St a nd a rd s f o r
S u pp o r t i n g
C ro p - re l at e dLive l i ho o d s i n
Eme rg e n c ie s
2022 EDITION

Practical Action Publishing Ltd
25 Albert Street, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 2SG, UK
www.practicalactionpublishing.com© SEADS, 2022
The moral right of the editors to be identiﬁed as editors of the work and the contributors to be identiﬁed ascontributors of this work have been asserted under sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Design and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying andrecording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the written permission of the publishers.
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalogue record for this book has been requested from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-1-78853-239-6 Paperback
ISBN 978-1-78853-241-9 Electronic bookCitation: SEADS (2022), Standards for Supporting Crop-related Livelihoods in Emergencies, Rugby, UK:
Practical Action Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781788532419
Since 1974, Practical Action Publishing has published and disseminated books and information in supportof international development work throughout the world. Practical Action Publishing is a trading name ofPractical Action Publishing Ltd (Company Reg. No. 1159018), the wholly owned publishing company ofPractical Action. Practical Action Publishing trades only in support of its parent charity objectives and any
proﬁts are covenanted back to Practical Action (Charity Reg. No. 247257, Group VAT Registration No. 880
9924 76).
The views and opinions in this publication are those of the author and do not represent those of Practical
Action Publishing Ltd or its parent charity Practical Action.
Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.
Cover and text design by Jessica Haswell
Cover photo shows Fouriesburg, South Africa. Credit: Adalia Botha
Typesetting by River Valley Technologies
Edited by Kate Murphy

PRAISE FOR THIS BOOK“A clear and concise yet comprehensive guide to deliver impactful and high-quality agriculturalinterventions in emergencies. The practical tools and external resources presented here are valuableadditions, while the focus on participatory and people-centered approaches is highly relevant. This guide isalso a good reminder of aspects that may be overlooked during the planning and implementation phases ofan emergency response. Overall, a great resource for our work in the humanitarian sector.”
Jo Burton, Head of Economic Security Unit, International Committee of the Red Cross, Switzerland“This handbook was produced by bringing together the many years of experience of those implementing
humanitarian interventions to support crop-related livelihoods, many in very diﬃcult contexts. The result isa very well-presented and welcome handbook that will centralize farmers’ needs and priorities and local
crop production systems to enable quality, well-designed, and appropriate humanitarian responses. The
responses developed with the handbook will ultimately support both farmers impacted by crises as well as
those who are part of the wider crop production system, such as seed suppliers and agricultural service
providers, for better recovery after a crisis.”David Traynor, Agricultural Advisor, Concern Worldwide“Evidence-based, livelihoods-based, and rights-based—exactly what is needed to guide emergency
response to smallholder crop producers hit by crisis.”
Pepijn Schreinemachers, Senior Scientist, World Vegetable Center, Thailand“The SEADS Handbook will be a valuable tool and input that will allow the construction of contingency
plans with a focus on livelihoods, which will be prepared with speciﬁc, systematized, and tested activities
for the recovery of livelihoods in the affected areas. In addition, SEADS has a strong commitment to theCore Humanitarian Standards, a highly-valued approach for the coordination of humanitarian assistance inour country.”
Tania Carias, Emergency Preparedness and Capacity Strengthening Specialist, World Food Program Honduras“A delightful book full of essential information that would be an added value for all active stakeholders in
the agriculture sector of a conﬂict area such as the Gaza Strip. The number of details and sequence of thepresentation show that considerable efforts were invested in this book for the greater beneﬁt of the
agriculture sector and speciﬁcally for supporting agricultural livelihood during and after emergencies. The
SEADS Handbook is an important tool for decision makers, helping them to coordinate their efforts andinterventions to reach quickly and effectively the vulnerable and affected farmers.”
Hani Al Ramlawi, Programs and Projects Coordinator, The Agricultural Development Association, Gaza

“In Bangladesh, agriculture extension services provide preparedness, emergency, recovery anddevelopment assistance to crop producers. SEADS will provide thoughtful consideration by policymakers
involved in agricultural extension management systems, and will mark new horizons for how our services
respond to crop-related crisis.”
Md. Abu Sayem, PhD Fellow, Department of Agricultural Extension, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology
University, Dinajpur, Bangladesh

CONTENTS
List of ﬁgures and tablesv

Chapter 1: How to Use this Handbook

1

Chapter 2: The Scope and Approach of SEADS

5

Chapter 3: SEADS Principles

20

Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response

32

Chapter 5: Seed and Seed Systems

53

Chapter 6: Tools, Equipment, and Other Non-seed Inputs

76

Chapter 7: Crop-related Infrastructure

95

Chapter 8: Impact-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation

113

Annex A: Glossary

136

Annex B: Elements of Team Competency

140

Annex C: References

142

Annex D: Acknowledgments and Contributors

149

Annex E: Index

152

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FiguresFigure 1.1: Steps for using SEADS effectively
3
Figure 2.1: SEADS principles and minimum standards use humanitarian foundations and livelihoods,
14
evidence, and rights-based approaches to support the quality and accountability of crop-related crisis
response
Figure 2.2: The Core Humanitarian Standard
15
Figure 4.1: Initial assessment determines if crop-related crisis response is necessary, appropriate,35
and feasible and informs response-area identiﬁcation
Figure A4.1: An example of a completed response-area identiﬁcation tool
50
Figure A4.2: Blank response-area identiﬁcation tool template
51
Figure 5.1: Decision tree for seed and seed systems
63
Figure 6.1: Decision tree for tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs
86
Figure 7.1: Decision tree for crop-related infrastructure
105
Figure A8.1 A simple theory of change for a crop-related crisis response that delivered seeds and129
fertilizer
TablesTable 2.1: SEADS livelihood objectives
8
Table 2.2: Slow-onset, rapid-onset, and complex crises have different impacts on crop production
10
Table 2.3: SEADS supports alignment with the Core Humanitarian Standard
17
Table A4.1: The three SEADS response areas can each impact livelihoods
52
Table 5.1: To assess seed security, assess three main constraints
57
Table 5.2: Several technical sub-options are available to address seed access constraints
58
Table 5.3: Several sub-options are available to support the seed system
59
Table 5.4: Each technical option has advantages and disadvantages
60
Table 5.5: Different seed and seed system technical options are relevant at different stages of the61
agriculture calendar
Table 5.6: Different seed and seed system technical options are relevant at different phases of a crisis 62
response
Table A5.1: Suggested seed quality indicators and targets
75
Table 6.1: Crop producers need a range of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs to support
79
their livelihoods
Table 6.2: Four types of constraints typically affect crop producers affected by a crisis
79
Table 6.3: Several sub-options are available to facilitate access to tools, equipment, and non-seed81
inputsTable 6.4: Each tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs option has advantages and82
disadvantages
Table 6.5: Timing of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs technical options to coincide with84
local cropping seasons—example of maize and beans production
Table 6.6: Different tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs technical options are relevant at
85
different phases of a crisisTable 7.1: Different infrastructure rehabilitation solutions can address issues throughout the crop
production cycle
Table 7.2: Each crop-related infrastructure option has advantages and disadvantages
Table 7.3: Different crop-related infrastructure options are relevant at different phases of a crisis
response
Table 7.4: Different crop-related infrastructure options are relevant at different stages of the
agriculture calendar
Table A8.1: Examples of livelihood impact indicators for crop-related crisis response
Table A8.2: Examples of participatory methods and illustrative uses for monitoring and impact
evaluation of crop-related crisis responses
Table A8.3: Key process indicators to monitor alignment with SEADS principles and minimum
standards
Table A8.4: Methods for estimating crop yields and their cost-effectiveness, scale, and accuracy inestimation, errors and biases
Table B.1: Achievement of SEADS minimum standards requires a range of knowledgeable teammembers

99
101
102
103
124
126
130
134
141

CHAPTER 1:
HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK

Annex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of some of the technical terms used in SEADS.

What is SEADS?
The SEADS Handbook (SEADS) is a set of international principles and minimum standards that support
those responding to a humanitarian crisis to design, implement, and evaluate crop-related crisis responses.
The SEADS principles and minimum standards guide decision making and allow you to:

•
•
•
•

determine if a crop-related response is appropriate, necessary, and feasible
prioritize which crop-related response area may achieve livelihood objectives given the context
track alignment of your projects with minimum standards
measure impact from crop-related crisis response.

Using the SEADS principles and minimum standards will strengthen the quality of crop-related crisis
response and support the saving of lives by saving livelihoods before, during, and after a crisis.
SEADS is not a how-to manual for implementing a crop-related crisis response; therefore it should be usedalongside other resources referred to in each chapter.
Although many crop producers and agro-pastoralists practice mixed farming, growing crops alongsideother productive activities, SEADS does not provide technical guidance on livestock, ﬁsheries, aquaculture,or forestry. Speciﬁc guidance on these is available elsewhere; for instance, in the Livestock Emergency
Guidelines and Standards and the Fisheries and Aquaculture International Guidelines (FAO 2021).

Who should use SEADS?
Anyone who is involved in crop-related crisis response can use SEADS. It will be particularly useful for
people who provide preparedness, emergency, recovery, and development assistance in areas where crop
production contributes to livelihoods. That includes humanitarian actors, bilateral and multilateralorganizations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), governments, community-based organizations, andcivil society organizations.
It will also be useful for policy makers and decision makers in donor and government agencies, whose
funding and implementation decisions affect crisis response.

How should I use SEADS?
Read Chapters 1–3 ﬁrst. Those chapters explain critical concepts that underpin SEADS and allow you to
implement an effective response.
Once you are familiar with the fundamental concepts on which SEADS is based, read the minimum
standards chapters, starting at Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response. The
information and practical tools in Chapter 4 will direct you to one or more technical response options(Chapters 5–7). Chapters 5–7 provide tools, such as decision trees, timing tables, and tables of advantages
and disadvantages, to help you achieve the minimum standards.
Regardless of which technical response option/s you use, you should read and apply Chapter 8:
Impact-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation which describes the minimum standards for impact-oriented
monitoring and evaluation. All the minimum standards chapters provide you with key actions and guidancenotes for you to design, implement, and evaluate crop-related crisis response.
HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK

2

Annex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of technical terms that are used throughout SEADS.
At the end of each chapter you’ll ﬁnd a list of recommended reading that contains additional information,
explanations, and tools. Annex C: References contains a bibliography of the references that are cited ineach chapter.
Figure 1.1 shows the relationship between the chapters and annexes in SEADS.
Figure 1.1: Steps for using SEADS effectively

SEADS is available in print and as a downloadable PDF on the SEADS website. SEADS is a member of the
Humanitarian Standards Partnership (HSP), so you can also use SEADS on the HSP website or on yourmobile device with the HSP app. Both the Interactive Handbook platform and the HSP app allow you toprovide feedback on SEADS at any time.

What is the structure of each SEADS minimum
standard?
The standard
The standard is a qualitative statement applicable in any crisis situation that is a general description,
stating the minimum actions and outcomes to be achieved in any crisis.

HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK

3

Key actions
Practical steps to attain the standard. They may not be applicable in all contexts, so select the most
relevant for your situation.

