Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Brussels Briefing 51: Katharine Downie "Building resilience to mitigate the effects of future shocks in the agricultural sector in Somalia"

The next Brussels Development Briefing no. 51 on ”Agriculture as an engine of economic reconstruction and development in fragile countries ” took place on 27 June 2018 from 09h00 to 13h00, ACP Secretariat, Brussels 451 Avenue Georges Henri, 1200 Brussels. This Briefing was organised by the ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), in collaboration with the European Commission / DEVCO, the ACP Secretariat, and CONCORD.

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Brussels Briefing 51: Katharine Downie "Building resilience to mitigate the effects of future shocks in the agricultural sector in Somalia"

  1. 1. SomReP Impact Pathways for Economic Growth through Agricultural Transformation ACP Secretariat, Avenue Georges Henri 451 1200 Brussels Belgium Wednesday, June 27th, 2018 Dr Katharine Downie Head of Quality Assurance, M&E, Knowledge Management and Innovation for the Somalia Resilience Program (SomReP)
  2. 2. 2 The SomReP Positive Deviance Study Section I
  3. 3. Research Goals and Objectives To characterize the attributes of households which could be classified as “positive deviants” (those demonstrating coping strategies or well-being indicators, beyond those of the general community) to better understand the behaviours and practices of these successful exceptions. Examine the effect of hypothesized “high impact” activities for both participating households and the community in general: • Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) • Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) • Installed or rehabilitated water assets • Early Warning Early Action (EWEA) systems and/or Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) Positive Deviance Study
  4. 4. Targeted Districts for Positive Deviance Study Positive Deviance Study
  5. 5. Overview of the Study Design • August 2017 • 20 communities across the 6 districts • FGDs and KIIs using semi-structured guide with general community, VSLA members, community leaders, those identified by community and staff as potential positive deviants (individuals and groups) (total 407 participants across 43 FGDs and 27 KIIs) • Explore traits indicative of positive deviance, the role of VSLAs and other SomReP/project activities in relation to positive deviance Qualitative Field Work Positive Deviance Study
  6. 6. Overview of the Study Design • September/October 2017 • 40 communities across the 6 districts (2175 observations) • Household survey via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) using ODK and Ona • 8 modules excluding consent and closure • Household characteristics, shock exposure and coping, access to services and information, project participation, FCS, HFIAS and rCSI Quantitative Survey Positive Deviance Study
  7. 7. Qualitative Findings Role of Savings • Savings seen as essential • To prepare for drought • To withstand the effects of the drought for a longer period • To recover from the drought “They were prepared for the drought and had savings to allow them to go the extra mile in their response.” • Savings allow people to: • Maintain their livelihoods during drought or expand their livelihoods in good times • Manage their livestock and farm assets more favorably • Help others during the drought • Take early action to recover Positive Deviance Study
  8. 8. 8
  9. 9. Findings from Quantitative Household Participation in SomReP Activities Positive Deviance Study • Households participating in at least 1 SomReP activity of interest correlated with improved food security and reduced reliance on negative coping mechanisms • This statement holds true when accounting for other factors such as wealth, livelihood zone, and demographic status • Specific activity participation: • VSLA participants, households and communities participating in water access activities had better food security (FCS, HHS scores) • Households participating in EWEA/CBDRM improved food consumption (FCS)
  10. 10. Findings from Quantitative • The more SomReP activities that a household participated in, the better their food security (FCS) • Communities with active VSLAs had overall better food security scores (FCS, HHS scores) and demonstrated fewer negative coping strategies (rCSI scores) • Presence also correlates with improved recovery/resilience after drought • Significant association with food security (FCS, HHS scores) and coping (rCSI scores) for communities with: • Trained active CAHWs available • EWEA committees or CBDRM activities Community Exposure to SomReP Activities Positive Deviance Study
  11. 11. Findings from Quantitative Characteristics of households with better well-being outcomes (FCS, HHS scores) and better coping behaviour (rCSI scores) • Higher level of education of female head/spouse • Main source of drinking water is from a berkad • Main source of income is from farm/crop production and sales • Use of private, flush toilet Household Characteristics Associated with Improved Well- being and Better Coping Behaviour Positive Deviance Study
  12. 12. SomReP Impact Pathways for Phase II - Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States Section II
  13. 13. 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. 15
  16. 16. 16 Push and Pull for Inclusive Market Growth and Participation PUSH Strategies - build capacities of smallholders to engage in markets, become competitive – attract private sector engagement PULL Strategies - facilitate the development of market systems in a manner that expands the diversity and quality of opportunities accessible to the very poor to engage more successfully in the economy—be it as a producer, laborer, employee, business owner, etc., or a mixture of these. Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States
  17. 17. 17 PUSH Strategies •Build household or community assets •Build demand-driven livelihoods and ‘market readiness’ skills •Improve ‘soft’ skills such as confidence, negotiating, or relationship building •Create less risky entry points for households Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States
  18. 18. 18 PULL Strategies •Lower barriers to market entry for both market actors and households •Build the middle section of the value chain (traders, aggregators, preprocessors) •Create new streams of income •Help build demand for specific markets •Ensure an enabling policy and regulatory environment Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States
  19. 19. 19 Key Features of a Push/Pull Approach 1. Embraces a systems approach to analysis and design, recognizing that many systems—market systems, household systems, gender systems, religious systems, etc.—influence change. 2. Informed by market demand, increases capacities (such as assets, skills, networks, behaviors) of the extreme poor to gainfully participate in markets (i.e., the ‘push’); and promotes development of market systems to expand the quality and diversity of opportunities extreme and very poor households have for such participation (i.e., the ‘pull’). 3. Uses sequencing, phasing and/or layering of interventions to incrementally link together push and pull strategic efforts. 4. Requires a knowledge management system (e.g., M&E data, analysis, internal learning, ‘feedback loops’) that facilitates adaptive programming and learning, in support of the theory of change Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. 21 Challenges to Achieving Impact Through Scale in Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States Section III
  22. 22. 22 Challenges to Achieving Impact Through Scale • NGOs often lack technical capacity to successfully source and implement agricultural innovations and technologies • Research scientists are tasked with showing impact, but are not adept at working downstream in application • Must have uptake and adoption of agricultural technologies by smallholders in order to achieve the scale which will result in impact • Brokering service required to bring researchers, private sector and farmers together Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States
  23. 23. 23