Number 64 December 2008 Network Paper

Commissioned and published by the Humanitarian Practice Network at ODI

Number 64December 2008

Network Paper

About HPNThe Humanitarian Practice Network at theOverseas Development Institute is an independent forum where field workers, managers and policymakers in the humanitariansector share information, analysis and experience.The views and opinions expressed in HPN’s publications do not necessarily state or reflectthose of the Humanitarian Policy Group or theOverseas Development Institute.

Overseas Development Institute111 Westminster Bridge RoadLondon SE1 7JDUnited Kingdom

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300Fax. +44 (0) 20 7922 0399

HPN e-mail: [email protected] website: www.odihpn.org

Britain’s leading independent think-tank on international developmentand humanitarian issues

HPNHumanitarian Practice Network

Managed by

Humanitarian Policy Group

Cathy Watson and Andy Catley

Livelihoods, livestockand humanitarianresponse: the LivestockEmergency Guidelinesand Standards

In brief• This Network Paper discusses livelihoods-based livestock programming and its role in humanitarian emergency response. It highlightsthe importance of taking livelihood assets, in particular livestock, into account in responding to emergencies and describes how the LivestockEmergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Project has been developed to support this process.

• LEGS aims to promote the use of livelihood-based livestock responses to emergencies, through building the capacity of humanitarian actors to plan and intervene appropriately. LEGS can also be used to assist in the evaluation of emergency responses by providing a framework and benchmark against which interventions can be reviewed.

• There is much more that can and should be done to support people’s livelihoods through live-stock-based responses to emergencies. LEGS andthe growing body of practical experience are anexciting way forward for improving and expandinglivestock responses.

Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN)

Overseas Development Institute111 Westminster Bridge RoadLondon, SE1 7JDUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0331/74Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Email: [email protected]: www.odihpn.org

Printed and bound in the UK

ISBN: 978 0 85003 893 4

Price per copy: £4.00 (excluding postage and packing).© Overseas Development Institute, London, 2008.

Photocopies of all or part of this publication may be made providing that the source is acknowledged. Requestsfor the commercial reproduction of HPN material should be directed to the ODI as copyright holders. The NetworkCoordinator would appreciate receiving details of the use of any of this material in training, research or programme design, implementation or evaluation.

About the authors

Cathy Watson is the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Coordinator. She is a social devel-opment consultant based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, working on pastoral livelihoods.

Andy Catley is a member of the LEGS Steering Group and a Research Director at the Feinstein International Center,Tufts University, based in Addis Ababa. His interests include livelihoods-based policy processes and programming.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Save the Children US in Ethiopia (Adrian Cullis), CAREEthiopia (Fasil Demeke) and Action Against Hunger – International (Christine Kahmann) in the writing of thispaper. The LEGS process is currently based on in-kind support from:

• The African Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources. • The Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University. • The Food and Agriculture Organisation.• The International Committee of the Red Cross. • VSF-Belgium, on behalf of VSF Europa.

Specific LEGS activities are funded by:

• The Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance, USAID.• The Animal Production and Health Division and the Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Facility, FAO. • Oxfam GB.

The LEGS Steering Group would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Vetwork UK.

For further information about LEGS, or to join the LEGS mailing list, please contact the LEGS Coordinator: [email protected] or visit the LEGS website: www.livestock-emergency.net.

LEGS will be published in January 2009

i

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction: livestock and livelihoods in emergencies 1

Livelihoods-based emergency response 1

Livestock and emergency response 1

Chapter 2 The Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) 5

The origins and objectives of LEGS 5

The development and scope of LEGS 6

The contents of LEGS 6

Chapter 3 Case studies 9

Case Study 1: Destocking 9

Case Study 2: Supplementary Feeding 11

Case Study 3: Livestock Distribution 13

Chapter 4 Key issues in livelihoods-based livestock responses in emergencies 17

Issue 1: the importance of a livelihoods approach in emergencies 17

Issue 2: early warning and early response 17

Issue 3: phasing and timing 18

Issue 4: coordination and integration 19

Issue 5: evidence base to inform good practice 19

Conclusion 21

Notes 22

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page i

Livelihoods, livestock and humanitarian response

ii

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page ii

This Network Paper discusses livelihoods-based livestockprogramming and its role in humanitarian emergencyresponse. It highlights the importance of taking livelihoodassets, in particular livestock, into account in respondingto emergencies, and describes how the LivestockEmergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Project hasbeen developed to support this process.

The paper begins with a discussion of the role of livestockin livelihoods and the potential links between livestock andother emergency responses. Chapter 2 presents asummary of the LEGS Project, describing the origins, scopeand contents of the guidelines. Chapter 3 contains casestudies from Ethiopia and Iran of livestock-basedemergency interventions, which are reviewed against theguidelines. Chapter 4 discusses the key issues arising fromthe development of the guidelines and standards andhighlighted by the case studies.

Livelihoods-based emergency response

The role of livelihoods-based responses in emergencieshas been debated within the humanitarian community forsome time. Whilst the need to save lives is acknowledgedas paramount in an emergency, the importance of takinginto account the livelihoods of affected populations, andwhere possible protecting them, is increasingly recognised– in other words the need to ‘save lives and livelihoods’.1

Some take this a step further and talk of the role of ‘savinglives through saving livelihoods’, highlighting theimportance of livelihoods for people’s future survival.

The sustainable livelihoods framework developed by DFIDand others is a commonly accepted basis for analysinglivelihoods in the context of long-term developmentinitiatives (see Figure 1). The framework illustrates how ahousehold’s capital assets – financial, physical, human,natural and social (and some sources add ‘political’) arethe basis for their livelihood strategies. These strategiesare impacted by the ‘vulnerability context’ in which peopleoperate, and are also shaped by the policies, institutionsand processes which form the external context.

In an emergency, livelihood strategies may be significantlyaffected and coping strategies may be employed whichhave a negative impact on the long-term livelihoods ofaffected populations (defined as ‘irreversible’ as opposedto ‘reversible’ coping strategies).2 For example, key assetsmay be sold, businesses may be abandoned, or wholefamilies may migrate away from their home area.

The ‘vulnerability context’ in the livelihoods frameworktherefore becomes more important. Vulnerability may bedefined as ‘the inability of communities or households tocope with contingencies and stresses to which they are

exposed’.3 The same source highlights three componentsof vulnerability: exposure to disasters and hazards;susceptibility to the hazard; and capacity to resist orrecover. In livelihoods terms, the greater a household’sassets, the less susceptible they may be to disaster(depending on the nature of the shock) and the greatertheir capacity to resist and/or recover.

It can therefore be argued that the protection andstrengthening of livelihood assets should form asignificant part of emergency response.4 This approach isconfirmed by the Sphere Handbook, which highlights theimportance of ‘supporting and promoting livelihoodstrategies’, in particular through ‘preserving productiveassets or recovering those lost as a result of disaster’.5

Livestock and emergency response

Livestock play a key role in the livelihoods of many peopleworldwide – both rural and urban. For communities such aspastoralists, their livelihood focuses on their herds ofanimals – cattle, camels, sheep, goats, donkeys or yaks. Foragro-pastoralists this dependence is shared with agriculturalcrops, while smallholder communities may depend largely oncrops, but may also own some livestock (for example cows,pigs, goats or chickens) which provide an additional sourceof food or income. Local service providers such as mule ordonkey cart owners depend on their animals for theirlivelihood, as do a range of traders, shopkeepers and other

1

Chapter 1

Introduction: livestock and livelihoods in emergencies

In the 1999–2001 drought in Kenya it is estimated thatover 2 million sheep and goats, 900,000 cattle and 14,000camels died. This represents losses of 30% of smallstock, 30% of cattle and 18% of camel holdings amongthe affected pastoralist populations. There was also asignificant social impact: families separated, damagingthe social networks which provide a safety net forpastoralists, and many moved to settlements and fooddistribution centres. Without sufficient livestock toprovide for their food needs, many pastoralists becamedependent on food aid. Once the drought ended, somecould not return to the pastoralist sector because theirlivestock losses were too great.

Source: Yacob Aklilu and Mike Wekesa, Drought, Livestock and

Livelihoods: Lessons from the 1999–2001 Emergency Response

in the Pastoral Sector in Kenya, Network Paper 40 (London: ODI,

2002).

Box 1

The impact of disasters on livestock-

keepers: drought in Kenya

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 1

business people involved in trading livestock or livestockproducts. For some urban communities livestock such as pigsor chickens may provide supplementary protein in the form ofmilk or eggs, and/or additional income.

In terms of the livelihoods framework, livestock are animportant financial asset for all livestock owners, providingfood (milk, meat, blood, eggs) and income (through sale,barter, transport, draught power, work hire and sale ofproducts such as milk, meat, wool, hides and skins). Formany livestock owners, particularly pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, livestock also constitute a significant social

asset, forming the basis of social relationships throughgifts, exchange, bridewealth and fines.

Disasters and other shocks often have a negative effect onlivelihood strategies, in particular through the loss ofassets, including livestock. Livestock assets may be lost(or injured or their condition weakened) as a direct resultof the disaster – for example they may be killed in floodingor die as a result of drought. Livestock assets may also belost as an indirect consequence: for example, livestockmay be sold to purchase food as part of a coping strategyin response to the emergency, abandoned when their


2

Figure 1

The Sustainable Livelihood Framework6

The Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 had a significantimpact on the livestock of affected people. This includedthe loss of domestic farm animals (poultry, sheep, goatsand also cattle and water buffalo). In Indonesia, forexample, over 78,000 cattle and 61,000 buffalo werekilled, together with 52,000 goats, 16,000 sheep andnearly 1.5 million chickens. Livelihoods were also affectedby the destruction of livestock-related infrastructure suchas barns, stores and processing facilities. The naturalresource base on which the livestock depended was alsoaffected, including the destruction of crop residues, strawand inland pasture.