Guidance notes
Additional information to support the key actions, with cross-references to SEADS principles, the Sphere
Handbook (including the Protection Principles and the Core Humanitarian Standard) (Sphere Association
2018), other HSP standards, and other SEADS minimum standards.

Key process indicators
Key process indicators allow you to monitor adherence to the standard. Suggested indicators are listed inAppendix 8.5. Chapter 8 includes impact indicators that seek to measure the impact of any crop-related
crisis response against the SEADS livelihood objectives.
Note that minimum standards may not always be achievable in the short term, particularly if it is the ﬁrst
time that you are considering them. However, continuous consideration of minimum standards across all
crop-related responses in all crisis contexts can bring you closer to consistent achievement over time.

Supplementary resources
SEADS is supplemented by:• the SEADS Evidence Database• recommended reading lists at the end of most chapters• a series of case studies on the SEADS website https://seads-standards.org/casestudies

When should I use SEADS?
You should use SEADS whenever you suspect that crops may be important to the past, current, or future
livelihoods of people affected by crisis. At the moment you realize crops may be, or may have been,
important to livelihoods, pick up SEADS and follow the steps in Figure 1.1.
A crop-related crisis response will not be suitable in all contexts. Conduct an initial assessment todetermine whether a crop-related response is appropriate, necessary, and feasible. Then use response
identiﬁcation tools to prioritize crop-related response areas that may achieve livelihood objectives given thecontext. Use the minimum standards in Chapter 4 to guide you through these two processes and determine
which, if any, crop-related response areas are suitable.
You can also use SEADS if you ﬁnd yourself in the midst of a crop-related response and you want to know
how to strengthen it or how to ensure that your response has an impact on the livelihoods of people
affected by crisis.

HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK

4

CHAPTER 2:
THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADSAnnex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of some of the technical terms used in SEADS.

Why is crop-related crisis response important?
Millions of people around the world who are vulnerable to crisis rely heavily on crop production to support
their livelihoods. Currently, 40% of the global poor live in economies affected by fragility, conﬂict, andviolence. That number is expected to rise to 67% in the next decade (World Bank 2021). Most very poor
people live in rural areas, and many of them produce their own food and income through agriculture
production (World Bank 2016). People produce food for themselves, their communities, and the foodsupply chain, and they generate income if they sell food they have produced. Support for crop-based
livelihoods in a crisis can protect and rebuild this essential activity and can prevent more extreme foodinsecurity. Provision of essential crop-related inputs ensures continued food production in the short andmedium term. Protection, provision, and rehabilitation of crop-related infrastructure and equipment ensure
future production and make people more resilient to crises.
By protecting and rebuilding crop-based livelihoods before, during, and after a crisis, crop-related crisis
response mitigates the impacts of the crisis by contributing to a sustainable food supply and potential
source of income for the very poor. Crop-related crisis responses can also act as a form of social
protection, helping smallholders and their families cope with crisis and shocks by reducing food losses andby supporting a return to or an increase in food production.
During a crisis, crop production and many associated services that make crop production possible may be
disrupted, making it more diﬃcult for people to meet their food and income needs. A crop-related crisis
response is important because it can keep people from starving, from adopting negative coping
mechanisms, and from migrating. It offers them assistance that can help reduce the impact of future
crises. It has the potential to support a more sustainable use of natural resources and to enhance market
system linkages and viability.

What is a crop-related crisis response?
A crop-related crisis response is the actions taken by state and non-state actors before, during, and after acrisis to support the livelihoods of crop producers and associated systems, services, policies, and markets.
The speciﬁc crop-related crisis response required depends on the context (emergency, operational,
agricultural) and the objectives of the action. Crop-related crisis responses can include preparing crop
producers and their communities for future shocks and rebuilding livelihoods after a crisis. Responses thatare well designed and implemented can:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

improve food security and nutrition
generate income and improve household economies
enhance the sustainable use and management of natural resources
support social capital and networks
provide institutional assistance for early warning and anticipatory action and ensure appropriate
preparation before a crisis occurs
support actors along the value-chain to ensure crop production, storage, and marketing
coordinate between development and humanitarian actors for effective decision making
avoid or lessen the risk of the worst forms of child labor, child marriage, sexual exploitation, and/or
family separation
ensure appropriate organizational skills before a crisis.

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

6

Which crisis-affected people can beneﬁt from SEADS?
SEADS covers the hundreds of millions of people around the world whose livelihoods are supported by crop
production, including millions of state and non-state actors who provide essential production and postharvest assistance services to crop producers. The SEADS principles and minimum standards will primarily
beneﬁt those who have experienced loss of life or property or for whom basic human rights are notaccessible and who require crop-related humanitarian assistance to support their livelihoods, such as:

•
•
•
•

smallholder or subsistence crop producers
home and market gardeners
landless and displaced crop producers
farm laborers.

SEADS will also beneﬁt state and non-state service providers who enable the crop-based livelihoods ofthose affected by crisis, such as:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

seed producers
non-seed input manufacturers and sellers
post-harvest processors
extension agents
ﬁnancial service providers
producer organizationstransporters.

What crops and crises does SEADS cover?
SEADS targets the production of different crops in different settings. SEADS principles and minimum
standards apply to:

•
•
•
•
•

ﬁeld or garden crops for own consumption or as a livelihood activity
different agro-ecological zones around the worldcrop production in rural, peri-urban, and urban settings
crop production practiced by displaced people, including those living in camps
rapid-onset, slow-onset, and complex crises, and the short-term or longer-term responses associatedwith each.

What approach does SEADS take to crop-related
response?
SEADS is:• evidence based• livelihoods based• rights based.

Evidence-based approach
SEADS is guided by a systematic review of over 250 evaluations of crop-related responses in humanitariancrises. The review focused on livelihoods, food security, and nutrition impacts of the main types of croprelated crisis response, including seeds, tools, and other inputs; producer training; pest and disease control;and market support (SEADS 2021).

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

7

The results of this evidence review are in the SEADS Evidence Database. If you are aware of additional
evidence, you can submit it through our website.

Livelihoods-based approach
SEADS is based on a livelihoods approach because crop-related crisis responses support livelihoods. Thisapproach ﬁts within the concept of “saving lives and livelihoods,” which is widely recognized by theinternational humanitarian community as a core aim of humanitarian programming. This approach also
reﬂects learning on the importance of resilience; if livelihoods are resilient, households and communities
are more able to prepare for and recover from future shocks. Livelihoods are the capabilities, assets(including both material and non-material resources), and activities required to make a living. In addition to
supporting food production for own consumption, livelihood impacts are the reason that crop-related crisis
response should be undertaken. SEADS livelihood objectives deﬁne the desired livelihood impacts of any
crop-related crisis response.
Support to existing local service providers and markets, wherever this is feasible and relevant, is an
important aspect of livelihoods-based crisis response and applies to all types of crisis. SEADS aims to
support these local systems to enable recovery and long-term development. SEADS Principle 1: Uselivelihoods-based programming provides additional details on factors that are critical to livelihood analysis
for crop-related crisis response.
Table 2.1 sets out the three SEADS livelihood objectives.
Table 2.1: SEADS livelihood objectives
Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

To provide immediate
livelihood beneﬁts to people
affected by crisis

To protect crop-related
livelihoods of people affectedby crisis

To rebuild or support
crop-related production,
infrastructure, and systems toensure livelihoods for people
affected by crisis

These livelihood objectives and the SEADS livelihoods-based approach mirror those in the Livestock
Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS). Crop-related crisis response should meet one or more
livelihood objectives.
Objective 1 recognizes that people may require rapid assistance during a crisis to produce crops in line with
their normal livelihood practices. Examples include: supplying tools or equipment to harvest crops (which
would otherwise go unharvested); providing rapid market access to enable crops to be sold; facilitating
access to transportation so a producer can get to the market to buy seed.
Objective 2 recognizes the need to maintain pre-production, production, post-production, and marketing
activities so livelihoods can be re-established after the crisis. Such actions may not provide direct beneﬁts
to people during the crisis. For example, organizations can support repair of a storage warehouse so people
will be able to safely store and sell their harvested crops in the future.
Objective 3 recognizes the need to support people’s resilience to future shocks or to rebuild where
substantial losses of infrastructure and systems have occurred. For example, organizations can support
community-based seed producers to breed context-relevant varieties to promote continuity of production,or participatory varietal selection, or early access to already released appropriate varieties.

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

8Working toward livelihood objectives will improve the quality of crop-related crisis responses and thelikelihood that such responses will have an impact on livelihoods. The objectives have an equal capacity tohave an impact on crop-based livelihoods, but people may feel that impact at different times. Immediate
livelihood beneﬁts could be achieved within approximately 30 days (Objective 1). The beneﬁts of protecting,rebuilding, or supporting crop-related livelihoods are not likely to be felt before the end of one cropping
cycle and are more likely to be felt after two or three cycles (Objectives 2 and 3). Expectations of exactly
when people will feel livelihood impacts from assistance are context speciﬁc. Chapter 8: Impact-oriented
Monitoring and Evaluation provides guidance on participatory impact evaluations that measure livelihood
impacts during or at the end of a project.
Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response provides details on prioritizing livelihood
objectives and identifying response areas appropriate for each livelihood objective.

Rights-based approach
A rights-based approach encourages participation, empowerment, accountability, and non-discrimination
when delivering crisis response or development programs, including crop-related responses. SEADS
principles and minimum standards reﬂect this rights-based approach.
SEADS supports crop-related crisis responses that take steps to ensure:

The right to food
Crop producers have a right to assistance to protect and rebuild the livelihoods that provide food forthemselves and their communities. The right to food is an inclusive right; it is realized when food isavailable, accessible, and adequate. Availability relates to food availability from natural resources or in amarket. Accessibility requires economic and physical access to food. Adequacy relates to dietary needs,
food safety, and cultural acceptability.

The right to life with dignity
Many impacts of disasters are directly borne by smallholders (FAO 2017). Crop producers have a right toassistance to maintain a digniﬁed standard of living that supports their families. The process of active
community participation in crisis response (see SEADS Principle 2: Use a participatory approach in all
aspects of crisis response) is an important aspect of supporting the dignity of crisis-affected crop
producers.

SEADS and communities affected by conﬂict
SEADS is aligned with the humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus. Millions of smallholder or
subsistence crop producers, home and market gardeners , and landless crop producers are affected byprolonged and severe conﬂict. Crop-related responses often take place in fragile and conﬂict-prone areas(Tschunkert & Delgado 2022); today, most emergency agriculture funding and effort is channeled tocomplex crises. In addition, the incidence of complex crises in middle-income countries is increasing andwith it the need for additional crop-related humanitarian assistance.
SEADS principles and minimum standards provide numerous opportunities to work in the HDP nexus. The
HDP nexus focuses on the work needed to coherently address people’s vulnerability before, during, andafter crises. This nexus is becoming increasingly important to consider in humanitarian response, as
humanitarian funding in conﬂict areas grows.

