REGIONAL INITIATIVE IN SUPPORT OF VULNERABLE PASTORALISTS AND AGROPASTORALISTS IN THE HORN OF AFRICA (RISPA)

CLOSURE OF RISPA AND

DELIBERATIONS ON IGAD - FAO PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME ON RESILIENCE (PP)

JUNE 5, 2014 – TRIBE HOTEL, NAIROBI KENYA

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................................3

DAY ONE – RISPA 1 CLOSING WORKSHOP..................................................................................................................4

OFFICIAL OPENING: ................................................................................................................................................5

SESSION 1: HIND SIGHT ..........................................................................................................................................7

OVERVIEW ON RISPA & LINKAGES WITH ECHO & SDC PROGRAMMES ...........................................................7

HIGHLIGHTS ON KEY RISPA EXPERIENCES ........................................................................................................7

SESSION 2: INSIGHT ................................................................................................................................................8

RISPA IMPACT ASSESSMENT- PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS & DISCUSSION ...................................................8

CLOSURE OF RISPA 1: SPEAKER - DR. SOLOMON MUNYUA, IGAD ...................................................................9

SESSION 3: FORESIGHT ........................................................................................................................................ 10

HIGHLIGHT OF IGAD-FAO PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME ON RESILIENCE (PP) ............................................... 10

PANEL DISCUSSION ON KEY INTERVENTION AREAS ...................................................................................... 10

PARTNERSHIPS SUPPORTING THE RESILIENCE AGENDA – OPPORTUNITIES FOR IGAD-FAO PP SUPPORT/

SYNERGIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

DAY TWO ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

THE PROPOSED TRUST FUND MECHANISM IN THE IGAD-FAO PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME (PP) ..................... 13

EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS ON TRUST FUNDS IN THE REGION ......................................................................... 14

ELABORATION OF TRUST FUND MECHANISM – GROUP AND PLENARY DISCUSSION ........................................ 17

WORKSHOP CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 21

3

ABBREVIATIONS ASALs Arid and Semi-Arid Lands CEWARN Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism CEWERU Conflict Early Warning and Response Unit CMDRR Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction CPP Country Programming Paper DLCI Drylands Learning and Capacity Building Initiative DRR Drought Risk Reduction EC European Commission ECHO European Commission on Humanitarian Affairs Office EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FSTP Food Security Thematic Programme (EU) IDDRSI IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative IGAD Inter-governmental Authority on Development LEGS Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards LPC Local Procurement Committee MoU Memorandum of Understanding NDMA National Drought Management Authority NRM Natural Resource Management DCF Drought Contingency Fund (Kenya) PFS Pastoral Field Schools RISPA Regional Initiative in Support of Vulnerable (Agro) Pastoralists in the Horn of Africa SDC Swiss Development Cooperation SHARE Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience Programme (EC)

4

DAY ONE – RISPA 1 CLOSING WORKSHOP

Agenda - June 5, 2014

0830 - 0900 Arrival and registration FAO

Introduction & Overview of the meeting Facilitator

0900 -1000 OFFICIAL OPENING

Opening Remarks by FAO Representative to Kenya and OiC Subregional Emergency

Office for Eastern & Central Africa

Remarks by European Union Representative

Remarks by the Swiss Development Cooperation Representative

Remarks by IGAD’s Executive Secretary of IGAD & Chair of RISPA Project Steering

Committee

FAO

EU

SDC

IGAD

1000-1030 Tea/Coffee Break FAO

1030 - 1045 SESSION 1: HIND SIGHT

Overview on RISPA & Linkages with ECHO & SDC Programmes

Video on RISPA

FAO

1045 - 1130 Highlights on Key RISPA Experiences

Cross Border Community Experiences (PFS, Rangeland Resource Management,

Fodder Production)

Kenya – Uganda Cross Border MoU

Ethiopia,

Kenya &

Uganda

Government

of Kenya

and Uganda

1130-1230 SESSION 2: INSIGHT – RISPA IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Presentation of findings & conclusions

Consultants

1230-1300 Discussion and Plenary Feedback on RISPA

Closure of RISPA

IGAD/FAO

1300-1400 Lunch FAO

1400-1430 SESSION 3: FORESIGHT

Highlight of IGAD-FAO Partnership Programme on Resilience (PP)

IGAD

1430-1500 Panel Discussion on Key Intervention Areas

Why IGAD-FAO PP? – IGAD’s Perspective

Why Trust Funds?

A Donor’s Perspective on the Resilience

IGAD

FAO

EU/SDC

1500 - 1515 Tea/Coffee Break FAO

1515-1600 Partnerships supporting the Resilience Agenda – Opportunities for IGAD-FAO PP

Support/Synergies

Partners

IGAD

1600 -1645 Plenary Discussion, Conclusions & Wrap Up Facilitator

5

OFFICIAL OPENING:

SPEAKER: LUCA ALINOVI – FAO REPRESENTATIVE TO KENYA AND OIC SUBREGIONAL EMERGENCY OFFICE FOR

EASTERN & CENTRAL AFRICA

Highlights: I. A lot is owed to partners and donors that supported the development of approaches in drought and

disaster risk reduction, such as the Pastoral Field Schools approach, that formed the benchmarks for the RISPA Project.

II. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by Kenya and Uganda under the auspices of IGAD and other implementing partners on the Karamoja corridor is an example of keeping communities at the heart of policy implementation.

III. It is incredibly important for us to develop new ideas such as the IGAD and FAO partnership on resilience, which will be the topic of discussion on the second day of the workshop. It is also important to review the challenges and opportunities we are currently facing in order to help chart a way for resilience in the region. The partnership programme will enable IGAD to work directly with the communities in building their resilience.

IV. The resilience debate is at risk of developing a “CNN effect” as with the humanitarian debate, which can result in no real commitment being realized towards investment in resilience programmes. A resilience initiative demands years sometimes decades to be implemented. They are not short term interventions, and short term funding can be detrimental to their implementation. We have to make sure the impact of all the initiatives we implement is lasting at the community level.

V. We appreciate you for helping us to think through the development of the IGAD - FAO partnership programme.

SPEAKER: PASCAL LEDROIT - PROGRAMME MANAGER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECTOR -DELEGATION OF THE

EUROPEAN UNION TO THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA

Highlights: I. In 2011, the Horn of Africa faced one of the worst droughts in 60 years that affected over 60 million

people. Following this crisis, the European Commission launched Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience (SHARE), with an investment of over €270 000 000 towards boosting resilience by improving the opportunities of farming and pastoralist communities to make a living and the capacity of public services to respond to crises. The RISPA project was funded for about € 5 000 000 through the Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP). The objectives of RISPA were fully in line with those of SHARE.

II. RISPA’s success in promotion of linkages between communities at grassroots level with national and regional governments such that policies consider the pastoralists aspirations in addition to promoting a regional approach in its implementation is commendable.

III. As FAO and IGAD formulate a follow up phase of the project to be considered under the Regional Indicative Programme for an EU contribution of € 31 000 000, a high priority will be given to it as it has the potential to address challenges of drought resilience in addition to peace and regional integration in the Horn of Africa.

IV. We request the inclusion of Somalia in the second phase in order to complement existing national programmes on resilience and promote stability in the region.

V. The thematic areas addressed by RISPA will continue to be at the top of our cooperation agenda, as will be reflected by the 11th EDF currently at the programming stage. Food security and resilience in the ASALs has been identified as the main focal sector.

6

VI. We hope that this workshop will be an opportunity to discuss positive experiences and lessons learnt from RISPA. The Good relationships and partnerships developed during this project will be instrumental to the success of future interventions on regional resilience building.

SPEAKER: GIACOMO SOLARI – SWISS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Highlights:

I. SDC came into the regional resilience agenda in 2009, and in 2011 aligned its funding with ECHO initiatives for better leverage of available resources.

II. In previous drought crises, timely and collective actions by governments were not implemented. The gains made from coordinated multi state actions such as the drought resilience initiative by led by IGAD after the 2011 drought crisis so far are very impressive. Regional policy dialogue and promotion of government ownership in the region is important especially through CPPs and the establishment of structures to help the governments to get involved, with emphasis on decentralization and community needs.

III. SDC has shaped their programming in the Horn of Africa to embrace a regional approach and therefore rely on partnership and information exchange; which will hopefully be under the auspices of the IGAD drought resilience platform. SDC is hopefully that future funding will be based on results. The proposed partnership is a promising programme, one envisaged to provide constructive input, and be an integral part of the IDDRSI and involving other regional partners.

IV. The resilience agenda in Somalia remains a challenge but as a country it cannot be excluded from the regional programming due to the interrelated nature of the populations and their resilience. The next phases of collective efforts should incorporate Somalia, thus creating a more cohesive regional strategy.

SPEAKER: SYLVIE MONTEMBAULT - REGIONAL DISASTER RISK REDUCTION COORDINATOR, ECHO REGIONAL

SUPPORT OFFICE

Highlights: I. ECHO is very involved in the resilience discussion and supportive of IGAD initiatives.

II. We would like to see more development funders take on more responsibilities as we looking forward to the discussion on the proposed IGAD - FAO Partnership Programme.

SPEAKER: DR. JOHN KABAYO, IDDRSI

Highlights: I. RISPA is very relevant in supporting pastoralists and agropastoralists, who make up the majority of the

IGAD region, which is primarily ASALs. The target groups living in the region are the most vulnerable and therefore RISPA was the most important in IDDRSI especially at the startup period.

II. IDDRSI is still a work in progress, keen on incorporating best practices, learning and experiences from RISPA. Consolidation of partnership between RISPA and IDDRISSI will be essential to promoting resilience in the region.

III. The recommendations coming out of this workshop will be key to the proposed next phase of the RISPA project, as there is impressive room for improvement and for building on lessons learnt and best practices.

