Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

[English version below]

De la formulation d’un Cadre d’approche harmonisé de mesure de la résilience

Depuis fin 2012, l’Union Européenne et les trois OIG de la région Sahel et Afrique de l’Ouest (CEDEAO, UEMOA et CILSS) se sont engagés dans un partenariat international appelé Alliance Global pour la Résilience (AGIR) avec pour ambition de renforcer la résilience des populations. Il s’agit de créer les conditions d’adaptation aux mutations dues au changement du contexte climatique, environnemental et socio-économique.

Avec cette montée en puissance de la problématique de la résilience, le besoin de proposer à la région un mécanisme harmonisé de mesure de la résilience est devenu pour le CILSS (bras technique de la CEDEAO) une nécessité impérieuse. En effet créer des liens forts entre les efforts humanitaires et de développement nécessite la mise en œuvre des programmes structurants à long terme pour lesquels une bonne compréhension du dynamisme et de la dimension de la résilience est fondamentale pour renforcer les capacités des systèmes à tous les niveaux.

La 29e réunion annuelle du Réseau de Prévention des Crises Alimentaires (RPCA) dont le thème central a porté sur les « Indicateurs et outils méthodologiques de mesure de la résilience » a recommandé la formulation d’un « Cadre d’approche harmonisé de mesure de la résilience » sous le leadership des organisations régionales (CEDEAO, UEMOA et CILSS).

En effet, la grande diversité des indicateurs et des méthodologies en développement et le souci d’éviter la cacophonie ont amené le RPCA a recommandé, à l’image du Cadre d’analyse de la vulnérabilité courante (CH), la convergence des approches vers un outil unique, reconnu par tous comme seul cadre de référence en matière d’évaluation de la résilience.

L’étroite collaboration CILSS/FAO instaurée depuis 2013, sur la base de RIMA, pour faire de cette préoccupation des autorités et acteurs de la région une réalité inspire de ma part les leçons et dispositions particulières à prendre pour créer les conditions idoines de réussite d’un exercice du genre :

-        Etablir une frontière lisible entre le technique et le politique. Quand est ce que l’institution technique en charge de l’élaboration de l’outil devrait-elle impliquer les institutions politiques de décision. A défaut d’un règlement intérieur ou d’un code de bonne conduite gérant les relations entre le technique et le politique l’exercice de conception de l’outil pourrait être mis en retard.

-        Bien définir le rôle de l’appui-conseil dans le cadre de la construction de la Plateforme Technique. Il faut que toutes les parties en face comprennent que l’action de l’appui-conseil, comme c’est présentement le cas de la FAO auprès du CILSS, s’explique uniquement par sa volonté entre autres (i) de travailler avec les institutions régionales et nationales, (ii) d’éviter la cacophonie dans l’analyse et l’évaluation de la résilience dans la zone en question, (iii) de renforcer les capacités des acteurs régionaux et nationaux.

-        Se mettre d’accord sur la nécessité de mettre en place une Plate-forme technique sur l’analyse et la mesure de la résilience (PT-AMR). Un dispositif du genre est indispensable si on veut impulser une dynamique inclusive et participative. La plateforme a pour mandat entre autres (i) de conduire le processus de construction de l’outil de mesure, (ii) de coordonner l’ensemble des activités lubrifiant le processus de décision sur les investissements à savoir l’analyse et la mesure de la résilience, le dialogue politique, le développement des capacités, la recherche. Elle est dotée d’organes de pilotage impliquant tous les acteurs concernés et de documents constitutifs précisant son mode opératoire ;

-        Définir ensemble la démarche à suivre pour avoir un outil consensuel, démarche qui devra être participative et inclusive. Des boucles de concertations devront ponctuer le processus pour se mettre d’accord sur les sous-produits constituant des « bulding blocks » ;

-        Inventorier les méthodologies et approches existantes et leur état de mise en œuvre. Cet inventaire permettra de se mettre d’accord sur une d’entre elles qui servira de fondation. Cet outil de base sera bonifié par les composantes non prises en compte des autres initiatives mais, tout de même utiles dans l’exercice d’évaluation et de mesure de la résilience ;

