotal assumptions that tend to underplay the role and impacts of FFA (positive and negative).
. A final limitation is the lack of guidance on Food for Training (FFT) which is largely absent in these guidelines as cutting across all programme design components (school, feeding, HIVAIDS, nutrition, etc). In relation to FFA, these guidelines include FFT only in relation to the range of assets that would impact on disaster risk reduction and resilience building.
4
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
A1. OVERVIEW: RATIONALE FOR FFA
This module outlines the broader framework on why WFP does FFA, including the policies etc that describe FFA’s relevance to WFP. This is a useful introduction to help determine if these broader concepts and arguments for FFA are appropriate in your country setting, and may also provide some of the strategic elements and parameters in your engagement with government and other stakeholders. The module also provides helpful guidance on how to ensure that the arguments for FFA are well defined within your project design.
Key terms in this section: Food Assistance for Assets (FFA): is a use of food assistance (via one or more modalities) to establish or rehabilitate a livelihood asset (whether physical, natural and/or human).
FFA rationale: outlines the reasoning behind why FFA as an activity is considered a suitable entry point for food assistance, and helps to define the specific FFA interventions to undertake; is based on context analysis and research.
FFA activity: one of a project’s main entry-points to provide assistance to vulnerable food insecure groups.
FFA intervention: a site-specific intervention that falls within the FFA activity.
Land and environmental degradation are significant causes of high exposure to disaster risks even at normal
times. About twenty percent of the world's susceptible dry lands are affected by human-induced soil
degradation, putting the livelihoods of more than one billion people at risk. In Africa alone, 650 million
people are dependent on rain-fed agriculture in environments that are affected by water scarcity and land
degradation. (Fourteen African countries are subject to water stress or water scarcity due to land
degradation, and a further eleven countries will join them by 2025). These areas are also the area’s most
affected by recurrent droughts and floods, erratic weather patterns, and food insecurity.
The extreme level of fragility of many ecosystems where WFP operates is becoming the “levelling factor” of
vulnerability, gradually affecting food insecure and non food insecure alike, particularly in areas highly prone
to droughts and floods.
In most of the livelihood contexts where WFP operates, the ability of livelihood systems to maintain
productivity, when subject to disturbing forces, whether a “stress” or a “shock”, is highly diminished. Within
those contexts the poorest households are also the ones most affected by food insecurity, less resilient to
climate variability, and more involved in detrimental coping strategies. In dry land livelihood systems,
agrarian, pastoral or agro-pastoral alike, entire districts and communities may be threatened by advancing
sand dunes or crusting soils, significant crop failures due to dry spells, wind erosion, overgrazing and
reduction of tree and grass vegetation cover, depletion of water tables (from documented measurements,
etc), droughts and deterioration of water regimes during and after the short (high powered) rains (flash
floods, etc). In these environments the range and type of interventions chosen to address the food security
problem need to be linked together as part of an overall area-based (watershed, etc) or territorial units
development plan which in arid lands requires well defined technical approaches and consultative processes
within and between communities within these units. Climate change will only increase these extremes and
change weather patterns compounding these already severe problems.
5
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 1. FFA nomenclature:
FFA is also commonly known in the field as Food for
Assets, Food for Work, Food for Training, Cash for
Work, and Cash for Training (etc). The reason for the
nomenclature change is to bring FFA within WFP’s
drive towards food assistance rather than food aid.
To help guide your reading through these modules,
consistent language is used to help understand the
concepts being addressed (and which will be
summarised also in the Key Terms boxes).
Importantly:
A FFA activity is the overall choice of doing FFA in
a country – just as Nutrition or School Feeding are
also activities.
A FFA intervention is an individual set of work for
a given location. In any country, you may have
many FFA interventions to implement within your
FFA activity.
Also, a FFA rationale will be mentioned within
these modules, and outlines the reason/s why you
have chosen to do FFA as a project activity – and
the specific interventions to meet this rationale.
Commonly, various terms have been used in the
field. In this manual, FFA refers to all: Food for
Work (FFW), Cash for Work (CFW), Food for
Training (FFT), Food for Work (light/soft), Food for
Recovery etc.
Within this context, FFA programmes can help to restore or build specific assets that reduce the impacts of
shocks that contribute to food insecurity. In this way FFA programmes can achieve multiple objectives. FFA
may be selected to offer employment and rebuild community infrastructure, support access to markets,
restore the natural resource base, or protect the environment, reclaim marginal or wasted land to provide
productive assets to land poor and food insecure households, assist marginalized groups and women to
improve and diversify income sources (e.g. nurseries development, etc), promote skills transfers, etc. Many
of these interventions also reduce disaster risk and increase the capacity of households to manage shocks –
building resilience and in some cases supporting climate change adaptation.
THE RATIONALE FOR FFA
Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) is one of the key
activities – or ways – in which WFP delivers food
assistance. FFA’s key focus is on building or
recovering assets that impacts people’s food
security. It is upon this framework that any
rationale for FFA is based.
Within the broader sphere of WFP’s mandate and
focus, the selection of doing FFA in any country
should thus be in line with the WFP’s overall
strategy. This includes WFP’s Strategic Plan,
guidelines on project design, as well as policies
that inform the organisation’s work in this arena.
The section of Module A helps explain these
strategic considerations to help determine
whether FFA is an appropriate consideration for a
particular setting – or falls outside of the bounds
of WFP’s mandate.
Linked with the above, some key principles guide
decisions on doing FFA. These include:
Principle 1: Adherence to WFP’s Strategic Plan
and overall programme design guidance
processes
This first principle builds upon the Strategic
Plan’s Strategic Results Framework (SRF) and
work undertaken by WFP’s ODXP Branch to
strengthen the overall approach towards programme design through the Programme Category Review. This
guidance on project design centres on ensuring each project addresses the elements of assessed needs,
programme quality, synergies, consensus-building, and measurable results. The work has become
6
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 2. Livelihoods types:
In each module there are specific references to the
three main livelihood types that may require food
assistance and FFA: Agrarian, Pastoral and Urban.
There is significant experience in agrarian or settle
agricultural systems and less in pastoral and urban
settings, partially because both in pastoral and urban
settings there have been limited investments in assets
creation using food assistance. Pastoral areas have also
been neglected by governments and international aid
assistance (except for emergency relief at times of
shocks) for decades and rarely understood in their
complexity and relevance for national and regional
economies. Urban poverty and food crisis, as
dramatically shown in 2008 during the high food prices
crisis and in 2010 during the Haiti earthquake, demand
increased levels of preparedness and response in urban
settings, particularly in countries emerging from
conflict, those relying on imports of staples produced
in limited amounts in the country, and others affected
by climatic or multiple shocks. To this effect, the FFA
guidance manual provides a number of analysis,
potential response options and experiences that can be
used to guide field staff in the selection and design of
FFA both in pastoral and urban settings.
instrumental in aligning project design with the objectives of the Strategic Plan, and incorporates all
activities, including FFA, nutrition, school feeding etc. (See the next sections of Module A).
