The attached Joint Staff Advisory Note (JSAN) on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for the people of Borno State, North East and general public, prepared jointly by staffs of the Primefield and Associate partners, NGOs was distributed to the State Governors Executive Boards, Rehabilitation committees etc. The objective of the JSAN is to provide focused, frank, and constructive feedback to the state on Poverty Reduction Strategy / implementation programmes for Reconstruction Rehabilitation and Development.North east

BORNO RECONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

A Holistic Approach; to the post war development plan of Borno State the commercial centre of North eastern Nigeria.

The process of reconstruction involves partial or complete relocation and rebuilding the essential physical infrastructure and shelter (house) so that vulnerability levels are reduced and families are able to get back to their feet. Reconstruction therefore paves the way for long term rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation primarily addresses the new or increased poverty levels that have emerged due to the disaster. Jobs and income generation measures in the construction sector provide an immediate and emergency boost to the local economy. This is followed by long term improvement in land and water management and economic opportunities that seek to upgrade local economies and reduce community vulnerability in a sustainable manner.

 

For the process of sustainable development to take off in continuation with reconstruction, it is important that the end objective is not limited to only getting people back upto the base line levels prior to the man made or diaster. The intervention over a longer term should resultant improved quality of life and reduced levels of vulnerability. While families are tuned to picking up the pieces of their life, concepts of improved building practices, sanitation, sewerage, rainwater harvesting, improved land, water management, improved mechanized agriculture and its value chain industries, etc. can be gradually introduced.

 

It is reported in other places, where development activities of improved shelter, land and water management and livelihoods were in progress at the time of the war,

not only was the loss of property and life minimal, and the loss in economic time. People could bounce back easily very soon after the disaster. This is a very strong argument in favour of “total rehabilitation” as opposed to only reconstruction.

Reconstruction and rehabilitation need to be in a seamless continuum  with restoration efforts. The issue of correct timing and speed is however, significant. A holistic approach does not negate the need for a fast response to immediate reconstruction.

Time and again it has been seen that people will revert back to their
earlier unsustainable practices very soon if timely inputs are not made and systems that ensure long term continuity of material and skill availability are not set in place.

From Reconstruction to Rehabilitation, the reconstruction of shelter and community infrastructure, in fact, forms an important entry point for the rehabilitation process.

A reconstruction program is the first step towards restoring and
upgrading local habitat. It introduces improved systems of building,
sets up basic building element supply, builds up the skills and
management capacity of families, local agencies and village artisans in a restricted area and sets up local information and knowledge systems. All these to enable “better building”.

A holistic view of “Habitat” that links the process of housing with the capacity to make and exercise informed choices building
construction, habitat improvement and economic betterment is the larger goal.

Re-establishing people’s lives through rehabilitation efforts involves:

 

1. Moving up the ladder from house to habitat to livelihood
2. Local awareness creation including training for all so that people gain control over the housing process.
3. Capacity Building and linking to enterprises-Livelihood support
4. Devising livelihood interventions in the farm and non-farm sectors based on new economic opportunities to create economic surpluses (that can be directed to responsive housing)
5. Creating a basis for community access to institutional housing
   finance

A response strategy – facilitating the creation of Sustainable
Livelihoods. A effective response strategy is to understand the need for building materials, buildings and livelihoods and catalyze the conversion of this need into demand. The demand for (sustainable) building technologies and construction practices can be provided through sustainable enterprises.

This response strategy addresses the present (immediate) need of
reconstruction through local building technology-based enterprises.  Reconstruction activities, if designed to include local manpower,
provide the essential ( short term) jobs leading to an immediate spurt in the local economy. At the same time, building material and skill based local enterprises ensure continuous supply of quality building materials and skills. In the long term this is likely to result in a sustainable improvement in shelter conditions while also enlarging livelihood options in the region.

