www.concern.org.uk

BUILDING RESILIENCE IN FRAGILE ANDCONFLICT-AFFECTED CONTEXTSA Concern Worldwide discussion paper

2

Contents1. Introduction................................................................3

2. What is fragility?............................................................4

3. Why do we need to focus on fragile contexts?............5

4. What do we understand about resilience?..................6

5. What are the challenges to resilience programming in fragile and conflict-affected contexts?....................8

6. What is unique to resilience programmes in fragile contexts? ..................................................12

7. Key questions and areas for further exploration......15

8. Implications and recommendations........................16

Endnotes..........................................................................19

Cover image: Maceline* (35) visits the Mobile Health Clinic in Mayomkuol,a remote rural area of Aweil, South Sudan. Photo: Abbie Trayler-Smith / Concern Worldwide

This page: Families in Turkana are forced to walk vast distances to seekhelp from medical centres. The lack of road infrastructure is making itharder to visit these communities in Northern Kenya.Photo: Gavin Douglas / Concern Worldwide

*Name changed to protect the identity of individuals.

3

1. IntroductionOver the last decade there has been a growing focuson the concept of building resilience. This stems inpart from the increasing consensus around the needto shift from responding to disasters to addressingthe risks of disasters before they happen, focusingnot only on emergency response but also on the rootcauses of disasters and extreme poverty.

Resilience programming has come about in responseto recurrent crises. Where crises are predictable, suchas droughts or floods that occur on a cyclical basis,building resilience is intended to reduce the need forrepeated and expensive humanitarian assistance. Inthe context of climate change, which will increase thefrequency and intensity of extreme weather events,resilience programming aims to strengthen systemsthat help vulnerable people to withstand and mitigatethe negative impacts of recurrent crises, and adapt tonew and evolving climatic patterns.

Although resilience programming has gainedtraction in relation to weather and climate-relatedhazards, there is increasing recognition of the needto address a wider range of risks, from conflict tosocial and political shocks; building resilience infragile contexts where there are multiple dimensionsto the drivers of vulnerability. There is also anincreasing focus on areas where the crises may beprotracted as well as cyclical.

Eradicating extreme poverty in fragile and conflict-affected contexts is a major challenge. There is stillmuch to understand about how to do it, practically,within a broader policy and funding environmentthat is not aligned to the specific needs of thesecontexts. However, at the same time, there isincreasing recognition of the issues and thenecessity to change the way we work and the way the international system operates.

In addressing the challenges, the experience oforganisations working in these contexts will beessential to ensure solutions are grounded in reality.

Concern Worldwide implements a number of resilience programmes in fragile contexts. As we continue to prioritise working in these areaswe aim to draw on our existing experience to:

• Strengthen the evidence base around effectiveapproaches to building resilience.

• Acknowledge and address gaps in ourunderstanding.

• Ensure we are innovative in our programming.

• Address the challenges and opportunities togenerating impact at scale.

This paper sets out why it is important to work onresilience in fragile and conflict affected contexts. It discusses the approaches that we see as central toeffective resilience programming and outlines someof the lessons from Concern’s resilience programmesin fragile contexts. It then explores the areas wherethere is still much to learn, identifying the questionsthat we need to address as organisations and as asector in order to achieve the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs). It is intended to sparkdiscussion and reflection on the way that we work.

Box 1

What we mean by ‘resilience’

Concern defines resilience as the ability of allvulnerable households, or individuals that makeup a community, to anticipate, respond to, copewith, and recover from the effects of shocks, andto adapt to stresses in a timely and effectivemanner without compromising their long-termprospects of moving out of poverty.

4

2. What is fragility?Fragility is the opposite of resilience; when onesystem collapses (for example, the environmentalsystem), other systems also collapse, or cannot cope(for example, the health system). Some of thefeatures of fragility exist in most countries todiffering degrees and can fluctuate over time.Fragility can also exist in different forms within astate, and can involve transnational or internationaldimensions.

Fragility is multidimensional and takes many forms.It can be categorised broadly into the groups of1:

• Political • Societal• Economic• Environmental • Security

Defining the exact features of fragility is controversialand involves subjective choices about which featuresare to be included.

There are limitations inherent in any attempt tocategorise2. However, many of the countries in which Concern works score highly in various fragilityindexes. The OECD annually scores countries forlevels of fragility across the five categories; Concernworks in 14 of the 20 most fragile countries (seeFigure 1). These countries can also be categorised as experiencing protracted or cyclical crises, or a combination of both.

Fragile states often exhibit the type ofcharacteristics that drive, perpetuate, andcompound vulnerability: low levels of transparency;accountability; democratic participation and accessto justice; high levels of corruption and inequality;weak institutions; ineffective public administration;weak social and environmental protection; and lowlevels of equity in the use of public resources. Civiland political rights may be suspended when statesof emergency are in force and the state may itself be a party to a conflict, raising questions about itslegitimacy and limiting its potential to act as aneutral partner.