Principle 2: Livelihood-based approaches for physical, environmental and natural resource management
The second principle requires FFA to be designed
and programmed with an understanding of the
type/s of livelihood system any intervention
would support. The broader rationale of FFA, and
the choice of specific FFA interventions, is highly
influenced by these socio-environmental factors,
and which lies at the core of disaster risk
reduction and resilience-building efforts
(including adaptation to climatic shocks). The
focus provided in these modules has come about
due to a recognised gap in previous years, with
limited attention paid to FFA in pastoral settings
(largely supported through relief) and in urban
areas. Even within broader agricultural settings,
little distinction and guidance was available on
appropriate approaches and technologies for arid
or semi-arid areas as opposed to sub-tropical and
tropical environments, mountainous or flood
prone areas, rapid or slow onset disaster prone
environments. This FFA guidance provides specific
descriptions and recommendations regarding
these livelihood settings and the overall relevance
of the sustainable use of the natural resource
base and of the environment at large. See
Module B - Seasonal Livelihood Programming.
Principle 3: Using experience and partnerships: building upon what works and consensus-building
processes
The third principle underlines the need to focus on ensuring FFA interventions do not re-create the wheel –
they build on what works, and in particular what works after WFP support terminates in a given area, region
or country. Within the various modules, examples and approaches are provided that relate to experiences
where FFA has been particularly relevant. These experiences are not solely WFP-supported programmes but
also emanate from a vast array of other partners and agency experiences with which WFP had and often
continues to have significant partnerships.
Implementing FFA is also highly linked to the participatory and capacity building efforts made by WFP and
partners with the communities benefiting from a specific intervention, and can be the factor that leads to
7
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 3. Participation nomenclature:
Participation of communities, government and other stakeholders is considered an essential ingredient in successful project implementation. Nevertheless, the use of this popular term of “participation” can get confusing, given the numerous ways in which it is used. There are three key types of participatory processes – each occurring at different levels – that are explained in these modules: - Strategic participation: this ensures coherence with major commitments WFP has made (as
outlined in Module A); this may involve consultations with government and donors to ensure congruence with their major policy frameworks
- Programming participation: involves various stakeholders and experts to identify the contextual facets that help to define appropriate seasonal livelihood programming for the broader FFA activity rationale; outlined in Module B.
- Community participation: the on-the-ground participatory approaches used with communities and local stakeholders to ensure validation and mobilisation in the design and implementation of specific FFA interventions; outlined in Module C.
either success of failure of an activity in the field. More information on participatory planning and the
capacity building that can be achieved from such community work is provided in Module C.
8
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
A2. FFA WITHIN WFP’S STRATEGIC AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS
WFP’s mandate is to help groups and communities who are vulnerable to food insecurity; this is achieved
through WFP’s tool-box of food assistance and logistical support. WFP’s Mission Statement specifically
outlines that such food assistance should aim:
“ - to save lives in refugee and other emergency situations;
- to improve the nutrition and quality of life of the most vulnerable people at critical times in their
lives; and
- to help build assets and promote the self-reliance of poor people and communities, particularly
through labour-intensive works programmes.”
As agreed with WFP’s governing body (the Executive Board), a set of parameters is used to govern and
measure WFP’s work, and which help to ensure WFP stays within its mandate and mission. These
parameters include (i) the Strategic Plan, (ii) policies adopted by the Executive Board, along with (iii) internal
management processes including the Project Review Committee and various guidance documents (including
the Programme Category Review and these modules) to ensure the best possible outcomes for the
beneficiaries WFP aims to assist.
This part of the module helps explain how the strategic and policy parameters – or frameworks – relate
specifically to FFA.
Key terms in this section: Strategic Plan: lays the framework for potential action for WFP. [The Strategic Plan 2008-2013 marks a historic shift from WFP as a food aid to a food assistance agency.]
Strategic Results Framework: outlines the measurement of WFP’s performance against the Strategic Plan.
Policy framework: a set of policies, each policy approved by the Executive Board that outline WFP’s role in a given area of work.
LINKING FFA TO WFP’S STRATEGIC PLAN
WFP’s Strategic Plan (2008-2013) draws on WFP's operational experience and establishes the organisation's
direction and management priorities. It acknowledges that WFP no longer acts solely as a food aid agency,
but one that provides enhanced analysis on the causes of hunger, works in partnership by supporting
governments and the global work on long-term hunger solutions and alleviates hunger and nutrition needs
through food related and cash modalities. It is a framework for action based on five Strategic Objectives
(SOs).
The Strategic Results Framework (2008-2013) is the basis of WFP’s measurement of its performance against
the Strategic Plan, and which enables WFP to translate its mandate and strategy into tangible outcomes. The
framework helps WFP to demonstrate to what degree it has achieved its Strategic Objectives and the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
9
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
FFA is a core component of WFP’s priorities. FFA primarily is aligned to Strategic Objectives (SO) 2 and 3, but
can also have a specific role during emergencies (SO1) and in capacity development (SO5). The main
relevance of FFA to the Strategic Objectives is summarised as:
- Improving access to food during emergencies (linked to SO1)
- Improving access to food, and restore and rehabilitate destroyed or damaged access to food,
productive and social infrastructure for communities affected by shocks and in transition situations
(SO3)
- Improving access to food, reduce risks and build resilience to shocks (SO2)
Further details on the alignment of FFA’s relevancy to the Strategic Objectives are shown in Table 1. This
relevancy should be considered against the framework of any project design incorporating FFA activities.
Without such an alignment, justification of FFA may not be clear enough to the Project Review Committee
(PRC) as it reviews a project document, and can hinder the approval of a project containing FFA. See the PRC
Survival Guide (Box 6) below for some hints in preparing your project document.
Core elements of FFA against Strategic Objectives:
Three core elements emerge out of FFA’s potential contributions to WFP’s Strategic Objectives, as is
highlighted above. These involve the concepts of improving access and resiliency through asset building,
restoration or rehabilitation.
Importantly, FFA activities that focus on building resilience, reducing disaster risk, and where possible
supporting climate change adaptation need to directly address food security needs, and food access in
particular. Making this link is critical in grounding WFP programmes within the policy framework of the
organisation. FFA rationales should balance the requirements of the relevant programme category the
project falls within, with the strategic objectives the project aims to support, while directly linking improved
food security with reduced disaster risk and climate change adaptation outcomes.
Access:
FFA can improve access to food through activities such as feeder roads and specific
rehabilitation works. Such activities may be the correct measure to apply across all of
the different programme categories to meet different or multiple objectives.
During an emergency, the repair of feeder roads allows access to food and avoids
interruptions in relief supply. During early recovery phases roads enable people access
to food in poorly served markets or allow the delivery of food and cash handouts faster.
For longer term recovery and development, feeder roads enable the flow of goods
produced in a reclaimed area to move to other markets and help raising income levels
of farmers or commercially off take livestock from a pastoral area affected by drought.
