Sustainable development cannot be achieved without resilient livelihoods. Men and women around the world are increasingly exposed to natural hazards and crises, from drought, floods, earthquakes and disease epidemics to conflict, market shocks and complex, protracted crises. Worldwide, 75 percent of poor and food insecure people rely on agriculture and natural resources for their living. They are usually hardest hit by disasters. Given the multi-sectoral character of shocks and stressors and their effects on livelihoods, cross-sectoral solutions as well as coordination and coherence are needed to build resilience. Among several options for resilience programming, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been promoting the ‘caisses de résilience’ approach, a resilience-building initiative implemented in Uganda since 2008 through the Agro-pastoral Field School methodology. 'Caisses de résilience’ (CdR) is an integrated community-centered approach, linking social, technical and financial dimensions in a mutually reinforcing way. The combination of the three dimensions has shown to have a multiplier effect in the livelihoods of men and women farmers and pastoralists through the accumulation and diversification of income as well as household and community assets, two key sources for increasing livelihood resilience. As such, communities, and vulnerable women in particular, are in a better position to prevent and/or recover from shocks caused by natural or man-made disasters. The 'caisses de résilience' approach (CdR) has also demonstrated that resilience-building does not require massive investments to achieve high impact but rather works best if it addresses several dimensions jointly. CdR combines indeed capacity development on agricultural good practices with savings and loan schemes while strengthening social dynamics and social empowerment at group and community levels. The webinar will present the basic concepts of the 'Caisses de résilience' and highlight the adaptability of this approach in order to tailor resilience-building to varying contexts and challenges, from protracted crisis to natural hazards. It will give concrete examples of implementation and scaling-up in a number of African countries, from Uganda to Central African Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Mali and Chad, and recently also in Burundi, Guinea Bissau, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Democratic Republic of Congo. The session will also illustrate how the approach was adapted as early as 2000 in Honduras and Guatemala to address the natural hazards context of the Dry Coridor area in Central America with an initiative called 'Community Contingency Funds' (CCFs). © FAO: http://www.fao.org

1. 1

2. 2
List
of
webinars
Sep-Dec
2016

3. INFORMED
INFORMATION FOR NUTRITION FOOD SECURITY AND RESILIENCE FOR
DECISION MAKING

4. Caisses de Résilience
Consolidating community resilience by strengthening
households’ social, productive and financial capacities
through an integrated approach
Alexis Bonte
FAO Regional
Resilience
Coordinator for
Africa region
Webinar FAO
07/07/2016

5. • CdR : Community based approach
for consolidating resilience in a
participatory and integrated manner
• Community : first affected, first to assist
• Resilience : diversification and accumulation
• Participatory : they know; we support & suggest : flexible
• Integrated : Plan Marshall : no single option
Not only for disaster response or preparedness but also to improve livelihoods by
increasing capacity to seize local (economic) opportunities which improve resilience
Main message

6. • Need to provide concept for community « Resilience »
programming
• Based on success stories for communities and institutions
• Adaptable according to contexts
• Linking Emergency and Development
• Integrated and particiatory approach : no agriculture silo (menu of options)
• Based on livelihoods capitals
• Sustainability : long term engagement (internal)
• Sources of inspiration
• Honduras : Caja rural . Conditionality
• Uganda : FFS & VSLA . DRM-R
• Niger : Warrantage
Background

7. Farm / Wom
Assoc.
. Soc prot,
. SGBV
. C–F-W
. Nutrition
. Inclusion
Resilience
Conditionality
Facilitate
Financial Technical 1. Culture of
. Savings
. Commitment
. Responsibility
. Solidarity
2. Sust Agric
3. Others
. Knowledge
. Governance
. Nutrition
. Infrastructure
. Purch power
Social
Agriculture
Environment
GP
• PROD
• CMDRR
• AESA
• CCA
• NRM
• PHH
Savings
Loans
IGA
Diversification
Contingency
/Social
Funds

8. Vulgarisation of agro-environmental good practices
• Community based
• Learning by doing
• Season long
• Independent from external sources
• Adaptable to contexts and needs (APFS, JFFLS, PFS)
• Group organization and decision-making (ownership)
Tech: Farmer Field School Approach

9. Dimitra Community Listeners Clubs
• Social mobilization and local governance
• Access to information and communication
• Collective action
• Transformation gender relations
Social: community mobilization

10. Banking the unbankable : group of people who
save together and take small loans from savings
• Limited access to formal financial services
• More structured and transparent than tontine
• 15 to 25 members per group
• Members buy shares (between 1 to 5) and make
regular savings to a common fund “a Caisse” (box)
from which members borrow at a minimal interest
rate.
• Social/solidarity fund
• Learning before moving towards more structured
entities
Financial : Saving and Loan (VSLA)