-        Créer les conditions de pérennisation de l’exercice d’analyse et de mesure de la résilience. Les activités d’analyse et de mesure de la résilience au niveau régional et dans les pays devront s’inscrire dans la durabilité pour pouvoir (i) montrer les effets et impacts des investissements effectués, (ii) orienter les décideurs et appuyer la planification et la programmation de leurs interventions futures. Entre autres, trois conditions préalables devront être réunies à savoir l’appropriation de l’outil par les pays et les institutions régionales concernées, la capitalisation de la dynamique de mesure de la résilience dans la formation diplômante au sein des institutions de formation de la région, notamment en mettant en place un « Master Résilience » et mise en place d’une stratégie de financement durable de l’exercice.

Dramane Coulibaly, Conseiller Principal - Analyse et Mesure de la Résilience de la FAO auprès du CILSS - Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)

On the formulation of a structured harmonized approach to the measurement of resilience.

Since the end of 2012, the European Union and the three International Organizations for the Sahel and West Africa region (ECOWAS, WAEMU and CILSS) have engaged in an international partnership called Global Alliance for Resilience (AGIR) with the purpose of reinforcing the resilience of the population. It involves the creation of the conditions for adaptation to the mutations arising from the changes in the climatic, environmental and socio-economic context.

With this increased importance of the resilience question, the need to propose to the region a harmonized mechanism for measuring resilience has become for CILSS (technical arm of ECOWAS) a compelling need. In fact, to create strong links between humanitarian and development efforts requires the implementation of long term structuring programs, for which a good understanding of the dynamism and dimension of resilience is essential to reinforce the capabilities of systems at all levels.

The 29th annual Meeting of the Food Crisis Prevention Network (RPCA) of which the main theme was about the indicators and methodological tools to measure resilience, recommended the formulation of a structured harmonized approach for measuring resilience, under the leadership of regional organizations (ECOWAS, WAEMU and CILSS).

In fact, the great diversity of indicators and methodologies being developed and the concern to avoid cacophony brought the RPCA to recommend, just like the framework to analyze present vulnerability (CH), the convergence of approaches towards a single tool, recognized by all as the only reference framework in terms of assessing resilience.

The close collaboration between CILSS/FAO that has existed since 2013, on the basis of RIMA [Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis], in order to make the preocupation of the authorities' and actors in the region a reality, suggests to me the lessons and particular dispositions to be taken in order to create the ideal conditions for success in an exercise of this type:

-        Establish a clear boundary between technical aspects and policy. When is it that the technicians in charge of constructing the tool should involve the politicians who are taking decisions? Without an internal regulation or a code of good conduct that manages the relationship between the technical and the political, the exercise of developing the tool could be delayed.

-        Define clearly the support-advisory role in the organization of building the Technical Platform. It is necessary that all the sections taking part understand that support-advisory action, as is at present the case of FAO with CILSS, is explained only by their desire, among others, to: (i) work with regional and national institutions, (ii) avoid cacophony in the analysis and assessment of resilience in the area in question, (iii) reinforce the skills of regional and national actors.

-        Agree on the need to implement a Technical Platform for the analysis and assessment of resilience (PT-AMR). A system of this type is indispensable if one wishes to push ahead with an inclusive and participative dynamic.  The platform has as a mandate, among others, (i) to conduct the process of building the measuring tool, (ii) to coordinate the ensemble of activities easing the process of investment decision, that is to say, analyzing and measuring resilience, political dialoque, development of capabilities, research. This platform is equipped with steering mechanisms involving all the actors concerned and with a documented constitution wherein its modus operandi is defined;

-        Define together the actions to be taken to have a consensual tool, a course of action that should be participative and inclusive. Spot Agreement reviews should occur throughout the process to agree on the by-products that constitute building blocks;

-        Make an inventory of existing methodologies and approaches and their state of implementation. This inventory will produce an agreement as to which one of them will serve as a basis. This basic tool will be enriched by components of other initiatives not taken into account but, even so, useful in the exercise of assessment and measuring of resilience;

-        Create conditions for the perennial   exercise of analysis and measuring resilience. The activities of analysis and measuring resilience at regional and country level should be perpetuated in the long term to: (i) show the effects and impacts of investments made, (ii) give guidance to the decision makers and support planning and programming for their future interventions. Among others, three prerequisite conditions should be met, that is, the adoption of the tool by the regional countries and institutions concerned, the emphasizing of the dynamic of measuring resilience in degree courses in the educational institutions in the region, in particular the implementation of a Master in Resilience, and the implementation of a lasting financial strategy for the exercise.

