File 93_annex C-2 Basic Planning

8/13/2019 File 93_annex C-2 Basic Planning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/file-93annex-c-2-basic-planning 1/11

ANNEX C-2

ODXP

PREVENTION & RECOVERY

World Food Programme

Food Assistance forAssets (FFA) Manual

ANNEX C-2: BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH



Annex C-2 BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

FFA Manual Annex C-2 (2011): version 1.

This module was published and made electronically available in July 2011. Where relevant,this Annex supers edes previous guidance on FFA interventions. Please inform ODXP’sPrevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusionwith the information presented here.

Any updates to Annex C-2 will be outlined below (and include page numbers) to allow FFApractitioners with an older version to identify where changes have occurred:

No changes as yet.



1


ANNEX C-2: BASIC COMMUNITY LEVEL PARTICIPATORYAPPROACH

In low capacity contexts, one should avoid designing interventions that require significant expertise that isknown to not be realistically available. In such contexts, it is almost always recommended to devise low-techand low-risk interventions. Such interventions do not mean low quality work, but involve instead a set oftasks that involve less technical inputs. They will also consider the specific time commitments to which

participants can contribute.

In low capacity contexts, the introduction of simple and practical participatory planning guidelines issuggested as a first step to shift from an activity focus to a more output and outcome focus. A simple basicvillage/community level participatory planning approach improves people’s participati on and increased

sense of ownership over assets created or rehabilitated, which has a positive impact on the managementand sustainability of the intervention.

A local level plan also acts as a baseline byincluding the information WFP and partners willtrack the performance of the different measuresimplemented and the progresses made in termsof food security. Such a planning approach alsostrengthens community-level decision-makingand targeting, particularly the involvement of the

most vulnerable and of youth and women in FFAprojects selection, design and implementation.Participatory planning has also a positive effectin promoting self-help efforts.

The basic participatory planning approach isrequired to select and design appropriate FFAinterventions – some of these interventionsrequire that more than one community developsits plan. For instance one mini-plan can bedeveloped for each of the two to five or morelocalities/villages crossed by a feeder road planned to be constructed in a given district. These plans can bedeveloped by the community with little help from implementing partners’ staff or by local extension workersor other staff working at district level. WFP and/or partners’ field staff can supp ort a village level planningteam selected by each community to develop these plans.

In a number of villages, existing facilitation teams can expand their role and carry out the planning work withthe support of district level and NGO staff, when available.

Stakeholder arrangements within planning

As a FFA practitioner, it is important you advocate theuse of participatory planning tools and of practicalmethodologies within WFP programmers andinterventions. These may be incorporated intostandard Field Level Agreements (FLAs) with partners,as well as within FFA plans of operation. The

introduction of simple and practical participatoryplanning guidelines is also suggested, providing a firststep to shift from a focus solely on an activity alone,and rather focusing on achieving outputs andoutcome.

Sometimes, NGOs or government partners already useparticipatory planning methods. It is recommendedsuch methods are reviewed to ensure they meet thestandards of WFP participatory principles. Where suchapproaches are absent, or do not meet WFP standards,WFP can share some of the basic participatory

principles and tools (see Table 2 - Module C ).

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp238106.pdf






2


Basic planning should focus on low tech-low riskactivities : The need for low-tech and low-riskactivities derives from the need to avoid designingprojects that require significant expertise that is notrealistically possible to ensure in a given context,especially if FFA activities are intended to beimplemented at larger scale .

In some instances specific low tech approaches havebeen developed. For example, a “Soft -FFW”

approach was developed in one country where reliefdistributions extends beyond a 3-6 months period andbeneficiaries are requested to provided some work inexchange of their entitlement. This approach focuses

on simple repairs of assets and lighter activities .Albeit it may have some context specific merits, suchan approach appears to focus on the work itselfrather than the assets to be created orrestored/repaired. Work should not be an end initself. Besides, the use of “soft” as a terminology maynot be appropriate as easily confused with somethingthat requires little attention and is easy to work on – therefore potentially detrimental in relation to otherFFA programmers operating in the same country or

area as setting up examples of lower standards and work norms.