Figure 1

The 20 highest scoring countries on the OECD’sfragility ranking in 2018. Of these 20, ConcernWorldwide works in 14 (in bold).(Source: adapted from OECD, 2018)

Somalia

South Sudan

Central African Republic

Yemen

Democratic

Repub

lic of the Cong

o

Afghanistan

Chad

Syrian Arab RepublicBurundi

EthiopiaEritreaSudan

HaitiIr

aqMali

Pakistan

Kenya

Congo

Liberia

Zimbabwe

Political

Societal

Economic

Environmental

Security

Fragility

Severe Minor

5

3. Why do we need to focus on fragilecontexts?We are leaving people behind

Globally, progress has been made on reducingmortality from disasters. However, this progress hasnot been universal. Today, 58 per cent of deathsfrom disasters occur in the top 30 most fragilestates3. For decades global hunger has beenreducing, but the last few years have seen anincrease in the number of people going hungry,driven largely by conflict and climate change4.

Investment in resilience-building in fragile andconflict-affected contexts is critical if the globaltargets laid out in Agenda 2030 and the SendaiFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction are to beachieved. Without action, more than 80 per cent ofthe world’s poorest people will be living in fragilecontexts by 20305.

An investment gap

Only 35 per cent of Official Development Assistance(ODA) goes to countries where 75 per cent of theworld’s poorest live6. Since the food security crisesin the Sahel and Horn of Africa in 2011-2012,international donors have made significantinvestments in resilience programming. Despite this,countries affected by crisis receive lessdevelopment funding than they would without thecrisis7, and humanitarian funding often struggles tofill the gap:

• When a crisis occurs, the drop in developmentfunding is often not fully made up for byhumanitarian assistance; funding can decrease ata time it is most needed8.

• Middle Income Countries receive 10 times moreODA per person living in extreme poverty thanLow Income Countries9.

• Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) spending in fragileand conflict affected contexts is a fraction of thatspent in other countries; in fragile and conflictaffected states, for every $100 of emergency aidspent after a disaster, just $1.30 is spent on DRRbefore10.

• Many of the countries that will be worst affectedby climate change are also fragile and conflict-affected. Yet climate finance has thus farstruggled to flow to those most in need; atpresent the Least Developed Countries receiveonly 18 per cent of global climate finance11.

An ineffective international system

It is widely recognised that the international aidarchitecture does not effectively deliver for peopleliving in protracted crises. Discussions on LinkingRelief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) have

attempted to address the gap and negative impactsof the different ways in which the humanitariansector and development sector work for a number of decades. In the last few years, these LRRDdiscussions have been replaced by a focus on the“triple nexus” of humanitarian, development andpeace-building.

As part of these nexus discussions, the New Way ofWorking process has been set up by the UN to lookat how it can change its mode of operation acrossthe multiple agencies that make up the UN system.Within the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development the nexus has also risen up theagenda, with Development Assistance Committeemembers committing to a set of recommendations.These aim to provide a framework for support,incentivise and implement more collaborative,coherent and complementary humanitarian,development and peace actions, particularly infragile and conflict-affected contexts12.

The role of resilience programming in fragilecontexts

Resilience programming seeks to address theunderlying causes of vulnerabilities and strengthenpeople’s ability to cope, adapt and transform;moving from responding to disasters to addressingthe risks ahead of time. When it comes to the triplenexus, this means ensuring that policies andpractices put in place across the three sectors are mutually supportive in addressing underlyingdrivers. In recognition that the links between thethree are not linear, it also means having a systemthat is flexible enough to respond early to changingcontexts and risks.

Programming that seeks to enhance resilience is a key part of responses to the trends of increasingconflict and ever more protracted and cyclical crises.In a context where an increasing concentration ofpeople living in extreme poverty will be in fragile andconflict-affected contexts, we need to understandunder what circumstances, and with the support ofwhich interventions, resilience can be built mosteffectively. Fragility will look different in differentcontexts and a thorough understanding of the localexpression of fragility is central.

There remains a significant information gap aroundhow best to build resilience in these contexts. There is a lack of robust evidence on programming in conflict-affected contexts generally, and on howto effectively pursue resilience building in conflict-affected contexts specifically. There is a separationof practitioners addressing humanitarian response,development and conflict which prevents thedialogue needed to create a shared understanding of what a blending of resilience, humanitarian actionand peacebuilding approaches could look like.

6

4. What do we understand aboutresilience?There are many elements that enable people to be resilient. A person or community’s resilience isdynamic and influenced by economic and naturalresources, social networks, entitlements,institutions and governance, human resources, and technology. There is increasing evidence of the importance of building personal resilience and transforming individual attitudes alongsidestrengthening social networks and social capital in developing and sustaining resilience gains. In countries where the capacity of government is weak, reinforcing a culture of self-reliance is hugelyimportant.

Access to financial services and financial literacyalongside increasing human capital, strengtheninggender equality, sustainable agriculture and naturalresource management are all emerging as keyaspects of effective resilience building13. Resilience programmes should work across and aim to strengthen three broad categories of system:economic and financial, risk management, and basic services (see Box 2).

Principles of Concern’s resilience programming

There are a core set of principles which can beapplied as lenses when designing programmes14.These can be applied in all contexts, including those that are fragile and conflict-affected:

• Focus on the drivers of vulnerability (not thehazard). Vulnerability is rarely due to a singlecause. Rather, it is the product of intersectingsocial processes that result in inequalities insocio-economic status and income, as well as in exposure to hazards15.