Source: FAO, ‘Tsunami Reconstruction’, http://www.fao.org/ag/tsunami/assessment/animal.html.

Box 2

The impact of disasters on livestock

keepers: the tsunami in Indonesia

The Darfur region of Sudan has suffered from chronicconflict and recurrent drought for several years.Pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the region derive upto 50% of their food/income from their livestock.However, the conflict and drought have together causedsignificant livestock losses. For example, some villagersreported losses of 70–100% due to looting. Overcrowdingof livestock and the disruption of veterinary services(both the result of insecurity) have increased livestockmortality rates. The closure of the Sudan–Libya borderhas also severely affected livestock trade and hence hada significant impact on livelihoods. The natural resourcebase has been depleted by the drought and conflict hasrestricted access to traditional migration routes as well asto large tracts of grazing lands. Remaining livestock aresold only as a last resort as prices are very low.

Source: ICRC, Food-Needs Assessment: Darfur Economic Security

Unit, 2006; Helene Berton, pers. comm.

Box 3

The impact of disasters on livestock-

keepers: conflict and drought in Darfur

Vulnerability context

• Shocks• Trends• Seasonality

Livelihood

assets

Livelihood

strategies

Policies institutions

processes

Levels of governments

Livelihood outcomes

• More income• Increased wellbeing• Reduced vulnerability• Improved food

security• More sustainable

use of NR base

LawsCulturePolicies

Institutions

KeyH = Human capital; N = Natural capital; F = Financial capital; S = Social capital; P = Physical capital

H

P

Influenceand

access

F

NS

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 2

Chapter 1 Introduction: livestock and livelihoods in emergencies

owners flee the disaster or suffer the consequences of abreakdown in support services (such as availability of feedor livestock medicines) as a result of the disaster. As wellas the loss of assets, livestock-based livelihood strategiesmay also be adversely affected by a disaster: markets maybe closed, access to pasture or fodder may be restricted,water supplies may be affected and migration may limitopportunities to continue to pursue livestock-basedlivelihood strategies.

As the examples in Boxes 1–3 show, both rapid- and slow-onset disasters have a significant impact on livestock inregions around the world. Protecting and strengtheninglivestock assets can therefore provide valuable support tothe livelihood strategies of livestock-keepers in anemergency. Taking a livelihoods-based approach may becomplementary to other emergency initiatives which focuson saving lives or on other aspects of livelihood support,and hence combine to save lives and livelihoods.

3

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 3


4

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 4

The origins and objectives of LEGS

The Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS)Project evolved from a growing recognition that, for manypoor people around the world, livestock are a crucial asset,and that climatic trends are causing more frequent andvaried humanitarian crises that have an adverse effect onlivestock and consequently on the livelihood strategies oftheir owners. Livestock professionals were becomingincreasingly concerned about repeated cycles of inapprop-riate and badly implemented livestock relief projects,characterised by poor analysis, the overlooking and at timesundermining of local capacities and services, simple‘procure and disperse’ programmes, failure to takelivelihoods into account, poor timing resulting in latedelivery of relief interventions and activities carried out inhaste because of the urgent need to respond to the crisis athand. At the same time there was little impact assessment ofthese initiatives to promote future learning, along with agrowing shift in livestock funding from ‘development’ to‘emergency’ and poor coordination between emergency anddevelopment activities (see Box 4).

In response to these concerns, a number of agencies beganto document their experiences in livestock emergencyintervention. These included, amongst others:

• Oxfam GB: livestock programming in emergencies, witha focus on pastoralism.

• Feinstein International Center (FIC), Tufts University:coordinating large-scale livestock programmes incomplex emergencies, with a focus on community-based approaches in the Horn of Africa.

• Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance, USAID: internalguidelines on livelihoods-based approaches to live-stock relief.

• FAO: guidelines on livestock relief interventions fornon-livestock field staff.

• ICRC: regional analysis of livestock issues in the Hornof Africa.

• AU/IBAR and Feinstein International Center, TuftsUniversity: multi-agency review of livestock interven-tions in complex emergencies.

The LEGS Project began with two activities: reviewing theprocess for developing the Humanitarian Charter and

Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (the SphereProject); and consulting key agencies with experience inlivestock interventions in humanitarian crises. The LEGSProject drew many key lessons from the process used todevelop the Sphere guidelines, notably the inclusive andbroad consultative approach, the commitment of a SteeringGroup involving both practitioners and policy analysts,funding drawn from multiple sources and significant effortinvested in dissemination and promotion.

Like Sphere, LEGS is founded on a rights-based approachand links in particular to two key international human rights:the right to food and the right to a standard of living.7

Livestock-keepers have a right to emergency support whichprotects and rebuilds their livestock, as a key asset thatcontributes significantly to their ability to produce food andmaintain a standard of living that supports their families.International Humanitarian Law also highlights theimportance of the protection of livestock as a key asset forsurvival in the event of conflict and war.8

Based on these rights, and in recognition of the role oflivestock in livelihoods, LEGS is founded on threelivelihoods-based objectives:

1. To provide rapid assistance to crisis-affected communi-ties through livestock-based interventions.

2. To protect the key livestock-related assets of crisis-affected communities.

3. To rebuild key livestock-related assets among crisis-affected communities.

These objectives reflect the key focus of LEGS, namelylivestock as a capital asset that contributes to both theshort- and long-term wellbeing of people affected by crisisthrough its role in their livelihood strategies.

5

Chapter 2The Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS)

Development approach

• Privatisation of clinicalveterinary servicessupported by governmentpolicy since 1993

• Numerous programmesto assist rural privatepractitioners (degree anddiploma holders) to setup private clinics andpharmacies, funded byEC, World Bank, DFID,USAID and others

• Enabling legislation forprivate para-veterinaryprofessionals

Emergency approach

• Designed withoutinvolvement of localprivate sector

• ‘Truck and chuck’ –dumping of largequantities of freeveterinary medicines

• Limited epidemiologicalbasis for interventione.g. vaccinationprogrammes targeting20% of population

• Funded by the samedonors who funddevelopment

• Undermines local privatepractitioners i.e. theservices needed forrecovery

Box 4

Lack of coherence between emergency

and development approaches: veterinary

services in Ethiopia

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 5

The development and scope of LEGS

The process of developing LEGS drew on the experiencesof Sphere as much as possible. A small Steering Group wasestablished in May 2005, comprising representatives fromthe African Union Department for Rural Economy andAgriculture (AU-DREA), the Feinstein International Centerat Tufts University, the Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)and VETAID (a member of Vétérinaires sans FrontièresEuropa). Following a broad consultation process with over1,700 individuals and agencies, a draft was field tested,and publication is scheduled for January 2009.

LEGS is targeted at all who are involved in livestock-basedinterventions in disasters. In particular it is aimed at NGOs,bilateral and multilateral agencies and governmentsimplementing emergency interventions in areas wherelivestock make a contribution to livelihoods. LEGS is alsorelevant for policy- and decision-makers within donor andgovernment agencies, whose funding and implementationdecisions impact on disaster response.

LEGS focuses on the intersection between emergencies,livestock and livelihoods and as such specifically targetslivestock professionals with little experience of emergencies,and emergency workers with little experience of the livestocksector. The focus on livelihoods means that the guidelinesare concerned not only with immediate emergency responsein acute situations, but also with recovery phase activitiesand the linkages with long-term development processes. Thiscan present challenges, not least because, historically, reliefand development initiatives have been separated bothoperationally and conceptually. Since LEGS aims to improvethe quality of humanitarian interventions it is beyond thescope of the project to address the issues associated withlinking relief and development in any depth; however,disaster preparedness, early warning and post-disasterrehabilitation all have an impact on livestock interventions inemergencies, and hence important linkages with theseissues are highlighted in LEGS (see Chapter 6).

LEGS provides standards and guidelines for best practice andassistance in decision-making for livestock interventions. Ittherefore does not intend to be a detailed practical manualfor implementation, but refers readers to other publicationswhich contain more ‘hands-on’ advice. LEGS has a globalreach, although it is recognised that the first edition has aninitial leaning towards experience from Sub-Saharan Africa,largely because much of the easily available documentationon livestock-based responses is based on lessons learned inthat region (see discussion in Chapter 7). It is hoped thatfuture editions will include a broader perspective based onadditional information and case studies.

Future plans for LEGS include regional training andawareness-raising in Africa, Asia and Latin America,translation into other languages, establishment of atechnical support mechanism through email and a websiteand a revision process to develop future editions. Formal

discussions with the Sphere Project are ongoing with aview to recognising LEGS as an official ‘companion module’to Sphere.

The contents of LEGS

The LEGS guidelines and standards begin with an overview ofkey issues to consider when planning livestock-basedinterventions in emergencies, particularly in relation tolivelihoods, and outline the stages of rapid and slow onset,and complex emergencies (see Figure 2). The second chapteron Assessment and Response highlights topics for initialassessment, namely an analysis of the role of livestock inlivelihoods, in order to design interventions that will supportand promote existing and previous livelihood strategies, theimpact of the emergency on the population and on theirlivelihood and coping strategies and a situational analysiswhich includes the operating and policy environment. Thechapter then outlines a decision-making tool (the LEGSParticipatory Response Identification Matrix – PRIM) to helpidentify which technical interventions are most appropriateand at which stages of an emergency.

