Lesotho National Strategic Resilience Framework - (2019 – 2030) Building a Resilient and Prosperous Nation

Section 1.0: Analytical and Conceptual Aspects of the Framework ....................................... 10 1.1 Understanding the concept of Resilience .......................................................................... 10 1.2 Conceptual Framework for Resilience .............................................................................. 14 1.2.1 Resilience Capacities ................................................................................................... 14 a) National Scale Indicators........................................................................................................ 14 b) Indicators to Measure Community Resilience ..................................................................... 15 1.2.2 A Strategic Resilience Framework for Lesotho........................................................ 15 1.2.3 Goals and Aspirations of the Resilience Framework ............................................... 20 1.2.4 National Strategic Resilience Programming Pillars and Principles ....................... 20 a) Strategic Resilience Pillars ....................................................................................................... 20 b) Resilience Principles ............................................................................................................... 23 i) Focus on Shock Dynamics .................................................................................................. 23 ii) A multidimensional capacity .............................................................................................. 23 iii) Resilience functions ......................................................................................................... 23 iv) Outcome-indexed capacities ........................................................................................... 24 v) A multilevel and systems-based approach ........................................................................ 24 1.2.5 Tools and Approaches to Operationalize the Resilience Agenda ........................... 24 a) Comprehensive Risk Analysis ............................................................................................ 24 b) Integrated Approaches ....................................................................................................... 25 c) Collaborative Partnerships and Approaches to Knowledge Management .................... 25 d) Strengthening Social Capital.............................................................................................. 26 1.2.6 Tools for Resilience Measurements ........................................................................... 28 a) Analysis of Resilience Measures ........................................................................................ 28

Section 2: Implementing the Resilience Framework ....................................................................... 31 2.1 Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................... 31 2.1.1 Implementation Guide .................................................................................................... 31 2.1.2 Roles of different stakeholders....................................................................................... 32 2.1.2.1 Communities ................................................................................................................ 32 2.1.2.2 Government of Lesotho Agencies: National and local Government ..................... 32 2.1.2.3 Civil Society Organisations ........................................................................................ 33 2.1.2.4 International Non-Governmental Organisations ..................................................... 33 2.1.2.5 Private Sector and Institutions .................................................................................. 33 2.1.2.6 Academia and research institutions .......................................................................... 34 2.1.2.7 Media............................................................................................................................ 34 2.1.2.8 United Nations Agencies and other Development Partners .................................... 34 UN agencies and Development Partners shall continue to play a pivotal role to support government efforts in the area of strengthening capacities for disaster risk management and building resilience and supplementing efforts in mobilizing resources for disaster management. The UN is also a key technical and resource mobilisation partner of the government. ................ 34 2.2 Theory of Change for Promoting Resilience in Lesotho.................................................. 35 2.3 Targeting.............................................................................................................................. 40 2.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 40 2.3.2 Who should be targeted in resilience programs? ..................................................... 40 2.3.3 Targeting methodologies ............................................................................................ 40 a) Area based and programmatic strategy targeting ........................................................... 41 b) Institutional level targeting ................................................................................................ 41 c) Community level targeting ................................................................................................. 41 2.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 42 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 1.0 - Summary of the Lesotho Social Protection and Safety Nets ............................. 45 Appendix 2. Pillars of Resilience ......................................................................................................... 50 Appendix 2 (A). The detailed descriptions of the intervention areas proposed under the different pillars ................................................................................................................................. 50 Appendix 2 (B). Summary of Potential interventions for each Pillar of the Resilience Framework .......................................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix 4. Summary of Tools and Activities for Community Mobilization .............................. 62 Appendix 5. Tools and Approaches to Operationalize Resilience ................................................. 65 Appendix 6. Relationships and Coordination within the Disaster Management Sector ........ 67 Appendix 7: Implementing the Resilience Framework: Guiding principles ................................ 71 a) Comprehensive multi-stakeholder risk analysis .................................................................. 71 b) Integrated and holistic programming approaches ............................................................... 71 c) Long-term commitment .......................................................................................................... 72 d) Strengthening social capital and social protection ............................................................... 72 e) Systems approach.................................................................................................................... 73 f) Iterative and flexible process that allows for real-time changes in programming ............ 74 g) Build national and local capacity ........................................................................................... 74 h) Multi-track approach that combines humanitarian and development interventions ....... 74 i) Anchored in national and local actors’ realities and contexts ............................................ 75 j) Build strategic partnerships and dynamic relationships that are transformative ............ 75 Appendix 8: Strategic Areas of Intervention .................................................................................... 76 8.1 Build Stability through Preparedness, Response and Resource Mobilization .......... 76 8.2 Building Resilient Livelihood, Access to Basic Services and Social Safety Nets........ 77 8.3 Transformative Capacity: Good Governance and Transformative Leadership ....... 78 8.4 Research, Innovation and Knowledge Management ................................................... 78 List of Acronyms CAG Community Action Group CBO Community Based Organization CCA Climate Change Adaptation CCE Community Capacity Enhancement CCM Country Coordinating Mechanism CEDAMA Committee for Environmental Data Management CGP Child Grand Program CHEMAC Chemicals Management Committee COWMAN Committee on Waste Management CPWA Children’s Protection and Welfare Act CRS Catholic Relief Services CSI Coping Strategies Index CVA Chronically Vulnerable Areas CVA Citizen Voice and Action CY Comparative Economic Analysis of the Year DDMT District Disaster Management Team DEWA Division of Early Warning Assessment DFID Department of International Development - UK DMA Disaster Management Authority DPCF Development Partners Consultative Forum DRR Disaster Risk Reduction ECC Environmental Coordinating Committee EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESI Environmental Sustainability Index FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GIS Geographic Information System GoL Government of Lesotho GRAVITY Global Risk and Vulnerability Trend per Year GRID Disaster Risk Index Development HFA Hyogo Framework for Action ICA Integrated Context Analysis INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IPC Integrated Phase Classification LMS Lesotho Meteorological Services LNGO Local Non-Governmental Organization LVAC Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security MDG Millennium Development Goals MLGC Ministry of Local Government and Chieftainship MLP Multi-sectoral and Livelihood Programing MOH Ministry of Health MOSD Ministry of Social Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NISSA National Information System for Social Assistance NOCC National OVC Coordinating Committee NRSF National Resilience Strategic Framework NSDP National Strategic Development Plan OCI Organizational Capacities Index OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children PIC project Implementation Committee PMT Program Management Team PPP Purchasing Power Parity PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RIASCO Regional Inter-Agency Standing Committee RSDA Rural Self-Help Development Association SACU Southern African Customs Union SDG Sustainable Development Goals SES Social-Ecological Systems SWAp Health Sector-wide Approach SWRIS Social Welfare Routine Information Systems TOC Theory of Change UN United Nations UNCT United Nations Country Team UNDAF United National Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Program UNDRMT United Nations Disaster Management Team UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNICEF United Nations Children Fund UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction USAID United States Agency for International Development VDMT Village Disaster Management Team VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association WFP World Food Program WHO World Health Organization Executive summary The Government of Lesotho recognises the importance of resilient livelihoods as a crucial first line of defence against disasters and stressors as well as a necessary condition for sustainable development. Furthermore, the Government realizes that there is need to mainstream disaster risk reduction and/ or resilience in order for Lesotho to achieve sustainable development goals, in particular, sustainable goals 1 and 2. For this to happen, the Government has developed the National Resilience Strategic Framework (NRSF) to enable it to guide, coordinate and lead the process of resilience building in the country to ensure that Basotho find a durable solution to address the multi- faceted challenges posed by climate induced shocks and stresses. The framework is supported and complements national plans, policies and legislations related to resilience building, both nationally, regionally and globally. It also provides a platform for harmonization of all resilience strategies/programs. Hazards that affect the country are snowfall, hailstorms, strong winds, localized floods, and early frost. The intensity and frequency of these shocks render people and their livelihoods highly vulnerable as people are forced to deplete their productive assets and/or divert them from other livelihood strategies to acquire food, thereby compromising their capacity to recover from the shocks and maintain their livelihoods. This has resulted in Lesotho experiencing maintained high levels of vulnerability which have compromised food security situation of a majority of the population, especially the rural poor and very poor over the years. The triggers among others have been natural hazards with drought being the main contributor followed by heavy rains and extreme weather variability. The level of vulnerability is exacerbated by underlying risk factors which include, but not limited to poverty. Furthermore, World Bank estimates suggest that 56.3 percent of the population in 2016 was still trapped in extreme poverty with head county poverty rate ($1.9 per day purchasing power parity. In addition, the slow poverty reduction regime is accompanied by high inequality (0.54 Gini coefficient). Environmental degradation due to soil erosion and poor land management practices is exacerbating poor agricultural production. HIV and AIDS at 23 percent and unemployment which is estimated at 24-28 percent. The country’s response to vulnerability has been preparation of unpredictable and often under resourced appeals for humanitarian assistance. Strategies engaged included mainly food distribution and subsidies on Agricultural inputs for periods not exceeding a year. These strategies have mainly been geared towards saving lives without addressing and or restoring the livelihoods of the affected people. In addition, the response strategies themselves are not appropriately developed to fully address the needs of acute and chronic vulnerabilities. A series of home-grown initiatives have generally been highly fragmented. Absence or inadequate integrated planning for the initiatives has resulted in very weak linkages between different activities, institutions and entities which in turn has very little or no potential to have a positive impact. Targeting of beneficiaries for different response assistance has also been haphazard and the assistance has not been able to bring about the desired change/ improvement in the livelihoods of beneficiaries. Resilience in the context of Lesotho is defined as follows: “The capacity of individuals, households, communities and systems to continuously prepare, withstand, rebuild their assets, adapt, recover and restore essential basic structures and functions from the effects of shocks, stressors and hazards, in a timely manner using viable locally available mechanisms that protect and sustain livelihoods in the short and long term”. In addition, three core elements of resilience were identified as knowledge, capacity and ability to withstand shocks. The overall objective of the resilience framework is to build a resilient and prosperous nation that is able to protect its development gains and aspirations against shocks and stressors and its sub-objectives are the following: a) To detect in advance and take early action to prevent and mitigate the potential negative impact of shocks and stresses through an effective and efficient early warning system; b) To help individuals, households, communities and societies affected by shocks and stresses to recover faster and to rebuild their lives in ways that reduce their vulnerability; c) To help communities to absorb and adapt better to the economic and social strain; d) To transform the underlying structural issues that have the potential to precipitate crisis. In order to achieve the objectives, the NRSF seeks to harmonize resilience building efforts with Lesotho’s vision 2020 and National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) by creating resilience core operating principles that will guide its operationalization and ensure that development and humanitarian actors operate under a common set of resilience operating principles and create synergies based on their individual competitive advantages as follows: a) Comprehensive multi-stakeholder risk analysis; b) Integrated and holistic programming approaches; c) Strengthening social capital and social protection; d) Systems approach; e) Iterative and flexible process that allows for real-time changes in programming; f) Build national and local capacity; g) Multi-track approach that combines humanitarian and development interventions; h) Anchored in national and local actors’ realities and contexts; i) Build strategic partnerships and dynamic relationships that are transformative. The NRSF addresses issues of targeting and recommends targeting methods that should be used to ensure that assistance concept of targeting assistance or services provided equitably and impartially reach the intended beneficiaries based on vulnerability and needs and minimizing inclusion, exclusion errors and leakages or dilution areas. Targeting methodologies in resilience programming described include area based targeting, institutional level targeting and community level targeting. The Framework discusses a resilience conceptual framework that helps users understand how households and communities respond to shocks and stressors and how these in turn affect livelihood outcomes and household well-being and helps in identification of the key leverage points to be used in developing a theory of change, which in turn informs programing designed to enhance resilience. The framework presented in Fig. 5 integrates a livelihoods approach, a disaster risk reduction (DRR) approach, and elements of a climate change approach to address the underlying causes of vulnerability. The conceptual framework helps users understand whether households, communities, and higher-level systems are on a trajectory toward greater vulnerability or greater resilience. The framework unpacks the impacts of stresses and shocks on communities into two pathways, one of resilience and another one of vulnerability depending on their level of capacities as well as underlying societal context. The framework identifies four key elements of capacity required to build resilience: preparedness /preventive; absorptive; adaptive and transformational capacities, required at four levels: individual, household, institutional, community or societal. The Lesotho NSRF is constructed around 11 resilience pillars placed under the four capacity areas required to build resilience. The pillars are disaster and climate risk management, capacity development, social protection, access to basic services, sustainable livelihoods, sustainable management of natural resources, and access to economic/financial services, Governance for resilience, mainstreaming resilience, research, innovation and development. Proposed intervention areas that can contribute to strengthening a particular capacity area have also been identified. The framework includes tools and approaches that are needed to operationalize it to reach the desired outcomes and these are divided into six categories including assessments to inform resilience programming, targeting, planning of resilience programs and minimum packages, capacity development, measuring resilience and information sharing and learning. Key areas, recommended approaches, potential tools levels of application are also described in this framework. The NSRF concludes by identifying governance structures that are necessary for its successful implementation. The structures described include the Government, Non- Governmental Organizations and United Nations Agencies, from the national to the local level. Responsibilities of the structures have also been indicated. The Framework also emphasises the importance of the government leadership and ownership of the framework for it to be successful. Introduction a) Background and Rationale Globally human development efforts are seeking to address the issues of vulnerability1 and mainstreaming the concepts of building resilience2. However, different conceptual perspectives exist and vary both globally as well as locally. Communities who suffer due to various vulnerabilities have a very different outlook when it comes to the concept of resilience. Despite the different definitions and outlooks, the nature of suffering and deprivation of communities come across few major phenomena. Prevalence of income inequality, loss of assets, degradation and /or depletion of natural resources, insufficient and /or lack of social protection schemes, ineffective institutional systems and food insecurity among the members of the community during and after disaster, and climate change become more common and make communities more vulnerable. Thus, a vulnerable community tends to show certain symptoms that go against quality of life and economic growth of its fellow members. Therefore, to strengthen their conditions and to allow them a chance of better growth, certain pathways need to be taken up followed by a series of actions that are performed timeously and systematically. b) The National Context The National Framework Strategic document takes a comprehensive is in nature comprehensive and cross-sectoral and is informed by inputs from governmental and non- governmental stakeholders and development partners with experience in the implementation of sectoral mandates and activities and strategic interventions in the national economy. The current resilience strategy framework (2017–2030) seeks to take a long term vision to address the issues of vulnerability based on the aspirations of various national strategy documents like the Vision 2020, Poverty Reduction Strategy and the National Strategic Development Plan. Notably, global and regional organizations have already proposed and are working with resilience frameworks to address the issue of vulnerability. Locally, we are seeking to traverse the transition from the HYOGO (2005-2015) to the SENDAI Framework:2015-2030. 