The meeting was officially opened at 9.22 am

7

SESSION 1: HIND SIGHT

OVERVIEW ON RISPA & LINKAGES WITH ECHO & SDC PROGRAMMES

Presentation link

RISPA Overview Video

Highlights: I. RISPA was rolled out from 2010 – 2011 with the aim to significantly contribute to the reduction of

vulnerability of (agro)pastoral communities in the Horn of Africa to the complex crises in the region through strengthening of disaster risk management policies at community and government level. This was in line with EU and SDC regional agenda on resilience building.

II. RISPA’s main objective has been policy implementation support at local, national and regional levels. III. The implementation of RISPA was based on gains made on previous investments and lessons learnt from

ECHO RDD programme, CMDRR approaches such as PFS funded in part by SDC and subsequent policy dialogue.

IV. Multiple studies on the region have been done in collaboration with IGAD such as on traditional institutions and cross border community relations and cross border livestock movement.

V. South Sudan has strongly expressed interest in becoming involved in the coming phases of the project. VI. The unique programme management and coordination structure (illustrated in the presentation)

strengthened community cohesion through inclusion of community plans in district and national development policies (bottom- up approach) while supporting regional development through IGAD so that national governments’ policies, strategies and investments reflected community needs (top-down approach).

VII. Some examples of RISPA’s key achievements are the MoU on Cross Border Animal Health between Kenya and Uganda for the Pokot, Turkana and Karamojong Communities in the Karamoja Corridor, successful CMDRR planning and peace building between conflicting pastoral communities by mediating resource sharing discussions and training on alternatives livelihood options to cattle raiding and policy support through IGAD such as exchange visit to West Africa that formed the basis for discussions and process on Transhumance Policy.

HIGHLIGHTS ON KEY RISPA EXPERIENCES

Kenya – Uganda Cross border MoU on Animal Health.

Presentation link

Highlights: I. The objective of the MoU was to establish the agreed framework and modalities of co-operation for the

joint planning, management and execution of the joint programme on animal health between Kenya and

Uganda.

II. The basic commitments of the MoU were a roll out of a joint programme aimed at enforcing animal

health policy and legal framework, establishing of a Joint Programme Coordination and Management

Unit and the steering committee.

III. Key to the effectiveness of the MoU’s programme strategy and priority interventions is the effective

cooperation and implementation of activities, exchange of information, operationalized in the

framework of IDDRSI investment programs.

IV. Government commitment on both sides has been instrumental in the successful provision of services to

both the people and their livestock in the cluster.

8

Cross Border Community Experiences (PFS, Rangeland Resource Management, Fodder Production) in Ethiopia.

Presentation link

RISPA Final Video

A changing tide - PFS video

Highlights:

I. Far reaching awareness creation of concepts such as PFS in CMDRR have served as an eye opener to the communities as the now realize that they can do something for themselves and reduce dependence on external assistance.

II. Through RISPA activities, there has been an increase participation of women in CMDRR processes, increased conservation of natural resources as the communities now value them more. The Ethiopian government has also taken up these communities’ CMDRR action plans are in their policy implementation activities.

III. Through RISPA, all government livestock interventions now follow the LEGS manual and it has come about as a result of the agricultural meetings with government representatives.

Feedback on the presentations

I. We need to be careful of how we use APFS and PFS especially to communities who identify differently with either acronym.

II. Conflict management in the PFS group’s should be priority in the second phase III. There is need to have a more comprehensive picture on NRM especially for migratory communities in

the second phase.

SESSION 2: INSIGHT

RISPA IMPACT ASSESSMENT- PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS & DISCUSSION

Presentation link

Highlights:

I. The purpose of the impact assessment was to establish and document how RISPA has contributed towards strengthening institutional and policy framework affecting the resilience of (agro)pastoral communities in the Horn of Africa and the diversification of their livelihoods; and how these contributions have reduced their vulnerability.

II. The project impact was assessed using the ‘Project Impact assessment Matrix”, where it scored 2.81 on a scale of 0-5.

III. The assessment showed that an extra year would have solidified the gains made by the project. IV. The assessment recommends that there be a 4-5 year follow up to RISPA with components including but

not limited to a partnership agreement between FAO regional office and IGAD, packaging and promotion of the three core community activities i.e. the CMDRR; PFSs and the VICOBAs for up-scaling and that other community based approaches should be explored.

V. A key component of the new project should be the mobilization of targeted national strategic offices and institutions that have a big influence on regional programme implementation.

9

Discussion and feedback on RISPA

I. Lessons learnt should be consolidated in the coming phase and be included in the national processes II. We always talk about CMDRR, VICOBA and PFS. Can we also compare these approaches with other

approaches? Are they going to be the main ones or can we try other approaches in the next phase? III. We can also use learning from DRRAP project and use that to foster deeper longer term engagement

with communities and build their sustainable capacity. We need to make sure we are aware of the bigger issues that affect them such as land fragmentation, literacy levels, infrastructure development and information to communities that will give future interventions a transformative effect.

