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