MODULE A ODXP PREVENTION & RECOVERY WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME MODULE A: THE RATIONALE FOR FFA – THE BIGGER PICTURE ON WHY WE DO FFA Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual This first module of the FFA Manual deals with the broader framework on why WFP does FFA, including the policies and key strategic elements that describe FFA’s relevance to WFP. This is a useful introduction to help determine if these broader concepts and arguments for FFA are appropriate in your country setting, and may also provide some of the strategic elements and parameters in your engagement with government and other stakeholders.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MODULE A
ODXP
PREVENTION & RECOVERY
WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME
MODULE A: THE RATIONALE FOR FFA – THE BIGGER PICTURE ON WHY WE DO FFA
Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual
This first module of the FFA Manual deals with the broader framework on why WFP does FFA, including the policies and key strategic elements that describe FFA’s relevance to WFP. This is a useful introduction to help determine if these broader concepts and arguments for FFA are appropriate in your country setting, and may also provide some of the strategic elements and parameters in your engagement with government and other stakeholders.
i
FFA Manual Module A: The Rationale for FFA
FFA Manual Module A (2011): version 1. This module was published and made electronically available in July 2011. Where relevant, this module supersedes previous guidance on FFA interventions. Please inform ODXP’s Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here. Any updates to Module A will be outlined below (and include page numbers) to allow FFA practitioners with an older version to identify where changes have occurred:
No changes as yet.
2
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
MODULE A: THE RATIONALE FOR FFA – THE BIGGER PICTURE ON WHY WE DO FFA
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
A1. OVERVIEW: RATIONALE FOR FFA 4
THE RATIONALE FOR FFA 5
A2. FFA WITHIN WFP’S STRATEGIC AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS 8
LINKING FFA TO WFP’S STRATEGIC PLAN 8 LINKAGE OF FFA TO WFP POLICY: DRR, SAFETY NETS AND ENABLING DEVELOPMENT 12
A3. FFA IN PROGRAMME DESIGN 15
PROJECT DESIGN: LINKING FFA TO DIFFERENT PROGRAMME CATEGORIES 15 PROJECT DESIGN: STEPS IN FFA PROGRAMME RESPONSE AND DESIGN 16 PROJECT DESIGN: SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION 18 SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA AND OTHER FFA PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES & INITIATIVES 21
APPENDIX I. BANGLADESH’S COUNTRY DRR AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITIES 23
APPENDIX II. SIERRA LEONE’S SYNERGIES BETWEEN FFA, NUTRITION AND SCHOOL FEEDING ACTIVITIES 24
APPENDIX III. PRC EXPERIENCES WITH FFA PROJECT DESIGN 25
APPENDIX IV. A NOTE ON DEPENDENCY 26
3
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FFA MANUAL:
Overall WFP uses approximately 12 to 15 percent of its yearly resources for assets restoration, rehabilitation
or creation under emergency, recovery and enabling development operations. Most countries receiving
food assistance increasingly promote policies and strategies requiring various forms of conditional transfers
(productive safety nets, special operations to improve access to food, disaster risk reduction, and resilience
building). It is therefore important for WFP staff (and its partners) to meet these challenges and emerging
demands. The purpose of this manual is to strengthen WFP staff understanding of the contexts that require
FFA, their selection and programmatic coherence to WFP global and local commitments, as well as main
design aspects.
The manual is divided into five modules and includes a number of Annexes:
Module A provides the overall rationale and framework for FFA within the WFP toolbox of assistance
Module B provides the analytical lens in which to determine if FFA is appropriate within specific
contexts
Module C helps define the specific FFA projects to be undertaken within these specific contexts,
depending on various factors
Module D provides the practical elements of implementing FFA
Module E provides the key elements that informs M&E for FFA
Caveats
. A limitation of this FFA manual is that it can not be fully comprehensive – the nature of FFA can be so
diverse that it would be impossible to capture all possible approaches and interventions. Therefore, this
guidance focuses largely on the response options and assets that are commonly related to WFP operations.
