Improving livelihoods and risk management

Dear all,

Welcome to our discussion on strengthening institutional capacities and national systems!

We are looking forward to hearing your views on how WFP can improve the  livelihoods of marginalized people and manage risks. This includes improving agricultural-based livelihoods of rural populations as well as the livelihoods of urban poor.

You may find the following two questions helpful to start reflecting on this topic:

1. What do you think are the critical long term and future shifts that are transforming how WFP can improve livelihoods and risk management?
2. In that future, what WFP should do differently or better?

Thanks in advance for your engagement in this e-consultation! I look forward to an active discussion!

Pablo, Philippe and Damien

WFP's buying power and presence on the ground should be used for improving resilience of smallholder farmers. This is the area where procurement and program should work together to achieve increased resilience and reduction of rural poverty.  I think LRFP Policy is paving the way for such collaboration and development. Supply chain and especially procurement will further strive to invest in such programs.  In my opinion sustainable and possibly transformative procurement of food will be one of the main directions in coming 3 - 5 years.

Great suggestion @George Gegelia. WFP has indeed a great opportunity to leverage its procurement footprint, as well as other local demand (from schools, CBT, government and other private buyers) to support smallholder farmers, and more generally make local value chains more fair, efficient, resilient, nutritious and inclusive. In line with the 2019 Local and Regional Food Procurement Policy, such demand-driven pro-smallholder value chain development approach should be included in the next Strategic Plan.

Hello colleagues, 

Working for Afghanistan CO, I am convinced this part of WFP work is key to contribute - a bit - to peace building. We are working and thinking about how to make our food systems and resilience-building work with communities climate-proof, long-lasting and sustainable under such a protracted conflict. I wonder if this aspect of the livelihoods/risk management area could be reflected in the next strategic plan, to both showcase the very difficult work undertaken (and delivered) by our colleagues and to give us vision and guidance for such contexts. Many thanks.  

Dear colleagues,

I am a national ofiicer in Mozambique working and SAMS team. I would like to propose that we really discuss how WFP can engage and contribute to build resilient and inclusive food systems. What is WFP value proposition?

How do we have a clear Theory of Change the integration of resilience/climate adaptation, livelihood support, market access, food systems?

Dear colleagues, 

i think there are a few keys aspects that are happening : digitalization, Distaster Risk Financing (at micro and macro levels), integration of solutions, financial inclusion

Digitalization :

• WFP is investing in it, with more or less success. but we have countries where very few of rural populations have a stable phone number / device, and even less a mobile money account. WFP alone has a limited impact, but we should surely try to develop access in these countries, because it would set up a lasting and viable infrastructure to communicate with the most vulnerable, remote populations. 
• We are still too compartimented in the way we use digital solutions (for information management and payments). it's hard, if not impossible, to know who is participating to which activity / component / programme. without this, how can we monitor our efforts, improve, and build evidence?
• of course, this point is less accurate for urban areas. which means that we could build more ambitious platforms in these urban contexts
• it does not fully goes there, but WFP has great skills of risk analysis, which could be even more leveraged internally (and with governments) to improvement risk prevention, and risk management. 

DRF : 

• the DRF field has usually more a social protection system, but considering the populations that can be protected under these mechanisms, it surely justify a livelihood lens. DRF still has limited attention for WFP, while the tools and countries' strategy are being developed. at the best, WFP is involved under a sovereign insurance mechanism, or a forecast based financing system. but, we rarely have a full picture. 
• WFP is usually involved in the technical conversation, but the political angle is crucial as well. strengthening our capacity to discuss this at country level would be beneficial to also share our expertise (incl. in the implementation of the response). 
• WFP can better support communities by setting up well integrated and articulated DRF systems, where sequenced payments / transfers can best protect livelihoods and optimize resources. for now, it is not clear what is the best mix, but WFP is working in microinsurance, savings, macro insurance, meso insurance, FBF and even trying to develop forecast index insurance.

integration : 

• all the tools i mentionned above are only fully efficient if well articulated. the integration of risk management solutions is a concept being developed at global level (not only by WFP). if on paper integration makes a lot of sense, the difficulty to make it work in the field is extremely difficult. so far, WFP is rarely well equipped for that. it requires strategic vision, but also management capacities to make sure that all components / activities move in the same direction, at the same pace. 
• integration does not mean the same package of services depending on the level of vulnerability, on location (urban vs. rural), it thus requires an extremely good understanding of the context... which WFP can be very good at. 
• beyond only integrating activities, there is a need to design efficiently how resilience (physical, and financial) is improving. for instance, tools can be used to trigger different types of transfers (contingency fund or insurance) based on different level of shock

financial inclusion : 

