Food security interventions in countries emerging from conflict should move beyond conventional seeds and tools approaches. They need to address vulnerability and support the agricultural component of rural livelihoods.

Research from the Overseas Development Institute, UK, examines case studies from two countries emerging from conflict, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. The paper explores, both conceptually and practically, how agricultural rehabilitation can contribute to linking humanitarian assistance, social protection and longer-term development through effective and principled approaches.

Agricultural production is surprisingly resilient in the face of conflict. External support should not focus solely on increasing production, but should also aim to improve consumption, markets and livelihoods. However, agricultural programmes in many post-conflict situations have persistent problems:

• External agencies use crisis-oriented, project-based approaches that are only marginally related to the needs and abilities of rural populations. In both case studies, problems existed long before the ‘crisis’ that triggered relief efforts.
• Efforts to promote self-sufficiency do not adequately understand local livelihoods and the causes of vulnerability. Consequently, they fail to connect local relief efforts with the regional or national institutions and policies needed to support them.
• Planners are beginning to consider how market-based approaches (such as cash, vouchers or support to agricultural input and output marketing) can help rural communities. However, this is a major challenge in unpredictable post-conflict situations.
• Civil society, the state and the private sector each has a role to play in delivering agricultural inputs and services, but it is not clear what these roles should be. For example, private sector development is often ‘crowded out’ by the supply of inputs and services from non-governmental organisations.
• Post-war public sector reform is often seen as necessary, but whether a crisis can really motivate effective change is questionable. The challenges involved in major reforms should not be underestimated.

Policymakers need a deeper understanding of how agriculture is affected by conflict. This includes the changes in the livelihood strategies of affected people, and the market factors that determine opportunities during and after conflict. The researchers recommend that agricultural support in post-conflict situations should help the transition from supply-led programmes to establishing a sustainable, market-led system for service provision. This should be developed within a framework of broad-based efforts to protect and promote rural livelihoods. This transition can be broken down into several measures:

• Ensuring that vulnerable farmers have access to agricultural inputs and services.
• Increasing agricultural production through access to appropriate technology options.
• Increasing rural incomes by promoting agricultural product and labour markets.
• Establishing the capacity, structures and institutions necessary for the sustainable delivery of inputs and services.
• Addressing vulnerability and social inequality through social protection and promoting livelihoods.
• Promoting the reforms necessary to address the structural causes of vulnerability.

These interventions are already being implemented in many post-conflict situations. However, policymakers must regard these as part of a broader transition, with greater emphasis on addressing vulnerability and building institutions.

Source(s):
‘Agricultural Rehabilitation: Mapping the Linkages Between Humanitarian Relief, Social Protection and Development’, HPG Report 21, Humanitarian Policy Group: London, by Catherine Longley, Ian Christoplos and Tom Slaymaker, 2006 (PDF) Full document.
‘Agricultural Rehabilitation: Mapping the Linkages Between Humanitarian Relief, Social Protection and Development’, HPG Briefing Paper 23, by Catherine Longley, Ian Christoplos and Tom Slaymaker, 2006 (PDF) Full document.

Funded by: EC Poverty Reduction Effectiveness Programme

id21 Research Highlight: 3 November 2006

Further Information:
Catherine Longley

Tel: +254 20 7224552
Fax: +254 20 7224001
Contact the contributor: k.longley@cgiar.org

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Other related links:
'Fighting hunger and poverty in Ethiopia'

'Agricultural recovery from disasters – the importance of seed-based support'

'An alternative approach to food aid from the Sudan conflict'

'Connecting agriculture, development and peace'

'How does conflict affect food security in Ethiopia and Eritrea?'