The reconstruction program at the outset provides a major advantage to the new enterprises. It forms the initial captive market, provides critical visibility to the new technologies and improved systems of construction and also (if systematically approached) builds up the acceptance of these new “products” in the market. A sensitive reconstruction program will necessarily involve an accompanying process of educating the affected population on the aspects of safer construction; thus inculcating an appreciation of the improved systems. After the initial reconstruction phase, families would preferentially opt for these materials and techniques to extend their houses.

An important aspect here is that new materials and techniques should match the paying capacity of the targeted communities. A multi pronged approach is required here:

First, the selection of the improved technologies and construction
systems should bear in mind the long-term affordability of the affected population. This involves correct selection of raw materials, production processes and scales of delivery. An optimum combination of large industry based materials and village enterprise based production with materials sourced from regional building centers.

Secondly, a parallel intervention in improving quality of life through
enlarged livelihood options and improved land, water, resource
management practices resulting in enhanced purchasing power within communities.

And, thirdly, interventions of housing and livelihood finance are
required that enable people to access available building options.

These building material production centers or the Building Materials and livelihood Banks (BMLBs) are managed by local NGOs with the production component sub-contracted to local community groups. At present, these centers supply improved building elements, technology and skills for the ongoing Rehabilitation Program. In the long run, they are envisaged as centers for total habitat guidance to the village community on housing, sanitation, domestic energy, water storage etc. These would be one-stop shops for all local habitat needs including access to housing finance.

The Banks are centralized material production and service hubs at the moment but these are designed to eventually fission into down-scaled building material enterprises to become the nuclei of a large number of decentralized SME units spread throughout the region.

The technology transfer process during the core reconstruction ,  rehabilitation already facilitating production and based livelihoods. This is designed to introduce new skills and capacity for improved cyclone resistant building systems within the local area in the form of enterprises. These enterprises would continue to build new houses, extend and upgrade old houses long after the immediate reconstruction interventions are over.

The project funds in the short term will lead to the construction of
many infrastructures and set up building material based enterprises; and as investments in livelihoods, capacity building and information
dissemination these would pay dividends by way of

1. a. Enabled, Informed Communities
   b. Enhanced Building Material Supply
   c. Improved Economies

 

1. BASIC CONCEPT – REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

Rehabilitation, reconstruction,  and development refer to measures that help restore the livelihoods, assets and production levels of emergency-affected local government areas. These measures rebuild essential infrastructure, institutions, and 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 towards promoting sustainable livelihoods.

2. WHAT PRIMEFIELD LIMITED (PFL) DOES IN THE BORNO STATE REHABILITATION, RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF ITS CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

Primefield Limited (PFL) provided part of its Hotel estate in Maiduguri for resettlement and rehabilitation. Also sponsoring NGOs and the disaster management experts to takes stock of the overall situation of disaster-affected local government areas (LGAs) and assesses needs for rehabilitation measures and 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.

Within this framework, PFL team identified 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.

 

 

PFL plays a role in following-up immediate agricultural relief with longer-term programmes such as dams, irrigation systems, crop storage facilities, Agro -allied industries, markets etc.

2.1 BUILDING A PROGRAMME APPROACH

The objectives of PFL activities in rehabilitation, reconstruction and
recovery are to assist disaster-affected LGAs 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: rehabilitation of the agricultural resource base;
reconstruction of agricultural infrastructure; re-establishment of reliable agricultural input supply systems; re-activation of agricultural services. Including marketing, processing and distribution systems; strengthening the capacity of local institutions/agencies to identify constraints to household food security and nutrition and the groups most affected, and to design and implement concerted strategies to address these constraints; recovery – or an opportunity for reform or replacement – of state and parastatal institutions for food and agriculture;
examination of technical options for future sectoral growth and
development; and establishment of a strategic and policy framework for selecting and pursuing appropriate options, and of the necessary regulatory systems.

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. They must involve a high degree of participation based on existing community and local civil society structures and systems of authority.

 

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.

 

2.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.2.1 Policy Co-ordinating Service (PCOS) PFL’s Investment Centre (PIC) and PFL’s Special Relief Operations Service (PSROS) Roles

The key units responsible for PFL’s post-emergency rehabilitation work are the Policy Co-ordinating Service (PPCS) and PFL’s Investment Centre (PIC). PFL’s Special Relief Operations Service (PSROS) has carried out critical work in creating a continuum from agricultural relief to agricultural rehabilitation report.1

PPCS, 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.