The third chapter of LEGS presents Minimum StandardsCommon to All Livestock Interventions, namely participation,assessment, response and coordination, targeting, moni-toring, evaluation and livelihoods impact, technical supportand agency competencies, contingency planning, prepared-ness and early response and advocacy and policy, as shownin Figure 3 (page 8).

The Common Standards are followed by chapters outliningeach of the technical interventions covered by LEGS:destocking, veterinary services, provision of feed,provision of water, livestock shelter and settlement andprovision of livestock (restocking). These chapters allfollow a format similar to the Sphere Handbook, based ona set of Minimum Standards, Key Indicators and GuidanceNotes. Each chapter also includes an introductionhighlighting issues to consider and a decision-making treeto facilitate choices between different implementationoptions. For example, the destocking chapter discussesaccelerated livestock off-take, slaughter destocking anddestocking for disposal, highlighting how these differentoptions fit within the phasing of an emergency, and theadvantages, disadvantages and implications of each.Similarly, the water chapter considers the rehabilitation ofexisting water sources for livestock, the establishment ofnew water sources and water trucking.

An electronic tool has been designed to accompany thehard-copy publication of LEGS, and will be available as aCD-ROM. The tool supports the decision-making process,drawing on the PRIM and the decision trees from eachchapter, together with additional questions and guidance.

Four important cross-cutting issues have also beenidentified. These are gender and social equity, HIV/AIDS,security and protection and the environment. Chapter 1 ofLEGS discusses these issues in general, while each technical


6

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 6

Chapter 2 The Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS)

chapter presents particular considerations with regard tothe selected technical intervention. For example, therestocking chapter highlights the importance of assessinggender roles in the ownership and management of livestock,including access to livestock products and disposal rights,

prior to an intervention. The chapter on the provision ofwater encourages an assessment of the environmentalimplications of any planned water intervention, to avoidexcessive extraction, high concentration of livestock aroundwater points and contamination of human water supplies.

Figure 2

Summary of the LEGS Standards

7

Introduction to LEGS

Livelihoods-based livestock

responses in emergencies

Each chapter includes

• Minimum standards• Key indicators• Guidance notes

Assessment and response

Standards common to all

livestock interventions

Destocking

Veterinary services

Ensuring feed supplies

Provision of water

Livestock shelter and settlement

Provision of livestock

(restocking)

Annexes

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 7

Fig

ure

3

LE

GS

Co

mm

on

Sta

nd

ard

s


8

Sta

nd

ard

1:

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n

The

affe

cted

pop

ulat

ion

acti

vely

par

tici

pate

s in

the

desi

gn, i

mpl

emen

tati

on,

M&

E of

the

pro

gram

me

Co

mm

on

Sta

nd

ard

s

Sta

nd

ard

3:

Re

sp

on

se

an

d

coo

rdin

ati

on

Inte

rven

tions

are

har

mon

ised

and

com

plem

enta

ry to

oth

erhu

man

itaria

n in

terv

entio

ns

Sta

nd

ard

5:

M&

E a

nd

live

lih

oo

ds

im

pa

ct

M&

E an

d liv

elih

oods

impa

ctan

alys

is a

re c

arrie

d ou

t to

refin

e im

plem

enta

tion

and

draw

less

ons

for f

utur

e pr

ogra

mm

ing

Sta

nd

ard

7:

Co

nti

ng

en

cy

pla

nn

ing

, p

rep

are

dn

es

s a

nd

ea

rly

re

sp

on

se

Resp

onse

s ar

e ba

sed

on th

epr

inci

ples

of d

isas

ter r

isk

redu

ctio

n, in

clud

ing

prep

ared

ness

, con

tinge

ncy

plan

ning

and

ear

ly re

spon

se

Sta

nd

ard

2:

Init

ial

as

se

ss

me

nt

Init

ial a

sses

smen

t ad

dres

ses

the

role

of l

ives

tock

in li

veli-

hood

s; t

he e

xten

t an

dim

pact

of e

mer

genc

y; a

nd a

situ

atio

n an

alys

is

Sta

nd

ard

4:

Targ

eti

ng

Assi

stan

ce is

pro

vide

d fa

irly

and

impa

rtia

lly, b

ased

on

the

uses

and

nee

ds o

f diff

eren

tliv

esto

ck u

sers

by

soci

o-ec

onom

ic g

roup

Sta

nd

ard

6:

Tech

nic

al

sup

po

rt a

nd

ag

en

cy

com

pe

ten

cie

s

Aid

wor

kers

pos

sess

ap

prop

riate

qua

lific

atio

ns,

attit

udes

and

exp

erie

nce

toef

fect

ivel

y pl

an, i

mpl

emen

tan

d as

sess

live

lihoo

ds-b

ased

prog

ram

mes

Sta

nd

ard

8:

Ad

voca

cy a

nd

po

licy

Whe

re p

ossi

ble,

pol

icy

obst

acle

s to

the

effe

ctiv

eim

plem

enta

tion

of e

mer

genc

yre

spon

se a

nd s

uppo

rt to

the

livel

ihoo

ds o

f dis

aste

r-af

fect

ed c

omm

uniti

es a

reid

entif

ied

and

addr

esse

d

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 8

This chapter presents three case studies of livestockinterventions in emergencies. A brief summary of eachproject is presented, followed by a review of the activityusing the relevant LEGS standards. These reviews havebeen carried out using only the source documents listed inthe end notes. As such they do not aim to represent acomprehensive analysis, but rather offer a discussion ofthe projects in the light of the LEGS Standards, andillustrate how the Standards can be applied in bothplanning and evaluation to help improve the quality ofemergency response.

The review has been carried out against the specifictechnical standards contained in LEGS, and also against theLEGS Common Standards applicable to all interventions.

Case Study 1: Destocking9

Emergency response to drought in Somali Region

When drought struck southern Ethiopia in late 2005, thePastoralist Livelihood Initiative (PLI) programme funded byUSAID had just begun. The aim of the programme was to‘improve preparedness, livelihoods and incomes ofpastoralists’ in order to mitigate the impact of drought andother shocks. Although it was not designed as anemergency programme, PLI partners negotiated withUSAID to use some of the funds for emergencyinterventions in response to the drought. One suchinitiative was the commercial destocking carried out bySave the Children US (SC US), whose funding proposalincluded a small emergency destocking fund, which wasexpanded through the allocation of additional money.

Moyale District lies in the south of Ethiopia, near the borderwith Kenya. The Borena and Somali pastoralists who live inthe area generally sell their livestock to traders across theborder through informal trade links, as the price is usuallymore favourable than within Ethiopia itself. Historically,Ethiopian livestock traders engaged in the formal exporttrade have sourced sheep and goat meat from thehighlands. However, due to growing demand for chilledmeat in the Gulf States and Egypt, traders have begun topurchase livestock in pastoral areas for these markets.

A drought assessment was carried out by SC US inDecember 2005. Following this a number of meetings wereheld with the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment and a multi-agency Commercial DestockingWorking Group was established. Awareness-raisingmeetings were held with a number of livestock tradersinvolved in the local and export market, following which 21traders took part in a familiarisation visit to drought-affected areas in southern Ethiopia. As a result of this visit,two Addis Ababa-based traders were linked by SC US topastoralist communities to plan the purchase of livestock.

The traders and pastoralist representatives negotiated andagreed on the selection of market sites, livestock types andprices. With regard to livestock types, SC US suggested thatcattle be the focus of the enterprise, since they are the mostsusceptible to drought and therefore less likely to survive; atthe same time, the Ethiopian government was keen topromote cattle exports to Egypt. Livestock prices wereagreed in some cases above ‘normal’ market prices, in othercases below them – as a result of the negotiations betweenthe traders and the pastoralist representatives.

USAID also authorised the provision of loans to livestocktraders to facilitate the off-take, and the Destocking WorkingGroup developed application forms and guidelines. Twoloans of $25,000 each were given to the two traders,although these were provided after most of the cattle hadalready been purchased. The loans were used to procurefeed to help fatten the purchased livestock.

Impact of the destocking

According to initial records, in the three weeks followingthe negotiations between the traders and the pastoralistsa total of 6,292 cattle were purchased and moved directlyto holding grounds near Addis Ababa, or kept in fatteningunits near Moyale until they were healthy enough to travel.In addition, other traders were influenced by the activityand a further 3,778 cattle were purchased in the Moyalearea. Later interviews with the traders suggested thatthese initial figures were underestimates and thatapproximately 20,000 cattle had been purchased in total.

An impact assessment carried out under PLI estimated that3.7 cattle had been purchased per beneficiary household,with a total of 5,400 households (n=114). Setting the costsof the project against the purchase price received by thepastoralist households, the study calculated a benefit–costratio of 41:1.

The income received from the restocking was calculated toform 54% of total income during the drought, estimated at$184 per household – a significant cash injection. Of thisincome from destocking, 37% was reinvested in theremaining herds: animal feed, transporting stock to othergrazing areas and veterinary care, thus protectinglivelihoods for the future.

