File 3_module c - Ffa Interventions 20july 2011

MODULE C

ODXP

PREVENTION & RECOVERY

World Food Programme

Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual

MODULE C: PLANNING OF FFA – PROCESSES IN SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION

Once you have conducted your context analysis and built your FFA rationale (Module B), the next step is to identify the specific FFA interventions you plan for your country. Your plan will need to consider the prioritization of your interventions according to geographical, livelihood and capacity factors. Involved throughout this process is the involvement of the communities whom will benefit from your intervention. This includes participatory planning at the community level to validate and fine-tune individual intervention details and to ensure they fit into the longer-term goals of the community.

FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions

FFA Manual Module C (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 Please inform ODXP’s Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here.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 C 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.

i


MODULE C: PLANNING SPECIFIC FFA INTERVENTIONS – IDENTIFYING THE APPRORIATE FFA INTERVENTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

C1. OVERVIEW 2

FROM RESEARCH TO PLANNING 2

C2. IDENTIFYING, SELECTING & PRIORITISING SPECIFIC FFA INTERVENTIONS 3

USING YOUR FFA RATIONALE AND OUTLINING YOUR FFA PLAN 3

MENU OF FFA INTERVENTIONS 4

TARGETING: SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION FOR THE CONTEXT 6

OPTIMIZE SELF-HELP AND COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION 7

PARTNER COVERAGE AND CAPACITY, AND LOW/HIGH-TECH INTERVENTIONS 9

C3. PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES AND PLANNING 14

WHY PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ARE IMPORTANT FOR FFA INTERVENTIONS 14

WHAT A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE 17

TYPES OF PARTICIPATORY CONTEXTS 18

1


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 cannot 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 programmed 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 programmed 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.

2


C1. OVERVIEW

Once you have conducted your context analysis and built your FFA rationale (Module B), the next step is to

identify the specific FFA interventions you plan for your country. Your plan will need to consider the

prioritization of your interventions according to geographical, livelihood and capacity factors. Involved

throughout this process is the involvement of the communities whom will benefit from your intervention.

This includes participatory planning at the community level to validate and fine-tune individual intervention

details and to ensure they fit into the longer-term goals of the community.

FROM RESEARCH TO PLANNING

Based on your context analysis (Module B), where research has helped you identify the seasonal livelihood

programming rationale most appropriate to help communities respond to shocks within specific

environmental zones, the next step is to plan your specific FFA interventions.

Your FFA rationale at this stage has

identified broader objectives.

Within these objectives, various

specific intervention options may

exist – a FFA “menu” of possible

interventions which could achieve

these objectives. It is necessary to

review these various options and

identify and plan the best options

for actual implementation. In this

module, this menu of options is

outlined based on the broader

course/objective selected.

At the same time, your overall

rationale may be relevant for a

broad range of locations and

communities, but due to lack of

resources, needs, capacities and

time on the ground, will likely

require prioritization of

interventions to only a sub-set of such locations and communities. This module helps guide you on how to

prioritize FFA in your specific country setting and programmed category (e.g. EMOP, PRRO, CP/DEV).

In particular is the need to ensure that the communities where specific interventions are to be implemented

continue to be consulted throughout the whole process. Participatory planning is especially important. A

powerful tool in the FFA toolbox, participatory planning can help the practitioner validate with the

community which intervention is relevant – or requires refinement, in particular to ensure it would meet the

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp238105.pdf


3


community’s longer-term objectives. If done well, it also ensures community buy-in and empowerment for

the intervention’s implementation. The participatory tool as specifically relevant to FFA is outlined in this

module.

And with this, implementation can begin (as in Module D).

C2. IDENTIFYING, SELECTING & PRIORITISING SPECIFIC FFA

INTERVENTIONS Once you have a rationale for doing FFA within your country/project (Module B), the next step is to begin to

identify specific FFA intervention options that WFP – with partners and communities – may implement. This

involves first reviewing your FFA rationale to ensure that any interventions you identify from the menu of

options available, do indeed fit within this broader context analysis.

Simply choosing from a menu of possible FFA interventions is however not typically so easy. Very often,

there is a high demand for FFA but a limited amount of resources to make implementation possible

everywhere and for everyone. Decisions have to be made to prioritize where and with whom specific

interventions will be planned, with targeting becoming a necessary step at this stage. Coupled with this is

the practical consideration of partner capacity to help implement the interventions, and this may influence

whether a specific intervention should be of low or high tech (and low or high risk). In this section of this

module, we explore these issues.

Key terms:

Targeting: defines the specific vulnerable groups to be assisted. May involve three tiers: (i) during

context analysis, identifying the characteristics of most vulnerable groups; (ii) during planning and

selection of FFA interventions, the prioritizing groups and locations; and (iii) during implementation,

outlining the targeting criteria for beneficiaries to know who is eligible.

Partner capacity: is the ability of a partner to be involved in the implementation of a FFA intervention;

such capacity may be high or low depending on levels of resources, staff (including numbers and skills)

and other resources, and community engagement/access in FFA intervention sites.

USING YOUR FFA RATIONALE AND OUTLINING YOUR FFA PLAN

Module B provides the building blocks of FFA rationales based on analyses of shocks, risks and livelihoods to

determine entry-points for FFA within a complementary programming framework. Module C provides a set

of planning tools that will further fine tune targeting as well as promote community and households

participation. Local level plans can then be developed and constitute a powerful tool for i) supporting with

FFA the most vulnerable and strengthen social cohesion, ii) improve the quality of assets and their design, iii)

build sense of ownership and greater sustainability, and iv) provide an important benchmark for monitoring.




4


Participatory planning is therefore critical for FFA design and implementation – in this module and related

annexes various planning methods are described and examples provided through links. A number of

experiences are also collected (e.g. Table 2).

