Darfur Livelihoods Assessment

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 KHARTOUM 001126 SIPDIS AIDAC SIPDIS STATE FOR AF/SPG, PRM, AND ALSO PASS USAID/W USAID FOR DCHA SUDAN TEAM, AF/EA, DCHA NAIROBI FOR USAID/DCHA/OFDA, USAID/REDSO, AND FAS USMISSION UN ROME GENEVA FOR NKYLOH NAIROBI FOR SFO NSC FOR JMELINE, TSHORTLEY USUN FOR TMALY BRUSSELS FOR PLERNER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAID PREF PGOV PHUM SOCI KAWC SU SUBJECT: Darfur Livelihoods Assessment -------------- Summary and Comment -------------- ¶1. From April 12 - 27, 2006, USAID/OFDA Livelihoods Advisor Courtney Brown visited North and South Darfur to monitor and evaluate USAID-funded livelihood activities. The USAID livelihoods advisor met with partners and visited project sites near El Fasher, North Darfur, and Nyala, South Darfur, to assess the viability and impact of current USAID-funded livelihood activities. Due to security restrictions, West Darfur projects were not assessed. ¶2. Looking forward, the U.S. government should support two different sets of livelihoods activities in Darfur. One set of activities should address the needs of IDP camp residents through long-term capacity-building and skill development and short-term cash-for-work and income- generation activities. An alternate set of activities should focus on IDP and host community agro-pastoralists who have access to land through the provision of agricultural inputs and protection of household assets. Livestock restocking programs have the potential to increase vulnerability to violent crime within beneficiary populations and should generally be avoided in both urban and rural areas. End summary and comment. -------------- -------------- Setting the Scene: Livelihoods Interventions in Darfur -------------- -------------- ¶3. Introduction: To date in FY 2006, USAID/OFDA has provided approximately $8.6 million to nine non- governmental organization (NGO) implementing partners to support livelihood program activities benefiting an estimated 1.3 million IDPs throughout North, South, and West Darfur. Livelihood programs currently target populations residing in three distinct environments: IDP camps, urban towns, and rural areas. Livelihoods strategies are designed to assist each of these target populations reestablish traditional livelihood patterns. ¶4. Contacts and Visits: While in Sudan, Mr. Brown met with all USAID/OFDA NGO partners implementing livelihoods activities in North and South Darfur including CHF International, Relief International (RI),CARE, GOAL, Action Contre la Faim (ACF),American Refugee Committee (ARC),World Vision International, and Oxfam International. The Livelihoods Advisor also met with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),U.N. Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS),government officials, and other NGOs implementing livelihoods activities in the region, but who do not currently receive OFDA funding. The USAID Livelihoods Advisor assessed livelihoods activities in Kalma, Abu Shouk, Al Salaam, and Zam Zam camps; El Fasher, Nyala, and Kebkabiya towns; and rural areas outside of Kebkabiya. Finally, the Livelihoods Advisor met with rural communities outside of Kebkabiya town in a focus group setting to discuss livelihoods challenges and opportunities. ¶5. Objectives: While assessing partner programs, Mr. Brown was asked to evaluate the current strategic direction of livelihoods programming in Darfur and identify specific activities that effectively buffer internally displaced persons (IDPs) against livelihood loss or support the reestablishment of traditional and alternative livelihood patterns. Mr. Brown was also asked to identify NGO agencies with the capacity to scale- up current operations pending final approval of the congressional budget supplemental for Sudan. -------------- Partner Analysis: Monitoring and Evaluation -------------- ¶6. Lack of Focus: In meetings with OFDA's NGO implementing partners, very few NGOs voiced a clear strategic direction for their current or anticipated livelihoods activities. Most livelihoods programs in KHARTOUM 00001126 002 OF 004 camp settings are comprised of income-generation and skill-development training activities. Many income- generation and skill-development training activities currently employed by NGOs are unsustainable beyond the camp setting and require significant financial investment by the international community. ¶7. CHF International: OFDA partner CHF International (CHF) supports livelihood activities centered on community centers that host skills training, capacity building, and income-generating activities. While some of CHF's programs are clearly unsustainable (grinding mills with operating costs of $900/month, distribution of chicks where beneficiaries supply fodder after two months, etc.),some of CHF's livelihood activities should be sustained. CHF should expand its community animal health worker training in an effort to increase knowledge dissemination across a wider range of people. CHF could also expand the use of agricultural demonstration plots to teach improved agricultural production techniques. Instead of trying to introduce alternative livelihoods activities that have questionable sustainability, CHF should be encouraged to focus on more traditional livelihood support. ¶8. Relief International: OFDA partner Relief International (RI) currently implements livelihoods programs very similar in nature and location to CHF. In short, both the quality of RI's programs and its organizational capacity to scale-up activities are questionable. Should OFDA continue to fund RI, the organization should be encouraged to design more traditional livelihood support activities and to establish programs in areas currently underserved by NGO livelihood initiatives. ¶9. CARE: OFDA partner CARE International implements water and sanitation activities specifically linked to livelihood support. CARE has located well sites strategically to support nomadic migrations within travel corridors. This type of activity supports livelihood patterns of pastoralists while also reducing the potential for conflict between herders and farmers. OFDA should seek to increase support for activities of this nature. ¶10. ACF: OFDA partner Action Contre la Faim (ACF) implements livelihood programs that target populations in rural areas. ACF views conflict-affected populations in rural areas as an underserved area for humanitarian assistance. ACF believes that livelihood support to these rural residents could reduce the potential for migration to urban areas and IDP camps in search of humanitarian services. Where security allows, OFDA should increase support to rural areas in an effort to expand geographic coverage of livelihoods activities while also reducing the potential for urban migration. ¶11. ARC: OFDA partner American Refugee Committee (ARC) also targets populations