The impact assessment revealed that the destocking wasconsidered favourably against other drought-relatedinterventions such as food aid, particularly in relation toindicators such as ‘helps us to cope with the effect of thedrought’ and ‘helps fast recovery and herd rebuilding’.

Review of the response against the LEGS Standards

The LEGS Minimum Standards on Destocking aresummarised in Figure 4 and cover both accelerated off-take

9

Chapter 3Case studies

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 9

Figure 4

LEGS Minimum Standards for Destocking

Destocking


and destocking for slaughter and meat or cash distribution.As for the Common Standards, for each of these destockingstandards LEGS contains a set of Key Indicators accompaniedby Guidance Notes.

Reviewed against the LEGS Livelihoods Objectives outlinedin Chapter 2, the destocking activities appear not only tohave provided rapid relief to drought-affected households,but also contributed to protecting and rebuilding livestock

assets (LEGS Livelihoods Objectives 1 and 2).

Most of the LEGS Common Standards appear to have beenmet by the destocking project: beneficiaries were consultedand were directly involved in negotiations and the initiativebuilt on existing practice (off-take during stress times torealise cash income) and facilitated other copingmechanisms such as transporting remaining livestock toother grazing areas (Common Standard 1: Participation).The creation of the Destocking Working Group provided aforum for coordinated planning, while complementarity withinitiatives carried out by other agencies – both livestock-related such as supplementary feeding and veterinaryservices and other sector support, for example food aid andfood-for-work schemes – was noted by respondents to theimpact assessment study (Common Standard 3:

Coordination). Although this was apparently the firstcommercial destocking initiative in an emergency response

in pastoralist areas in Ethiopia, staff had sufficient expertiseto be able to initiate and manage the operation at shortnotice (Common Standard 6: Technical Support and Agency

Competencies). The timeliness and flexibility of the PLIfunding enabled a swift response and included an elementof contingency planning and preparedness (Common

Standard 7: Contingency Planning).

The destocking activity also appears to have met many of theLEGS Destocking Standards. The timing of the response wasappropriate to enable traders to purchase livestock withsome market value, and appropriate species for destockingwere selected and agreed (General Destocking Standard 1:

Key Indicator 3 – timing; and Key Indicator 4 – appropriate

livestock species selection), although if the intervention hadbeen launched earlier, it is possible that the traders wouldhave offered higher prices for the livestock they purchased.Most of the Key Indicators for commercial destocking wereaddressed, for example market potential was assessed andassured at the time, key traders were identified andconsultations facilitated through a central forum, prices wereagreed with communities and communication betweentraders and the communities was facilitated by the outsideagency (Accelerated Off-take Standard 1).

Despite these clear successes, a number of key issues andchallenges remain:

10

General standard 1:

Assessment and planning

The type of destocking selected is appropriate to the stage of the emergency and

other relevant indicators

Standard 1: Accelerated livestock off-take

Support is provided for accelerated off-take of marketable animals

Accelerated livestock off-take

Standard 1: Slaughter destocking

Value is salvaged from disaster-affected livestock to provide relief meat and/or cash

to affected communities

Slaughter destocking

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 10

Chapter 3 Case studies

• Common Standard 2 – Assessment. The initialassessment should ideally take into account thepotential impact on local markets, which can then beanalysed afterwards.

• Common Standard 5 – Monitoring and Evaluation and

Livelihoods Impact. One of the challenges identified bythe impact assessment was the absence of detailedinformation about poverty in the beneficiary area, andthe extent to which cattle off-take benefits the poor.More detailed data on the livestock holdings ofdifferent wealth groups would have enabled the impactassessment to gauge the extent to which the initiativebenefited the poor. Additional baseline data onlivestock markets prior to the drought would also havecontributed to the monitoring and evaluation ofimpact.

• Common Standard 7 – Preparedness and

Contingency Planning. The speed with which thedestocking operation was initiated was partly due tothe efforts of the agency staff involved, but also to thefortuitous timing of the PLI grant. It is likely that, hadthese funds not been readily available, the process ofapplying for emergency funding from scratch wouldhave taken too long to allow commercial destockingto take place.

• Common Standard 8 – Advocacy and Policy. Thedestocking initiative coincided with a period of highexport demand from Egypt and other countries. Sincethen, following concerns about Foot and Mouthdisease and Rift Valley Fever, Egypt and the Gulf Stateshave banned live animal imports from Ethiopia. Thishighlights the need to address the wider policy andveterinary health issues that affect livestockmarketing, and in particular livestock exports, in thelong term.

• Timing of destocking interventions. Of all theinterventions described in LEGS, timing is mostimportant for commercial destocking. The LEGSGuidelines suggest that, in order to be effective,commercial destocking should take place in the Alertand early Alarm phases of a drought or other slow-onset emergency, before livestock condition hasdeteriorated significantly. Although SC US was able torespond relatively quickly through the diversion of PLIfunds, the impact assessment noted that, had theinitiative begun sooner, for example in January insteadof March 2006, pastoralists might have received twicethe price for their livestock (the price of cattle wasapproximately $138 per head in October 2005; thedrought was declared in November 2005; byMarch/April 2006 the price had fallen to $50 perhead).

• Assessment of key support required (Accelerated Off-

take Standard 1). Communication between traders andpastoralists was facilitated; however, the provision ofcredit was in the end either not necessary, or credit wasmade available too late, since most of the livestockwere purchased before it was arranged. However, thefacility, now it has been established, should be usefulfor destocking initiatives in the future.

Case Study 2: Supplementary Feeding10

Emergency response to drought in Afar

The Afar Region of Ethiopia is inhabited largely by nomadicAfar pastoralists, who are almost solely dependent on theirherds of camels, cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys for theirlivelihood. Key livelihood strategies include maintaining amix of livestock species, and migrating along seasonal routesto maximise the limited pasture in the area. Increasingconflict with neighbouring groups and the expansion ofexport crop farming zones in the riverine areas previouslyused as dry season grazing lands have significantly reducedthe mobility of Afar pastoralists in recent years.

In March 2007, early warning reports suggested that partsof the Afar Region faced a drought. Rains were poor and insome areas failed altogether; by early June, it had becomeclear that, although government food distributions hadaverted significant human malnutrition, cattle were dyingand the livelihood assets of pastoralists were beingdepleted, in particular those households who had notfollowed the usual migration patterns and were thus shortof feed for their cattle. Some responded to this crisis bypurchasing feed for their livestock, employing one of theirindigenous coping strategies in response to drought.

In response to the drought a number of organisationsinitiated supplementary feeding activities for livestock.CARE, in conjunction with its partner the Afar PastoralistsDevelopment Association (APDA), carried out supple-mentary feeding in three districts over a five-week periodbeginning in late July 2007, targeting 1,200 households.The distribution of the feed coincided with the onset of therain that ended the drought.

Following community dialogue, and bearing in mind theproject’s funding constraints, it was decided not to feed alllivestock, but to focus on core breeding stock. The plan wastherefore to provide feed to five cattle from each of thehousehold herds. According to a Participatory ImpactAssessment of the initiative,11 85% of the beneficiariessurveyed gave the feed to their cattle, while 15% saved it forthe future (because the feed arrived late, so somebeneficiaries had already bought their own). Implementationof the initiative was hampered by slow distribution and thespoiling of some of the feed by rain.

Impact of the supplementary feeding

The Participatory Impact Assessment considered theimpact of the CARE/APDA-supported supplementaryfeeding, together with indigenous feeding practices,compared to livestock which were given no feed at all.

During the drought, the main cause of death among cattlewas starvation (as opposed to disease). The survival ratesfor cattle that were fed, whether through the project or not,were significantly higher compared to those that did notreceive supplementary feed. Similarly, the rate of return ofcattle to normal production levels (for example milkproduction) within two months of the drought’s end was

11

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 11

Figure 5

LEGS Minimum Standards for the Provision of Feed


12

significantly higher for those cattle that receivedsupplementary feeding through the project.

Mortality of camel calves and sheep during the drought waslinked to starvation (as opposed to disease), while in contrastadult camels were more prone to an acute camel disease (aform of trypanosome) which killed a number of them.

The impact assessment highlights the need to ensure thatadequate supplies of feed can be provided, whether by

outside agencies or the pastoralists themselves, and alsothat timing is critical. Informants emphasised theimportance of including livestock feed in emergencyappeals, since it forms one of their key priorities, and somesuggested the use of maize rather than wheat as emergencyfood aid, as maize rations are often shared with livestock.


The LEGS Minimum Standards on the provision of livestockfeed are summarised in Figure 5.

Ensuring feed supplies

General standard 1:

Assessment and planning

The options for ensuring supplies of feedresources are assessed based on local needs,

practices and opportunities

Standard 1: Livestock movements

Arrangements for the movement of livestockare based on a sound assessment of the

benefits that will accrue and build upon thestrengths of indigenous coping strategies

Standard 1: Feeding levels

Levels of feeding supported by the programmeshould enable appropriate production levels

and be sustainable over the life of the programme

Standard 2: Feed safety

Where feeds are imported into the affectedarea, proper attention is given to sanitary,

phytosanitary and other aspects of feed safety

Standard 3: Sources and distribution

Where possible, feed resources are procuredlocally, distributed safely and in a manner

that causes minimal disruption to local andnational markets

Relocation Emergency feeding

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 12

The Afar supplementary feeding initiative was reviewedagainst these Feed Standards and the Common Standardsoutlined in the previous chapter, and was found to havemet many of the standards. In general it helped both toprotect and rebuild livestock assets through preventingstarvation of cattle and speeding their return toproductivity (LEGS Livelihoods Objectives 2 and 3). Theactivity clearly responded to a felt need of the Afarpastoralists for feed for their cattle during the drought(Common Standard 2: Assessment), and built on andsupplemented indigenous coping mechanisms (General

Feed Standard 1: Based on local practice).

