Séance on line jhdf vf en ps edit

574 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
574
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The link between humanitarian and development interventions is a subject that has been debated for many years. On the ground it is a complex challenge!
  • This challenge was met by the European Commission with the Food Security Thematic Programme. The recently approved programme states that a Joint Humanitarian/ Development Framework should be prepared in each beneficiary country.
  • But first, this requires a strong desire to work together: Delegations, experts from ECHO, colleagues working at the headquarters in DEVCO and ECHO and, if possible, partners in the fight against hunger. It's mostly an exercise at grass-roots level. It is important to recognise that this exercise is not simply a procedure but rather a joint process. A process in which everyone learns from others and, in turn, teaches others, as indeed, everyone sees the food crisis according to one’s own position and responsibilities.
  • It is proposed to prepare the “Joint Humanitarian-Development Framework” in five steps: Step 1: Participants exchange ideas about the nature of the crisis to take advantage of the vision of each. This is not the place to analyse the crisis in-depth, but to understand and set its context. Step 2: Participants identify the most vulnerable population that should be targeted. Step 3: They perform a joint analysis of all the causes that explain the vulnerability and food insecurity in this population. Step 4: The participants identify their respective interventions (past, current or planned) that address these causes. Step 5: After analysing the coherence of such interventions, an agreement is reached on priorities and on the “Joint Humanitarian-Development Framework."
  • Let's see how these steps have been applied to a theoretical situation, though one inspired by the recent flooding in Burkina Faso. This exercise was conducted with colleagues in the Delegations of Mali and Burkina Faso, with experts from ECHO Regional Office in Dakar and the ECHO office in Burkina Faso.
  • In the first stage, everyone is invited to present one’s own vision of the disaster. Is this an exceptional disaster or a repetitive event that this time has had a dramatic impact because of other aggravating factors? The second step is to identify together the most vulnerable population affected by the flooding that have, as a result, very precarious “food security”. Here, 300,000 already vulnerable people have been affected by the disaster. Our goal is to promote sustainable food security for this population.
  • Now for the analysis of the causes.
  • The colour of each arrow has a special meaning.
  • The first effect of the flooding is the destruction of much infrastructure and many assets at different levels. In the diagram, these levels are represented by separate columns. Large dams of national importance are placed in the “National level” column. Provincial highways (Trunk roads) are placed in the column “Provincial level” and so on. The following slides include the analysis of the “Household” and “Individual” levels.
  • The violence of the flood was exacerbated when the dams and dikes suddenly gave way, forming a destructive wave of water. The destruction of productive assets significantly damaged the livelihoods of the affected population. Market operation has been directly disrupted by the destruction of access roads and indirectly affected, in particular, by the destruction of communications media. In turn, rising food prices had already aggravated the financial situation of the poorest households.
  • The loss or partial destruction of livelihoods has had a direct impact on household members, who no longer had access to food, health care, housing and education.
  • All previously identified causes are the direct or indirect result of the flooding. They are also the result of poor sectorial policies. Dams have failed because they were not maintained. The most vulnerable people lost everything because they were not alerted due to the malfunction of the warning system. This chain reaction of "causes, effects, causes" quickly led to worsening food insecurity and the overall deterioration of living conditions of all household members.
  • It is possible that the European Commission (EC) has interventions that are already underway or are programmed or are foreseen for possible future planning that may have significance in addressing the issues identified. But these programmes were prioritised under different circumstances and by different mandates (ECHO, DEVCO). The European Commission now needs to define and validate its priorities on the basis of the joint analysis presented in the previous step. In this case the priority for the European Commission is to act with other donors and with its national partner, to address a diverse set of causes that contributed most to the extreme vulnerability of poor populations affected by the disaster. Let’s now identify, in the current example, all these actions, whether underway or planned.
  • ECHO provided emergency aid to save lives, to strengthen the livelihoods of households and then to restore feeder roads through Food for Work.
  • There are scheduled or planned interventions supported by the Food Security Thematic Programme and a “special allocation” from Envelope B.
  • The European Commission in partnership with the country, has pledged cooperation on the formulation and implementation of an infrastructure policy. At the Regional level, the Commission will support a reforestation programme designed by its regional partners.
