**Summary of the ICRC Tracking Strategy philosophy**

**& Minutes of Dec 2006 meeting**

The ICRC Regional Livestock Study published in 2005 proposed that to
achieve better impact of livestock interventions a Tracking Strategy
response is required.

The Tracking Strategy is not a new phenomenon. It is infact how many
nomadic livestock owners themselves manage their herds, involving
different herd management responses at different times in response to
different environmental, social, economic or political stimuli.

The first promotion of tracking strategy or \"opportunistic management\"
emanated from the \"New Thinking\" on range management and pastoralism
developed in the early 1990s by various researchers[^1]. Although based
on sound range management theory, few humanitarian organisations or
development agencies have incorporated it into their planning or
response. Even fewer governments or research and educational institutes,
even in the most affected countries, have recognised it as a valid
pastoralist livelihood management tool.

The tracking strategy approach is especially relevant in non-equilibrium
systems which are common to regions with less than 500 mm annual
rainfall and a variability in rainfall of more than 30%.

ICRC have proposed to use a tracking strategy approach combined with
noting relevant \"threshold values\" in livestock ownership when
responding to livestock emergencies in the Horn of Africa. However to
have any major impact, it will require the adoption of the tool by other
emergency response and development agencies, as well as governments and
donors. Independent, uncoordinated small-scale interventions undertaken
in emergency situations may actually be creating a bigger problem than
they solve. A tracking strategy approach can overcome this by
encouraging better coordination, harmonisation and cooperation.

To be implemented effectively, the tracking strategy requires
flexibility in funding and the development of a set of indicators as to
when to switch from one intervention to another.

**Next steps**

ICRC has circulated the livestock study with the recommendation that the
adoption of a tracking strategy approach best fits response to nomadic
and semi-nomadic livestock systems in the Horn of Africa. Whilst
applying the approach internally it requires broader participation by
other stakeholders including governments. Whilst ICRC is willing to
continue to promote the approach in the short term, it is looking for
another agency or organisation to take the lead on its promotion. This
agency needs to be regional and recognised as a coordination /
implementation agency and not a donor. A meeting with donors, key
livestock NGOs and other international organisations in the livestock
sector is planned to be held in the ICRC Regional Delegation meeting
room in Nairobi on 30^th^ November 2006.

**References**

-   Behnke, R.H. and Scoones, I. (1992) Rethinking Range Ecology:
    Implications for Rangeland Management in Africa. Issues Paper No
    33,March 1992. Drylands Network Programme, ODI

-   Sandford, S. and Habtu, Y. (2000) Emergency response interventions
    in pastoral areas of Ethiopia. DfID report.

-   Vetter, S. (2005) Rangelands at equilibrium and non-equilibrium:
    recent developments in the debate. Journal of Arid Environments
    62 (2005) 321--341

-   Westoby, M., Walker, B.H., Noy-Meir, I., 1989. Opportunistic
    management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range
    Management 42, 266--274.

**Summary of current plans for the ICRC Tracking Strategy meeting to be
held in Nairobi.**

Date: 30^th^ November 2006.

Time: 9.00 am -- 12 noon.

Venue: The Meeting Room, ICRC Regional Delegation, Dennis Pritt Road,
Nairobi,

Participants: Approximately 25 members of the key donor, NGO, UN and
policy agencies. (see attached preliminary list)

Background:

Following the livestock study launches and feedback from various donors
and agencies, there is much interest in the approach. The approach
covers many of the aspects which are currently being widely discussed in
the humanitarian world: disaster risk reduction; linking relief to
development contiguum; and harmonisation / coordination in response
(c.f. cluster approach). The time is right for ICRC to dialogue with key
stakeholders and find a future home for the further development of the
approach.

Intended Outcomes of the Meeting:

1)  To ascertain with key donors their ability to be more flexible in
    their funding in order to have better impact when responding to
    disasters in the region.

2)  To review how the ICRC Tracking strategy approach fits into the
    thinking of other humanitarian organisations working in the region;
    and how it relates to the recent developments in funding - such as
    the UN CERF; the USAID / PLI flexible funding experiences in
    Ethiopia, and the decentralised contingency and trust funds within
    the World Bank / ALRMP in Kenya.

3)  To identify a platform or steering group, outside of ICRC, where
    such a forum / discussion group could be established to lobby for
    the larger adoption of a tracking strategy approach within the
    region.

4)  To set an action plan of requirements and next steps.

**Minutes of External meeting - ** **NAI 06/507 -** **08.12.2006**

**Subject** Livestock Tracking Strategy meeting with Donors in Nairobi

**Date & place of event** 1.Dec. 06, ICRC Regional Delegation, Nairobi.

**ICRC Representatives** Pascal Cuttat, HoRD, Nairobi; Barbary
Boyle-Saidi, Head of Ecosec Unit, Geneva; Piers Simpkin, Regional
lIvestock Specialist, Nairobi.

**Interlocutors** see list below

**Level** Internal

**Institutional** Yes

**Number** **of** **pages** 1 Number of enclosures -

**Initiator(s)** Piers Simpkin

**Sender(s)** idem

**For Action** OP_ASSIST_SE

**For Info** OP_AF_CORNE

**Filing** Chancellery Copy:

**Text**

**MINUTES AND OUTCOME OF TRACKING STRATEGY MEETING WITH DONORS AND KEY
STAKEHOLDERS AT THE REGIONAL DELEGATION MEETING ROOM, NAIROBI;**

