FROM EMERGENCY TO LONG TERM PROGRAMMING INTERVENTIONS:
CHF’S APPROACH TO BUILDING RESILIENCY
Canadian Hunger Foundation (CHF)
The Situation – Context
Through the sustainable livelihoods approach, CHF works with smallholder farmers around the
world to improve their resiliency in the face of challenges brought on by the effects of climate
change. Although most of CHF’s programming is longer term, we have also worked in countries
following natural disasters, such as droughts, floods, tsunamis and earthquakes. CHF will compare
two case studies -- one programming intervention from a slow onset setting (2003 drought in
Ethiopia) and one from a rapid onset setting (2005 earthquake in Pakistan).
Case Study Summary
CHF Intervention: Partnership for Food Security Project
(2003 – 2010, CAD $11.6 million)
 In response to the Government of Ethiopia’s appeal following the drought in early 2003, CHF
adopted a sustainable livelihoods approach to promote a shift away from dependence on food
aid.
 Implemented in partnership with the Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in
Amhara (ORDA), our local partner in Ethiopia, in three phases as follows:
- Phase I (March 2003 to July 2004) (CAD $3.075 million): During the Emergency Response
Phase, provided early relief and asset protection for hard-hit families in the Batiworeda
and supported rehabilitation activities through an employment generating scheme.
- Phase II (August 2004 to September 2005) (CAD $1.3 million): The Bridging Phase
provided the groundwork for the final phase.
- Phase III (October 2005 to September 2010) (CAD $6.7 million): Relief-to-development
programming, shift away from dependency on food aid to sustainable livelihoods.
The Change: Key Results/Successes
 High number of PFS II beneficiaries graduated out of the safety net program – despite being
the most vulnerable in the woreda.
 Cash incomes tripled – from increases in annual crop sales, livestock sales, fruit and vegetable
sales.
 Women benefited more than men from sheep, goat and egg sales.
 The % of households with at least some irrigated land rose by 50%.







Access to agricultural and veterinary extension services more than tripled, improved
conservation agriculture practices adopted.
Improved sanitation and hygiene, increased access to potable water, reduction in time spent
collecting water, increase in the use of family planning services, improved maternal and child
care.
Higher enrollment and literacy rates, increased access to schools.
Improvement in the status of women.
Roads constructed and rehabilitated (in the pre-safety net period).
Land cover improved, protected enclosed areas, tree planting, strict regulation of production
of charcoal.
Project interventions were designed integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
CHF Intervention: Supporting Early Recovery and Building Long-term, Sustainable
Livelihoods
(2006 – 2012, CAD $10.2 million)
 Following the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, to meet both the immediate needs as well
as more long term community rehabilitation and sustainable livelihood development.
 Implemented in partnership with HAASHAR Association and the Sungi Development
Foundation, our local partners in Pakistan, in three phases as follows:
- Phase I (May 2006 to October 2006) (CAD $200,000): Providing livelihood assets to
approximately 400 most vulnerable earthquake affected households for agriculture and
livestock, and training 35 livestock extension workers.
- Phase II (January 2007 to December 2008) (CAD $5.0 million): Providing livelihood
assets to 11,000 ultra-poor households mainly for agriculture, livestock and income
generation.
- Phase III (January 2008 to October 2012) (CAD $5.0 million): Enhancing communitybased NRM, Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, improving
community physical infrastructure (roads, drinking water supply) and building disaster
management capacity among vulnerable villages in same 11,000 ultra-poor households.
The infrastructure component also involved non-ultra-poor households from same
villages which provided indirect effects particularly through community physical
infrastructure (CPI) to a further 16,000 non-ultra poor households.
The Change: Key Results/Successes
 Improved roads and paths mean households have better access to markets, health, education
and other facilities.
 Increases in assets (kitchen gardening, toolkits, sewing machines, orchards) and in
productivity (through provision of water, seeds, fertilizer, plants, training).
 Decrease in water borne diseases (diarrhea) in children by 38-54%.
 Training provided in basic agriculture, sewing, health and hygiene, advanced agriculture,
livestock, orchards, first aid, and logistics.