IV. On the APFS vs. PFS issue – in Ethiopia where there are more mobile pastoralists, the major challenges in programming is to support mobility of these pastoralists and PFSs.

V. In Ethiopia, VICOBA is considered as a part of PFS as it must be engaged in this context as the Ethiopian government is very strict on microfinance regulation.

VI. RISPA best case practices should be packaged for inclusion in the implementation of IDDRSI and dissemination to member states.

VII. We must endure that we engage with the community and ensure they have a voice. Promoting one specific approach can jeopardize the final objective such as where phrasing in documentation can imply that the solution is a handful of approaches, while there are many.

VIII. There needs to be a consideration of the additional factors such as diversity of actors, processes, policies they are a part of.

IX. The communities’ current situation must be considered and their needs anticipated as we may have to address some of their immediate needs before long term resilience building activities commence.

X. Action planning processes in CMDRR implementation at the community level, engaging government was not possible if there was no prior capacity building at the lower levels.

XI. APFS and PFS is influenced by how countries identify with the process e.g. in Uganda it is recognized as APFS while in Ethiopia it is PFS, but the approach methodology is documented in the recently released PFS manual. The guidelines in the manual do not pre-define the content, which should be tailor-made to each group.

XII. If we continue to work in these areas we need to accept responsibility and accountability to the communities for influencing their development.

XIII. On the policy dimension, cross border cooperation should be just that. The challenge is that RISPA is providing contribution to IDDRSI. Is RISPA part of CPPs? Is it recognized in the official development agenda of the country? How will the RISPA coordination structure link with coordination structures within IGAD?

XIV. RISPA was in line with the initiatives coming out of IGAD and its coordination processes such as IDDRSI. RISPA is seen as the success of bringing the communities concerns to the policy table in a situation where all actions were taking a top down approach. RISPA is a success because in increasing the focus on basic community needs going up to the government level policy actors have come down to the community level.

CLOSURE OF RISPA 1: SPEAKER - DR. SOLOMON MUNYUA, IGAD

I. IGAD is currently developing a Transhumance protocol building on work from RISPA, the protocol will affect all cross border programmes being implemented by IGAD and its partners.

II. Before creation of MoU’s, please consult the other protocol documents in existence at IGAD as these agreements may bring up conflicts at the community level. With these comments Dr. Munyua officially closed the RISPA Project.

10

SESSION 3: FORESIGHT

HIGHLIGHT OF IGAD-FAO PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME ON RESILIENCE (PP)

Presentation link

Highlights:

I. FAO and IGAD’s Partnership on resilience is driven by the need for a holistic approach and coordinated action building the resilience of vulnerable pastoralists and agropastoralists. Its target overall outcome is “Enhanced resilience to drought resulting into improved food and nutrition security of communities and households in ASALs”.

II. The structure of IGAD-FAO Partnership Programme on Resilience (PP) is intended to build on the learnings and experiences from RISPA and the seven IDDRSI pillars.

III. Challenges in arid and semi-arid lands include low women and youth participation and representation at leadership levels, low investment in long sustainable development, poor access to affordable financial resources and availability of essential infrastructure and utilities, localized and regional conflicts on over shared resources among others.

IV. Implemented by IGAD and FAO, in close collaboration with partners, its 12 outputs are expected to contribute to 4 mutually reinforcing outcomes.

V. The target budget is approximately USD 50 000 000 implemented from January 2015 to December 2019. VI. In linking with FAO’s new core strategic focus in the region, the PP will supporting regional policy

processes and actions, support cross border and regional priorities in addition to transforming learning and knowledge into smart and effective actions

VII. Government by-in is key. Member states will be at the core of each action so as to ensure their buy-in for the overall success of the project while including as many actors on the ground as possible.

PANEL DISCUSSION ON KEY INTERVENTION AREAS

Issues to discuss:

I. Why the IGAD FAO partnership? II. Why Trust Funds?

III. A donor’s perspective on the resilience agenda.

Views from the Panel:

I. Communities are well aware of what they need. So for you empower communities to move their agenda at the national and regional level, you need a source of funding that is transparent and accountability is essential for the trust fund management. The trust fund management may include the relevant government representatives, donor representatives, etc.

II. We say that our interventions are demand driven and yet we do not consult the community to identify what their current needs are before implementation of longer term resilience actions; this should no longer be the reality.

III. Should we look differently at territorial development? I you could do all of the programmed planned you would have more conflicting actions and les on resilience. On coordination, we should all be aware of the existing complementarities.

IV. We should move from multi-sectoral to territorial approaches while ensuring solid governance within the partnership. This is a big challenge for IGAD and FAO to ensure this as the programme takes shape.

11

V. When IGAD was first formed, its first UN agency partners were UNDP and FAO. FAO and IGAD have commonality of purpose which is to end poverty in the region so they are suited as partners.