• Focus on systems. A contextual analysis shouldexamine the underlying causes of vulnerabilityfrom the household back up through thecommunity, the local area, and up to the nationallevel, attempting to understand the politicaleconomy that maintains the status quo.Programmes should be designed to address theobstacles and opportunities identified in theanalysis at different levels.

• Policy and advocacy are core parts ofprogramming. Some of the obstacles identified in the context analysis will need to be addressedthrough changes in the wider system in which thepeople we’re working with live. New laws orpolicies may sometimes provide the solution, but in other cases the ‘advocacy’ component maylook very different; it may mean finding ways tochange the incentives of powerful actors in amanner that benefits the most vulnerable.

• A focus on sustainable solutions that will have alasting impact after the programme has finished.A good litmus test of whether a project orprogramme is properly designed to buildresilience is an analysis of the extent to which all of its interventions are focused on lastingsolutions. We must be able to describe the system that a particular intervention is designedto change, and to articulate how that change willcome about and be maintained.

• Manage risk and protect development gainsthrough innovative solutions. Incentives must beprovided for people to adapt their practices, givingthem confidence that they can continue toimprove their wellbeing in the face of futurethreats. For example, in some cases strengtheningtraditional savings and insurance models like seedbanking and warrantage schemes have shownpositive results.

• Build in contingency funds and plans to enableadaptability. A core element of any resilienceprogramme must be to plan for setbacksidentified in advance through risk analysis andeffective community-centred early warningsystems. These should be linked to contingencyfunds or ‘crisis modifier’, which is flexible andeasily accessible.

• Layer, link and sequence interventions. Given thecomplexity of addressing vulnerability, thoughtmust be given to the relationship betweenactivities and the sequence in which they will be implemented. This has implications forprogramme management and the types ofpartnerships that may be required.

7

a. Strengthened economic and financial systems

• Diversified livelihoods that are less susceptibleto climate variability and other potentialsources of livelihood shock, such as insecurity.

• Reduced vulnerability of agriculture and/orlivestock production to climate variability andother shocks and stresses at the farm level. At the same time, strengthening agriculturalsystems related to inputs and service.

• Sustainable solutions identified for facilitatingmarket access for producers.

• Development of entrepreneurial andemployment skills.

• Financial inclusion increased, ensuring thatindividuals and businesses have access touseful and affordable financial products andservices that meet their needs – transactions,payments, savings, credit, and insurance –delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.Village Savings and Loan Associations, forexample, have been shown to have a verypositive impact on the financial well-being ofvulnerable people.

b. Strengthened risk management systems

• Development of disaster risk managementplans at community and local levels, integratedacross all relevant thematic areas.

• Strengthened local and national systems for early warning and response.

• Enhanced sustainable natural resourcemanagement at local, regional and nationallevel.

• Strengthened social protection systems that arelinked to disaster risk management. Resilienceprogrammes that incorporate safety nets/crisismodifiers should be designed in a way thatfacilitates handover of these systems to localownership and ensures their sustainability.

c. Strengthened basic service systems

• Strengthened local health systems, ensuringthey are better able to respond to and anticipateincreases in demand for treatment services.

• Effective individual and collective practices thatimprove health, nutrition and hygiene outcomesbefore, during and after a crisis.

• Increased access to water services that aregoverned in an ecologically and financiallysustainable way.

• Educational systems that equip children andyoung people with the skills and knowledgeneeded to improve and expand livelihoodsoptions.

• Strengthened governance and local ownershipthrough decentralisation of decision makingand budgeting. The decision-making processesfor prioritising actions and assigning budgetsshould be made in accordance with theprinciples of subsidiarity i.e. as close aspossible to the lowest administrative level.

Box 2

Pillars of resilience programmes: a checklist

When designing resilience programmes, specific actions will be required across the three different systems:economic and financial; risk management; and basic services. The specific objectives will depend upon thelocal context and analysis. The list here serves as a ‘checklist’ of the possible programme objectives.

8

5. What are the challenges toresilience programming in fragile andconflict-affected contexts?The requirement for resilience programming toreduce vulnerability, strengthen systems and buildsustainable solutions raises particular challenges infragile and conflict-affected contexts. The centralchallenge is the capacity and/or willingness of thestate itself to support and maintain a governanceand regulatory environment for addressinginequality, risk management, and economicdevelopment.

Fragile contexts have a number of characteristicsthat make it difficult to implement resilienceprogrammes. They can be affected by conflict anddisplacement and are often compounded byrecurrent crises as a result of natural hazards whichcan routinely undermine people’s livelihoods. Weakgovernance systems, or cases where governmentdoes not control all areas of the country, can make itvery difficult to link the community and nationallevel, and can undermine the long-term sustainabilityof programmes. Volatile security situations makeaccess difficult, high risk and logistically expensive.The impacts of conflict can have impacts far beyondthe areas immediately affected.