PIC, 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 PPCS’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. PCI, relatively well-endowed as it is in terms of availability of staff and consultants, frequently works with PPCS, in the development of a pre-formulation strategy and policy framework.

PIC’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 PSROS, PPCS and PIC. This means that PPCS and PIC need to be kept fully apprised of past, current and envisaged future PSROS, projects relating to the emergency and LGAs under consideration. PSROS, must be thoroughly familiar with broader rehabilitation and recovery strategies to which its projects contribute.

2.2.2 PFL Representatives (PFLRs) and the Emergency Co-ordination Group (ECG)

The role of PFLRs in rehabilitation and reconstruction is central. The
PFLR advises PPCS, and PIC, on the timing and necessity of rehabilitation and sector review activities. This is done after careful monitoring of the evolving emergency situation, the implementation of emergency relief, and after consultation with government the PFLR advises PPCS, and PIC, 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 PFL’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, PIC, and the PFLRs.

2.3 OPERATIONAL MODALITIES

2.3.1 Determining the Appropriate Time of Interventions

The best time for launching programmes for rehabilitation and recovery in LGAs 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.

2.3.2 Differentiating Programmes for Emergency-affected Areas from Sector Reviews

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, PFL and UNDP collaboration.

The best time for launching programmes for rehabilitation and recovery in a state 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.

The latter needs to be determined in the light of
the different key issues to be addressed by the Review, which will
differ between LGAs / States, and may cover some combination of:

• sector economics;
• food security and nutrition;
• food crop agronomy;
• export crop production and processing;
• export livestock production and health and rangeland management;
• rural engineering (roads, irrigation, drainage);
• forestry;
• fisheries;
• agricultural services, including marketing and training;
• rural finance;
• rural sociology;
• public administration and legal matters (including land tenure);
• and environment.

Review of Objectives

This may include:

Policy framework for investment.

The objectives of the policy framework for investment is to mobilise private investment that supports steady economic growth and sustainability development. It thus aim to contribute to the prosperity of state and its people as well as to support the flight against poverty. The framework proposes a set of questions for the governments to consider in the fields identified:-

• the state of natural resources;
• main production systems;
• the impact of the disaster/emergency on the sector, including:
  rural livelihoods, food security and nutrition;
• output trends;
• migration;
• agricultural infrastructure;
• the status of institutions in or affecting the sector;
• and emergency relief operations completed or in progress, including agricultural relief, and their impact;
• the need for rehabilitation measures to restore the sector to its pre-disaster status to the extent that this is desirable, or the content, progress or impact of a separately designed rehabilitation programme as appropriate;
• a review of the potential for and constraints to sectoral development,

as critically important for improving the quality of a state environment for investment, including by small enterprises and foreign investors. It core purpose is to encourage policy makers to ask  appropriate questions about their economy instititions and their policy settings in order to identify their priorities, to develop an effective set of policies and to evaluate progress

 

North Eastern Nigeria Reconstruction and Revivification:
A response strategy for creation of sustainable livelihoods

Natural disasters, wars and development projects all lead to large scale
impacts on life, property, infrastructure, and social and cultural
relationships.

Disasters and their adverse impacts set societies back by decades and
leave them vulnerable to physical, social and economic hardships. This
may inhibit large sections of the affected society to come back even to
the base level let alone develop at par with the rest of the nation.

This article takes lessons from previous and ongoing reconstruction and
rehabilitation programs. It puts forward a post disaster response
strategy to rebuild lives and livelihoods in a manner that paves a way
for long term sustainable development.

In both man made and natural disaster situations the impacts can be
mitigated to a large extent through adequate planning and preparedness.
Negative impacts of man made disasters can be managed, if social,
ecological and economic consequences of our actions are considered and
development decisions made accordingly. On the other hand, while we can
be adequately prepared for a natural disaster, we cannot totally
eliminate its impacts.