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

9

Crop-related crisis responses support coherent HDP approaches by:• gathering livelihoods-based assessment data that consider environmental, political, and sociocultural
trends that may affect crop producers’ ability to engage in the essential activity of food production• identifying and addressing issues that ensure crop production leads to livelihood beneﬁts that can be
felt after the crisis has passed• focusing on preparedness for upcoming crop seasons• strengthening and supporting local seed, tool, equipment, and infrastructure systems and related
services that can improve social cohesion and prevent future conﬂicts• providing ﬂexible funds or “crisis modiﬁers” within development areas prone to natural disasters orrecurring conﬂict, enabling crisis planning and response to be integrated into long-term development
strategies.

What types of crisis can affect crop producers?
SEADS categorizes crises as slow onset, rapid onset, and complex. Table 2.2 describes the three types ofcrisis and their impacts on production and livelihoods; impacts on production trigger gradual worsening of
human food security and livelihoods. Some types of crisis may also be categorized as chronic if the eventsor phases of the event repeat themselves with no or limited return to the previous conditions.
Table 2.2: Slow-onset, rapid-onset, and complex crises have different impacts on crop production
Type and characteristics

Impact on production and livelihoods

Slow-onset crisis
Gradual, increasing stress on livelihoods overmany months until a crisis is declared
Can be a multiyear event
Speciﬁc geographical areas are known to be atrisk, so there is some level of predictability
Early response is often non-existent eventhough early-warning systems exist
Examples include drought, plant pests (such as
fall armyworm), plant diseases (such as wheat
rust, anthracnose, head smut), parasitic weeds(such as Striga hermonthica), pollution, andsalinization

Crop area coverage decreases, and crop
performance gradually worsens in early phasesof a slow-onset crisis, particularly in annual or
horticultural crops
Crop loss is excessive and worsens in later
phases of a slow-onset crisis
Market prices rise due to limited supply
Reduced product quality generates lower prices
and therefore reduced income

Rapid-onset crisis
Occurs with little or no warning, althoughspeciﬁc geographical areas often have known
risks

Displacement affects labor availability

When an alarm is given, it tends to be with little
noticeCrop loss is excessive and rapid during theinitial event

Most impact occurs immediately or within
hours or days

Market prices rise due to limited supply

In the immediate aftermath, recovery can takedays (for example, receding ﬂoods), months, or
years (for example, an earthquake or volcanic
eruption)

Purchasing power collapses

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

Movement of goods and people needed to
produce crops is restricted

Infrastructure and physical assets are
immediately damaged or destroyed10…continued
Examples include ﬂood, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, tsunami, and pest or disease
outbreaks

Markets close due to infrastructure loss, borderclosures, quarantine, lockdown, or conﬂict

Complex crisis
Associated with protracted political instability
and/or internal or external armed conﬂict
Time frame is usually years to decades

Displacement affects labor availability
Crop loss is excessive and low production canbecome chronic

A slow-onset or a rapid-onset crisis can also
occur simultaneously, worsening the impacts of
the ongoing complex crisis

Infrastructure and services to support
production are damaged or destroyed

Examples include ongoing conﬂict with drought(such as in Sudan), civil war (such as in theCentral African Republic and Syria), andterrorism with drought and displacement (suchas in northern Nigeria)

Access to productive assets is disrupted. Thissituation may be temporary in the case of aninternal displacement or long term in the caseof signiﬁcant physical damage to or
contamination of land and infrastructure

New types of complex crisis can emerge (suchas COVID-19)

State and non-state services deteriorate overtime

Markets are disrupted on a wide scale

How does a crisis impact the livelihoods of crop
producers?
A crisis impacts people’s livelihoods, food security, and nutrition. For crop producers the severity of these
impacts varies, depending on the nature of the crisis and when in the agriculture calendar the crisis occurs.
In general, a crisis:• limits crop producers’ access to land, infrastructure, ﬁnancial services, machinery, equipment, labor, or
inputs, which delays or prevents time-sensitive tasks, such as planting, weeding, harvesting, or sales• impedes crop growth due to factors such as too much water (for example, ﬂooding), not enough water(for example, drought), pollution, volcanic ash, extreme temperatures, or salinization• physically damages or destroys infrastructure, assets, stored inputs and harvests, or crops• disrupts supply chains and their associated markets, leading to loss of or reduced access to critical crop
production inputs, such as seeds and fertilizer• causes the collapse of state and non-state extension, research, and marketing services due todisplacement, lockdown, or destruction of equipment and infrastructure• increases competition for limited natural resources required for crop production.
The increased frequency of severe weather-related events and the emergence of new civil conﬂicts posesigniﬁcant challenges to smallholder households from loss of production and income. According to FAO(2017), natural hazards and disasters have doubled in frequency since 1992.
A complex crisis—typically prolonged and driven by political instability and conﬂict—also poses severe
challenges to crop producers. Livelihood impacts from such a crisis can be worsened by natural disasters
and underlying contexts of poverty, climate change, and other factors (CFS 2015). In a complex crisis, crop
producers, whether they remain in their homes or are displaced, face unpredictable and often cyclicalpatterns of restricted production, reduced access to food and income, malnutrition, and poverty.
Crop-based livelihoods are also under continuous threat from pest and disease outbreaks. Some, such as
desert locust, fall armyworm, and cassava mosaic disease, cause direct damage to crops. Others have less
THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

11

direct but signiﬁcant impacts. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to control it resulted indevastating movement and trade restrictions. These prevented migrant farm workers from accessing jobs
and income, reduced food production in communities dependent on that labor, and prevented producers
and consumers from accessing markets (FAO 2021).

Examples of crises and impacts
Slow-onset crisis: Ethiopia
La Niña- and El Niño-related weather events triggered severe rain shortages in the southern highlands andthe lowlands of southeastern Ethiopia in 2008, 2009, and 2010, which culminated in the 2011 drought.
Rainfed crop production for maize, sorghum, and teff was affected in both planting seasons. The mainteff-producing zones in the region were among the most affected, most notably North Shewa, West Shewa,
Southwest Shewa, and East Gojjam. Coffee plantations were signiﬁcantly affected, and key coffeeproducing zones in the Oromia and Southern Nations, Nationals, and Peoples’ Region (Illubabor, Kelem, andKeffa) recorded high losses. Finally, the production of key staple crops, such as sorghum and maize, wasstrongly affected in Amhara and Dire Dawa Regions as well as in the Somali Region, especially in Jijiga.
Area coverage was reduced, and crop performance was poor or failed completely. Lost production and therelated loss of income accounted for 96% of all impact. Physical damage from the drought caused fewer
impacts (only 4%) in Ethiopia during this time (FAO 2017).

Rapid-onset crisis: Typhoon Haiyan
In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan hit the central Philippines. Its winds were the strongest ever recorded in the
country during a cyclone landfall. An estimated 6,300 people died in the cyclone and its immediate
aftermath, and 16 million people were affected. Although Typhoon Haiyan struck after the harvest, it
caused US$857 million in damage and loss of perennial crops, primarily coconut, banana, mango, papaya,
and pineapple. According to government data, 441,256 hectares of coconut plantations were affected by
the typhoon, 40% of which were damaged with no chance of recovery. The high value of coconut
plantations, combined with the long time required for coconut trees to become fully productive again(seven years), signiﬁcantly affected crop-based livelihoods. The loss of annual crops and associatedproduction decreases accounted for 89% of total annual crop damage and loss (FAO 2017).

Complex crisis: Syrian Arab Republic
Since March 2011, the Syrian Arab Republic has experienced both natural disasters and protracted conﬂict.
Violence, displacement, crop destruction, and weather-related events have impacted multiple cropping
seasons. Agriculture in Syria contributes an estimated 26% to gross domestic product and is a criticallivelihood safety net for 6.7 million Syrians—including those internally displaced—who remain in rural areas.
Rural households have been hit particularly hard by the conﬂict, as agricultural land and assets have been
destroyed and access to inputs and markets is limited. From 2011 to 2016, annual crops registered thelargest share of lost production, as area cultivated in wheat, barley, cotton, sugar beet, tobacco, lentils,
chickpeas, and cotton decreased by 30% on average, and by 50% for irrigated land. Insecurity and the highprice of inputs caused 10% of households to stop crop production entirely (FAO 2017).

A new type of crisis: COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected virtually all regions of the world. In many low-income countries, while
human mortality has been relatively low, the economic and food security impacts of COVID-19 restrictions
are comparable with a humanitarian crisis. These restrictions have required people to stay at home. Crop
production has been affected directly and indirectly, and COVID-19 restrictions have disrupted the
movement of food and labor from farms to markets and to people’s homes.

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

12

Food prices have increased by as much as 53.5% in Myanmar, 38.5% in Mozambique, 25% in Nigeria, and
20% in Guatemala (FAO Data Lab 2021).
Markets have been closed or their hours reduced, and public transportation shut down, affecting physicalaccess to food. In Mozambique in July 2020, 30% of the population reported challenges in access tomarkets (OCHA 2020). This limited mobility and shifts in consumer demand due to movement restrictions
led to a loss of income for crop producers who were unable to sell their produce.
Disruptions in local, national, and global supply chains have compromised producers’ access to inputs,
resources, and services they need to continue producing and selling food. For example, in Kenya
smallholders who export ﬂowers, vegetables, nuts, coffee, and cocoa were affected by cancelled freight
operations and border restrictions. In Bangladesh, breakdowns in the transportation system led to the
dumping of perishable food products and dramatic price reductions for on-farm selling (FAO 2021).
With the onset of the pandemic in Haiti, the overall percentage of households owning agriculturalequipment declined from 48% in January 2020 to 10% in February 2021 as they sold off their productive
assets in an attempt to cope with the worsening economic and food security situation (IMPEL 2022).
Movement restrictions also caused disruptions in harvesting due to lack of seasonal labor as well as inplanting due to a lack of seed or fertilizer (OCHA 2020).

What are the SEADS foundations?
SEADS is based on established humanitarian foundations, speciﬁcally:

•
•
•
•

the Humanitarian Charter
Protection Principles
the Core Humanitarian Standard
the Sphere Handbook.

SEADS recognizes and commits to these fundamental elements in all humanitarian contexts for all
crop-related crisis responses, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. SEADS is also aligned with HSP member
standards.

The Humanitarian Charter
The Humanitarian Charter (Sphere Association 2018) expresses a shared conviction of humanitarianorganizations that all people affected by crisis have a right to receive protection and assistance to ensure
the basic conditions for life with dignity. The Charter provides the ethical and legal backdrop to theProtection Principles, the Core Humanitarian Standard, and Sphere and the HSP.

Protection Principles
The Sphere Handbook recognizes four Protection Principles that apply to all humanitarian action and all
humanitarian actors:
Protection Principle 1: Enhance people’s safety, dignity, and rights, and avoid exposing them to further harm.
Protection Principle 2: Ensure people’s access to impartial assistance according to need and without
discrimination.
Protection Principle 3: Assist people to recover from the physical and psychological effects of threatenedor actual violence, coercion, or deliberate deprivation.
Protection Principle 4: Help people to claim their rights.
THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

13

Figure 2.1: SEADS principles and minimum standards use humanitarian foundations and livelihoods,
evidence, and rights-based approaches to support the quality and accountability of crop-related crisis
response

The Core Humanitarian Standard
The Core Humanitarian Standard includes nine commitments that aid organization and individuals make toaffected people and communities. These commitments contribute to improving the quality andaccountability of their activities (see Figure 2.2).