VI. We need to strengthen the institutions in member states. Lessons learnt can be channeled through them. On cross border focus, the political intent is towards regional integration and the presence of good regional policies is good for the communities as this will provide the framework for needed interventions like peace building.

VII. Communities have a role to influence programmes at the district and local government levels if enabled to do so. Key lessons learnt should be highlighted to member states for key interventions through the various channels within IGAD and the formal policy framework at a regional level. There is need for long term engagement in this type of intervention especially in areas where capacity building at the local government level is needed so as to further engage communities in policy processes.

VIII. We should also endure there are processes where feedback from the communities can be captured and disseminated effectively.

IX. Information and data collected from research and surveys out of the PP needs to be interpreted and shared with local government actors.

Question and answer session with the panel

Questions: Reactions from the panelists:

What makes a programme regional especially for actors at the grassroots level?

We can take examples from discussions that countries are already engaged in, for example, for the countries receiving joint funding from the World Bank, countries had to sit together and identify common issues in cross border communities that would benefit from joint actions.

How will the Partnership Programme have an impact? The PP is looking to plug specific policy gaps which are currently not being addressed.

The programme design has been drafted by IGAD with FAO support but it can still be built upon.

How will we be able to tell that we have built resilience?

What are we measuring at the community level?

In measuring the resilience of the communities, we need to look at the methods employed in how we study and understand them from their point of view.

RISPA 2 needs to identify common cross border areas for this review.

Analysis paralysis:

How will the PP deal with communities’ skepticism of researchers and how will we help them to positively identify with the research conducted?

On analysis paralysis:

The situation has gotten to the point that communities have designated ‘professional’ interviewees. It is true that communities have become weary of being asked questions without seeing the results of the survey; We must find a way to feed the data back to them. This will engender their buy-in to the data collection process and yield credible data collection.

How will we ensure that communities do their own policy development?

Most counties, districts and woredas are already doing their own planning; the point is to create the links between their plans and policy at a higher level.

12

How are the regions government representatives going to coordinate interventions for common challenges such as vaccination of cross border communities?

Heads of State in the East African Community (EAC) and IGAD have begun coordinated infrastructural development, education and healthcare services provision in pastoral areas in the spirit of doing things differently.

What is regional and what is not? What is regional is what demands policy dialogue on a regional level because of the cross border nature of the vulnerable communities.

What are the territorial targets that the PP is aiming for? Where do we want to work? (National, cross border, micro clusters etc)

The coordination component is unclear. How will it be linked to the government coordination structure?

IGAD is working on a new institutional architecture in the region. The idea is to link RISPA 2 to the broader national institutional structures for better project coordination.

In addition, the territorial model has its own set of challenges because countries do not have specific MoUs with one another. We need to first facilitate discussion on common understanding so as to tackle the problems with a cross border element.

How is the stakeholders’ platform going to link policy to development funding?

Will the trust fund not be seen as competition for national funds?

How will the trusts funds be managed with regard to financial management?

The nature of stakeholder discussions is to encourage further dialogue.

The trust fund is targeting specific cross-border issues and any arising urgent community issue in these areas.

Much stronger participation of multi-state actors will be required.

PARTNERSHIPS SUPPORTING THE RESILIENCE AGENDA – OPPORTUNITIES FOR IGAD-FAO PP

SUPPORT/ SYNERGIES

Partnerships to implement IDDRSI:

Presentation link

Highlights:

I. IDDRSI was committed to doing things differently, work, act and think as a region, align relief aid with

long term development investment towards building resilience and sustainability in ASALs, build holistic

community frameworks and fulfil IGAD’s coordination role in the region.

II. Importance of coordination in managing a regional initiative is key in facing challenges such as current

investments do not cover the whole region, there are frequent conflicts because underlying causes are

not addressed in addition to poor investments in long term development caused by the slow change

from humanitarian aid to development.

Feedback

I. DLCI’s focus in the PP will be on building capacity for community voice through advocacy and policy engagement while working with the various community level actors in drylands development.

13

DAY TWO

AGENDA - JUNE 6TH, 2014

TIMINGS AGENDA ITEM FACILITATOR/PRESENTER

0830 - 0900 The Proposed Trust Fund Mechanism IGAD-FAO PP

IGAD/FAO

0900 - 1030 Experiences & Lessons on Trust Funds in the Region

Reflections on the IGAD/CEWARN Rapid Response Fund

Reflections on Drought Contingency Fund in Kenya

Experiences from Other Trust

Consultants

IGAD-CEWARN

NDMA, Partners

1030-1300 World Café - Elaboration of Trust Fund Mechanism

Tea/Coffee Break

FAO

1230 - 1300 Final Reflections on Ways Forward

Facilitator

1330 Lunch & Departure

FAO

THE PROPOSED TRUST FUND MECHANISM IN THE IGAD-FAO PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME (PP)

Presentation link

Highlights:

I. Implemented by IGAD and FAO, in close collaboration with partners, the purpose of the PP is provide

effective coordinated action and a holistic approach that will catalyze and build the resilience of

vulnerable pastoralists and agropastoralists in the Horn of Africa.

