Crisis caused by the lack of the basic mean of livlihood
Answers
Issues and challenges for livelihoods programming in emergencies (Special Supplement 3)
8.1 Introduction
The previous sections of this supplement have highlighted various challenges in livelihood support programming in emergencies. Most of these are within the area of 'policies, institutions, and processes' and are the most difficult to address. This section reviews some of these challenges and draws out the recurring themes.
US logoed food aid in Malawi
The over-riding premise of this supplement is the need to move away from food aid as a standard response to food or income insecurity. Yet, food aid remains the most common response probably due, in part, to agencies and individuals continuing to do what is familiar and within their realm of experience. There are also significant policy and institutional constraints in moving away from food aid.
The existence of chronic livelihoods crises in many parts of the world is another challenge. Large numbers of people are living in circumstances which are normally associated with humanitarian crises, but for extended periods of time. This raises issues around the nature and duration of humanitarian programmes (and therefore funding cycles), social safety nets, and linking relief and development programming. The question is how can people be supported to simultaneously have their basic needs met and their livelihoods supported or rebuilt. In protracted emergencies, this raises technical, institutional and ideological issues.
Livelihoods analysis and programmes focus on assets and strategies, yet the causes of livelihood insecurity are often related to policies, institutions and process at national and international level. People whose livelihoods are most vulnerable are often those who have consistently been excluded or marginalised in national development policies, i.e. who receive less public services and government investment, or population groups who are excluded from political systems and lack political rights. To address the causes of livelihood insecurity, there is a need to more closely link livelihoods programming with protection and advocacy initiatives.
A number of operational challenges have also been identified. These include human resource issues, monitoring and evaluation, and coordination of livelihoods work in emergencies. These are briefly discussed below.
8.2 Institutional constraints in moving away from food aid
Whilst most donors, UN agencies and NGOs, support a livelihoods approach in emergencies, policies and practice varies between these institutions. Positions on food aid have been developed by a number of NGOs in the past year, but considerable institutional constraints remain to moving away from food aid. Food aid is the main funding category in UN appeals and there is no lead agency for the coordination of emergency food security and livelihoods responses.
Many agencies have recently developed food aid policies or are in the process of revising them. Most of these recognise that food aid is only needed in certain circumstances, and aim to limit the use of food aid. Many also aim to support livelihoods through appropriate mechanisms. Key common elements of recently formulated policies are summarised below (CAREUSA, 2005, November; Oxfam GB, 2005, June; ACF, 2005):
Appropriate food security interventions should be determined on the basis of an assessment of need, including the potential negative consequences of food aid. . Food aid is only needed in situations of absolute food shortage.
Appropriate roles for food aid are as part of emergency response while in development situations, food aid can play a role as part of social safety nets (CARE and Oxfam only on social safety nets).
Food aid can play a useful role in protecting livelihoods.
Monetisation of food aid should be phased out (CARE and Oxfam GB only).
Local purchase is preferred to the distribution of imported food aid.
Cash transfers are more appropriate than food aid in situations where food is available and markets are functioning (Oxfam GB and ACF).