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

14

Figure 2.2: The Core Humanitarian Standard

Sphere and the Humanitarian Standards Partnership
The Sphere Handbook sets out global minimum standards for humanitarian actions. Sphere acts as thefoundation for other humanitarian standards initiatives, including SEADS, which together comprise the
Humanitarian Standards Partnership (HSP):

•
•
•
•
•

Sphere Handbook
Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (CPMS)
Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS)
Minimum Economic Recovery Standards (MERS)
Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery (INEE Minimum Standards)
THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

15

•
•
•
•

Minimum Standard for Market Analysis (MISMA)
Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older People and People with Disabilities (HIS)Minimum Standards for Camp Management (CAMP)
Standards for Supporting Crop-related Livelihoods in Emergencies (SEADS).

The main aims of the HSP are to improve the quality and accountability of humanitarian action acrossdifferent sectors and to support users to develop harmonized approaches in the application of standards.
The HSP organizes joint training opportunities, research initiatives, and outreach activities. It also runs
advocacy activities calling for an increased application of humanitarian standards.

How does SEADS ﬁt in humanitarian response?
SEADS reinforces the relevance of other HSP initiatives to crop-based livelihoods
SEADS reinforces the relevance of the HSP standards to the millions of people affected by crisis who
depend on crops for their livelihoods. Frequent cross-references to the Sphere Handbook and otherinitiatives in the HSP indicate when non-crop speciﬁc issues, such as employment, child labor, or livestock,
may inﬂuence crop-based livelihoods and should be considered. These cross-references provide crucial
links between protecting and rebuilding crop-related assets and other areas of humanitarian response.

SEADS is committed to quality and accountability of responses that support
crop-based livelihoods
The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS) states that accountability is “theprocess of using power responsibly, taking account of, and being held accountable by, different
stakeholders, and primarily those who are affected by exercise of such power.” A commitment to the CHS is
made at the organizational level, so it applies to all humanitarian responses that an organization supports,
including crop-related crisis responses . Table 2.3 outlines speciﬁc components of SEADS that support
accountability to the CHS commitments.

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

16

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

Table 2.3: SEADS supports alignment with the Core Humanitarian Standard
Core Humanitarian Standard commitments and quality criteria

Elements of SEADS that support alignment with the CHS

1. Communities and people affected by crisis receive assistanceappropriate and relevant to their needs

Use of a participatory approach during initial assessment andresponse identiﬁcation (SEADS Principle 2) supports more
appropriate and relevant assistance

Quality criterion: Humanitarian response is appropriate andrelevant

Use of minimum standards on assessment and planning ensures
suitability (Minimum Standards 5.1, 6.1, 7.1)
Use of minimum standards on choice, quality, and technicalspeciﬁcations of crop-related assistance ensures suitability(Minimum Standards 5.4, 5.5, 6.4, 6.5, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2)
Use of minimum standards for monitoring and impact evaluation
determines livelihood impacts (Chapter 8)

2. Communities and people affected by crisis have access to thehumanitarian assistance they need at the right time
Quality criterion: Humanitarian response is effective and timely

Use of SEADS Principle 3 focuses on a timely response
Use of timing tables ensures that crop-related assistance aligns
with agriculture calendars (Tables 5.5, 6.5, and 7.4)
Use of minimum standards for response identiﬁcation and timing
ensures that crop-related assistance considers critical aspects oftiming in response identiﬁcation (Minimum Standards 4.4, 5.2,
6.2, 7.3)
Use of minimum standards for monitoring and impact evaluation
determines livelihood impacts; these impacts reﬂect the
timeliness of response (Chapter 8)

3. Communities and people affected by crisis are not negatively
affected and are more prepared, resilient, and less at risk as aresult of humanitarian action

Working toward achievement of SEADS livelihood objectives(Table 2.1) improves the likelihood that crop-related response will
support livelihoods that are more prepared and less at risk

Quality criterion: Humanitarian response strengthens local
capacities and avoids negative effects

SEADS Principle 1 recommends working with local actors,
systems, and services where possible

4. Communities and people affected by crisis know their rights
and entitlements, have access to information, and participate indecisions that affect them

SEADS Principle 2 emphasizes community involvement in project
design, implementation, and evaluation

Quality criterion: Humanitarian response is based oncommunication, participation, and feedback

Chapter 4 emphasizes community participation in initialassessment and response identiﬁcation
Use of community participation in monitoring and evaluation
improves understanding of impacts (Minimum Standard 8.1)

17

THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS…continued
5. Communities and people affected by crisis have access tosafe and responsive mechanisms to handle complaints
Quality criterion: Complaints are welcomed and addressed

Use of community involvement in initial assessment, response
identiﬁcation (Chapter 4), process monitoring, and project reviewsand evaluations provides opportunities for complaints to be heard(Chapter 8)

6. Communities and people affected by crisis receive
coordinated and complementary assistanceUse of SEADS Principle 5 emphasizes coordinated responses
within and across organizations

Quality criterion: Humanitarian response is coordinated andcomplementary

Use of minimum standards on systems-based assistanceencourages coordination with multiple stakeholders (MinimumStandards 5.3, 6.3)

7. Communities and people affected by crisis can expect deliveryof improved assistance as organizations learn from experienceand reﬂection

Attainment of minimum standards is an iterative effort, with
progressive improvements in assistance along the way

Quality criterion: Humanitarian actors continuously learn andimprove
8. Communities and people affected by crisis receive theassistance they require from competent and well-managed staff
and volunteers

Use of SMART objectives (Minimum Standard 8.2), processmonitoring (Minimum Standard 8.3), and impact evaluation ofcrop-related responses (Minimum Standard 8.5) contributes tolearning

Quality criterion: Staff are supported to do their job effectively
and are treated fairly and equitably

Use of the minimum standards reinforces the importance oftechnical support and competencies required for crop-related
crisis response. Minimum team competencies aligned with Annex
B ensure competent staff participate in crop-related response
design9. Communities and people affected by crisis can expect that theorganizations assisting them are managing resources
effectively, eﬃciently, and ethically

Use of decision trees provides a systematic process forconsidering all variables that could affect the use of project
resources (Figures 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1)

Quality criterion: Resources are managed and used responsibly
for their intended purpose

Use of process monitoring supports ﬁnancial accountability andreal-time adjustments to project implementation (MinimumStandard 8.3)
Use of beneﬁt-cost analysis supports measurement of livelihood
impacts from crop-related responses (Minimum Standard 8.5)

18

Recommended reading
Details of references cited in this chapter are in Annex C. Further recommended reading includes:
Byrne, K. (2022). Resources to strengthen adaptive management for livelihoods programming in emergency
settings. Mercy Corps (as part of the Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment(SCALE) Associate Award). https://www.fsnnetwork.org/resource/resources-strengthen-adaptivemanagement-livelihoods-programming-emergency-settings
Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) Alliance (2020). Humanitarian accountability report 2020: Are we making
aid work better for people affected by crisis? https://www.chsalliance.org/get-support/resource/har-2020/#:~:text=The%20Humanitarian%20Accountability%20Report%202020%20is%20an%20evidence-based,five%20years%20after%20the%20launch%20of%20the%20CHS
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2017). Yemen. Emergency livelihoods
response plan: support to agriculture-based livelihoods in Yemen, January–December 2017. FAO.
http://www.fao.org/3/i6980e/i6980e.pdf
FAO & Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University(2019). Highlights on the resilience and vulnerability of populations affected by conﬂict. Mind the Gap
Brieﬁng Paper 3. FAO & Tufts University. http://www.fao.org/3/ca7104en/CA7104EN.pdf
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (1977). Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conﬂicts (Protocol I), 8 June
1977, Art. 54. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/470?OpenDocument
Norwegian Refugee Council (2021). Demystifying “tenure” for humanitarian practitioners.
https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/wp-content/uploads/Demystifying-Tenure-for-HumanitarianPractitioners-2021.pdf
Oﬃce for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) (2020). Global humanitarian response plan:
COVID-19. United Nations Coordinated Appeal April–December 2020, July update. UNOCHA.
https://www.unocha.org/publication/global-humanitarian-response-plan/global-humanitarian-responseplan-covid-19-july-0
Torero, M. (2020, July 2). Prepare food systems for a long-haul ﬁght against COVID-19. International Food
Policy Research Institute. https://www.ifpri.org/blog/prepare-food-systems-long-haul-fight-againstcovid-19
United Nations General Assembly (1948). Universal declaration of human rights, Art. 25(1).
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html
United Nations General Assembly (1989). Convention on the rights of the child, Art. 24. https://www.ohchr.
org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
United Nations Oﬃce for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction
2015–2030. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
United Nations Oﬃce of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2010). The right to adequate food.
Human Rights Fact Sheet No.34. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet34en.pdf
World Bank (2020). Poverty and shared prosperity 2020: Reversals of fortune. https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/34496/9781464816024.pdf
World Bank (2021). Labor force, total—Ethiopia. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.IN?
locations=E
THE SCOPE AND APPROACH OF SEADS

19

CHAPTER 3:
SEADS PRINCIPLES

Annex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of various terms used in SEADS.

The ﬁve SEADS principles described in this chapter apply speciﬁcally to crop-related crisis response. Theybuild on and complement the foundations described in Chapter 2: The Scope and Approach of SEADS,
which apply in all humanitarian contexts. The ﬁve SEADS principles are:
1. Use livelihoods-based programming
2. Use a participatory approach in all aspects of crisis response
3. Commit to preparedness and early action
4. Consider climate change and minimize environmental impacts
5. Establish coordinated responses.
The principles are numbered to make cross-referencing easier; the numbers do not imply an order ofimportance or a sequence. They are all equally important.

SEADS Principle 1: Use livelihoods-based
programming
Crop-related crisis responses should be based on livelihoods analysis and should aim to achieve one or moreof the SEADS livelihood objectives.
Crop production sustains millions of smallholders, service providers, and markets around the world. The
food they produce also helps sustain millions more. Crop producers affected by crisis may be unable tofeed themselves or produce crops for sale.
Livelihoods-based programming emerged from the need to not only save lives, but also protect livelihoods
in crisis response. Livelihoods programming also avoids undermining the local services, systems, andmarkets that enable recovery from crisis.
Livelihoods-based programming achieves one or more of the SEADS livelihood objectives (see Table 2.1).
To meet those objectives, responses should:• understand the direct and indirect role of crop production in livelihoods in the affected area
• support the systems, services, and markets that contributed to those livelihoods prior to the crisis• coordinate with long-term development programs and policies.
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Scoones 1998) is a useful tool for understanding livelihoods
during normal (non-crisis) periods and to inform the SEADS response. When analyzing crop-based
livelihoods, three factors are particularly important:• access to land and water resources• pre-crisis market characteristics• seasonal conditions.