The review also highlights a number of issues and lessonslearned:

• Common Standard 1 – Participation. At a reviewworkshop which used LEGS to analyse the Afar drought response mounted by a number ofagencies, participants acknowledged that communitymembers could have been more involved in the entireintervention, particularly in assessment anddesign.12

• Common Standard 2 – Assessment. Similarly, theworkshop participants concluded that the assessmentprocess could have been better coordinated betweenoperating agencies, and carried out to a greater depthof detail.

• Common Standard 3 – Coordination. The importance of coordination in all aspects of the drought responsewas highlighted at the review workshop. Greatercoordination between agencies engaged in the sameactivity (supplementary feeding) would have beenbeneficial, but it was also noted by all the workshopparticipants that greater coordination with otherinterventions, both livestock-based and in other sec-tors, could have improved the operation and increasedimpact (for example with other agencies engaged inemergency animal health support).

• Common Standard 5 – Monitoring and Evaluation and

Livelihoods Impact. The impact assessment notes thedifficulty of carrying out a full study because baselinebeneficiary data was incomplete, and hence a randomsample from among the total beneficiaries could not bemade. This highlights the importance of initial datacollection and the need to plan for monitoring andevaluation from the outset.

• Timing of the interventions. The LEGS guidelinessuggest that, in a slow-onset emergency such asdrought, supplementary feeding should be initiatedtowards the end of the Alarm phase and on through theEmergency phase. The delays in the implementation of the CARE/APDA activity meant that the feed arrivedas the rains began, too late to save some livestock(although some of it was stored against futuredroughts).

• Emergency Feeding Standard 1 – Feeding Levels. Thefeed provided was considered by the impactassessment respondents to be inadequate for thebeneficiaries targeted. Had the operation started on

time, supplies would have been insufficient to supportthe target number of cattle up to the end of thedrought.

• Emergency Feeding Standard 2 – Storage. Some of thefeed was spoiled in the rains, highlighting theimportance of adequate storage facilities.

• Emergency Feeding Standard 3 – Procurement. Thereview workshop highlighted the absence of localsources of feed, which meant that the feed had to beprocured in Addis Ababa, thus adding to the costs ofthe operation and introducing further delays. The needto identify suitable local feed sources if possible washighlighted, together with the potential impact on localmarkets.

Case Study 3: Livestock Distribution13

Emergency response to the Bam earthquake

In late December 2003 an earthquake measuring 6.4 onthe Richter scale hit the region of Bam, Kerman Province, insouthern Iran. In a period of 15 seconds, over 70% of thebuildings in the city and the surrounding villagescollapsed, and more than 40,000 of the area’s 130,000people lost their lives.

The people of Bam did not depend solely on livestock. Forthe majority, their livelihoods were focused on farmingdates and/or farm labour, but many kept a small number ofanimals to supplement their food supply and income,mainly cattle, sheep and goats. Before the earthquake it isestimated that the people of Bam kept around 7,000 cowsand calves, and nearly 30,000 sheep and goats. Livestock-keeping is particularly important for poorer farmers whoown either a small plot of land or none at all.

While many of the date palms remained intact, livestocklosses in the earthquake were estimated at 31% for cattleand 26% for sheep and goats. Most of these animals werehoused in simple shelters near their owners’ homes, andmany were killed when the buildings collapsed. Others ranaway in panic following the earthquake, while some werestolen or sold to meet urgent cash needs.

In response to these losses, Action Against Hunger (ACF)designed a livestock distribution project to provide twogoats together with 300kg of feed (barley) to 1,200vulnerable families in 17 earthquake-affected villages. Thefigure of two goats was based on discussions with targetcommunities regarding how many livestock they had ownedbefore the earthquake, how many they needed to rebuildtheir herds and how many they might be able to purchasethemselves. The amount of feed distributed was based oninformation from the Iranian Ministry of Agriculture,according to how much feed each goat would need to lastuntil beneficiaries would be able to purchase or grow theirown fodder. The aim of the project was to help targethouseholds to obtain milk for their families and anadditional income. At the same time, ACF was involved in afood security assessment with OFDA, to identify vulnerablegroups.


13

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 13

In planning the project, ACF also considered the alternativeof providing cash to beneficiary households, to enable themto purchase livestock, feed or other basic requirements. Itwas decided to provide livestock directly for a number ofreasons: at the time, food aid was widely available throughIranian Red Crescent distributions, so households had littleneed for cash to purchase food, local markets were verypoor and there was limited opportunity for cash purchases,and it was anticipated that the provision of livestock wouldoffer a significant psychological benefit to the targetcommunities following the trauma of the earthquake (which,as noted below, proved to be the case).

The project targeted poor families who had lost livestock, inparticular widows and other vulnerable people, but theselection criteria required that beneficiaries had experiencewith raising sheep and goats and had access to adequateshelter for the animals. Selection of beneficiaries anddistribution, informed by the food security study carried outearlier, was done in collaboration with local councillors. TheIranian Veterinary Network was contracted to provideveterinary services to the purchased livestock beforedistribution, including vaccination against enterotoxaemia,disinfection, deworming and the provision of mineral andvitamin supplements.

ACF helped to establish weekly coordination meetingsincluding government officials and NGO representativesinvolved in agriculture-based responses to the emergency.This offered a forum for ACF and others to provide regularreports on their activities to various stakeholders.

An intermediary from the Iranian Veterinary Network washired to purchase the goats anonymously, as much aspossible from within Bam District, in order to reduce theimpact on local markets, since it was feared that pricesmight be inflated if it were known that an aid agency was amajor purchaser.

The 1,200 target families each received two female goats,one local Mahali breed and one Rachti breed (mixed localMahali and Pakistani high-quality breed), together with300kg of barley for feed. The original plan was to distributesheep rather than goats, but discussions with potentialbeneficiaries revealed that goats are easier to feed, requireless intensive care and produce more offspring perpregnancy than sheep. It was also originally planned todistribute pregnant animals, but this proved logisticallymore challenging and it was determined that sufficientmale goats had survived the earthquake to enable thedistributed goats to reproduce quite quickly afterdistribution.

Distribution was organised through local councillors, whofacilitated the targeting and distribution process. Ascouncillors are elected and live within the targetcommunities, they were considered a more appropriatechoice then government officials based in the ministry inBam, as it was anticipated that they would be moreaccountable to the local population. The councillors were

given the responsibility of verifying the identity of targetbeneficiaries (using the Iranian Red Crescent rationbooklets). Coupons were issued to agreed beneficiaries tofacilitate the distribution process.

Impact of the livestock distribution

Post-distribution monitoring (one to two weeks after thedistribution had been completed) focused on a sample of 70selected randomly from the total of 1,200 beneficiaryhouseholds. The monitoring results show that the vastmajority of beneficiaries were satisfied with both the breedselected (84%) and the distribution process (87%). Only oneof the goats from the sample of 70 households had beenstolen and another sold, while six had been given to relativesto care for due largely to lack of appropriate housing.

At the time of the monitoring visits, nine of the beneficiarieswere milking one goat, and two households were milkingboth the goats they had received. Twenty-seven had matedtheir goats to a buck. When asked about the impact of thelivestock distribution project on their lives, beneficiarieslisted economic benefits (milk and wool production – mostlyconsidered to be potential benefits, as it was too soon for thelivestock to have reproduced) and emphasised thepsychological benefits (entertainment for children, increasedmotivation to get involved in other activities). Most werepositive about the opportunity to resume livestock activitiesafter losing some or all of their animals in the earthquake.


The LEGS Minimum Standards on the provision of livestockare shown in Figure 6. They relate to both herd reconstitution(for communities largely dependent on livestock) and toother livestock distribution activities.

The ACF livestock distribution project appears to have metmany of the LEGS Standards, both the Common Standardsand those for the provision of livestock. In general, theproject helped to rebuild the livestock assets of the peopleaffected by the earthquake (LEGS Livelihoods Objective 3)

in a context where animal husbandry forms the mainlivelihood activity for many of the poorest. Moreparticularly, with regard to the Common Standards, the useof elected local councillors as intermediaries helped toincrease accountability to the target communities(Common Standard 1: Participation). The role of livestockin livelihoods prior to the earthquake was carefullyassessed, particularly with regard to poorer households,and this formed the basis of the design of the project(Common Standard 2: Assessment, Key Indicator 1 –

assessment of the role of livestock and Key Indicator 2 –

vulnerable groups). The goats were purchased in localmarkets to support local trade, but in a manner designedto reduce disruption and artificial impacts on prices(Common Standard 2: Assessment, Key Indicator 4 – local

services and markets). The intervention followed food,water and sanitation responses which prioritisedhumanitarian needs (Common Standard 3: Response and

Coordination, Key Indicator 4 – integration with other

humanitarian assistance).