10
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Resilience:
FFA can strengthen communities and households’ resilience in impoverished and
depleted environments, and to support adaptation against recurrent extreme weather
events, largely attributed to climate change. In many countries, the increased
frequency and intensity of shocks caused by extreme weather events compound on
already degraded landscapes and fragile livelihood settings see details in Module B.
The role of FFA in arresting soil erosion, reducing floods, increase moisture into the soil
profile, harvest water, and increase vegetation cover, are all aspects linked to the
reduction of the impact of shocks, and increase the ability of households to diversify
their sources of income. If applied at a significant scale, FFA can also contribute to
reduce climatic risks or foster adaptation to climate change induced effects.
Box 4. Livelihood Assets
FFA aim at reinforcing, restoring or rebuilding a number of community and household assets
and, to the extent possible, household capabilities.
Household assets relate to 5 different types of capital:
Physical capital: livestock; tools, equipment, and draught power; infrastructure such as
roads, schools, health centres etc.
Natural capital: land size and quality of the plots such as their fertility and productivity,
availability of livestock, grazing land, pastures and/or fodder sources, sufficient source of
energy and construction materials (woodlots, trees, subsidized means, etc), availability of
water for domestic and productive use, tools and often, draught power, etc;
Economic or Financial capital: cash, credit/debt, savings, and other economic assets.
Human capital: the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health and physical
capability;
Social capital: the social resources (networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations,
associations) upon which people draw when pursuing different livelihood strategies
requiring coordinated actions.
Household capabilities relate to farming and/or herding skills, access to market information and technology, ability to manage credit, status and propensity to innovation.
11
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Table 1: Aligning FFA with WFP’s Strategic Objectives
SO Description of FFA’s relevancy to WFP’s Strategic Objectives
SO1
1.1.1.1 Save lives and protect livelihoods in emergencies
FFA may be critical during emergencies to restore life-saving food supply lines and access to food,
helping people and communities rebuild assets after the disaster.
SO2
1.1.1.2 Prevent acute hunger and invest in disaster preparedness and mitigation measures
FFA for resilience building and disaster risk reduction can be relevant as robust disaster
mitigation, risk reduction and adaptation to increased climate variability interventions. In this
regard, FFA interventions can be implemented as major efforts to reduce environmental
hardships and increase access to food while restoring natural and physical assets. Grassroots
based coalitions of partners can be developed based on their respective comparative advantage
for more integrated and complementary FFA interventions.
FFA are often selected to tackle food insecurity in areas already affected by severe land
degradation and multiple shocks – i.e. increasingly recurrent extreme weather events (e.g.
storms, floods, droughts), conflicts (e.g. competition over natural resources), and economic crisis
(e.g. high food prices). In this regard, specific FFA activities would support targeted responses
together with partners. For example, environmental awareness, risk reduction and mitigation
planning, nursery establishment, homestead agro-forestry and vegetative fencing, treatment of
sub-watersheds with high value trees, women groups sensitization and empowerment, feeder
road construction and enhanced skills for repairs of roads, productive ravine/gully treatment,
seed collection and storage of specific valuable seed species, etc.
SO3
Restore and rebuild lives and livelihoods in post-conflict, post-disaster or transition situations
FFA will contribute to restore and rebuild lives and livelihoods in post disaster and transitional
situations. FFA (cash and/or food based) are particularly relevant after rapid onset shocks and
flood affected areas, through labour-based restoration of key assets, but also to restore and
rehabilitate key productive and social assets following conflict or multiple shocks, and transitional
investments following a protracted crisis and the return to stability.
SO4 Reduce chronic hunger and undernutrition
The link between SO4 and FFA is indirect (and potentially complementary).
SO5
Strengthen the capacities of countries to reduce hunger, including through hand-over strategies and local purchase
FFA based on lessons learned from integrated and effective responses can also become
instrumental in policy and strategic guidance, capacity building and experience sharing. In
particular to strengthen the capacities of governments, etc for example to reduce hunger through
the incorporation of livelihood assets restoration, preparedness and risk reduction efforts, as well
as resilience building interventions into policies (e.g. PSRP) and strategies, as well as into
government sectors’ plans (e.g. environment and agriculture). Lessons learned from FFA
programmes can be adopted as national or sub-national tools for grassroots level planning and
methodological approaches able to inform targeted programmes for the most vulnerable strata of
the population. These efforts can also provide relevant inputs and frameworks for the design and
implementation of productive safety net programmes.
12
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
LINKAGE OF FFA TO WFP POLICY: DRR, SAFETY NETS AND ENABLING DEVELOPMENT
In addition to FFA’s linkage to the Strategic Plan and relevant programme categories, three policies provide a
broader paradigm upon which FFA rests within WFP’s mandate. These outline WFP’s role in the areas of:
(i) Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR);
(ii) Safety Nets; and
(iii) Enabling Development.
Each of these policies are outlined below.
(i) Policy on Disaster Risk Reduction (WFP, 2011):
DRR results from a wide range of measures taken to prevent, mitigate or reduce the likelihood of disasters
occurring and/or to lessen the impacts of those that do occur. It implies the need to minimise the negative
impact of natural and other hazards. Similarly,
considerable DRR is achieved through good
preparedness measures and preventative Early
Warning Systems. For example, communities
are provided with timely information about
the likelihood of a disaster and know where to
take refuge during a flood or cyclone event.
However, reducing risks of disasters also
means the ability to induce or generate,
amongst communities and households, the
capacity to withstand their impact and
significantly reduce their effect. In this regard,
FFA created or rehabilitated in disaster prone
areas can protect communities from the
effects (or limit the damage) of natural
disasters, while contributing to increase their
resilience to shocks (e.g. reduced household
vulnerability). In other words, better
adaptation against climatic shocks.
The DRR policy:
The link between food insecurity and natural disasters, and the importance of preparing for, preventing and
mitigating the impact of disasters are central to WFP’s mission. In both emergency and development
contexts, the overall aim of WFP assistance is to build the resilience and self-reliance of the most food-
insecure populations.
Disaster risk reduction is cross-cutting and bridges emergency response, recovery and development. This is
recognized in the WFP Programme Category Review, which stresses that many relief and recovery
Box 5. Linking FFA to WFP policies: considerations
Some important considerations in the linkage of FFA
activities to WFP policies incorporate the below two core
points:
FFA needs to contribute towards addressing a real
food security issue – primarily this is access to food –
while contributing to one or more of the Strategic
Objectives outlined above which in turn are
programmatically disciplined by the Programme
Category Review work.
The use of terms such as “resilience” and “reducing
impact of shocks” or “risk reduction” and
“adaptation” are often used with great flexibility in
explaining similar and often complementary
objectives and desired outcomes. One of the most
essential underlying elements is that these outcomes
inform the status of the natural resource base and
the overall fragility of ecosystems currently under
pressure. See the Programme Note on Resilience
Building, Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to
Climate Change
Ensuring these concepts are incorporate builds credibility
13
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
operations present unique formal and informal opportunities to assist communities and local institutions in
building their resilience and capacities against shocks. The programme category review also highlights three
priorities for WFP development programmes that directly support disaster risk reduction for food-insecure
households: i) mitigating the effects of recurring natural disasters in vulnerable areas; ii) helping poor
families to gain and preserve assets; and iii) helping households that depend on degraded natural resources
to shift to more sustainable livelihoods, improve productivity and prevent further degradation of the natural
resource base.