Resilience programming in protracted crises can becomplex and challenging, especially when workingwith people who have been displaced. Theirdisplacement may have been triggered by acombination of insecurity and recurrent drought, for example, but as they are no longer living in theirhome areas (and may not wish to return), it is oftenno longer possible to address the drivers ofvulnerability that led them to migrate.

As outlined above, conflict is just one aspect offragility. However, its impact on people’s resilience is currently poorly understood, as are thedifferences in approaches to building resilience toconflict, compared with other shocks and stresses.In areas of acute conflict, severe insecurity limitsmovement and in some cases, leads to near-totaldependence on aid. Even in more stable areas

conflict can profoundly affect communities throughlocalised violence, economic crisis and as an impactmultiplier when disasters occur16.

Many of the countries that will be worst affected byclimate change are also fragile and conflict-affected.Though difficult to consistently measure, thebalance of evidence suggests that disastersexacerbate pre-existing conflicts. In conflict-affected contexts, the consequences of extremeweather events such as drought, and in particulartheir impact on population movements, cancontribute to conflict among divided communities.In addition, conflict worsens the negative impacts ofclimate change. A key finding from Concern’s reports“Conflict and Hunger”17 and “Breaking the Cycle”18is that conflict is a threat multiplier in contexts ofclimate change. Disasters, climate change andconflict individually and collectively compoundcommunities’ vulnerabilities, erode copingstrategies, and undermine long-term recovery and sustainable development.

Economic fragility can have impacts acrossprogramming from speed and cost of procurementto project activities. Political and economicuncertainty can also affect the scope for privatesector engagement and partnerships, and take upthe time and attention of government stakeholders.

“Disasters, climate change and conflict individually andcollectively compoundcommunities’ vulnerabilities,erode coping strategies, andundermine long-termrecovery and sustainabledevelopment.”

9

Box 3

Case study: Building links between thecommunity and national level through theAfghanistan Resilience Consortium19

To illustrate more concretely some of the challengesreferred to in Section 5, here we explore some ofthose faced by the Afghanistan ResilienceConsortium (ARC) in linking community and national level actions.

More than 30 years of conflict, combined withpoverty, inequality and social and economicpressures such as migration, unemployment andland tenure practices, have made people morevulnerable to disasters and forced them to live inmore disaster-prone areas. Each year, on averagearound 200,000 people are directly affected byhazards such as droughts, floods, landslides,avalanches, earthquakes and extreme weather. Over295,000 people have been affected from January toOctober this year20. The 2019 Humanitarian NeedsOverview estimated that 6.3m people, roughly onesixth of the population, would need humanitarianassistance over the year21. A significant driver ofhumanitarian needs has been a continued spreadand deepening of conflict.

The ARC was established in 2014 as a partnershipbetween Afghanaid, ActionAid, Concern Worldwide,Save the Children and UN Environment. The ARCtook a holistic approach, recognising that conflictand environmental degradation can exacerbate theimpacts of natural hazards. It aimed to supportcommunities and improve ecosystem managementin order to reduce the risk of disasters and buildadaptive capacity to climate change.

ARC worked with communities and with governmentinstitutions to build operational capacities foreffective emergency planning and response at alllevels. Government counterparts were involved inthe steering and monitoring of the programme, withthe main government counterpart being the

Afghanistan National Disaster Risk ManagementAuthority (ANDMA). Despite significant interest fromANDMA in participating and taking ownership, therewere a number of challenges in making the linkbetween the community and national level.

A principal challenge is that the central governmentis not in control of all of the country. In addition, the2019 external evaluation of the ARC programme22highlighted some barriers:

• Low levels of policy enforcement in rural areasand limited decentralisation, which meant thatsub-national government was not well-positionedto raise citizens’ awareness and listen to theirconcerns.

• Where public services have low pay, varyingstaffing levels and skewed recruitment andpromotion criteria, it can lead to low levels ofmotivation. That said, officials who participated in the programme were generally open to theobjectives and enthusiastic in sharing theirexperiences.

• Security risks are faced by district andgovernment officials travelling to the field;officials expose themselves to significant securityhazards when travelling overland.

• Capacity to plan for and respond to disasters inAfghanistan is constrained by heavy dependenceon donor-funding, donor preferences and securityconcerns. ANDMA is one of the smallestgovernment departments, with limited funding.

The community level remains the most significantfor collective action and service delivery for manypeople in Afghanistan. Strengthening communitylevel self-help capacities to plan for and respond tonatural hazards therefore remains valuable. Makingthe links between the local and national level is alsonecessary; but improved policy and capacity atnational level will not automatically result inimprovements at the local level.

Natural Resource Management Councilleaders and children in ChermayKorshed village, Chaab district,province of Takhar, Afghanistan. Photo: Rosaleen Martin / Concern Worldwide

12

6. What is unique to resilienceprogrammes in fragile contexts?The elements of resilience programming outlined inSection 4 are not unique to fragile contexts. Whatthen is different about building resilience in fragileand conflict affected contexts? Our experience hashighlighted several elements that need specialconsideration.

a. Timeframes and approaches to risk

A focus on trust building and cooperation betweendifferent stakeholders is critical. This takes time and energy, which needs to be factored in. Buildingresilience is possible but the starting point isdifferent in different contexts and will likely takelonger23. A more nuanced understanding of progressrelative to the starting point is needed. Resiliencebuilding in fragile states requires long-terminvestment.