14

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 14

Figure 6

LEGS Minimum Standards for the Provision of Livestock


Vulnerable groups, in particular poorer households includingwidows, were targeted and selection criteria were discussedand shared with beneficiary communities (Common

Standard 4: Targeting). Baseline data on livestock holdingsprior to the earthquake was collected; monitoring of asample of beneficiaries was carried out two weeks after thedistribution to obtain beneficiary views on the process andimpact, as well as observations on the presence of thelivestock and feed and the housing provided; and an externalevaluation was carried out nine months after the earthquake(Common Standard 5: Monitoring and Evaluation).Collaboration and coordination with the Iranian VeterinaryNetwork and other government institutions, as well as withNGOs operating in a similar field, was considered to be one ofthe positive features of the implementation process(Common Standard 3: Coordination and Common Standard

6: Technical support and agency competencies).

With regard to the specific standards on the provision oflivestock, the project was based on an assessment of thecapital assets of the potential beneficiaries (includingknowledge and experience of livestock-keeping andavailability of suitable shelter) (Provision of Livestock

Standard 1: Assessment – Key Indicator 3). As noted above,

the selection of beneficiaries was based on localparticipation and practice (Provision of Livestock Standard

2: Definition of the Package – Key Indicator 2). Theselection of animal species and breeds was appropriate andbased on local conditions and needs (Provision of Livestock

Standard 2: Definition of the Package – Key Indicator 3).The timing of the intervention – after the initial emergencyresponse which addressed basic human food, shelter andsurvival needs, but before the first main date harvest –meant that the beneficiaries had time and energy for thelivestock distribution (Provision of Livestock Standard 2:

Definition of the Package – Key Indicator 4). The projectaimed to purchase the livestock locally to support localmarkets (Provision of Livestock Standard 3: Procurement).Additional support was provided by the project in terms ofveterinary care prior to distribution, and the provision of300kg of feed with the goats (Provision of Livestock

Standard 4: Additional support).

A number of issues remain:

• Common Standard 1 – Participation. According to theproject evaluation, the initiative did not directly involvebeneficiaries in design and implementation, in particular

15

Provision of livestock

Standard 1: Assessment

An analysis is carried out to assess the current and potential role of livestock in livelihoods and the potential social, economic and environmental impact of the provision of livestock

Standard 2: Definition of package

Appropriate livestock types are distributed in adequate numbers and through appropriate mechanisms to provide viable and sustainable benefits to the target communities

Standard 3: Credit, procurement, transport and delivery

Credit, procurement, transport and delivery systems are efficient, cost-effective and support quality provision of livestock

Standard 4: Additional support – training; food; vet care

Additional support (veterinary care, training, food) is provided to beneficiaries to help ensure a positive and sustainable impact on livelihoods

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 15


16

in the selection process. Whilst community participationis a challenging process in an emergency situation, LEGSencourages it in all aspects of project design andimplementation. The timing of the livestock distributionmeant that the initial crisis was over and therefore thepotential for participation had increased compared toactivities taking place during the immediate aftermath.

• Common Standard 2 – Assessment. Although theinitial assessment identified the particular rolelivestock play in the livelihoods of poorer householdsand the subsequent targeting aimed to include widowsin particular, the project data does not appear to havebeen clearly disaggregated by gender and othervulnerable groupings.

• Common Standard 4 – Targeting. The targeting processwas generally very positive (see above), but encounteredsome difficulties. For example, government lists of the

poorest households in the area had been lost in theearthquake and had to be redrawn. Obtaining newaccurate lists presented a challenge for ACF, in particularbecause of the potential for corrupt officials to try andinclude their relatives and friends as beneficiaries. Thelack of local participation in the selection of beneficiariesalso meant that some of the recipients of the livestockalready owned some livestock at the time of thedistribution, or had other livelihood assets such as datepalms. Improved targeting could have ensured that live-stock was given to other families lacking any such assets.

• Provision of Livestock Standard 4 – Additional Support.Whilst the project arranged for veterinary inputs prior tothe distribution of the livestock, LEGS also recommendsthat a system for the ongoing provision of veterinary careis established for the longer-term support of beneficiarylivestock, as well as for other livestock in the community.

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 16

There is little doubt that, throughout the developing world,livestock are a key livelihood asset for many people. Whencommunities are consulted about the type of support theyrequire – in both development and emergency contexts –livestock-related assistance is often prioritised. The threecase studies described here show how real and tangiblebenefits can be provided to emergency-affected communitiesthrough appropriate and timely livestock-based responses.For those agencies which have not previously consideredlivestock interventions as part of their emergency response,LEGS offers a basis for developing their capacity in livestockprogramming.

The process of developing the LEGS guidelines hasemphasised a number of key issues in livelihoodsprogramming for emergencies, particularly with regard tolivestock responses, many of which have already beenraised in the literature and which are also highlighted bythe case studies.

Issue 1: the importance of a livelihoodsapproach in emergencies

The experience of developing the LEGS guidelines hashighlighted the importance of taking a livelihoodsapproach to emergency response, particularly with regardto livestock interventions. As implied in the earlierdiscussion, saving lives without addressing livelihoods canleave communities destitute in the longer term and/ormore vulnerable to subsequent disasters.

In order to apply a livelihoods approach, the livelihoods ofthe affected population need to be understood. This isgreatly facilitated through collaboration with agenciesalready working in the area, for example on long-termdevelopment projects (see below). Livelihoods-basedemergency responses, while not yet greatly developed,tend to focus on support to livelihood assets and/orsupport to the policies, institutions and processes thataffect livelihoods.14 In the case of livestock-keepers,support to livestock as a key livelihood asset offers theopportunity not only to provide immediate relief to meetbasic needs (for example the transfer of cash or meatthrough destocking), but also to help protect and rebuildlivelihoods following a disaster.

Livelihoods programming in emergencies contributes tothe blurring of the boundaries between relief anddevelopment. There is increasing discussion about theneed to increase coherence and synergy between the two,and growing interest in concepts such as disaster riskreduction and disaster preparedness. However, in realitymany agencies continue to plan, design and implementtheir programmes completely separately, usually through

independent departments with little policy coherencebetween them. If emergency responses are to takelivelihoods fully into account, some of these barriers mustbe overcome. Practical options may include:

• Greater collaboration between emergency organisationsand development agencies already on the ground in theaffected area, in particular drawing on livelihoodsinformation and programming experience which isalready available (LEGS Common Standard 3:Coordination).

• The inclusion of a far greater element of disasterpreparedness and disaster risk reduction in theprojects of long-term development agencies working indisaster-prone areas (LEGS Common Standard 7:Preparedness).15

• Increased participation by beneficiaries in theassessment, design and implementation of emergencyresponses (LEGS Common Standard 1: Participation).

• Building on indigenous knowledge, practice andstrategies, which can help to integrate emergencyresponses into existing livelihood strategies (LEGSCommon Standard 1: Participation).

Issue 2: early warning and early response

Recent years have seen the emergence of a growing numberof early warning and disaster classification systems.16 Theseaim to anticipate disasters (particularly natural disasters)through the monitoring of specific indicators – generallyfood security and nutrition – and in some cases to organisethis data to facilitate the identification of appropriateresponses. Many focus on slow-onset disasters, and someuse the Drought Contingency Planning model shown inFigure 7 to highlight interventions appropriate to thedifferent stages of the emergency.

Contingency planning for disasters is also increasinglyforming a part of long-term development funding – see forexample the first case study on destocking above, where asmall contingency fund for emergency response wasincluded in the original funding proposal. Some organis-ations working in drought-prone areas are aiming to builddrought preparedness and response activities into theirongoing development programmes, on the assumption thatperiodic droughts will inevitably occur during the projectcycle (see for example Oxfam GB’s Drought CycleManagement Learning Project in East Africa).

However, despite some improvements in the quality of EWinformation, timely and early response to disasters remainsa challenge for many organisations. In the destocking casestudy above, it was essentially coincidence that enabled theswift implementation of the project, namely the availability

17

Chapter 4Key issues in livelihoods-based livestock responses in emergencies

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 17

Figure 7

The Drought Contingency Planning model


18

of funds which could be diverted to the intervention. In thelivestock feed case study, the feed only arrived once therains had begun, thus missing the main crisis time whenlivestock were dying. Mobilising funds and obtainingbureaucratic permissions – both within organisations andwith host governments – takes time, and frequently resultsin delayed implementation, missed opportunities andlimited impact. This is particularly true in slow-onsetemergencies such as drought, where increasinglysophisticated early warning systems are able to highlight thepending crisis in plenty of time, but political, operational andfunding systems do not facilitate a timely response.Referring to the Horn of Africa crisis in 2005–2006, forinstance, one analysis states that:

Unlike many similar crises … the quality and credibility of

early-warning systems have not been called into question

in this case … given the widespread consensus that the

early warning was accurate, the delayed response

highlights the limitations of early warning in the absence

of direct links to plans that set out rapid and appropriate

response options.17

There appears little justification for continued investmentin early warning without improvements in agencies’capacity to respond in time.

The LEGS Common Standard 7 on preparedness highlightsthe importance of disaster risk reduction, including theneed for contingency fund planning and preparedness withclearly defined triggers for action and pre-agreedprocedures for the release of funds and other resources.Communities should be a vital part of this process, inidentifying trigger indicators, drawing up plans for disasterresponse and developing activities to reduce the risk ormitigate the effects of future crises.

Effective preparedness planning also contributes toreducing the disconnect between emergency response andlong-term development initiatives.