Overall, a low tech-low risk approach continues to focus on assets and on how to address through thoseassets, some of the people’s needs and priorities. This approach does not mean low quality works but a setof tasks that demand of less technical inputs while others are selected for meeting specific time demands ofbeneficiaries. It is also important to underline that some of the low risk activities can also be high tech ifintended to build upon traditional measures that can be very sophisticated in terms of technical standardsand construction methods. However, as these measures are well mastered by local communities they arealso easily scalable by those community members using food or cash for work.

A simple guidance note on low-tech & low-risk activities can be developed in different contexts and rapidreference tool kits prepared based on the identification of what is possible to achieve at community level,during different periods of the year, that require only limited technical support and that largely rely on localknowledge and skills. In other words a number of possible low-tech & low risk interventions that requireminimum external support.

Low-tech, low-risk FFA interventions may include:

Repair of feeder roads using adequate materials (stonesand soil). Clearing of drainage and irrigation canals. Clearing debris and safe disposal. Separation of materials from debris. Stone collection and piling for future use inconstruction. Rough stone shaping (local know-how). Compost making (local know-how). Plastering of local stores using local materialsimpregnated with insect/pest repellent naturalproducts (local know-how). Bricks making with local materials for construction ofvarious assets (local know how)

. De-siltation of silted water ponds and dams

. Dry fencing for control grazing + Vegetative fencingusing local materials (local know how). Collection of indigenous seeds (e.g. specific species ofinterest to be then raised in local nurseries – based onlocal know how). Local house construction for poorest families (basedon availability of materials). Other works based on local knowledge (may includever context s ecific assets



3


Developing an action plan :

In addition to the set of interventions placed against a seasonal calendar and set of clear purposes, each plancan also include activities such as training for a given number of farmers or youth to be trained on specificFFA interventions, and other potential activities that may require FFA support. To be included in the plan,however, some of these activities require a minimum of expertise which WFP or partners need to provide.

Each plan also provides information on estimated amount of work to be provided on a self-help basis and acrude sketch map of the area.

Figure 1: Village level mapping showing assets, boundaries and planned interventions

More elaborated planning methods can be introduced subsequently, and evolve towards integrated sub-watershed or area based local level plans.

“Basic” participatory planning is largely a simple community based planning approach which shouldstrengthen community cohesion, promote self-help efforts and identify critical needs for complementaryassistance from other partners. The planning process is participatory and uses very simple techniques. Theplanning teams should be composed largely by women (50%) and the youth but also include members fromdifferent social strata to ensure greater acceptance and cohesion. This is not always possible because ofpower structures and local culture.

On average a community is able to prepare a three to four year plan in one week or less, depending on thetime available for planning. Each quarter the plan is evaluated and upgraded by the planning team usinggeneral assembly meetings. Every year a new planning team may be elected.

Examples of formats for basic planning are provided in Annex C-4 .







4


An example of village mapping exercises conducted during training and planning work is shown below.

A Note Regarding Participation : Participation of rural people in local level planning has increasingly takingroot in the last two decades following the push from PRA and related approaches. Successes are mixed –

with significant progresses observed in some countries while in others the impact of participatory planning isat best anecdotal and often small scale. However, participatory planning that works ends up achievingconcrete assets that generate concrete benefits and assets that are managed by participants. To reach suchresults participation – whether using a simple or more complex approach – need to be seen as astraightforward and mature dialogue between the promoters of the planning approach and the land users.

This is important to avoid ending up with approaches that the following remark describes: “Much participatory methodology becomes condescending and patronizing of local populations, just the opposite of

the original intent …. Rather than treating local people with respect and as colleagues, participatory methodssometim es treat them more like school children by playing titillating games, drawing exercises, etc….” RobertE. Rhodes – IIED.

In other words, participatory planning is nothing more than ‘ organized common sense ’ and is made ofdedicated efforts to solve problems. Capacity for dialogue and negotiation is therefore as important tosufficient technical capacity and a minimum of resources to make things happen. This combination ofdialogue-technical capacity- resources makes ‘participation’ something meaningful. Reg arding resourcesthese are intended not only as external but also internal – actually, internal resources (e.g. self-help, etc)may be become largely internal as progress towards tangible results is achieved.

Fig. 2 Farmers’ village ground development maps and

women planning team members showing their plans on

paper. This technique helps communities to plantogether while prioritizing specific interventions for the

poorest. It is also easy to reproduce on paper and used

as a rough community map. Feeder road

terraces



5


Example of a basic planning approach introduced in Haiti (2009)

(i) Description of the area, environmental risks and food insecurity : The community of Chauffard is theperfect illustration of a community in a state of extreme risk of being devastated by the next heavy

tropical storm or hurricane. The community has also been affected by the 2010 earthquake which hasdestroyed the local school and damaged over 30% of homes.