II. The PP’s 12 outputs will contribute to four mutually related outcomes, It will build on gains and

momentum from RISPA, regional PFS and other initiatives that have set the ball rolling for important

policy dialogues and processes for collective actions.

III. It will also contribute to the operationalization and implementation of the IDDRSI while leveraging and

linking community actions to the national and regional resilience agenda.

IV. The PP is targeting pastoralists, agropastoralists and others living in ASALs of IGAD member states, NGO

staff and representatives from ASAL communities in the Horn of Africa.

V. It will run from January 2015 to December 2019 on a budget of approximately USD 50 000 000.

14

EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS ON TRUST FUNDS IN THE REGION

Reflections on the IGAD/CEWARN Rapid Response Fund (RRF)

Presentation link

Highlights:

I. CEWARN’s objective is to receive and share information concerning violent and potentially violent

conflicts as well as their outbreak and escalation in the IGAD region, undertake analysis of the

information and develop case scenarios and formulate options for response

II. RRF is a multi-donor basket fund managed and implemented by the CEWARN office to strengthen

response side of the CEWARN mechanism. Launched in January 2009, it is funded by Belgium, Denmark,

Italy, Sweden, UK and IGAD member states.

III. The RRF provides the CEWARN Mechanism with flexibility and rapid response capacity it requires to be

effective early response mechanism to address pastoral and related conflicts at all levels.

IV. The fund may be called upon to prevent, de-escalate or resolve conflicts in the IGAD region. It

complements long term developmental interventions for pastoral societies. Most importantly it

empowers LPCs.

V. Steering committee terms of reference, rules of procedure, a handbook defining rules of procedure for

the RRF, templates for project design, approval, reporting and financial administration are some of the

tools available in the RRF.

VI. The RRF supports emergency projects, regular projects and special projects. Special projects exceeding

USD 50 000 maybe approved by the steering committee based on their recommendation by CEWARN

and a second technical evaluation report

VII. Only NGOs/ CSOs and CEWERUs are eligible for funding. CPMR Projects must be backed by stakeholders,

evolved at local level with a minimum implementation period of 12 months. Capacity building ad

research projects are also supported.

VIII. All projects are audited. Projects above USD 50 000 are audited by international auditors within 60 days

of closure.

IX. Some of the challenges include delay in implementation, low project management capacities by LPCs

and CSOs, unpopularity of the fund with certain partners and complexity of manuals and templates for

LPCs.

Feedback:

Questions Answers

Joint visits of steering committee have they tried to do these together?

The response coordinator and interested partners do site visits, but the steering committee is regional, but country reps with the response coordinators do site visits.

What is the total overhead cost over the amount distributed to the projects?

The only expenditures met from the fund are the response coordinated and is accountant, and a 3 percent administrative cost, all the other funds go towards the projects.

How does CEWARN keep funding in the system and how do they help member states resolve issues arising with

The technical committee on early warning is responsible for dealing with political and policy issues with member states

15

devolution and evolution of political structures and peace building?

What are you doing to address policy challenges with member states?

through the existing IGAD framework.

Do you offer training at the local level for LPCs to fill apps and develop projects?

LPCS are trained by the tech support unit in CEWERU (is one of their functions), and are able to draw supports from the funds for training of LPCs. CEWERU makes direct requests for capacity building projects.

Are peace-building projects only in one country or are they cross border?

Cross border peace projects are commonplace and the trust fund supports many of these.

Does the steering committee approve all project submissions?

Only projects over USD 50 000 need approval by the steering committee.

Reflections on National Drought Management Authority & Drought Contingency Fund in Kenya

Presentation link

Highlights:

I. National Drought Management Authority’s mandate is to establish mechanisms to ensure that drought

does not become famine and the impacts of climate change are sufficiently mitigated.

II. It is currently focusing on 23 of Kenya’s 47 counties which are either arid or semi-arid, account for 36%

of the population, host to 70% of the national livestock herd and generate 90% of their revenue from

tourism.

III. Some of its functions are drought resilience, drought information , drought response , coordination and

knowledge management

IV. The Drought Contingency Fund’s Management Information System (DCF-MIS) is a web based system

that automates the business processes for the DCF for Drought Response such as processing funds

requisition, approval, disbursement and reporting.

V. The system links the counties with NDMA HQ and the DCF, Contingency Planning Process, Early Warning

and the Rapid Food Assessment process.

VI. System is hosted in-house at the NDMA HQs, and accessed by groups of users such as the fund

administrators, county level users, headquarters’ focal points and other counterparts.

Feedback

Questions: Answers

Is there a special eligibility requirement for the fund? To have access to the fund, you must have a county contingency plan (created with input from the community) which has been approved and deposited at the national level.

How do you address connectivity issues in remote areas?

In some remote areas one has to go into the town centre but connectivity continues to be a challenge.

Why is it limited to an implementation period of three years?