Issue 3: phasing and timing

Whilst early response is often paramount in saving bothlives and livelihoods, the appropriate phasing of initiatives

Normal

• Veterinary services• Livestock marketing• Range management• Establishment of drought

reserves

Alert

• Accelerated off-take• Veterinary services

Alarm

• Destocking• Feed• Water• Veterinary services• Shelter

Emergency

• Slaughter destocking• Feed• Water• Shelter• Veterinary services

Recovery

• Restocking• Veterinary services• Shelter• Water

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 18

Chapter 4 Key issues in livelihoods-based livestock responses in emergencies

19

is also a key factor in improving the impact of emergencyinterventions, particularly with regard to supportinglivelihoods. The Participatory Response IdentificationMatrix (PRIM) in the LEGS Guidelines is a simple tool tofacilitate the analysis of initial assessment data and theidentification of appropriate and timely responses. Inaddition to connecting potential activities with livelihoodobjectives, the PRIM highlights the phases of theemergency (which may vary for slow- and rapid-onsetdisasters) and links these to appropriate interventions.When this was applied retrospectively to the Afar droughtresponse in 2007, the participants at the LEGS ReviewWorkshop all adjusted the timing of their activities –mostly to begin at an earlier phase, but in some cases alsoto continue into later phases. For example, the agencieswho had provided veterinary services intervened only inthe Alarm or Emergency phases of the drought cyclemodel. Using the PRIM to review their activities, theparticipants all felt that the Alert phase would have beenthe most appropriate time to begin, and most agreed thatsupport should have continued into the recovery phase.18

Issue 4: coordination and integration

Another key issue in livelihoods-based livestockresponses to disasters is coordination. LEGS highlights thedanger of competition and/or duplication, both within thelivestock sector and with other sectors. For example,slaughter destocking projects operated by differentagencies may offer different purchase prices for livestock,creating confusion and competition between communitiesand between the agencies themselves. Similarly, differentsystems of veterinary service provision can undermineinterventions and increase confusion. For example, someagencies might use a cost recovery system, whereasothers distribute medicines freely.

Coordination also applies to harmonised approaches: forexample, in some emergencies the provision of onlylivestock feed and water may leave stock vulnerable todisease, and a combined livestock feed-water-healthresponse may be required in order to save livestock andprotect livelihoods; destocking combined with theprovision of feed can help to ensure the survival ofremaining herds. Coordination and sharing of informationsuch as assessment findings between agencies can alsosave resources, as well as time and effort.

Integration of activities is also important to protectlivelihoods while saving lives. The LEGS Common Standardon coordination highlights the importance of the humani-tarian imperative, namely that livestock interventions shouldnot hinder life-saving humanitarian responses. Whilst savinghuman lives remains a priority, there is often significantpotential for complementarity between activities focused onsaving lives and those aimed at protecting livelihoods, suchas livestock-based interventions. Prioritising saving livesdoes not preclude the integration of interventions wherepossible to address both life and livelihood needs, forexample backloading food aid trucks with destocked

livestock, using refrigerators for storing both human andveterinary medicines and using discarded or damaged itemsintended for human shelter for animal shelter instead.

In terms of non-livestock activities such as food aid, cashgrants or cash/food-for-work, these interventions have thepotential to complement livestock-based responses. Inone sense, approaches such as commercial destocking arean indirect cash transfer to households and provide similartypes of impact as cash distributions, while alsosupporting livestock marketing. At present, we knowrelatively little about the specific combinations of livestockand non-livestock activities which are appropriate indifferent types of disaster and operational contexts, andthis is an area needing more application and evaluation. Inaddition, in some situations approaches such as cashdistribution might be preferable to a livestock project. Forexample, restocking projects are often hindered by alimited budget, and it is therefore possible that the lowertransaction costs of cash distribution would allow morehouseholds to be reached for a given budget. At the sametime, cash distributions are not always feasible due togovernment or organisational policies, market availabilityor operational context.

Failure to coordinate activities between agencies iscommonly recognised as a factor in limiting positiveimpact and reducing the effectiveness of interventions.One analysis of the Indian Ocean tsunami responsesuggests that some agencies were unwilling to coordinatewith others because they feared losing control over theiroperations, and felt the need to maintain theirorganisational profile for publicity and funding purposes.This led to inefficiency and duplication of assessments,amongst other problems.19 Participants at the Afar LEGSReview Workshop also noted the inability of agencies tocoordinate their efforts, with consequences for the qualityof their responses.20 Recognition of the importance ofcoordination between agencies is growing,21 but muchremains to be done to avoid duplication and unnecessarycompetition, and to improve impact.

Issue 5: evidence base to inform good practice

LEGS is founded on an evidence base drawn from experiencearound the world in responding to emergencies. However,one of the key challenges in developing the guidelines wasobtaining sufficient information to identify best practice.While there are numerous examples of emergency livestockprojects, impact assessments or evaluations were verylimited, especially in terms of systematic assessments.

The frequent absence of credible impact information mayreflect the fact that impact assessment of emergencyresponses is a relatively undeveloped field. During theLEGS process it was evident that, when assessments orevaluations were available, agencies focused on themeasurement of project implementation and activity,rather than impact on livelihoods. Although agencies often

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 19


20

cite a range of methodological and organisationalconstraints to impact assessment of disaster response,LEGS draws on examples of rigorous yet resource-friendlyimpact assessment, and argues the need for far greaterassessment of future interventions. Such commitment isneeded to enhance institutional and cross-organisationallearning and to avoid repeating mistakes.

The LEGS Common Standard on Monitoring, Evaluationand Livelihoods Impact notes that impact assessment (andmonitoring and evaluation systems in general) must beplanned from the outset. This early attention to measuring

impact requires steps such as identifying suitableindicators, obtaining a baseline where possible andestablishing monitoring systems. Where feasible,participatory approaches should be used to identify andmeasure impact indicators. Identifying livelihoods-basedobjectives at the start of the intervention is a key part ofthis process. Impact assessment is particularly importantto ascertain the effect of emergency responses onlivelihoods: an intervention may have been deliveredefficiently and have resulted in positive short-termoutcomes, but may at the same time have had a negativeeffect on livelihoods in the longer term.

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 20

This paper has shown how support to livelihood assetssuch as livestock should be part of integrated disasterresponse programmes, and can have a substantial impacton the medium- and long-term vulnerability of disaster-affected populations. LEGS aims to promote the use oflivelihood-based livestock responses to emergencies,through building the capacity of humanitarian actors toplan and intervene appropriately. Whilst LEGS outlinesprocesses for the assessment and design of interventionsbased on appropriate decision-making models, it can alsobe used – as the case studies show – to assist in theevaluation of emergency responses by providing a

framework and benchmark against which interventions canbe reviewed. The process of developing LEGS has alsohighlighted the need for more thorough impactassessment of emergency interventions in order to expandthe evidence base and share learning on livestock-basedemergency responses.

There is much more that can and should be done tosupport people’s livelihoods through livestock-basedresponses to emergencies. LEGS and the growing body ofpractical experience are an exciting way forward forimproving and expanding livestock responses.

21

Conclusion

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 21


1 Yakob Aklilu and Mike Wekesa, Drought, Livestock and

Livelihoods: Lessons from the 1999–2001 Emergency

Response in the Pastoral Sector in Kenya, Network Paper 40(London: ODI, 2002).

2 Susanne Jaspars, Sorcha O’Callaghan and Elizabeth Stites,Linking Livelihoods and Protection: A Preliminary Analysis

Based on a Review of the Literature and Agency Practice, HPGWorking Paper, December 2007.

3 P. Trench, J. Rowley, M. Diarra, F. Sano and B. Keita, Beyond

any Drought: Root Causes of Chronic Vulnerability in the Sahel

(London: Sahel Working Group and IIED, 2007).

4 It should however also be noted that livelihood assets mayin some emergency situations also become liabilities: forexample in a conflict situation, the ownership or acquisition oflivestock may increase vulnerability to attack or theft.Susanne Jaspars and Jeremy Shoham, A Critical Review of

Approaches To Assessing and Monitoring Livelihoods in

Situations of Chronic Conflict and Political Instability, WorkingPaper 191 (London: ODI, 2002).

5 Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum

Standards in Disaster Response (Geneva: The Sphere Project,2004), pp. 112 and 120.

6 DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets: www.liveli-hoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_rtfs/Sect2.rtf.

7 International Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights, Article 11(2), and Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Article 25(1).

8 Geneva Conventions of 1949: Additional Protocol on theProtection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts,Protocol I (Art.54); Additional Protocol on the Protection ofVictims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Protocol II(Art.14).

9 D. Abebe, A. Cullis, A. Catley, Y. Aklilu, G. Mekonnen and Y.Ghebrechristos, ‘Livelihoods Impact and Benefit–CostEstimation of a Commercial Destocking Relief Intervention inMoyale District, Southern Ethiopia’, Disasters, 32/2, June 2008.

10 G. Bekele and A. Catley, Impact Assessment of the

CARE/APDA Emergency Livestock Feed Intervention in Mile

District, Afar Region, Pastoralist Livelihood Initiative (Addis

Ababa: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, 2008);and LEGS, LEGS Afar Drought Review Workshop: Summary of

Outputs, 12 February 2008.

11 Bekele and Catley, Impact Assessment. n=65.

12 See LEGS, LEGS Afar Drought Review Workshop.

13 Action Against Hunger – Spain, Livelihoods Recovery Project

(Livestock Distribution), Bam, Iran: Final Report August 2004; P.Leguene, Evaluation Report: Restoration of the Livelihoods and

Longer-term Food Security for the Earthquake-Affected Farmers

and Agricultural Labourers in Bam, South-East Iran, Projectimplemented by Action Against Hunger, 2004.