1 The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or a asset that makes it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. - HFA 2 The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions. -UNISDR The Sendai Framework is the successor instrument to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. The proposed framework strategy is the outcome of nationwide stakeholder consultations initiated in April 2016driven by collaborative efforts of different national sectoral players and development partners of Lesotho. The aforementioned international frameworks remain as a reference point, but they need local contextualization. To date, the people of Lesotho remain vulnerable to a variety of economic and natural hazards3 and suffer from aftermaths of disastrous calamities periodically. The after effects of disasters, hazardous setbacks and associated incidents not only disturb the rhythm of livelihood activities of the affected households and communities, but also throw them into spirals of uncertainty when it comes to meeting major livelihood requirements. This calls for the need of securing lives of those who are vulnerable and reintegrating them into a healthier, productive and improved livelihood. A variety of initiatives has been taken in Lesotho by government agencies, relevant stakeholder organizations such as local and International NGOs and international development partners. For the actors who are working with resilience, working from as a single platform gives affords partners and stakeholders certain strengths and advantages. Therefore, this national framework challenges each sectoral player to reflect on how resilience is institutionalized in the contemporary terms of their institutional mandates. This way, the framework will not be a foreign document imposing extra mural requirements but rather a unifying framework where the question of building resilience is a part of their institutional activities and reporting frameworks. Thus, to synchronize approaches across agencies, mobilize resources more efficiently, make coordinated efforts and exert influence over the government, development partners and other stakeholders, this comprehensive resilience strategy framework is imperative. Lesotho like many other developing countries is prone to natural disasters, susceptible to drought and desertification making it highly vulnerable to climate change. Model scenarios project a warming increase and decreasing precipitation in the short term (2011 to 2040), 3 Hazard is defined in the Hyogo Framework for Action as: “A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation. Hazards can include latent conditions that may represent future threats and can have different origins: natural (geological, hydro meteorological and biological) or induced by human processes (environmental degradation and technological hazards). medium term (2041 to 2070) and long term (2071 to 2100) under two different development scenarios. The model projections indicate lower precipitation, recurring droughts and increasing temperature trends (LMS-Personal Communications)4. The other hazards that affect Lesotho are snowfall, hailstorms, strong winds, localized floods, and early frost colluding to render the people and their livelihoods most vulnerable. Lesotho’s vulnerability to hazards is compounded by a number of factors, including high levels of poverty particularly in rural areas, poor infrastructure services especially in rural areas which make provision of and access to social services difficult especially during disaster situations (World Bank, 2017)5. The World Bank bleak is compounded by deeply entrenched poverty in rural areas where, despite increasing migration trends to urban areas induced by high levels of unemployment in rural communities, about 70 per cent of the people live. The spate of poverty in Lesotho is closely linked to lack of income and unemployment, as well as to severe degradation of the natural resource base on which the livelihoods of many rural poor depend to a varying extent. These trends create the economic vulnerability across the nation as most of the country’s mainly rural population relies to varying extents on subsistence agriculture which is on the decline and unsustainable livestock exploitation. In addition, the downward spiral in migrant remittances following the down turn of the mining sector in South Africa has had a detrimental effect on the incomes and livelihoods of the rural poor in Lesotho. The impact of the downturn was exacerbated by lack of or poor investment strategies of the income into income-generating projects or businesses. Revenues from the clothing and textile sector have also been declining during the recent period and are at risk into the future due to the dependence of the sector on international preferential export agreements which are themselves subject to the vagaries of political change. The financial crisis also affected gravely the urban poor due to the peak in food prices and their dependency on food purchase. Thus global and regional economic and political changes can have huge impacts on the Lesotho economy and on growth, incomes and employment. In the context of the foregoing, the actors that influence and control the greater socioeconomic systems when it comes to working with resilience are described briefly. 4 Source: Unpublished Climate Change Scenario Analysis for Lesotho. Unpublished Work in Progress for the Third National Communication to the UNFCCC. 2017 5 World Bank. 2017. Macro Poverty Outlook for Lesotho. Macro Poverty Outlook. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worlbank.org/curated/en/151561490989301196/Macro-poverty-outlook-for- Lesotho. i) Government of Lesotho Participation Government of Lesotho (GoL) has recognized climate change and disaster risk as the major setbacks for achieving the national target of eliminating poverty and growth towards a middle income status. To build national resilience, the GoL is developing a climate change policy to inform Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan and has put in place a National Disaster Management Plan, Disaster Management Act, National Strategic Development Plan among key planning documents. ii) Technological Platforms There are certain technological platforms that can be utilized to leverage emergency information or livelihood information. Such platforms include advanced geographical information service at DMA, weather alerts issued by Lesotho Meteorological Service and publicized by multi-media alerts by public or private actors and the media fraternity through print, television. iii) Increased Involvement of NGOS towards building resilience Many related initiatives have also been implemented at the individual agency level. Local and international NGOs are found who have certain capacity to address emergency response for various hazards although urban resiliency management is very poor even at state level. iv) Community Organizations Small community organizations such as farmers association can play major role in adaptive livelihood practices while religious associations can make a difference in both urban rural areas. v) Knowledge and Research Platforms There is an urgent need to establish action based research on climate change and disaster risk management issues as well as deliver capacity building activities at various levels including government. Supported by academia such platforms can play a strong role being an advocate for needed change. vi) Social Platforms Local churches, schools and teacher associations can serve as information hubs for rural communities. Local schools have always been an important facility during disaster especially in remote rural areas in the mountains. Therefore such school management entities always play an important role in educating regarding simple safety issues for children such as drink safe water and WASH practices. c) Vulnerability to Disaster and Climate Change In the recent past, Lesotho has experienced sustained high levels of chronic food shortages. The Lesotho vulnerability assessments which are conducted annually by the Lesotho Vulnerability Committee (LVAC) under the DMA, have consistently concluded that a high number of people, especially those that fall within categories of the very poor and the poor, remain highly vulnerable even to the slightest shocks that occur in the country. Fig. 1 shows vulnerability trend over a period of ten years (2005/06-2015/16). Fig. 1. Vulnerability Trends in Lesotho: 2005 – 2016. Source: LVAC reports Environmental degradation and soil erosion make the country highly vulnerable to climate change shocks and stressors. Constraints in agricultural production include depleted soils, under-utilization of available water resources for irrigation, limited use of fertilizers, pesticides and hybrid seeds, weak extension systems, sub-standard marketing infrastructure, poor access to markets for small producers and insecure land tenure. According to the Crop forecast findings collected by the Bureau of Statistics on an annual basis area planted vary widely from year to year which is indicative of the vulnerability of the agricultural food production and agriculture based livelihoods to climate change. For example, area planted to maize for 2013/2014 increased by 27.2 percent compared to 2012/2013 Agricultural Year and area planted to wheat increased by 26.9 percent while area planted to sorghum on the other hand decreased by 2.2 percent. Maize cereal yield per hectare for the 2013/2014 Agricultural Year was estimated at 0.59 metric tonnes (Mt) per hectare showing a decrease of 28.0 percent when compared to 2012/2013 Agricultural Year. Wheat was estimated at 0.88 Mt per ha, showing a decrease of 26.1 percent, while sorghum was estimated at 0.21 Mt per ha showing a decrease of 76.4 percent. The country balance sheet shows a domestic requirement of 350,948 Mt yet the domestic availability is only about half (164,534 Mt). This leaves a domestic deficit or shortfall of 186,414 Mt of all cereal. The areas planted in 2015/16 cropping season were decreased significantly by a major drought incidence. Standard indices that are used to measure nutrition status of children aged 6-59 months indicate very high levels of chronic malnutrition compared to an acceptable level of less than 20 percent on the World Health Organization (WHO) child growth Standard while acute malnutrition is less than the WHO acceptable level of five (5) percent.Since the early 1990s, the prevalence of stunting ranked above the public health problem threshold (30%) set by WHO. Stunting prevalence was close to this threshold in 2002 (30.7 percent) but improved in the years thereafter. According to 2014 statistics, the rate of stunting stood at 33.2 percent. Wasting, on the other hand, was not a problem in Lesotho as it stood below the threshold rate of five (5) percent according to WHO Growth standard. Fig. 2. Malnutrition Trends in Lesotho: 1992 – 2014 .Source: ********************* d) Complexity of Community Level Systems: The Rural vs Urban Divide In Lesotho both urban and rural communities get affected with hazards or shocks. While urban communities are more structured, rural communities tend to have much poorer infrastructure (roads, power, basic facilities etc). There are livelihood zones and agro- ecological zones with geo specific differences such that even rural communities also differ in types. The lowlands and Senqu River valley areas are different from foothills and mountain areas. Nevertheless access to public and private services and inadequacy of facilities affects their livelihoods during disasters. It is important to note that even if facilities exist, the poor, women, the elderly people, persons with disability and children may not be able to receive assistance equivocally. Structural Barriers of society that are often biased, do not serve the socially excluded during crisis. Within both urban and rural communities target audiences differ, but usually encompass the primary beneficiaries as adult (male & female), the elderly people, children inclusive of socially excluded groups like herders. On the other hand, NGOs, school management committees, GoL agencies research institutes and civil society come as the secondary beneficiary. Rural and urban communities need different plan of actions; therefore the secondary beneficiary groups also need to be selected carefully. So far urban resilience is less mainstreamed- for example authorities do not know what should be the effective plan of actions in case of an earthquake. e) Scope and Limitation of the Strategy The scope of this resilience framework strategy is embedded within the workable areas and strategic objectives of the different sectoral players of the Lesotho economy and development partners. However, the outputs needs to leverage on national or district level institutions to impact higher and wider scale. Additionally, the framework is kept flexible enough to take up further areas as needed to reach its super goal of national resilience. Unanticipated change might affect the greater socioeconomic subsystems in due time, in that case the scope of the strategy may have to be revised for adjustments if needed. Current framework is thus developed with current research and international best practices and concepts. This framework, therefore, contains the objectives and global definition which take into consideration the Southern African Resilience Conceptual Framework as well as the components of resilience, Evolution of resilience and legal frameworks that support resilience in Lesotho, Lesotho’s resilience working definition, priority pillars for resilience and recommendations for moving the resilience agenda forward. f) The National Resilience Agenda The Lesotho National Resilience Framework was borne out of a quest for a durable solution to address the multi-faceted challenges posed by climate induced shocks and stressors. There has been series of home-grown initiatives that took place prior to the development of a government led and driven resilience agenda in a coordinated manner. Some of the key initiatives include the followings: i) RIASCO Regional Resilience Framework; ii) The development of UN Resilience Framework, 2014; iii) Resilience consensus building meeting, 3-4 August 2015; iv) Social protection strategy and the community model developed by Ministry of Social Development; v) The High Government Delegation Mission to Ethiopia led by WFP; vi) Deployment of the Recovery and Resilience Expert (18-30 April 2016); vii) Consultation with DMA and HCT, April 2016; viii) The Meeting with Minister and Permanent Secretary (Cabinet), 25 April 2016; ix) Technical consultative meeting for the development of National Resilience Strategic Framework, Mpilo Boutique, 27 April 2016; and x) International and regional resilience frameworks and initiatives including: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030), The Paris Declaration, The Sustainable Development Goals (New York), Agenda 2063, The African Chapter, Yaoundé, Cameroon and xi) The 2015/16 El Nino Induced drought emergencies. The goal of the framework is to build a resilient and prosperous nation that is able to protect its development gains and aspirations against shocks and stresses. The specific objectives are: a) To detect in advance and take early action to prevent and mitigate the potential negative impact of shocks and stresses through an effective and efficient early warning system b) To help individuals, households and communities affected by shocks and stresses to recover faster and to rebuild their lives in ways that reduce their vulnerability c) To help communities to absorb and adapt better to the economic and social strain d) To transform the underlying structural issues that has the potential to precipitate crisis The framework document is structured into two main parts. In section 1 of the framework, we seek to provide an analytical and conceptual context of resilience to facilitate a common understanding of the issues of vulnerability and resilience and an institutional context for mainstreaming resilience. In Section 2, we seek to outline an implementation strategy in the context of Lesotho with a view to elaborate how the different stakeholders in both government and non-governmental sectors will play their role in the implementation of the resilience framework within their respective sectoral landscapes. We acknowledge that institutionalizing resilience is a costly intervention that requires strategic reflection and coordinated mobilization of funds. However, this critical component is not in the scope of this framework but will be treated as a third component facilitating the implementation of the framework in a separate document to be annexed to this framework.

Section 1.0: Analytical and Conceptual Aspects of the Framework 1.1 Understanding the concept of Resilience The concept of resilience6 has evolved over the decades. There is an inherent human imperative of striving for resilient socio-ecological systems to gain sustainable development, to create and maintain prosperous social, economic, and ecological systems (Folke et al. 2002)7. Resilience (Carpenter et al.,2001)8, is founded on three critical aspects: 1. The amount of disturbance a system can absorb and still remain within the same state or domain of attraction; 2. The degree to which the system is capable of self-organization; and 3. The ability to build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation. For Lesotho, this foundation does not necessarily presume disaster situations but instead presupposes that all national economic sectors will at one point experience perturbations be they economic, social, political and /or climatic in nature. The institutionalization of resilience thus presupposes that all sectors deliberately budget for and implement measures that would help them absorb external shocks, be capable of renewal or self-organization in the aftermath of such disturbances and learn from experience to adapt to new emerging sectoral situations. All of these must take place in the context of routine activities and institutional mandates. The forgoing is consistent with definitions of resilience others. For example, whereas DFID defined resilience in the context of disaster, UNDP defines building resilience as a transformative process of strengthening the capacity of men, women communities, institutions, and countries to anticipate, prevent, recover from, and transform in the aftermath of shocks, stresses, and change (UNDP, 2015).The RIASCO framework, on the other hand, borrowed its definition from UNISDR terminologies of 2009 which defines resilience as: 6 IPCC-The ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner. DFID 2011:6- Disaster resilience is the ability of countries, communities, and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses – suchas earthquakes, drought or violent conflict –without compromising their long term prospects. 7 Folke C, S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, B. Walker B. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio. 31(5):437-40. 8 Carpenter S., B. Walker, J. M, Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems 4: 765–781 “The capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards and stressors to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase its capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk-reduction measures.” Nevertheless, humanity and ecosystems are intricately interlinked hence to frame a resilience framework, one must first rethink the governance issues (Datta and Mahjabeen, 2016). The resilience perspective shifts policies from those that aspire to control change in systems assumed to be stable, to manage the capacity of social–ecological systems to cope with, adapt to, and shape change (Berkes et al., 20039, Smit and Wandel, 200610).Arguably managing for resilience enhances the likelihood of sustaining desirable pathways for development, particularly in changing environments where the future is unpredictable and surprise is likely (Walker et al., 200411; Adger et al., 200512). The theoretical foundations behind resilience thinking must address the dynamics and development of complex social–ecological systems (Folke et al., 2010)13. In this theoretical framework, three capacities are critical to a resilient system: i) intrinsic national and community stability or absorptive/coping or persistence is a good strong first line of defence against events. It is a measure of how far households or communities can cope with the changes during the disaster; ii) Flexibility/ Incremental adjustment or Adaptive Capacity - the ability of households or communities to adjust to changes, moderate potential damage or to take advantage of opportunities without major changes in function or structural identity. In the context of our community in Lesotho, these might include adopting new farming techniques, changes in farming practices; and iii) 9 Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 9Smit B. and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16:282–292. 11 Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5-14. 12 Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit and K. Takahashi. 2007. Assessment ofadaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 717-743. 13 Folke C., S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, andJ. Rockström. 2010. Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability andTransformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 20-29. Transformative Capacity such as the ability to change substantially in the face of major and prolonged disturbances. For Lesotho this challenges our inherent structural ability to improve infrastructure, support social protection mechanisms, provide basic social services or develop institutional capacity across the sectoral role players. Globally, resilience is recognized as a concept which has the transformative potential to deal with recurrent humanitarian crises and as a key driver to sustainable development. However, for a variety of reasons, resilience is still an elusive concept in the development discourse in spite of its increasingly common usage and importance: a) Resilience has established meanings and uses in various scientific disciplines – for instance, in the fields of psychology and ecology; b) Within the development discourse, various thematic applications of resilience (e.g. “disaster resilience”, “climate resilience”, “social-ecological resilience”) have quickly proliferated; c) Given the widely acknowledged financial unsustainability of the humanitarian response model, increasingly development partners have been promoting resilience building to connect policy narratives and to promote a coordinated response to link humanitarian and development challenges. Despite proliferation of concepts and emerging scepticism about their practical utility among development practitioners, what is important to highlight is that all these different uses of resilience points to a key problem. The Lesotho National Resilience Strategic Framework (NRSF) frames the use of resilience as a driver for its core aim of helping vulnerable communities to eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities and exclusion. The interaction between poverty and inequality is particularly pronounced in Lesotho, which, despite its success in many development fronts over the last few decades, is also the country that has seen the biggest increase in inequality (World Bank 2017). However, from the operational perspective, resilience building has significant divergences from the sustainable development model. The central concern of sustainable development is “how to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Similarly, resilience also focuses on addressing issues of long-term sustainability, capacity building, and tackling the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of a development issue in a comprehensive and integrated manner. For Lesotho, this underscores the need for all sectors to internalize this concept and institutionalize it in the context of their development routines. The resilience-oriented approach to sustainable development also requires us to understand why our households and communities in Lesotho break down under the impact of certain shocks, while in other nations systems merely bend. In the light of this understanding, we need to seek to help build up the intrinsic capacities that exists within people, their communities, and their institutions to avoid such breakdowns in the future. These requires sectors to take a risk-sensitive lens in their work instead of only using it in crisis response situations as is the currently. Instead, we must apply this lens to our on-going efforts to tackle the interconnected social, economic, environmental issues that keep people mired in poverty. During the national resilience consensus building meeting (3-4 August 2015), the stakeholders adopted the following parameters of resilience in the context of Lesotho: “The capacity of individuals, households, communities and systems to continuously prepare, withstand, rebuild their assets, adapt, recover and restore essential basic structures and functions from the effects of shocks, stressors and hazards, in a timely manner using viable locally available mechanisms that protect and sustain livelihoods in the short and long term (Consensus building meeting, 2015)”. Furthermore, during the technical consultative meeting (27 April 2016), the stakeholders sought to frame resilience in Sesotho and reached consensus on “Boitšematlelo”. Perhaps a more appropriate word in this context is “Ho tsoha ‘moi”. In addition, the group defined three core elements of resilience as: Knowledge (Kutloisiso/tsebo); capacity (bokhoni) and ability to withstand shocks (Boikemelo). Despite differences in formulation, many other definitions of resilience, suggest the core elements of a common framework for operationalizing resilience. They zero in on four key elements of capacity required to build resilience: preparedness; absorptive; adaptive and transformational capacities and suggest that these capacities are required at four levels: individual, household, institutional, community or societal. An example of preparedness capacity might be drought or flood related early warning systems (community or societal/state levels).Examples of absorptive capacities might include a group of wage labourers who form a savings group in order to build up the money to start up their first small enterprise. Furthermore adaptive capacities might include changes in agricultural practices and diversification of livelihoods while transformational capacities might include the ability of the government to implement a national policy decision – for example, the decision to mainstream risk reduction into national development planning. It might also be the decision that a family takes to send their boy child to school instead of keeping him home to look after cattle and sheep. 1.2 Conceptual Framework for Resilience 1.2.1 Resilience Capacities a) National Scale Indicators In most cases vulnerability indicators are assessed at household, community and national /district levels. One form of vulnerability assessment is the analysis of food security developed from the perspective of addressing famine mitigation and usually assessed at the household level. However, amore comprehensive assessment of human and environmental vulnerability is the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)which measures relative success for five components: 1. Environmental systems; 2. Reducing stressors; 3. Reducing human vulnerability; 4. Social and institutional capacity; and 5. Global stewardship. Table 1 outlines a range of socioeconomic indices and indicators. Table 1. Socio-economic Indices and General Indicators Socioeconomic Indexes General Indicators Food security/nutrition index Cereals production pe rcapita Animal protein consumption per capita Health Index Life expectancy Asset Index Dependency ratio Social capital index Literacy Eco-system Health Index Flood prone population Population without access to clean water and sanitation Economic Poverty Index Population density Per Capita Income Environment Sustainability Index SO2 emissions per area Land unmanaged b) Indicators to Measure Community Resilience In Lesotho, the greatest intensity of activities must necessarily be geared towards communities residing in rural and peri-urban areas exposed to variant levels of vulnerabilities. Thus the resilience framework must prioritize indicators which can gauge community level changes but if required should also be capable of looking at changes in household levels. Communities are unique and have their own local needs, experiences, resources and ideas regarding the prevention, protection, and response and recovery mechanism from different types of disturbances especially if we stratify them along the rural to urban axis. The baseline well-being and basic conditions measures that reflects the initial vulnerability of the communities usually include food security, health/nutrition, assets, social capital, access to services, infrastructure, ecological/ecosystem services, psychosocial measures and poverty measures (Constas and Barrett, 2013)14. These can be single indicators or composite indices that represent some level or state of wellbeing/condition. Some are collective action measures e.g. to be resilient, communities must be able to perform collective action in at least five dimensions, of disaster risk reduction, conflict management, social protection, natural resource management; and management of public goods. 1.2.2 A Strategic Resilience Framework for Lesotho Building resilience of individuals, households, communities or higher-level systems to deal with disturbance requires an integrated approach that involves a long-term commitment to improving three critical capacities: absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and transformative capacity. Communities draw on their assets and capitals such as physical, human, financial, social etc. to build such capacities. A resilience approach can bridge the gap between humanitarian aid and development activities but must also provide guidance on resilience programming that is different from sector specific approaches (Mitchell 2013)15.Thus, resilience is not the primary program objective (the what) but rather defines how programming for achieving the primary objective is implemented. This view is consistent with the resilience framework envisioned for Lesotho in that the success of the intervention is measured not by resilience per se but by attainment of certain positive livelihood outcomes e.g. food and nutrition security. It also underscores another shift in resilience thinking: that 14 Constas M. and C. Barrett. 2013. Principles of resilience measurement for food insecurity: metrics, mechanisms, and implementation plans. Expert Consultation on Resilience Measurement Related to Food Security. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization and World Food Program. 15 Mitchell, A. 2013. Risk and Resilience: From Good Idea to Good Practice—A Scoping Study for the Experts Group on Risk and Resilience. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. www.oecd.org/dac/governance-development/FINAL%20WP%2013%20Resilience%20and%20Risk.pdf. measuring improved resilience capacity is best done with multiple types of indicators, including those that measure the shock(s) and stresses that occur, rather than with single outcome indexes (Frakenberger et al., 2014). Many resilience indexes are not defined for different types of shocks and stresses. However, resilience is a “normatively indexed capacity” i.e. it can be measured as a capacity that enables households and communities to maintain a minimum threshold condition when exposed to shocks and stressors (Constas et al., 2014)16. Lesotho is exposed to various shocks and stressors (disturbance) that include drought, floods, strong wind, heavy snowfall and disease, HIV & AIDs in particular and pest epidemics (Fig. 3) which have the potential to affect the various layers of society – individual, household or community. ` Adopting a resilience framework will enhance our understanding of how shocks and stresses affect livelihood outcomes and household wellbeing. In addition, it will also help identify the key leverage points to be used in developing a theory of change, which in turn informs programing designed to enhance resilience (Frakenberger et al., 2014). Furthermore, such a framework for resilience assessment can help us determine whether households, communities, and higher-level systems (national or district) are on a trajectory towards greater vulnerability or resilience (DFID 201117; Frankenberger et al., 201218). The conceptual National Resilience Strategic Framework proposed here (Fig. 4) integrates three approaches underlying vulnerability: i) The livelihood approach which emphasizes the importance of access to productive assets, institutional structures and processes, and the livelihood strategies pursued by households; ii) The DRR approach which focuses on preparedness, prevention, response and recovery activities formulated in response to potential shocks and stressors; and iii) The climate change adaptation (CCA) approach which is similar to that of DRR, but focuses specifically on actions to be taken in response to, and preparation for on-going changes in climate (Frakenberger et al., 2014)19. The CCA approach further goes beyond the DRR approach in giving careful consideration to potential threats caused by 16 Constas, M., T. Frankenberger, and J. Hoddinott. 2014. Resilience Measurement Principles: Toward an Agenda for Measurement Design. Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group Technical Series 1. Rome: Food Security Information Network. 17 UK Department of International Development. 2011. Defining disaster resilience: A DIFID Approach Paper. London. 18 Frakenberger T., M. Langworthy, T. Spangler and S. Nelson. 2012. Enhancing Resilience to Food Security Shocks. Unpublished Draft White Paper, FAO and WFP. Rome. www.fsnnetworg.org/sites/default/files /revised_resilience_paper_28.pdf. 19 Frakenberger T.R., M.A. Constas, S. Nelson and L. Starr. 2014. Resilience Programming among NGOs. Food Security Report. IFPRI. the loss of biodiversity and a decrease in ecosystem services. In addition, it is critical to integrate into the analysis the potential impact of economic shocks e.g. food price increases and adverse changes in terms of trade balances regionally and internationally. Fig. 3. Flow Diagram of Proposed Common Indicators. Adapted from Bangladesh Resilience Framework. Shocks & Stressors Strategic Areas Potential Common Indicators Creating Vulnerability Drought  Improved early warning  Drought Build stability through  Messages received  Heavy rains /Floods preparedness and resource  Increased emergency services  Heavy snowfall mobilization  Improved response planning  Strong wind  Improved Management of  HIV &Heavy AIDs Snow Greater Environment social capital Inc  Improved services by local authorities & volunteers  Alternative on- and off-farm income Improve adaptive Increased prices of basic capacity by building  Formal safety nets (Food /cash  for work) commodities resilient livelihood & access to basic  Informal safety nets (group services along with savings) social safety nets  Increased participation into  Illness /death community planning by women,  Loss of income youth, the elderly &persons with  Crop failure disabilities Develop transformative  Increased access and collection  Loss of assets capacity through of entitlements  Disease /pest encouraging good  Increased participation of those epidemics in animals governance and & crops excludedin policy dialogue and transformative planning leadership  Animal /Crop pests   Context: Disturbance: e.g. Social, Capacities: absorptive, Adaptive Reaction pathways drought, Floods, adaptive todisturbance: survive, Livelihood ecosystem, price hikes, state political cropfailure &transformative toshock cope, recover, learn, Outcomes transform Food & Nutrition Security Resilience Environmental Security Level of aggregation Structure /processes Livelihood strategies Shocks Exposure Livelihood Sesnsitivity Context Food Insecurity Malnutrition Stressors Vulnerability Environmental DegradationDegradatio n Fig. 4. Proposed Resilience Framework for Lesotho. Adapted from Frakenberger et al. 2014. 1.2.3 Goals and Aspirations of the Resilience Framework The resilience conceptual framework seeks to achieve three major goals. First it helps users understand how households and communities respond to shocks and stressors, how these affect livelihood outcomes and household well-being, and helps in identification of the key leverage points to be used in developing a theory of change, which in turn informs programing designed to enhance resilience. Secondly, it enables policy makers and practitioners to have a comprehensive understanding of the factors and processes influencing vulnerability and resilience at the household, community and higher-level systems. Thirdly, it helps identify contextual factors, gaps in key livelihood assets, the functioning of structures and processes of key institutions (i.e., longer-term development approaches), and the livelihood strategies of vulnerable households. Ultimately, the conceptual framework helps users understand whether households, communities, and higher-level systems are on a trajectory toward greater vulnerability or greater resilience. The Hyogo and Sendai Frameworks provide overall key components and they have been a guiding instrument in the development of the strategic framework. In Lesotho, we have emphasized six areas as part of the resilience framework component: preparedness and adaptive capacity, disaster response mechanism, resource mobilisation by and for communities, institutions (laws and policy) and green resilient economy. The research, innovation and knowledge management aspects of the resilience framework strive to impact three key strategic areas: a) Building stability through preparedness response and resource mobilization; b) Improving adaptive strengths by building resilient livelihood and access to basic services and social safety net; and c) Developing transformative capacity through encouraging good governance and transformative leadership. These underscore strategic areas of intervention (Appendix 8). 1.2.4 National Strategic Resilience Programming Pillars and Principles a) Strategic Resilience Pillars The National resilience framework is constructed around 11 resilience program pillars placed under four capacity areas required to build resilience at household, community and institutional levels. Under each of the 11 resilience pillars, there are proposed intervention areas that can contribute to strengthening a particular capacity area where they have been placed and thereby building resilience (Fig. 5). The capacity areas and resilience pillars are mutually reinforcing. For instance while disaster and climate risk management pillar is classified under the preparedness/preventive capacity, it does not mean that all the interventions under this pillar cannot be applied to strengthen the other three capacity areas. In addition, the focus on the capacity areas merely ensures that the resilience framework takes a holistic approach to building resilience rather than focusing on just one or two components of resilience building. The detailed descriptions of the intervention areas proposed under the different pillars are presented in Appendix 2 (A). Eleven (11) priority pillars have been identified within the four capacity areas required to build resilience. The resilience programming framework identifies strategic program intervention areas that can be implemented under the resilience pillars. The intervention areas may cut across different pillars depending on the scope of the intervention and for each pillar, explain how the intervention area strengthen the particular capacity within which is placed and also explain the cross linkages with the three other capacity areas cutting across the different levels of aggregations – household to society. Appendix 2(B) gives an abridged summary of the activity matrix for each Pillar by Capacity level. Pillar 1: Disaster and Climate Risk Management Strengthening Preventive/Pre Pillar 2: Capacity Development paredness Capacity Strengthening Pillar 3: Social Protection Absorptive Pillar 5: Access to Basic Services Capacity Pillar 5: Sustainable Livelihoods Strengthening Pillar 6: Sustainable NR& E Management Pillar 7: Access to Economic / Financial Services Adaptive Capacity Pillar 8: Governance for Governance Strengthening Transformative Pillar 9: Mainstreaming resilience Capacity Pillar 10: Research, Innovation and Development Fig. 5. The 10 Pillars of the Resilience Framework. NB. NR&E – Natural Resources and Environment Management b) Resilience Principles The assertion that resilience represents an innovative approach to conceptualizing programatic strategies in development must be supported by a clearly articulated set of principles that describes analytical characteristics of resilience. The principles are important because they provide criteria with which to review activities. Building upon a common analytical model for resilience measurement, the following principles highlight the distinctiveness of the resilience concept (Constas et al., 2014): i) Focus on Shock Dynamics Resilience as a capacity is exercised, in connection with some disturbance, in both a preparatory and a responsive manner. The focus on shocks or disturbances includes large- scale disturbances (covariate shocks) such as catastrophic weather events (Heavy snowfall, heavy rains and flooding, extreme temperatures), pests epidemics (e.g. African Army Worm) that threaten crops, and disease (e.g. HIV & AIDs) epidemic, as well as more localized or individual events (idiosyncratic shocks). Thus more detailed knowledge of shocks and stressors should be incorporated into a resilience program. The opportunity to understand the way in which a unit, such as a household, community, or institution or a process e.g. market access by farmers’ groups, is able to respond to a shock requires a thorough analysis of the type of shock and the effects of the shock (both objective and subjective) including its temporal features. The timing of a given shock with respect to a critical event, such as planting, growing, harvesting, is as important as is the duration of the shock. ii) A multidimensional capacity Resilience is multidimensional and is a capacity that draws on an array of resources, including human, social, economic, physical and programatic (e.g. safety nets) and ecological. As a multidimensional capacity, resilience draws attention to the need to understand the optimal configuration of capacities for a given shock at different levels of aggregation, in a given context (Fig. 4) and for particular target populations. iii) Resilience functions Preparing for and responding to a particular type of disturbance or configuration of disturbances may require different types of capacities. Although absorptive capacity is occasionally excluded from the functions served by resilience, withstanding the effect of a shock is often the only option available, and the capacity to do so is essential for survival. iv) Outcome-indexed capacities Resilience should be indexed to a given well-being outcome, and the specific capacities drawn upon for resilience may vary depending on the outcome of interest. The outcome of interest would typically include, for example, some dimension of well-being such as basic health, food security, or poverty status. v) A multilevel and systems-based approach Resilience is observed at a given level e.g. household or community but is understood as a multilevel construct. Therefore interventions should be sensitive to nested dependencies between, for example, households and communities or communities and districts. Dependencies that involve higher-level features, such as macroeconomic policies implemented at the national level, may also be considered. 