The collective progress we have seen over the last several years on building resilience to recurrent crises is remarkable. Consolidating, disseminating and applying what has been learned at scale is an essential next step.
This includes analytic leasons learned in terms of deepening our understanding of resilience and the capacities that enable vulnerable households, communities (and systems) to mititgate, adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses.
It also includes programmatic leasons learned in relation to our efforts to reduce and manage risk, build adaptive capacity and faciltiative inclusive growth among people and places subject to recurrent crises through our investments.
Finally, it includes operational and organizational lessons learned in terms of moving from coordination to collaboration and ultimately convergence, both internally within our organizations and across the large number of stakeholders from communities to governments, the private sector and humantarian and development partners that are engaged in this work.
To make sense of the vast range of learning happening in real time, it is essential that a shared framework for organizing this knowledge be developed and that such a framework be agreed to among the range of actors who are developing local, regional and global knowledge management and learning platforms (FAO, but also a number of NGOs, governments, regional institutions, donors and partnerships, such as the Global Resilience Partnership) so that they can speak to one another.
I don't pretend to know what the right framework is, but I do know that thinking in analytic, programmatic and operational terms has helped USAID articulate 'what's different' about resilience (and what's not). I am also not advocating for a single platform as that would seem to be both untenable and constraining given scope of learning taking place at different scales from local to global and the need for diverse perspectives from the private and public sector and - above all - communities themeselves.
Online consultations such as these are a starting point for this discussion and Ill be sure follow this one with interest.
The collective progress we have seen over the last several years on building resilience to recurrent crises is remarkable. Consolidating, disseminating and applying what has been learned at scale is an essential next step.
This includes analytic leasons learned in terms of deepening our understanding of resilience and the capacities that enable vulnerable households, communities (and systems) to mititgate, adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses.
It also includes programmatic leasons learned in relation to our efforts to reduce and manage risk, build adaptive capacity and faciltiative inclusive growth among people and places subject to recurrent crises through our investments.
Finally, it includes operational and organizational lessons learned in terms of moving from coordination to collaboration and ultimately convergence, both internally within our organizations and across the large number of stakeholders from communities to governments, the private sector and humantarian and development partners that are engaged in this work.
To make sense of the vast range of learning happening in real time, it is essential that a shared framework for organizing this knowledge be developed and that such a framework be agreed to among the range of actors who are developing local, regional and global knowledge management and learning platforms (FAO, but also a number of NGOs, governments, regional institutions, donors and partnerships, such as the Global Resilience Partnership) so that they can speak to one another.
I don't pretend to know what the right framework is, but I do know that thinking in analytic, programmatic and operational terms has helped USAID articulate 'what's different' about resilience (and what's not). I am also not advocating for a single platform as that would seem to be both untenable and constraining given scope of learning taking place at different scales from local to global and the need for diverse perspectives from the private and public sector and - above all - communities themeselves.
Online consultations such as these are a starting point for this discussion and Ill be sure follow this one with interest.