  • Each of the interventions previously identified must be analysed to ensure that it matches the scale of the problem. It is possible that that an intervention (current or planned) may require significant improvement or reorientation in order to contribute to the common objective, that is to say: “To promote food security of the population affected by the disaster.” The fifth step is to analyse the coherence of the Commission’s interventions
  • This step will help identify gaps, unnecessary duplication and possible contradictions. It will also address issues of sustainability and consider options for an exit strategy for the humanitarian intervention.
  • Gaps must be identified. In this diagram one can see that additional interventions are needed, otherwise the whole strategy and ultimately food security may be compromised. For example, in this case it would seem reasonable to help rebuild houses, but this makes no sense from a sustainability point of view unless a management plan for flood-prone areas has been made.
  • Some actions can be supported by both humanitarian and development interventions. Is this an unnecessary duplication or synergy?
  • Some actions can have perverse effects, such as the provision of long-term food aid that could have a negative effect on the local market.
  • Finally, how can we contribute to the sustainability of actions and develop an exit strategy for ECHO, if policies at provincial and national levels are not made effective?
  • The analysis also indicates that the different interventions should be carried out at the right time and in a logical sequence. In this case, the actions have been grouped in five phases from 0 to 4.
  • In ‘phase 0’, ECHO launches an emergency response to save lives.
  • In ‘phase 1’, it was planned to initiate actions to restore livelihoods. However, the flashing boxes in the diagram show where there is an immediate need to integrate interventions that had originally been scheduled for later. This is due to: The risk of rebuilding in an unprotected flood zone; or The lack of any action to improve the means of communication which blocks the economic development of households and villages.
  • Similarly, support for the country’s education policy must be incorporated in ‘phase 2’, otherwise, the plan for the reconstruction of schools risks being incoherent. We must also ensure that the rehabilitation of roads meets good standards and that their maintenance will be provided for as part of a national policy, the reform of which should also receive immediate support.
  • In ‘phase 3’, it makes no sense to rehabilitate irrigation systems unless the dams and dikes are also rebuilt; so, their rehabilitation and reconstruction must be integrated in this phase.
  • ‘ Phase 4’ is not particularly time-sensitive.
  • It is now possible to design a coherent plan of action that integrates humanitarian actions and those of development
  • The components of the common plan are organised chronologically and by level of intervention.
  • Actions are also broken down by program: Blue: Humanitarian Programme (DG ECHO + ECHO offices) Pink: Thematic Development Programmes (Delegation / DEVCO + Country partners) Yellow: Geographic Development Programmes (Delegation / DEVCO + government) Pale Green: Regional Programme ("regional" Delegation(s) / DEVCO + official regional structures and other partners) Light Blue: Interventions of other donors.
  • The methodology presented here should be applied, tested and improved with the participation of us all. It is recommended that the preparation of a Joint Humanitarian/Development Framework is conducted in a participatory manner through a seminar or a series of meetings.
  • Information is available on the ROSA website ( www.reseau-rosa.eu ).
  • A big thank you to the colleagues who participated in the preparation of this presentation: Cyprien Fabre, Sigrid Kulkhe, Jan Eijskenaar and Jean Louis Mosser, ECHO regional office in Dakar, Ronan Pecheur, Delegation of Burkina Faso and Eric Pitois, ECHO office in BF Alain Houyoux, the Delegation of Mali Juan Luis Prades, DEVCO Unit R7 Thank you all for your attention.
