• Capacity/ ability – all of the definitions refer to a ‘system’s’ (being a household, community or even state’s) abilities or capacities. It is worth also noting that traditional humanitarian response has not placed a strong emphasis on developing capacities and abilities and this may be an area that organisations could place increasing emphasis in future.
• Positively manage change/ absorb stress or disturbance/ adapt/ recover/ bounce back/ re-organise – these objectives would fall within the remit of DRR and would be the responsibility of both humanitarian and development agencies. These also relate strongly to the first point on capacities/ abilities.
• Without compromising long-term prospects/ protect livelihoods/ quickly recover in ways that reduce chronic vulnerability and facilitate inclusive growth.
These final points relate to recovery of the system and its ability to have coped with shocks and stresses and come out the other side without long term prospects being damaged. This is where ‘humanitarian’ response could be said to have traditionally failed. It is also an area that is seen as largely the responsibility of ‘development’ interventions that need to work in contexts with an understanding of the inevitability of drought and so drought proof their development investments.
There is an interconnected nature of different aspects of development and humanitarian programming. This means that a humanitarian resilience theory of change needs to complement the overall development theory of change for the country and the context. As a result humanitarian interventions are designed to provide life-saving interventions at a time and in a way that contributes, and does not undermine, the achievement of the wider theory of change defined by the capacity that an organisation wishes to create. Examples of this are humanitarian interventions in Ethiopia and Kenya which have been designed to contribute to longer term resilience building whilst maintaining the lifesaving/ preserving nature of humanitarian response.
.jpg)
By designing humanitarian relief responses (resources) that directly support the short-term (immediate & intermediate) results of the longer term development programmes, the coping capacity of communities, as a key indicator of building resilience, can be improved – contributing to the development goals for the community(s). The recovery capacity of communities should increase in line with the longer term development goal(s) and the need for external humanitarian relief should fall as coping capacity increases as exemplified in the diagram below. This is not the dominant scenario at present where despite significant amounts of humanitarian assistance when crises occur the general trajectory in poverty and vulnerability is downwards because of late or inappropriate response
Where needs are identified in the situation or needs analysis that are not directly addressed in the programme/intervention results we must acknowledge either how we will incorporate these needs (e.g. referral to another party, advocacy on key "consequences", etc.) or provide an explicit reason (consistent with our programme/intervention) why we cannot.
.jpg)
+ it allows for a consistent approach to programming across distinct regions or zones, based on outcome & impact;
+ it allows for the pace on programme implementation – of core programme plus broader outcome & impact priorities, to reflect the progress and challenges in each region/, depending on the political, security and development/ humanitarian context for that zone/region; and
+ it allows for Implementing Agencies to actively share success, opportunity and continuous improvement throughout programme implementation
Within this approach, both Donors and Implementing agencies have the scope to target specific cross-cutting or sectoral challenges that are relevant/prevalent in their specific areas of operations – addressing gender-specific issues (FGM, SGBV), treatment of HIV, TB and the associated stigma for beneficiaries of prolonged, communicable diseases; strengthening local/traditional community engagement in public policy processes (from cross-community working as the local environment becomes more stable, etc. )