“In 2005, more than 180 countries adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), followed in 2007
by the Bali Action Plan to combat climate change. These represented a global emphasis on reducing
disaster risk, leading WFP to take more concerted and coherent action to support governments’
disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation efforts”.
A number of interventions related to building resilience at households and/or communities levels are
directly related to the capacity to better adapt to the increased recurrence of weather hazards and
predictable disasters, hence also to the weather variations induced by climate change. Some countries such
as Bangladesh illustrate the need to build resilience as a survival imperative (see Appendix A-I: Bangladesh).
Other countries, like Ethiopia, Haiti and Burundi, depict the close relationship between land degradation and
the increased exposure either to droughts and/or to tropical storms.
In most countries prone to disasters, the choice of the type of FFA interventions will be logically driven by a
sequence of interventions. Such interventions may move from quick repairs during and after shocks (for
example a storm), to the restoration of essential infrastructure significantly damaged by some of these
shocks, and thereafter towards more consolidated works aimed at building resilience over a longer period
of time, which is important to avert or mitigate the impact of similar disasters.
More specific references to the role of WFP in Disaster Risk Reduction
http://go.wfp.org/web/wfpgo/thematicareasclimatechange and Adaptation to Climate Change
http://go.wfp.org/web/wfpgo/thematicareasclimatechange are found in the PGM link. These references
also include a range of new tools such as the Weather Index and Insurance Schemes pilots, and various links
to papers and case studies related to WFP efforts in DRR and adaptation.
(ii) WFP and Safety Nets: Concepts, Experiences and Future Programming Opportunities – WFP 2004):
The Safety Nets policy refers to FFA in the form of public (community) labour-intensive works that provide
conditional transfers to unemployed beneficiaries or people able to provide labour during specific periods of
the year and create assets to benefit the community or public at large.
In terms of FFA, public and community works can function as a safety net by providing wage employment for
vulnerable groups with surplus labour, while building assets that benefit households and communities. FFA is
likely to be most effective as a safety-net activity in settings with high unemployment, need for labour-
intensive works and capacity to oversee design and implementation.
14
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Consistent with the Enabling Development policy, WFP's FFA programmes are Community based
interventions that have clear exit strategies, and benefit both the local community and individual
households.
(iii) Enabling Development Policy (WFP, 1999)
The Enabling Development policy is most relevant for FFA within the context of Country Programmes (CP)
and Development Projects (DEV) aligned to UNDAF, One UN efforts, PRSP and other strategic frameworks.
FFA supports three of the five priority areas that relate to the policy:
Help poor families to gain and preserve assets. All WFP asset creation interventions should result in
a lasting asset for the poor family or community. The assets created should result in a permanent
improvement in the beneficiaries’ life or livelihoods. Targeted beneficiaries (those receiving the food
aid and undertaking the intervention) should gain the major benefits from the assets created.
Mitigate the effects of recurring natural disasters in vulnerable areas. In countries subject to
recurring natural disasters, WFP development food aid should help prevent or mitigate disasters that
pose threats to food production or livelihoods. These activities will be targeted to populations in
disaster-prone areas whose coping strategies are insufficient to meet food needs when a natural
disaster occurs.
Helping households that depend on degraded natural resources to shift to more sustainable
livelihoods, improve productivity, and prevent further degradation of the natural resource base. This
includes measures to support shifts from unsustainable to sustainable natural-resource
management practices and to stabilize areas subject to slow resource degradation.
15
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
A3. FFA IN PROGRAMME DESIGN
Designing any project requires a contextual understanding of the situation to build a solid rationale for WFP
response. Given the high complexity of issues that FFA addresses, such context analysis can be particularly
in-depth and involves a large amount of stakeholder consultation to define the FFA rationale. Some of the
broader design elements for project design – and their specific relevancy for FFA – are outlined in this
section of the module.
As a start, however, some guidance on the “bigger picture” of project design – identifying the appropriate
programme category – is provided; this stems from a recent review process to help ensure WFP keeps within
its mandate. Introductory information for consideration in selecting the right FFA interventions is also
provided here (and outlined more in Annex A-1, Module B, Module C and Module D).
Key terms in this section: Programme category: is the category given to a project – either EMOP, PRRO or CP/DEV – that outlines WFP’s focus of assistance in terms of humanitarian or development objectives.
Project Review Committee (PRC): is the body that reviews and/or agrees upon a project’s design (as presented in a project document) for formal approval at a higher level.
Synergies: where different activities designed together can achieve more coordinated/comprehensive and targeted outcomes for beneficiaries.
PROJECT DESIGN: LINKING FFA TO DIFFERENT PROGRAMME CATEGORIES
Whether in an emergency or developmental context the overall aim of WFP assistance is to build the
resilience and self-reliance of the most food insecure populations (WFP Mission Statement). The corporate
shift from food aid to food assistance, including the inclusion of new tools such as cash and vouchers, has
changed the programming landscape for WFP. The development of food assistance programmes is currently
regulated by the recommendations of the Programme Category Review, including what is required in terms
of consultative processes that inform a better (and shared) understanding of the causes of food insecurity,
and the selection of adequate programme responses and their design for quality implementation.
The Programme Category Review (EB 2010) was an exercise conducted to help ensure that project design
was more in line with WFP’s corporate strategy, as outlined in the Strategic Plan. This came about due to
difficulties for countries to translate project activities and Strategic Objectives to WFP’s programme
categories – i.e. emergency operations (EMOPs), protracted relief and recovery operations (PRROs) and
country programme (CP) or development (DEV) projects. The work on programme categories was
presented to the Executive Board in June 2010, helping to bring discipline WFP activities within these major
programme categories.
16
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 6. Which programme category does FFA fit in my project?
A common question asked by field and programme staff is to which programme category their FFA activity would fall within. Is the FFA activity more suited to an early or an extended recovery phase, or to an enabling development setting?
Overall, the below rules should apply: (i) EMOPs respond to sudden, slow onset and/or complex
emergencies (ii) PRROs respond to recurrent emergencies while investing
on the recovery of populations affected by the shocks and the persistence or a combination of aggravating factors
(iii) CPs and development projects invest in preventing hunger and food insecurity in areas where food assistance can create the enabling conditions required to access developmental opportunities and capacitates Government to take over these responsibilities.
There are obvious linkages and context specific nuances to be taken into consideration when applying these criteria. However, there are aspects such as recovery linked to shocks that need to be adhered to – recovery linked to shocks means these shocks should have occurred within a reasonable time span (2-5 years maximum) and the food insecurity status of affected populations is largely related to the shock (s) and not to other subsequent or different causes.