. A second limitation relates to the range of response options and FFA interventions related to pastoral and
urban settings. These are simply insufficient as documented experience regarding FFA from these areas has
been limited. However, there has been increased attention in several CO to both pastoral and urban
livelihoods in recent years that will bring further lessons and best practices. Furthermore, the current FFA
guidance is largely built upon documented evidence from a few countries where FFA have demonstrated
significant impact and have been documented both in terms of the processes that lead to positive results to
technical standards and work norms. It became clear to the authors that there are several other countries
with important experience (past or recent) that could not be taken into consideration or only marginally in
the drafting of these guidelines because of insufficient information. Another limitation is the level of
insufficient research information regarding FFA under different programme contexts and the often
anecdotal assumptions that tend to underplay the role and impacts of FFA (positive and negative).
. A final limitation is the lack of guidance on Food for Training (FFT) which is largely absent in these guidelines as cutting across all programme design components (school, feeding, HIVAIDS, nutrition, etc). In relation to FFA, these guidelines include FFT only in relation to the range of assets that would impact on disaster risk reduction and resilience building.
4
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
A1. OVERVIEW: RATIONALE FOR FFA
This module outlines the broader framework on why WFP does FFA, including the policies etc that describe FFA’s relevance to WFP. This is a useful introduction to help determine if these broader concepts and arguments for FFA are appropriate in your country setting, and may also provide some of the strategic elements and parameters in your engagement with government and other stakeholders. The module also provides helpful guidance on how to ensure that the arguments for FFA are well defined within your project design.
Key terms in this section: Food Assistance for Assets (FFA): is a use of food assistance (via one or more modalities) to establish or rehabilitate a livelihood asset (whether physical, natural and/or human).
FFA rationale: outlines the reasoning behind why FFA as an activity is considered a suitable entry point for food assistance, and helps to define the specific FFA interventions to undertake; is based on context analysis and research.
FFA activity: one of a project’s main entry-points to provide assistance to vulnerable food insecure groups.
FFA intervention: a site-specific intervention that falls within the FFA activity.
Land and environmental degradation are significant causes of high exposure to disaster risks even at normal
times. About twenty percent of the world's susceptible dry lands are affected by human-induced soil
degradation, putting the livelihoods of more than one billion people at risk. In Africa alone, 650 million
people are dependent on rain-fed agriculture in environments that are affected by water scarcity and land
degradation. (Fourteen African countries are subject to water stress or water scarcity due to land
degradation, and a further eleven countries will join them by 2025). These areas are also the area’s most
affected by recurrent droughts and floods, erratic weather patterns, and food insecurity.
The extreme level of fragility of many ecosystems where WFP operates is becoming the “levelling factor” of
vulnerability, gradually affecting food insecure and non food insecure alike, particularly in areas highly prone
to droughts and floods.
In most of the livelihood contexts where WFP operates, the ability of livelihood systems to maintain
productivity, when subject to disturbing forces, whether a “stress” or a “shock”, is highly diminished. Within
those contexts the poorest households are also the ones most affected by food insecurity, less resilient to
climate variability, and more involved in detrimental coping strategies. In dry land livelihood systems,
agrarian, pastoral or agro-pastoral alike, entire districts and communities may be threatened by advancing
sand dunes or crusting soils, significant crop failures due to dry spells, wind erosion, overgrazing and
reduction of tree and grass vegetation cover, depletion of water tables (from documented measurements,
etc), droughts and deterioration of water regimes during and after the short (high powered) rains (flash
floods, etc). In these environments the range and type of interventions chosen to address the food security
problem need to be linked together as part of an overall area-based (watershed, etc) or territorial units
development plan which in arid lands requires well defined technical approaches and consultative processes
within and between communities within these units. Climate change will only increase these extremes and
change weather patterns compounding these already severe problems.
5
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Box 1. FFA nomenclature:
FFA is also commonly known in the field as Food for
Assets, Food for Work, Food for Training, Cash for
Work, and Cash for Training (etc). The reason for the
nomenclature change is to bring FFA within WFP’s
drive towards food assistance rather than food aid.
To help guide your reading through these modules,
consistent language is used to help understand the
concepts being addressed (and which will be
summarised also in the Key Terms boxes).
Importantly:
A FFA activity is the overall choice of doing FFA in
a country – just as Nutrition or School Feeding are
also activities.
A FFA intervention is an individual set of work for
a given location. In any country, you may have
many FFA interventions to implement within your
FFA activity.
