The discussion has already thrown up some excellent points.
Contributors have that underlined that while building resilience is not easy, there is a lot that we do know and in particular cases can make specific recommendations (Rahi). Other contributors have noted that the need to respond to specific problems - the ‘resilience to what? ’ (Tocco), and that answers need to reflect the multisectoral responses to the complexity of problems (e.g. Pozarny and Tocco). Some areas have already shown success (e.g. Agriculture in Sahel - Tocco) . Others have hinted at the possibility of a more generic quality of resilience, rooted in the capacities of people (Msiska, Messier). Richard Ofwono points out that current programming thinks in ‘straight lines’ and that this does not reflect a messy and unpredictable reality to which we need to respond.
And it is this mismatch between the nature of the problem and the type and scale of responses that I find most difficult. The use of terms when talking about resilience building such as “multisectoral”, “context specific”, “flexible” and “responsive” is common, but less common are specific recommendations as to how government and aid policies need to change to be able to deliver them. This discussion is designed to get ideas to stimulate policy change.
What government and aid policy changes are needed to be able to ensure multisectoral”, “context specific”, “flexible” , “responsive” etc action?
Please enter your comments below or write to firstname.lastname@example.org
We accept comments in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian.
These discussions are led by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP)
and facilitated by the Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)