The consequences are, of-course the most obvious and immediate, loss of
life, property and infrastructure. The more long term and difficult
outcome increased vulnerability to elements, loss of livelihoods,
increased poverty, economic recession, malnutrition, leading to out-
migration from villages, enhanced social disparities and strife.

Mechanisms of response
Post disaster response has been typically at three (now four)
levels.

w Relief immediately after the calamity, lasting from the first 24
hours to about two to three months and catering to immediate shelter,
food, water and medical assistance.
w Reconstruction following relief and extending to a period of
approximately two years, aimed at rebuilding the basic physical
infrastructure and shelter to enable people to begin afresh; and,
w Rehabilitation, that looks at more long term inputs of
reinstating lost livelihoods, introducing new economic opportunities and
improving land and water management processes so as to reduce people’s
vulnerability and enhance capacities to handle future calamities.
w Readiness, a response which should ideally have been a proactive
measure, is to enhance preparedness in identified vulnerable regions by
introducing mechanisms and methods of construction that mitigate impacts
of future disasters.

A Holistic Approach
The process of reconstruction involves partial or complete relocation
and rebuilding the essential physical infrastructure and shelter (house)
so that vulnerability levels are reduced and families are able to get
back to their feet. Reconstruction therefore paves the way for long term
rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation primarily addresses the new or increased poverty levels
that have emerged due to the disaster. Jobs and income generation
measures in the construction sector provide an immediate and emergency
boost to the local economy. This is followed by long term improvement in
land and water management and economic opportunities that seek to
upgrade local economies and reduce community vulnerability in a
sustainable manner.

For the process of sustainable development to take off in continuation
with reconstruction, it is important that the end objective is not
limited to only getting people back upto the base line levels prior to
the quake or cyclone. The intervention over a longer term should
resultant improved quality of life and reduced levels of vulnerability.
While families are tuned to picking up the pieces of their life,
concepts of improved building practices, sanitation, sewerage, rainwater
harvesting, improved land and water management etc. can be gradually
introduced.

It is reported in Orissa, (The Role of Enabling Infrastructure: A Case
Study of Housing Interventions in Orissa by N Ashok Kumar et al) that in
Adivasi villages, where development activities of improved shelter, land
and water management and livelihoods were in progress at the time of the
super cyclone, not only was the loss of property and life minimal, the
loss in economic time was only to the tune of 5 to 10 days. People could
bounce back to their normal routines very soon after the cyclone. While
in adjacent villages, months after the cyclone, families were still
unable to get back to regular work leading to longer term economic
decline. This is a very strong argument in favour of “total
rehabilitation” as opposed to only reconstruction.

Reconstruction and rehabilitation need to be in a seamless continuum
with restoration efforts.

The issue of correct timing and speed is however, significant. A
holistic approach does not negate the need for a fast response to
immediate reconstruction.

Time and again it has been seen that people will revert back to their
earlier unsustainable practices very soon if timely inputs are not made
and systems that ensure long term continuity of material and skill
availability are not set in place.

From Reconstruction to Rehabilitation
The reconstruction of shelter and community infrastructure, in fact,
forms an important entry point for the rehabilitation process.

A reconstruction program is the first step towards restoring and
upgrading local habitat. It introduces improved systems of building,
sets up basic building element supply, builds up the skills and
management capacity of families, local agencies and village artisans in
a restricted area and sets up local information and knowledge systems.
All these to enable “better building”.

A holistic view of “Habitat” that links the process of housing with the
capacity to make and exercise informed choices w.r.t. building
construction, habitat improvement and economic betterment is the larger
goal.

Re-establishing people’s lives through rehabilitation efforts involves:

w Moving up the ladder from house to habitat to livelihood
w Local awareness creation including training for all so that people
gain control over the housing process.
w Capacity Building and linking to enterprises-Livelihood support
w Devising livelihood interventions in the farm and non-farm sectors
based on new economic opportunities to create economic surpluses (that
can be directed to responsive housing)
w Creating a basis for community access to institutional housing
finance

A response strategy – facilitating the creation of Sustainable
Livelihoods
A effective response strategy is to understand the need for building
materials, buildings and livelihoods and catalyze the conversion of this
need into demand. The demand for (sustainable) building technologies and
construction practices can be provided through sustainable enterprises.