Within this framework, FFA specifically
translates to either:
(i) Supporting immediate access to food
and protect livelihoods at times of crisis
(EMOP);
(ii) Protecting and enhancing livelihoods
during and after protracted emergencies
(PRRO) for early recovery, and/or;
(iii) Enabling development opportunities
that offset future shocks and strengthen
resilience (CP/DEV projects).
Annex A-1 provides summary tables that
match the broader selection criteria for FFA
against specific programme categories. It is
not prescriptive and should be used flexibly,
taking into consideration the guidance in
Module B, Module C, and Module D which
elaborate on specific FFA interventions
based on livelihood contexts and typologies
of shocks, and the practical elements of
implementing FFA in a specific context.
PROJECT DESIGN: STEPS IN FFA PROGRAMME RESPONSE AND DESIGN A FFA response is the result of a number of analysis and consultative processes as any other programme
activity. The set of processes that apply for overall programme design as per the Programme Guidance
Chapeau also apply for FFA.
In project design, any FFA response should address the following questions:
Is there a major food insecurity issue (e.g. problems in access to food), a major depletion of assets, and
known causes that may require FFA as a response?
Does the context and risk analysis indicate a role for FFA to restore household and community assets?
Has a livelihood seasonal programming exercise taken place with stakeholders to identify and discuss
broad response options, including FFA? If not, how to organize one.
Have capacity aspects been analysed and FFA response options calibrated against these elements of
programming? Have FFA responses been chosen accordingly and their description and design accurately
done?
17
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Are policies and strategies of government conducive to programme responses that include FFA as
integral part of reconstruction, resilience building or labour based productive safety net strategies and
programmes? What gaps exist and how to address them?
Are lessons from best practices and evaluations, including cost effectiveness and efficiency, being
incorporated into the response and design of FFA?
The context analysis of and risk factors and seasonal facets (Module B) help outline the broader concepts for
then commencing FFA project design and intervention options (Module C), and finally to implementation
(Module D). The following diagram explains in broader terms the process of FFA programming.
Once the potential response option is identified, FFA components may needs to consider: (i) the transfer modality (i.e. food and/or cash/voucher); (ii) the type of conditionality which is attached to any FFA; (iii) the capacity to design and implement specific FFA; and (iv) the period (i.e. seasonal pattern) that will, overall, improve access to food through FFA.
18
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 7. PRC Survival Guide
If you’ve prepared your project document and are about to share it with the Project Review Committee, it’s
worthwhile to run through the below checklist one final time…
Proposed objectives linked to the food security status of vulnerable population and local contexts.
Project objectives clearly linked to achieving food security outcomes.
Strong analysis of climate and disaster risk, and their impact on food security.
Livelihood types, seasonality, and livelihoods strategies at the centre of programme design.
Not all FFA programmes will have DRR and/or adaptation to climate change objectives or benefits.
Where DRR and support to climate change adaptation will be given a focus, FFA projects should
demonstrate that adequate partnerships and capacity to ensure that timely material, technical and
human resources will be provided is in place.
When programmes focus on adaptation to recurrent climatic shocks attributed or exacerbated, amongst
other factors, to climate change, clear links with national policies and plans, including National
Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs) must be made.
Capacity of WFP, government, and partners clearly assessed and spelled out.
Humanitarian interventions are linked to the shock(s) that the population is coping with or recovering
from.
Target households have insufficient coping capacity to ensure they can meet their food needs in the
face of a disaster.
FFA programmes are at a scale required to achieve a realistic impact.
A realistic timeframe to achieve the desired results is provided.
See Appendix III for some further “lessons learnt” experiences in PRC approvals of projects with FFA activities.
PROJECT DESIGN: SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION
Several key factors characterise the options of different FFA project types and interventions to be selected.
A broad set of four intervention domains can be outlined, based on context and typology of shocks, the
level and causes of vulnerability, the capacity of partners to support different interventions, and the
comparative advantage of WFP in such contexts. In short, the choice of “what type” of intervention must be
driven by what is suitable within each context.
These four main FFA intervention domains are outlined below. Note that there is a degree of complexity
when moving from “protection” to “restoration”, and “rehabilitation” to “reclamation”. However, many of
19
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
these intervention areas are also incremental or complementary as two or more can also occur together or
simultaneously. What is important to understand is what the interventions intend to achieve.
1. Livelihood protection: protecting assets at times of or immediately after shocks. For
example, providing households with seasonal transfers in exchange of productive efforts in
improving land productivity, reinforce shelters and clear drainage lines, etc. These
interventions may consider seed protection in areas with clear and ascertained need for this
specific activity.
2. Assets Restoration: Restoring productive and social assets, particularly those which impact
access to food and to social services. Many of these interventions occur immediately after
sudden onset or recurrent shocks.
3. Assets Rehabilitation: they imply rebuilding and reinforcing productive assets required to
improve access to food, land productivity, and to increase resilience. Rehabilitation often
implies a level of quality which is higher that “restoration” – the latter often used to indicate
post emergency repairs of main assets. Rehabilitation, particularly if intended as land
rehabilitation and natural resources management, implies a level of quality and integration
that is often much higher than simple restoration. It also implies a level of quality and
strength of assets that is higher than the one that existed prior to the shock.
4. Reclamation: rebuild or re-generate/create assets previously without or with very low
productivity to a productive or protective livelihood function.
Most relevant in the considerations of complexity are the aspects related to capacity, with the need to select
FFA interventions that match existing and expected levels of capacity, particularly for FFA required during
and immediately after emergencies and/or in contexts where capacities are low. For low capacity locations,
one should adopt a gradual process from simpler interventions to more complex ones based on capacity
development.
Simplistically, viewing the context within the limitations of capacity, FFA can be divided into two broader
types of intervention:
(i) Low tech-low risk interventions: require limited capacity building and can be undertaken by
communities and households with little training and external support (with the exception of tools).
These activities do not create major environmental risks or require specific health and hazard prevention
facets (with the exception of some basic precautions and protection gear in specific contexts; Module C
provides examples of this, such as cleaning canals, etc).
(ii) High tech-high risk interventions: implies that these FFA require some specific training or capacity to be
in place. The use of the term “high-tech” may provide the impression of complicated activities.
CO
MP
LEX
ITY
20
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 8. A note on low-tech, low-risk FFA:
Low-tech, low-risk FFA should not be considered equivalent to low quality FFA but as way to provide food to beneficiaries for something useful: they can be designed to accommodate an emergency and/or low capacity context. This is what is defined as low-tech low-risk activities: simple, useful interventions, identified as valuable labour-based interventions by stakeholders and communities.
For example, if clearing canals or de-silting water pans are selected as an appropriate FFA activity to provide employment to food insecure and shock-affected people, then like any other FFA intervention, one should establish proper work norms, agreements on working periods and targeting criteria.
Conversely, road sweeping and filling pot holes are not acceptable FFA interventions, and exposes WFP to considerable criticism, especially in regards to the argument of creating “dependency” (see Appendix IV) once people get used to receiving a wage in exchange for poor quality work that does not meet WFP’s objectives. This is even more problematic when the very same beneficiaries are moved to involvement in more complex FFA interventions; people may be reluctant to accept higher work standards for the same entitlement. This can also apply also when FFA in the form of FFW (or CFW) becomes a compulsory response modality within a country policy – and it calls for the establishment of proper standards and work norms for any planned intervention using food assistance, including those considered as “simple” interventions.
