UNITED NATIONS 
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia

 
Linking Relief and Development
-- a conceptual outline --

For many donors, governments and aid organizations, the experience of dealing with emergencies over the past few years has highlighted the importance of developing programme and funding strategies that both address immediate humanitarian needs and are supportive of concurrent and subsequent efforts aimed at creating conditions conducive to recovery and sustained development. In Africa, the continuing trend of crisis throughout the continent is perceived as bleeding aid money away from development as donors attempt to address the ever-mounting relief needs. Many fear that, if planned and implemented in isolation, such humanitarian interventions will steadily replace development and breed long-term dependencies, undermine indigenous coping strategies and, in the long term, actually increase vulnerabilities.

The following extract from the 1993/94 annual report of the Food Security Unit of the Institute of Development Studies in the University of Sussex describes the concept of linking relief and development succinctly:

"the basic idea is simple and sensible. Emergencies are costly in terms of life and resources. They are disruptive of development. They demand a long period of rehabilitation and they have spawned bureaucratic structures, lines of communication and organizational cultures, which duplicate development institutions and sometimes cut across them. By the same token, development policy and administration are often insensitive to the risk of drought and to the importance of protecting vulnerable households against risk. If relief and development can be "linked" these deficiencies can be overcome. Better "development" can reduce the need for emergency relief, better "relief" can contribute to development, and better "rehabilitation" can ease any remaining transition between the two". The idea of linking relief and development is not new. The vocabulary can be traced back in the international policy-related literature for at least a decade, and its constituent parts (relief works, for example) for over a century. Linking relief and development, in various forms, was an important theme emerging from the analysis of the food crisis in Africa in the 1980s and in 1987 was adopted as a central pillar in the formulation of a national disaster prevention and preparedness strategy for Ethiopia (ratified by the Transitional Government of Ethiopia in November 1993 as the National Policy for Disaster Prevention and Management).

In the post Gulf war period, ideas concerning the linking of relief and development have gained further currency -- very much in parallel to a growing awareness of a need to better understand and respond to the root causes of complex and "chronic" emergencies. Despite the appearance of "permanent emergency" in a number of countries and a tacit acknowledgment that in some cases, perhaps even in Ethiopia, the threat of disaster at the human and economic level should be consider to be the norm, some observers still use the notion of a relief to development "continuum" to reflect the view that emergencies should be considered as no more than an interruption to the process of otherwise linear development. The true value of the concept, however, is not as a defensive strategy for the administrators of regular development aid but as a basis for designing and funding projects which can cut across the traditional boundaries of relief and development and begin to address the key issue of how to protect and insulate both peoples’ lives and livelihoods from the shock of disaster.

In a recent issue of the Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell outlined five reasons why linking relief and rehabilitation is receiving such prominence at this time. The first, as mentioned already, is concern about the increasing portion of aid budgets being spent on emergencies and how to strengthen the linkage with development aid. Second, it is acknowledged that emergencies can make subsequent development more difficult, by diverting funds from local institutions, or by creating new chains of command which are less responsive to development needs. Thirdly, rehabilitation has become much more important, especially given the close association between famine and war (or, in the case of Ethiopia, the after-effects of prolonged civil war linked with chronic under-investment in development). Fourthly, it is becoming widely accepted that the traditional compartmentalization between relief and development is artificial as far as poor people themselves are concerned. The poor living in the agriculturally marginal areas of Ethiopia, for example, live constantly with food shortages and the risk of famine and plan their livelihood strategies accordingly. In this context, as described earlier, it has perhaps become misleading to talk of a linear sequence of "relief-recovery-rehabilitation-development" - a more sophisticated approach is necessary, one that recognizes the complexity and diversity of livelihood (or, "survival") strategies. Finally, linking relief and development offers the possibility of a model whereby relief and development interventions can be implemented harmoniously to provide poor people with food security and efficient safety-nets, mitigating the frequency and impact of shocks (such as rain failure) and easing rehabilitation.

In Ethiopia, as in many countries in Africa affected by long-term emergencies, the conclusion to be drawn from all this is that the sharp division between development and relief has become unsustainable, as the experience of living with high risk becomes ever more central to poor people themselves. It is for this reason that the Government of Ethiopia has given such high priority to the practical implementation of the National Policy for Disaster Prevention and Management which embodies numerous provisions for linking relief food to the attainment of long-term development objectives, the decentralization of management structures, the empowerment of local communities and the integration of Government and international community programmes designed to alleviate the effects of poverty.