Dramane Coulibaly, Conseiller Principal - Analyse et Mesure de la Résilience [Main Advisor for Analysis and Measuring Resilience] for FAO with CILSS - Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)

The recent UNSG’s report for the World Humanitarian Summit flags building resilience and putting people at the centre as a core part of the vision for “One Humanity: Shared Responsibility”, and as underpinning delivery of assistance and risk management processes. Just by way of saying that global processes and related agreements and recommendations will be behind deepening our collective work on resilience, building the evidence base, and shaping how we work together to achieve Agenda 2030; given the wealth of material and research out there (analytical, programmatic, operational and organizational, as usefully characterized in a previous post) a centralized, integrated and action-oriented platform on resilience will be a vital resource.

A couple of design/feature points building on previous posts. First, given that it is inevitable (and desirable) for there to be a variety of resilience-focused platforms at different levels, and for different audiences, it will be vital to ensure a high degree of interoperability between diverse knowledge management and learning platforms to facilitate the sharing of information from the off, i.e. being able to set up regular feeds from other data sources, having shared/mapped ontologies etc. Second, the channels of information and increasingly overwhelming. Many of us subscribe to various online feeds from various networks – professional, technical and other – but the one’s I value most are those that provide a synthesis of useful, interesting and topical items. For example, The One Billion Hungry: Can We Feed the World? weekly bulletin “What we have been reading this week” is a useful digest, which has led me to material that I wouldn’t otherwise have come across. Something to consider as a possible feature.

Hello Everyone!

I serve to coordinate the Monitoring and Evaluation component of the IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) and it’s my pleasure to participate on this online consultation.

Yes, a knowledge sharing platform on resilience is a brilliant idea but requires leadership. In my opinion, the IDDRSI initiative provides a common framework within which partners can work together in populating, capturing, analysing and disseminating information related to resilience. An entire pillar under the IDDRSI strategy is dedicated to knowledge management and research, which provides the framework within which an integrated knowledge sharing platform can be established and coordinated. There are already a number of on-going initiatives being implemented by the IGAD/KM team with support from partners such as USAID, UNOCHA & UNDP – and I believe we can build and strengthen on these existing initiatives rather than re-inventing the will.

I find no harm in institutions investing in new KM products/materials, and methodologies for as long as it is done within a common framework of understanding that involves a wide stakeholder consultation such as the FAO/FSN online forum.

Our experience with the IDDRSI M&E working group has been very positive particularly in relation to the establishment of a community of practice through which demand driven M&E products and services related to resilience have been developed & provided at regional and national level. The main challenge though, has been the difficulty of maintaining a sustained & consistent momentum of participation of experts - especially when it’s purely on a voluntary basis.

In regard to gender issues, I think exchange of knowledge through the platform should be guided by gender gaps identified through a gender analysis. IGAD recognizes this very important issue and has commissioned a gender analysis of the IDDRSI strategy with the objective of examining the gender inequalities in access, participation and benefits in all the IDDRSI Priority Intervention Areas (PIA) both at regional and national level; and the findings will be used to re-shape policies and strategies within the framework of the resilience initiative

Potential areas needed to increase the impact of KM initiatives include:

1- Conducting a KM audit prior to introducing new KM initiatives – this provides a situational analysis of exiting initiatives, gaps and entry points (demand driven).

