1. Response Analysis Institutional Linkages and Process – some examples from Afghanistan FSNWG Workshop Nairobi April 2013

2. Conceptual space For food security Response Analysis Process of selection of appropriate and feasible response options; Response Analysis Response Options Analysis Response Planning Problem-Cause Analysis Situation Analysis Current + Projected Understanding the food security and nutrition problems; what are the proximate, underlying and structural causes

3. Key linkages: IPC / FS analysis – RA – FS Cluster March – June 2012 : Drought response; CAP MYR; other appeals.... July – October 2012: CAP 2013 IPCRACluster(s)IPCRAClusters More effective and appropriate response FSA

5. Example 2012 Food Security Cluster Flood Contingency Planning

6. Background From March to May 2012, the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) conducted three (3) regional workshops to develop livelihood based flood preparedness plans for humanitarian actors in Afghanistan;

7. Background Objectives: Identification of potentially flooded areas within each region; Better understanding of both the local livelihoods and coping capacities to flood events. Produce livelihood and flood hazard based contingency plans. In order to: Reinforce the capacity of the FSAC community to provide improved responses to flood events within Northern, Western and Eastern regions;

8. Participating agencies Government: ANDMA, DAIL, UN Agencies: WFP, FAO, UNHCR, IOM, OCHA Red Cross: ARCS International NGO: Action Aid, Tear fund, ACTED, DACAAR, Save the Children, Solidarities‘, Afghan Aid, ZOA, Johanniter; National NGO: COAR, SWNHO, ADEO

9. Process Step 1 - Presentation of the flood specific 3Ws tool: Objective: to show the capacity and the geographical gaps to respond to a flood event at provincial level. Step 2 – Identification of most flood prone areas : Provincial working groups divided each province in three (3) different zones, namely most flood prone, medium and less prone areas to flood. IMMAP maps were used as a tool to guide the process.

10. Process Step 3 – Identification of main livelihood patterns with seasonality: cross checked, and validated with FEWSNet 2011 Livelihood zoning publication. Step 4 – Identification of potential impacts on livelihoods: Using IMMAP mapping information and simulation material and combining an understanding of seasonal impact of floods with seasonality of livelihoods to derive impact statements

11. Process Step 5 – Identification of potential responses (emergency, rehabilitation, mitigation): during these two sessions, working groups were requested to list the response options according to the livelihoods and the risks and key issues. Step 6 – Response Options Analysis – screening of most feasible response options against certain criteria.

12. Process Step 7 – Sharing of existing disaster plans: OCHA and ANDMA shared their information and plans on disaster management; Step 8 – Developing priority response plans: Group works were requested to develop the response plan based on the priority. It provides details about the expected number of affected households need to be supported, modalities of implementation, timeliness, list the experienced agencies, and a rough estimation of budget.

13. Summary Step 1 : 3W matrix Step 1 : 3W matrix Step 2 : Flood-prone areas Step 2 : Flood-prone areas Step 3 : Livelihood and seasonality Step 3 : Livelihood and seasonality Step 7 : Sharing of existing plans Step 7 : Sharing of existing plans Step 8 : Response Plan Development Step 8 : Response Plan Development Response Identification Matrix Response Analysis Matrix Step 5 : Response Options Identification Step 5 : Response Options Identification Step 6 : Response Options Analysis / screening Step 6 : Response Options Analysis / screening Step 4 : Hazard – livelihood impact/ extent of vulnerability Step 4 : Hazard – livelihood impact/ extent of vulnerability

14. Response Analysis Matrix – emergency phase. Market disrupted

15. Response Analysis Matrix – recovery phase Food distri butio n

16. Opportunities Proved very useful way of developing consensus around response options Based on livelihoods and likely impacts of a shock Was integrated into food security cluster led process

17. Challenges Gap analysis (step 7) was problematic Large numbers of participants made facilitation difficult YET at the same time, some stakeholder groups not represented (academia, Community representatives). Insufficient time for training thus language barriers posed some problems for facilitation Insufficient time to build adequate understanding of response analysis technicalities