  • Séance on line jhdf vf en ps edit

    1. 1. JOINT HUMANITARIAN-DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (JHDF) IN THE CONTEXT OF FOOD SECURITY WHY A JHDF? WHO IS INVOLVED? HOW ? THE WAY FORWARD
    2. 2. <ul><li>WHY A JHDF? </li></ul><ul><li>Under the strategy priority No. 3 of the FSTP 2011-2013: To promote food security for the poor and vulnerable in “exceptional” situations </li></ul><ul><li>To contribute to this objective, humanitarian and development actors need to work together: </li></ul><ul><li>Preparation of a joint humanitarian-development framework </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>JHDF : WHO IS INVOLVED? </li></ul><ul><li>EU Delegations and experts from ECHO </li></ul><ul><li>With the support of HQs (DEVCO, ECHO) </li></ul><ul><li>If possible, in collaboration with other donors and partners </li></ul><ul><li>Principles to be kept in mind: </li></ul><ul><li>A “decentralised” exercise </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on the process of elaborating a JHDF, not the procedure </li></ul>
    4. 4. HOW TO DESIGN A JHDF ? Following a 5-step process: Step 1: Discussion on the overall nature of the crisis Step 2: Identification of target population Step 3: Joint analysis of the causes for food insecurity of target population Step 4 : Identification of EU responses Step 5 : Assessment of the coherence of EU interventions, definition of strategic priorities and design of an action plan
    5. 5. AN EXAMPLE INSPIRED BY A POST-NATURAL DISASTER SITUATION (FLOOD IN BURKINA FASO)
    6. 6. Step 1: Discussion of the crisis Flood in rural areas Step 2: Target population 300 000 already vulnerable people, affected by floods <ul><li>Important reminder: The objective of the FSTP is to address the food insecurity of the poor and vulnerable population affected by this natural disaster </li></ul>
    7. 7. Step 3: Analysis of the causes of food insecurity Causes leading to the deterioration of the situation of target population and contributing to its food insecurity
    8. 8. A SCHEMATIC CAUSAL MODEL Direct impact of the flood Contributing to impact of the flood Indirect impact of the flood
    9. 9. Livestock, crops, grain stores destroyed Schools damaged Houses destroyed Feeder roads destroyed Irrigation schemes damaged Pastures destroyed Dam destroyed Trunk roads destroyed Dikes destroyed Malfunction & destruction of local markets National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    10. 10. Livestock, crops, grain stores destroyed Schools damaged Irrigation schemes damaged Houses destroyed Destruction & Dysfonctionnement des marchés communaux Feeder roads destroyed Dikes destroyed Pastures destroyed Trunk roads destroyed Dam destroyed Malfunction & destruction of local markets Erosion of financial capital LIVELIHOODS National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    11. 11. Schools damaged Irrigation schemes damaged Destruction & Dysfonctionnement des marchés communaux Feeder roads destroyed Dikes destroyed Pastures destroyed Trunk roads destroyed Dam destroyed Malfunction & destruction of local markets Erosion of financial capital Reduced access to food Reduced access to health Reduced access to shelter Reduced access to education Food insecurity and livelihood deterioration LIVELIHOODS Livestock, crops, grain stores destroyed Houses destroyed National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    12. 12. Irrigation schemes damaged Destruction & Dysfonctionnement des marchés communaux Feeder roads destroyed Dikes destroyed Pastures destroyed Malfunction & destruction of local markets Erosion of financial capital Reduced access to food Reduced access to health Reduced access to shelter Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Dysfunctional provincial early warning Dysfunctional commune early warning No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Deforestation Dam destroyed Lack of maintenance and surveillance of dams Poor road design and maintenance Low investment in education Trunk roads destroyed Food insecurity and livelihood deterioration Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS Livestock, crops, grain stores destroyed Houses destroyed National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    13. 13. Step 4: Identification of the EU response (current, programmed and planned)
    14. 14. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Malfunction & destruction of local markets Pastures destroyed Trunk roads destroyed Dam destroyed Restoration financial capital Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Dysfunctional provincial early warning system Dysfunctional commune early warning system ECHO Feeder roads rehabilitation Poor road design and maintenance Lack of maintenance and surveillance of dams Low investment in education Deforestation No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Improvement of food security and livelihoods Schools damaged Dikes destroyed LIVELIHOODS Houses destroyed National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    15. 15. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Housing reconstruction Well-functioning local markets Dike recovery Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads destroyed Dam destroyed Restoration financial capital Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Development provincial early warning system Development commune early warning system ECHO Feeder roads rehabilitation Envelope B / FSTP Low investment in education Lack of maintenance and surveillance of dams Deforestation No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Improvement of food security and livelihoods Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS Poor road design and maintenance Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    16. 16. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Housing reconstruction Dike recovery Pastures rehabilitation Dam reconstruction Restoration financial capital Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Development provincial early warning system Development commune early warning system ECHO Feeder roads rehabilitation Envelope B / FSTP Geographic programmes Regional programme Appropriate road design and maintenance Maintenance and surveillance of dams Low investment in education Trunk roads destroyed Reforestation No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Improvement of food security and livelihoods Well-functioning local markets Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    17. 17. Step 5: Analysis of risks and shortcoming of EU interventions & Design of an action plan