Zero tolerance for risk in highly complex anddifficult-to-work contexts will reduce the ability ofdifferent actors to deliver resilience programmes.While compliance procedures and counter-terrormeasures are necessary, excessive focus onfiduciary risk over other risks24, and excessive riskaversion can have a negative impact on ability toachieve the overall goal of aid in fragile contexts.

b. Conflict sensitivity analysis

Conflict is a key driver of uncertainty and can oftenprevent adaptation and investment in resilience. Thestrongest available evidence indicates that conflictundermines adaptive capacity among affectedhouseholds and past exposure to violence affectslong-term decision-making (including investmentand planning)25. In addition, while many crisesreconfigure social relationships and behaviours intheir aftermath, violent conflict has a profound andpotentially irreversible effect on some forms ofsocial capital, an essential component of resilience.

Beyond social relations alone, the strategiesadopted by households to cope with risk in the faceof conflict may differ to those adopted in peacetimein response to other disruptions. This may bebecause the consequences of conflict differ, wherethe destruction of livelihoods and assets and massforced displacement are not always effects of othershocks. It may also be because strategies thatcontribute to bolstering resilience to environmentalshocks – for example the accumulation of assets orinvestment in human capital – can be liabilities inconflict. Vulnerability to shocks in conflict is afunction not only of vulnerability to poverty, but alsovulnerability to violence, which are not always thesame. In many contexts, the accumulation of

physical or financial assets is risky because it canattract looting or predation by armed groups.Equally, the targeting of wealthy households or elites in violence points to dangers associated with investing in human capital.

In fragile and conflict-affected contexts, conflictsensitivity analysis is critical. Prevention of thedeepening of social fissures is essential, butresilience programming would ideally go beyondthis. Resilience programming should be designed in a conflict-sensitive manner that strengthensopportunities for dispute resolution and addressinggrievances. Where possible, the strengthening ofconflict management systems at community andlocal levels should be integrated into resilienceprogramming. Conflict considerations should beintegrated through thorough and regular gender-sensitive conflict analysis into contextual analysis,needs assessments, programme design andannual/multi-annual review.

c. Taking a systems approach

A core element of resilience building is looking at thedifferent elements that lead to vulnerability, andcreating system changes to enable impact at scaleand address these underlying drivers.

When it comes to taking a systems approach, theterm ‘system’ should not be understood as referringsolely to ‘the state’. The system is not merely the setof public institutions holding a form of legitimateauthority under relative stability. A system willusually be made up of both formal and informalactors, rules, and institutions.

In fragile contexts, imbalances of power exist, asthey do in less fragile contexts. Sound contextualanalyses will identify entry points and opportunitiesto influence changes in power and in systems thatinvolve a range of actors. When working on systemstrengthening, programmes should work with localentry points and existing formal and informalsystems. These may be different in fragile contexts,and locally specific strategies may be required, butthere should be no assumption that resiliencebuilding is impossible in these contexts – just thatthe starting point may be different and that it maytake longer to demonstrate results.

It can be challenging to identify the mostappropriate interventions where the state is a driverof vulnerability, for example in authoritarian states.Actions should avoid strengthening the status quoand therefore prolonging those vulnerabilities. A strong context analysis is fundamental to ensuringthat activities do not legitimise actors, processesand systems that are drivers of vulnerability.

13

Different forms of government (often based on acolonial legacy) will shape the way in which systemsfunction (or not) in a particular place. Buildingresilience requires an understanding of this so thatwe can make a judgement about how to engage withthe state (if at all). There is a lack of evidence, butthere are opinions on how we should try to buildresilience in fragile contexts. Some believe weshould always support the strengthening of existingnational systems, while others believe we shouldwork ‘from the periphery towards the centre’ – this means building on what is already there, butplacing more emphasis on strengthening civilsociety and the private sector. The context is crucialin determining the extent to which you wouldpursue one strategy or the other, and it may be more of a continuum.

Finally, more emphasis on the policies at the local,national and international level that enableresilience is needed if we are to change theenvironment in which people live; programmingalone is not enough. The targeting andimplementation of effective advocacy is moredifficult the more fragile the context, whether byconflict or poor or repressive governance. However,if we are serious about strengthening systems,influencing-related aims and activities must beembedded into programme design.

d. Flexibility and adaptability in programmes

In fragile contexts, where the situation is constantlychanging, sometimes dramatically, an adaptivemanagement approach is necessary, including with in-built contingency funds where feasible (see Box 4 for an example). Adaptable managementapproaches can also ensure accountability to thecommunities we work with. Better integration ofmonitoring and evaluation with interventionprogrammes, particularly during the planning anddevelopment phases, can help to ensure thatprogrammes can be dynamically adapted to bestsuit the needs of the target community andtherefore have the greatest impact.