2- Clearly mapping the information needs of your key partners to ensure that only relevant information is disseminated and shared

3- A clear theory of change that describes the pathways to behavioural change should be developed to facilitate tracking of impact of KM initiatives

4- Technologies developed to support knowledge management initiatives, should be designed in a simple and user-friendly manner to increase accessibility

5- KM products and materials should be communicated to target audiences in a simple and consumable format

Thank you

Anthony

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.

Hi There

I have been part of the Technical Working Group on Resilience Measurement and I trust it managed to achieve a good result: clarify some crucial aspects of resilience measurement.

Resilience is one of the most charming words in development studies and projects. People, institutions, NGOs and agencies adopt a resilience approach for better designing their resilience enhancing programmes that should address the needs of those who are less resilient. Such a large use of the word resilience is not always supported by a clear definition or by a sound measurement approach. There is everywhere an attempt to oversimplify resilience in order to develop light tools that can easily measure and assess resilience. The risk is to produce a bunch of bad surveys and tools which will increase confusion and will not bring any real added value to what we know about resilience.

My take is to build upon what already exists as positive experience: the output from the technical working group on resilience measurement (4 very interesting papers on various aspects of measurement), and established knowledge sharing platforms such as resilienceinsomalia.org where evidence of the impact evaluation of the joint programme (WFP UNICEF and FAO) is reported together with other relevant documents.

Hi everyone!

I am the head of Monitoring and Evaluation for the Global Resilience Partnership. I do believe that there is a need for an integrated Platform on resilience measurement, especially as there is now a proliferation of methodologies, and consequently knowledge management platforms, communities of practice and useful information risk being drowned out due to a disproportionate number of channels. However, in order  to have a product that makes the difference, it has to be practically oriented and interactive, making it possible to talk to practitioners (in particular in the field) to capture the knowledge generated by practical applications.

Another point is to make sure it is linked with other similar initiatives (but not only) in a consistent way in order to guarantee  a rapid update and exchange of information.

On the FSIN, I think they have done a wonderful job with the Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group and it would be really helpful to continue this work. Something to improve: visibility and inclusiveness (more actors in the discussion).

I hope this helps.

Laura

I am part of the Livelihoods and Resilience team in World Vision Kenya, working in the pastoral communities of Kenya. We are working on project models that promote access and utilization of milk and milk products within the pastoral communities. On this basis, we are focusing on improving nutrition status of children below five years, and PLM, as well as improving household income. Our interventions are also on training the communities on kitchen gardening to establish diversified nutrient dense crops for food.

In partnership with other stakeholders, we are involved with knowledge and technology transfer, especially to the women. Among the lessons learnt during our implementation period are:

1. Consumption of poor quality milk and irregular milk production patterns at local levels has been minimized due to creation of a reliable, comprehensive and non-fragmented database across the entire milk value chain.
2. Farmers get onsite real-time results for their milk quality which is done at farm level using simple tools and methods and resulted recorded for transmission.
3. Acceptance of processed milk products has significantly increased
4. There has been a notable improvement on appropriate animal health and husbandry practices among the 150 HH reached

Some of the gaps we have come across are'

1. The constant migration of the pastoral communities
2. Inaccessibility to reach out to the grazing zones for more milk
3. Poor animal fodder and pastures
4. High levels of iliteracy hindering knowledge transfer

The SDG developed should focus more on household interventions as opposed to community based focus. The milenium development goals, were not well achieved especially on food and nutrition security due to too much attention on the community organs, other than trickling down to household level. Women are the hub of the household, our efforts should be concentrated on empowering the women with hands on skills on agriculture/food security interventions.

I have been part of the FSIN Technical Working Group on Resilience Measurement. This group has been very effective in bringing together technical people from a number of agencies and research institutions to work on harmonising measurement principles and analytical frameworks. There is also a resilience task force that is now being created by TOPS, a programme created by the Food for Peace Office of USAID. I will lead this task force.

One concern I have is it is uncertain whether the FSIN TWG on resilience measurement will continue. There has been on-going discussion with several organizations but no one has come forward with the resources. I think this is critical that it continues. The work on harmonization of measurement approaches is not complete and unless this work continues, there will be multiple approaches that are not comparable.