• it may not be WFP's mission / mandate, but financial inclusion is a key element of our work, as we need communities to be able to progressively invest more, absorb part of the risk (with savings or contingency funds for governements). 
• WFP has limited skills in house, whereas it is a well developed sector, globally. 
• connection with digital solutions opens lots of possibilities, in particular to help savings groups improve their management, secure part of their savings, connect with formal financial institutions, make potential investments... 

sorry for my long message. i hope it is helpful. 

Dear colleagues,

Here are 2 elements we believe that need also to be considered:

1- Fully leverage WFP’s procurement to support smallholder farmers:

Joint Programme and Supply Chain planning and implementation at both strategic and operational levels will be key to dealing with the structural vulnerabilities facing the smallholder farmers and value chain actors. In future, Programme can no longer be the driver of operations and Supply Chain should not only follow after Programme’s instructions to deliver. However, shifting to joint Programme design where both functions provide inputs in defining the needs, identifying the options, assigning responsibilities appropriate to knowledge and skills, and allocating resources to support delivery on shared objectives should be a necessary change. Supply Chain expertise that can be leveraged includes: – Food & non-food Procurement, Food quality & safety procedures and process implementation, storage and packaging, Transport and distribution, commodity tracking, and retail market expertise.These skills can be leveraged across the four modes of engagement, i.e. Direct delivery, capacity strengthening for partners, service provision as well as influencing policies and different stakeholder behaviors.

 2- Supporting urban food security:

Particularly in rapidly growing provincial towns and refugee centres, will require new approaches. WFP can facilitate the development of best practices in assessments and targeting in urban contexts and the application of supply chain expertise to address losses, waste and inefficiencies (including poor transport and communication infrastructure, insecurity and unfavourable tax regulations which result in high shelf-prices for food, reducing affordability for the poorest people. WFP  has opportunity to leverage its supply chain expertise to enhance access to credit and financial services for small and medium-sized traders. Partnerships with the private sector to be central. Working with authorities, transporters and traders to address delivery challenges in remote markets, thereby improving the diversity, availability and affordability of goods for beneficiaries and communities

Dear colleagues,

WFP’s dimension of risk management should be expanded from only natural risks to other including economic, social and ecological system risks. In addition to the weather index insurance, other financial instrument like income insurance could be explored. There has never been a time like the COVID-19 that disrupted the global food system. Smallholder farmers face the shocks and risks from the collapsed supply chain and market fluctuation. More tools and strategies to help smallholder farmers to prepare for, respond, adapt and mitigate the diverse risks could be developed and deployed.

As a result, current CRF is restricted to climate risks only as measurement of risk management and resilience capacity. While the outcome indicator opens space for “adaption and resilience to climate and other shocks”, the methodology is restricted to climate risk score, as well as the Output indicator 4.1.6 “proportion of targeted communities where there is evidence of improved capacity to manage climatic shocks and risks”.

Conflicts, Health crises, extreme weather shocks and rapid urbanization are impacting on people livelihoods and increasing the number of poor and vulnerable people. Economic recovery is picking up slowly and so does the employment, particularly for the rural workforce.

Shifts may include more urban residents (that are difficult to assist and phase out) and to deploy innovative intervention models, other forms of crises for which the knowledge is limited (less details for implementation planning),  focusing on market as an important enabler and WFP would need to  partner with other and invest in financial inclusion for the most vulnerable,  all of these in the context of “doing more with less”.

WFP is encouraged to reinforce its partnerships models to strongly engage Governments but also sale up successful initiatives:

• Government consistent contribution and strong alignment to social protection would be critical, WFP would need to rally key partners to ensure Governments are supported to strongly engage.
• Review and adapt successful lessons of HGSF, P4P, FtMA, R4, FFW/CFW as well as ARC with special focus on Government and communities’ contribution that enable ownership and sustainability. This includes strengthening public procurement of local commodities to support value chains that provide decent employment to women, youth and other rural workers.
• Risk management will include macro (government and IFIs are key), meso and micro insurance instruments such as ARC, ag banks & insurance, national food reserves, community food banks, community savings & loans schemes including facilitation of remittance, but also public and private labour-intensive programmes (rural infrastructure), including climate adaptation implementation.