1.2.5 Tools and Approaches to Operationalize the Resilience Agenda The principles discussed above are well established in the theory of resilience (Gunderson et al., 2010)20 but they remain abstract and detached from the everyday practical work of practitioners. They can, however, be used to examine a selection of interventions. The extent to which a given intervention or program can be said to be using a resilience perspective to address the challenges of poverty, food security, health, or another well-being outcome can seemingly be judged in relation to these principles. There are common themes, principles, and approaches emerging from the initiatives to build resilience capacity promoted by various actors. a) Comprehensive Risk Analysis Designing interventions to address resilience requires good program design which in turn depends on a theory of change that correctly identifies appropriate leverage points needed to effect desired change, which in turn depends on a thorough multi-hazard, multi- sector assessment of all the contextual factors that affect the system(s) under study (Frakenburger et al., 2014). Analysis begins with a comprehensive understanding of the environmental, political, social, economic, historical, demographic and policy conditions that affect and /or are affected by how households, communities, and governments prevent, cope with, and recover from shocks and stressors. Thus a comprehensive assessment is necessary to fully 20 Gunderson, L. H., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 2010. Foundations of Ecological Resilience. Washington, DC: Island Press. understand the constantly changing relationship between risk and vulnerability on the one hand and livelihood outcomes and resilience on the other (Fig. 6). The best practice is to begin program design with a holistic assessment of risk and vulnerability but other actors carry out comprehensive, contextually specific risk and vulnerability analysis at many levels of society(Frakenberger et al., 2014).Hypotheses about the most vulnerable populations and the primary constraints to their absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities are then used to develop theories of change that identify key leverage points (“domains of change”) for enhancing resilience and to illustrate the causal mechanisms through which project activities would lead to the achievement of strategic objectives which are a critical outcome of a comprehensive risk analysis in that they allow for an iterative, adaptive, and nonlinear approach that is necessary for resilience programming (Frakenberger et al., 2014). b) Integrated Approaches Resilience building relies on integrated programming across-sectoral approaches with a long- term commitment to improving the three critical capacities: i) absorptive e.g. disaster risks management; ii) adaptive e.g. longer-term livelihood investments; and iii) transformative e.g. improved governance and enabling conditions(Béné et al. 2012)21. This notwithstanding, the spontaneous community initiatives born of the latent capacity in the community structures cannot be ignored. Integrated programming ensures that communities, development partners and sectors work together to address key leverage points which in Lesotho entail: food security, poverty and ultimately strengthening resilience and adopt complementary and synergistic strategies to promote resilience. c) Collaborative Partnerships and Approaches to Knowledge Management Moving beyond conceptual and sector-specificity related to resilience capacity, many development actors seek to join hands in development policy and research organizations in acknowledging that it is impossible for any single actor to facilitate comprehensive, cross- sectoral action at each layer of society to effectively respond to complex and rapidly evolving risk landscapes (TANGO International 2011)22. The trend is now to enter into strategic partnerships to clarify programming priorities based on primary research hence the imperative to invest in strategic partnerships within government agencies, local and 21 Béné, C., R. G. Wood, A. Newsham, and M. Davies. 2012. Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes. Working Paper 405. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. 22 TANGO International. 2011. Final Evaluation: PSNP Plus Project. Geneva: CARE Economic Development Unit. http://edu.care.org/Documents/PSNP%20Plus_Final%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf. International NGOs, private sector, academia and research organizations. The common purposes of these collaborations is to integrate resilience theory into program design, test the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation at the ground level, and forecast the longer- term impact of different approaches to enhancing resilience among vulnerable populations. In this sense, knowledge management is different from traditional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in that rather than focusing on specific indicators of project performance, it looks to capture important lessons learned from complementary sectoral interventions, context- specific research, development policies, and funding priorities (Frankenberger et al., 2014). d) Strengthening Social Capital The extent and application of social capital is an important element in determining the nature of resilience at the community level (Aldrich 201223; Magis 201024; Narayan 199925), and actors in resilience programming now include initiatives to strengthen social capital in program design and implementation. Project activities encourage collective action, collaboration, and self-organization. Examples vary, from establishing village savings and loan associations (VSLAs), which promote self-sufficiency, enhance decision making, and increase asset bases (TANGO International 2011), to facilitating social relationships that broaden the networks from which communities may draw in order to cope with complex shocks (TANGO International 2013)26. 23 Aldrich, D. P. 2012. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-disaster Recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 24 Magis, K. 2010. Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability. Society and Natural Resources 23:401–406. 25 Narayan, D. 1999. Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank. 26 TANGO. 2013. What Really Matters for Resilience? Exploratory Evidence on the Determinants of Resilience to Food Security Shocks in Southern Somalia. Portland, OR, US: Mercy Corps. www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/WhatReallyMattersForResilienceSomaliaNov2013_0.pdf. Resilience Outcomes Development indicators: Food and Nutrition Security, Poverty Transformative Capacity I  Strengthen governance functions  Promote social & economic policies that including formal & customary support resilience institutions  Provide basic social services  Promote representativeness within  Develop institutional capacity: public governance structures management; accountability systems;  Improve infrastructure systems (roads, technical skills in data collection, analysis communications, market systems) monitoring; early warning; risk analysis  Support effective social protection  Promote peace building & conflict resolution mechanisms (formal and informal safety mechanisms nets) Adaptive Capacity Absorptive Capacity  Promote diverse livelihood strategies for risk management  Strengthen & maintain informal safety  Promote asset accumulation & nets diversification  Support local peace building, conflict  Activities that encourage the expansion of aspirations mitigation & NRM through informal  Improve human capital (health, governance structures education, nutrition  Strengthen risk reduction, risk  Enable improved access to credit mitigation & risk coping mechanisms  Support smallholder market linkages (community based early warning,  Improve access to technologies contingency plans, household savings  Strengthen diverse social networks  Strengthen capacity for community  Promote gender empowerment  Support for healthy ecosytems (land, organization & collective action water, biodiversity Integrated Resilience Program Theory of Change Joint Problem Analysis Involving diverse stakeholders & contextualized at the subnational level Multi-sectoral Resilience Assessment Among chronically vulnerable populations exposed to food security shocks Fig. 6. Resilience Programing Framework. Source: Frakenberger et al., 2014. 1.2.6 Tools for Resilience Measurements Despite a variety of challenges encountered in developing robust, accurate, and contextually appropriate measures of community and household resilience, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategies are imperative for demonstrating impact and ensuring accountability(Frankenberger and Nelson 2013)27. In Lesotho the greatest concern lies with vulnerable populations in predominantly rural and agricultural communities. Thus measurement models must focus on shocks and stressors that directly affect food and nutrition systems without losing the scope of resilience measurement to account for different contexts and other forms of risk (Mitchell 2013)28. For example, there are methods in practice (Oxfarm, ACCRA) developed for measuring resilience regardless of the nature of the shock by specifying particular characteristics of a system e.g. a household or community that are assumed to be associated with coping or adaptation success (Frakensberger et al., 2014). ACCRA promotes an approach to resilience measurement that is consistent with its Local Adaptive Capacity Framework (ACCRA 2012)29, which identifies specific elements related to adaptive capacity. Some measure resilience as a function of income and expenditure outcomes; use household economy analysis to model resilience and compare costs of different response scenarios; while others use resilience measurement to account for the impact of conflict on vulnerable communities and the role of improved market access and value chain participation in promoting resilience (Frakensberger et al., 2014). a) Analysis of Resilience Measures The ability to measure the relationship represented by resilience i.e. the relationship between shocks, responses, and future states of well-being, depends on the analysis of a number of substantive dimensions and structural features which in turn highlight the specific indicators considered and data collected so that insights related to resilience dynamics can be measured (Frakenberger et al., 2014). Structural and methodological features highlight the way in 27 Frankenberger, T., and S. Nelson. 2013. Background Paper for the Expert Consultation on Resilience measurement for Food Security. Paper presented at Expert Consultation on Resilience Measurement Related to Food Security, Rome, February 19–21. 28 Mitchell, A. 2013. Risk and Resilience: From Good Idea to Good Practice—A Scoping Study for the Experts Group on Risk and Resilience. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. www.oecd.org/dac/governance-development/FINAL%20WP%2013%20Resilience%20and%20Risk.pdf. 29 Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance. 2012. The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity Framework. London: Overseas Development Institute; Geneva: CARE International; Oxford, UK: Oxfam GB; London: Save the Children International; Middlesex, UK: World Vision International. www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/ACCRA%20Local_Adaptive%20Policy.pdf. which data will be collected. Three substantive features and three structural-methodological features are important for resilience measurement (Table 2). Table 2. Analysis of Resilience Measurement Practices Orienting Question Potential Dimensions Examples of Measurement Dimensions Substantive Features of Resilience Measurement Initial- and subsequent-state  Dimensions of well-being  Poverty, food security, health, measures: What is the outcome of  Contextual factors social connectedness interest?  Systems  The contexts and systems that enable attainment of targeted outcomes Disturbance measures: To what  Covariate shocks  Catastrophic events, climate set of conditions is resilience a  Idiosyncratic shocks change, socio-political events, response?  Stresses health events, agricultural  Cumulative effects of stresses events, economic events Capacity measures:What Resources:  Individual capacity, social resources and responses are cohesion, asset holdings and  Human-social included as measures of resilience productive assets, markets,  Economic-financial capacities? stability of government and  Political-institutional institutions, physical  Material-physical infrastructure (e.g. roads,  Agroecological electricity, resources to support  Ecological agricultural production, natural resources Structural Methodological Features of Resilience Measurement Scale of measurement:For whom  Individuals  Demographic subcategories or for what entities will the  Households (women, children, displaced capacity for resilience be  Communities persons, a community); examined?  Institutions and governments  Geographic subcategories  National economies (urban, peri-urban, rural);  Institutional functioning, components of national economy e.g. Trade Temporal aspects of  Frequency  Quasi-arbitrary points (such as measurement:At what points in  Specific timing baseline, midline, endline), time will data be collected?  Duration developmentally sensitive, episodically determined (such as the occurrence of a shock event) Type of measurement:What types  Objective and subjective  Factual records of shocks of data are included as part of  Qualitative and quantitative  Perceptual data on well-being resilience measurement?  Projective data on future states  Rating scales, interviews, ethnographic observations Source: Constas and Barrett 201430. 30 Constas, M. and C. Barrett. 2014. Resilience measurement for development: Theory, metrics, and analytical strategies. Manuscript in preparation, Cornell University – As cited by Frankenberger et al., 2014. As indicated (Table 2), substantive features comprise initial- and end-state measures, disturbance measures, and capacity measures. Structural-methodological features introduce questions about the scale, timing, and types of measurement employed to measure resilience. For each set of features, a number of dimensions and examples are introduced. The combination of substantive and structural-methodological features provides a framework of questions that may be used to analyse the collection of practices and technical properties associated with resilience measurement. The set of substantive and structural-methodological questions introduced (Table 2) were used to frame critical aspects of the discussion which underscore the outline of tools, approaches and activities for community mobilization (Appendix 2 (A)). Operationalizing the NSRF requires identification of appropriate tools and approaches which will be used and followed in order to reach the desired resilience outcomes, in particular a resilient nation. Tools that are needed include those that identify program/intervention areas, that inform coordinated, integrated, complementary and joint partnership programing of initiatives at national, district and community levels, that measure resilience outcomes, that guide and implement resilience initiatives (guidelines, manuals) and those that are used to understand the multiple shocks affecting the communities (mapping which shocks, where, frequency, magnitude, who is affected and how many) and tools that inform on actions that have been taken to address recurring. Appendix 2 (B) breaksdown the tools and characterises them into six categories comprising of Assessments to inform resilience programing, Targeting, Planning of resilience programs and minimum packages, capacity development, measuring resilience and information sharing and learning.

Section 2: Implementing the Resilience Framework In order to harmonize resilience building efforts with Lesotho’s vision 2020, national strategic development plan, key national policy documents in strategic sub-sectors such as agriculture, water and health; and supported by other logistical sectors such as energy, infrastructure and security services, it is imperative for all development and humanitarian actors to be guided by a common set of resilience operating principles and create synergies based on their individual mandates and competitive advantages. The implementation of this framework requires a universal adoption of the resilience principles within the different sectoral mandates. This framework is thus a unifying document that seeks to bring together all actors on a common framework of action. Stakeholders and Development partners shall collaborate in respect to the implementation of their resilience building work plans, programs and activities. Stakeholders shall include UN system in general, International and local Non- Governmental Organisations, the Private sector, Academia and Research institutions, the Media and the Community. Stakeholders and development partners’ programs related to disaster risk management and resilience building should be guided by the fundamental principles and objectives of this framework (Appendix 7). 2.1 Implementation Strategy 2.1.1 Implementation Guide This framework is premised on the following core sectors: Agriculture, Health and Water. It is acknowledged that these are by no means operating alone but interactively and supported by other logistical sectors especially in the disaster risk reduction context. The notion of instutionalized resilience presupposes that each of this core sectors will mainstream and integrate resilience principles in its cross sectoral mandate. In fact, each sector is well advised to reflect on and create an implementation strategy for this framework in its context. Such strategies will have budgetary implications in terms of integrating resilience initiatives into the capital and recurrent plans each year reflecting efforts on resilience within the development agenda. In addition, a coordinated mobilization of funds will be imperative to establish a resilience fund. These will guide the implementation of the framework and how to integrate and mainstream resilience into sector plans and strategy documents. It is also critical that the district development plans and community plans therein be used deliberately as vehicles for carrying resilience into the communities and supporting institutional frameworks including the coordination and regulatory roles of government. Different sectors and sub-sectors must project themselves into this framework with the view to institutionalize and domesticate it within their strutures. The following questions will guide the integration efforts: a) How does the resilience framework translate into the sectoral mandate? b) What are the critical constraints that can derail the resilience agenda in the sector? c) What policies and /or regulatory measures must be in place to make the agenda implementable in the sector? d) How do we integrate /mainstream the resilience agenda in the sector? e) How can we institutionalize resilience tracking mechanism through monitoring and evaluation in the sector? A critical reflection and strategic response to these questions will facilitate the integration of the resilience agenda in the different sectors. 2.1.2 Roles of different stakeholders 2.1.2.1 Communities Communitieshave been pivotal centres for economic growth, innovation and cultural exchange. Popular active participation is a principle for sustainable livelihood security. Resilience building programmes implementation requires full participation of everyone and full ownership of the activities aimed at reducing risk in the short and long term. The role of educational, religious and cultural (e.g. Mephato) institutions are also a latent component of the social capital that can be harnessed for development, DRR and resilience initiatives. Within the community the role of youth, women, people living with disability and the elderly must be mainstreamed. Appendix 3 outlines the nature of relationships and coordination with the disaster management sector. 2.1.2.2 Government of Lesotho Agencies: National and local Government Resilience fundamentally must be driven by households and communities demanding government accountability. That notwithstanding government support and co-ownership by its agencies from the national to the local level is critical. This is because it is extremely important that the governance structure should have the authority to coordinate different stakeholders, both in and outside of government and enforce compliance by all. This, however, should not underplay market forces because implementation is only possible if the regulatory functions of government align with economic incentives for improved resilience. Furthermore, participation of all stakeholders in planning, budgeting, allocation of resources and monitoring is also vital to ensure transparency and ownership. 2.1.2.3 Civil Society Organisations The role of NGOs and CBOs with the CSO fraternity of Lesotho is paramount in assisting communities in achieving resilience building activities. NGOs can make an important contribution at the grass roots level particularly in remote areas as they are flexible, mobilize rapidly, effective and appropriate to urgent needs. These organisations form part of the National Disaster Management system and are active members in committees at national and local level. In addition, they are a key stakeholder in the implementing activities geared towards building community resilience at national and local level. They are the government’s key technical and resource mobilisation partner. They shall complement government programmes and policies as well as filling in the gaps left due to low capacity within government. 2.1.2.4 International Non-Governmental Organisations Cooperation with International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) is crucial to strengthening capacities for disaster risk management for resilience as well as partnership with local CSOs. It is therefore, important to adopt an inter-agency approach integrating the individual mandates of the INGOs in implementing resilience programs in Lesotho. The framework recognises the need to coordinate the influx of INGOs in the country in times of emergencies in order to effect a fair distribution of capacities and resources to have an optimum input in disaster risk management as well as building community resilience. The INGOs shall provide technical and programmatic and financial resource management support to the government. 2.1.2.5 Private Sector and Institutions Within the overall context of the public/private sector partnership, the private sector plays a vital role in addressing shocks and stressors especially through the availing of resource mobilization and technical input, implementing safe work practices, conducting risk and vulnerability assessments. The markets and associated economic incentives also play a critical role in building resilience. 