This response strategy addresses the present (immediate) need of
reconstruction through local building technology-based enterprises.
Reconstruction activities, if designed to include local manpower,
provide the essential (albeit short term) jobs leading to an immediate
spurt in the local economy. At the same time, building material and
skill based local enterprises ensure continuous supply of quality
building materials and skills. In the long term this is likely to result
in a sustainable improvement in shelter conditions while also enlarging
livelihood options in the region.

The reconstruction program at the outset provides a major advantage to
the new enterprises. It forms the initial captive market, provides
critical visibility to the new technologies and improved systems of
construction and also (if systematically approached) builds up the
acceptance of these new “products” in the market. A sensitive
reconstruction program will necessarily involve an accompanying process
of educating the affected population on the aspects of safer
construction; thus inculcating an appreciation of the improved systems.
After the initial reconstruction phase, families would preferentially
opt for these materials and techniques to extend their houses.

An important aspect here is that new materials and techniques should
match the paying capacity of the targeted communities. A multi pronged
approach is required here:

First, the selection of the improved technologies and construction
systems should bear in mind the long-term affordability of the affected
population. This involves correct selection of raw materials, production
processes and scales of delivery. An optimum combination of large
industry based materials and village enterprise based production with
materials sourced from regional building centers.

Secondly, a parallel intervention in improving quality of life through
enlarged livelihood options and improved land, water, resource
management practices resulting in enhanced purchasing power within
communities.

And, thirdly, interventions of housing and livelihood finance are
required that enable people to access available building options.

These building material production centers or the Building Materials and
Services Banks are managed by local NGOs with the production component
sub-contracted to local community groups. At present, these centers
supply improved building elements, technology and skills for the ongoing
Rehabilitation Program. In the long run, they are envisaged as centers
for total habitat guidance to the village community on housing,
sanitation, domestic energy, water storage etc. These would be one-stop
shops for all local habitat needs including access to housing finance.

The BMSBs are centralized production and service hubs at the moment but
these are designed to eventually fission into down-scaled building
material enterprises to become the nuclei of a large number of
decentralized production units spread throughout the region.

The technology transfer process during the core house construction is
already facilitating building material production and construction based
livelihoods. This is designed to introduce new skills and capacity for
improved cyclone resistant building systems within the local area in the
form of enterprises. These enterprises would continue to build new
houses, extend and upgrade old houses long after the immediate
reconstruction interventions are over.

The project funds in the short term will lead to the construction of
1400 houses and set up building material based enterprises; and as
investments in livelihoods, capacity building and information
dissemination these would pay dividends by way of

w Enabled, Informed Communities
w Enhanced Building Material Supply
w Improved Economies

1. BASIC CONCEPT – REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

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.
2. WHAT FAO DOES IN REHABILITATION, RECONSTRUCTION
AND SUSTAINABLE RECOVERY

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.

2.1 BUILDING A PROGRAMME APPROACH

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:

rehabilitation of the agricultural resource base;
reconstruction of agricultural infrastructure;
re-establishment of reliable agricultural input supply systems;
re-activation of agricultural services. Including marketing, processing
and distribution systems;
strengthening the capacity of local institutions/agencies to identify
constraints to household food security and nutrition and the groups most
affected, and to design and implement concerted strategies to address
these constraints;
recovery – or an opportunity for reform or replacement – of state and
parastatal institutions for food and agriculture;
examination of technical options for future sectoral growth and
development; and
establishment of a strategic and policy framework for selecting and
pursuing appropriate options, and of the necessary regulatory systems.
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.
2.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.2.1 TCAR, TCI, and TCOR Roles

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.

