Rehabilitation, reconstruction and sustainable recovery refer to measures that help restore the livelihoods, assets and production levels of emergency-affected communities. These measures rebuild essential infrastructure, institutions, services and restore the means of production destroyed or made non-operational by a disaster.
Rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance is geared towards limiting the need for relief and allowing development activities to proceed. Rehabilitation and reconstruction include measures which help increase the resilience of food systems in case of future disasters and emergencies. Major emphasis is on strengthening co-ordination of locally active emergency and development institutions and on encouraging the participation of the affected population in designing and implementing interventions to promote household food security and nutrition. Priority is given to the needs of food-insecure households and towards promoting sustainable livelihoods.
Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Sustainable Recovery: What FAO does FAO takes stock of the overall situation of disaster-affected countries and assesses needs for rehabilitation measures and for sustainable recovery of growth and development in the food and agricultural sectors in the medium to long-term. This assistance is aimed at reducing susceptibility to further disasters and emergencies. In response to requests from those countries, FAO also provides assistance to establish an effective policy and institutional framework for future sector growth and development. Within this framework, FAO identifies investment opportunities and formulates programmes and projects for donor funding. This includes programmes to assist resettlement and reintegration of refugees, internally displaced persons and ex-combatants. FAO promotes co-ordination of development and humanitarian institutions in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of decentralised plans of action to promote food security and nutrition in affected areas. FAO plays a key role in following-up immediate agricultural relief with longer-term programmes. It provides assistance in restoring extension, veterinary, plant-protection and input supply services and institutions where these have been disrupted, and the physical reconstruction of agricultural infrastructure such as dams and irrigation systems, markets and crop storage facilities. |
The objectives of FAO activities in rehabilitation, reconstruction and recovery are to assist disaster-affected countries to move from a need for emergency relief to sustainable development of agriculture, food security and nutritional well-being. This is achieved through the restoration of rural production systems, livelihoods, infrastructure, institutions and services affected by disaster. A coherent strategy and policy framework also must be established and priority programmes and projects for medium to long-term sectoral growth and development must be identified.
This may necessitate a wide range of interventions, encompassing the following:
The last three of these are particularly appropriate where a protracted complex emergency has left a country with a seriously weakened central government, state apparatus and commercial sector. In this situation, many aspects of reconstruction and recovery in the food and agricultural sector are achievable only with the re-establishment of a macro-economic policy framework. Economic institutions should be established, including financial and banking systems and fiscal and currency regimes. These may require assistance from one of the international financial institutions.
These interventions would normally need to be considered within the context of an overall rehabilitation and recovery programme rather than piecemeal approach. This is due to the scale and range of the interventions required. The programme may need to address basic issues of options, strategies and policies for the agricultural sector. It must also relate to comparable programmes under development in other sectors by other international and bilateral agencies. Indeed donor funding for individual projects may only be forthcoming if those projects are situated clearly within a sector policy framework which addresses the whole range of issues raised by disaster impacts on the sector.
The post-disaster situation may represent a `clean slate' which may necessitate looking beyond a restoration of the pre-disaster situation. This is particularly the case with regard to sector strategies and policies, and state institutions and services. Such opportunities include investment in a more productive, equitable and efficient - and less disaster-prone - agricultural sector, development in livelihoods and food security. These opportunities lead to sustainable recovery. At the same time, interventions are likely to succeed only if they are based on existing farming and livelihood systems. They must involve a high degree of participation based on existing community and local civil society structures and systems of authority. The latter may have been in abeyance during a protracted complex emergency, but will nevertheless be of major relevance.
Just as emergency relief projects need to be formulated with a view to overall rehabilitation requirements (see Phase Four - Impact and Immediate Needs Assessment) in the food and agriculture sectors, rehabilitation programmes must be designed to build on the achievements of emergency relief. Indeed, there have been relief projects which in terms of objectives, intervention strategies and modes of implementation take important steps towards rehabilitation and reconstruction. This has been achieved through such activities as support for institutional development, training farmers and extension workers, rebuilding input supply infrastructure and stimulating the recovery of marketing and distribution channels. This is particularly true of agricultural `relief' projects which are relatively `far' from the onset of the emergency and which may be largely oriented towards rehabilitation objectives. On-going agricultural relief activities must become an integral part of rehabilitation and reconstruction programmes, fully taken into account in the design of new activities and projects.
Similarly, not only must longer-term recovery and development programmes build on rehabilitation interventions, but in view of the gestation period required for putting such programmes into practice the process of assessing options and developing strategies and policies for them must also begin early on in the rehabilitation process. Moreover, their design needs to incorporate appropriate elements of disaster prevention and preparedness if the recovery is to be sustainable. Where the risk of emergencies is related to unresolved social tensions, whether latent or overt, this necessarily includes strategies for promoting sustainable peace.