2.1.2.6 Academia and research institutions Capacity development is a prerequisite for successful resilience building initiatives. Capacity development is more than training and organisational strengthening but also technology transfer and skills development. Academia can develop and implement training programs or integrate those programs into regular technical and vocational colleges and institutions. Research institutions, on the other hand, can include resilience agenda in their research programs and strategic agenda. 2.1.2.7 Media The media fraternity in Lesotho, print, radio and television is regulated by the Lesotho Communication Authority. The role of the media in development and particularly in DRR initiatives including resilience capacity cannot be over emphasized. The media is in charge of communications at national, regional and district levels. In addition, the role of social media has in recent times proved to be a critical component with a latent potential for exploration in development. 2.1.2.8 United Nations Agencies and other Development Partners UN agencies and Development Partners shall continue to play a pivotal role to support government efforts in the area of strengthening capacities for disaster risk management and building resilience and supplementing efforts in mobilizing resources for disaster management. The UN is also a key technical and resource mobilisation partner of the government. 2.2 Theory of Change for Promoting Resilience in Lesotho The sectoral stakeholders in government, the private sector, NGO sector (Local and International), Academia and Research and Media share a common vision that resilience needs to be looked at from the community as well as institutional perspective. From their view point, they also recognize the importance of using the social and human capital stocks of the communities. The Theory of Change (TOC) is developed with four basic layers articulating major pathways towards the super goal of achieving: “A resilient Lesotho, where households, communities and institutions are able to anticipate (preparedness capacity, adapt (Adaptive capacity), and respond (Transformative capacity) to shocks and stresses”. To achieve this goal, four major outcomes needed to be fulfilled (Table 3) and is illustrated (Fig. 8). Table 3. The Theory of Change for the National Strategic Resilience Framework Outcome Outcome commentary Output Summary of relevant activities Assumptions Risk Factor It is expected that both Contingency Through capacity building and vulnerable communities and local plans are effective improved coordination and institutions will become efficient and practiced by organization, contingency plan at Institutions are actively with received information, community and local level needs to be offering the emergency knowledge and skills in the face local authorities operational and responsive for the services and Low of a disaster and climate change, and institutions vulnerable targets communities are and proactively respond to their practicing it actively. 1.0 Communities and Institutions are demands. mobilized with information, Early warning messages are Early warning Through innovation and further skills and resources to respond effectively relying for timeous messages are awareness, early warning messages and mitigate shocks and response effectively relying are projected to reach the community stressors. for timely for timely response e.g. electronic response and / or social media Risk informed feedback loop is Risk informed To create a risk informed feedback The practice behaviour Medium present and local community feedback loop is loop for local authorities ,improved of feedback culture is risk in leaders inclusive of women, present and local coordination and organization needs exercised. youth, elderly and people living community to be achieved at community level. case of with disability are participating leaders inclusive Therefore, capacity building activities proper of women, youth, needs to take place so community elderly and leaders inclusive of women, youth, budget people living with elderly and people living with allocation disability are disability can voice out their participating concerns. Parallel to this practice, and fund budget allocation and funds need to raising be organized for implementing the risk informed planning and activities. capacity Table 3. The Theory of Change for the National Strategic Resilience Framework Outcome Outcome commentary Output Summary of relevant activities Assumptions Risk Factor Communities are Through capacity building, Communities are aware practicing innovation, awareness &promotion, of possibilities for alternative research &knowledge management. alternative livelihood livelihood (on options. 2. Communities & households are The basic assumption to achieve farm Low to practicing resilient livelihood this outcome is that offered Vulnerable groups Certain Capacity Building may be  Communities are &benefitted from social safety services are beneficial enough to have access to required to develop group convinced and willing to medium nets &offered basic services the communities for recurring social safety nets savings/capital and community level; practice alternative risk access (state led & while networking and influence may livelihood community group result in better state led social safety  Communities have savings) net program market access to sustain alternative livelihood Government is proactively Communities are Though advocacy there can be better Vulnerable groups are Low risk mainstreaming DRR and CCA benefiting from involvement of communities in proactively seeking issues into their related activities Risk informed demanding their needs, certain social safety nets 3. Governance is supportive of where else this assumption is plans &allocated capacity building needs to occur at Resilience friendly policies, bound with high risk factor if budgets this level. Finally budget allocation programs and mainstreaming the GoL becomes nonresponsive in and accountability needs to be institutions to respond (DRR and their activities established for clear disbursement of CCA issues) the funds. Existing policies Improved coordination and Local government Medium are revised to organization through specialized bodies are acting as per risk ensure cells, influencing budget allocation & SOD accountable assisting in accountability will further governance result in policy implementation. Here system certain capacity building may be required at local level to develop accountable disbursement of funds. 4. Representatives of vulnerable Decision making platforms are Basic services are Establishing basic service would Government High risk Table 3. The Theory of Change for the National Strategic Resilience Framework Outcome Outcome commentary Output Summary of relevant activities Assumptions Risk Factor Communities, civil society, media, responsive to the on-going and established and require budget allocation and implementing requires business, have access and can increasing demands of vulnerable offered at accountability at local government policies and program mitigation participate in the planning and groups community and level. It would also require co- with accountability and decision making process state body level ordination and organization for transparency proper delivery. Vulnerable groups Awareness campaigns need to be Vulnerable groups are Low risk are claiming their administered jointly with local interested and aware to rights through vulnerable groups to influence budget claim their rights and decision making allocations and developing facilities be part of decision or social capital at local level. making process Adapted from S. Datta and C. Mahjabeen. 2015. Fig. 8. The Theory of Change at a Glance A resilient Kingdom where households, communities & institutions are able to anticipate, adapt &respond Impact to shocks & stressors. Governance supports resilience Vulnerable communities,CSO, Households & communities are Outcome Households, community &institutions are friendly policies & mainstreaming media, business have access and practicing resilient livelihood & benefited informed, skilled &resourced to respond & institutions to respond to DRR & can participate in the planning & from social safety nets & offered basic mitigate shocks & stresses CCA issues decision making processes services Communities Existing policies Basic services Vulnerable Output Contingency plans Communities are Early warning Vulnerable are benefiting revised to ensure are established groups claiming are effective & practicing messages are groups have from risk accountable & offered at their rights practiced by alternative effectively relaying access to social informed plans governance community & through decision communities & livelihoods: on & for timely response safety nets & budgets systems national level making process institutions off farm Activities Activities: As summarized in Table 4 2.3 Targeting 2.3.1 Background Targeting is a process of ensuring that the assistance or services provided are equitably and impartially reach the intended beneficiaries based on the vulnerability and needs. The main objective of a targeting system is to use the available resources to meet the needs of a defined population as effectively and efficiently as possible to maximize coverage, minimize inclusion /exclusion errors and leakages or dilution areas. The reasons for attempting to target (rather than covering everything or everyone) can be divided into: a) Humanitarian: To ensure that the neediest are given priority and are adequately assisted; b) Efficiency: To maximize the impact, and reduce the waste, of limited resources; and c) Development: To minimize dependency and economic disincentives. A verification tool and a targeting flow chart needs to be developed for every resilience program to reduce these errors and leakages. 2.3.2 Who should be targeted in resilience programs? Certain programs should be available to everyone irrespective of vulnerability status (e.g. social services such as health, nutrition, education, or early warning, trainings, etc.), whilst others are targeted to specific vulnerable groups e.g. certain types of asset creation, unconditional transfers, etc. Longer-term program plans for resilience building efforts include knowing who is at risk to what, and in turn which programs should be targeted to whom to avoid setbacks in the development continuum. This means that program types are supposed to be linked to vulnerability profiles, institutional comparative advantage and potential for complementarity. 2.3.3 Targeting methodologies A resilience program has multiple objectives which require use of a multidimensional targeting and selection approach. Targeting methodologies in resilience programming consider the factors underlying chronic vulnerability such as levels of recurring food insecurity and the nature and levels of risk of exposure to natural shocks and stressors. Targeting methods rely on a convergence of evidence from different sources, both quantitative and qualitative assessments. This requires bringing together information on the humanitarian situation, chronic poverty, existing capacities and resources, and development interventions across a wide range of sectors. a) Area based and programmatic strategy targeting The Lesotho Integrated Context Analysis, Alkire-Foster method and Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) can be key methods to identify the initial target areas and patterns of overlap between chronically vulnerable areas (CVAs) and levels of risk of exposure to natural shocks and stressors for the purpose of providing the initial information for programming decisions. Resilience programming is based on historical trend analysis from regular assessments such as the annual Lesotho Vulnerability Assessments Committee (LVAC). b) Institutional level targeting A stakeholder analysis and mapping is a key methodology that can enable how on-going and future programs can be sequenced and aligned for maximum complementarities, creation of new partnership opportunities and synergies of humanitarian, recovery and development programs within and across sectors. Knowing the on-going programs and aligning these to the times of the year that people face stressors, challenges and opportunities provides insight into how multi-sectoral activities implemented at certain times can support those that are provided later. Furthermore, it offers a way to develop longer-term programming planning, by providing a foundation as to the ‘why, when, to who, and with what’ support would be needed across seasons, and how these change between typical and bad years. Where institutional arrangements are well established at national and regional /district level administrative targeting may be appropriate to inform institutional targeting. c) Community level targeting The targeting should be based on type of program (emergency or recovery or long term development), year category (good or typical or bad) and potential exit strategies or graduation, particularly when humanitarian, recovery and development interventions are strategically connected. The use of existing National Information System for Social Assistance (NISSA) should be the entry point for harmonisation, coordination and linkage of targeting various programs. The beneficiary targeting and selection process should go beyond the community based targeting approach to use of multidimensional targeting approach. The multidimensional indicators and a flow chart have to be developed together with key stakeholders. In the multidimensional targeting approach, the stakeholders should avoid selecting indicators that may create negative incentives on the behaviour of the households but should prioritise the indicators that directly contribute to the dual or multiple objectives of the resilience program. 2.4 Conclusions Resilience is an important issue for sustainable development of Lesotho hence it is imperative to take cognizance of other stakeholders e.g. Government agencies, private sector, International and Local NGOs, Academia and Research Institutions and Development Partners have experienced and how to collaborate and share learning experiences from both ends to meet the desired resilience in communities for Lesotho. Communities, educational and religious institutions are also critical to the partnership. These partners are often on the frontline of vulnerability challenges during disasters especially in the remote areas of Lesotho. unfortunately sometimes there is less focus on keeping the people at the very core of the concept giving relief and rehabilitation more emphasis but solutions and services which are friendly to the actual vulnerable are not administered pro-actively. We need a critical overview of existing approaches and the manner in which we look at resilience and the approach taken to assist vulnerable communities and households. In addition, all stakeholders and actors must aspire for a common understanding and framework about ‘resilience’ within the country to minimize the incongruity. Furthermore, community capacity as opposed to household only needs more emphasis after each natural setback to offer members regular livelihood options, more access to business and trading opportunity for individual levels. However, such pathways can be enhanced by unity of purpose and collaboration. Thus strengthening partnerships for capacity building and finance for local climate change adaptation practices in Lesotho will help local organisations to build social and human capital fund in every community level in order to help the beneficiaries. We need functional collaboration with academia and research institutions as information hubs and knowledge platforms producing science based evidence from action based research. This way we can foster adaptation and respond comprehensively to the effects of climate change and natural disasters. Already the Lesotho Meteorological Services is conducting predictive work and projections on weather events and climate change. Working together with academia and research institutions will facilitate information transfer and education in relation to environment, climate change and natural disasters within the community along with capacity building of government agencies. The Government is also thinking of new future areas where interventions can address issues such as health hazard from unsafe and contaminated food, road safety etc. Only effective collaboration of government and civil society can further address ‘risk governance’. Taken together, the various partners and stakeholders have diversified strengths that can be channelled to create a change in the greater socio economic system. This strength can be used for collective negotiations in better service and facilities development which individually such vulnerable communities fail to bargain for. But for selecting activities, the implementation of the framework needs to give more emphasis on tangible benefits that it can create for the actual primary beneficiaries. Such benefits include new or improved public service, new public or private facility that are evident through creating human, social and financial capital within local communities. Such development can further facilitate sustenance and growth of natural capitals. Thus the pro people and pro poor activities can lead to development of actual resilient communities in Lesotho. Appendices

Appendix 1.0 - Summary of the Lesotho Social Protection and Safety Nets Establishment of a Ministry of Social Development (2012): The Commitment of the Government started by the establishment of The Ministry of Social Development in 2012 to implement a national Social Protection vision as defined in the NSDP 2012-2017 and the National Social Development Policy: March 2013. The Ministry is also in charge of strengthening coordination of social development in General and social protection in particular. At the operational side the Government has started rolling out the Lesotho Child Grant Program (CGP) since 2012 and is covering 100% beneficiary costs and about 70% operational costs since the Fiscal Year 2013/2014. National OVC Strategic Plan 2006-2010: In 2006, Lesotho developed and launched the National OVC Strategic Plan 2006-2010. It was envisaged that the plan would guide and inform a multi-sectoral response for OVC. The key achievements included the development of the National OVC Policy (2006), the establishment of the National OVC Coordinating Committee (NOCC) and the DCPT at national and district level respectively. The Child Help Line was established in 2008. The DSW initiated the review of the Child Protection Act (1980)2. In collaboration with the Ministry of Local Government OVC registers were introduced in 2007. The DSW defined the essential services package for OVC that included education, health, food security and nutrition, protection, care and support. An M&E Unit was established in 2008 that was followed by the development of the a) OVC Monitoring Plan (2008-2011) b), a draft Manual for Social Welfare Indicators, and c) draft Procedure Manual for Social Welfare Routine Information Systems (SWRIS). Attempts were made to develop a national OVC database. Children’s Protection and Welfare Act (CPWA) and National Strategic Plan on Vulnerable Children (2012 - 2017): The Government of Lesotho is committed to fulfilling its duty bearer obligations for all children. In this regard the Government enacted the Children’s Protection and Welfare Act (CPWA) in March 2011. The Act seeks to protect the social and economic well-being of all children including vulnerable children. The Act represents national efforts to address the provisions of both the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The Government has further facilitated the development of the Strategic Plan on Vulnerable Children April 2012 to March 2017. The Strategic Plan will be used to operationalize the CPW Act. The Strategic Plan will provide guidance for the national response to vulnerable children, facilitate a systematic approach of generating evidence required for decision making and planning. The plan will serve as a tool for resource mobilization and will support strategies that improve efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery, and coordination of the national response. The following are the priorities for the national response to vulnerable children in Lesotho: (i) Raising awareness and commitment to vulnerable children’s rights and needs through advocacy and social mobilization; (ii) Strengthening the capacity of families and communities to protect, care for, and support vulnerable children; (iii) Strengthening social, legal and judicial protection of vulnerable children and their families (iv) Scaling up availability and access to services by vulnerable children and their families, (v) Systems strengthening. Existing Transfer Programs  Child Grants Program (19,800 households costing M38.7 million and growing to 25,000 households with a budget of M54 million annually) – This is a non-conditional social cash transfer program targeted to poor households with children. At present the program is present in all 10 districts of the country in roughly half of all Community Councils and is being further expanded. The program has been running since 200 and since the 2013/2014 fiscal year, government has taken over 100% of benefit and 70% of administrative costs. While it receives continued technical assistance from UNICEF, daily operations are independently run by staff at Ministry of Social Development. .A 2013 impact evaluation had a positive impact in reducing poverty, increasing child- related expenditure, strengthening community relations, among others.  Public Assistance (9,500 beneficiaries costing M.16 million or US$2.2 million annually) – This provides support in cash or in kind (for example, as medical exemptions and food packages) to about 9,500 destitute people annually. Coverage is limited by budget availability. Beneficiaries are identified by the Ministry of Social Development.  Old Age Pension (83,000 beneficiaries costing M.371 million or US$49 million annually) – This is one of the largest safety net programs in Lesotho. It is a universal, non-contributory, unconditional cash transfer program, available to everyone over the age of 70 not receiving a civil service pension. Since only 6 percent of the poor are estimated to be older than 64, any age-based program is not going to directly reach many of the poor.  (School Feeding Programs serve an incentive for parents to enrol their children in schools, thus ensuring access to education and regular attendance; consequently educated children are more likely to be able to feed themselves and their families in adulthood. School meals can relieve immediate short-term hunger which is most beneficial for learning. Alleviation of short term hunger may help to contribute to improved performance thus promoting normal progression and preventing drop-off in times of crisis.) School feeding as safetynet – The school feeding value transfer frees up resources within households, thus allowing families to buy food and invest in productive assets, ultimately improving their livelihoods, nutrition and education. There are two feeding programs in Lesotho cover 2/3 of all schools in the country: government feeding scheme and WFP assisted feeding scheme:  Government School Feeding Scheme: (239 000 children costing USD 15.5 million per year or USD 0.36 per child per school day as per Final Report 2013 by Motseng Logistics Services).It is a non-targeted scheme based on a catering system whereby free meals are provided to children in schools from the foothills and lowlands independently of their economic status. However a weakness of the system is that it doesn’t create additional work opportunities for the poor as intended because requires caterers to benefit from a substantial financial capacity to purchase the rather expensive food commodities and cover for transport, energy,  WFP assisted School Feeding Scheme: (150’000 children costing USD 7.56 million per year or USD 0.28 per child per school day). It is also a non-targeted scheme taking place in all public schools in the highlands relying on nutritionally designed meals, which are fortified. School feeding programmes enhance nutrition, particularly when the food is fortified with micronutrients, raising the potential to improve a child’s health, school performance and educational attainment.  OVC Bursary Program (coverage 20,000 costing M.48 million or US$6.4 m. annually) – This covers tuition and boarding fees for secondary students identified as OVCs and is financed by the government and the Global Fund. Beneficiaries are selected based more on their orphan status than on their poverty. The program makes important investments in education, but its poverty-targeting effectiveness is not known. However, besides the poverty alleviation component, the impact of the transfer on Child Protection (OVC are more vulnerable to abuse and mistreat) could be further emphasized and documented.  Nutrition Support Program: (intended coverage 72,000 people at an estimated cost of USD4.26 million annually). The programme aims to enhance the nutritional and social well-being of vulnerable groups. It contributes to attainment of two strategic priorities highlighted in NSDP and one in NSP - i) Reduce stunting, child morbidity and mortality, ii)reduce maternal mortality (NSDP) and i)to scale up universal access to comprehensive and quality treatment, care and support (NSP). It is implemented throughout the country with more interventions in the mountain districts where malnutrition is particularly high. The programme is dependent on WFP funding and started in January 2013.  Emergency and Resilience Programme (MAFS & FAO): Sustainable recovery 3 years programme started in 2012 promoting community resilience through the upscale adoption of Conservation Agriculture and improved Home Gardening among 18,500 families in all ten districts of the country. Kits of maize seeds, bean seeds, fertilizers, vegetable seeds and cover crops (wheat and grazing vetch) are distributed to vulnerable farmers apart from training on technologies for Climate Change adaptation.  Food Security Social Protection Pilot: FAO, in partnership with CRS and RSDA, has implemented a pilot covering 800 families benefiting from the Children Grant Programme with support in Home Gardening and Nutrition Awareness. The aim is to develop a methodology to complement cash grant programmes with food production activities among the most vulnerable households in Lesotho.  Integrated Watershed Management Public Works Program (96,000 people employed annually at a cost of M.112 million or US$15 million) – The Ministry of Forestry operates this program, which employs villagers to plant trees and carry out other environmental conservation work. Although not specifically targeted to the poor, it provides the basis for a larger cash for work program employing the poorest.  National Fertilizer and Input Subsidy (Annual cost of M.44 million or US$5.9 million for an unknown number of beneficiaries) – The government provides an untargeted subsidy on fertilizer and other agricultural inputs. The subsidy has varied between 30 percent and 50 percent of the retail price. The impact on output is not evident, and the subsidy does not benefit the poorest.  Tertiary Bursary Scheme (16,200 annual beneficiaries at an annual cost of M.575 million or US$76 million) – The largest single transfer program operating in Lesotho in budget terms, the scheme pays the fees and living expenses for students who attend universities and other tertiary education institutions. Although in theory a loan scheme, there is almost no repayment, so it is effectively a pure transfer program. It has been estimated that only 1 percent of benefits go to the extreme poor. However, increasing this percentage may prove difficult and would need to be implemented in phase as currently few of the extreme poor would make it to the tertiary level. Appendix 2. Pillars of Resilience Appendix 2 (A). The detailed descriptions of the intervention areas proposed under the different pillars 1.0 Preparedness /Preventive capacity a) Pillar 1: Disaster and Climate Risk Management Effective disaster and climate risk management provide a strong foundation for a solid resilience framework by acting as a first line of defence against shocks and stressors. The proposed interventions under this pillar are closely aligned with interventions in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030) particularly priority 1 (Understanding disaster risk) and priority 4 (enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction). Such interventions include but are not limited to the followings:  Conduct comprehensive multi-hazard disaster risks, vulnerability, capacity, exposure assessments, resilience assessments including climate change scenarios;  Develop, update periodically and disseminate, as appropriate, location-based disaster risk information, including risk maps, to decision makers, the general public and  communities at risk to disaster in an appropriate format by using, as applicable, geospatial information technology;  Enhance the development and dissemination of science-based methodologies and tools to record and share disaster losses and relevant disaggregated data and statistics, as well as to strengthen disaster risk modelling, assessment, mapping, monitoring and multi-hazard early warning systems;  Apply risk information in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity and exposure of persons, communities, countries and assets, as well as hazard characteristics, to develop and implement disaster resilience policies;  Adopt and implement national and local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies and plans, across different timescales with targets, indicators and time frames, aimed at preventing the creation of risk, the reduction of existing risk and the strengthening of economic, social, health and environmental protection;  Invest in, develop, maintain and strengthen people-centred multi-hazard, multisectoral forecasting and early warning systems, disaster risk and emergency communications mechanisms, social technologies and hazard-monitoring telecommunications systems. Develop such systems through a participatory process. Tailor them to the needs of users, including social and cultural requirements, in particular gender. Promote the application of simple and low-cost early warning equipment and facilities and broaden release channels for natural disaster early warning information;  Prepare or review and periodically update disaster preparedness and contingency policies, plans and programmes with the involvement of the relevant institutions, considering climate change scenarios and their impact on disaster risk, and facilitating, as appropriate, the participation of all sectors and relevant stakeholders;  Promote regular disaster preparedness, response and recovery exercises, including evacuation drills, training and the establishment of area-based support systems, with a view to ensuring rapid and effective response to disasters and related displacement, including access to safe shelter, essential food and non-food relief supplies, as appropriate to local needs; a) Pillar 2: Capacity Development This framework recognizes the role of capacity development in building resilience at national and local level. Capacity development is considered as one of the cross-cutting pillars since it is necessary to strengthen not only preventive capacity but also absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities. The Lesotho DRR/EPR capacity assessment offers a structured way to measure gaps and challenges and generate insight for the formulation of a capacity development response. Therefore, the DRR Capacity Development Plan is a core contribution to the Resilience Framework. Some of the key interventions that should be implemented under this pillar include the followings:  Carry out an assessment of the technical, financial and administrative disaster and climate risk management capacity to deal with the identified risks at local and national level;  Build the knowledge of government officials at all levels, civil society, communities and volunteers, as well as the private sector, through sharing experiences, lessons learned, good practices and training and education on disaster and climate risk reduction and resilience, including the use of existing training and education mechanisms and peer learning;  Promote and improve dialogue and cooperation among scientific and technological communities, other relevant stakeholders and policymakers in order to facilitate a science-policy interface for effective decision-making in disaster and climate risk management and resilience;  Ensure the use of traditional, indigenous and local knowledge and practices, as appropriate, to complement scientific knowledge in disaster and climate risk assessment and the development and implementation of policies, strategies, plans and programmes of specific sectors, with a cross-sectoral approach, which should be tailored to localities and to the context;  Promote national strategies to strengthen public education and awareness in disaster and climate risk reduction and resilience, including disaster risk information and knowledge, through campaigns, social media and community mobilization, taking into account specific audiences and their needs;  Promote the incorporation of disaster and climate risk knowledge, including disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation, in formal and non-formal education, as well as in civic education at all levels, as well as in professional education and training.  Establish community centres for the promotion training and public awareness on disaster and climate risk management  Promote mutual learning and exchange of good practices and information through, inter-alia, voluntary and self-initiated peer reviews among interested states; 2.0 Absorptive capacity d) Pillar 3: Social Protection Strategic programme intervention areas include:  Formal and informal safety-net programs  Humanitarian assistance  Early recovery initiatives  Emergency employment e) Pillar 4: Access to basic services Strategic programme intervention areas include:  Promote the resilience of new and existing critical infrastructure, including water, transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, educational facilities, hospitals and other health facilities, to ensure that they remain safe, effective and operational during and after disasters in order to provide live-saving and essential services;  Ensure the continuity of operations and planning, including social and economic recovery, and the provision of basic services in the post-disaster phase;  Consider the relocation of public facilities and infrastructures to areas outside the risk range, wherever possible, in the post-disaster reconstruction process, in consultation with the people concerned, as appropriate;  Enhance the resilience of national health systems, including by integrating disaster risk management into primary, secondary and tertiary health care, especially at the local level; developing the capacity of health workers in understanding disaster risk and applying and implementing disaster risk reduction approaches in health work; and promoting and enhancing the training capacities in the field of disaster medicine; and supporting and training community health groups in disaster risk reduction approaches in health programmes, in collaboration with other sectors, as well as in the implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005) of the World Health Organization;  Access to continuous education before, during and after crisis  Access to primary health care before, during and after crisis  Access to uninterrupted transport facilities  Access to clean and portable water before, during and after crisis  Access to clean energy and power before, during and after crisis  Easy access to communication channels 3.0 Adaptive capacity f) Pillar 5: Sustainable livelihood Strategic programme intervention areas include:  Enhancing production and productivity  Promoting livelihood diversification  Creation, protection and rehabilitation of productive assets  Adaptive technologies and Innovations e.g. climate smart agriculture f) Pillar 6: Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection In Lesotho, environmental resources such as land, water resources, land cover and ecosystem are increasing under threats of degradation or extinction. In order to build resilience, this framework proposes key interventions that are geared towards promoting environmental protection. These include:  Water and Soil Conservation intervention s that ranges from Watershed Management, rangeland management, Gully reclamation, climate change adaptation, etc and all interventions aiming at protecting communities assets;  Biodiversity Conservation measures that include activities such as reforestation, revegetation of rangeland, alien species invasion control;  Interventions that strengthen the sustainable use and management of ecosystems and integrated environmental and natural resource management approaches that incorporate disaster and climate risk reduction;  Interventions that promote and integrate environmental protection throughout the tourism industry, given the often heavy reliance on tourism as a key economic driver;  Interventions that protect or support the protection of cultural and collecting institutions and other sites of historical, cultural heritage and religious interest;  Interventions that aims at rehabilitation and protection of key resources – agricultural land, water, forest, rangeland, wetlands; Interventions that aims at Pollution control and Waste management at urban and rural level. h) Pillar 7: Access to Economics/Financial Services  Promote mechanisms for disaster risk transfer and insurance, risk sharing and retention and financial protection, as appropriate, for both public and private investment in order to reduce the financial impact of disasters on governments and societies, in urban and rural areas;  Strengthen, as appropriate, disaster resilient public and private investments, particularly through: structural, non-structural and functional disaster risk prevention and reduction measures in critical facilities, in particular schools and hospitals and physical infrastructures; building better from the start to withstand hazards through proper design and construction, including the use of the principles of universal design and the standardization of building materials; retrofitting and rebuilding; nurturing a culture of maintenance; and taking into account economic, social, structural, technological and environmental impact assessments;  Market based interventions  Access to micro-finance services  Risk transfer mechanisms  Risk financing, e.g. creation of resilience trust funds  Access to markets  Value addition of products 4.0 Transformative capacity i) Pillar 8: Governance for Resilience Effective governance at the national and local levels is key pillar under the transformative capacity required to build resilience. Strong legal and institutional and legislative frameworks are all needed to provide clear vision, guidance and coordination within and across sectors as well as participation of relevant stakeholders in building resilience at national and community level. Interventions proposed under this pillar are closely linked to Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, particularly priority 2 (strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk). The followings are some of the proposed strategic intervention areas that can be implemented under this pillar.  Encourage parliamentarians to develop new or amend relevant legislations that support the national resilience agenda  Design, adopt and implement national and local disaster resilience strategies and plans, across different timescales with targets, indicators and time frames, aimed at preventing the creation of risk, the reduction of existing risk and the strengthening of economic, social, health and environmental resilience;  Encourage the establishment of necessary mechanisms and incentives to ensure high levels of compliance with existing safety-enhancing provisions of sectoral laws and regulations, including those addressing land use and urban planning, building codes, environmental and resource management and health and safety standards, and update them, where needed, to ensure an adequate focus on disaster risk management;  Encourage policy- and decision-makers to allocate the necessary resources, including finance and logistics, as appropriate, at all levels of administration for the development and the implementation of disaster resilience strategies policies, plans, laws and regulations in all relevant sectors;  Establish and strengthen government coordination forums composed of relevant stakeholders at national and local levels, such as national and local platforms for disaster risk reduction, and a designated national focal point for implementing the resilience framework. It is necessary for such mechanisms to have a strong foundation in national institutional frameworks with clearly assigned responsibilities and authority;  Empower local authorities, as appropriate, through regulatory and financial means to work and coordinate with civil society, communities and indigenous peoples and migrants in disaster risk management at the local level;  Promote the cooperation of diverse institutions, multiple authorities and related stakeholders at all levels, including affected communities and business, in view of the complex and costly nature of post-disaster reconstruction, under the coordination of national authorities;  Promote common efforts in partnership with the scientific and technological community, academia and the private sector to develop new products and services as well as to establish, disseminate and share good practices; j) Pillar 9: Mainstreaming resilience in humanitarian and development strategies, policies and plans Mainstreaming resilience is part of promoting good governance which is required for building resilience. This framework recognizes resilience as a key pillar and it advocates for mainstreaming in development and humanitarian strategies, policies and plans. Mainstreaming is required not only for sustainability purposes but also to ensure that development is made resilient to impact of shocks and stressors. Interventions proposed under this pillar include:  Mainstream and integrate disaster risk reduction within and across all sectors. Review and promote the coherence and further development, as appropriate, of national and local frameworks of laws, regulations and public policies, which, by defining roles and responsibilities, guide the public and private sectors to: (i) address disaster risk in publically owned, managed or regulated services and infrastructures; (ii) promote and provide incentives, as relevant, for actions by persons, households, communities and businesses; (iii) enhance relevant mechanisms and initiatives for disaster risk transparency, which may include financial incentives, public awareness-raising and training initiatives, reporting requirements and legal and administrative measures; and (iv) put in place coordination and organizational structures;  Promote the mainstreaming of disaster risk assessments into land-use policy development and implementation, including urban planning, land degradation assessments and informal and non-permanent housing, and the use of guidelines and follow-up tools informed by anticipated demographic and environmental changes;  Promote the mainstreaming of disaster risk assessment, mapping and management into rural development planning and management of, inter alia, mountains, rivers, coastal flood plain areas, dry lands, wetlands and all other areas prone to droughts and flooding, including through the identification of areas that are 16 k) Pillar 10: Research, Innovation and Development  Promote real-time access to reliable data, make use of space and in situ information, including geographic information systems (GIS), and use information and communications technology innovations to enhance measurement tools and the collection, analysis and dissemination of data;  Enhance the scientific and technical work on disaster risk reduction and its mobilization through the coordination of existing networks and scientific research institutions at all levels and all regions;  Enhance access to and support for innovation and technology as well as in long- term, multi-hazard and solution-driven research and development in disaster risk management.