Field staff and partners need to apply what is defined as a non-divisive local level planning and targeting

approach when preparing specific FFA interventions. Such an approach advocates for inclusion of the entire

community in the processes of planning and implementation, where specific partnerships might also address

the needs of those “not-so-vulnerable” groups that are not to be assisted by FFA interventions, and

especially those living "on-the-edge of severe vulnerability” or that are seasonally vulnerable (the latter

being at risk of sliding to the level of severe vulnerability if no support is provided to restore or improve their

asset base). The inclusion of the entire community in planning, even when most vulnerable households are

targeted to benefit the most from the assets created, is critical to provide a sense of inclusion in decision-

making and to advocate for the transformation of the entire range of livelihood systems that connect people

and their aspirations.

Planning approaches should not inadvertently divide people along artificial lines that deny the very intent to

overcome the causes of food insecurity as these causes do not discriminate between people but tend to

‘unite or level vulnerability’. It should be noted that pastoral and watershed contexts are very specific in

terms of planning approaches, with Annex C-1 and Annex C-3 providing a synthesis of such approaches

within these contexts.

MENU OF FFA INTERVENTIONS

There is a menu of options available for deciding on specific FFA interventions in a given location. 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.

The menu of options includes:




5


MAIN INTERVENTION AREAS (AND COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES)

1. Physical soil and water conservation

1.1. Level Soil Bund

1.2. Stone Bunds

1.3. Stone Faced Soil Bund

1.4. Level Fanya Juu

1.5. Bench Terracing

1.6. Conservation Tillage using local plow

1.7. Broad Bed and Furrows Maker (BBM)

1.8. Hillside Terraces

1.9. Hillside Terrace with Trenches

2. Flood control and improved drainage

2.1. Waterways (Vegetative and Stone Paved)

2.2. Cut-off Drains

2.3. Graded Soil Bund

2.4. Graded Fanya Juu

2.5. Improved Surface Drainage for Increasing

Productivity of Vertisols and Soils with Vertic

Properties

3. Water harvesting

3.1. Hand-dug Wells

3.2. Low cost Water Lifting

3.3. Low Cost Micro-ponds

3.4. Underground Cisterns (Hemispherical, Dome cap, Bottle

Shape, Sphere, Sausage shape)

3.5. Percolation pit

3.6. Percolation Pond

3.7. Farm Pond Construction

3.8. Spring Development

3.9. Family Drip Irrigation System

3.10. Roof Water Harvesting System

3.11. Farm Dam Construction

3.12. River-bed or Permeable Rock Dams

3.13. Small Stone Bunds with Run-on and Run- off Areas

3.14. Narrow Stone Lines Along the Contours (Staggered Alternatively)

3.15. Stone Faced/Soil or Stone Bunds with Run-off/ Run-on Areas

3.16. Conservation Bench Terraces (s) (CBT(s))

3.17. Tie Ridge (s)

3.18. The Zai and Planting Pit System

3.19. Large Half Moons (Staggered Alternatively)

3.20. Diversion Weir Design and Construction

4. Soil fertility management and biological soil

conservation

4.1. Compost Making

4.2. Fertilization and Manuring

4.3. Live Checkdams

4.4. Mulching and Crop Residues Management

4.5. Grass Strips along the Contours

4.6. Stabilization of physical Structures and Farm

Boundaries

4.7. Vegetative Fencing

4.8. Ley Cropping

4.9. Integration of Food/Feed Legumes into Cereal

Cropping Systems

4.10. Intercropping

4.11. Crop Rotation

4.12. Strip Cropping

5. Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry

5.1. Area Closure

5.2. Micro-basins (MBs)

5.3. Eyebrow Basins (EBs)

5.4. Herring bones (HBs)

5.5. Micro-trenches (MTRs)

5.6. Trenches

5.7. Improved Pits (IP)

5.8. Multi-storey Gardening

5.9. Seed Collection

6. Gully Control

6.1. Stone Checkdams

6.2. Brushwood Checkdams

6.3. Gully Reshaping, Filling and Re-vegetation

6.4. Sediment Storage and Overflow Earth Dams (SS

Dams) for Productive Gully Control

6.5. Sediment Storage and Overflow Soil Bunds (SS

Bunds)

7. Feeder roads

7.1 R1 Earth road on flat and rolling terrain – stable soils

7.2 R2 Earth road on mountainous terrain–stable soils

7.3 R3 Graveled road on flat and rolling terrain – sandy or weak

soils

7.4 R4 Graveled road on mountainous terrain – weak soils

7.5 R5 Graveled road on flat and rolling terrain– black

cotton soils

7.6 R6 Road on escarpment

7.7 R7 Typical pipe culvert using concrete rings

7.8 R8 Standard drift

6


There are also Info-techs (one page per intervention) provided in Annex D-1 that provide a basic set of info

for planning and implementation. More elaborate one to two page Info-techs are also found in Part 1 of the

Ethiopia Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) Planning Guidelines (Ethiopia

MOARD, 2005) which is indicated as a main reference document for participatory watershed planning. The

CBPWD is fully owned by the Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MOARD) and

developed by a number of stakeholders, including a significant WFP contribution through the MERET1

programmed.

Each info-tech uses a standard format that provides basic information about the intervention. Such technical

guides do not apply to all contexts where WFP operates, although their application in the described form has

proven to be relevant in a number of countries and can be replicated in many more. It is therefore

recommended that at the initial stages, the measures outlined in the info-techs are tested at a small scale

and their performance observed. Many of these techniques make reference to possible modifications to

their original design and integration requirements.

Choosing from your menu of options is however not just linked to the “best-fit” technical solution to a

setting, as practical elements such as those to help undertaken the implementation may significantly

influence the final choice. Of particular importance is the coverage and capacity of partners in the local

setting.