11. Experience of Central America
CONCEPT OF CONDITIONALITY => access to credits only if selected good
practices are applied
• Major challenge for all projects : internal incentive measure
• Responsibility and commitment for not staying dependant
• Direct individual benefit for general interst long term impact
• Based on local needs and achievable-realistic
• Encourage engagement for DRR, CCA and NRM good practices
• To bring social or behavioural change: education challenges, gender
equality, health, etc.
Durable engagement of comunities

12. • 2007 : Emergency support to returnees (ECHO)
– FFS to support production: mosaic resistant cassava, seed multiplication, seed stocks,
grinding mills (technical)
– Small cash grant per group (financial)
– Reintegration in communities (social)
• 2008 : Opening eyes for livelihoods opportunities (DEVCO)
– Saving and Loans schemes
– Cash for Work to stimulate initial capital (storage, markets, etc)
– IGA – Diversification of income
– Linkages with development programmes (Gov, NGOs)
• 2009 onwards : paving the way for development (ECHO, Swi, DFID, Bel, …)
– Integrated appraoch
• Technical : CMDRR, AESA to identify risks and opportunities
• Social : literacy, legalization, inclusion, nutrition,
• Financial : linking with MFI, non farm activities
How it started in Uganda (from project to programme)

13. Example of Karamoja to build community resilience to climate risks

14. • Central America: natural hazards and climate related threats:
importance to apply DRR measures
– Post Hurricane Mitch
– Conditionnality: access to credit ONLY if certain DRR good practices are applied
– Long term environmental impact
• Central African Republic: conflict and protracted crises context
– Fonds Bekou
– Tech: seed multiplication, vegetable gardening, livestock rearing, post harvest
management
– Fin: processing units to support income generation
– Soc: conflict management, social cohesion, GBV, hygiene, etc
• Liberia: Ebola awarness & recovery +women empowerment
– Cash for awareness: women associations to carry out Ebola awareness raising sessions in
neighbouring villages to recover their VSLA
– Lowland rice cultivation
• Other: Guinea Bissau (legalization of women groups), Mali, Malawi, Chad,
Burundi (refugees), …
Adaptation to other countries and contexts

15. • Partnerships : implementation
,training, expertise on other domains
• Timeframe : minimum 2 years
• Integrated appraoch : minimum 2
pillars at the same time and followed
by the 3rd
• Can be based on ongoing programmes
• Cost per group : from 4,000 to 10,000
USD (150 to 300 USD per fam)
Implementation arrangements

16. • 84% applied new agronomic practices
• Improved nutrition:
• Reduction from 75% to 36% of the households using negative coping strategies
• 89% of groups interviewed are fully applying VSLA and want to fully apply in
future
• VSLA borrowing: Basic needs, school fees, sickness, trading, brewing,
cultivation, acquiring livestock
• VSLA supported group cohesion and encourage groups to continue without FAO
or IP engagement
• Increased enrolment of children in school
• Gender: reduced domestic violence, women able to get loans, generate income
and own livestock
Impact from the field: Uganda

17. Through the CdR, more than 70% of the interviewed beneficiaries identified
improvement in:
– Knowledge of their rights and duties
– Self-confidence
– Saving capacities
– Capacity to work in synergy with others
– Running of the group
Other areas where mentioned, such as:
– Paying fees school (63% of interviewed beneficiaries)
– Economical activities diversification (64% of interviewed beneficiaries)
– Activity income (66% of interviewed beneficiaries)
3 main areas of improvement:
• Group governance through open management in groups, support among the
members, team work, etc.
• Saving and mobilization of resources.
• Building confidence inside the community
Impact on living condition in CAR

18. • Linking emergency to development
• Facilitate diversified opportunities for communities
• Promote cross-sector approach and partnerships
• Can fit into ongoing programmes or from scratch
• Appreciated by Donors (15) + fonds Bekou
• Fit into major initiatives : AGIR, SHARE, BEKOU, P4P
• Special interest for women associations (tontine, vsla)
• Appropriate to cover lack of services (FFS, VSLA)
• More than 10,000 groups supported (1,5 mi people)
• More than 50 million USD mobilized
CONCLUSIONS

19. Alberto Bigi, PhD
Resilience and Disaster
Risk Management expert
FAO Mesoamerica,
Panama
Webinar FAO
07/07/2016

20. Adaptation of the “Caisse de Resilience” to
Central American context
2011
Pilot project implementation funded by Belgium
Humanitarian Preparedness Programme
USD 734.000, 12 months, 2.892 beneficiaries
(Guatemala and Honduras)
2014
Evaluation and systematization
2015
Emergency project drought in Central America
funded by Belgium SFERA
USD 500.000, 12 months, 4.000 beneficiaries
(Guatemala and El Salvador)
2016
Emergency Response Development/Resilience
Following up
2016
Development projects
Mesoamérica Sin Hambre
(5 years)