During the lifetime of a resilience programme,contingency plans and funding mechanisms shouldbe in place to respond early when signals of a crisisemerge, but a resilience programme should alsoseek to strengthen local and national governancesystems that can sustain this function in theabsence of external support.

e. Working in partnership

To deliver the multi-component and multi-levelprogrammes required to support resilience building,and to achieve sustainability of impact withincomplex and changing environments, partnershipsare essential. No one organisation has all the skillsnecessary to tackle a specific problem and with thechallenge of resilience building in complexenvironments, multiagency consortia are seen as the best approach to building resilience in practice.There are different forms of partnership in consortiaand choosing the right people and organisations towork with is crucial. Knowing how to structure thepartnership at the planning stage as well as creatingstrong synergies among partners throughout theprogramme lifetime is challenging.

For sustainability and long-term impact, workingwith national or local partner organisations isimportant. For example, having a national researchpartner leading on research components can enablethe programme’s research to be used in policymaking. When planning and setting up resilienceprogrammes, it is important to support localorganisations that are achieving positive impact at the grassroots level and to connect withorganisations that have a wide reach, to increase the collective impact. It is also important to map out where to make best use of existing capacity,identifying complementarities and synergies.

“More emphasis on thepolicies at the local,national and internationallevel that enable resilienceis needed if we are tochange the environment in which people live.”

14

Box 4

Case study: Building in adaptability throughcontingency funds and early warning early actionsystems in Somalia

An effective Early Warning Early Action (EWEA)system plays a key role in building the resilience ofdisaster-affected people. Helping people anticipateand prepare for shocks, including throughmechanisms such as early warning systems,contingency planning and stock prepositioning, iscentral to Concern’s resilience approach. So too is delivering a timely emergency response whencircumstances require it and local capacity isoverwhelmed. Effective EWEA brings these twoessential elements together to ensure we act quicklyto adapt our programming in response to warningsigns, reducing the potential impact of a disaster.

EWEA is a central part of the Building ResilientCommunities in Somalia (BRCiS) programme, which Concern is implementing together with theNorwegian Refugee Council, International RescueCommittee, Save the Children, ACF and CESVI. Itsystematically monitors early warning indicators inits programme areas and includes a mechanism totrigger a rapid localised response when signs of apotential crisis emerge. Ahead of the 2016/17droughts in Somalia, this approach appears to haveworked to allow Concern to respond ahead of time,mitigating drought-related displacement26.

Most of Somalia depends on two annual rainyseasons for agriculture and livestock production.When, in 2016, there were signs that the April toJune Gu rains were not performing well, BRCiSbegan responding with cash transfers of $30 permonth to 803 of the poorest households in Gedo. In November, as the subsequent Deyr rainsappeared to be failing and the probability of disasterhad therefore increased, Concern increased theamount to $50 per month and doubled the numberof recipient households to 1606, now including thepoorest 20 percent of households. By January 2017,with the failure of the rains confirmed, Concern wasable to increase the cash transfers to $60 per monthwith newly accessed emergency funds from DFIDand ECHO. Despite the crisis, markets continued tofunction and food remained available for purchase,minimising displacement to urban centres.

Our approach to EWEA meant that by the time theFood Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit – theleading source of food security and nutritionsurveillance in Somalia – indicated the possibility offamine in Somalia for the first time in a reportpublished on 16 January, 2017 Concern’s BRCiSProgramme staff had already been responding to

that possibility in half of its target communities forseven months through support for fodder productionand cash transfers27.

Discussions with the BRCiS target communities andobservations by Concern field staff suggest that, as aresult of this early action, the villages in which BRCiSoperates fared considerably better than might havebeen expected. Despite high displacement levelsacross the country, none of the BRCiS villagesexperienced significant numbers of people leavingdue to the drought. In fact, even though BRCiScommunities were originally targeted as the mostvulnerable in their respective areas, most becamehosts to displaced people from nearby andpreviously “better off” villages.

The second phase of the BRCiS programme includeda Crisis Modifier contingency fund; this wasactivated for drought impact mitigation in June thisyear, following a failed Deyr 2018 season and a lateand erratic Gu 2019 season. Granular early warningdata from BRCiS intervention areas was triangulatedwith district and regional-level data to trigger earlyactions in the worst affected areas of Somalia,preventing the deterioration of the humanitariansituation during the lean season months from July-September.

The experience of incorporating early warning earlyaction mechanisms into long-term resilienceprogramming has resulted in many valuable lessons,and the BRCiS programme will continue to innovateand apply new approaches. From the initial pilot, thefollowing lessons which are being incorporated intothe next phase of programming are useful tohighlight:

• Harmonising early warning systems across areasand organisations operating is necessary toensure standardisation and enable strategicdecision-making.

• To ensure that triggers for shocks lead to earlyaction, develop clear definitions of differentshocks, set thresholds per shock of interest, andidentify relevant context-based measures to becarried out in case thresholds are reached.

• Properly working EWEA is resource intensive andneeds to be considered in the design phase.Members within BRCiS had to make resourceadjustment decisions within the implementationphase to address unprecedented contextualchanges that required swift action; thisdestabilised the existing design and neededjustifications that took longer to be validated bythe donor. The second phase of BRCiS programmetherefore set aside a Crisis Modifier contingencyfund for early action, activated earlier this year28.