14 Jaspars, O’Callaghan and Stites, Linking Livelihoods and

Protection.

15 See for example the recommendations of the Hyogo

Framework for Action 2005–2015, www.unsdr.org, whichinclude the prioritisation of disaster risk reduction for nation-al governments, and international and local agencies.

16 For example the Coping Strategies Index developed by CARE;Famine Early Warning Systems (FEWS-NET) Global Informationand Early Warning System (GIEWS) (www.fao.org/GIEWS); Savethe Children’s Household Economy Approach (HEA); the FSAUIntegrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification(IPC); Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief andTransitions (SMART) Protocol; and Vulnerability AssessmentCommittees (VAC).

17 Saving Lives through Livelihoods: Critical Gaps in the

Response to the Drought in the Greater Horn of Africa, HPGBriefing Note, 2006.

18 LEGS, LEGS Afar Drought Review Workshop.

19 See for example Andrew Hewett, Being Risky and

Trustworthy: Dilemmas Facing a Non-Government

Development Agency, speech to the Deakin UniversityCommunity Development in a Global Risk Society Conference,Melbourne, Australia, 20 April 2006.

20 LEGS, LEGS Afar Drought Review Workshop.

21 Sue Graves, Victoria Wheeler and Ellen Martin, Lost in

Translation: Managing Coordination and Leadership Reform

in the Humanitarian System, HPG Policy Brief 27 (London: ODI,2007).

22

Notes

NP 64 crc 24/11/08 11:28 am Page 22

124 Reproductive Health for Displaced Populations by C. Palmer(1998)

25 Humanitarian Action in Protracted Crises: the new relief

‘agenda’ and its limits by D. Hendrickson (1998)26 The Food Economy Approach: a framework for understand-

ing rural livelihoods by T. Boudreau (1998)27 Between Relief and Development: targeting food aid for

disaster prevention in Ethiopia by K. Sharp (1998)28 North Korea: The Politics of Food Aid by J. Bennett (1999)29 Participatory Review in Chronic Instability: The Experience

of the IKAFE Refugee Settlement Programme, Uganda byK. Neefjes (1999)

30 Protection in Practice: Field Level Strategies for Protecting

Civilians from Deliberate Harm by D. Paul (1999)31 The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Health and Well-

being by R. Garfield (1999)32 Humanitarian Mine Action: The First Decade of a New

Sector in Humanitarian Aid by C. Horwood (2000)33 The Political Economy of War: What Relief Agencies Need

to Know by P. Le Billon (2000)34 NGO Responses to Hurricane Mitch: Evaluations for

Accountability and Learning by F. Grunewald, V. de Geoffroy& S. Lister (2000)

35 Cash Transfers in Emergencies: Evaluating Benefits and

Assessing Risks by D. Peppiatt, J. Mitchell and P. Holzmann (2001)

36 Food-security Assessments in Emergencies: A Livelihoods

Approach by H. Young, S. Jaspars, R. Brown, J. Frize andH. Khogali (2001)

37 A Bridge Too Far: Aid Agencies and the Military in

Humanitarian Response by J. Barry with A. Jefferys (2002)38 HIV/AIDS and Emergencies: Analysis and Recommend-

ations for Practice by A. Smith (2002)39 Reconsidering the tools of war: small arms and humani-

tarian action by R. Muggah with M. Griffiths (2002)40 Drought, Livestock and Livelihoods: Lessons from the

1999-2001 Emergency Response in the Pastoral Sector in

Kenya by Yacob Aklilu and Mike Wekesa (2002)41 Politically Informed Humanitarian Programming: Using a

Political Economy Approach by Sarah Collinson (2002)42 The Role of Education in Protecting Children in Conflict by

Susan Nicolai and Carl Triplehorn (2003)43 Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Disaster by

Sultan Barakat (2003)44 Livelihoods and Protection: Displacement and Vulnerable

Communities in Kismaayo, Southern Somalia by SimonNarbeth and Calum McLean (2003)

45 Reproductive Health for Conflict-affected People: Policies,

Research and Programmes by Therese McGinn et al. (2004)

46 Humanitarian futures: practical policy perspectives byRandolph Kent (2004)

47 Missing the point: an analysis of food security interven-

tions in the Great Lakes by S Levine and C Chastre with SNtububa, J MacAskill, S LeJeune, Y Guluma, J Acidri and AKirkwood

48 Community-based therapeutic care: a new paradigm for

selective feeding in nutritional crises by Steve Collins49 Disaster preparedness programmes in India: a cost benefit

analysis by Courtenay Cabot Venton and Paul Venton (2004)50 Cash relief in a contested area: lessons from Somalia by

Degan Ali, Fanta Toure, Tilleke Kiewied (2005)51 Humanitarian engagement with non-state armed actors:

the parameters of negotiated armed access by Max Glaser(2005)

52 Interpreting and using mortaility data in humanitarian

emergencies: a primer by Francesco Checchi and LesRoberts (2005)

53 Protecting and assisting older people in emergencies by JoWells (2005)

54 Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat:

a comparative analysis by Jennifer Duyne Barenstein (2006)55 Understanding and addressing staff turnover in humanitarian

agencies by David Loquercio, Mark Hammersley and BenEmmens (2006)

56 The meaning and measurement of acute malnutrition in

emergencies: a primer for decision-makers by Helen Youngand Susanne Jaspars (2006)

57 Standards put to the test: Implementing the INEE Minimum

Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crisis and

Early Reconstruction by Allison Anderson, Gerald Martone,Jenny Perlman Robinson, Eli Rognerud and Joan Sullivan-Owomoyela (2006)

58 Concerning the accountability of humanitarian action byAusten Davis (2007)

59 Contingency planning and humanitarian action: a review of

practice by Richard Choularton (2007)60 Mobile Health Units in emergency operations: a methodolog-

ical approach by Stéphane Du Mortier and Rudi Coninx(2007)

61 Public health in crisis-affected populations: a practical guide

for decision-makers by Francesco Checchi, Michelle Gayer,Rebecca Freeman Grais and Edward J. Mills (2007)

62 Full of promise: How the UN’s Monitoring and Reporting

Mechanism can better protect children by Katy Barnett andAnna Jefferys (2008)

63 Measuring the effectiveness of Supplementary Feeding

Programmes in emergencies by Carlos Navarro-Colorado,Frances Mason and Jeremy Dhoham (2008)

Network Papers 1997–2008Network Papers are contributions on specific experiences or issues prepared either by HPN members

or contributing specialists.

Good Practice ReviewsGood Practice Reviews are major, peer-reviewed contributions to humanitarian practice. They are produced periodically.

1 Water and Sanitation in Emergencies by A. Chalinder (1994)2 Emergency Supplementary Feeding Programmes by J.

Shoham (1994)3 General Food Distribution in Emergencies: from Nutritional

Needs to Political Priorities by S. Jaspars and H. Young (1996)4 Seed Provision During and After Emergencies by the ODI

Seeds and Biodiversity Programme (1996)5 Counting and Identification of Beneficiary Populations in

Emergency Operations: Registration and its Alternatives byJ. Telford (1997)

6 Temporary Human Settlement Planning for DisplacedPopulations in Emergencies by A. Chalinder (1998)

7 The Evaluation of Humanitarian Assistance Programmes inComplex Emergencies by A. Hallam (1998)

8 Operational Security Management in ViolentEnvironments by K. Van Brabant (2000)

9 Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness inDevelopment and Emergency Programming by JohnTwigg (2004)

A full list of HPN publications is available at the HPN website: www.odihpn.org. To order HPN publications,contact [email protected].

Humanitarian Practice Network

The Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN) is an independent forum where field workers, managersand policymakers in the humanitarian sector share information, analysis and experience.

HPN’s aim is to improve the performance of humanitarian action by contributing to individual and institutional learning.

HPN’s activities include:

• A series of specialist publications: Good Practice Reviews, Network Papers and Humanitarian

Exchange magazine.• A resource website at www.odihpn.org.• Occasional seminars and workshops to bring together practitioners, policymakers and analysts.

HPN’s members and audience comprise individuals and organisations engaged in humanitarianaction. They are in 80 countries worldwide, working in northern and southern NGOs, the UN andother multilateral agencies, governments and donors, academic institutions and consultancies.HPN’s publications are written by a similarly wide range of contributors.

HPN’s institutional location is the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at the Overseas DevelopmentInstitute (ODI), an independent think tank on humanitarian and development policy. HPN’s publicationsare researched and written by a wide range of individuals and organisations, and are published by HPNin order to encourage and facilitate knowledge-sharing within the sector. The views and opinions

expressed in HPN’s publications do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Humanitarian Policy

Group or the Overseas Development Institute.

Funding support is provided by Ausaid, the British Red Cross, CAFOD, CIDA, DANIDA, IrishAID,MFA Netherlands, Norwegian MFA, OxfamGB, SIDA and World Vision UK and International.

To join HPN, complete and submit the form at www.odihpn.org or contact the Membership Administrator at:

Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN)Overseas Development Institute

111 Westminster Bridge RoadLondon, SE1 7JDUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0331/74Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399

Email: [email protected]: www.odihpn.org

© Overseas Development Institute, London, 2008.

Documents

Number 64 December 2008 Network Paper