When armed conflict breaks out or natural disasters strike, entire communities are affected, disrupting their day-to-day lives and long-term development prospects. Humanitarian aid is designed to save lives and alleviate suffering during and in the immediate aftermath of emergencies, whereas development aid responds to ongoing structural issues, particularly systemic poverty, that may hinder economic, institutional and social development in any given society, and assists in building capacity to ensure resilient communities and sustainable livelihoods. Both humanitarian and development aid are related, and different forms of aid often have both humanitarian and development components.
Linking Relief and Development
In 1995, the European Parliament issued a report entitled, Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD). This document looked at aid effectiveness and the need to engage in relief efforts that reinforce development objectives, as well as development efforts that prepare communities to better withstand disasters and emergencies. LRRD looks to bridge the crucial gaps between humanitarian and development aid. At the same time, it recognizes the need to maintain a degree of separation between the two, as each offers its own expertise and comparative advantage.
One of the main elements of the LRRD concept is that transitioning between humanitarian and development programming is a non-linear process. It is a continuous cycle where populations are constantly moving from relief to development or from development to relief in chaotic and unexpected progressions.
Consequently, disaster risk reduction and risk management need to be addressed within development programming to mitigate the devastating consequences of unexpected conflicts and disasters. For its part, humanitarian aid should also build the proper foundation to complement long-term development objectives (see fact sheet Building Resilience). By avoiding extended humanitarian programming, which can build aid dependence, and by addressing root problems in tandem with offering relief, humanitarian aid can contribute to the alleviation of cyclical crises.
While a livelihoods approach has generally been associated with long-term development programming, it has widely been applied by CARE in other contexts. In the 1990s, a framework for linking relief to development, the "relief-to-development continuum", was adopted into the thinking and planning of operational agencies. Linking relief to development (the two being viewed previously as separate and discrete activities) meant that if relief activities could be tied to developmental objectives, and if better-designed development programmes could protect people's assets more effectively and reduce the need for relief in response to shocks, then post-emergency recovery time would be reduced and long-term improvements would be more sustainable. The framework also put greater emphasis on intermediate activities as a category of interventions in their own right, particularly rehabilitation. "Protecting livelihoods saves lives" is the theme (Maxwell & Buchanan-Smith 1994). This means that it is as important to understand livelihood systems in emergencies as it is in a longer-term development context, and even more so when attempting to protect people's assets in the face of impending disaster (mitigation) or assisting in the recovery of people's assets and livelihoods in the aftermath of disaster (rehabilitation).
Initially, the relief-to-development continuum was depicted as shown in Table A. In general, the perception was that over time, a programme should shift from left to right along the continuum, moving away from relief and toward long-term improvements. The continuum concept was based largely on experience with natural disasters, particularly slow-onset disasters such as drought, or where a disaster was a discrete event and did not recur. However, large geographic areas and the populations that inhabit them are increasingly threatened with recurrent disasters or chronic vulnerability. Practical experience with programming under these circumstances is that the relief-to-development continuum is anything but linear, and a programme often has to cycle back towards emergency response, or it gets "stuck" in permanent safety nets.
A more complex view of relationships in the relief-to-development continuum is depicted in Figure A, but even this table does not capture all the complexity of programming in CVAs. For example, several categories depicted are likely to happen simultaneously. In pre-crisis "normal" times, some amount of emergency preparedness may be part of programmes that are mostly aimed at promoting long-term development or improvements in capacities and assets. Promotion and protection of livelihoods may be possible under situations of "chronic" emergency as well.
A mix of all these may be required in the aftermath of a crisis. Dealing with the short-term impacts of crises and reducing long-term vulnerability are the ultimate objectives of a livelihoods approach to programming in chronically vulnerable areas. In addition to emergency preparedness and response, early warning, rehabilitation, mitigation and long-term development, the other critical programming factor for CVAs is how and when to transition between one activity and another.
The cost of operation will almost certainly be higher in chronically vulnerable areas, so it is critical to consider cost prior to deciding to begin programmes in such areas. Yet, increasingly, operational NGOs are pushed to begin programmes in these areas, as bilateral and multilateral lending programmes focus on high-potential areas where quicker gains can be made from development investments.
Livelihood promotion involves improving the resilience of household livelihoods to meet basic needs on a sustainable basis. Interventions of this type often aim to reduce the structural vulnerability of livelihood systems by focusing on: (1) improving production to stabilize yields through diversification into agro-ecologically appropriate crops, and through soil and water conservation measures (agriculture and natural resource-type measures) (e.g. Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mozambique, Nepal, Peru); (2) creating alternative income-generating activities (small-enterprise activities) (Bolivia, Tanzania); (3) reinforcing coping strategies that are economically and environmentally sustainable (seasonably appropriate off-farm employment) (Sudan); (4) improving on-farm storage capacity to increase the availability of buffer stocks (Guatemala); and (5) improving common property management through community participation (e.g. Bangladesh, Nepal). Promotion-type interventions can also deal with meso-level development, where the linkages between food surplus areas and food deficit areas could be strengthened through investment in regional infrastructure and market organization (e.g. Sudan, Zimbabwe). Such interventions could help the terms of trade for the poor by improving local access to income, food availability and lowering food prices. In addition, livelihood promotion activities could focus on preventive measure that improve the health and sanitation conditions and population/resource balance to insure that any income and production gains are not lost to disease and unchecked population growth (e.g. Honduras, Guatemala) (Frankenberger 1996). Most of CARE's work involves promotion-type activities.
Mitigation is often linked with rehabilitation in the middle range of the relief-to-development continuum. However, mitigation is any kind of activity that prevents the erosion or destruction of assets in the face of an impending disaster or emergency (whereas rehabilitation is primarily about rebuilding in the aftermath of a disaster or emergency).
Rehabilitation overlaps with relief and development. CARE's definition of rehabilitation is "the process of protecting and promoting the livelihoods of people enduring or recovering from emergencies". The purpose of rehabilitation programmes is to, "provide short-term income transfers, rebuild household and community assets and rebuild institutions... The key task of rehabilitation is to help reinforce developmental objectives, notably livelihood security, participation, sustainability, gender equity and local institutional capacity".2
Rehabilitation was traditionally viewed as a quick transitional step between relief and development, and programme activities were traditionally aimed at rebuilding physical infrastructure and replacing lost physical assets. Over recent years, rehabilitation has grown to embrace the rebuilding or recovery of a much broader spectrum of assets destroyed by both natural disaster and war, including de-mining, psychosocial counselling of victims of war and rape, the demobilization and re-integration of combatants and large-scale support to the recovery of macroeconomic indicators. It has also come to embrace programmatic interventions that address more basic causes of emergencies themselves, including conflict resolution, democratization, human rights promotion and building the institutional capacity of indigenous organizations.
In the early to mid-1990s, Oxfam developed a one programme approach that combined relief, development and advocacy. The Wajir programme, which is described below, is considered throughout Oxfam as a successful application of this approach.
The Wajir Pastoral Development programme (WPDP) started in July 1994. Much of the initial phase was spent developing pastoral associations. The project was designed to span a nine-year period managed in three phases, but has now been extended to 2008. Two kinds of community-level organisations were developed as part of the project. The first are pastoral associations, which pursue a wide range of activities including water-supply development, livestock health, women's income, and education. The second is a network of women's groups in Wajir town, whose primary purpose is to provide a structure through which women can access credit and training in business skills. Both are also channels through which people can represent their interests to government and other actors. 2ff7e9595c
Comments