15

7. Key questions and areas for furtherexplorationThere are no easy answers to the question of how tobuild resilience in fragile contexts. Despite progressin Concern’s and the sector’s understanding, thereremain many gaps and questions as to how to mosteffectively build resilience. Here we outline our threekey priorities for further exploration:

a. Strengthening systems for the long-term

A core element of resilience building is creatingsystem changes to enable impact at scale andaddress the underlying drivers of vulnerability.

• How do we need to work and who do we need topartner with to work at systems level?

• How do we build and leverage national safety netsystems as a springboard for resilience in fragilecontexts?

• What approaches can influence structuralprocesses towards greater downwardaccountability, changing broader social norms,and/or sector-wide resilience?

b. Adaptability and flexibility of programming

To be responsive to the constantly changing natureof fragile contexts, we need to look at our own abilityto work in that environment. How do we need tochange how we operate as organisations, and as the broader development, humanitarian and peace-building sectors, to ensure adaptability? This encompasses a broad range of issues;operations; logistics; technical skills; reporting; risk management; flexible funding; coordination;preparedness; and principles and standards.

c. Conflict and resilience

Experiencing conflict can have an impact on howpeople will respond to risks, and on whatprogrammatic elements will be effective for buildingresilience where people face multiple risks. Despitethe implications for programming, the evidence onthe impacts of conflict on resilience remains weak29.Core questions for us remain:

• How does conflict affect the different elementsthat contribute to a person’s resilience?

• What are the implications for resilienceprogramming?

• How to go beyond conflict sensitivity to conflictprevention, without having an adverse effect on theprinciples that underpin our humanitarian work?

Above: Local women attend a community meeting in Mogadishu, Somalia. Photo: Marco Gualazzini / Concern Worldwide

16

Resilience programme implementers

The relative neglect of conflict in resilience studies is particularly clear in approaches to measuring andmonitoring resilience outcomes. An understandingof the distinct impact of conflict on resilience isimportant and may suggest programming and policyapproaches that are more relevant, effective andsustainable.

Recommendations:

• Implementers should seek to address theevidence gap on resilience and conflict links,and assess the potential implications forresilience programmes.

• It is essential to apply conflict sensitivityapproaches when working in fragile andconflict-affected contexts as a minimum.

The development, humanitarian and peace-building sectors

Many of the lessons from operating andimplementing resilience programmes in fragilecontexts have implications for the broaderdevelopment and humanitarian system.

Fragile states are typically characterised by a highdependence on ODA; on average, ODA makes uparound 30 per cent of international finance flows tocountries in protracted crises, compared to roughlythree per cent for other developing countries30. Theway the development system operates matters forfragile contexts.

Long-term system strengthening in fragile contextswill require new forms of partnership, includingdonors and local organisations and civil society.Given the rapidly changing context and scale of thechallenges, cooperation – rather than competition –is likely to be the most effective way of deliveringresilience.

Discussions on the humanitarian, development andpeace-building nexus need to move beyond theoryto practical steps. To do this, discussion andexchange is needed at a practitioner and operationallevel, as well as at international level.

Recommendation:

• For the nexus discussion to effectively deliver,the experience of organisations operating infragile contexts should inform the process ofshifting the ways of working in theinternational system.

• Communities of practice are needed, bringingtogether practitioners from across thehumanitarian, development and peace-building sectors to share opportunities, bestpractices and challenges for more joined-upworking.

• Funding mechanisms must incentivisecollaboration with local and national partnerorganisations, as well as full involvement andaccountability to vulnerable people.

8. Implications and recommendations We are not currently on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. If they are to be met,development, humanitarian and peace-building actors will need to better understand and address theunique challenges of building resilience and sustainable development in fragile contexts.

“Long-term systemstrengthening in fragilecontexts will require newforms of partnership,including donors and localorganisations and civilsociety.”

Funders of resilience programmes

The tendency for development assistance todecrease when a crisis hits, combined with theshortages in humanitarian funding, means that it isdifficult to plan for and finance long-term resilienceprogrammes in contexts where there are hugeimmediate needs. Given the increasing proportion ofpeople living in extreme poverty in fragile contexts,to deliver the Leave No One Behind principle of theSDGs, investment in resilience building in thesecontexts must be significantly scaled up.

Building resilience in fragile contexts also takestime; funding for resilience must take into accountthe significant time investment required to buildresilience in the long term. It requires patience andmust be set up to adapt to the inevitable andsometimes rapidly changing context.

Recommendations:

• In the context of limited ODA, existinginternational assistance must be bettertargeted to those countries which are leastable to fund their basic services – donors muststrive for better aid effectiveness.

• Increased investment should come in the formof predictable, flexible, multi-year funding tointegrated resilience-building programmeswhich address current needs and tackle theroot causes of vulnerability.

• Contingency funds should be built into longer-term programmes, linked to plans to enableearly action in response to predictable crises.

• The true costs of operating in fragile andconflict-affected contexts must be recognised,for example, the additional costs associatedwith dealing with insecurity, unpredictableeconomic and political conditions, weakinstitutional capacity and poor infrastructure.

• Donors and fund managers must have a goodunderstanding of the context and theprogramme. Trust between the implementersand donors is needed, based on establishedrelationships and open communications. Thisis essential as fewer, rather than more,procedures are needed in order to allow theadaptability necessary in rapidly changingcontexts.

