Download PDF (4.08 MB) - ReliefWeb

22
face. Communities can agree with local businesspeople, local government authorities,
and other stakeholders on realistic livelihood and economic recovery objectives and
develop strategies to achieve them. By taking into account the full range of information
in the assessment, stakeholders and partners can ensure that the interventions that they
propose are sensitive to issues of gender, inclusiveness, the environment, conflict, and
disaster risk. Discussions should relate the situation and aspirations of individuals, households,
and communities to the scenario for long-term recovery and development of the
area. This is an opportune time to begin conceptualizing potential entry points in terms of
the three-track approach introduced in Chapter 1, wherein Track A focuses on livelihoods
stabilization, Track B focuses on medium- to long-term local economic recovery, and Track
C focuses on long-term employment creation and inclusive economic growth. Partners
can also begin to negotiate the principles of engagement and cooperation, including
expected contributions, roles, and responsibilities.
Through the visioning process, the assessment can set in motion a continuous, participatory
monitoring and evaluation framework. Using data from the assessment as baselines,
stakeholders and partners can agree upon a set of preliminary indicators and targets for
monitoring the livelihoods and economic recovery process and the success of related interventions.
In this way, visioning will help to base the monitoring and evaluation framework
on local perceptions of what constitutes success. Such visioning will also help to manage
expectations and to ensure a common understanding of the objectives of the programme.
The following are general guidelines for using the assessment in the visioning process:
• Vet all proposed interventions through a conflict/disaster risk filter to ensure that selected
interventions have a positive impact on crisis-affected people, create resilience, address
the root causes of crises, and do not increase the likelihood of conflict or disaster.
• If any selected livelihood strategies do involve risk or vulnerability to conflict or disaster,
build consensus on risk mitigation measures among all stakeholders. In particular,
facilitate the integration of risk mitigation into business plans and area development
plans; ensure that risk reduction measures are specific to the hazards that are identified
in the assessment and specific to each of the proposed interventions; and prioritize
risk reduction measures with consideration for their cost effectiveness, technical
feasibility, and potential to build upon local knowledge and practices.
• When proposed interventions would target specific groups, consider their potential
effects on social tensions, discrimination, harassment, sexual and gender-based violence,
and other social dynamics.
• Seek interventions that involve governments, support their capacity development,
and link to national frameworks, plans, and strategies.
• Seek ways for local interventions to be incorporated into and/or influence national
policy frameworks and capacity development, and ensure that national- and locallevel
interventions are consistent with livelihoods aspirations at the community level.
• Seek interventions that are replicable and conducive to scaling up.
• Ensure that selected interventions are integrated with private sector activity and do not
disrupt markets; in particular, consider the potential impacts of any proposed interventions
to provide cash and/or essential commodities (including food) on production and prices.
• Assess the short- and long-term viability of various job opportunities, as revealed in
the assessment’s labour market data, as input for the development of vocational training
and apprenticeship options; in particular, opportunities for “green jobs” should
be identified;
Livelihoods & Economic Recovery in Crisis Situations