Access to land and water resources
All crop producers require safe and sustainable access to land and water resources. Without such access,crop-related crisis responses will have limited impact on livelihoods. Improving natural resource access canalso improve preparedness and early recovery (Forcier Consulting Sudan 2017, Momoh & Browne 2019,

SEADS PRINCIPLES21ICRC 2019). In some crisis contexts, crop producers may already be dealing with land and water scarcity
and degraded, depleted soils. Access to alternative natural resources is especially important for crop
producers whose land or water has been contaminated with debris (boulders, uprooted trees, landslides) or
unexploded ordnance and landmines, and for displaced people dependent on host communities for land
and water resources.
Land tenure affects access to natural resources and therefore crop-related livelihoods. Livelihoods-based
programming should consider land tenure and changes to access to land used for crop production. Where
land access is hindered, crisis responses can include conﬂict management and clearing land of debris or
unexploded ordnances to support crop production. NRC (2021) offers practical guidance and tools forconsidering tenure issues in crisis response. Land tenure for orphans can be an important issue toconsider, especially in conﬂict/post-conﬂict settings.

Pre-crisis market characteristics
Livelihoods-based programming understands the market and considers the impact of technicaloptions—market-based or in-kind delivery—on local crop-production value-chains. Where context allows,
livelihoods-based programming favors market-based delivery over direct in-kind distribution.
Market-based delivery mechanisms are an increasingly common alternative to direct distribution inhumanitarian response, as they provide increased ﬂexibility and decrease response time. Market-based
delivery mechanisms include all forms of conditional or unconditional cash and voucher assistance, suchas digital or direct transfer mechanisms. While evidence of the livelihood impacts of market-based delivery
mechanisms is not well documented (SEADS 2021), experience suggests that they support thesustainability and functionality of markets and delivery of diverse goods and services during and after the
response. Market-based responses also help inject cash into local economies and support the livelihoodsof local value-chain actors. Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response provides
guidance for ensuring market awareness in initial assessment and response identiﬁcation.
Livelihoods-based programming recognizes the knowledge, skills, and experience of local service providers
and their relationships along the value-chain and throughout the market system. Important value-chain
actors include transporters, seed producers, extension agents, and input dealers. They can identify
constraints to achieving livelihood objectives, and design and implement responses.
Livelihoods-based programming requires crop-related crisis response to be integrated into long-term
development programs and policies, especially when preparing for or recovering from crisis. An important
way of doing this is by working in support of local market systems, as these markets are usually critical to
the longer-term livelihoods of crisis-affected people. Long-term development programs can also be arepository for market information that can serve to inform short-term crisis responses that support thesame agricultural market systems. Flexible funds or “crisis modiﬁers” are an example of integrating crisis
response into development. Integration avoids contradictions, increases livelihoods gains, and makes local
crop production systems more resilient and sustainable.

Seasonal conditions
Crop production systems around the world are highly seasonal. Hence, the impact of a crisis on livelihoods
depends on the timing, intensity, and duration of the crisis. Livelihoods-based programs are tailored to theseason and local agriculture calendar. Responses are timely; they are compatible with the current crop
production stage and other seasonal variations, including seasonal labor and migratory patterns,
household expenditure patterns, and health risks (see Minimum Standard 4.4) selecting response areas.
Livelihoods-based programming uses early-warning systems to develop informed, coordinated, and timely
responses that reﬂect seasonal conditions. For example, after poor or failed rains, organizations should use
meteorological forecasts to identify an appropriate crop-related crisis response. Where forecasts are for

SEADS PRINCIPLES

22

inadequate rainfall, organizations might postpone distributions to the following season and shift the focus
to cash transfers for disaster risk reduction measures. Disaster risk reduction measures might include
inﬁltration pits, contour ditches, terracing, and gully control, or in ﬂood-affected areas the construction ofberms or drainage canals to improve watershed management. Such measures help boost resilience andreduce longer-term risk to livelihoods.

SEADS Principle 2: Use a participatory approach inall aspects of crisis response
The affected population actively participates in the assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, andevaluation of the crop-related response.
Crop producers, input sellers, post-harvest processors, government extension agents, community-basedorganizations, NGO staff, ﬁnancial service providers, wholesalers, and transporters have vast collective
knowledge, skills, and experience of local crop production systems. They have a right to be recognized,
respected, and heard. A participatory approach has two core elements:• active engagement with affected crop producers, service providers, and market actors• promotion of social equity.

Active engagement
Including different groups is central to the design, planning, and delivery of an effective crop-related crisis
response and achieving the SEADS livelihood objectives. A participatory approach prioritizes active
engagement through the different stages of the project cycle.

Initial assessment
Document local crop production systems, including the agriculture calendar, current and past cropping,level of mechanization, post-harvest processing, coping strategies, and pre-existing services and markets.

DesignUse information and analysis from the initial assessment to design a response that includes participatory
approaches for targeting, planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Work with all relevantsocial groups.

Targeting
Involve the local administration and representatives of affected crop producers and marginalized groups in
a community-based targeting approach in order to ensure appropriate allocation of inputs to all identiﬁed
vulnerable groups.

Planning
Include the local administration, representative crop producers (both men and women), and any
marginalized groups that will beneﬁt from the response (see Chapter 4) in order to identify the mosteﬃcient and appropriate approach to participation.

Implementation
Deliver the implementation plan with community feedback, with built-in opportunities for review andadaptation.
SEADS PRINCIPLES

23

Review during monitoring
Involve implementing partners, crop producers, and the local administration in reviewing participationlevels and satisfaction, based on the understanding that adjustments may be needed throughout the
project cycle to deliver a high-quality response.

Evaluation
After implementation of the response, evaluate the level of satisfaction and impact among all relevantsocial groups and by gender. Record how the response could have been done more eﬃciently (see Chapter
8: Impact-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation). Ensure stakeholder participation in the evaluation process.
In a participatory approach, implementing partners provide training and guidance through the life of the
project and review progress and challenges regularly. In this way, the response will ensure respect for local
actors, and use and consolidate local knowledge, skills, and experience. The participatory approach also
recognizes and documents all local contributions made through focus groups, digital or in-person surveys,
key informant interviews, and other in-kind contributions. Such documentation creates a partnership ofequals with the different partners responsible for different inputs and deliverables.

Promotion of social equity
The rights-based foundations of crop-related crisis response promote social equity, without creating or
reinforcing social inequality. A participatory approach analyzes and understands vulnerabilities and gives
special attention to disadvantaged groups, such as children and orphans, women, the elderly, people livingwith disabilities, or groups marginalized because of factors such as religion, ethnicity, or caste. This
analysis and understanding of their roles, rights, and responsibilities allow crop-related crisis responses to
respond to different and speciﬁc household needs and abilities (see Chapter 4).
Responding to different and speciﬁc needs is important because different sociodemographic groups
prioritize different crops and therefore may prefer different responses. Similarly, factors such as gender,
culture, or different physical abilities may reduce some groups’ input regarding what they grow and how
they use the harvested crops. Initial assessment will identify the unique characteristics of a place and its
people and will help to identify differences in people’s engagement in crop production, service provision,and markets.
Participatory approaches ensure that people who are knowledgeable and sensitive about power dynamics
help to design, implement, and evaluate responses. Equitable power dynamics is a characteristic of awell-functioning market, and appropriate community Participation in program design can help practitioners
avoid reinforcing negative power dynamics among vendors. At a minimum, the design, planning, andimplementation of a crop-related crisis response should recognize and ensure the Participation of:• women and men of diverse ages, wealth, and social status, who are active in crop production,
post-harvest processing, or marketing• marginalized or vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities, low castes, displaced people, anddifferent ethnic groups or religions, who produce crops or who would beneﬁt from producing food forthemselves.
Gender is particularly important since women and men have different roles and responsibilities in crop
production. In a crisis, they may also have access to different resources and hence different coping
strategies that implementing partners must understand and recognize. In some cases, women’s coping
strategies may increase their vulnerability. For example, during and after conﬂict, if men and youth are awayfrom home, women may take on new crop production tasks, including storage and sale, which may increase
their exposure to abuse or exploitation. Documenting and adapting the response to reﬂect different genderroles and responsibilities will ensure adequate and appropriate support can be provided throughout theSEADS PRINCIPLES

24

project cycle. Similar strategies and approaches are required for marginalized and vulnerable groups, also
taking into account their speciﬁc rights.
A participatory approach should also be based on a sound understanding of crop producers’ and service
providers’ access to the productive assets needed to support crop production. Displaced marginalizedgroups may be particularly vulnerable as they may not be recognized or welcomed by the larger displaced
population, host community, or authorities. Indeed, they may be considered a threat to community stability,
and there may therefore be considerable resistance to their participation in a crop-related crisis response.

SEADS Principle 3: Commit to preparedness andearly action
Crop-related crises are anticipated, planned for, and responses resourced using the principles of disaster risk
reduction and anticipatory action.
A commitment to preparedness in crop-related crisis response improves livelihood outcomes by identifying
and prioritizing risks and taking action to manage them before they occur. Preparedness requires detailed
knowledge of past crises. The participatory development of a historical timeline can provide this detailed
knowledge and should include information on:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

peak hazard periods
seasonal weather and conﬂict patterns
seasonal production activities
climatecrop-based livelihood activities
the historical occurrence and impact of the priority hazard(s)the availability of early-warning information to trigger anticipatory action.

Community-level preparedness planning should build capacity in local organizations, such as existing
community institutions or dedicated emergency management bodies, so that these actors understand local
risks and are able to reduce them. At the regional or country level, the humanitarian community may develop
rapid response plans detailing speciﬁc crop-related response activities as part of preparedness planning.
Case Study 3.1 (see SEADS website) provides an example of an FAO rapid response and mitigation plan toavert humanitarian catastrophe in the Horn of Africa.
Organizations should review their administrative procedures to ensure that disaster risk reduction andanticipatory actions are administratively possible. For example, crop-related crisis responses may require
the rapid procurement of large quantities of seed or tools, or debit cards, so contracts with transportcompanies, seed sellers, tool manufacturers, or ﬁnancial service providers should be drafted in advance or,if possible, framework agreements should be set up that can be activated when a crisis occurs. Financial
resources will need to be available and rapidly mobilized, particularly for anticipatory actions. Market-based
approaches, including cash and voucher assistance, may result in increased ﬂexibility and decreased
response time.

Disaster risk reduction
Disaster risk reduction increases the ability of people affected by crisis to build back better after a crisis,increase their resilience, and withstand future shocks. Disaster risk prioritization identiﬁes the risks to crop
production that are most important to manage. It considers factors such as the frequency and seasonalityof the risk, as well as which livelihoods, locations, and subsectors are most likely to be affected. Disasterrisk prioritization should inform disaster risk reduction and preparedness planning. It is a pre-requisite for

SEADS PRINCIPLES

25

technically sound anticipatory action, which should be an integral part of disaster risk management
systems. For anticipatory action to be effective, it should build on longer-term disaster risk reduction andpreparedness efforts and be linked to response and recovery programming.
Disaster risk reduction in crop-related crisis responses might include initiatives such as developing andsupporting early-warning systems that signal the likelihood of crop losses or damage from extreme
weather events, or selecting crop varieties that are more diﬃcult to steal or destroy, such as cassava.
Collaboration with longer-term development programs and national development priorities and policies isalso part of disaster risk reduction, as the abrupt end of crisis funding can have negative consequences forcommunities affected by crisis. Coordination can inform strategies for phasing out or linking crisis
responses to development responses. Local development actors can often contribute important
knowledge, skills, and other resources in that regard. From a livelihood perspective, crisis responses in therecovery phase should converge with sustainable, long-term livelihood responses that are market aware.
Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development programs is increasing. It includes mapping thepotential impact of future crises and setting aside funds for scaling up responses in case of a crisis. For
example, in ﬂood-prone crop production areas, locations for berms or drainage canals can be identiﬁed sothey can be built or reinforced prior to the crisis occurring.