**1st December 2006.**

**Present:**

Walter Knausenberger, USAID EA <waknausenberger@usaid.gov>

Noni Session UNDP-DDC <noni.session@undp.org>

Hameed Nuru AU-IBAR <hameed.nuru@au-ibar.org>

Richard Grahn Oxfam <rgrahn@oxfam.org.uk>

A.M. Abass ALRMP <abass@aridland.go.ke>

Nick Haan Consultant <nhaan@T-ANA.com>

Martin Nyamweya VSF-CH <m.nyamweya@vsfsuisse.org>

Ilona Gluecks VSF-CH <igluecks@vsfsuisse.org>

Bruno Minjauw FAO <bruno.minjauw@fao.org>

Francesco Del Re FA <francesco.delre@fao.org>

John Hayward ECHO <John.Hayward@cec.eu.int>

Heather Campbell EU <heather.campbell@ec.eu.european>

James Kamara UNEP <James.Kamara@unep.org>

Barbara Boyle Saidi ICRC <bboylesaidi@icrc.org>

Piers Simpkin ICRC <ssimpkin@icrc.org>

Following a welcome address by Pascal Cuttat (Head of Regional
Delegation) and a background to ICRC assistance programmes by Barbara
Boyle Saidi (Head of Ecosec Unit, Geneva), Piers Simpkin presented the
Tracking Strategy and aims of the meeting.

The main aim of the presentation was:

To advocate for a more consistent, harmonised approach to responding to
the problems of pastoral systems in the Horn of Africa, and more
specifically:

-   To verify the extent to which the ICRC thinking on the tracking
    strategy matches that of other humanitarian organisations operating
    in the region.

-   To identify or encourage the creation of a platform or steering
    group, external to the ICRC, that could actively promote the
    adoption of a tracking strategy approach within the region.

-   To confirm the disposition of key donors towards greater funding
    flexibility in order to improve disaster response in the region.

**Comments / discussion following the presentation:**

**Oxfam**: Different approaches are needed for different livelihood
groups. The Tracking strategy does not provide specific recommendations
for the destitute population in pastoralist areas as it is these (and
not the existing livestock owners) who are the most vulnerable
population in these areas.

**FAO** :- A large proportion of these populations are already living
below the poverty line, it does not require a shock to create a crisis
-- many are already in chronic crisis. Thus both long-term livelihood
issues as well as relief have to be addressed. There is a need for
advocacy for this long-term investment and support.

**VSF-CH:** The starting point of the crisis will vary from place to
place according to wealth and situation.

**UNEP:** There is need to address the environmental degradation and
deteriorating resources. The Tracking Strategy should take into account
national poverty reduction strategies. Although different countries have
different strategies, there is need for a regional approach that
incorporates national policies.

**Nick Haan**: The Tracking Strategy approach is similar to Integrated
Phase Classification (IPC); both use the livelihoods approach. The IPC
starts from the situation analysis but lacks a response option analysis.
The Tracking Strategy approach starts from a response analysis -- thus
both are very complementary. There is a need for [dynamic]{.underline}
responses; addressing both immediate and long-term issues.

**ECHO**: The problems in pastoral areas in the Horn of Africa arise
from some heavy structural factors: population growth, climate change,
governance and environmental degradation. It requires action but there
is a lack of coordination in planning, approaches and response. It needs
a policy framework.

Although the situation in the Horn of Africa is of major concern
globally, no organisation has highlighted the issues. It requires
advocacy.

ECHO also emphasises the importance of quality interventions.

**USAID**: There is a need to converge the thinking on pastoralism.
USAID tackle some of the issues with the RELPA project with an emphasis
on rural banking, and the R2D -- relief to development projects.

**Outcome of the meeting:**

The Tracking Strategy is appropriate and in line with the thinking of
other agencies. There is a great need to link the development agencies
\"preventative\" work with \"emergency response\"..

Should avoid creating new platforms or steering groups that are just
\"talkshops\". A platform needs to be regional and operational. A
platform should both review / recommend the tools to be used, and also
lobby to bring ASALs / Horn of Africa issues to the forefront of donor
planning. The FAO\'s Regional Food Security and Nutrition Working Group
(FSNWG) is an existing platform that uses IPC. It exists at the regional
level and is currently trying to \"roll-out\" the approach, aiming to
encourage the use of IPC globally and to make it operational. The
roll-out includes dialogue and inclusion of other ideas. Technically IPC
fits the Tracking Strategy approach, but it has yet to be implanted in
government institutions.

There has been a shift in donor thinking on funding, with the
recognition that there needs to be more flexibility in funding. Whilst
this thinking is well established at the regional level, and now has a
sympathetic ear at headquarters level, much more needs to be done.

**Summing-up what needed to be achieved from the meeting:**

Need for a [project]{.underline} to implement a combined harmonised
approach to response: which includes a platform -- but an operational
one.

What are ICRC\'s aims from this meeting?: To get better impact to
beneficiaries and find a way to address a deteriorating situation. ICRC
can only contribute partially to solving the problem -- it requires much
more.

The participants felt ICRC\'s role should be:

-   To contribute to the ICP analysis through ideas and attendance at
    technical meetings. By participating this could also ensure
    impartiality within the analysis.

-   Provide ideas and influence.

-   Attend meetings as an observer but provide technical capacity.

-   Advocate to improve the availability of funding for pre and
    post-crisis funding (in acute crisis funding is often available)

There is need for more debate on the thematic.

**Conclusions from participants:**

ICRC should advocate and lobby more with donors at the senior
headquarters level for a prioritisation of the Horn of Africa issues and
needs for increased levels of flexible funding.

The FSNWG and IPC would be a good platform for embedding the tracking
strategy approach, but the platform must be an operational one.

ICRC should contribute technical input towards the ICP analysis by
attending FSNWG meetings; provide ideas and influence.

[^1]: ^For\ more\ information\ refer\ to\ Behnke\ and\ Scones\ (^1999^),\ Sandford\ and\ Habtu\ (200^0^),\ and\ more\ recently\ reviewed\ by\ Vetter\ (2005).^