There may be other types of interventions (i.e. low tech-high risk and high tech-low risk), yet the majority of
FFA fall into the two main categories indicated above. The degree of complexity of FFA may also vary
depending on the circumstances, however in all cases a standard level of quality needs to be guaranteed for
all FFA activities. In other words, low technical FFA should not be confused as low quality efforts.
More information on these options is outlined in Module C and Module D – the latter also providing useful
info-techs in Annex D-1 to help with quality FFA implementation.
Such decision-making should fall within the broader FFA rationale or objectives identified for your project,
but are normally focused on one or more of the below seven broader foci:
(i) Physical soil and water conservation
(ii) Flood control and improved drainage
(iii) Water harvesting
(iv) Soil fertility management and biological soil conservation
(v) Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry
(vi) Gully Control
(vii) Feeder roads.
The options within each of these broader objectives may be further refined based on the agro-climatic and
livelihood contexts for a specific intervention. The technical design of the intervention may also be altered
depending on the location, be it:
arid/semi-arid land
tropical, sub-tropical and highland environments
flood-prone environments
broader community and market infrastructure and other assets.
Such technical considerations are detailed further in Module D.
21
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 9. FFA and Gender:
The range of FFA interventions most appropriate for women or
most vulnerable and marginalized households will be discussed in
detail in Module C, particularly at planning and selection of the
interventions stages. Many of the synergies identified earlier,
regarding FFA and nutrition as well as school feeding, benefits
women, girls and most vulnerable groups.
It is important that FFA and assets rehabilitation in rural settings
(i.e. watershed rehabilitation) involves the community at large,
and follow a logical sequence of interventions which includes the
modalities for targeting and support. Specific priorities for women
such as access to clean and safe water may only be possible only
after an entire section of a catchment is treated - for example
with trenches for tree planting and terracing to protect cultivated
fields – with the ultimate result being the replenishment of the
water table enabling shallow wells to be dug, or excess runoff
diverted into water ponds. In this case, a top priority for women
such as water is achieved through a mix of interests equally
shared between men (cultivated fields protection) and women
(woodlots establishment).
SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA AND OTHER FFA PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES & INITIATIVES
FFA is a programme component that is highly complementary and synergetic with other programme
activities and initiatives. For instance:
GFD: FFA during an emergency can repair roads, allowing the provision of GFD or nutritional support to
needy isolated or previously cut off communities.
DRR: FFA is closely linked to disaster risk reduction in flood prone areas and the range of measures such
as construction of shelters on higher grounds, flood control systems and water catchment protection.
Protection and safety-nets: FFA in early recovery provides livelihood protection and restoration
opportunities, supporting access to food and markets while complementing activities such as school
feeding and nutrition.
School Feeding: FFA can complement a variety of efforts such as school feeding through school gardens,
creation of school-based woodlots, take-home “green rations” in the form of fuel efficient stoves or tree
seedlings for planting at homestead level, environmental training and awareness, etc.
Nutrition: With regards to nutrition, FFA linked to the rehabilitation of watersheds enable a range of
measures that can (or should) improve the overall nutritional condition of targeted communities, of
children in particular. For example, stabilised catchments replenish water tables that provide clean and
safe water through springs that can be developed, enables the introduction of water harvesting systems
and horticulture production,
beekeeping and increased
amount of fodder or improved
grazing areas. The introduction of
fruit trees and other species such
as legume shrubs often increase
the protein intake or enable
extension efforts in the area of
nutrition to advocate or create
better awareness at community
level. (Appendix II shows an
example of synergies between
FFA, School Feeding, and
Nutrition in Sierra Leone).
Local purchases: Other major
synergies include FFA and local
purchases. For instance,
interventions such as feeder
roads, swamp land rehabilitation
22
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
and other land management interventions with P4P type of efforts or possible home-grown school
feeding programmes. As the watersheds will start generating surpluses of specific commodities, a P4P
pilot could actually start in these sites and support a virtuous cycle of local purchase-expansion of
watershed rehabilitation, hence the development of the natural resource base which also benefits from
carbon credits.
Gender: FFA and synergies with gender aspects – FFA in rural contexts are key to:
- Reduce environmental hardships of women and girls who are tasked, for example, to collect water
and firewood – tasks that become major burdens during droughts or in depleted ecosystems where
several hours are dedicated to fulfil these heavy duty works
- Rehabilitate assets that target women groups, or are divided equally between men and women. For
example: rehabilitation of overgrown cocoa plantations, or establishment of women groups to
manage nurseries, woodlots, and water development.
- Promote livelihood investments at homestead level – privileged areas for women, the elderly, the
land poor, and the landless. There are a number of major investments that can be made at
homestead levels, which can impact most favourably on livelihoods, improved resilience and
increased incomes for these target groups. These efforts are linked to other wider community level
interventions but specifically geared towards optimizing space and capacities around homesteads.
Complementary partnerships: Synergies built around FAO-IFAD-WFP complementary partnerships in
specific districts or communities can be an excellent entry point for multiple and integrated assets
creation. These areas can lead the way for interventions of scale, and also become training centers for
local technicians and farmers’ groups. A number of similar efforts can be initiated with organizations
such as UNEP, UNDP, ILO, GTZ and various NGOs. FFA using food or cash resources can complement and
often accelerate the expansion and adoption of a number of activities and techniques provided these
are: 1) integrated and offer immediate benefits to farmers, 2) implemented in a technically sound
manner, and 3) established and maintained by the beneficiaries of the interventions.
Carbon financing opportunities: Participatory watershed development including tree planting, land
management and energy saving efforts can become an important source of revenue for communities
engaged in these activities. There are a number of procedures that need to be followed to access these
revenues and that need specific training or specialized institutions to undertake them.
23
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
APPENDIX I: BANGLADESH’S COUNTRY DRR AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITIES Considerations for Country Strategy Development (2010)
Bangladesh is one of the countries in the world most at risk of weather induced shocks, such as floods,
tropical storms and cyclones, river erosion and droughts. These disasters are compounded by fragile
geophysical characteristics (sandy soils, sea level altitude, and geographical position at the ‘end outlet’ of
major regional water basins, etc), very high population pressure, and high incidence of extreme poverty.
As a result, Bangladesh has perhaps one of the highest levels of vulnerability regarding the longer term
effects of climate change, particularly in terms of rising sea levels and its potential catastrophic effects.
Every year at least 20% of the country is flooded, while during bad years, flooding can reach over 60% of the
total land. Moreover, seasonal and localized droughts affect over 40% of the country and 50% of the
population. The twinning between droughts and floods is also common and creates major hazards. The most
vulnerable and food insecure population lives near river banks, landslide prone areas and areas with high
incidence of destructive flooding and cyclone hazards.