If the idea that there is no continuum as such is rejected, it is important to examine the nature of the relationships that can exist between relief, rehabilitation and development from the perspective that, at times, all three can be brought into play simultaneously, in a manner that is mutually supportive and complementary. For simplicity the analysis can be broken down into three parts: (1) that better development can help reduce the frequency, intensity and impact of shocks; (2) better relief can be consistent with and reinforce development, and (3) better rehabilitation can offer more than a simple return to the status quo.

The key to linking relief and development from the development point of view is to find ways of reducing (a) the frequency and intensity and (b) the impact of shocks (in the case of Ethiopia, this essentially means rain failures) which will in turn reduce the need for emergency relief. Reducing the frequency and intensity of shocks can be influenced by government and donor policies. In addition to natural events, shocks can include bad or poorly implemented government policies, in particular, those relating to the agricultural sector, the economy, markets, land tenure and national security (i.e., war). In the past, the subsistence farmer eking out a living on the Ethiopian highlands was chronically vulnerable to all manner of government-induced shocks in addition to facing the perennial risk of drought. The reformist policies of the Transitional Government have begun to tackle these man-made problems: peace prevails, people are more in control of their own affairs than ever before, the economy is being liberalized and there is free access to markets. Much is still to be done but the nation is now in a much better position to address the root causes of famine than ten years ago.

Reducing the impact of shocks, both those of the natural kind and those that are man-made, means making individuals, households and economies both less vulnerable and more resilient. It is at the household and community level that the Transitional Government is placing the main emphasis of its disaster prevention and mitigation programme. Interventions will include empowerment of local administrative structures, giving them more control of both development and relief resources, the improvement of agricultural extension services and providing better access to improved varieties of seed, tools and farming technologies. The strategy also envisages employment generation, environmental protection, assistance with the diversification of income-earning opportunities and interventions designed to improve health and nutrition. The main objective of the programme is to aid the "drought-proofing" of the agricultural sector, both against the immediate shock of lower production and against the impact of higher food prices and/or deteriorating terms of trade between food and what peasant farmers (and the rural landless) themselves sell (labour, animals).

Two conditions must be met for a developmental approach to relief. The first, and minimum, condition is that relief should not undermine development. This may mean intervening early to preserve livelihoods or, more generally, to safeguard assets. Under the UNDP/TGE Programme 4 (Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation) particular emphasis is placed on protecting the assets of farmers in marginal areas. This will be achieved through various interventions designed to increase the responsiveness of the national relief system to emerging food problems. These will include strengthening the food security reserve to enable a more rapid and flexible response to a crisis, the formation of farm tool and seed banks, and the establishment of a national employment generation scheme that combines food-for-work and cash-for-work with a range of off-the-shelf projects that can be implemented quickly during times of crisis. The policies of the Transitional Government, as articulated in various documents produced by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, emphasize the decentralization of the national early-warning and relief management structures and the incorporation of development objectives into future relief operations. This is, of course, all very easy to say but will be difficult to achieve. It is recognized that such an approach will place an enormous administrative and technical burden on the newly created regional bureaux of the various line ministries, including the RRC. This is why the Government is placing such a priority over the coming year on capacity building and training at the central, regional, zonal and woreda levels.

The second condition is that relief operations should contribute as much as possible to development. At the most simplistic level, this already is the case as it can be argued that any intervention that keeps people alive and protects economic assets is in itself a contribution towards development. Relief food and supplies can also be turned into an investment subsidy if programmed wisely. Examples of this include using relief food as a payment for development works such as soil conservation activities, the planting of trees and building of feeder roads. Also, emergency resources can be used for the construction of water supplies that will benefit communities long after the drought has finished as would the repair and equipping of clinics and health centres.

Historically, much less attention has been paid to recovery and rehabilitation than to other aspects of linking relief and development. However, the process of rehabilitation and recovery is crucial to the future prosperity of a country like Ethiopia which, having only recently emerged from a long period of war and social and economic upheaval, lacks the infrastructure and institutional capacity found in other, more developed, drought-prone countries (India, for example). As a consequence, the rural population and the national economy is still highly vulnerable to the effects of drought. In a country like Ethiopia it is argued that well designed rehabilitation programmes, particularly those that are phased over several years and aimed at support for the agricultural sector, the settlement of displaced persons and the development of social services, can do much more than simply re-establish the status quo. Successful rehabilitation programmes depend on the same basic developmental principles already outlined: working with and through local institutions; consultation with local people about their perceptions and needs; and where possible, linking rehabilitation work with existing and related programmes.