17

For Concern Worldwide

Working in fragile contexts will remain a priority forConcern. As we continue to prioritise working inthese areas, we are committed to innovating in ourprogramming and strengthening the evidence basearound effective approaches to building resilience.

We also recognise that we are not alone in seeingthe importance of putting the hardest to reach first;many actors are increasingly focusing on fragilecontexts. We will actively collaborate across sectorsand actors to ensure learning is shared and utilised.

“Building resilience in fragilecontexts also takes time;funding for resilience musttake into account thesignificant time investmentrequired to build resiliencein the long term.”

Image: Chaab district, Takhar province,Afghanistan. (See Box 3 on page 9)Photo: Rosaleen Martin / Concern Worldwide

Endnotes1. OECD (2018), States of Fragility 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris,

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302075-en.2. Piffaretti, Nadia; Ralston, Laura; Shaikh, Khadija. 2014.

Information note: the World Bank’s harmonized list of fragilesituations (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/692741468338471327/Information-note-the-World-Banks-harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations

3. Peters, K. (2017) The next frontier for disaster risk reduction:tackling disasters in fragile and conflict-affected contexts,Overseas Development Institute

4. K. von Grebmer, J. Bernstein, R. Mukerji, F. Patterson, M.Wiemers, R. Ní Chéilleachair, C. Foley, S. Gitter, K. Ekstrom, andH. Fritschel. 2019. 2019 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge ofHunger and Climate Change. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; and Dublin:Concern Worldwide.

5. OECD (2018), States of Fragility 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris,https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302075-en.

6. Development Initiatives (2019) Key trends in globalhumanitarian assistance 2019, Factsheet http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Factsheet_key-trends-in-global-humanitarian-assistance_2019.pdf

7. Development Initiatives. (2018). Global Humanitarian AssistanceReport 2018. http://devinit.org/post/global-humanitarian-assistance-report-2018/

8. Development Initiatives. (2018). Global Humanitarian AssistanceReport 2018. http://devinit.org/post/global-humanitarian-assistance-report-2018/

9. Manuel, M. et al. (2018) Financing the end of extreme poverty,Overseas Development Institute Briefing Note,https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/12392.pdf

10. Peters, K. (2017) The next frontier for disaster risk reduction:tackling disasters in fragile and conflict-affected contexts,Overseas Development Institute

11. Oxfam (2018) Climate finance shadow report 201812. OECD (2019) DAC Recommendation on Humanitarian-

Development-Peace Nexushttps://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/643/643.en.pdf

13. Gardner, C. and Mangano, M. (2019) Developing a commonapproach to enhanced community resilience in the Horn ofAfrica: A review of Alliance2015 community resilience workacross the Horn of Africa. Alliance2015

14. Concern Worldwide (2019) Resilience programme framework15. BRACED (2018) Building Climate Resilience in Fragile Contexts:

Key Findings of BRACED Research in South Sudan ImprovingResilience to Climate Change in South Sudan.

16. Concern Worldwide (2018) Breaking the cycle of conflict, hungerand human suffering

17. Concern Worldwide (2018) Conflict and Hunger: The livedexperience of conflict and food insecurity in South Sudan

18. Concern Worldwide (2018) Breaking the cycle of conflict, hungerand human suffering

19. Coffey International Development (2019) Summative Evaluationof the Afghanistan Resilience Consortium (ARC)

20. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/afghanistan/natural-disasters-0

21. UN OCHA (2018) 2019 Afghanistan Humanitarian NeedsOverview

22. Coffey International Development (2019) Summative Evaluationof the Afghanistan Resilience Consortium (ARC)

23. BRACED (2018) Building Climate Resilience in Fragile Contexts:Key Findings of BRACED Research in South Sudan ImprovingResilience to Climate Change in South Sudan.

24. InterAction (2019) NGOs & Risk: Managing uncertainty in local-international partnerships.

25. Dowd, C. (2019) Violent Conflict and Resilience: EvidenceMapping, Concern Worldwide research paper

26. Concern Worldwide (2018) A review of community-centred earlywarning early action systems

27. https://www.concern.net/news/how-a-rapid-response-helped-to-avert-famine-in-somalia-this-year

28. BRCiS Early Warning Early Action Strategic Plan and Roadmap,April 2019-March 2022

29. Dowd, C. (2019) Violent Conflict and Resilience: EvidenceMapping, Concern Worldwide research paper

30. Development Initiatives. (2019). Global Humanitarian AssistanceReport 2019.

November 2019

Report author: Sally Tyldesley,Senior Policy Officer – Resilienceand Humanitarian, ConcernWorldwide UK

Great Britain13/14 Calico HouseClove Hitch QuayLondonSW11 3TN00 44 207 801 1850londoninfo@concern.net

Northern Ireland47 Frederick StreetBelfastBT1 2LW00 44 28 9033 1100belfastinfo@concern.net

Republic of Ireland52-55 Lower Camden StreetDublin 2D02 H42500 353 1 417 77 00info@concern.net

www.concern.org.ukconcernuk

concernworldwideuk

concernworldwideuk