Anticipatory actions
Anticipatory actions are most often applied to a slow-onset crisis, such as one caused by drought, pests ordiseases, and sometimes conﬂict-induced displacement. They are triggered by a forecast, combined withan analysis of the current situation, ahead of the peak of the expected impact. Examples of crop-related
anticipatory actions include:• facilitating access to drought-tolerant crop seeds between a drought forecast and the end of theplanting period• facilitating access to short-cycle crop seeds (such as vegetables and cowpeas) and small-scale waterequipment between a drought forecast and the peak of a drought impact• distributing sealable drums to store seeds and tools, or reinforcing crop-related infrastructure, betweena cyclone or ﬂood forecast and its occurrence• supporting early harvest between a cyclone or ﬂood forecast and its occurrence• exploring ways to establish land access for populations likely to become displaced.
Early-warning systems and contingency plans are most effective when developed with local partners, withroles and responsibilities clearly deﬁned and staff appropriately trained. Timely training on anticipatory
action and contingency planning allows pre-planned responses to be rolled out more effectively, leading to amore positive impact on livelihoods (LEGS 2014, CARE 2017). Contingency planning may include pre-crisis
assessments of possible alternative livelihoods for people at risk, particularly those whose livelihoods
depend on slow-growing perennial crops. In anticipatory action and contingency planning, triggers forprompting action and the release of contingency funds must be speciﬁc, clearly deﬁned, and pre-agreed.
Linkages with early-warning systems are vital to support this process. Ideally, early-warning systems are
based on readily and regularly available forecasts, seasonal observations, and information on current andprojected vulnerability. A threshold should be associated with each piece of information monitored by theearly-warning system, indicating a signiﬁcant and actionable change in disaster likelihood and expected
impact. In a complete anticipatory action system, surpassing an agreed number of thresholds should
trigger the release of money for anticipatory action. Jones et al. (2020) outline seven guiding principles forselecting anticipatory actions. Chapter 4 provides details on selection of response areas, and timing tables(Tables 5.5, 5.6, 6.5, 6.6, 7.3, and 7.4) provide detail on which technical options would be appropriate.

SEADS PRINCIPLES

26

SEADS Principle 4: Consider climate change andminimize environmental impacts
Crop-related crisis responses recognize the longer-term impacts of climate change in affected areas, andinclude measures that mitigate negative environmental impacts.
Climate change is driving an increase in the severity and frequency of natural disasters, which directly
affect crop production. Key impacts of Climate change that affect crop producers include:• changes to rainfall and temperature patterns, requiring changes to traditional crop preferences• loss of biodiversity, including pollinating insects• changes to crop growth patterns and nutrient load due to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations• increases in pests, diseases, and invasive weeds.
Addressing such impacts in a way that supports achieving livelihood objectives requires climate-smart crop
production responses. Such responses focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation throughinitiatives such as:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

integrated production systems, such as those that combine livestock and crop productionenergy-eﬃcient production methods and infrastructure
increased genetic diversity in crops and pollinators
innovative water management
crop selection based on soil assessment
sustainable land rehabilitationconsideration of alternative livelihoods.

The Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook (FAO 2022) provides comprehensive information and practicaladvice for ensuring that crop-related crisis responses consider climate change.
As well as climate change, environmental impact assessment and mitigation are important when designing
any crop-related crisis response. Consider the direct impacts associated with natural resource use and theindirect impacts of associated activities, including procurement, transport, and training. There is an
overwhelming evidence base that conﬁrms the beneﬁts of agro-ecological approaches to crop production.
Team members trained and experienced in environmental science in crop-related crisis responses will
therefore contribute to achieving the SEADS livelihood objectives and minimizing environmental impact.
Tools such as the Nexus Environmental Assessment Tool (NEAT+) (UNEP/OCHA Joint Environment Unit
2021) and the Green Recovery and Reconstruction Toolkit (WWF 2017) can also assist. They highlight theneed to identify and mitigate environmental risks such as the potential for habitat destruction and water orsoil contamination.
See also Commitment 3 and Commitment 9 of the Core Humanitarian Standard and Shelter and settlement
standard 7: Environmental sustainability in the Sphere Handbook.

SEADS Principle 5: Establish coordinated responses
Crop-related crisis responses are coordinated, complementary, and do not interfere with activities thatprioritize protection, food, shelter, water, and health inputs.
A coordinated response complements the delivery of protection, food, shelter, water, health, and otheressential lifesaving humanitarian assistance in a crisis. This is especially important when required
resources are limited, or the scale of a disaster is beyond the capacity of implementing partners to respond
SEADS PRINCIPLES

27

to all the identiﬁed needs. If resources are limited, the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance takes
precedence over a crop-related crisis response.
However, once essential lifesaving assistance is routinely provided, crop-related crisis response should becoordinated and complementary. A coordinated response:• aligns and complies with an agreed implementation strategy that is tailored to speciﬁc vulnerable
sub-groups, minimizes duplication, identiﬁes and addresses gaps, reduces environmental impact, andwhich local government has had an opportunity to endorse• requires additional resources (time, human, ﬁnancial) due to the increased complexity of the response,but pays off in more eﬃcient implementation• uses an agreed data collection approach that contributes to a database that is accessible to all actors(see Chapter 4 for more information about coordinating data collection and analysis)• encourages shared technical expertise, leading to effective joint programming and shared use ofresources and facilities• provides a needs-based standardized level of support to crop producers across the affected area,
reducing the need for affected crop producers to move between areas to secure different types of
support from different actors in different locations• promotes guidance on localization and cross-sectoral collaboration, and identiﬁes roles, responsibilities,
capacities, and interests of different stakeholders involved in the implementation.
In areas where development programs already support crop-related systems, services, and markets, it isessential for crop-related crisis responses to coordinate and harmonize with those existing programs.
Likewise in a crisis-affected region, development programs should anticipate, plan for, and assign
resources to crisis response.
A coordinated response requires more than harmonizing input packages, as the delivery of the same
package across a wide area may overwhelm local markets. For example, if multiple organizations provide
seed vouchers in a single market at the same time, seed price inﬂation may be triggered. This would reducethe beneﬁt considerably for those who cash in vouchers later (see also SEADS Principle 1).
During a crisis, it is important to coordinate the response to achieve best use of resources. A coordinatedresponse increases impact and resource eﬃciency. For example, providing or repairing irrigation equipment
to support crop production should also consider livestock and human water needs. Similarly, cash support
for seed purchases can be provided alongside a food ration (as seed protection) for the targeted
populations, and it should be ensured that the targeted beneﬁciaries have the physical capacity forcultivation.
The local government in the area affected by a crisis is ultimately responsible for the overall planning andcoordination of the response. However, if government capacity is limited, the government may opt to workin partnership with international humanitarian organizations, which can coordinate the response atnational, sub-regional, and local levels. In this way, coordination extends from policy and strategy toeffective local-level targeting and meeting speciﬁc local needs. Where the Global Food Security Cluster isactivated, the Cluster can act in this coordination role.
To be effective, however, the coordinating mechanism needs access to adequate resources to address themany practical barriers to meaningful participation. These barriers include membership, language, logistics,
and compliance issues associated with quality assurance, ﬁduciary risks, reporting requirements, and legal
and policy barriers (including sanctions). Such issues challenge coordination, collaboration, andmeaningful partnership between international and local actors. In some cases, it may be necessary toconsider translation and interpretation services as a routine operational cost.
It may also be helpful to use digital communications tools, such as SMS, WhatsApp, Skype, and Facebook,to ensure that information about meeting locations, dates, times, and supporting documentation reaches
all stakeholders. Meeting locations need to be safe and accessible for all implementing partners. Finally, it
is important that barriers to coordination are periodically reviewed and the necessary adjustments made.
SEADS PRINCIPLES

28

Recommended reading
Details of references cited in this chapter are in Annex C. Further recommended reading includes:

SEADS Principle 1: Use livelihoods-based programming
CALP Network (2011). Glossary of terms. https://www.calpnetwork.org/resources/glossary-of-terms/
FAO (2011). Rabi 2010/11 agricultural intervention report: Part of FAO’s ﬂood response Pakistan. FAO.
FAO (2012). Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, ﬁsheries and forests in thecontext of national food security. https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/I2801E/
Juillard, H., Mohiddin, L., Pechayre, M., Smith, G. & Lewin, R. (2017). The inﬂuence of market support
interventions on household food security. Oxfam GB. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/theinfluence-of-market-support-interventions-on-household-food-security-an-evi-620238/
Markets in Crises (2022). Market based programming framework. Catholic Relief Services (CRS).
https://beamexchange.org/uploads/filer_public/28/ce/28ce6b54-c69c-481b-99c0-da7807ead5da/market_
based_programming_framework_2022_compressed.pdf
Unger, E. & Chhatkuli, R. (2019). Fit-for-purpose land administration in a post disaster context: Lessons andapplications from Nepal. UN-Habitat. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Unger-and-Chhatkuli-2019.pdf
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2010). Land and natural disasters – guidance forpractitioners. UN-Habitat. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/Land%20and%
20Natural%20Disasters%20Guidance%20for%20Practitioners.pdf

SEADS Principle 2: Use a participatory approach in all aspects of crisis response
ALNAP (2021). Targeting for improved humanitarian response portal [website]. UNHCR. https://targeting.
alnap.org/
Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D. & Suji, O. (2014). Participatory impact assessment: A design guide. FeinsteinInternational Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. https://fic.tufts.
edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf
Geilfus, F. (2008). 80 Tools for participatory development: Appraisal, planning, follow-up and evaluation.
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture. https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/
guide/80_tools_for_participatory_development
Grand Bargain Localization Workstream (2020). Guidance note on humanitarian ﬁnancing for local actors.
Inter-Agency Standing Committeee (IASC). https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/202005/Guidance%20note%20on%20financing%20May%202020.pdf
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2021). Participatory learning and action(PLA). IIED. https://www.iied.org/participatory-learning-action-pla
Walsh, S. & Sperling, L. (2019). Review of practice and possibilities for market-led interventions in emergency
seed security response. A Feed the Future Global Supporting Seed Systems for Development Activity (S34D)
report. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.2661
0.32961

SEADS PRINCIPLES

29

SEADS Principle 3: Commit to preparedness and early action
Mitchell, D., Myers, M. & Grant, D. (2014). Land valuation: a key tool for disaster risk management. Landtenure journal 1. FAO. https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/5051/1/LandValuation_AKeyToolFor
DisasterRiskManagementPV-MYERS.pdf
Peters, K., Peters, L.E.R., Twigg, J. & Walch, C. (2019). Disaster risk reduction strategies: Navigating conﬂict
contexts. Overseas Development Institute Working paper 555. https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/
12690.pdf
SEADS (2021). Emergency agriculture interventions: Reviewing evidence on the impacts on livelihoods, foodsecurity, and nutrition. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SEADS_brief1_4.26.
21.pdf
United Nations Oﬃce for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction
2015–2030. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf

SEADS Principle 4: Consider climate change and minimize environmental impacts
EHA Connect (2022). Food security, nutrition and livelihoods. https://ehaconnect.org/clusters/food-security-nutrition-and-livelihoods/
FAO & World Health Organization (WHO) (2014). The international code of conduct on pesticide
management. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/
CODE_2014Sep_ENG.pdf
FAO & World Bank (2018). Rapid assessment of natural resources degradation in areas impacted by the
refugee inﬂux in Kakuma Camp, Kenya. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ru/5266215712211844
79/pdf/Rapid-Assessment-of-Natural-Resources-Degradation-in-Areas-Impacted-by-the-Refugee-Influx-inKakuma-Camp-Kenya.pdf
FAO & World Bank (2020). Rapid assessment of natural resource degradation in refugee impacted areas inNorthern Uganda. 2nd edn. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CA7656EN
Global Affairs Canada (2018). International humanitarian assistance – funding application guidelines for
non-governmental organizations. Government of Canada. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/
issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/guidelines-lignes_
directrices.aspx?lang=eng
Klenk, J. (2010). Green guide to construction. In green recovery and reconstruction: Training toolkit forhumanitarian aid (GRRT). World Wildlife Fund & American Red Cross. https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcms
prod/files/Publication/file/6yv8ayzl1y_Combined_GRRT.pdf?_ga=2.71116373.478864359.1636482104-16
42110664.1634207796
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) (2021). Guidance note: HLP and natural resource due diligence in NRC.
https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/wp-content/uploads/HLP-and-natural-resource-due-diligence-inNRC-Guidance-Note-2021.pdf
Ochoa, K., Harrison, L., Lyon, N. & Nordentoft, M. (2019). Looking through an environmental lens:Implications and opportunities for cash transfer programming in humanitarian response. UNEP/OCHA Joint
Environment Unit and the Global Shelter Cluster. https://reliefweb.int/attachments/159dd2aa-7bb9-3f48-b2
a5-695048a1cd2f/cashenvironment_-_implications_and_opportunities%20%281%29.pdf
Sphere (2019). Reducing environmental impact in humanitarian response. Thematic Sheet—Environment.
https://spherestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Sphere-thematic-sheet-environment-EN.pdf
SEADS PRINCIPLES

30

UNEP/OCHA Joint Environment Unit (2017). The environmental emergencies guidelines, 2nd edn.
Environmental Emergencies Centre. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/EE_guidelines_
english.pdf

SEADS Principle 5: Establish coordinated responses
Global Food Security Cluster (2020). 2020–22 strategic plan. World Food Programme. https://fscluster.org/
sites/default/files/fsc_strategic_plan_20-22_signed_by_co_leads.pdf
World Bank (2016). Who are the poor in the developing world? Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report 2016:
Taking on Inequality. Background Paper. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/18701147541654
2282/pdf/WPS7844.pdf

SEADS PRINCIPLES

31

CHAPTER 4:
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATEDCRISIS RESPONSE

Annex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions for some of the technical terms used in SEADS.

This chapter provides minimum standards for initial assessment and for deciding which response areas
are relevant for a particular crisis situation. Using these minimum standards can help you determine:• if a crop-related response is necessary, appropriate, and feasible• which crop-related response type(s) is likely to have the most positive impact on livelihoods.
SEADS uses two levels of crop-related response:• The response area is the general type of response, of which there are three types:– seed and seed systems (Chapter 5)– tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs (Chapter 6)– crop-related infrastructure (Chapter 7).
This chapter focuses on the initial assessment of a crisis and the information and analysis that is needed
to select one or more of these response areas. SEADS covers these three response areas in detail due tothe evidence base and expert experience available for them.

• Within each response area are different technical options. The technical options provide speciﬁc
guidance on different ways of designing and delivering crop-related assistance under each responsearea. Information on the technical options is provided in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. Decision trees in thesechapters identify speciﬁc technical options that are most likely to have livelihood impacts within a given
context.
Figure 4.1 shows how initial assessment relates to response area identiﬁcation and the different resources
SEADS provides for these activities.
If initial assessment determines that a crop-related crisis response is necessary, appropriate, and feasible,organizations should identify the response areas that are likely to have the greatest positive impact on
livelihoods (see Minimum Standard 4.4).
Although this chapter focuses on initial assessment and the selection of crop-related response areas, theinformation that is used for these activities is directly relevant to assessing accountability against the CHS(see Table 2.3 in Chapter 2: The Scope and Approach of SEADS) and the monitoring and evaluation of
responses (see Chapter 8: Impact-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation).

The importance of initial assessment for
crop-related crisis response
The livelihood impacts of crop-related responses are directly related to the quality of initial assessment andselection of the most appropriate response types. Due to the very wide variation in crisis contexts, and therole of crops in livelihoods, farming systems, and sociocultural environments, crop-related responses need
to be tailored to speciﬁc communities and locations. Responses should be correctly timed relative to thecrop production cycle in the crisis-affected area and take account of the cropping practices andpreferences of vulnerable and marginalized groups. In contrast, responses that are based on weakassessment are more likely to cause harm or achieve low impacts.

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

34

Figure 4.1: Initial assessment determines if crop-related crisis response is necessary, appropriate, andfeasible and informs response-area identiﬁcation

Initial assessment can be the start of a participatory process that actively works with communities toanalyze the crisis situation, leading to the joint selection of locally appropriate response types (see SEADS
Principle 2: Use a participatory approach in all aspects of crisis response in Chapter 3: SEADS Principles).
Further participatory analysis is then used to reﬁne the response types based on the technical options in
Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

Initial assessment and response-area identiﬁcation
minimum standards for crop-related crisis response
Minimum Standard 4.1: Initial assessment timing and team competency
Initial assessment is timely and the assessment team is qualiﬁed and experienced.

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

35

Key actions• Initial assessment is timely relative to the need for immediate lifesaving humanitarian assistance (seeGuidance note 1).
• The assessment team is competent in the use of participatory approaches and methods for the initialassessment of crop-related crisis responses (see Guidance note 2).
Guidance notes
1. Assessment timing. Activities related to crop-related crisis response should not interfere with or
detract attention from lifesaving responses or basic needs. During a crisis, especially a rapid-onset crisis,
the priorities in the immediate period after the event are often to save human lives and provide medical
services, shelter, and other support. Critical resources such as transportation into affected areas can belimited at this time and need to be used to ensure that basic needs are met. The Sphere Handbook provides
extensive guidance on assessing people’s basic needs, and such assessments may be conducted by otherorganizations. Agencies and personnel involved in potential crop-related responses should time their initialassessments to take place after the basic needs of affected communities have begun to be met. In linewith SEADS Principle 1: Use livelihoods-based programming the initial assessment should take into
consideration the agriculture calendar and how information gathered may be different depending on when
the assessment is completed. In line with SEADS Principle 5: Establish coordinated responses, the initialassessment of crop-related responses should be coordinated with other assessments to ensure timelinessand relevance. Joint assessment of crop and livestock issues is particularly relevant in areas with mixed
farming systems or agro-pastoralism. Although this chapter focuses on initial assessment and theselection of response types, the selection of technical options and use of decision trees should follow on
immediately and take place during the same visits to target populations.
2. Team competency and composition. Designing and conducting initial assessment requires speciﬁcknowledge and experience of participatory approaches and methods in emergency situations, and how to
use participatory methods for the rapid assessment of crop-related issues. Designing and conducting initialassessment includes how to adapt participatory methods to speciﬁc contexts and how to cross-checkinformation from participatory methods with secondary information during the assessment. Team
members should have technical knowledge of local crop systems and be suﬃciently experienced to probe
the views of community members or informants such as local government oﬃcials. A competentassessment team should be diverse. It is important that assessment teams include men and women togather perspectives from both genders effectively. In cultures where it is inappropriate for men to meet
directly with women or girls, the assessment team should hold separate meetings with men and women.
Also see Annex B, SEADS Principle 2, and the Core Humanitarian Standard Commitment 8.

Minimum Standard 4.2: Initial assessment approach
Initial assessment is participatory and supported by secondary information.

Key actions• Initial assessment is based on the active participation of crisis-affected communities and joint analysisof the crisis and its impacts (see Guidance note 1).
• Where possible, initial assessment is guided by pre-prepared emergency response plans and supported
by pre-existing information (see Guidance notes 2 and 3).

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

36

Guidance notes
1. Participation. In line with SEADS Principle 2, crisis-affected communities should be actively involved in
the initial assessment. A participatory approach means that information provided by community members
is analyzed with them at the time of the assessment, leading to a common understanding of the impact of
the crisis on livelihoods and whether a crop-related response is needed. When facilitated by experienced
staff, the joint assessment can be the start of building trust and working relationships at community level,
which is important for further analysis and decision making on response areas (this chapter) and speciﬁctechnical options (Chapters 5, 6, and 7), as well as implementation and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)(Chapter 8). Weak participation during initial assessment increases the risk of agencies working withbiased and inaccurate information, and this risk also applies to later stages of a response such as inresponse design and M&E. In crop-related crisis response there is a clear need for agencies to commit toparticipatory approaches. For example, a survey in 2022 reported that only 64% of organizations active incrop-related response considered local and Indigenous knowledge to a large degree (Global Food Security
Cluster, 2022).
2. Emergency response plans. In line with SEADS Principle 3: Commit to preparedness and early action
agencies that implement development projects in crisis-prone areas should have emergency contingency
plans in place. When these plans have been developed with communities and other local actors, theprocess of initial assessment can be more streamlined and rapid. Assuming that the type of emergency
being assessed is the same as the emergency(ies) covered in the contingency plan, the initial assessment
can focus on validating the plan and updating it with details of the actual emergency event and its impacts.
Case Study 4.1 (see SEADS website) describes how preparedness can include the forecasting of potential
disaster scenarios.
3. Pre-existing information. During a participatory assessment the validity of the ﬁndings partly depends
on cross-checking with pre-existing secondary information. There are many different types of secondary
information from different sources, and these will vary by context. It can include reports on: livelihoods;
agriculture production and markets (including seasonality of production); food security and nutrition;
previous crises and responses; sociocultural contexts; and roles of public and private sector actors insupporting crop production and markets. This information can be available in formal assessments
conducted by governments, UN agencies or NGOs, consultants, or academic researchers, as well as indatabases, geographic information systems, maps, and satellite images. Pre-crisis market assessments,using tools such as the Pre-Crisis Market Analysis Guidance (IRC 2016), may provide data on market prices
and seasonal price ﬂuctuations. The collection and analysis of pre-existing information can be time
consuming but is often feasible during slow-onset and complex crises. In contrast, in areas prone to rapidonset crises, the preferred use of this information is during the preparation of emergency contingency plans(Guidance note 2). To support the on-the-ground analysis of the crisis at community level and immediatecross-checking of information, the assessment team should be fully aware of pre-existing secondary
information at the time of the assessment.

