Maw protracted crisis cairo
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•246 views
RNE Resilience Workshop, 8 -10 Feb, 2015 Egypt
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Maw protracted crisis cairo
Ähnlich wie Maw protracted crisis cairo (20)
Mehr von NE Kim
Mehr von NE Kim (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Maw protracted crisis cairo
- 1. SO5 MAIN AREA OF WORK BUILDING RESILIENCE IN PROTRACTED CRISES (MAW-PC)
- 2. Protracted Crises – what are they? NO INTERNATIONALLY AGREED DEFINITION SOFI 2010 MEASUREABLE CRITERIA: Longevity – 8 out of 10 years on GIEWS list Aid flow - at least 10% ODA as humanitarian Economic and food security status - LIFDC country SHARED (RECURRENT) UNDERLYING CAUSES E.G. CONFLICT, WEAK GOVERNANCE, NATURAL HAZARDS MANIFESTATIONS - SEVERE FOOD INSECURITY/MALNUTRITION, INCREASED DISPLACEMENT, DISRUPTED LIVELIHOODS AND FOOD SYSTEMS, INCREASED MORBIDITY/MORTALITY
- 3. MOST CRISES NOW A COMBINATION OF NATURAL AND HUMAN-INDUCED FACTORS BECOMING THE NORM RATHER THAN THE EXCEPTION LOOKING AHEAD… 1.5 billion live in fragile, conflict affected areas Possibly 325 million extremely poor living in 49 countries most exposed to natural hazards by 2030 At no point since 1945 have so many been displaced by conflicts – internally or externally: 51 millions Approx. 40% of fragile and post-conflict countries relapse into conflict within 10 years 90 %: the number of appeals that continue for more than 3 years 78%: the proportion of OECD donors that are allocated to protracted emergencies. Protracted Crises – some trends
- 4. Reinforces systems’ capacities to deal with shocks at different levels and particularly at the local and community level – Complements the existing absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities of affected men and women Addresses uncertainty and volatility - protecting development gains already made Strengthens the design of humanitarian programmes with sustainable development in mind Potential savings in the form of reduced humanitarian spend, avoided losses and development gains Bolsters support for interventions that blend relief and development such as protecting and supporting people and their livelihoods Provides an entry point to ensure that both symptoms and causes of malnutrition are addressed in a comprehensive way, tackled from both the humanitarian and development angles ADDED VALUE OF APPLYING A RESILIENCE PERSPECTIVE TO PROTRACTED CRISES
- 5. WHAT IS THE MAW-PC? Protracted crises one of the five typologies of shock identified under SO5 Articulated around three guiding principles: Context specific policy frameworks and institutional development processes Information systems able to inform both short- and long-term actions Livelihood support actions focusing on keys to resilience of most vulnerable
- 7. USING SOFI METHODOLOGY: 20 COUNTRIES WITH PROTRACTED CRISIS SITUATIONS IN 2012 TOTAL POPULATION 474 MILLION OF WHICH 176 MILLION UNDERNOURISHED NB DOES NOT INCLUDE PALESTINE, SOUTH SUDAN, YEMEN, PAKISTAN… AVERAGE 37% UNDERNOURISHED COMPARED TO 15% IN REST OF DEVELOPING WORLD Protracted Crises – some figures
- 8. WHAT IS THE MAW-PC? Global and HQ level delivery mechanism to implement SO5 (complements RI and Country mechanisms) Three main functions: The coordination of FAO normative resilience work in relation to protracted crises; The provision of a pool of expertise and services to support regions and countries on these specific shocks and their differentiated technicalities and impacts; The creation of specialized networks promoting dialogue and team work across global, regional and national levels.
- 9. CONTRIBUTING TO MOVE SO5 OUTPUT LEVEL INDICATORS 1.1 Number of countries that formulated and institutionalized a strategy/plan for risk reduction and crisis management as a result of FAO support 2.1 Number of threat monitoring mechanisms/systems supported by FAO to enhance delivery of early warnings 2.2 Number of countries that improved resilience/vulnerability mapping and analysis as a result of FAO support 3.1 Number of countries with improved application of integrated and/or sector-specific standards, technologies and practices for risk prevention and mitigation as a result of FAO support 3.2 Number of countries with improved application of measures that reduce vulnerability and strengthen resilience of communities at risk of threats and crisis as a result of FAO support 4.1 Number of countries benefiting from FAO support to uptake standards, guidelines and practices for hazard and sector specific emergency preparedness 4.2 Proportion of regions/countries affected by a crisis impacting agriculture, food and nutrition in which the emergency response has benefitted from FAO coordination support, by level of emergency 4.3 Percentage of countries affected by a crisis impacting agriculture in which FAO provided timely and gender-responsive crisis response
Hinweis der Redaktion
- SO5: Increase the resilience of livelihoods to threats and crises affecting agriculture, food and nutrition.
- Previous work – e.g. Beyond Relief, 2008 – and a realization since the 1990s that an increasing number of crises did not fall into a neat category of ‘humanitarian’ or ‘development’ and these complex and volatile, long-running situations need specific approaches and frameworks to guide both policies and actions. SOFI 2010 characterized protracted crises as a special category, being situations with recurrent human-made and natural hazards, longevity of food crises, breakdown of livelihoods and insufficient governance and institutional capacity to deal with the crisis. While causes are many, overlapping and persistent, conflicts are a key driver. The three measureable criteria for identifying countries in protracted crisis in SOFI 2010 were (i) longevity of crisis: at least 8 of past 10 years on the GIEWS list; (ii) aid flow: at least 10% of total ODA in form of humanitarian assistance (between 2000-10); and (iii) economic and food security status: LIFDC status. The combination of multiple contributing factors and the changing typology of these crises from catastrophic, short-term, highly visible events to more structural, longer-term and protracted situations has resulted in severe impacts on the food security and nutrition status of vulnerable people.