The key units responsible for FAO's post-emergency rehabilitation work are the Policy Co-ordinating Service (TCAR) and FAO's Investment Centre (TCI). FAO's Special Relief Operations Service (TCOR) has carried out critical work in creating a continuum from agricultural relief to agricultural rehabilitation.1
At the request of countries emerging from crises, TCAR prepares a coherent policy and programme framework designed to ensure a smooth transition from emergency relief to rehabilitation, reconstruction, sustained recovery and development. Depending on the gravity of the situation, this may require a review of the food and agricultural sector through the fielding of an inter-disciplinary team. This review results in recommendations for short, medium and longer term strategies and policies for agricultural recovery and development which take account of post-disaster constraints and opportunities, and are in line with government priorities and policy framework.
TCI provides assistance for the identification of specific investment opportunities through the formulation of phased and costed rehabilitation, reconstruction and recovery programmes. These programmes can be submitted to the international community, in particular to the international financial institutions (IFIs) for funding. Such assistance may be based on TCAR's sector review, policy and strategy work. The two areas of work, the preparation of coherent policy and programme frameworks, and the identification of investment opportunities are not always distinct. TCI, relatively well-endowed as it is in terms of availability of staff and consultants, frequently works with TCAR in the development of a pre-formulation strategy and policy framework.
TCI's comparative advantage in this area is a result both of its capacity for rapid response in the deployment of specialist expertise in the formulation of projects within any sub-sector; and its established programmes of collaboration with a wide range of financing institutions for food and agriculture. These institutions include the World Bank, IFAD, the regional and sub-regional development banks, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the United Nations Capital Development Fund as well as some Arab funds.
The desired continuity between agricultural relief, rehabilitation and recovery programmes clearly requires close collaboration between TCOR, TCAR and TCI. This means that TCAR and TCI need to be kept fully apprised of past, current and envisaged future TCOR projects relating to the emergency and country under consideration. TCOR must be thoroughly familiar with broader rehabilitation and recovery strategies to which its projects contribute.
The role of FAORs in rehabilitation and reconstruction is central. The FAOR advises TCAR and TCI on the timing and necessity of rehabilitation and sector review activities. This is done after careful monitoring of the evolving emergency situation, GIEWS reports, the implementation of emergency relief, and after consultation with government. the FAOR advises TCAR and TCI if and when rehabilitation and sector review activities should be initiated. Similar to other requests for technical assistance, this is channelled through the Assistant Director-General, TCD. It is also put before FAO's in-house emergency co-ordination group (ECG) for the comments and recommendations of its members. Activities are implemented mainly by the Policy Assistance Branches or Units, but benefit from the collaboration of relevant technical divisions, TCI and the FAORs.
The best time for launching programmes for rehabilitation and recovery in a country affected by a complex or major emergency is a matter of judgement made in the light of political stability, institutional capacity and the scale and nature of interventions required. An orientation towards rehabilitation and development can and should be built into short-term relief operations even during the gravest of emergencies. On the other hand, the launching of a wide-ranging rehabilitation and reconstruction programme during a dynamic complex emergency is ill advised. A situation in which conflict is still raging, populations are continuing to flee, the safety of workers and team members cannot be secured and there is no effective government or state apparatus would not be likely to attract donor funding.
In practice, the design of a rehabilitation and recovery programme is unlikely to be a single event in time. The manner in which the exercise is conducted and its timing are partly determined by arrangements and responsibilities within the United Nations system for inter-sectoral coordination and within a `strategic framework' for rehabilitation and recovery. Following a natural disaster, assessment of rehabilitation needs and the preparation of a suitable programme can normally begin alongside relief operations. The programme takes shape as those operations progress, with one or more missions fielded to give sharper focus. In complex and major emergencies, such a programme may emerge in incremental fashion as the situation permits. Initial ideas arise from relief operations and, when the security situation allows, one or more major interdisciplinary and/or multi-agency teams is fielded to carry out a sector review. Once this is done, the team generates a strategy and policy framework followed by an investment programme. The programme that results should be phased, with phases linked inter alia to progress in the conflict resolution and reconciliation process.
For disasters with predominantly localised outcomes, the priority is to assist in formulating strategies, policies and investment programmes for rehabilitation and recovery which concentrate on the needs of populations in the affected areas. Some disasters, in particular those leading to complex or major emergencies, may have consequences so widespread and serious as to necessitate a nation-wide review of the food and agriculture sector. The decision as to whether a full sector review is required is one which must be reached through government, FAO and UNDP collaboration.
The procedures described in the following sections are those for a full sector review, which encompasses all aspects of food and agriculture whether affected by emergency or not. More limited exercises may be restricted to a review of disaster affected areas, or of specific consequences of the emergency, or both.
Team Composition
Where the situation calls for a sector or sub-sector review, an interdisciplinary team is mounted. This team may comprise of FAO staff from Headquarters, regional/sub-regional, country offices, international and national consultants and government staff. It provides a suitable range of expertise. The latter needs to be determined in the light of the different key issues to be addressed by the Review, which will differ between countries, and may cover some combination of:
Review of Objectives
This may include:
Review Funding
The Review may be funded through the Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP), by UNDP or by another international or bilateral agency, or by some combination of these. It may be carried out in two phases - covering a review of technical options in the first, and generation of strategies and an investment programme in the second - and each may be funded by a different donor.