TARGETING: SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION FOR THE CONTEXT

FFA targeting normally involves two main tiers. At the highest level, during the context-analysis of project

design (Module B), the targeting exercise focuses on outlining the groups most vulnerable and in need of

WFP assistance. The second tier is explained in this module, and uses the broader context-analysis as its

parameters to help prioritize by selecting locations and groups that would benefit the most from a FFA

intervention. Additional technical considerations (see for example Gender in Module D) are then used to

fine tune targeting criteria for specific FFA interventions that may target specific groups or the broad

community (ies) to fulfill specific technical requirements and objectives (for example a feeder road or water

dam).

In this second tier, the FFA practitioner is likely to face the situation where there is a limited amount of

resources (including food, partner and government capacity and complementary assistance), and yet a high

demand for FFA interventions. In such scenarios, questions of prioritization need to focus on the questions

of whether your FFA interventions target:

(i) The geographical locations which best-fit your FFA rationale. Based on your context analysis, is the

intervention site more affected by the impact/frequency/likelihood of the shock to be addressed,

compared to other locations? Such a shock may have been particularly prevalent in a certain agro-

climatic zone – does this location fall within this zone?

1 Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transitions – MERET means also “Land” in the national language

Amharic. MERET is largely a risk reduction programme through participatory community based watershed rehabilitation of degraded lands and community empowerment.

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp237790.pdf




7


(ii) The vulnerable groups which best benefit from the intervention. Does the group that will

participate in the intervention match those identified in your context analysis as being highly

vulnerable? (Taking into consideration that this definition of “vulnerability” should fall within WFP’s

focus on food and nutrition insecurity).

Considering these questions can be assisted by working with your Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM)

colleagues in the country; maps can even be produced to help identify where the highest congruence of

these two issues overlap the most, so as to focus your attention in these locations.

In addition to these factors, targeting of FFA interventions should also consider the questions of:

(iii) Does your FFA rationale target communities or households? Based on this, the choice of FFA

interventions may be different. For example, restoration interventions usually focus on community

assets and basic infrastructure, while resilience-building interventions usually require a combined

focus on household and community assets. (See Box C-1for more on the community vs household

division.)

(iv) Does your FFA intervention involve the mobilisation and capacity building of the community in its

implementation? For example, if large-scale terracing is to be selected as a FFA intervention in a

degraded watershed, it needs the participation of many people, including households that may not

strictly falling into the category of the “poorest-of-the-poor” but also those “on-the-edge” of such

poverty. If only targeted households are involved, one of the key investments of FFA - community

mobilisation and technical quality - will be unlikely to take place or be incomplete and largely

ineffective. (See Box 1 and document on Sustainable Land Management: gaps, dichotomies and

opportunities (WFP, Ethiopia - 2006)

OPTIMIZE SELF-HELP AND COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION

‘Self-help’ are those efforts that communities’ themselves will contribute to developing assets without the

need for transfers, or payments (i.e. food, cash, or vouchers). It is important that FFA does not depress or

substitute self-help efforts – rather FFA needs to be designed as an enabler of these efforts. A number of FFA

activities can be associated with small contributions targeted towards supporting the neediest households,

as indicated above. Furthermore, self-help efforts should be included at the early stages of FFA activity

design, not only as management measures (e.g. maintenance of assets created) but as an integral part of

self-help contributions during implementation. These can be light or substantial.

In some countries, one day per week during FFA implementation periods is dedicated to community works

and self-help efforts. In other countries, a fixed number of days per year per able bodied household are

established to support community efforts. Some of these programmes are considered rather top down but

can be reformed through their inclusion in participatory planning processes.



8


Mass or social participation for

various assets building is

commonly practiced in various

regions of Ethiopia, with an

estimated 30 million labour

days or more being generated.

Most of this labour is used for

soil and water conservation

and feeder roads. Performance

varies widely due to problems

of supervision and poor design

and quality of works. As

suggested in the Ethiopia

report of the Horn of Africa

Initiative for Food Security,

(GOE/MOARD,2007) it is

important to re-think mass

participation as a “value

added” component to existing

packages and other forms of

FFA support, particularly to

help the most food insecure

and re-build or strengthen

traditional forms of social

cohesion and solidarity.

With this latter question, issues are raised on incentives versus entitlements, as well as self-help and the

local provision of complementary assistance. It should also be noted that focusing debates on resources

(food and/or cash) rather than on improved modalities in the use of such resources can penalize the

realization of higher standards, and inhibit large-scale coverage in resilience building and sustainable land

rehabilitation and management. Focusing on incentives and self-help are important contributors to help

overcome these challenges (see Box 2). In such a process, one should avoid the major risk of disconnecting

landscapes from coordinated investments, and having self-help efforts standardized by land use.

For example, by thinking along qualitative criteria with an effective approach to land rehabilitation and

sustainable land management (SLM), conservation of cultivated lands with slopes above 15-20 percent

gradient is not “simple” and an “individual business” alone. The amount of work required to reach adequate

standards is significant, and cannot be done in isolation from other households within a common sub-

watershed unit. As not all households sharing the same land-use unit have the same labour profile and

wealth, incentives or a combined form of support can help enable the different households within this unit

to work to conserve the land.

An important aspect of incentives is that they manage to “aggregate” and extend labour availability to

ensure coverage and a rapid fix to the problem. The overall public welfare system (which also depends on

Box 2: Complementary assistance, incentives, self-help and entitlements:

Incentives coupled with self-help efforts should be considered necessary across

land uses, including private lands as required.

Examples of properly-used incentives abound.

A cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of the FFW project in Ethiopia

(MERET), which uses food-for-work within a participatory watershed

development approach, indicated economic and financial rates of return were

over 12 percent, and reported an overall positive impact on productivity and

downstream effects of conservation measures in cultivated lands, particularly

in moisture stressed areas but also on steep slopes. This result would have not

been obtained without treatments “across land uses”, solid technical support

and the concomitant self-help contribution of the community, accounting for

20-40 percent of the total investment. India and China have used food

assistance, and they continue to use large numbers of cash incentives to

rehabilitate degraded watersheds, which include degraded cultivated areas, as

part of safety net schemes and various development programmes. The Indian

Government also supports the rehabilitation of degraded watersheds with cash

incentives to treat eroded cultivated and private lands, based on slope ranges,

as one-off exercises and within rigorous management rules.

Tax reduction has also been used in various parts of the world to encourage

investment in conservation and greening. This does not mean incentives are

always needed in private lands but they can be an essential form of support in

many contexts and need to be provided with in-built self-help contributions,

participatory decision-making, management obligations and other incentives

related to secure the tenure rights of the land users.


9


private asset development) is also affected by the “no incentives” approaches as it shifts attention from

“what it takes” to rehabilitate degraded lands and put back (and maintain) communities into the

development rail, to issues of principle and rhetorical perspective.

When applied in situations of top-down approaches, limited or insufficient technical standards and support,

tenure insecurity and without a legal framework, incentives are not only ineffective but also would often be

detrimental for ownership building and sustainability.

PARTNER COVERAGE AND CAPACITY, AND LOW/HIGH-TECH INTERVENTIONS

FFA is particularly influenced by the capacities of stakeholders on the ground, and which can dictate the

technical complexities and types of interventions to be chosen for implementation. This section deals with

these different “low capacity” and “high capacity” scenarios, and while having specific relevance to agrarian

systems, the same considerations and approaches can be considered within other contexts.

FFA is highly dependent on having partners on the ground to carry out the planning and then management

of an intervention’s implementation. This dependence has a specific implication on the FFA intervention

options that are available for selection in a given context, with the coverage of partners in certain locations,

and their capacity to carry out basic or more complex work, helping to define these options.

FFA options may often be divided between low-tech, low-risk interventions, and those that are high-tech,

high-risk interventions. This division can usually be related to partner capacity and coverage on the ground,

although it is recognized this is a simplification, as other facets may also influence the selected complexity

and risk of a particular intervention. Nevertheless, this conceptual division of complexity aids in a FFA

practitioners selection from the menu of options available.

(i) Low capacity contexts: low-tech, low-risk FFA interventions using simpler planning techniques

In low capacity contexts, one should avoid designing interventions that require significant expertise that is

known to not be realistically available. In such contexts, it is almost always recommended to devise low-tech

and low-risk interventions. Such interventions do not mean low quality work, but involve instead a set of

tasks that involve less technical inputs. They will also consider the specific time commitments to which

participants can contribute. If you are considering such interventions, you can find more information on

your options within Annex C-2.

(ii) High capacity contexts: higher-tech, higher-risk FFA interventions using sustainable land management

and watershed planning

In high capacity contexts, more sophisticated and integrated approaches can be considered. Sustainable

Land Management (SLM), for example, is a comprehensive concept that integrates ecological and social

approaches through a set of land management principles and interventions encompassing community-based

approaches with households, groups and communities, within defined landscape units. Similarly,

watershed planning bring people and their livelihoods together with the natural environment by focus on

water catchments as the focus of planning of activities, working beyond simple administrative boundaries

that often cut across watersheds and hence the natural resource base on which livelihoods are built. More


10


information on planning such interventions (including more information on watersheds in general) is found

in Annex C-3.

Based on the different levels of partner capacity, a number of planning approaches are available for field

staff and partners to select, adapt and develop according to the local context. Such planning options are

summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Participatory planning methods in relation to partner capacity

Context Planning approach – method

1 Low capacity for planning (overall) Simple approach – largely focusing on a few tools and modalities for

planning – and overall focus on low tech-low risk FFA interventions that

require limited supervision and external technical inputs

2 Mix of high and low capacity for

planning (e.g. good in some districts

and limited in others)

Simple approach in areas with low capacity but introduce/use more

integrated approaches in areas with greater capacity (by government

and/or NGOs) – and then gradually expand these integrated approaches

into low capacity areas using training and the strengthening of local and

institutional capacity

3 High capacity for planning (overall) Select best approaches that suit local contexts and have the

potential to be institutionalized through capacity development and

dissemination of best practices (e.g. participatory watershed planning

etc)


11


Box 3. Different planning approaches available in low or sufficient partner capacity contexts

The actual planning approach used, depending on whether capacity has been assessed as high or low capacity, involves

different methodologies. The following provides a summary of the suggested approaches.

Option 1: Areas with low local capacity of partners and communities on FFA planning, design and implementation

Approach suggested: use of simple planning methods and low tech/low risk activities

a) The type of activities in areas with low capacity will be low tech/low-risk and focus on restoring access to social

infrastructure and repair of housing for most vulnerable households, clearing of irrigation canals, and road repairs.

b) Urban centers, districts, and communities in most affected areas may already have local level disaster management

committees established with local plans for use of FFA activities – in areas with no such committees, they can be

established and partners support the development of simple disaster management plans.

c) A one page format can be prepared by the CO as a planning tool to provide each locality/village an outline of off-

the-shelf low tech/low risk projects to be activated using FFA following a cyclonic and flood event.

Examples of activities:

Applicable to agrarian and urban livelihoods:

- Removal of debris, clean-up operations, screening / separation of items at dumping sites

- Collection and shaping of stones for road / other infrastructure repair

Applicable to agrarian and urban – and to some extent pastoral - livelihoods:

- Repair of roads and light bridges

- Repair of social infrastructure (schools, health posts, etc)

Construction / erecting of temporary shelters and infrastructure for the neediest people following a major shock.