The community is surrounded by a range of very steep hillsides constituted by landslide pronesections, rocky outcrops and unstable soils. The deforestation of the hills is almost complete and aseries of ravines have already discharged massive amounts of debris into downstream areas, buryinglarge sections of the localities cultivated land and destroying homes. The first major discharge ofaccumulated debris by the ravine occurred in 1994 during hurricane Gordon, followed by many otherssince. In 2001, 2005 and 2007 additional landslides occurred in various drainage lines destroying morefields, including around 30-40% of the main watercress producing area which provides income tosome 50% of the local population. The debris of the last landslide managed to reach the outer fence

of the local church compound which also hosts the primary school of Chauffard (see figure above).Both these assets are placed directly into the trajectory of two major ravines overflows, hence thehigh risk of major landslides destroying these assets is not to be underestimated. By all accounts thelocality of Chauffard is extremely vulnerable – and in significant need for disaster risk reduction andadaptation efforts. During planning and transect walks it was estimated that over 80% of suitablearable land has been buried by stone debris, often several meters deep. A few farmers’ free-up smallplots of poorly fertile land from the debris, at the expense of huge efforts (see following pictures). Thecutting down of the few remaining trees continues unabated, largely because of the need for extraincome to compensate for the loss of fields and the food crisis caused by multiple shocks. Charcoalmaking is very common and used largely to increase income (see below). The use of woody biomass

for cooking and building material is also the norm and impinges on the few small bushes and trees leftaround compounds and steepest slopes.

Landslide

direction

School andChurch at

risk



6


Figure 3: Farmer working field covered by debris Figure XX. Charcoal making in the site

(ii) Participatory planning and seasonal livelihood analysis

Participatory Planning: Two exercises have been undertaken, one descriptive of the main problems,including a seasonal analysis and elements of vulnerability, and one visual through a communitymapping exercise. Both exercises allowed for a better comprehension of the community problems andpotential solutions (see pictures below on problem and solution identification, and communitymapping).

Figure 4: (1) and (2) phases of the problem identification and vulnerability ranking exercises;

(3) community mapping; and (4) transect walks and observations of degradation features

Seasonal Livelihood Analysis: A seasonal analysis exercise to determine and review the assumptions in themission report in relation to the timing of programming interventions was conducted. It was found duringthe exercise that there is a seasonal migration of men from the community to the Dominican Republic in

1 2

3 4



7


January to work on the sugar cane plantations, and returning home at the end of June. During this period,the women remain behind and are responsible for the planting and cultivation of crops, and try to find paidlabour on other peoples farms in order to get cash to buy seeds and other inputs to cultivate their own plots.The women identified this period (from March to May) as the most difficult time for them, due to trying tofind paid labour and from increased workloads due to c ultivating theirs and other peoples’ lands. In terms ofdifficulties in meeting food needs, this occurs in May, June, and July, until the maize harvests start in August.

The men return at the end of June and in July, and cash from paid labour in the Dominican Republic shouldsupport household needs until the August harvests. There is a peak of difficulty in September related toschool expenses, after which the pulse, millet, and yam harvests begin which peak in December, and which isregarded as the best time of the year in this community.

Interpreting this information for programming purposes, the following should be considered and taken intoaccount:

1. Labour-based interventions should be planned for women in the first half of the year, and for men in thesecond once they have returned from the labour migrations.

2. Labour-based activities for women should not be considered in March, April and May as they will beengaged in cultivation season. For men, the ideal time would be September through October, coincidingwith the need of increased expenditures needed for schooling, and before the Christmas period.

3. Cash transfers for women in January and February when they can be engaged in labour-based activitieswould begin addressing the need for money required for cultivation inputs In March and April. For men,cash-based interventions should be considered in September through November when expenditures forthe households are higher.

4. Food- based transfers, either through GFD or ‘light er ’ FFW/FFA’ would be appropriat e for women inMarch through June, to coincide with increased workloads, and the difficult periods between harvestsand whilst men are away. Where cash-based inputs are not available for the September-Novemberperiods where men can work, then targeted FFW for the most vulnerable should be considered.Alternatively, FFW can be provided based on agreements with the Community if they adopt solidarity-based works – i.e. FFW can be provided for one or two months, and the Community dedicates half or anequal amount of time through their own labour contributions.