2.2.2 FAO Representatives (FAORs) and the Emergency Co-ordination Group
(ECG)

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.
2.3 OPERATIONAL MODALITIES

2.3.1 Determining the Appropriate Time of Interventions

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.

2.3.2 Differentiating Programmes for Emergency-affected Areas from
Sector Reviews

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 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.

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:

sector economics;
food security and nutrition;
food crop agronomy;
export crop production and processing;
livestock production and health and rangeland management;
rural engineering (roads, irrigation, drainage);
forestry;
fisheries;
agricultural services, including marketing and training;
rural finance;
rural sociology;
public administration and legal matters (including land tenure); and
environment.
Review of Objectives

This may include:

a stock-taking of the existing situation in disaster-affected areas and
in the sector as a whole, including:
the state of natural resources;
main production systems;
the impact of the disaster/emergency on the sector, including:
rural livelihoods, food security and nutrition;
output trends;
migration;
agricultural infrastructure;
the status of institutions in or affecting the sector; and
emergency relief operations completed or in progress, including
agricultural relief, and their impact;
the need for rehabilitation measures to restore the sector to its pre-
disaster status to the extent that this is desirable, or the content,
progress or impact of a separately designed rehabilitation programme as
appropriate;
a review of the potential for and constraints to sectoral development,
and an examination of the major policy options facing the government;
recommendations on agricultural development strategies; and
identification of a priority programme of investments in sectoral
development.
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:

Background and justification, including:
nature and impact of the emergency, including areas affected;
progress in the return to normalcy;
emergency agricultural relief operations completed and in progress;
a summary of any rehabilitation programme envisaged, in progress or
completed, including objectives and progress;
government policies for the sector;
reasons for government’s request for FAO assistance; and
the scope and coverage of the review.
Objectives of the assistance: the overall purpose of the Review and its
main components;
Review strategy and workplan: including:
team composition by discipline and source (national/international);
team management: national and international team leaders and steering
committee;
duration, phasing and methods of fieldwork;
consultation arrangements including seminars and workshops; and
workplan and dates.
Outputs of the Review, e. g. reports, technical documents, fieldwork
appraisals, aide memoire etc.
Inputs:
government inputs (where known);
donor inputs:
personnel inputs (person-days/weeks) by discipline and source
administrative and logistical support;
backstopping missions;
official travel;
general and operating expenses;
supplies and materials;
equipment; and
workshop/seminar costs;
Reporting arrangements;
Government contribution and supporting arrangements: the government
department responsible for the Review, and its contribution where this
is not detailed under inputs (personnel, administrative and logistical
support including office space and communications, access to information
and documentation and to staff for consultation) and responsibilities
(e. g. setting up a Steering Committee, organising workshops);
FAO and other donors’ contribution;
Project budget:
budget covering government contribution (if known);
budget covering donor contribution (United States dollars);
Terms of reference for the Review; and
Terms of reference for team members.
2.3.4 The Stages of the Sector Review

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:

establishing a Steering Committee;
identifying and recruiting national consultants;
making arrangements for seminars, workshops and the provision of
necessary data;
establishing team itineraries and detailed work plans; and
commissioning studies to be carried out in advance of the Review (e. g.
Rapid Rural Appraisals in representative agro-ecological zones).
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:

prefacing sections including an Executive Summary;
an Introduction, which includes a summary of the general nature of the
emergency and its human and environmental impacts, the origin, conduct
and funding of the Review, dates and itineraries, team composition,
acknowledgements etc.;
a background section on Society and Economy, including recent history,
political and administrative structure, population, employment,
vulnerability and nutrition, recent developments in the economy, basic
economic data for policy formulation