21. The Dry Corridor of Central America
(El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua)

23. CCFs operating requirements

24. Fund management and administration
Participatory process
(association/community/municipality)
Definition of the rules and regulations
• How to create the CCF (contribution)
• How to provide sustainability to the fund
(Income Generating Activities, interest rates)
• How to activate CCF
(Early Warning System, emergency declaration mechanisms)
• Who can have access to the fund and for what use
(conditionality: good agricultural practices, DRM plan, etc.)
Capacity building and technical support
• Association management, business plans, association rules
and regulations, accountability, administration, etc.

25. Good Agricultural Practices
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

26. Income-generating activities
1
2
3
4
5
6

27. Early Warning Systems
Commission Indicators
1. Availability of food Rainfall, temperature, humidity, harvest,
stock of food
2. Access to food Cost of the food, availability of work in the
community and the amount of wage
3. Biological
utilization
Presence of diseases and availability of
drinking water
4. Disaster Risk
Management
Record of any disaster in the community
(flood, landslide, drought, earthquake, etc.)

28. Risk Management plans
1. Capacity building
2. Identification of the risks
3. Risk Map (localization of the risks)
4. DRM plans (actions, responsible and resources)

29. Project impact
50 farmer associations have established Community Contingency Funds
• Contribution (10-30%)
• Rules and regulations
• GAP, EWS, IGA and DRM plans
2 892 target vulnerable households have improved their knowledges and awareness
on Disaster Risk Management and Resilience and improved their capacities to
prevent, mitigate and respond to a natural disaster
• Empowerment of farmers and strengthened community organization
• Diffusion of good agricultural practices for Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change
Adaptation and Natural Resources Management (99%)
• Increased preparedness to anticipate and respond to local threats and crises
affecting agriculture, food security and nutrition
• Increased and diversified incomes for the households and communities (+30%)
• Enhanced community ownership, through participatory planning and decision
making on risk reduction

30. Results: evaluation ex-post
- Association activities: Input procurement (+12%), saving and loan
(+5%), technical assistance (+43%), income generating activities
that do not depend on weather (+5%)
- Interest rate: 2-5%
- Women participation: 71% (increasing +0.5%), 40% in the Board
of Directors, 53% receiving loans, 81% receiving credit from CCFs
- Community Funds evolution: +31.39%/year
- Loans: 170,829.89 USD
- Community projects: 23,276.51 USD
- CCFs: 85,311.61 USD
- CCFs credit: 19,195.58 USD

31. Results: Funds evolution (average)
-
1,000.00
2,000.00
3,000.00
4,000.00
5,000.00
6,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ahorros
Prestamos
Inversiones comunitarias
Fondo de emergencia
Fondo de emergencia prestado
TOTAL
Saving
Loans
Community projects
CCFs
CCFs out
TOTAL
+31.39%/year

32. Credit For Emergency
Amount of loan/year/association (USD)
2,272.78 1,363.37
People receiving loans/year/association (#)
19.37 9.94
Women receiving loans/year/association (#)
10.32 8.00
Women receiving loans/year/association (%)
53.30% 80.51%
Results: Use of Community Funds
El Niño response: 68 emergency declarations, 28 CCFs activations, USD 19,195
distributed for emergency response by the communities in Guatemala
CCFs Vs Loans: Reduction of use for agricultural and production inputs and increasing of
use to procure seeds, food and health

33. Results: GAP diffusion
6 years time: 17% --> 98.75% GAP adoption

34. Challenges and next steps
• CCFs approach seems to be effective and sustainable to increase resilience of
rural community;
• The results achieved and the interest showed by beneficiaries and authorities
indicated that it would be extremely important to extend this approach to other
areas of the Dry Corridor and to other zones of Central America;
• Although results of the project have been very goods, capacity building processes
are slow and a longer duration of the projects would have been benefiting
beneficiary farmer associations (case of Honduras);
• Scaling up needed especially the link of CCFS with rural bank institutions;
• Piloting CCFS as a link between emergency project and development (SFERA
project in Guatemala and El Salvador, 12 months duration, 4.000 beneficiaries, USD
500.000):
• The contribution of the beneficiaries for input distribution to constitute CCFs;
• Development project to strengthen farmer association organization building
sustainability

35. Thank you for your attention!

36. 36
Comments ?
Questions?
Please write them
in the chat box

37. 37
THANK YOU !
Please give us your feedback
http://goo.gl/forms/824T69GfLFrRNKGv2