5. Chauffard is a good example for the need of complementary programming with partners as it highlightsthe value of providing both cash and food inputs, at specific times of the year, to support communityneeds and works. The people of Chauffard should also be considered as partners, and solidarity-basedinputs from the community should also be part of the response.

The example of Chauffard highlights the variation that will be found in different parts of the country basedon livelihoods and seasonality. For example, it is noted that the ‘difficult’ period where householdsexperience the highest problems is May to July, rather than the country aggregate of March to May.However, the livelihood profiling of th is community is that of Zone d’Agriculture de Montagne Humide’, anda review of the CFSVA data showing household perception of food difficulties in this zone indicates that formost households, this is experienced primarily in May to July, with a smaller number of householdsindicating problems in the September period.



8


Furthermore, Chauffard is located in the Commune of Carrefour which in the trend analysis, is classified ashaving been generally food secure in most of the FEWSNET quarterly outlooks in the last year since theCFSVA. However, it has also been identified as a Commune with a high storm frequency and hence at highrisk to storms. Given the precarious location of the village in relation to the environmental degradationsurrounding it, and the high risk of flooding and landslides in the event of storms, the village is a highcandidate for disaster mitigation and preparedness interventions, and as such should be considered by WFPfor support.

These factors underscore the need for identifying pockets of vulnerability, linked to seasonal livelihoodanalyses, and the planning of complementary programming with partners on response through the runningof the workshops that have been recommended in each of the four sub-offices in the country.

Vulnerability profiling: A community exercise to classify vulnerability was conducted. Interestingly,vulnerability criteria used was related to the type of housing that people had as a determinant of poverty.

Four groups were identified, namely:

1. The most vulnerable (approximately 70% of the households in Chauffard ): these households lived inhouses made from woven grass mats and plastered with mud, and palm frond roofing. The highest level offemale-headed households was found in this group, although this was more related to the seasonal labouroutmigration of men rather than widows. Single, elderly people also constituted a large part of this group.Households have little to no land, and labour is primarily linked to cultivating and working in the plots ofothers. For this labour, workers are paid and also provided with a meal.

2. There is a second group of vulnerable households (approximately 20%) who have similar characteristics as

the first group, yet with a few differences: they live in houses made of the strongest parts of the palm leaves,and roofing is made of second hand corrugated iron. This group also owns small plots which they cultivate.

3. The third and fourth groups are regarded as the medium to better-off groups, and constitute the balanceof households in the community. These families have houses made of concrete blocks or stone, set withcement, and either have second-hand (the medium group) or new (the better-off) corrugated iron sheetingfor roofing. These households own land, they cash crop watercress, and are petty traders.The high level of vulnerable households (90%) in the community and vulnerability criteria is based onhousing emphasizes the impact that flooding and landslides have had on Chauffard . Clearly, many homesand agricultural land have been destroyed by flooding in 2004 and again in 2007, and the community has notrecovered. That vulnerability is linked to housing underscores the community perception of risk, and the lackof recovery from these events. Thus, when discussing targeting criteria, although community membersrecognized that female-headed and elderly households are the most vulnerable, they also emphasized andindicated that those households that have not recovered from the shocks of the last five years are equally atrisk.

iii. Land rehabilitation techniques and field testing

The planning work included 1-2 days of practical field work on a range of low-tech land management

techniques adapted to steep slopes. The measures discussed are but a few of those possible in the complexHaitian milieu. However, they include forestry and agroforestry efforts, taking advantage of an existing



9


nursery, including activities on steep and degraded sloping lands. These measures combine physical andvegetative efforts aimed to significantly reduce soil loss and runoff while conserving moisture and enablinggrowth of both trees and specific local cash crops. Simple techniques such as eyebrow basins, microbasins,and trenches (of various types) are included. All of these structures allow the growth of both fruit and othertrees for various uses (e.g. timber, fodder, firewood).

Total number of days to prepare the plan and run the field exercises: 4

Figure 5: Haiti Approach: Seasonal livelihood in Chauffard

For more on seasonal livelihoods, see Module B .

http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp238105.docx




Documents

File 93_annex C-2 Basic Planning