Option 2: Areas with sufficient local capacity of partners and communities on disaster management planning,

availability of local level development plans and some capacity in FFA planning, design and implementation

Approach suggested: use of local level development plans or post emergency disaster management and mitigation

plans

In areas with sufficient local capacity and/or NGOs with experience in labour intensive activities or specific initiatives

linked to environmental rehabilitation, the choice of FFA can expand and be directly linked to ongoing partners’

development plans. In this regard, an umbrella agreement between WFP, Government and key NGO partners should be

developed to:

1) using existing NGO/partners development plans to use food resources for early recovery and/or longer term

mitigation activities; and

2) in case the shock does not occur, use pre-positioned food stocks from preparedness plans to support on-going

developmental activities prioritized to specific vulnerable people and in particular vulnerable women.

Examples of activities:

Applicable to agrarian and urban livelihoods:

- Drainage and irrigation canals clearing

- Higher ground establishment (dike-type of measures)

- Major road construction and maintenance/repairs

- Shelters construction and cyclone proof enhanced housing

- Food for Training activities: disease prevention training (e.g. cholera, dengue) etc.

Applicable to agrarian and pastoral livelihoods:

- Bridges and culverts

- Dikes

Option 1: Areas with low local capacity of partners

and communities on FFA planning, design and

implementation

Option 2: Areas with sufficient local capacity of

partners and communities on disaster management

planning, availability of local level development plans

and some capacity in FFA planning, design and

12


As a useful guide, Table 2 provides a rapid reference to some of the planning approaches that have been

practically developed and implemented in selected countries. The list is not exhaustive and there are

additional approaches that have been developed by WFP and partners in other countries.

Table 2 Examples of key participatory planning approaches of major relevance for FFA

Context Planning

Approach

Examples

Low capacity –

requires some

minimum

amount of

initial training

and awareness

creation

Basic

Participatory

Planning for low

capacity contexts

Low-tech and

low risk

approaches

1) The “Basic Participatory Planning” approach is developed by WFP to

suit contexts with low capacity but where local communities with very

limited support can prepare simple local level plans that include rough

village maps. This approach can constitute the first level of participatory

planning upon which to build increasingly robust methods – see Annex C-2

and Annex C-4

Note: A number of low tech-low risk activities can be implemented in

contexts with low capacity, and are largely suitable within a context of

basic participatory planning. As indicated in earlier sections these activities

also suit areas affected by rapid onset shocks which require simpler

planning, off-the-shelf projects and the possibility to rapidly activate such

type of activities (e.g. removal of debris from canals, de-siltation of water

ponds, compost making, vegetative fencing, stone collection, etc)

Mixed low and

medium

capacity

Local Level

Participatory

Planning

Approach

(LLPPA)

1) The Local Level Participatory Planning Approach (LLPPA) was

developed initially in Ethiopia and extensively used for community level

participatory planning linked to WFP FFW land rehabilitation works – the

guideline (Main guideline for TOT and formats) is available through the

following link. LLPPA requires technical training and basic expertise to

start.

2) Planification Participative pour la Gestion Durable des Terres –

Guidelines developed in Burundi based on LLPP and adapted in Haiti.

Planning Approach and Planning Formats

High capacity Community

based

Participatory

Watershed

Planning

1) The Community-based Participatory Development Planning (CBPWD)

guidelines –Ethiopia MOARD, 2005. These guidelines are the result of a

major joint effort between the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development (MOARD), WFP, GTZ, ILRI and USAID based NGO work to

develop comprehensive guidelines based on field rooted and effective

planning experiences. These guidelines include planning procedures and

modules as well as a number technical information kits on over 60

interventions which are most relevant in a number of degraded and food

insecurity contexts.

2) The India Integrated Watershed Planning Guidelines that have been

adopted at a very large scale and constitute a relevant source of

information.

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp238111.docx


http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp238079.zip





13


Context Planning

Approach

Examples

3) FAO Management & Sustainable Mountain Development Working

Paper (Asia Experience - 2005). This manual offers a number of important

perspectives on overall watershed management efforts from district to

community level.

http://www.mountainpartnership.org/common/files/pdf/A0270E.pdf

Low capacity –

however it

requires

sufficient NGO

capacity for

minimum

support

Community

Based Food Aid

Targeting and

Distribution

Guidelines – and

FFW guidelines

1) Community based food aid targeting and distribution in Kenya (2004)–

these targeting guidelines are developed for relief operations and include a

number of steps that are precursors of participatory planning, as the

promote the creation of relief committees that also have early recovery

functions

2) FFW Implementation Manual for Kenya - these guidelines have been

produced in Kenya as national policy makes strong recommendation for

the use of conditional transfers for able bodied beneficiaries receiving food

assistance at times of shocks – these guidelines builds on the first guideline

and can be used/adapted to suit emergency and early recovery FFW

efforts

Mixed low and

medium

capacity

Participatory

Rural Appraisal

(PRA) tools (largely for problem

identification stages

only)

1) This link provides interesting definitions and tools for PRA,

recommending its use largely on problem identification rather than actual

planning of interventions. http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/par-tech.htm

2) The Rural Economic Advancement Programme (REAP) in Buthan offer

interesting and simple village level planning guidelines.

http://www.unpei.org/PDF/Bhutan-Guidelines-participatory-village-

planning.pdf

Tools that may

be applicable

to different

contexts

Others 1) WFP manual (draft) on Local Level Participatory and Implementation

Approach (LLPIA) – Tanzania (2011) – a complete community based

planning approach building upon WFP experience in the region.