Thank you all for a very fruitful conversation. Over the past week several elements have emerged to contribute answering the first two questions around how WFP should have a prominent role improving livelihoods and risk management. I will try to summarize these elements below:

a./ George Gegelia and Ludovic Salen  pointed to the important role of WFP’s supply chain on the development of sustainable value chains that are more fair, efficient, resilient, nutritious and inclusive, to enhance smallholder farmers wellbeing in a transformative way. To achieve that, Programme and Supply Chain need to strengthen the way they work together to address the structural vulnerabilities of smallholder farmers and value chain actors. This could be done leveraging the in-house skills and expertise across the different modes of engagement, i.e. Direct delivery, capacity strengthening for partners, service provision as well as influencing policies and different stakeholder behaviors.

b./ Ludovic Salen  and Edouard Nizeyimana specified that innovative approaches are needed to address the challenges posed by an increasing rate of urbanization affecting people livelihoods and leading to increasing poverty and vulnerability. Potential is available to develop best practices in assessments and targeting in urban contexts and the application of supply chain expertise to address losses, waste and inefficiencies. Reinforce the partnerships models in this new settings is needed as well as enhancing the alignment with governments and social protection schemes to address the new vulnerabilities.

c./ Maria Requena  indicated the critical role WFP needs to play in the upcoming strategic plan to ensure that resilience-building work with food systems and communities we are currently implementing is climate-proof, long-lasting and sustainable even under protracted conflicts.

d./ Mathieu Dubreuil , Han Jiang  and Edouard Nizeyimana emphasized the importance to promote Disaster Risk Finance instruments (at either micro and macro levels) to equip vulnerable populations to better prepare to respond, adapt and mitigate the diverse risks they are faced with. The DRF field is usually seen as a social protection system but can play an important role protecting the livelihoods of vulnerable populations. A better articulation at either political and technical level of WFP interventions on microinsurance, sovereign insurance mechanisms and forecast based financing systems is needed to ensure that sequenced transfers contribute to protect livelihoods and communities from shocks while optimizing resources. The integration, sequencing and layering of the different instruments promoted by WFP is the most efficient way to manage risks affecting livelihoods. However, there is room to improve WFP internal capacities to design and implement integrated interventions that are well adapted to the context, and take into consideration the different triggers and contributions to resilience building.

e./ Mathieu Dubreuil stated the need to promote financial inclusion and digitalization for households and communities to be able to progressively invest more and absorb part of the risk (with savings or contingency funds for governements). Digitalization opens lots of possibilities not only as mobile banking to ensure transfers but also to help savings groups improve their management, secure part of their savings, connect with formal financial institutions, make potential investments... 

e./ Han Jiang showed the need to enhance WFP capacity to measure its contribution to the enhancement of risk management and resilience capacity through the inclusion of specific adapted indicators in the CRF as well as Mathieu Dubreuil said that additional digitalization capacities are needed to track participants of different WFP activities to better monitor WFP efforts building resilience.

The discussions of this week led to some additional questions that will also be interesting to address during our last week:

·        In line with the current discussion Berquete Mariquele proposed: how WFP can engage and contribute to build resilient and inclusive food systems. What could be WFP value proposition?

·        How WFP can better support livelihoods and risk management in urban settings?

·        How to ensure WFP resilience building work can be climate-proof and sustainable even under protracted conflicts?

·        How can we better monitor WFP contribution to resilience building?

Hello all!

In terms of long term and future shifts that are transforming how WFP improve Iivelihoods, I think it is crucial the adoption of a broader and systemic lens for WFP programme design and implementation, in particular in relation to its work with smallholder farmers. 

Rural populations, as well as urban poor, are actors part of complex systems, and the support to these actors should consider this aspect. In order for the support to be effective and sustainable in the long run, other components and actors along the system, being it a value chain, a market system or a broader food system, have to be strengthened. Capacity strengthening activities cannot be limited to single, stand-alone actors or components, but have to address the different parts of the system to be fully effective.

Thanks Claudia, indeed with the increased focus on sustainable food systems, the adoption of a systemic lens in our work becomes crucial. In order to achieve sustainable results, as well as in order to increase the scale of our interventions, WFP projects will need to analyse all the components of the different types of food systems in which we engage. In particular in the work we do to support smallholder farmers, it therefore becomes crucial to also address potential bottlenecks and inefficiencies along the value chains or in the market systems in which the smallholder farmers engage.