- An increasing number of people are affected by crises, which have not only grown in both frequency and in intensity, but have also changed in nature. In Africa in the 1980s most crises were due to natural disasters. But by 2010 most crises were the result of human-induced factors such as conflict or socio-economic shocks, or a combination of both natural and human-induced factors. Furthermore, these situations are increasingly becoming the norm rather than the exception, with more crises considered to be protracted today than in the recent past. In 1990 only 12 countries were facing food crises, and of those only five were in a protracted crisis situation. Twenty years later a total of 24 countries were in food crisis, but 19 of those had been in crisis for 8 or more of the previous 10 years. And looking head the picture is not very pretty. The World Bank estimates that one and a half billion people live in fragile, conflict‐affected areas; they are twice as likely to be malnourished and to die during infancy as people in other developing countries. Poverty rates are 20 percent higher in countries affected by repeated cycles of violence, and the World Bank estimates that every year of civil conflict causes a 2.2 percent reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) per year. Without concerted action, there could be up to 325 million extremely poor people living in the 49 countries most exposed to the full range of natural hazards and climate extremes in 2030. Internally displaced – 33 million / Externally – 16.7 million, including approx. 5 million under UNWRA’s responsibility. This presents a significant challenge for the development and humanitarian communities in terms of the expectation of rising needs and increasing complexity.
- particularly important in a context of state fragility where capacities from central institutions are limited
- Others are natural disasters, food chain emergencies of transboundary or technological threats, violent conflicts and socio-economic crises. Context specific policy frameworks and institutional development processes (e.g. CFS-A4A) Key to bring a long-term and sustainable perspective to address these crises; to ensure that appropriate investments are properly integrated and coordinated; that support to most affected and vulnerable groups, and women in particular, is properly prioritized; and, finally, that the specificities of institutional set-ups in fragile state contexts are taken into account. The latter may include, on the one hand, decentralized institutions which are relevant to the most affected groups and, on the other hand, regional institutions and mechanisms to deal with cross-border and regional dynamics which are often root causes of protracted crises. The promotion of enhanced partnership and coordination mechanisms among actors involved in protracted crises, including better interaction and linkage between humanitarian and development interventions and perspectives, is central to this. How the CFS-A4A can be translated into practical action at the country level through FAO support. Information systems need to be able to inform both short- and long-term actions In order to: (i) provide the analysis required by resilience policies and programming; and (ii) be based on existing capacities beyond the government’s when needed (e.g. global early warning systems). Improved and more transparent information flows can also help ensure increased accountability to affected populations. Livelihood support actions Livelihoods evolve over crises. Adaptation mechanisms. Changing of livelihoods basis. Short and medium term adaptation versus long term adaptation. ROLE OF NATURAL RESOURCESF Conflict mitigation conflict SENSITIVE. ocusing on those determinants and sectors that are key to the resilience of the most vulnerable communities. They should: (i) be closely informed by comprehensive analyses and related information systems; (ii) be participatory and gender-sensitive; (iii) ensure equitable and sustainable management of natural resources, thus preventing and mitigating potential conflict and contributing to social cohesion; (iv) contribute to wider peace building efforts and initiatives; and (v) include measures that, whilst protecting livelihoods and ecosystems, also ensure their adaptation to changing circumstances and their capacities to sustain and absorb repeated shocks.
- Applying 2010 criteria to 2012 data, there are 20 countries with protracted crisis situations: Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Liberia, Iraq, DRC, Eritrea, Burundi, Sierra Leone, DPRK, Congo Rep., Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, CAR, Chad. The approximate combined population in countries with protracted crisis situations was 474 million (though that does not mean that these are all affected), of which approximately 176 million were undernourished. NB does not include territories, e.g. WBGS, or South Sudan due to data restrictions. We refer to protracted crisis situations/contexts, not protracted crisis countries as they can manifest at a sub-national level. This was approximately a quarter of the global total of undernourished people. In 2012, the mean prevalence of undernourishment in protracted crisis situations was 37%, compared to 15% on average in the rest of the developing world.
- SO5 MAWs are HQ based arrangements with the overarching goal to provide global public goods and services to support regional and country offices in delivering SO5 targets; the MAW-PC will support three functions… As with the other MAWs, the MAW-PC provides monitoring support to divisions to assess/document and consolidate overall progress against indicators: MAW-PC will assist/advise divisions and help consolidate future planning on PCs under SO5, in line with agreed upon indicators. However, the MAW structure is NOT meant to establish another management/reporting/quality control layer on technical delivery of specific theme/discipline bound activities (which are under the SO5 umbrella), which the divisions have already put forward (and which are documented in PIRES). The delivery responsibility of and accountability for those activities is with the technical divisions; the budgets allocated through SO5 (HR + 60% of NSR budget already allocated) and/or Extra-budgetary resources should be used by the divisions to deliver these activities. MAW-PC takes delivery responsibility for a limited number of cross-divisional activities (still to be selected/agreed and which we will get to later), under a specific NSR budget allocation of USD 173,734 for 2014.