2) Participatory land use planning in Tanzania – useful on main

description methods and mapping: http://www.mpl.ird.fr/crea/taller-

colombia/FAO/AGLL/pdfdocs/tanzania.pdf

3) The Opportunities and Obstacles to Development - A Community

Participatory Planning Methodology Hand Book – Tanzania, 2004) – this

handbook offer an interesting and easy to read set of principles, definitions

and procedures for local level planning. However, the guideline is more

geared towards overall community development and is not focused on

food security. Some tools like transects and village mapping interesting.

Others such as wealth ranking and related tools also possible to adapt to

other contexts and link to the prioritization of FFA activities.

http://www.mountainpartnership.org/common/files/pdf/A0270E.pdf



http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/par-tech.htm

http://www.unpei.org/PDF/Bhutan-Guidelines-participatory-village-planning.pdf

http://www.unpei.org/PDF/Bhutan-Guidelines-participatory-village-planning.pdf



http://www.mpl.ird.fr/crea/taller-colombia/FAO/AGLL/pdfdocs/tanzania.pdf

http://www.mpl.ird.fr/crea/taller-colombia/FAO/AGLL/pdfdocs/tanzania.pdf



14


C3. PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES AND PLANNING “Beneficiary participation is an essential ingredient in the successful and effective implementation of recovery

activities. Through participatory approaches, WFP can initiate developmental activities that strengthen

community organizational capacity for economic, social and physical recovery.”

(WFP’s ‘From Crisis to Recovery’ policy, 1998)

Key terms in this section:

Participation: a people-centered approach which has the highest probability of success because it offers

the potential to strengthen the voice of the most vulnerable.

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): a method of involving rural people, their knowledge and views

within the planning, implementation and management of projects that aim to assist them.

The importance of planning with communities: A simple basic village or community-level participatory

planning approach improves people’s participation and increased sense of ownership over assets created or

rehabilitated, with a positive impact on management and sustainability. Participatory planning procedures

can be used by communities to identify viable projects, enhance participation of food insecure households

and of the community. Community level decision-making and targeting may be strengthened, particularly if

the most vulnerable, youth and women are involved in FFA project selection, design and implementation.

The approach can also help identify and promote self-help efforts within the community on needs outside of

the FFA intervention scope.

Participatory planning approaches are required to select and design appropriate FFA interventions. Some of

these interventions require that more than one community develops its plan (e.g. one mini-plan can be

developed the five villages a feeder road plans to cross in a given district). Depending on the circumstances,

plans can be developed by the community with limited help from local partners, with support instead

provided to a village level planning team selected by each community to develop these plans. In a number

of villages, existing facilitation teams can also expand their role and carry out the planning work with the

support of district level and NGO staff.

A local level plan also acts as a baseline of what exists prior to an intervention, providing WFP and partners

with the information that will allow tracking of the performance of the different measures implemented and

the progresses made in terms of food security.

WHY PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ARE IMPORTANT FOR FFA INTERVENTIONS

One of the most essential elements that determines success or failure of FFA interventions throughout the

world is people’s participation. There is ample literature regarding participatory planning – in Africa, Asia

and Latin America. During the last two to three decades, most NGOs and UN agencies have developed

participatory planning approaches and tools; some of these approaches have been very good and practical

while others have been cumbersome and difficult to apply. The PGM includes various tool kits that can be

15


referred to for overall guidance. However, the following focus on the relevance of participatory planning

specific to FFA. Most specifically, this section explains a variety of strategies and tools used for Community-

Based Participatory Planning (CBPP) as well as the minimum requirements for engaging in CBPP.

Considerable attention to participatory planning is necessary also from a gender perspective, as it often

emerges that one of the most important elements in planning is working to know how to involve women and

improve their participation in FFA design, implementation and especially management.

Planning approaches range from simple to moderately complex, based upon local capacity and experience

from partners and/or government technical staff. These approaches have the aim to achieve five key

objectives, to:

1. Improve targeting and seasonal livelihood analysis for enhanced response analysis and design:

Participatory planning allows discussions around vulnerability issues and makes provision for the

participation of most vulnerable groups in planning and as priority groups for food assistance. It also

helps identify what FFA activities are required and when, based on seasonal calendars and priorities.

2. Enhance women and most vulnerable households’ participation in planning, decision-making and

implementation: The introduction of local level planning should empower women and marginalized

groups as they become an integral part of planning teams. These groups should participate in the

decisions on the range of FFA interventions to implement, and to benefit from specific assets that

contribute to improve their social status and level of food security.

3. Prioritize FFA interventions and improve their technical design and implementation: Local level

planning allows for better prioritization of FFA and their selection based upon, needs, realistic targets

and technical requirements based on local capacity (which need to include both community level and

implementing partners’ capacity).

4. Improve the quality and sustainability of FFA interventions: Local level planning allows for greater

social and technical interactions (such as the description of land use, farming system and watershed

delineation and interactions, technical standards and integration of interventions, etc) which have a

positive effect on the design of different FFA and on quality aspects. It also increases sense of ownership

over assets created and their management, hence sustainability.

5. Improve FFA effectiveness and foster partnerships at the local level to improve food security: Local

level planning helps WFP and stakeholders to optimize the use of existing resources, often promoting

self-help efforts, and building a strong case for additional support through developing partnerships, as

local level plans can include a number of interventions that require other partners’ inputs and support.

There is close link between participatory planning, capacity development, contexts & risks (slow or rapid

onset disasters) and seasonal livelihood analysis. These aspects will influence the type of approach to choose

for planning, and the design of FFA interventions in different contexts, including the possibility to expand or

reduce specific FFA interventions during a shock.