Only the grant given to the fund is for a period of three years. The fund itself supports longer term implementation periods

16

and is flexible in the thematic area.

Why can’t the contingency fund be a separate fund from the risk reduction fund?

The fund is a risk reduction fund as the criteria is that a contingency plan on which a project is based has to have arisen from disaster preparedness activities. Effectiveness of the plans funded is dependent on county level implementation.

Integrated Complaints Referral Mechanism at County level Presentation - Transparency International

(TI Kenya)

Presentation link

Highlights:

I. It is a 18-month pilot project (February 2014 – August 2015) implemented in Wajir, West Pokot and

Turkana counties in Kenya, with a view to improve transparency & accountability in the delivery of

Humanitarian aid in Kenya through an integrated complaints referral mechanism at county level.

II. It is co-funded by the Africa Development Bank (AfDB) and TI Kenya for a total budget of USD 238

970 (USD 182,802 from AdB and USD 56 168 from TI Kenya)

III. It is iimplemented by TI Kenya and partners at the county levels.

IV. Main challenge faced is peoples view – lack of knowledge trust and responsiveness

V. All complaints are done with a single universal complaint form that is entered into the system. This

allows a coordinated approach to cater to the community who are not familiar with the system and

the number of service providers.

Feedback session

Question Answer

What has been the response since it started in February?

With the initial 15 partners who have been trained on the system (with outreach to start this month) complaints received so far are about 150 through email and SMS. The web based platform, generates real time information on the nature of the complains, location, subject etc.

What kind of service providers can be engaged (humanitarian and or development and how many actors vs. the initial 15 engaged?

All service providers engaging in humanitarian and development work are targeted.

Is the SMS toll free? The SMS is free.

Can you ensure that complaints are passed on in the right manner to the relevant actors in the county authorities?

The team tries as much as possible to correctly redirect the complaints received to the relevant party.

ELABORATION OF TRUST FUND MECHANISM – GROUP AND PLENARY DISCUSSION

Issues to discuss:

I. Who can apply?

II. For what can they apply?

III. Grant levels, durations & geographical scope?

IV. Application & approval procedure?

V. Management & administration? Trust Fund Board?

Guiding questions Community Development Feedback Policy Development Feedback

Grants to do what?

I. Priority areas, defined or open?

II. Transboundary issue only? What does this

mean in practice?

III. Emergency development orientation -

balance ?

IV. How to maintain coherence/Programmatic

approach?

V. Community Development : Productive sector

only; land, livestock prod. NRM or broader

(roads, water)?

VI. Community Development: Soft-hard

balance? Capacity building / management

support in-built ?

VII. Policy: regional policy dialogue, creation and

dissemination of policy processes?

VIII. How to avoid competition / overlap with

other funds?

IX. Ineligible expenses?

X. Grant inbuilt M&E or done on program level?

I. This project should focus on added value of cross-

border interventions.

II. As this type of funding is limited transboundary

approaches should be considered a strong criterion;

geographical clusters should be considered (territorial

approach). The desired impact is on cross border but

that has impact on cross border communities

III. Overall, a balance of soft and hard (complementing

one another).

IV. The PP should leverage work on RISPA 1. A SMART

approach to measuring soft skill outputs/outcomes is

needed.

V. Sectors should include the items in the IDDRISI

framework, including NRM, Market support,

Livelihood support, DRR and preparedness, conflict

management, knowledge management, institutional

support, and social services.

VI. Social services should be limited to small-scale items

that the government is not expected to do (no large

I. The objective of the fund is to ensure that

the Country Program Plans (CPPs) are

implemented and that there are policy

frameworks to support their implementation

around cross-border and regional issues.

II. There needs to be a review of current

bilateral agreements between governments

in the region and regional policy frameworks

to identify the gaps to be addressed through

this fund.

18

roads, no health centers, no schools)

VII. Coordination should include 3w maps to identify gaps

thematically and geographically (considering World

Bank, CEWARN, and other regional mechanisms) –

RISPA 2 will then fill some of these gaps or

complement the other programs.

VIII. Consistent guidance at the RISPA project management

level and included at the implementation level.

Who can apply?

I. Eligibility criteria?

II. NGOs, CBOs, UN actors, private sector…..??

III. Can Governments apply? National / Local?

IV. Co-financing requirement?

V. Apply on behalf of community? Allowed?

VI. How ensuring genuine

stakeholder/community ownership?

VII. Advance designation of recipients

I. Subsidiary Principle should be applied, in which the

smallest actors/closest to the communities should

receive most of the funding.

II. Some is dependent on the intervention (e.g.

NRM/Peace building requires a larger scope, thus a

larger actor).

III. Agencies (INGOs) would be facilitating the process on

behalf of communities/ governments.

IV. CBOs and NGOs can apply but the amount given

should not go higher than an INGO (no more UN

beyond FAO & no grants to central government for

community work).

V. Discussion of categorizing types of grants

(community, local government, NGOs, private sector).