living in rural areas. Though ARC's capacity to scale-up current initiatives is uncertain, the organization exhibited a solid understanding of livelihoods challenges and opportunities within the Darfur security context. ARC is considering small ruminant restocking activities in rural areas. OFDA should discuss this activity with ARC in more detail, given the concerns regarding animal restocking activities detailed in paragraph 20. ¶12. FAO: FAO will continue to play an important role in supporting livelihoods activities in Darfur over the coming year. Currently, OFDA partners rely on FAO to source local seeds and to provide animal vaccinations as part of livestock protection programs. FAO also conducts follow-on training to complement NGO capacity-building programs. The valuable support that FAO provides to OFDA's NGO partners warrants continued funding. -------------- -------------- Moving Forward: Livelihoods Program Strategy for Darfur -------------- -------------- KHARTOUM 00001126 003 OF 004 ¶13. Dual Strategies: In short, OFDA should support two different sets of livelihoods activities in Darfur. One set of activities should address the needs of IDP camp residents while the other set should focus on IDP and host community populations who continue to practice their traditional livelihood patterns. In camps, livelihood activities should be more skill-oriented and seek to build capacity within beneficiaries' established livelihood patterns. In towns and urban areas where people follow traditional livelihood patterns, program interventions should seek to sustain and expand on these existing livelihood activities. ¶14. Focus on Urban Areas: The FY 2006 OFDA livelihoods portfolio is weighted heavily towards activities in camps and urban towns that target both IDPs and host community populations. Activities targeting populations in rural areas comprise only a small percentage of current livelihoods programs. This focus on camps and towns vice rural areas is warranted, as evidenced by continued insecurity in Darfur's rural areas. Security threats continue to limit NGO ability to effectively implement programs in rural areas. However, with the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement, security threats in rural areas are expected to decline. -------------- Livelihoods Programming within IDP Camps -------------- ¶15. Camps as Classrooms: OFDA should expand support for capacity-building and skill-development training in IDP camps. As residents of many outlying villages all reside within close proximity to one another, the camp setting offers the ideal "classroom" for widespread knowledge dissemination. Livelihoods interventions that emphasize skill-development training programs should be complemented with activities that increase the purchasing power of displaced populations such as voucher schemes or income-generation activities. ¶16. Strategic Focus: The OFDA livelihoods strategy for camp populations should focus capacity building on agro- pastoralism, Darfur's major traditional livelihood activity. Agro-pastoral knowledge gained in the camp setting could then improve farming and animal care practices when populations return to their home setting. OFDA implementing partner CHF International currently trains community animal health workers to provide animal care in several IDP camps. In doing so, the CHF program develops and strengthens a set of skills which will support subsistence practices following the return of IDPs to their points of origin. Programs with similar potential for long-term benefits include agricultural extension services, demonstration farms, small vegetable gardens, and drip irrigation projects. ¶17. Impact vs. Time Horizon: Since skill-development training and capacity-building programs strengthen livelihoods over extended time periods, these livelihood interventions should be coupled with activities that achieve a more short-term, immediate impact. Most OFDA partners address this need through cash-for-work (CFW) programs, voucher schemes, and/or livestock restocking activities. ¶18. Cash-for-Work Programs: OFDA's livelihoods strategy should support CFW programs that have an immediate economic impact on IDP camp populations. These activities should be designed around identified camp and community needs. Currently, CFW activities are used primarily as a mechanism to increase cash-flow of camp residents, as opposed to a quid pro quo exchange of money for important services rendered. OFDA should work with implementing partners to ensure that CFW activities produce tangible community benefits. ¶19. Voucher Schemes: Voucher schemes enable humanitarian planners to track household items procured by beneficiaries through local market mechanisms. Thus, well-designed voucher schemes can be used as a tool to understand the current needs of camp populations. In KHARTOUM 00001126 004 OF 004 most cases, vouchers schemes are implemented immediately following natural disasters or complex emergencies when the affected population's need for enhanced purchasing power is greatest. Careful consideration of the viability of vouchers in the Darfur context is warranted. GOAL, Catholic Relief Services (CRS),and Mercy Corps International have extensive organizational experience using voucher tracking schemes to better identify unmet needs within camp populations. ¶20. Livestock Restocking Activities: Given Darfur's unstable and insecure environment, OFDA should not support distribution of high-value items to target beneficiaries. Distribution of high-value items in a community essentially creates wealth within the recipient population, an outcome which may in fact increase beneficiary exposure to violent crime. In the camp setting where demand far exceeds supply, it is also exceedingly difficult to ensure that livestock restocking activities effectively reach beneficiaries with the greatest needs. -------------- --- Livelihoods Programming in Rural Areas and Towns -------------- --- ¶21. Focus on Inputs: The OFDA livelihoods strategy for displaced populations living within host communities should be to support existing livelihoods patterns through the provision of livelihoods inputs such as seeds, tools, and veterinary care. This strategy only works when the recipient population has access to land for farming and/or animal grazing. Where target populations have access to land, OFDA should support distribution of agricultural inputs in an effort to prevent beneficiary populations from becoming dependent on food aid. ¶22. Protecting Livelihoods: OFDA should also seek to support populations that are trying to re-establish their traditional livelihood patterns and prevent further loss of livelihood assets. With regards to livestock, OFDA should protect existing livestock holdings through the training of animal health workers and by supporting animal vaccinations campaigns through FAO. HUME