It is important to underline that for FFA participatory planning is intended to include technical aspects as an

integral part of what makes participation work – this is an aspect not often well covered in participatory

planning approaches. Commonly, considerable efforts are put into participatory planning tools, problem

16


Box 4. WFP corporate guidance on participation can be found in the following PGM site http://pgm.wfp.org/index.php/Topics:Participation#WFP.27s_commitment_to_participation

Amongst a number of useful references, the following main levels of participation, as identified below, are key stages in

a participatory process and are critical to retain:

I. Information sharing;

II. Consultation (two-way flow of information);

III. Collaboration (shared control over decision-making);

IV. Empowerment (transfer of control over decisions and resources).

An IFPRI/WFP brief (2008) explains the relevance of community participation and capacity development aspects – this

reference further supports the rationale for pursuing local level planning in FFA design and implementation:

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/Strengthening-capacity_2008.pdf

Regarding participatory tools and toolkits the following link offers a number of instruments which may be useful to

field staff, including a generic description of various participatory techniques and tools, and references to approaches

used in different countries. Some of these can support CO to develop context specific guidelines – others to refine a

planning approach which already exists and is implemented through WFP partners such as government and NGOs

http://pgm.wfp.org/index.php/Topics:Participation#Participatory_techniques_and_tools:_a_WFP_guide.

identification and mapping exercises, while insufficient attention is provided on technical matters, such s

what and how activities are to be designed and integrated. The contrary is also possible, with planning

approaches strong on technical aspects and weak on genuine participation of people in planning. The latter

tend to come up with already-made solutions that tend to impose on communities specific packages of

interventions that may not be relevant in their specific contexts. Experience has shown that a balanced

combination of participation and technical rigour, including integration of measures, generates long lasting

results.

Participatory planning also needs to be interactive and to include the possibility to explain concretely to

communities what specific FFA activities looks like (e.g. through demonstrations). Rural communities usually

prefer practical action, thus while they may enjoy thorough discussions and sharing of ideas, they may not

appreciate lengthy and cumbersome procedures for planning. In several instances specific planning

approaches have failed because over-focusing on participatory processes aimed to explain detailed social

dynamics has not focused on what land users demand on how to fix real problems.

Field staff engaged in participatory planning should be able to address some of the technical challenges that

relate to specific problems raised by community members. As it is impossible to address all of the technical

challenges, field staff (from partners, government and WFP) should aim to both not raise expectations, and

to agree about what is feasible to implement with available capacity and likely expertise and resources.

Often it helps if WFP and partners’ staff carry with them a set of technical descriptions, standards and work

norms for each of the main potential measures possible to apply in different contexts (which are adjusted to

suit the local agro-climatic conditions). Annex D-1 provides helpful info-techs that can be used (and adapted)

for use in different contexts.

The following sections do not attempt to exhaustively provide the best set of approaches and tools regarding

participatory planning for FFA but a range of processes, key tools and examples based on field work that can

be used and modified by field staff under different conditions.

http://pgm.wfp.org/index.php/Topics:Participation#WFP.27s_commitment_to_participation

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/Strengthening-capacity_2008.pdf

http://pgm.wfp.org/index.php/Topics:Participation#Participatory_techniques_and_tools:_a_WFP_guide

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp237790.pdf

17


WHAT A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE

A community-based participatory plan should comprehensively capture and outline various technical pieces

of information. Methodologically, the following components of planning should be considered and

described:

Planning unit description (community and related sub-watersheds, groups, linkages)

Community and related sub-watershed mapping

Agro-ecological systems description (climate, rainfall, vegetation, land use and sub-watershed

boundaries, basic hydrology, degradation features, based maps)

Seasonal livelihood analysis (crops, markets, expenditures, events, labour, gender aspects)

Problem identification and socio-economic conditions

FFA intervention identification and design (including description of FFA interventions and maps)

Partnerships identification

Targets and phasing of FFA and complementary interventions

Capacity building requirements

These elements constitute the main architecture of any good planning approach developed in consultation

with communities. There are however trade-offs, where some of the commonly-desired features in a

comprehensive participatory plan may not be possible. A common mistake is to develop comprehensive

planning approaches in areas with low capacity. They are often impossible to use.

Annex C-2 and Annex C-3 provide information and specific examples on different planning methods, web-

links to consult for guidance, and practical recommendations for community based planning. It should be

noted that many NGO partners have also developed specific planning approaches that may be very site-

specific and small scale.

As WFP is often called upon to support a large number of beneficiaries using FFA, it is recommended to

ensure that at initial stages of participatory planning, basic or “minimum” standard requirements are

developed for NGO or government partners to use for FFA interventions. With experience and capacity

development, these approaches can then be refined and incorporate additional elements, to feed into

broader strategies for the dissemination of participatory planning.

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp238111.docx


18


TYPES OF PARTICIPATORY CONTEXTS

Before choosing a participatory planning approach, considerations should be given towards:

The key criteria to consider before choosing a given approach

Feasibility of participatory planning for FFA during emergencies, short duration PRROs, or in coercive

contexts

The approach and tools that should be chosen based on local capacity

To reconcile participatory planning with the need to reach many beneficiaries and communities at once

(e.g. can “starting small and doable” interventions match the imperative of reaching scale?)

Whether participatory planning will foster self-help efforts

Tailoring the participatory approach to your context:

There are various types of participatory contexts that may be seen around the world. FFA and related

planning approaches need to be developed based on the common situations where WFP operates and that

Box 5. Technical considerations for participatory planning:

Considering the common situations and the key questions (above), five technical aspects are required to be analyzed

when selecting or developing a planning approach:

(i) Biophysical context and livelihoods. Planning will follow different approaches and territorial units based on whether communities are located in areas that are arid, semi-arid, mountainous, flood prone, or peri-urban. The different type of livelihood will significantly influence whether to focus on the entire community, groups and/or single households depending on social cohesion, land tenure issues, cultural dynamics and seasonal patterns.

(ii) Institutional approach and involvement. Participatory planning will be influenced by whether government institutions follow a top-down or bottom-up approach (or a mix of both); whether it has a well organized extension system or not, a centralized or decentralized structure; and whether there are specific planning approaches already in place that can be followed or are largely absent.

