Response Analysis Institutional Linkages and Process – some examples from Afghanistan

1. Response Analysis Institutional Linkages and Process – some examples from Afghanistan FSNWG Workshop Nairobi April 2013

2. Conceptual space For food security Response Analysis Response Analysis Situation Analysis Current + Projected Response Planning Problem-Cause Analysis Response Options Analysis Understanding the food security and nutrition problems; what are the proximate, underlying and structural causes Process of selection of appropriate and feasible response options;

3. Key linkages: IPC / FS analysis – RA – FS Cluster IPC RA Cluster(s) IPC RA Clusters FSA FSA March – June 2012 : Drought response; CAP MYR; other appeals.... July – October 2012: CAP 2013 More effective and appropriate response

5. Example 2012 Food Security Cluster Flood Contingency Planning

6. Background • From March to May 2012, the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) conducted three (3) regional workshops to develop livelihood based flood preparedness plans for humanitarian actors in Afghanistan;

7. Background • Objectives: • Identification of potentially flooded areas within each region; • Better understanding of both the local livelihoods and coping capacities to flood events. • Produce livelihood and flood hazard based contingency plans. In order to: • Reinforce the capacity of the FSAC community to provide improved responses to flood events within Northern, Western and Eastern regions;

8. Participating agencies Government: ANDMA, DAIL, UN Agencies: WFP, FAO, UNHCR, IOM, OCHA Red Cross: ARCS International NGO: Action Aid, Tear fund, ACTED, DACAAR, Save the Children, Solidarities‘, Afghan Aid, ZOA, Johanniter; National NGO: COAR, SWNHO, ADEO

9. Process • Step 1 - Presentation of the flood specific 3Ws tool: Objective: to show the capacity and the geographical gaps to respond to a flood event at provincial level. • Step 2 – Identification of most flood prone areas : Provincial working groups divided each province in three (3) different zones, namely most flood prone, medium and less prone areas to flood. IMMAP maps were used as a tool to guide the process.

10. Process • Step 3 – Identification of main livelihood patterns with seasonality: cross checked, and validated with FEWSNet 2011 Livelihood zoning publication. • Step 4 – Identification of potential impacts on livelihoods: Using IMMAP mapping information and simulation material and combining an understanding of seasonal impact of floods with seasonality of livelihoods to derive impact statements

11. Process • Step 5 – Identification of potential responses (emergency, rehabilitation, mitigation): during these two sessions, working groups were requested to list the response options according to the livelihoods and the risks and key issues. • Step 6 – Response Options Analysis – screening of most feasible response options against certain criteria.

12. Process • Step 7 – Sharing of existing disaster plans: OCHA and ANDMA shared their information and plans on disaster management; • Step 8 – Developing priority response plans: Groupworks were requested to develop the response plan based on the priority. It provides details about the expected number of affected households need to be supported, modalities of implementation, timeliness, list the experienced agencies, and a rough estimation of budget.

13. Summary Step 5 : Response Options Identification Step 6 : Response Options Analysis / screening Step 4 : Hazard – livelihood impact/ extent of vulnerability Step 7 : Sharing of existing plans Response Identification Matrix Response Analysis Matrix Step 8 : Response Plan Development Step 3 : Livelihood and seasonality Step 2 : Flood-prone areas Step 1 : 3W matrix

14. Phases Livelihood Impact on Key issues Possible response Is the Area A gencies with Market Response Sources livelihood to be options secure? capacity to dynamics Recommen addressed respond at favour dation scale? cash/vouchers or in kind During . A griculture . loss of actual and . Support . Potable water . Area is . ANDMA . Physically . Potable Disaster . Livestock potential food immediate . First Aid Kits secure . WFP Accessible water st (1 . Handcraft from own access to . Transfer of . accessible . FAO . t . First Aid phase . Crop production (crops food and affect ed people to . Phone . Local people Kits Food not available emerge . Business + livestock) income safe place accessible support Food ncy) . Gardening . No income from . Transfer of . No distribution own production lives tock to safe internet . Transfer of . Prices high (crops + livestock) place people to . No work . Food distribution safe place opportunity . Cash transfer . Transfer of lives tock to safe place Response Analysis Matrix – emergency phase . Market disrupted

15. Phases Livelihood Impact on Key issues Possible response Is the Area A gencies with Market Response Sources livelihood to be options secure? capacity to dynamics Recomme addressed respond at favour ndation scale? cash/vouchers or in kind After . Agriculture . loss of actual and . Continued . Seeds . Area is . WFP . Cash Disaster . Livestock potential food food access . Fodder secure . FAO . Physically . Voucher (Recove . Handcraft from own support . CFF . accessible . ANDMA Accessible Seeds ry ) . Crop production . Enable . FFW . Phone . Donor . Less food . Fodder . Business . No income from access to . Cash grant accessible agencies available . FFW . Gardening own production seeds and Food . No . NGOs . Prices lower . . No work fertilizer distribution internet . Government . opportunity . Increase access to business Response Analysis Matrix – recovery phase Food distribution

16. Opportunities • Proved very useful way of developing consensus around response options • Based on livelihoods and likely impacts of a shock • Was integrated into food security cluster led process

17. Challenges • Gap analysis (step 7) was problematic • Large numbers of participants made facilitation difficult YET at the same time, some stakeholder groups not represented (academia, Community representatives). • Insufficient time for training thus language barriers posed some problems for facilitation • Insufficient time to build adequate understanding of response analysis technicalities