Appendix 2 (B). Summary of Potential interventions for each Pillar of the Resilience Framework Capacity Pillar Intervention Preparedness / Pillar 1: Disaster Risk Establishment of multi-hazard early warning system Reduction and Climate Prevention Vulnerability and resilience assessment Risk Management Preparedness and contingency planning Community managed DRM Building a culture of safety Pillar 2: Capacity Education, training and awareness Development Formal and informal education Human capability and human capital Role of extension services Absorptive Pillar 3: Social Formal and informal safety-net programmes Protection Humanitarian assistance Emergency employment Early recovery initiatives Mainstreaming Risk governance Institutional strengthening Public private partnership Safety culture Capacity Pillar Intervention Research Expanding human capability Pillar 4: Access to Access to continuous education before, during and after shocks basic services Access to uninterrupted transport facilities Access to clean and portable water before, during and after shocks Access to clean energy and power before, during and after shocks Easy access to communication Access to primary health care before, during and after shocks Adaptive Pillar 5: Sustainable Enhancing production and productivity livelihood Promoting livelihood diversification Creation, protection and rehabilitation of productive assets Adaptive technologies and Innovations, e.g., smart agriculture Indigenous knowledge Soil and water conservation Biodiversity conservation and protection of fragile ecosystems Reforestation /Sustainable forest management Pillar 6: Sustainable Integrated watershed management Management of Rehabilitation and protection of key resources – agricultural land, water, Natural Resources and forest, rangelands, wetlands. Environmental Pollution control and waste management Protection Pillar 7: Access to Market based interventions Economics/Financial Access to micro-finance services Services Risk transfer mechanisms Risk financing, e.g. creation of resilience trust funds Access to markets Value addition of products Transformative Pillar 8: Risk Policies, regulations, standards and laws Governance Institutional strengthening Coordination and Partnership Resilience champions Pillar 9: Mainstreaming NSDP, Sectoral plans and community plans resilience in humanitarian and development strategies, Humanitarian response and recovery policies and plans Pillar 10: Research, Leverage information communication technology and information Innovation and management systems Capacity Pillar Intervention Development Invest in DRR and Climate change research

Appendix 3. Critical Aspects of the Resilience Measurement Discourse The issues captured in Table 2 were used to frame the following discussionin relation to resilience measurements (Frakenberger et al., 2014). a) Initial- and subsequent-state measures The dominant practice in resilience measurement is to collect data on outcomes of interest and on program-related factors that are seen as producing or mediating those outcomes. Two elements of initial- and subsequent-state measures that are typically underrepresented and in need of improvement are context and systems. While context is regularly highlighted as important, a more disciplined approach to measuring those aspects of context that are important for resilience is needed. More closely related to theoretical foundations for resilience, the way in which systems are portrayed and measured needs further attention. b) Disturbance measures The common practice is to shocks by retroactively asking respondents to recall events (and their reactions to events) related to a shock, collect more accurate data on the occurrence and impact of shocks hence the latency period between the occurrence of a shock and the collection of data should be minimized. Data on on-going stresses, many of which may be as damaging as larger-magnitude shocks, should also be collected. c) Capacity measures There best practice examples of how the array of resources (human, social, material, physical, and so on) that are used to model resilience capacity may be organized into a coherent model. There is, however, a tendency to focus the greatest amount of attention on those capacities that align with an institutional theory of change. The tendency to adhere too strictly to a given change model could result in an underspecified model of resilience dynamics. d) Scale of measurement Households and communities are the most common scales of measurement used in emergent measures of resilience. While this practice makes sense from a targeted-beneficiary perspective, it is important to use more fully developed multilevel and systems-oriented approaches to development. More fully developed approaches would include higher-level indictors, such as trade and price policies, that might affect the ability of households and communities to be resilient in the face of shocks that threaten food security. e) Temporal aspects The duration of projects and the need to satisfy external accountability are often the strongest determinants of when measurement data are collected. Among the options of data collection timing shown in Table 2, the use of quasi-arbitrary measures driven by accountability is perhaps most common. There is, however, emerging work among some actors to use trigger events that link the collection of resilience measurement data to shocks and stressors. In addition to the above recommendations for improved resilience measurement, it is important to make sure that “resilience measurement” is more than a simple relabeling of existing measures. A review of some measurement activities revealed that long-used measures, such as the Coping Strategies Index (CSI) (Maxwell and Caldwell 2008)31, were being used as measures of resilience. The strategies assessed by the CSI are likely an important component of resilience. The tendency to rely on the CSI as the sole proxy for resilience is, however, more commonly found in earlier work on resilience. Indeed more done that requires a new approach to measurement.

Appendix 4. Summary of Tools and Activities for Community Mobilization Activities Tools Tool Description No. Pre-Positioning  Initial Site Visit Initial Site Visit Checklist 1 List of things to observe or inquire about  Rapid Assessment Rapid Assessment Tool 2 Also see the Good Enough Guidefor  Desk Study assessments in emergency settings  Focus Groups  Target Area Selection Desk Study Checklist 3 List of information that can be obtained  Introductory Community Meeting remotely Focus Group Facilitation See Tool #12 Guide Assessment and Planning PRA/PLA Sample Tools 4 Sorting, ranking, transect walks, timelines, seasonal schedules, Venn diagram and others PRA/PLA Sample 5 For semi-structured interviews Interview  PRA/PLA Guide  Baseline Study Rapid Environmental 6 For considering environmental  Community Profiles Impact Assessment (EIA) implications of projects  Community Selection Checklist  Field-based Environmental 7 Public notice of rehabilitation or 31 Maxwell, D., and R. Caldwell. 2008. The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual. 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA, US: CARE USA. www.fsnnetwork.org/sites/default/files/coping_strategies_tool.pdf. Activities Tools Tool Description No. Immersion&Observation Memorandum building projects  Project Selection &Verification Community Assessment 8 Diagnostic evaluation of conflict levels; Tool(Tension Index) uses Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) Community Profile 9 Categories for describing population and traits Community Selection 10 Table for weighing selection criteria Strategic Visioning 11 For community action groups (CAGs) about past activities and future plans Group Facilitation Manual 12 In-depth guidance for Active Participation Techniques.  Relationship Mapping Scored Relationship 13 Process for identifying groups and  Action Planning Mapping individuals, within a community and  Project Prioritization outside, who can be part of projects  Village Plans or have influence to consider Action Planning Process 14 Suggested steps for action planning Meetings Project Prioritization 15 Suggested process for facilitating MeetingTips prioritization meetings Village Development 16 Guidelines for creating plans and Planning sharing with stakeholders Structures and Agreements  Leadership Structures DMA Teams and CAGs 17 Memorandum of Understanding between  Community Action Groups DMA and CAGs defining roles and (CAG) and Project responsibilities Implementation CAG and PIC Formation 18 Guideline for electing CAG and PIC Committees (PIC) Members CAG Constitution 19 Sample text outlining rights,  Signed Agreements responsibilities and protocols of CAGs  Community Contribution Confirmation Meeting 20 Sample agenda for CAG confirmation  CAG Management Format Meeting Training CAG Project Proposal 21 Goals, expectations, participation,  Communicating DMA budget etc. Procedures andPolicies CAG Conflict of Interest 22 Statement between the CAG and DMA Statement Proposal Evaluation Form 23 For Community Mobilizer comment on proposals Employee Conflict of Interest 24 Statement between Mercy Corps Form staff and CAG Organizational Capacities 25 Tool to measure five organizational Index (OCI) for CBOs Capacities OCI for NGOs and 26 Tool to measure five organizational government organizations Capacities Project Approval Sheet 27 DMA approval of CAG plans Select Financial Policies 28 Specific to community mobilization Implementation  Project Formulation Cross-Visit Reporting 29 Observations/ideas for improving Activities Tools Tool Description No.  Sustainability Plan Form the program/ project following  Budget Management CAG/Program Team cross-visits  Advocacy  Project Completion CAG Final Project Report 30 Form for describing change made by the Form project Media and 31 Recommendations for using media Communication Guide and communication technologies for mobilization Monitoring and Learning  Baseline/Endline Surveys Mobilizer’s Monitoring 32 Table for monitoring CAG activities  Capacity Indices Form  Self or Peer-Monitoring CAG Impact Form 33 For describing impact at the  Target Setting with household level  Community Feedback CAG Monitoring Form 34 for Community Mobilizer to monitor  Success Stories CAG/project  Case Studies Empowerment Impacts 35 For measuring empowerment and Guide and Form other non-concrete changes from a project Strategic Monitoring 36 For staff to track change in community Form mobilization, grants, social policy etc CAG Questionnaire 37 About perceptions e.g. project implications and government relationships and project process Evaluation  Mid-Program Evaluation Project Scoring Sheet 38 Numerical evaluation of project  Post-Program Evaluation categories Indicator Menu for CAG 39 Concrete indicators of project Project Impact Impact Re-Positioning  Reconfirm Agreements See Pre-Positioning / Assessment and Planning Tools above  Expansion/Scaling-Up Handover  Exit Strategy Exit Strategy Checklist 40 For exit planning as soon as the  Maintenance Committee community is moving toward  Leadership Handover independent sustainability Maintenance Committee 41 Sample list of roles, responsibilities Roles and coordination of infrastructure maintenance Leadership Handover 42 For Program Team and CAG/other Checklist lasting leadership structures Source: Mercy Corps. 2014. Guide to Community Mobilization Programming.

Appendix 5. Tools and Approaches to Operationalize Resilience Key Area Recommended Potential Tools Levels of application Approach 1.0 Assessment to Inform Resilience Programming Historical trend  Integrated Context analysis of issues and Analysis (ICA) Vulnerability and risk shocks  Integrated Phase National and regional assessments to identify National hazards Classification (IPC) /district programing areas profiling  5-10 year LVAC trend Humanitarian response analysis  Hazard scoring system  Rapid assessments after an event Early warning Multi hazard early Modified early warning National, regional/district warning systems system and community Technical feasibility and Multi-sectoral team  Environmental impact District and community verification feasibility studies assessments level  Technical standards manuals and checklists 2.0 Targeting Geographical targeting Mapping multiple shocks  Context Analysis National, regional and stressors (ICA) /district  Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) Beneficiary targeting  Use of multi-  Self-targeting Community level dimensional indicators complemented by  Use of referral system- NISSA tool humanitarian-recovery  Hotline messaging and and development voice Help desk and  Community based feedback mechanisms verification and validation 3. Planning of resilience programmes and minimum packages Coordination, Multi-stakeholder Multi-sectoral and Regional /District level partnership, processes and analysis Livelihood Programming complementarity and tool (MLP) synergies Minimum resilience Use of intervention Seasonal Livelihood Regional /District and program package linkage, integration and programming tool community sequencing approaches Minimum economic Stakeholder consultation recovery standards tool and analysis Identification of relevant Use of community  Community Based Community resilience initiatives participatory planning Planning approaches  Participatory Community  Dialogues Citizen Voice and Action (CVA) Key Area Recommended Potential Tools Levels of application Approach 4.0 Capacity Development Awareness, attitudes and Sensitization of  Participatory Regional /District and behaviour change stakeholders Community Dialogues Community  Citizen Voice and Action (CVA)  Community Capacity Enhancement (CCE)  Training for Transformation Technical capacity Pre and post capacity DRR Response capacity National, Regional assessments assessment Self- /district and community Assessment Capacity building tool 5.0 Measuring Resilience Baseline Multi-sectoral team Baseline survey tools National, Regional /District and community Process and outcome Trend analysis approach  The Community Programme Resilience Scorecard  Historical trend analysis of indicators at outcome level  Consumption-based coping strategies index (or reduced CSI) Impact measurement Multidimensional Multidimensional Poverty Program and beneficiary approach Index for each District using the Alkire-Foster method 6.0 Sharing Information and Learning Information Electronic media Mobile and radio National, Regional dissemination messaging /District and community Learning Stakeholder platforms Knowledge sharing and National, Regional Community information dialogue platforms /District, working groups centres Extension Farmer field schools and community messaging and packaging Study circle Facts sheets

Appendix 6. Relationships and Coordination within the Disaster Management Sector DMA report (2013)32has identified the following coordination mechanisms for disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness in Lesotho. 1.0 National Disaster Risk Reduction Council The Council has the mandate to provide policy direction in disaster risk reduction taking into account new challenges, experiences and lessons learnt from recent disasters and disaster reduction actions in or outside Lesotho. The council also is tasked to promote the integration of disaster risk reduction measures in all aspects of social and economic planning and development. The Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, shall meet at least two (2) times a year and as often as it deems necessary. 2.0 Board of Directors on DRR The Board advises the Council on policy and programs necessary for disaster management; reviews the annual plans of statutory bodies, independent departments and offices to ensure that they address the issues of disaster risk reduction and advises accordingly. The Board supervises National Disaster Management Authority activities, including budgets preparation; co-ordination of needs and damage assessment in the times of disaster; and the development of the operational framework. 3.0 Sectoral Working Groups In order to coordinate DRR and EPR activities in Lesotho, the Government has established under the coordination of the Disaster Management Authority (DMA) various sectoral working groups, which are supposed to form committees of the National Platform. The followings sectoral working groups have been created: Training; Water and Sanitation, Health and Nutrition; Food and Logistics; Agriculture and Food Security; Emergency Services, Early Warning Group. The functions of the Sectoral Working Groups are to: keep the sectoral early warning reports under check; review, enhance and evaluate disaster risk reduction training; submit to the Board of Directors for approval and, when approved, coordinate and monitor the 32 DMA. 2013. The national Disaster Risk Reduction, Emergency Preparedness and Response Capacity Assessment Report. implementation of sectoral plans on disaster risk reduction; coordinate and monitor multi- sectoral disaster relief and post-disaster recovery measures in the event of a disaster induced emergency; present sectoral expenditure estimates and budget and training requirements for disaster risk reduction to the Board of Directors for approval; and, serve as a forum for information sharing on inter-sectoral disaster risk reduction issues. 4.0 District Disaster Management Team (DDMT) In every district DMA has been requested to create a multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary and multi-representative District Disaster Management Team whose members are appointed by the Head of the District Administration. The District Disaster Management Team assists the Head of the District Administration in discharging responsibilities relating to disaster risk; assesses particular hazards facing the district; liaises and cooperates with the Authority in ensuring that development plans for the district take into account potential hazards affecting the district; etc. 5.0 Village Disaster Management Team (VDMT) The DMA Act urges each community or cluster ofcommunities in a district to establish a village disaster management team. The composition of the VDMT is to be determined by the district secretary and the local village development council. In the current decentralization policy there is a provision to create Village Development Committees. Maybe it would be good to harmonize committees at village level for sustainability purposes. Even in social protection, MOSD usually work with Village Assistance Committees. 6.0 The National Environment Council and the Environmental Coordinating Committee (ECC) The 2008 Environment Act defines clearly the composition, functions and keys activities to be undertaken by these two coordinating bodies. The Council is a high level coordinating body chaired by the Minister of Environment and composed by keys ministers including trade, industry, agriculture, local government, public works, development planning, health, natural resources, etc. The Coordinating Committee is composed by Permanent Secretaries of these ministries. The Department of Environment has set up a number of technical advisory committees, namely the Committee for Environmental Data Management (CEDAMA), Committee on Waste Management (COWMAN), the Chemicals Management Committee (CHEMAC). The CEDAMA was established in 1999. The main objective of this committee is to coordinate environmental data management activities in the country. Since its establishment the committee started developing a spatial data standards and exchange policy. CEDAMA produced draft data exchange and sharing guidelines in 2000 in a bid to address the issues of poor data exchange among producers and users of environmental data and information. Coordination with Partners is done through the following mechanisms:  UN Disaster Risk Management Team (UNDRMT): is a supportive body of the UNCT, lead by the RC, chaired by WFP with FAO as co-chair, to prepare and coordinate emergency preparedness and response activities, and to coordinate long term plans for DRR and resilience building among UN agencies, with capacity building to the GoL in the DRR respective areas. The UNDRMT is working in close coordination and provide support to the Program Management Team (PMT). The emergency coordination structure of the United Nation system in Lesotho is organized around the UN Disaster Risk Management Team (UNDRMT) which includes WFP, FAO, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and WHO. The UNDRMT give regular updates and coordinate on-going activities, challenges and achievements. Also on monthly basis, the UN emergency coordination meets with Disaster Management Authority and relevant sector working groups including NGOs in the food security sectors for information sharing and exchange forum. The UNDRMT in cooperation with the Government of Lesotho (GOL), through its Disaster Management Authority (DMA), prepares coordinated response plan including a rapid response element funded through CERF and a broader emergency and recovery plan.. This partnership may not be the only one in Lesotho. WFP and UNDP (apart from FAO in some occasions) also partner with NGOs. Therefore the partnerships between UN agencies and both international and local NGOs are frequent in Lesotho  Development Partners Consultative Forum (DPCF): fifteen development partner agencies are active in Lesotho. Donor coordination, alignment and harmonization have improved since the formation of Development Partners Consultative Forum (DPCF) in 2005. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) coordinates the DPCF and it comprises all the donors including UN agencies, the Millennium Challenge Account and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The forum seeks to improve aid coordination, promote harmonization and support the Government in ownership of development processes.  Health Sector-wide approach (SWAp) mechanism is in place: In order to improve government ownership and leadership role, a Partners-MoH Forum is now in place. This government- led mechanism facilitates the exchange of information and policy dialogue between development partners and the government on all matters related to the health sector. The Forum is headed by the Principal Secretary of the MoH, and includes in its membership senior-level government and development partner officials. The SWAp process currently involves donor agencies and other groups in civil society, and the core elements of the Lesotho SWAp mechanism are: Common programs of work, Agreed funding arrangements, Agreed implementation and monitoring arrangements and Institutionalized policy dialogue. Other fora through which the health partners share ideas and experiences and discuss challenges include the UN Expanded Theme Group on HIV and AIDS and the AIDS Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) for the Global Fund to Fight AIDs, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The meetings of these fora are convened monthly.  The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), an umbrella programming mechanism of the UN Country Team in Lesotho, works in close cooperation with and has aligned its priorities to those of the government. The current UNDAF reaffirms the commitment of the UN Country Team to support the efforts of the government and people of Lesotho toward realizing the long-term national Vision 2020 goals. The framework is also used for monitoring progresses made by Lesotho towards achieving MDG targets by 2015.