(iii) Capacity of partners (government, NGOs, etc) and WFP. There are countries with robust capacity for grassroots level planning because of years of experience in promoting different planning methods through pilots and community based planning efforts. There are also countries where this experience is largely found within government structures while others in NGOs – or both.

Capacity for participatory planning within WFP is also variable – specific CO have robust capacity because they have assisted institutions and partners develop participatory planning approaches, while other CO have minimal or no capacity.

(iv) Vulnerability profile. Planning approaches will be influenced by the type of vulnerability and by who are the

most affected. Some approaches will require a very inclusive modality as food insecurity is highly pervasive

while other approaches will need to reconcile the need to target specific affected marginalized groups while

meeting overall community demands.

(v) Partnership level. The type of planning approach is also influenced by the range of partners present in specific

parts of the country where FFA are intended to be implemented. In general, participatory approaches that tend

to integrate different components require competent local institutions and/or NGOs partners able to deal with

the complex range of demands that communities provide through the planning process. If this is not possible,

planning approaches need to be simple and developed to address a few problems.

19


relate specifically to FFA. Below are four common situations found in the WFP context (although there are

many more contexts possible to consider):

The understanding of these common situations helps field staff to respond to determine the following,

- Situation 1: Top-down or largely coercive institutional environments that follow specific government

directives regarding extension and planning approaches in the field. Rural communities and farmers

have limited decision-making and follow orders from the top. Under such contexts, participatory

approaches are often pursued via NGOs (when available) albeit often in limited number and coverage. In

such contexts it is common that policies of the government require that WFP and any other partners’

resources are used as conditional transfers in the form of labour-based FFA.

- Situation 2: A mix of semi-coercive institutional environments and attempts of bottom-up planning co-

exists in a number of countries where WFP operates. This is often the result of years of interaction and

relationships built by WFP and partners with specific institutions (particularly ministries of agriculture,

natural resources, environment and others) that have resulted in piloting new approaches and the

gradual dissemination of lessons learned. In these contexts, there are often new policies and strategies

that are conducive to or include elements of participatory planning, that declare the need to empower

vulnerable groups, and that acknowledge the need to pursue more integrated food security efforts. A

greater number of NGOs and UN partners closely work with government institutions. This is often an

evolution from situation 1 above.

- Situation 3: A largely non-coercive institutional environment, supportive of participatory approaches,

but with limited capacity at various levels, or lacking robust and decentralized outreach with insufficient

and poorly equipped staff. In several of these contexts there are numerous NGOs operating in the field,

not always closely supportive of government institutions and directly focused at community level. There

are many different approaches followed, limited coordination and lack of common technical and

planning standards. There is often a tendency to have numerous small projects, few well integrated

efforts, and insufficient attention paid to capacity development of local institutions.

- Situation 4: A weak or highly-constrained institutional environment, particularly in countries emerging

from conflict and/or years of complex emergencies. Often, government institutions are receptive to

bottom-up approaches but are inadequately staffed and lack trained personnel, particularly at district

and community levels. Most of the NGOs will have experience in humanitarian assistance and only few

on recovery and longer-term food security interventions.

Some starting points will include:

(i) Stocktaking what is available in terms of planning: In most countries there are a number of

participatory planning approaches that have been or are currently in use by different partners, often

also during emergencies or protracted emergencies. Many of them include FFA (CFW or FFW) and

can be used as entry points. Stocktaking and learning from these approaches should be a first step.

20


(ii) Adapt from existing experiences: WFP or WFP partners have developed planning tools in a number

of countries tailored to different contexts – they may not be entirely replicable but they include

aspects of planning and technical elements that can be used and adapted to local contexts.

(iii) When capacity is low make it simple: The approaches to use in contexts with low capacity need to

be very simple – as simple need to be the type of FFA to select and implement. It is often within this

scenario that several FFA projects fail because impossible to implement with existing low capacity.

(iv) Participation in top-down environments is possible: It is possible to introduce participatory

planning at community level in countries where institutional settings and approaches are largely

coercive or top-down. These approaches, however, need to be carefully packaged and introduced

through well accepted NGOs or Government institutions open to test or introduce participatory

approaches and tools. It can be as simple as establishing a relief and planning committee in each

community, undertake a mapping exercise, and completing a plan that captures the needs and

priorities of different groups.

(v) Scaling up participatory planning is possible for simple approaches that relate to a limited and

“low-tech” range of FFA interventions: Simple processes can be identified and formats and planning

tools provided to implementing partners. Although simple, these approaches and their scaling

up/application will require some time depending on the capacity of implementing partners.

(vi) Specific set of FFA related to resilience building, land degradation, risk reduction and adaptation

to climate shocks often requires community-based participatory watershed planning: In agrarian

systems, attention to watershed principles and interactions is critical for planning, designing and

implementing FFA and complementary interventions.

Ideally, community-based participatory watershed planning should be adopted as a main approach

for FFA in most degraded agrarian systems. This is not always possible due to capacity constraints.

However, field staff and partners should be made aware of basic watershed principles and use them

for both simple or more complex form of planning. To this effect, the description of the relevance of

watershed principles included in Module B of the FFA guidelines is a good starting point to think FFA

interventions as integral part of watershed and people’s planning.

(vii) Participatory planning supports self-help efforts: any participatory planning process should

generate self-help efforts which are provided in addition to FFA. Communities and individual

households can contribute a significant amount of the planned assets as self-help, mass mobilization

and solidarity driven efforts targeted to assist the poorest members of a community. A number of

such initiatives are generated from participatory planning processes and dialogue.


File 3_module c - Ffa Interventions 20july 2011

Documents

Transcript of File 3_module c - Ffa Interventions 20july 2011