It is recognised, however, that rehabilitation projects have to take into account the fact that the needs of people whose livelihoods have been devastated by drought and/or war are often barely distinguishable from the needs of those living in absolute poverty and who perhaps face a "permanent emergency". The policies of the Ethiopian Government have been formulated to take into account the reality that in many situations, relief, rehabilitation and development activities must take place simultaneously and that the distinctions between the three, intentionally, should become somewhat blurred - reflecting the wide range of linkages that should, and must, exist.

It is in the realm of fund-raising, however, that the hope for successful recovery and rehabilitation meets its main challenge. In many cases, efforts to link relief and development are impeded by donor policies and regulations which maintain a rigid separation between the two. For most NGOs and UN agencies, as well as governments, funding pure relief interventions at the time of a clear humanitarian crisis is never a major concern. Likewise, although the formulation process and reporting requirements are more lengthy and restrictive, raising money for development is relatively straight forward and follows well-established procedures. The problem is in finding support for projects which span the interface of the two -- the recovery-rehabilitation phase -- and which fall outside the traditional categories of donor funding.

A case in point is the provision of improved seed varieties to drought prone farmers in marginal areas of Ethiopia. In the last three years (1992-94), donors on an emergency basis have contributed through FAO in excess of 19,000 tons of seed purchased through local markets for immediate distribution in Northern Ethiopia. The provision of seed following a drought is critical to the recovery of farmers who are often forced to eat all the grain they produce. By providing improved varieties of seed and purified land-races, not only are the immediate rehabilitation needs of the farmers addressed, the problem of low production and chronic food insecurity can also be tackled. FAO is currently proposing a two year project of this type to donors in support of further procurement of quality seed for distribution in drought prone areas. Unlike previous projects, this envisages the placement of orders with commercial farms for seed well ahead of time so that a supply of early generation seed can be made available to meet future relief and rehabilitation needs. While donors appreciate the overall strategy, they face problems funding the programme as it exceeds the implementation time of one year normally required for a relief intervention. By the same token, the programme falls outside the usual criteria used for the funding of development projects. The project appears to be falling into the grey area of rehabilitation where funds are not easily identified. The same is true of another FAO proposal for potentially life-saving small scale irrigation. Again, the project requires an implementation time-frame of two years and as such stand little chance of attracting funding due to donor compartmentalising funds for either short-term relief or long-term development. Plans to promote the manufacture and distribution of improved farm tools to drought affected farmers also falls into this grey area between relief and development and consequently attracts little financial support.

The experience in Ethiopia, as in many disaster-prone countries, is that aid money for rehabilitation and recovery is often the hardest to access, despite the fact that this can ease the transition from relief to development. Although many donors are working towards linking relief and development progress is slow, and a "funding gap" exists which needs to be overcome if the concept is to show practical fruition.

Ethiopia is emerging from yet another brush with famine -- the result of a poor main harvest in 1993 and the failure of the Belg rains in 1994. Ways are being sought in which the momentum built up through the recent relief effort can be used to give new impetus to plans to help rehabilitate communities affected by drought and reduce their vulnerability to famine. As described above, in keeping with the notion that relief and development can be linked, a number of rehabilitation projects are being formulated by line ministries, UN agencies and NGO community which will extend well beyond the end of 1995 and contain elements of relief and short-term recovery during the initial phase before moving on to tackle more traditional long-term development objectives. Such projects, like those of FAO, are innovative and among the first attempts in Ethiopia at bridging the gap between pure relief and long-term development. However, unless the relief to development funding-gap can be adequately overcome such projects are likely to be confined to the usual short-term time frame considered normal for "emergency" rehabilitation, and consequently will do little to break the cycle of despair.

Addressing the funding-gap requires a new dialogue between donors, Government and the operational agencies including the UN, NGO community and line ministries. This should focus on the need for flexibility in both programming and funding during the transition from relief to development and aim to instil the principle of multi-year financing for rehabilitation as well as for development.

 

Mark Bidder
UN Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia
14 December 1994