and planning, national accounts,
currency, money and banking, foreign trade and payments, public revenue,
taxation and expenditure;
a description of the Agricultural Sector: the natural resource base, the
role and performance of agriculture, land tenure, production systems and
disaster effects on those systems, institutions and support services for
agriculture and rural development, government policies, legal and
regulatory framework, on-going programmes and recent developments in the
agricultural sector;
an analysis of Development Constraints and Potential with respect to
food supply and demand, constraints to agricultural development
(physical, human, institutional), potential and opportunities by sub-
sector;
a section on Options and Strategy Recommendations: issues will vary
widely between countries, but might include:
Food security and nutrition:
Balance between promoting efficiency measures to boost national food
production, and poverty, hunger and malnutrition alleviation programmes
(employment schemes, nutrition programmes and other safety nets).
Balance between investment in high and low potential areas.
Degree of regulation in domestic food markets.
Degree of national food self sufficiency to aim for.
Regulation, legislation and access to land:
Policies for agricultural prices, taxes and incentives.
Policies for agrarian reform and land tenure (e.g. addressing gross
inequalities in access to land), overhauling land law and the status of
state land.
Defining the role of traditional authorities versus that of the state.
Defining land rights for returning refugees and the displaced and as
compared with current users of the land.
Defining a strategy for the demining of agricultural land.
Defining the kind of legislation appropriate for pesticides.
Irrigated agriculture:
Is there a case for rehabilitation of existing irrigation schemes?
Is there a case for expansion of irrigated area? If so, with what
feasible technical options?
What should be the degree of state involvement versus user group control
of water management?
Export/plantation sector:
What balance between exports and import substitution?
What balance between rehabilitation of existing plantations and
establishment of new ones?
Privatisation of state plantations or continued state
management/ownership?
What balance between encouraging smallholdings and large estates?
What possibilities for exploiting other annual and perennial crops?
Livestock, pastoralism and rangeland management:
What arrangements for access rights to grazing land, normally and at
times of drought?
What other options for animal nutrition?
What options for vaccination and disease control, epidemiological
monitoring, testing and health certification?
What policy on restocking disaster-depleted herds, and providing draft
animals?
Forestry:
Policies for regulation of forest access and use and arrangements for
conservation and management, including options for user group control
and smallholder private planting?
Policies, if any, on processing and marketing of forest products?
Strategy for promoting energy efficient use and/or substitution of wood
fuels?
Fisheries:
What resource assessments are needed for offshore fisheries, coastal
fisheries, inland fisheries and coastal and inland aquaculture?
What policy for replacement or provision of new boats and fishing gear?
What reconstruction and upgrading of landing sites are needed?
Institutional and human resource development, planning and information:
Research and extension: what objectives, extent and coverage?
Policies for farmer representation, participation and training?
Strategies for marketing and input supply systems?
Policies for institutional structures: Ministry of Agriculture, Forests,
Fisheries, parastatals, others, including decentralisation arrangements?
Provisions for development planning, statistics and information systems
(including food security and nutrition information systems and crop and
food assessment)?
Strategy for promoting local capacity-building and participation?
Options for rural finance, agricultural credit and banking?
Rural infrastructure, farm mechanisation and agro-industrial
development:
Needs for reconstruction and expansion of the road/rail network and
haulage capacity.
Needs for reconstruction and upgrading of marketing, storage, port and
customs facilities.
Farm mechanisation support options.
Options for reconstruction, development, ownership and management of
agro-industries.
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:

be consistent with present government policies, including those which
may have emerged through consultation during the course of the Review;
build on existing initiatives in the public, NGO and private sectors,
including donor-funded development programmes and any United Nations
`strategic framework’ for rehabilitation and recovery;
build on the achievements of relief operations and any rehabilitation
and reconstruction programme;
be supportive of, but preferably not dependent on, progress in
recommended institutional reforms and restructuring; and
be open to discrete financing commitments.
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.

2.3.5 The Funding and Formulation of Projects

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

Project Cycle: Responsibilities and Procedures, Field Programme Circular
3/96, 1996, (TCDD)

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.

Top Of Page

 

Between 2000 and 2012, the world lost more forest area than it gained, according to U.S. Forest Service researchers and partners who estimated a global net loss of 1.71 million square kilometers of forest — an area about two and a half times the size of Texas. Furthermore, when researchers analyzed patterns of remaining forest, they found a global loss of interior forest — core areas that, when intact, maintain critical habitat and ecological functions.