A DRR focused approach recognizing seasonality as a key variable of hunger for the fragile and shock prone
livelihood settings of Bangladesh should focus on:
(i) The systematic use of existing vulnerability and food security analytical capabilities of the VAM unit,
particularly the strengthening of VAM’s critical role in Early Warning and of increasingly integrated
vulnerability and food security analysis; and
(ii) The need to build resilience of most food insecure districts, unions, communities and households against
the increased recurrence and incidence of extreme weather hazards while offsetting seasonal hunger
and providing a complementary safety net to most vulnerable ultra-poor households.
DRR with a strong focus on seasonality can be envisaged to provide a major contribution:
(i) To protect livelihood assets and the gains achieved by Gvt and other partners’ investments in increased
productivity, safety nets and income growth;
(ii) To improve and maintain access to food and related infrastructure at times of recurrent shocks; and
(iii) To strengthen the ability of vulnerable communities to adapt to extreme weather hazards induced by
climate change.
24
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
APPENDIX II: SIERRA LEONE’S SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA, NUTRITION AND SCHOOL FEEDING ACTIVITIES
The architecture of WFP food assistance in Sierra Leone operates is embedded within two programme
categories – a CP and a PRRO - has three main programmatic axis:
1. School feeding (in the CP) which supports girls and children to return or access to school and retention
2. Nutrition (in the PRRO) interventions protect malnourished children and their mothers (often very
young) to avert the long lasting effects of malnutrition and subsequent negative impacts on productivity
3. FFA (in the PRRO) activities targeted to the rehabilitation of productive areas and feeder road
construction. These activities aim to provide the opportunities for increased production and food supply,
which can eventually be locally purchased and/or processed and produced into commercialized
nutritious products - which in turn may be used in nutrition and school feeding programmes.
Aligned, these three activities result in a ‘triangle of opportunity of mutually reinforcing interventions’ as
shown in the diagram below:
WFP Food Assistance
Livelihood assets rehabilitation (PRRO)
- Access to markets (roads) - Productive assets - Youth owning/sharing benefits - Local purchase - Partnerships
Nutrition – Targeted Supplementary Feeding (PRRO) - Protection < 5’s and PLW - Nutrition messages - Community efforts - Partnerships
School Feeding (CP)
- Retention - Access - Home gardens - Seasonal safety nets (THR) - Partnerships
Wome
n
Childre
n
M&E
Institut. Cap Bld
PcP Plannin
g
25
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
APPENDIX III: PRC EXPERIENCES WITH FFA PROJECT DESIGN
The Project Review Committee has documented reasons for why projects are not immediately approved,
when they contain a rationale to do FFA as an activity – and in particular when they focus on DRR/Climate
Change objectives. These are highlighted here to help check whether your project addresses these issues –
or not – prior to submission to the PRC.
A lack of basic understanding of what disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation entail,
how the two concepts relate to each other, and how they fits in with WFP programming and
programming categories.
The term “climate change adaptation” is used in specific programme objectives without a clear link
to food insecurity and explanation of the proposed food security outcomes of the project and their
relation to adaptation outcomes.
Lack of clarity between a primary objective (e.g. reducing the risk of shocks through building specific
assets) and some of the potential desired benefits (e.g. better adaptation against specific climatic
risks).
Clear analysis of the impacts of disasters on the food security of populations, and in a recovery
context of the specific disaster that caused the crisis, is not presented.
The causes of food insecurity are not disaggregated, and socio-economic drivers are not separated
from the disaster-related drivers
Timelines for the implementation of the handover strategies in disaster risk reduction project
components are not defined.
The rational, analysis, and justification of many projects with a climate change component lacks a
strong analytical element, with specific weather shocks wrongly attributed to climate change, and
often poor linkages to selected programme activities. For example, climate science suggests an
increase of floods in a country, but the proposed WFP programme targets drought risk reduction.
Projects with a climate change component are often not linked to national climate change plans,
specifically the National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPA).
Targeting and implementation information of food for assets activities is often lacking, which results
in a weak link between the food security problem being addressed, disaster risk reduction, and
climate change adaptation.
Food for assets programmes that focus on reducing disaster risk or climate change adaptation
through natural resource management activities are often not concentrated enough or large scale
enough to have an adequate impact – or they are not long enough in terms of implementation
timeframe to achieve the proposed impact.
26
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
APPENDIX IV: A NOTE ON DEPENDENCY
FFA and the dependency issue
This section relates to an issue that does not concern only FFA but food assistance in general. However,
selecting FFA (and FFW in particular) as a programme response option had often triggered the question
about the risk of creating dependency. This is also common nowadays. The perception of dependency is
often rooted in anecdotal evidence - such as “food insecure households have become dependent on
handouts of food aid, particularly by the persistent use of FFA/FFW”. This perspective runs deep – asserting
that not only are they dependent, but they have given up hope that this can be changed. So people reduce
their struggle and ask for more help. This in turn reinforces dependency, resulting ultimately in an attitude
and practice of permanent and increasing reliance on external food assistance support. This attitude has
been often described as “the dependency syndrome” and the view is reinforced by a variety of actors,
including some donors and academia, and has been recognized as a fundamental issue by some
governments.
Understanding this debate and the various aspects related to the dependency discussion will support field
staff defend and contextualize the use of food assistance and FFA whenever this response is indicated as
suitable. The following provides an example about how this debate could be addressed through constructive
discussions with the Government and partners.
i) Common Perceptions on Dependency
Donor critics point to decades of food aid, and link this with ongoing food insecurity. Some believe that food
aid cannot be developmental; some even see it as inimical to development. Others recognize that food aid
has not been balanced with cash based development programmes, which is largely correct but now
changing. All acknowledge that overall assistance to countries like the ones WFP is persistently engaged
with is inadequate to escape the poverty trap – Official Development Assistance for Africa remains
unacceptably low – but point to multiple factors (domestic policies, wars and unproductive civil conflict,
donor deficits, aid ineffectiveness) that inhibit their contributions in reversing this. At the end of this
discussion, all agree that the right investments have not yet been made, and food aid remains a visible target
and scapegoat of an overall insufficient global assistance.
Part of the academic and intellectual community dislikes food aid intensely. Many have fuelled donor views
that food assistance and development are incompatible. Further, in some countries food aid has been
viewed as degrading, rooted in its shameful association with begging. Pictures of starving people, used
relentlessly in the media, have become a major defining symbol of poor countries. The cumulative impact on
human dignity is devastating and these countries’ leadership and people have had enough – they want an
end to this cycle. Food aid again becomes the visible symbol of humiliating failure.
Many Governments have responded to these pressures. Various officials have pronounced that “the
dependency syndrome” must be reversed, and these Governments have moved decisively in terms of
programme reform, institutional reorganization, and budgetary reallocations. This leadership is welcome.
27
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Care must be taken however to retain the advantages that food aid and now food assistance offers. First we
need to put the issue of dependency into context, in a constructive, balanced manner. Next, on the basis of
facts, shared dialogue, and strategic partnerships, we need to position ourselves to take full advantage of
the unique role of food assistance.