    18. 18. <ul><li>ANALYSIS OF EU INTERVENTIONS </li></ul><ul><li>Gaps? </li></ul><ul><li>Overlapping? </li></ul><ul><li>Contradictions? </li></ul><ul><li>No sustainability and no possible exit strategy (for the humanitarians)? </li></ul>
    19. 19. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Housing reconstruction Dike recovery Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads destroyed Dam reconstruction Restoration financial capital Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Development provincial early warning system Development commune early warning system ECHO Feeder roads rehabilitation Envelope B / FSTP Geographic programmes Regional programme Gaps? Other donors? Appropriate road design and maintenance Maintenance and surveillance of dams Low investment in education Reforestation No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Improvement of food security and livelihoods Well-functioning local markets Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    20. 20. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Housing reconstruction Dike recovery Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads destroyed Dam reconstruction Restoration financial capital Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Development provincial early warning system Development commune early warning system ECHO Feeder roads rehabilitation Envelope B / FSTP Geographic programmes Regional programme Duplication or reinforcement? Reforestation No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Appropriate road design and maintenance Maintenance and surveillance of dams Low investment in education Improvement of food security and livelihoods Well-functioning local markets Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    21. 21. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Housing reconstruction Dike recovery Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads destroyed Dam reconstruction Restoration financial capital Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Development provincial early warning system Development commune early warning system ECHO Commune roads rehabilitation Envelope B / FSTP Geographic programmes Regional programme Contradictions? Reforestation No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Appropriate road design and maintenance Maintenance and surveillance of dams Low investment in education Amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire et des conditions de vie Well-functioning local markets Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    22. 22. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Housing reconstruction Dike recovery Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads destroyed Dam reconstruction Restoration financial capita l Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Development provincial early warning system Development commune early warning system ECHO Commune roads rehabilitation Envelope B / FSTP Geographic programmes Regional programme Sustainability? Reforestation No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Appropriate road design and maintenance Maintenance and surveillance of dams Low investment in education Improvement of food security and livelihoods Well-functioning local markets Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS Restored access to shelter Restored access to food Restored access to health National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    23. 23. <ul><li>CHRONOLOGY AND COHERENCE </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of the overall timing and sequencing of actions </li></ul><ul><li>Identification of different phases (and phasing out) </li></ul>
    24. 24. Livestock, crops, grain stores destroyed Irrigation schemes damaged Houses destroyed Malfunction & destruction of local markets Dikes destroyed Pastures destroyed Trunk roads destroyed Barrage détruit Erosion of financial capital Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter Reduced access to education Lack of flood plain management Lack of a national early warning system Dysfunctional provincial early warning system Dysfunctional commune early warning system Feeder roads destroyed Phase 0 0 0 0 No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Deforestation Dam destroyed Lack of maintenance and surveillance of dams Poor road design and maintenance Low investment in education Improvement of food security and livelihoods Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    25. 25. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes damaged Malfunction & destruction of local markets Dikes destroyed Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads destroyed Dam destroyed Restoration financial capital Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter Reduced access to education Lack of a national early warning system Dysfunctional provincial early warning system Dysfunctional commune early warning system Housing reconstruction 1 1 1 Phase 1 1 1 1 Feeder roads rehabilitation Flood plain management plan No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Deforestation Lack of maintenance and surveillance of dams Poor road design and maintenance Low investment in education Improvement of food security and livelihoods Schools damaged LIVELIHOODS National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    26. 26. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Schools reconstruction Irrigation schemes damaged Dikes destroyed Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads rehabilitation Dam destroyed Restoration financial capital Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter Reduced access to education Lack of a national early warning system Dysfunctional provincial early warning system Dysfunctional commune early warning system Housing reconstruction Feeder roads rehabilitation Flood plain management plan Phase 2 2 2 Appropriate road design and maintenance 2 Investment policy in education 2 No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Deforestation Lack of maintenance and surveillance of dams 2 Improvement of food security and livelihoods Well-functioning local markets LIVELIHOODS National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    27. 27. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Schools reconstruction Irrigation schemes rehabilitation Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads rehabilitation Restoration financial capital Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter Reduced access to education Lack of a national early warning system Dysfunctional provincial early warning system Dysfunctional commune early warning system Housing reconstruction Feeder roads rehabilitation Flood plain management plan Investment policy in education Phase 3 3 3 Dike recovery Dam reconstruction 3 Maintenance and surveillance of dams 3 Appropriate road design and maintenance No formulation or implementation of watershed management policies Deforestation Improvement of food security and livelihoods Well-functioning local markets LIVELIHOODS National level Provincial level County level Village level Individual level Household level Supra national level
    28. 28. Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Irrigation schemes rehabilitation Pastures rehabilitation Trunk roads rehabilitation Restoration financial capital Restored access to food Restored access to health Restored access to shelter Reduced access to education Development national early warning system Development provincial early warning system Development commune early warning system Watershed management policies Reforestation Housing reconstruction Feeder roads rehabilitation Flood plain management plan Dike recovery Dam reconstruction Phase 4 4 4 4 Investment policy in education Maintenance and surveillance of dams Appropriate road design and maintenance Improvement of food security and livelihoods Well-functioning local markets 4 4 Schools reconstruction LIVELIHOODS National level Provincial level County level Village level Niveau individu Household level Supra national level
    29. 29. Step 5: Design of an action plan
    30. 30. Level of intervention Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Supra national (regional ) Reforestation National Flood plain management plan ---------------------> ---------------------> Road policy Education policy ---------------------> ---------------------> ---------------------> Dam reconstr. Dam policy ---------------------> ---------------------> ---------------------> ---------------------> Watershed manag. policy EW system Provincial Provincial roads rehabilitation ---------------------> Dike recovery ---------------------> ---------------------> EW system County Feeder roads rehabilitation ---------------------> ---------------------> ---------------------> Villages Pastures rehabilitation Schools reconstr. ---------------------> Irrigation schemes rehabilitation ---------------------> ---------------------> EW system Households Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment Housing reconstr. ---------------------> ---------------------> ---------------------> ---------------------> Individuals Direct actions: Food assistance Health ---------------------> ---------------------> Food security (ST) ---------------------> --------------------->
    31. 31. Level of intervention ECHO Envelope B / FSTP Geographic programmes Regional programme Other donors Phase 0 Direct actions: Food assistance Health Phase 1 Food security (ST) Pastures rehab. Housing reconstr. Flood plain management plan Phase 2 Road policy Provincial roads rehabilitation Schools reconstr. Education policy Phase 3 Dike rehabilitation Dam reconstr. Dam policy Irrigation schemes rehabilitation Phase 4 EW systems (province and county) Reforestation National EW system Watershed manag. policy Livestock, crops, grain stores replenishment
    32. 32. <ul><li>THE WAY FORWARD </li></ul><ul><li>Specific technical assistance and training </li></ul><ul><ul><li>18-20 July in Brussels: Training “Acting in transition” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To help EC/EU staff to prepare JHDF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To help staff better understand EC/EU policies, regulations and administrative modalities applicable to transition situations </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. <ul><li>A SELECTION OF KEY DOCUMENTS </li></ul><ul><li>AVAILABLE AT www.reseau-rosa.eu </li></ul><ul><li>Linking relief, rehabilitation and development – COM(1996) 153 – April 1996 </li></ul><ul><li>Linking relief, rehabilitation and development. An assessment – COM(2001) 153 – April 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>Governance in the European Consensus on Development – COM(2006) 421 – August 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Towards an EU response to situations of fragility – COM(2007) 643 – October 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>EU Council conclusions on Security and Development - November 2007 </li></ul>
    34. 34. <ul><li>A SELECTION OF KEY DOCUMENTS </li></ul><ul><li>AVAILABLE AT www.reseau-rosa.eu </li></ul><ul><li>Reinforcing the Union’s disaster response capacity – COM(2008)130 – April 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>EU strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries – COM(2009) 84 – February 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>FSTP: Thematic strategy paper (update) and multiannual indicative programme 2011-2013 – December 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>ROSA Newsletter No. 8 : Linking relief, rehabilitation and development – August 2008 </li></ul>

    ×