Also, a FFA rationale will be mentioned within
these modules, and outlines the reason/s why you
have chosen to do FFA as a project activity – and
the specific interventions to meet this rationale.
Commonly, various terms have been used in the
field. In this manual, FFA refers to all: Food for
Work (FFW), Cash for Work (CFW), Food for
Training (FFT), Food for Work (light/soft), Food for
Recovery etc.
Within this context, FFA programmes can help to restore or build specific assets that reduce the impacts of
shocks that contribute to food insecurity. In this way FFA programmes can achieve multiple objectives. FFA
may be selected to offer employment and rebuild community infrastructure, support access to markets,
restore the natural resource base, or protect the environment, reclaim marginal or wasted land to provide
productive assets to land poor and food insecure households, assist marginalized groups and women to
improve and diversify income sources (e.g. nurseries development, etc), promote skills transfers, etc. Many
of these interventions also reduce disaster risk and increase the capacity of households to manage shocks –
building resilience and in some cases supporting climate change adaptation.
THE RATIONALE FOR FFA
Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) is one of the key
activities – or ways – in which WFP delivers food
assistance. FFA’s key focus is on building or
recovering assets that impacts people’s food
security. It is upon this framework that any
rationale for FFA is based.
Within the broader sphere of WFP’s mandate and
focus, the selection of doing FFA in any country
should thus be in line with the WFP’s overall
strategy. This includes WFP’s Strategic Plan,
guidelines on project design, as well as policies
that inform the organisation’s work in this arena.
The section of Module A helps explain these
strategic considerations to help determine
whether FFA is an appropriate consideration for a
particular setting – or falls outside of the bounds
of WFP’s mandate.
Linked with the above, some key principles guide
decisions on doing FFA. These include:
Principle 1: Adherence to WFP’s Strategic Plan
and overall programme design guidance
processes
This first principle builds upon the Strategic
Plan’s Strategic Results Framework (SRF) and
work undertaken by WFP’s ODXP Branch to
strengthen the overall approach towards programme design through the Programme Category Review. This
guidance on project design centres on ensuring each project addresses the elements of assessed needs,
programme quality, synergies, consensus-building, and measurable results. The work has become
Participation of communities, government and other stakeholders is considered an essential ingredient in successful project implementation. Nevertheless, the use of this popular term of “participation” can get confusing, given the numerous ways in which it is used. There are three key types of participatory processes – each occurring at different levels – that are explained in these modules: - Strategic participation: this ensures coherence with major commitments WFP has made (as
outlined in Module A); this may involve consultations with government and donors to ensure congruence with their major policy frameworks
- Programming participation: involves various stakeholders and experts to identify the contextual facets that help to define appropriate seasonal livelihood programming for the broader FFA activity rationale; outlined in Module B.
- Community participation: the on-the-ground participatory approaches used with communities and local stakeholders to ensure validation and mobilisation in the design and implementation of specific FFA interventions; outlined in Module C.
either success of failure of an activity in the field. More information on participatory planning and the
capacity building that can be achieved from such community work is provided in Module C.
A2. FFA WITHIN WFP’S STRATEGIC AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS
WFP’s mandate is to help groups and communities who are vulnerable to food insecurity; this is achieved
through WFP’s tool-box of food assistance and logistical support. WFP’s Mission Statement specifically
outlines that such food assistance should aim:
“ - to save lives in refugee and other emergency situations;
- to improve the nutrition and quality of life of the most vulnerable people at critical times in their
lives; and
- to help build assets and promote the self-reliance of poor people and communities, particularly
through labour-intensive works programmes.”
As agreed with WFP’s governing body (the Executive Board), a set of parameters is used to govern and
measure WFP’s work, and which help to ensure WFP stays within its mandate and mission. These
parameters include (i) the Strategic Plan, (ii) policies adopted by the Executive Board, along with (iii) internal
management processes including the Project Review Committee and various guidance documents (including
the Programme Category Review and these modules) to ensure the best possible outcomes for the
beneficiaries WFP aims to assist.
This part of the module helps explain how the strategic and policy parameters – or frameworks – relate
specifically to FFA.