It is important to discuss dependency through some commonly asked questions, and provide a starting point
for additional discussions on this issue with our partners, particularly the government.
ii) Why is food aid so closely associated with dependency?
• Time and scale of assistance: Food aid assistance has been significant in many countries since the
1970’s. It scaled up during the 1980’s during the big droughts of the Sahel, and although there were
remarkable food security gains during late 90’s, by the beginning of the 21st century, food assistance
requirements had reached record levels. Except for a few years, the annual average food aid requirement
has grown relentlessly. This provokes understandable concern. Many people, who received food aid as
teenagers in 1970, now have grandchildren that are assisted by food aid in 2010. Three generations of
millions of people requiring food aid is an unacceptable situation for any responsible government.
• Lack of alternatives: Many countries have suffered decades of internal and external conflict, poor
governance, very high population growth, recurrent weather shocks, and ineffective development
investment. Official Development Assistance has been low, with the only consistent priority being
emergency supplies of relief food aid. Multi year cash based investment was not of adequate scale, was
subject to discontinuities and shifts in donor priorities, and was heavily constrained by donor conditionality
and bureaucracy. Therefore programmes for food insecurity have not been effective. Food aid is
conspicuously alone in the arena, and is therefore disproportionately blamed for the failure in sustainable
development.
Questions and perceptions around dependency at the grassroots level:
• Food Aid and the Dependency Label: Using “dependency syndrome” to label beneficiaries receiving
food aid is at least controversial and probably unfair. Why beneficiaries requesting food assistance should be
accused of being dependent if food aid is the only form of support they receive? Why blame poor
households of dependency if they have no other choice? A syndrome is usually associated with a disease and
this term should be used more carefully. Food aid utilization surveys, as well as impact assessments, offer
information counter to dependency: targeting is quite good, and almost all food is domestically consumed.
In programmes where multi-year food aid is applied through community planning and technical rigour,
assets created have had positive impacts on livelihoods, and the need for food handouts has decreased.
• Food aid and disincentives to productivity: There is little evidence that relief or programme food
assistance is a disincentive to productivity. Rather, farmers throughout the world continue, very active, with
consistent efforts to plant crops and produce more, even during years of large emergency food assistance. In
fact, continual encroachment on ever more marginal land is a major issue. Even in the most vulnerable
years, farmers strive to find seeds to plant for the following season, worry about draught power or labour,
and make arrangements for their fields to be ploughed, hoed and sown.
28
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
• Food Aid and the Farmers’ Context: Furthermore, “coping” is confused with “dependency”. We
need to understand farmers - as in most parts of the world, they are the targets of various state sponsored
planning. They remain in one place, prey for tax, for labour, for the army, etc. They have learned over the
centuries how to survive, how to cope with adversity, how to defend themselves against the odds of nature
and context. This includes asking for support - this should not be confused with dependency. Concluding that
dependency exists when people answer “yes” to questions such as “do you need food aid to establish or
maintain assets” or “do you need more food aid to feed your family” is absurd. The fact that many still
answer no to these leading questions is a remarkable sign of strength; most human beings in the same
conditions of poverty as the many of farmers that benefit from a few months of WFP assistance would
multiply such demands ten-fold. As unpleasant as it may be to see farmers asking for food aid (they will do
the same with cash), we need to understand better why they do so, and we need to empower communities
to build self-esteem and sustainable self reliance. This usually happens through multiple long-term supports,
framed within participatory and technically sound approaches.
iii) Dependency arguments: are we using the right approach to this discussion?
• Lack of long-term commitments: There have been no sustained investments at an adequate scale
(for millions of beneficiaries) to enable households to overcome poverty. Institutional capacity to handle
cash through credit, cash injections, or cash for work, has not been sufficiently built. There is inadequate
understanding on how to support government institutions and build community level capacity. Meanwhile,
governments could do more to establish solid “action-based” dialogue platforms to build mutual
understanding and confidence. Ultimately however, the “absorptive capacity” for cash will not increase until
the cash resources increase and capacity is built: behaviour does not change without resources.
• Lost opportunities: Paradoxically, the reduction of development assistance began at the same time
as the top-down 80’s approaches were being replaced by community based interventions. If for example
many countries in Africa had had ten years of balanced food aid and complementary cash, invested in multi
year development activities and FFA (using food and cash), the asset base and vulnerability profile of
countless communities could have been remarkably different. This is however hypothetical.
• Food aid and markets: Food aid (GFD, FFW) is widely viewed as distorting markets and creating
additional dependency through low farm gate prices and production disincentives. It is clear that food
resources in large amount affect markets; it is however unclear to what extent this is true in many contexts
where WFP operates. There is also a major shift in WFP approach from food aid to food assistance. The
amount of food produced locally or regionally is around 60% of the total food WFP provides annually.
Besides, the possibility to use cash resources together or instead of food is opening major opportunities for
farmers and vulnerable households to access markets. It is also important to place food transfers within their
correct perspective through proper market analysis and beneficiary preference criteria, amongst others.
Consideration for where WFP operates is also key as it is often where there are high transaction costs, poor
infrastructure (roads and information), and inadequate consumer income to create market demand. The
wider and more fundamental issue of how to address the competing needs of producers and consumers has
not been systematically addressed.
29
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
iv) Arguments on the potential effects of the dependency syndrome
a. Negative perceptions and their consequences
• Stigmatizing food aid jeopardizes adequate response during times of crisis. This is potentially
devastating if shocks occur recurrently and with increased intensity, as lower or delayed commitments will
negatively impact longer-term food security schemes through resources being pulled out from development
assistance to cover immediate needs.
• Similarly, denigrating food assistance is a potential killer factor in designing multi-annual food
security initiatives (e.g. safety nets). Food assistance will continue to be a requirement for many countries
over the next few years, while local structures and capacity to handle cash grow in scale. Logistically, some
countries now can manage food aid. This now needs to be used as a bridge to scale up cash based responses,
including in FFA.
• The simplistic reduction of food assistance to ‘grain bags destroying markets’, distracts from
disciplined analyses of markets, reforms, infrastructure, in the context of competing needs of producers and
vulnerable consumers. Attacking food assistance may reduce its volume, but unless a compensating
framework of market structures takes its place, the exercise may be counterproductive and potentially put
at risks the lives of vulnerable people.
b. Food assistance can protect livelihoods, reduce risks, and contribute to development: the potentials
unseen
• While use of food assistance in saving lives is clear, its application in food security interventions
remains controversial. Well-targeted, well-designed food interventions have proven potential to improve
nutrition, expand access to education, and build productive assets for the poor. Food assistance has
particular advantages in addressing the needs of women, a disproportionate percentage of the world’s
poorest. The “dependency” language should not build walls against these opportunities and dialogue on
these arguments need to be rooted on evidence and adequate understanding of context. However, WFP and
its partners need to make all best possible efforts to ensure that FFA does not create indeed forms of
dependency in terms of detrimental coping strategies and behaviour.
Top Related