 Improved knowledge, better livestock management, more food for home consumption,
increased awareness, savings and some income increases.
 Women have benefited through increased confidence and general awareness levels, increased
mobility, collective capacities and reductions in time cost and physical labour.
 Improved knowledge and skills of project beneficiaries so they can address CCA and DRR in
their day-to-day living.
 Village level Disaster preparedness and contingency planning in place.


Appropriate institutional (government and NGO) linkages were establishedto ensure
adequate support during crisis and recovery stage.
Carry out local level Risk and Vulnerability Identification, and Risk Communication.
CHF strategy to effectively coordinate food assistance and long term approaches to food
security (and livelihoods) in these countries.
Emergency Response
Food Assistance and
Restoration of Livelihoods
Humanitarian Phase
Early Recovery
Development Phase
Recovery and
Reconstruction
Increased Agriculture and Livestock
Production Climate Change Adaptation
Income Diversification
Capacity Development
ProductionClimate Change Adaptation
Climate Change Adaptation
Food Security
and Resiliency
Disaster Risk Reduction
Environmental Sustainability
Disaster Risk Reduction
Approaches that can effectively coordinate food assistance and long term food security and
livelihoods include:
1. Local level risk, vulnerability and capacity identification and communicationarecrucial to
ensure appropriate transition from humanitarian assistance to long-term food security and
sustainable livelihoods. Building resiliency of vulnerable and food insecurepopulations
should focus equally on agriculture and livelihood interventions.
2. Ensure adequate time for pre-project assessments, incubating and scaling up: Projects
requiring deep and intensive focus at individual and household levels, data collection,
validation and the kind of nurturing and mentoring that is required for capacity
development and gender mainstreaming, need to be implemented in a “phased” approach
and over longer timeframes.
3. Intensify coverage and community mobilization: More intensive and inclusive approach to
community mobilization which expands the membership base allows project planners to
orient communities on the rationale, objectives and need for strong community
organizations which include the ultra-poor. This requires working with broader
communities and negotiating linkages for mature organizations. It requires not only
resources but an effective community mobilization strategy for the project.
4. Alignment with local government’s policies and program: Involvement of local government
in planning and implementation of programs, as well as capacity building exercises, for
purposes of better buy-in and increased chances for sustainability.
5. Mainstream ultra-poor into local social structures: Community institution building inclusive
of all members of the community requires time and a multi-pronged approach.
6. Foster buy-in for community physical infrastructure: Physical Infrastructure Committees
(PICs) are a good way to leverage non-ultra poorbeneficiaries to support pro-poor
development. Correct selection and adequate training of PIC members, oversight and
monitoring are required to ensure quality and accountability in project implementation by
communities.
7. Focus on gender mainstreaming: Any project needs to consider whether the project benefits
gained by women outweigh activities that add to their heavy work burden. Gender
sensitization for all community members (male/female, ultra-poor/non-ultra-poor) helps
to enable project gender mainstreaming. Exogenous factors beyond the project mandate
which can hamper the implementation of gender strategies should be identified and
considered.
8. Build local capacity and overcome gender bias by engaging local leadership: Strong
emphasis on capacity building at all stakeholder levels, including government line officers
and also local administrators not only at the community level but also zonal/district levels.
9. Mainstream climate change and disaster risk management: Disaster risk management
committees are more effective if the principles of inclusiveness and diversity (male/female,
ultra-poor/non-ultra-poor) are considered.
10. Effective partnership model contributes to project results: Effective communication,
networking and advocacy require strategies, mechanisms, budgets and human resources.
The capacity of potential partners needs to be assessed and, if required, strengthened.
11. Build a robust monitoring system to track milestones and results: Ensure GSMART (gender
disaggregated, sensitive, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) indicators to
track outputs, immediate (knowledge and attitude) and intermediate (behavioural change
and practice) outcomes.
Conclusion
Ideally, an ex-post project evaluation could be undertaken a few years after the cessation of the
project to assess the level of resilience of beneficiary households. Ultimately, behavioural change
and practice will determine how resilient the communities have become in the face of climate
change.