Appendix 7: Implementing the Resilience Framework: Guiding principles a) Comprehensive multi-stakeholder risk analysis Designing interventions to improve the absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities that underlie resilience capacity requires good program design, which depends on a theory of change (TOC) that correctly identifies the underlying problems and appropriate leverage points needed to affect desired change. However, development of such a TOC depends on a thorough multi-hazard, multi-sector assessment of all the contextual factors that affect the system(s) under study. Analysis begins with a comprehensive understanding of risk and vulnerability – the environmental, political, social, economic, historical, demographic, religious, conflict, and policy conditions that affect, and are affected by, how households, communities, and governments prevent, cope with, and recover from shocks and stresses. A comprehensive assessment is necessary to fully understand the constantly changing relationship between risk and vulnerability on the one hand and livelihood outcomes and resilience on the other. Comprehensive and holistic risk analysis must involve a multi-stakeholder participatory process that brings together different perspectives to identify the problems and potential solutions for dealing with shocks and stressors. Stakeholders should include members of the target population, community and local government officials, interested citizens, community- based organisations and NGOs, implementing agencies, and other entities (e.g., schools, research institutions, private sector, and universities) from relevant sectors. In particular, a participatory process (e.g., Community-based Planning) helps ensure community-level input into identifying the problem(s) from the community’s perspective as well as what they perceive to be their assets, capacities and existing community approaches for addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability to shocks and stressors. Community input contributes to a sense of community ownership and increases the likelihood of success and long-term sustainability of the program. Working with and enhancing existing local institutions will also help ensure program continuity and facilitate exit later in the program cycle. b) Integrated and holistic programming approaches Resilience building relies on integrated programming—a cross-sectoral approach with a long- term commitment to improving the four critical resilience capacities: preparedness, absorptive capacity (disaster risk management), adaptive capacity (longer-term livelihood investments) and transformative capacity (improved governance and enabling conditions).Programs with an integrated approach ensure that partners and sectors work together to address key leverage points and adopt complementary, synergistic strategies to promote resilience. However, simply combining cross-sectoral interventions in either time or space (i.e., integration) does not necessarily result in the synergistic effects expected when interventions in one sector actually interact with—and enhance—those in another sector in order to affect desired change outcomes. Cross-sectoral programming supports and protects a core programming focus (e.g., food and nutrition security, poverty, peace-building) through strengthened resilience at household, community or higher system levels. c) Long-term commitment Building resilience is a long-term process that requires the sustained and coordinated commitment of all relevant actors. In addition, it requires alignment of incentives for adaptive /transformative behaviour with economic incentives. The support of Development Partners is critical for government of Lesotho to develop comprehensive national plans and align their support behind those plans in a coordinated manner and according to their comparative advantage. National plans must be flexible enough to react quickly to deteriorating situations and be supported by strategic and flexible financing from both humanitarian and development mechanisms. The Government of Lesotho’s Vision 2020 and NSDP 2012-2017 supports a longer-term commitment to resilience building in Lesotho. d) Strengthening social capital and social protection Paldam (2002)33 proposes three integrated definitions of social Capital. First, according to the ease of cooperation definitions, social capital is the ability of people to work voluntarily together with others for a common purpose in groups and organizations. Secondly, he advances the trust definition in which social capital is the quantity of trust people have in other members of a group. Trust is assumed to be reciprocal otherwise known as goodwill. Thirdly, he posits the trust payoff definition in which social capital is the amount of benefits the individual can draw on his goodwill. Thus overall social capital is defined as the average of all members of the group. The ability of people in the population to form groups cooperating for joint projects is at the heart of social capital and groups cooperate for three 33 Paldam M. 2002. Social Capital: One or Many? Definition and Measurement. Journal of Economic Surveys Vol. 14 (5): 629 – 653. basic reasons (Paldam 2002). First groups cooperate for their own reasons trusting that everybody else will do their part, they follow an abstract sense of duty and behave well for moral, socio-political or religious reasons. Secondly, group members cooperate due to peer pressure and they may choose a decision structure and a leader, but the whole process is within the group and membership is voluntary and open. Previous research demonstrates that the extent and application of social capital34 is an important element in determining the nature of resilience, particularly at the community level and initiatives to build resilience in Lesotho should include strengthening social capital in the design of their programs. Project activities encourage collective action, collaboration, and self-organization to promote self-sufficiency, enhance decision-making, and increase asset bases, and facilitating inter-community social relationships that broaden the networks from which communities may draw in order to cope with complex shocks. e) Systems approach A sub-national approach may enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of resilience capacity- building programming in Lesotho by allowing stakeholders (e.g., government, NGOs, UN agencies, donors, private sector, academia) to align resources, build staff capacity, and address cross-country themes that require systems thinking and approaches (e.g., cross-border conflicts, large-scale natural disasters, trans-boundary migration). A sub-national approach may allow for better contextualization of a defined area, which is required for good problem analysis (particularly at a systems level) and programming. Because many different actors often implement similar program initiatives within a single district, a systems approach provides significant opportunities for cross-learning and enhanced knowledge management such ass .identifying and addressing critical knowledge gaps, making program-based knowledge available in a timely fashion and reader-friendly format and linking information back into iterative programming. There are, however, limits to what should constitute a system, which might be constrained by physical or political boundaries, agro-ecological zones, the rural urban divide etc. Thus, systems approaches need to consider contextual factors unique to each district. A sub- national approach may also contribute to more coordinated strategic planning around resilience, which would help ensure that relevant stakeholders are on the same page in terms of understanding the risks and anticipating probable humanitarian needs. 34 Social capital is the ability f) Iterative and flexible process that allows for real-time changes in programming Context is dynamic rather than static and is constantly changing based on how individuals, households or communities deal with and respond to risks and shocks (Alinovi et al. 2010)35. Thus, new contextual factors may need to be incorporated into resilience building approaches as circumstances change (either positively or negatively). Interventions must be designed in a way that allows for real-time changes and improvements to programming through regular feed-back and shared learning. Program designs must include a flexible and iterative monitoring system that also allows for more timely and efficient procurement of resources (e.g., crisis modifiers) that facilitates a quick transition from development to humanitarian activities based on early warning trigger indicators. g) Build national and local capacity Ultimately, resilience building should be led by national governments wherever possible, particularly in providing the enabling environment e.g. functional institutions, good governance, productive infrastructure, healthy natural resource base necessary for improving the preparedness, absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities of households, communities and higher-level systems. Given Lesotho’s recent political and economic crises, resilience building must include strong programming elements for building capacity at all levels of government, but particularly at the national level, that can lead to systemic changes in the structural constraints (e.g., ecological, political, economic, social, markets, agricultural, policy) contributing to food, nutrition, and livelihood insecurity in Lesotho. In particular, it is imperative to analyse the resilience capacities of all stakeholder sectors but especially the government institutions and central planning and procurement agencies. h) Multi-track approach that combines humanitarian and development interventions A linear, phased approach to relief, recovery and development has had limited long-term success in preventing recurrent emergencies in regions of chronic vulnerability or in making sustained improvements in protracted emergencies. A multi-track approach is needed that builds strong linkages between short-, medium-, and long-term programme interventions that span humanitarian (short-term track) as well as development responses (medium and longer- 35 Alinovi, L., M. D’Errico, E. Mane, and D. Romano. 2010. Livelihoods Strategies and Household Resilience to Food Insecurity: An Empirical Analysis to Kenya. Paper prepared for Conference on Promoting Resilience through Social Protection in Sub-Saharan Africa, organized by European Report of Development, Dakar, Senegal, June 28–30. term tracks). Tracks should complement each other and be coherent. They may be initiated simultaneously, sequenced over time, and/or layered, depending on need. This calls for joint or mutually-informed project designs and procurements to enable the layering, integrating or sequencing of humanitarian and development assistance. To achieve this ideal, the planning, financing and procurements mechanisms of the central government must be streamlined. Moreover, such planning and budgeting functions must also be decentralized to the district levels. The coordination capacity of DMA will be critical hence capacity building is imperative. i) Anchored in national and local actors’ realities and contexts Building resilience is context-specific, i.e. it is defined by the type of shock or stressor experienced as well as by the social, economic, environmental, and political context in which the shock occurred and in which household or community response decisions are made. Understanding local perceptions of the challenges and priorities, and tailoring programs to strengthen or improve limiting contextual factors is an important component of resilience building at the individual, household and community levels. j) Build strategic partnerships and dynamic relationships that are transformative Building resilience requires a diverse range of actors with complementary capacities and skills. Programming initiatives should engage the most vulnerable to the most powerful stakeholders, and maintain awareness of the incentives, motivations and power dynamics that define relationships. Strategic partnerships between government entities, NGOs/CBOs, donors and others (e.g., private sector, UN agencies) can drive formulation of new ideas and solutions, support identification and promotion of shared interests, help clarify programming priorities, and capture important lessons learned from complementary sectoral interventions. Strategic partnerships are also important for joint risk analysis and multi-sectoral approaches to building resilience. By forging mutually advantageous partnerships, development and humanitarian actors can strengthen the ability of vulnerable populations to adapt to change, improve their well-being, and contribute to and benefit from social development and economic growth.

Appendix 8: Strategic Areas of Intervention 8.1 Build Stability through Preparedness, Response and Resource Mobilization Local Sectoral partnerships are already working on early preparedness to ensure access to early warning messages, food and water security and developing response plans for the vulnerable groups inclusive of women, children, older people and socially excluded members of society when the disaster strikes in a geographic location in Lesotho. The objective is to enhance stability by improving the capacities of communities to better prepare and protect themselves. Some progress has been achieved for community based disaster preparedness institutionalized model to increase resilience and establish a culture of DRR. This model focuses on strengthening the national mechanism for disaster preparedness through community based rural and urban preparedness. While these activities work towards building stability of a community, more concern is now raised to address issues that arise from climate vulnerabilities (extreme weather events, drought and heavy rains /floods). a) Preparedness Early preparedness remains an area where scale can be achieved for wider replication of behaviours for sustainability. Vulnerable communities need to gain sufficient capacity in terms of knowledge development, information dissemination and skill building to prepare themselves for shocks and stresses when it comes to disaster and climate change. Such interventions are costly hence resource mobilization will be critical for achievement of this ideal. However, to reach maximum program effect the sectoral ministries need a joint advocacy campaign with media or rounds of workshops with non-state actors to popularize current achievements for higher scale and replication. b) Response There is a critical need to build response capacity of households, communities and CBOs within. However, such efforts must including national and local government and private sector need to have access to basic emergency services during calamities besides regular relief assistance. Water and food security are crucial for communities. So, even before disaster strikes or climate change occur, communities need to be educated on better land and water management. Therefore, any opportunity on knowledge dissemination regarding land and water management must be prioritized. Overall response national, local government and private sector must be capacitated for response. c) Resource Mobilization The vulnerable communities need to gain their access to locally developed sustainable resources, services and resilient facilities to improve their living condition in the face of hazards. Thus another key aspect of the resilience framework is based on the three fundamentals: i) Build Absorptive Capacity: early preparedness, disaster response and resource mobilization; ii) Improve Adaptive Capacity: resilient livelihood, social safety and protection mechanism; iii) Develop Transformative Capacity: good governance, transformative leadership. 8.2 Building Resilient Livelihood, Access to Basic Services and Social Safety Nets Vulnerable poor community members need alternative livelihood options (both on farm and off farm)for incremental support to adjust with ecological and climatic changes. Unless they can engage in cash generating alternative choices, they often have to sell their assets (known as distress selling) to keep up with livelihood due to limited options. Reduction of distress selling requires access to minimal low cost financial and social capital while recovering from the shocks and stresses. Alternative livelihood options sequentially may allow poor households (inclusive of women, youth, persons with disabilities, older people) to graduate from poverty. The choices also need to give special consideration to the elderly people, who can engage in alternative income, allow women to get direct market access to sell their produce and have control over their resources. Alongside, communities need to produce adequate and nutritional food to grow and to feed its members. For resilient livelihoods, Sector players need to emphasize more on this area including: i) Promoting alternative livelihoods and engage vulnerable groups with other income generating activities jointly with MAFS; and ii) Social safety net - both formal and informal safety nets can be developed to reduce distress selling and allow them to get back to their livelihoods. The formal social safety nets can become available to the vulnerable groups when state agencies allocate funds to offer safety nets, such as cash for work programs, school lunches for children to prevent drop out from schools, engage women labours to repair and reconstruct during stress and hazards. On the other hand, through non state bodies (NGOs, financial intermediaries), we can encourage farmer groups, producer groups to form financial group savings that can act as informal social safety nets during times of crisis. 8.3 Transformative Capacity: Good Governance and Transformative Leadership The outcome of institutionalizing a resilience framework is to achieve a state where all relevant organizations and agencies will integrate disaster risk reduction considerations into their sustainable development policy, planning and programming at all levels. The framework will provide the urgency for disaster management and relevant authorities will provide the guidelines to be developed with the participation of sectoral experts to ensure its compatibility. To this end and in the context of other initiatives, we must identify key areas and assist in establishing good governance and encouraging transformative leadership. Development partners must encourage good governance through technical support to government of Lesotho including facilities for budget support as well as activities for expense tracking from the very top to local community council level using advanced management information systems (MIS). Academia and research institution can on their part lead and support, evidence based research and capacity building; ii) However, since GoL is still not using advanced MIS to track allocated fund for disbursement and use, technological assistance to develop digital monitoring system can be prioritized. Development of such platforms should also need to look into online applications facility by community with the help of local agencies (such as for improving infrastructure or to run a scheme); iii) Think tanks/research institutes who can give intellectual support through evidence based research to government to bargain for better entitlement of facilities (i.e. better water treaty) and also can be potential entry for building negotiation and bargain power within national, regional and global platforms. 8.4 Research, Innovation and Knowledge Management This area must be prioritized within the framework as an overarching area of work for all sector players with a view to put emphasis on encouraging research and supporting innovation platforms to bring out and promote new technologies. Related knowledge sharing platforms can be made more proactive through developing soft skills where each sector will either can give technical support or engage experts as the case maybe. Local knowledge sharing platform should give access facilities to people living with disabilities, elderly people, women and other socially excluded persons. Potential national entry points for this area can be: i) A platform that is very specialized on climate change issues for research and knowledge sharing; ii) Collaboration with technically based agro-information providers to reach target beneficiaries; iii) Encourage agriculture research and develop collaboration with academia and research institutes to showcase innovation; iv) Advocate the increasing role of clean renewable energy technologies on low carbon development, and how new technologies can increase the disaster and climate change resilience. Apart from that, there should be more emphasis on research based actions initiated to mitigate the disaster risk and climate change. The implementation of the framework prioritize a discussion of new processes and technologies to reduce the environmental impact of private sector operations specially the supply chain with the sector actors. Moreover, it identifis opportunities and barriers to impact a sustainable transport mix for cities in the changing face of urban mobility.