The Review Project Document
If the Review is to be externally funded a project document is prepared in the appropriate funding agency format, and would normally include:
Inception Mission
Where a large team is to be fielded, it may be appropriate for an Inception Mission, including the Review Team Leader, to visit the country one or two months in advance of the main team, in order to assist in preparing for the Review. This might include:
Collaboration and Consultation
The Review is a collaborative exercise between FAO and government, assisted by an FAO-led team of national and international experts. The team seeks to confront complex and contentious issues affecting sectoral development, and involves concerted and painstaking work to build a policy consensus. It is crucial therefore that team members work together and the team as a whole collaborates closely with both the relevant government agencies and other donors and NGOs operating in the country. A Steering Committee, appointed by the government, chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and including representation from interested national institutions can assist such collaboration. It can provide guidance and monitoring for the exercise, developing review conclusions and recommendations with the team and based on the team's work.
Early consultations can include a workshop, involving team and Steering Committee members, held at the beginning of the team's fieldwork to discuss the scope of the work, approach and major issues to be addressed. Seminars can also be arranged on each major review theme, bringing together the concerned national and international team members, donor and NGO representatives.
Debriefing and Reporting
Each consultant prepares a technical document under the guidance of the Team Leader prior to the completion of his/her assignment, covering findings, conclusions and recommendations within the respective sub-sector or major theme. These documents constitute technical annexes to the Main Report of the Review.
Towards the end of the fieldwork the national and international Team Leaders prepare a joint Aide Memoire summarising major findings to emerge from the Review, and providing the basis for a debriefing with the Steering Committee. On returning from the field, the international team prepares a Back-to-Office report to brief FAO headquarters on the review exercise.
Report writing then takes place both in-country (involving national consultants) and in Rome, and within eight weeks of fieldwork completion a draft final report is completed which is cleared by an FAO technical committee before being forwarded to the government. A closing workshop is subsequently convened at which the Team Leader presents the draft report to government. Comments and suggestions received and endorsed by government are then incorporated into the report. The report is then finalised and submitted to government by FAO in English and, for TCP-funded reviews, French as well as the official FAO language for the country.
The Main Report
The organisation and coverage of the Review Main Report depends on the country setting and structure of the agriculture sector. Typically, the following sections may be included:
There are also other important issues which cut across those outlined above, for example those relating to options and strategies for decision-making processes, inter-institutional collaboration, decentralisation, participatory approaches to development or conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution.
Identifying Priority Investment Programmes
Based explicitly on the foregoing analysis of constraints, potential and technical options, and on the strategies recommended for the sector, this section proposes a number of investment programmes. These programmes are regarded as being of high priority for rehabilitation, reconstruction (where appropriate), recovery, growth and development of the country's agriculture, including food security and nutritional wellbeing.
Programmes should demonstrably:
Preparing Project Profiles
Where priority projects can be readily identified within the proposed programmes, respective project profiles can be presented as a final section or annex to the Main Report. This enables donors to be approached with the minimum of delay in priority areas and so enhances the process of mobilising resources for implementation of the proposed programmes. It also facilitates project formulation once a donor has been identified.
The Agricultural Recovery and Development Options Review is interesting to bilateral and multilateral donors and international financing agencies. It presents a coherent sector policy framework within which decisions on support for individual projects can be made. The Final Report with its project profiles is forwarded to potential donors shortly after its submission to government.
Project profiles arising out of the Review will not necessarily be designed for FAO execution. Many of those which do attract donor interest will lead to formulation and execution outside FAO. Where FAO is in a position to execute a project within an agricultural recovery programme, the processes for screening, formulation, appraisal, funds' mobilisation, approval and implementation are the same as for any other FAO project.
FAO consultations with donors may occur at the country or regional/sub-regional office level as well as at Headquarters level. In the latter case, the units responsible for co-ordination with the envisaged funding sources are the Unit for Co-operation with Multilateral and Bilateral Agencies (TCDM) and the Unit for Co-operation with the Private Sector and NGOs (TCDN). Assistance in mobilising funds may also come from TCI.
Responsibility for overseeing the formulation of projects emerging from rehabilitation and reconstruction or recovery and agricultural development programmes rests ultimately with TCI. Formulation is normally carried out by the concerned technical unit or by TCOR for short-term rehabilitation projects, TCAR for policy-related projects, or TCI for investment-related or larger and more complex technical assistance programmes or projects.
FAO Reference Manual
|
1 In May and June 2001, FAO organised several brainstorming meetings aiming to conceptualise its technical assistance following disasters and emergencies (vulnerability analysis, emergency agriculture and rural livelihood recovery programmes) within a broader policy framework of poverty elimination and improved agricultural governance. Follow-up to these meetings may have implications for the roles and responsibilities of the various technical services.