Key terms in this section: Strategic Plan: lays the framework for potential action for WFP. [The Strategic Plan 2008-2013 marks a historic shift from WFP as a food aid to a food assistance agency.]
Strategic Results Framework: outlines the measurement of WFP’s performance against the Strategic Plan.
Policy framework: a set of policies, each policy approved by the Executive Board that outline WFP’s role in a given area of work.
LINKING FFA TO WFP’S STRATEGIC PLAN
WFP’s Strategic Plan (2008-2013) draws on WFP's operational experience and establishes the organisation's
direction and management priorities. It acknowledges that WFP no longer acts solely as a food aid agency,
but one that provides enhanced analysis on the causes of hunger, works in partnership by supporting
governments and the global work on long-term hunger solutions and alleviates hunger and nutrition needs
through food related and cash modalities. It is a framework for action based on five Strategic Objectives
(SOs).
The Strategic Results Framework (2008-2013) is the basis of WFP’s measurement of its performance against
the Strategic Plan, and which enables WFP to translate its mandate and strategy into tangible outcomes. The
framework helps WFP to demonstrate to what degree it has achieved its Strategic Objectives and the
FFA is a core component of WFP’s priorities. FFA primarily is aligned to Strategic Objectives (SO) 2 and 3, but
can also have a specific role during emergencies (SO1) and in capacity development (SO5). The main
relevance of FFA to the Strategic Objectives is summarised as:
- Improving access to food during emergencies (linked to SO1)
- Improving access to food, and restore and rehabilitate destroyed or damaged access to food,
productive and social infrastructure for communities affected by shocks and in transition situations
(SO3)
- Improving access to food, reduce risks and build resilience to shocks (SO2)
Further details on the alignment of FFA’s relevancy to the Strategic Objectives are shown in Table 1. This
relevancy should be considered against the framework of any project design incorporating FFA activities.
Without such an alignment, justification of FFA may not be clear enough to the Project Review Committee
(PRC) as it reviews a project document, and can hinder the approval of a project containing FFA. See the PRC
Survival Guide (Box 6) below for some hints in preparing your project document.
Core elements of FFA against Strategic Objectives:
Three core elements emerge out of FFA’s potential contributions to WFP’s Strategic Objectives, as is
highlighted above. These involve the concepts of improving access and resiliency through asset building,
restoration or rehabilitation.
Importantly, FFA activities that focus on building resilience, reducing disaster risk, and where possible
supporting climate change adaptation need to directly address food security needs, and food access in
particular. Making this link is critical in grounding WFP programmes within the policy framework of the
organisation. FFA rationales should balance the requirements of the relevant programme category the
project falls within, with the strategic objectives the project aims to support, while directly linking improved
food security with reduced disaster risk and climate change adaptation outcomes.
Access:
FFA can improve access to food through activities such as feeder roads and specific
rehabilitation works. Such activities may be the correct measure to apply across all of
the different programme categories to meet different or multiple objectives.
During an emergency, the repair of feeder roads allows access to food and avoids
interruptions in relief supply. During early recovery phases roads enable people access
to food in poorly served markets or allow the delivery of food and cash handouts faster.
For longer term recovery and development, feeder roads enable the flow of goods
produced in a reclaimed area to move to other markets and help raising income levels
of farmers or commercially off take livestock from a pastoral area affected by drought.
10
Food Assistance for Assets: Module A
Resilience:
FFA can strengthen communities and households’ resilience in impoverished and
depleted environments, and to support adaptation against recurrent extreme weather
events, largely attributed to climate change. In many countries, the increased
frequency and intensity of shocks caused by extreme weather events compound on
already degraded landscapes and fragile livelihood settings see details in Module B.
The role of FFA in arresting soil erosion, reducing floods, increase moisture into the soil
profile, harvest water, and increase vegetation cover, are all aspects linked to the
reduction of the impact of shocks, and increase the ability of households to diversify
their sources of income. If applied at a significant scale, FFA can also contribute to
reduce climatic risks or foster adaptation to climate change induced effects.
Box 4. Livelihood Assets
FFA aim at reinforcing, restoring or rebuilding a number of community and household assets
and, to the extent possible, household capabilities.
Household assets relate to 5 different types of capital:
Physical capital: livestock; tools, equipment, and draught power; infrastructure such as
roads, schools, health centres etc.