VI. The private sector would have to use M4P approach.

VII. Entities should be encouraged to work together (e.g.

INGO with governments and communities) for grant

applications.

VIII. Determine geography of intervention and analyze

who is already present in the intervention areas.

IX. Get input from IGAD & member states

X. “Demand-driven” based on community needs –

facilitation and coordination done at higher levels

I. Eligibility should be based on

implementation capacity perspective.

II. Research institutions, CSOs, international

agencies, regional economic bodies,

governments & its agencies could all be

eligible.

III. We need specification of private sector

and civil society involvement in this policy

formulation process to ensure

coordination and avoid competition and

overlaps.

Ensure sustainability of actions and have

inbuilt M&E mechanism at all levels of

program implementation from the grass

roots to apex level

19

(NGOs/local governments)

Grants!

I. Grant levels, Min/max?

II. Project duration, Min/max? (6-12 vs. 18-24

months)

III. Geographical scope? Min/max? (Single/multiple

country, territorial?)

IV. Overheads – allowed? %?

I. Depending on the sector, the grant duration should

be a maximum of 24 months. (up to 36 months for

trusted partners)

II. Categorize based on community, government, NGO,

considering existing budgetary capacity

III. Territorial approach would provide more targeted

geographical areas; single-country could hurt the

transboundary approach

IV. The grant amount will be dependent on project cost

and the capacity of implementers.

V. Overheads should be allowed but should not exceed

10%.

I. There needs to be a maximum project

duration, which could be 12-24 months with

a possible one year extension

II. Geographical depends on the initial

review/study

III. Administrative over heads are generic

Application & approval procedure?

I. Concept note – full proposal – stages?

II. Pre-screening at national level, by pre-

appointed institution?

III. Financing for Preparation phase?

IV. Templates – guidelines – language?

V. TF applications review – 3 times/year?

I. Concept note followed by full project proposal,

funding support for preparing the details of the

proposal

II. Pre-screening should be done by an objective

steering committee (rather than an individual

entity)

III. Verification of applicants at national level should be

done

IV. Preferred template language is English

V. Low budgets should be processed faster while

higher budgets should be more rigorously checked

VI. After a short concept note, field preparation may

be required to support a participatory, demand-

driven design

VII. 3 times per year review is acceptable although it is

not responsive to emergencies

I. Concept Note is preferable before a full

proposal to decide whether it meets

project objectives

II. The focal point for the CPP will endorse

whether the proposal is in line with the

CPP (Country Programming Paper) or RPF

(Regional Programming Framework)

III. No Financing for Preparation Phase

IV. Yes Guidelines/Templates be circulated in

English language

V. Twice a year reviews are applicable

20

Management & administration

I. TF management board –who?

II. Representativeness - transparency?

III. Appointed Trust fund administrator?

IV. FAO & IGADs capacity in TF management?

V. Linkages to other grant platforms?

VI. Secretariat / Fund administration unit?

VII. Minimal transaction costs – how?

VIII. Accountability & transparency?

I. Some functions would be centralized at RISPA PMU

level (process oversight, resource mobilization,

indicator frameworks (IDDRISI), strategic decisions.

II. Other functions decentralized into reasonable

geographical areas (decentralized mgmt structures

for implementation, decentralized proposal review

units).

III. There should be a broad representation of member

states, donor institutions, IDDRISI board/IGAD,

CSOs, FAO Regional, FAO Kenya, and FAO Uganda in

the Trust fund administration.

IV. Transparency is critical in the selection process & project selections; mechanisms for community feedback. Online platform that tracks progress of applications and has all reports, both physical and financial is desirable.

V. IGAD’s experience in the CEWARN RRF should be considered. Consider IGAD experience of RRF.

VI. IGAD should coordinate, transparency and information sharing.

VII. A fund administration unit is necessary at national level with the secretariat at the regional level.

Technical advisory board includes core decision

making body who consult with specialist technical

advisor – research organization, policy institutes,

possibly donors, and member states, etc.?

WORKSHOP CLOSURE

SPEAKER: KARINE GARNIER – DEPUTY OIC, FAO SUBREGIONAL EMERGENCY OFFICE FOR EASTERN AND

CENTRAL AFRICA

Highlights:

I. The past two days have been very productive with very key contributions and good country

participation.

II. Learning coming out of RISPA will be implemented in the PP. There is still a lot of work to be done in the

development of the PP and so continuous engagement and consultation with partners will continue.

SPEAKER: GIACOMO SOLARI – SWISS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Highlights:

I. Gratitude to FAO, IGAD and the team for a good start to planning for the PP.

II. Not everything could be covered but avenues have been opened for further consultation so as to

prepare and deliver by January 2015.

CLOSING REMARKS: SPEAKER - RICHARD BARNO, CEWARN

I. A lot of useful and interesting information has been shared towards building the PP.

II. The group discussions were very productive and as this is just the beginning, a lot more is to be done

until January 2015.

With those remarks, the Workshop was closed at 1:18pm.