The next Brussels Development Briefing no. 51 on ”Agriculture as an engine of economic reconstruction and development in fragile countries ” took place on 27 June 2018 from 09h00 to 13h00, ACP Secretariat, Brussels 451 Avenue Georges Henri, 1200 Brussels. This Briefing was organised by the ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), in collaboration with the European Commission / DEVCO, the ACP Secretariat, and CONCORD.

1. SomReP Impact Pathways
for Economic Growth
through Agricultural
Transformation
ACP Secretariat, Avenue Georges Henri 451
1200 Brussels
Belgium
Wednesday, June 27th, 2018
Dr Katharine Downie
Head of Quality Assurance, M&E, Knowledge Management
and Innovation for the Somalia Resilience Program (SomReP)
Katharine_Downie@wvi.org

2. 2
The SomReP
Positive Deviance
Study
Section I

3. Research
Goals and
Objectives
To characterize the attributes of households which
could be classified as “positive deviants” (those
demonstrating coping strategies or well-being
indicators, beyond those of the general community)
to better understand the behaviours and practices of
these successful exceptions.
Examine the effect of hypothesized “high impact”
activities for both participating households and the
community in general:
• Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs)
• Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs)
• Installed or rehabilitated water assets
• Early Warning Early Action (EWEA) systems and/or
Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM)
Positive Deviance
Study

4. Targeted
Districts for
Positive
Deviance
Study
Positive Deviance
Study

5. Overview of
the Study
Design
• August 2017
• 20 communities across the 6 districts
• FGDs and KIIs using semi-structured
guide with general community, VSLA
members, community leaders, those
identified by community and staff as
potential positive deviants (individuals and
groups) (total 407 participants across 43
FGDs and 27 KIIs)
• Explore traits indicative of positive
deviance, the role of VSLAs and other
SomReP/project activities in relation to
positive deviance
Qualitative Field
Work
Positive Deviance
Study

6. Overview of
the Study
Design
• September/October 2017
• 40 communities across the 6 districts
(2175 observations)
• Household survey via computer-assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI) using ODK
and Ona
• 8 modules excluding consent and closure
• Household characteristics, shock
exposure and coping, access to services
and information, project participation, FCS,
HFIAS and rCSI
Quantitative
Survey
Positive Deviance
Study

7. Qualitative Findings
Role of Savings
• Savings seen as essential
• To prepare for drought
• To withstand the effects of the drought for a longer period
• To recover from the drought
“They were prepared for the drought and had savings to allow them to go
the extra mile in their response.”
• Savings allow people to:
• Maintain their livelihoods during drought or expand their livelihoods in good
times
• Manage their livestock and farm assets more favorably
• Help others during the drought
• Take early action to recover
Positive Deviance Study

8. 8

9. Findings
from
Quantitative
Household
Participation in
SomReP Activities
Positive Deviance
Study
• Households participating in at least 1 SomReP
activity of interest correlated with improved food
security and reduced reliance on negative coping
mechanisms
• This statement holds true when accounting for other
factors such as wealth, livelihood zone, and
demographic status
• Specific activity participation:
• VSLA participants, households and communities
participating in water access activities had better
food security (FCS, HHS scores)
• Households participating in EWEA/CBDRM
improved food consumption (FCS)

10. Findings
from
Quantitative
• The more SomReP activities that a household
participated in, the better their food security
(FCS)
• Communities with active VSLAs had overall
better food security scores (FCS, HHS
scores) and demonstrated fewer negative coping
strategies (rCSI scores)
• Presence also correlates with improved
recovery/resilience after drought
• Significant association with food security (FCS,
HHS scores) and coping (rCSI scores) for
communities with:
• Trained active CAHWs available
• EWEA committees or CBDRM activities
Community
Exposure to
SomReP Activities
Positive Deviance
Study

11. Findings
from
Quantitative
Characteristics of households with better
well-being outcomes (FCS, HHS scores)
and better coping behaviour (rCSI scores)
• Higher level of education of female
head/spouse
• Main source of drinking water is from a
berkad
• Main source of income is from farm/crop
production and sales
• Use of private, flush toilet
Household
Characteristics
Associated with
Improved Well-
being and Better
Coping Behaviour
Positive Deviance
Study

12. SomReP Impact
Pathways for Phase II -
Agriculture for Economic
Growth in Fragile States
Section II

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16
Push and Pull for Inclusive Market Growth and
Participation
PUSH Strategies - build capacities of smallholders to
engage in markets, become competitive – attract
private sector engagement
PULL Strategies - facilitate the development of market
systems in a manner that expands the diversity and
quality of opportunities accessible to the very poor to
engage more successfully in the economy—be it as a
producer, laborer, employee, business owner, etc., or a
mixture of these.
Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States

17. 17
PUSH Strategies
•Build household or community assets
•Build demand-driven livelihoods and
‘market readiness’ skills
•Improve ‘soft’ skills such as confidence,
negotiating, or relationship building
•Create less risky entry points for
households
Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States

18. 18
PULL Strategies
•Lower barriers to market entry for both market
actors and households
•Build the middle section of the value chain
(traders, aggregators, preprocessors)
•Create new streams of income
•Help build demand for specific markets
•Ensure an enabling policy and regulatory
environment
Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States

19. 19
Key Features of a Push/Pull Approach
1. Embraces a systems approach to analysis and design, recognizing that
many systems—market systems, household systems, gender systems,
religious systems, etc.—influence change.
2. Informed by market demand, increases capacities (such as assets, skills,
networks, behaviors) of the extreme poor to gainfully participate in
markets (i.e., the ‘push’); and promotes development of market systems
to expand the quality and diversity of opportunities extreme and very
poor households have for such participation (i.e., the ‘pull’).
3. Uses sequencing, phasing and/or layering of interventions to
incrementally link together push and pull strategic efforts.
4. Requires a knowledge management system (e.g., M&E data, analysis,
internal learning, ‘feedback loops’) that facilitates adaptive programming
and learning, in support of the theory of change
Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States

20. 20

21. 21
Challenges to Achieving
Impact Through Scale in
Agriculture for Economic
Growth in Fragile States
Section III

22. 22
Challenges
to Achieving
Impact
Through
Scale
• NGOs often lack technical capacity to successfully
source and implement agricultural innovations
and technologies
• Research scientists are tasked with showing
impact, but are not adept at working
downstream in application
• Must have uptake and adoption of agricultural
technologies by smallholders in order to achieve
the scale which will result in impact
• Brokering service required to bring researchers,
private sector and farmers together
Agriculture for Economic Growth in Fragile States

23. 23