Natural capital: land size and quality of the plots such as their fertility and productivity,
availability of livestock, grazing land, pastures and/or fodder sources, sufficient source of
energy and construction materials (woodlots, trees, subsidized means, etc), availability of
water for domestic and productive use, tools and often, draught power, etc;
Economic or Financial capital: cash, credit/debt, savings, and other economic assets.
Human capital: the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health and physical
capability;
Social capital: the social resources (networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations,
associations) upon which people draw when pursuing different livelihood strategies
requiring coordinated actions.
Household capabilities relate to farming and/or herding skills, access to market information and technology, ability to manage credit, status and propensity to innovation.
Designing any project requires a contextual understanding of the situation to build a solid rationale for WFP
response. Given the high complexity of issues that FFA addresses, such context analysis can be particularly
in-depth and involves a large amount of stakeholder consultation to define the FFA rationale. Some of the
broader design elements for project design – and their specific relevancy for FFA – are outlined in this
section of the module.
As a start, however, some guidance on the “bigger picture” of project design – identifying the appropriate
programme category – is provided; this stems from a recent review process to help ensure WFP keeps within
its mandate. Introductory information for consideration in selecting the right FFA interventions is also
provided here (and outlined more in Annex A-1, Module B, Module C and Module D).
Key terms in this section: Programme category: is the category given to a project – either EMOP, PRRO or CP/DEV – that outlines WFP’s focus of assistance in terms of humanitarian or development objectives.
Project Review Committee (PRC): is the body that reviews and/or agrees upon a project’s design (as presented in a project document) for formal approval at a higher level.
Synergies: where different activities designed together can achieve more coordinated/comprehensive and targeted outcomes for beneficiaries.
PROJECT DESIGN: LINKING FFA TO DIFFERENT PROGRAMME CATEGORIES
Whether in an emergency or developmental context the overall aim of WFP assistance is to build the
resilience and self-reliance of the most food insecure populations (WFP Mission Statement). The corporate
shift from food aid to food assistance, including the inclusion of new tools such as cash and vouchers, has
changed the programming landscape for WFP. The development of food assistance programmes is currently
regulated by the recommendations of the Programme Category Review, including what is required in terms
of consultative processes that inform a better (and shared) understanding of the causes of food insecurity,
and the selection of adequate programme responses and their design for quality implementation.
The Programme Category Review (EB 2010) was an exercise conducted to help ensure that project design
was more in line with WFP’s corporate strategy, as outlined in the Strategic Plan. This came about due to
difficulties for countries to translate project activities and Strategic Objectives to WFP’s programme
categories – i.e. emergency operations (EMOPs), protracted relief and recovery operations (PRROs) and
country programme (CP) or development (DEV) projects. The work on programme categories was
presented to the Executive Board in June 2010, helping to bring discipline WFP activities within these major
Box 6. Which programme category does FFA fit in my project?
A common question asked by field and programme staff is to which programme category their FFA activity would fall within. Is the FFA activity more suited to an early or an extended recovery phase, or to an enabling development setting?
Overall, the below rules should apply: (i) EMOPs respond to sudden, slow onset and/or complex
emergencies (ii) PRROs respond to recurrent emergencies while investing
on the recovery of populations affected by the shocks and the persistence or a combination of aggravating factors
(iii) CPs and development projects invest in preventing hunger and food insecurity in areas where food assistance can create the enabling conditions required to access developmental opportunities and capacitates Government to take over these responsibilities.
There are obvious linkages and context specific nuances to be taken into consideration when applying these criteria. However, there are aspects such as recovery linked to shocks that need to be adhered to – recovery linked to shocks means these shocks should have occurred within a reasonable time span (2-5 years maximum) and the food insecurity status of affected populations is largely related to the shock (s) and not to other subsequent or different causes.
Within this framework, FFA specifically
translates to either:
(i) Supporting immediate access to food
and protect livelihoods at times of crisis
(EMOP);
(ii) Protecting and enhancing livelihoods
during and after protracted emergencies
(PRRO) for early recovery, and/or;
(iii) Enabling development opportunities
that offset future shocks and strengthen
resilience (CP/DEV projects).
