Livestock value chains present a multitude of challenges in the analysis of resilience given their multidimensional role in livelihoods and complexities associated with their biological aspects of production. [Author] This paper discusses these challenges at length and provides some guidance on methodological and operational modalities to tease out these nuances that better inform public policy and the choice of technical and policy interventions. [Author] Specific advice on models, data and applications is provided. [Author]

Agrifood systems in the Near East and North Africa are characterized by increasingly degraded natural resources and vulnerability to climate change, rapid population growth and protracted crises. In addition, the region has been affected by conflict that has further exposed the fragilities and worsened the challenges already faced by communities. Conflict negatively affects the poverty rate, the economic capacity and functioning of agrifood value chains and people’s ability to produce, distribute and access food. In volatile operating environments, resources, government spending and private investment are frequently diverted or reduced, with lasting impact on agri-food value chains and consequently nutrition and food security. Uncertainties inherent to these contexts can further undermine the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of agri-food value chain development interventions, programmes and projects.Investigating the connection between sustainable, resilient agrifood value chain development and the unique characteristics of the highly volatile situations in which they are operating, these practitioner guidelines propose a four-step approach for selection, analysis and design of agrifood value chains in conflict prone and conflict affected contexts. The approach aims to strengthen the resilience of agri-food value chains through systems-based solutions, adopting a context-sensitive programming approach and ensuring an adaptive programming effort through a Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) framework, to facilitate testing and scaling-up.

Food insecurity at the national and household level not only is a consequence of conflict but can also cause and drive conflicts. This paper makes the case for an even higher priority for food security–related policies and programs in conflict-prone countries. Such policies and programs have the potential to build resilience to conflict by not only helping countries and people cope with and recover from conflict, but also contributing to preventing conflicts and supporting economic development more broadly—that is, helping countries and people become even better off. Based on this definition and a new conceptual framework, the paper offers several insights from four case studies on Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. First, conflicts are often related to other shocks such as economic crises, price shocks, and natural disasters. Second, increasing subsidies is a favored policy measure in times of crisis; however, such measures do not qualify as resilience building. Third, climate change adaptation should be an integral part of conflict prevention in part because climate change is expected to significantly increase the likelihood of conflict in the future. Fourth, building price information systems, introducing and expanding credit and insurance markets, geographic targeting of social safety nets, and building functioning and effective institutions are key measures for building resilience to conflict. Finally, the paper points to several important knowledge gaps.

This Food Policy Report explains why there is a need to place even higher priority on food security-related policies and programs in conflict-prone countries, and offers insights for policymakers regarding how to do so. To understand the relationship between conflict and food security, this report builds a new conceptual framework of food security and applies it to four case studies on Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It argues that food security-related policies and programs build resilience to conflict insofar as they are expected not only to help countries and people cope with and recover from conflict but also to contribute to preventing conflicts and support economic development more broadly: by helping countries and people become even better off.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed this three-year strategy to strengthen resilience of agriculture-based livelihoods in Nigeria under recurring threats from both conflict and natural hazard-induced disasters to better withstand shocks and thrive. It integrates the pathways for resilience through four main outcome areas. The first one is the strengthening of the national institutions and their entities for disaster risk reduction, natural resources management and food crisis prevention and management in the agriculture sector. Secondly, it aims to inform agriculture-based livelihood interventions with reliable data, analysis and a well-established early warning system against known and emerging risks and hazards, for enhanced food security. Besides, the strategy aims to promote diversified, resilient and inclusive agriculture-based livelihood systems and also to improve and protect food security and nutrition, and agriculture-based livelihoods of crisis-affected populations.

One and a half billion people still live in fragile, conflict affected areas. People in these countries are about twice as likely to be malnourished and to die during infancy as people in other developing countries.2 This outcome is often a direct consequence of conflict: conflict reduces food availability by destroying agricultural assets and infrastructure.

FAO teamed up with the World Bank on this strategic analysis of the investment, policy and institutional support needed to shift South Sudan’s agriculture sector from humanitarian relief to a development-oriented growth path. The team carried out a thorough review of lessons learned in South Sudan and other conflict-affected countries and held consultations with a wide range of stakeholders in the country. As a result, four complementary investment strategies were identified: agriculture production and food security; community resilience and social capital; value chain development and jobs; and peace consolidation. The authors advocate for combining these four strategies in a flexible way, depending on how the shocks currently affecting agriculture (conflict, violence, macro-economic instability, governance, natural disasters) evolve in the coming years. The Government of South Sudan and the World Bank consider this analytical work a milestone that will pave the way for future investments in agriculture and rural development in the country. This publication is part of the Country Investment Highlights series under the FAO Investment Centre’s Knowledge for Investment (K4I) programme.