Annex A-1 provides summary tables that
match the broader selection criteria for FFA
against specific programme categories. It is
not prescriptive and should be used flexibly,
taking into consideration the guidance in
Module B, Module C, and Module D which
elaborate on specific FFA interventions
based on livelihood contexts and typologies
of shocks, and the practical elements of
implementing FFA in a specific context.
PROJECT DESIGN: STEPS IN FFA PROGRAMME RESPONSE AND DESIGN A FFA response is the result of a number of analysis and consultative processes as any other programme
activity. The set of processes that apply for overall programme design as per the Programme Guidance
Chapeau also apply for FFA.
In project design, any FFA response should address the following questions:
Is there a major food insecurity issue (e.g. problems in access to food), a major depletion of assets, and
known causes that may require FFA as a response?
Does the context and risk analysis indicate a role for FFA to restore household and community assets?
Has a livelihood seasonal programming exercise taken place with stakeholders to identify and discuss
broad response options, including FFA? If not, how to organize one.
Have capacity aspects been analysed and FFA response options calibrated against these elements of
programming? Have FFA responses been chosen accordingly and their description and design accurately
Are policies and strategies of government conducive to programme responses that include FFA as
integral part of reconstruction, resilience building or labour based productive safety net strategies and
programmes? What gaps exist and how to address them?
Are lessons from best practices and evaluations, including cost effectiveness and efficiency, being
incorporated into the response and design of FFA?
The context analysis of and risk factors and seasonal facets (Module B) help outline the broader concepts for
then commencing FFA project design and intervention options (Module C), and finally to implementation
(Module D). The following diagram explains in broader terms the process of FFA programming.
Once the potential response option is identified, FFA components may needs to consider: (i) the transfer modality (i.e. food and/or cash/voucher); (ii) the type of conditionality which is attached to any FFA; (iii) the capacity to design and implement specific FFA; and (iv) the period (i.e. seasonal pattern) that will, overall, improve access to food through FFA.
Low-tech, low-risk FFA should not be considered equivalent to low quality FFA but as way to provide food to beneficiaries for something useful: they can be designed to accommodate an emergency and/or low capacity context. This is what is defined as low-tech low-risk activities: simple, useful interventions, identified as valuable labour-based interventions by stakeholders and communities.
For example, if clearing canals or de-silting water pans are selected as an appropriate FFA activity to provide employment to food insecure and shock-affected people, then like any other FFA intervention, one should establish proper work norms, agreements on working periods and targeting criteria.
Conversely, road sweeping and filling pot holes are not acceptable FFA interventions, and exposes WFP to considerable criticism, especially in regards to the argument of creating “dependency” (see Appendix IV) once people get used to receiving a wage in exchange for poor quality work that does not meet WFP’s objectives. This is even more problematic when the very same beneficiaries are moved to involvement in more complex FFA interventions; people may be reluctant to accept higher work standards for the same entitlement. This can also apply also when FFA in the form of FFW (or CFW) becomes a compulsory response modality within a country policy – and it calls for the establishment of proper standards and work norms for any planned intervention using food assistance, including those considered as “simple” interventions.
There may be other types of interventions (i.e. low tech-high risk and high tech-low risk), yet the majority of
FFA fall into the two main categories indicated above. The degree of complexity of FFA may also vary
depending on the circumstances, however in all cases a standard level of quality needs to be guaranteed for
all FFA activities. In other words, low technical FFA should not be confused as low quality efforts.
More information on these options is outlined in Module C and Module D – the latter also providing useful
info-techs in Annex D-1 to help with quality FFA implementation.
Such decision-making should fall within the broader FFA rationale or objectives identified for your project,
but are normally focused on one or more of the below seven broader foci:
(i) Physical soil and water conservation
(ii) Flood control and improved drainage
(iii) Water harvesting
(iv) Soil fertility management and biological soil conservation
(v) Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry
(vi) Gully Control
(vii) Feeder roads.
The options within each of these broader objectives may be further refined based on the agro-climatic and
livelihood contexts for a specific intervention. The technical design of the intervention may also be altered
depending on the location, be it:
arid/semi-arid land
tropical, sub-tropical and highland environments
flood-prone environments
broader community and market infrastructure and other assets.
Such technical considerations are detailed further in Module D.