Minimum Standard 4.3: Initial assessment questions and methods
Initial assessment is structured and uses appropriate participatory methods with communities andlocal actors.

Key actions• Initial assessment has a clear structure of key questions (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Participatory methods are appropriate in relation to the key questions and sociocultural context (seeGuidance note 3).
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

37

• Participants are selected to ensure that vulnerable groups are fully included in the analysis of crisis
impacts and response preferences (see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Key questions—crisis impacts, livelihoods, and crops. The key questions for the initial assessment are
based on the need to understand the nature of the crisis, the impacts of the crisis on livelihoods in general,and the speciﬁc impact of the crisis on crop-related aspects of livelihoods. Notably, these speciﬁc croprelated impacts need to be considered in relation to the role of crops in livelihoods as a whole. This isbecause a crop-related response is more likely to be needed in areas where people rely heavily on crops forfood or income, and where the crisis has caused major damage to crop systems or markets. In contrast, acrop-related response is less of a priority if crops play only a minor role in livelihoods, or if damage to crop
systems and markets is not severe. Key questions will vary by context but can include:

•
•
•
•

What is the type and severity of the crisis?
What are the general impacts of the crisis on livelihoods?
What are the speciﬁc impacts of the crisis on crop production systems, markets, and value-chain actors?
In crisis-affected communities, how do these speciﬁc impacts vary by wealth, gender, or other types ofvulnerability, and why?
• Is displacement of people a factor to consider, and is crop production important at the new location?
• What is the likelihood of a recurrence of the crisis?
See Appendix 4.1 for other example questions to determine if a crop-related response is necessary. These
high-level questions can ensure a good understanding of the local crisis context and help agencies todecide if a crop-related response is needed. These include questions on the main crop production systems
and management, the beneﬁts of crop production (e.g., for consumption, income, or fodder), the roles of
local service providers (value-chain actors), the role and performance of markets to crop-based livelihoods,
and climate and natural disaster hazards and vulnerabilities. In mixed farming and agro-pastoral systems,
the complementary roles of crops and livestock are important. Further details are provided in Appendix 4.1.
2. Key questions—operational context. These questions will help you understand if a crop-related
response is feasible relative to the operational context. Problems with physical access, insecurity, or otherfactors may mean that a response is not feasible, and therefore it should not be planned. Key questions on
operational context can include:• Can the crisis-affected population be physically accessed?
• What are the local security and protection issues related to communities, agency staff, and other actors
such as service providers?
• Are effective and equitable communications and feedback systems in place and if not, can they beestablished?
• Is an effective coordination mechanism in place for humanitarian assistance and if not, what is the riskof duplicating efforts or inconsistent programming?
• Does the political and policy context enable an appropriate crop-related response?
See Appendix 4.1 for example questions to determine if a crop-related response is feasible. Also review
SEADS Principle 5 as you prepare to answer these questions. Some of these questions may need to berevisited depending on the response area or technical options under consideration. For example, some
types of response, such as cash transfers, can raise speciﬁc security risks.
3. Assessment methods selection. Participatory methods should be used to gather and analyze
information at community level. Information can be gathered using interviews with key informants, a review
of security or other reports, and by referring to other types of secondary information. To ensure a

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

38

systematic approach to the assessment, it is useful to make a table outlining the key questions along withthe method(s) to be used for each question and the people who will be involved for each question. At
community level a wide range of Participatory methods are available for answering questions on topics
such as the relative importance of different livelihood activities, relative sources of food and income, theseasonality of crop production and market prices, access to markets and sellers, and the roles andpreferences for different types of crop-related support. Guidelines for using Participatory methods for crop
systems are available (e.g., Stewart 1998; Schoonmaker Freudenberger 2008) but these methods should beselected speciﬁcally to answer key questions and adapted according to local contexts. The ability to selectand adapt Participatory methods is an important aspect of team competency (Minimum Standard 4.1).
Across all participatory methods, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) are used either to support othermethods or as a stand-alone method.
Typically, initial assessments use a mix of qualitative information and information on quantities, prices, andother numerical data. Participatory methods such as SSIs can produce not only qualitative descriptions, butalso absolute ﬁgures such as crop yields, market prices, and distances to services or markets. Similarly,
Participatory maps can be used to estimate actual areas of land under cultivation by crop type or areas ofland that is damaged or inaccessible. Proportional methods are useful for understanding the relative
importance of an item compared to other items, for example, the annual proportion of total householdincome derived from crops relative to other sources of income.
4. Participants. An important aspect of the initial assessment is to ensure that vulnerable groups are fully
included in the process. This means that these groups have to be identiﬁed. Often separate meetings andfocus groups should be organized for these groups. At least three speciﬁc groups are relevant to croprelated responses: vulnerable women (or female-headed households), poorer crop producers in a given
area, and groups who are marginalized through age, disability, ethnicity, or religion. The roles of crops in the
livelihoods of these groups, their selection and management of crops, their decision making, and theirpreferred types of support need to be understood to ensure that responses are relevant and timely forthem. Relevant participatory methods should be repeated with selected vulnerable groups and the ﬁndings
compared to the general community. In addition to working with community members during the initialassessment, a wide range of other people can provide valuable information. These people may be: local
government workers, including market oﬃcials and agricultural extension workers; traders, transporters,
and input suppliers; and staff from development agencies and programs. The involvement of theseparticipants is important for cross-checking and validating information gathered using participatory
methods and, in some cases, can include informal assessment of their capacity and potential roles in a
crop-related response. As described under SEADS Principle 1 supporting local services and markets is a
key element of supporting livelihoods.

Minimum Standard 4.4: Selecting response areas
A systematic approach is used to select response areas and maximize livelihood impacts.

Key actions• Conduct further rapid analysis to ﬁll key information gaps related to the selection of response areas (seeGuidance note 1).
• Select targeting criteria and methods (see Guidance note 2).
• Review and understand SEADS livelihood objectives and their relevance to your context (see Guidancenote 3).
• Use the response-area identiﬁcation tool (RAIT) to identify potential response areas (see Guidance notes
4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

39

• Use the decision trees in the appropriate technical chapters to identify speciﬁc technical options andrelated minimum standards to meet (see Guidance note 9).

Guidance notes
1. Information gaps. If the initial assessment concludes that a crop-related response is needed andfeasible, further information may be needed to support the selection of a response area. In particular, thisselection should be guided by the potential livelihood impacts of responses, and the aim of maximizing
impacts within a given context and for speciﬁc target groups. In addition, livelihoods-based responses
should aim to work with local service providers, input suppliers, and market systems where possible.
Further information may be needed on the availability and capacity of these actors and systems to guidethe selection of response areas.
Further information gaps will vary widely according to context but could include further analysis of social
norms and the roles that different household members play in various aspects of crop production,
particularly related to gender and age. See Appendix 4.1 for example questions to determine howsociocultural factors will inﬂuence livelihood impacts from a crop-related response. See SEADS Principle 2for important issues related to the socio-cultural context and protecting vulnerable groups. Case Study 4.2(see SEADS website) shows how sociocultural information played a role in identifying activities in a projectin South Sudan.
If the livelihood system in your context is agro-pastoral or mixed farming, information will be needed on
speciﬁc livestock components and crop–livestock interactions (for example, the use of crop residues asfodder and the use of manure as fertilizer). Chapter 3 of LEGS provides support for understanding the roleof livestock in a community.
2. Targeting criteria and methods. The process of selecting response areas will be inﬂuenced by thetypes of crop producer who are most in need of assistance. These producers will be identiﬁed during theinitial assessment (Minimum Standard 4.3) but further contact with communities may be needed to ensurethat relevant and appropriate targeting criteria are developed. Commonly used criteria for crop-related
responses, such as “limited access to land” or “poor road or market infrastructure,” have different meanings
across different regions and sociocultural contexts. Clear deﬁnitions help avoid inclusion and exclusion
errors. Review the four Protection Principles in the Sphere Handbook for important considerations whendeveloping and deﬁning targeting criteria.
Community participation is also needed to support the transparent and impartial selection of participants,
based on the agreed targeting criteria (see SEADS Principle 2). Targeting methods may include blanket
targeting (covering the whole community), targeting of a speciﬁc category (such as gender, age, or
geographical area), and self-selection. Once targeting criteria and the process for selecting participants areagreed by the organization and the community, the affected communities should control the targeting
process as much as possible to avoid concerns about inequitable distribution of beneﬁts. Check targeting
during project implementation to ensure that vulnerable groups continue to be prioritized and not put at risk(see the Protection Principles in the Sphere Handbook). ALNAP (2021) provides additional information andtools for targeting. The questions in all the topics presented in Appendix 4.1 will help you better understand
who you need to target.
3. Relevance of SEADS livelihood objectives. Different response areas can be used, either alone or in
combination, to achieve one or more of the SEADS livelihood objectives (see Chapter 2). Given the context,
each livelihood objective may or may not be relevant. Using the ﬁndings of the initial assessment (MinimumStandards 4.2 and 4.3), you can consider and understand the relevance of each objective to your context.
Targeted participants may need provision of immediate livelihood beneﬁts (Objective 1); protection of theirlivelihoods (Objective 2); rebuilding or support for production, infrastructure, and systems to ensure
continuity of their livelihoods (Objective 3); or a combination of multiple objectives. Appendix 4.4 links each
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

40

response area to one or more of the SEADS livelihood objectives. It also suggests a minimum project
duration for each.
4. Systematic response identiﬁcation. A systematic decision-making approach to identifying response
areas strengthens the quality, relevance, and impact of a crop-related response. The SEADS RAIT will help
you identify which potential response areas will have the greatest livelihood impact. The RAIT is aparticipatory tool that uses a matrix to show multiple response areas and their potential impact on
livelihoods. Once the matrix is completed, the RAIT shows the relevant impact of each response area,
including responses with no expected impact. You can then select which response areas to explore further
in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. This systematic response identiﬁcation tool supports strategic decision making
before a speciﬁc technical option is selected (see Guidance note 9); it precedes decisions on issues suchas the modality of delivering assistance. It also avoids repeating responses in situations and contexts
where the response is not relevant or timely. A completed RAIT can be provided to donors to justify why
your proposal focuses on a certain response area or why you may have rejected other areas. The RAIT isbased on the participatory response identiﬁcation matrix (PRIM) that has been used with success since2009 by the LEGS livestock community. Considering livelihood objectives early in the design process canmove organizations where necessary, beyond “business as usual.” Appendix 4.2 features a completed RAIT,
along with an explanation of the process that was used to complete it. A RAIT template, which you can use
as the basis of your own RAIT, is in Appendix 4.3.
5. Information needed to use the RAIT. To use the RAIT, you need the initial assessment ﬁndings(Minimum Standards 4.2 and 4.3) and a basic understanding of project design and implementation
timelines for the three SEADS response areas:• seed and seed systems (Chapter 5)• tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs (Chapter 6)• crop-related infrastructure (Chapter 7).
You will also need to understand your implementation team’s competencies (see Annex B). Chapters 5, 6,
and 7 provide further detail on each of the three response areas and the minimum standards for various
technical options in each.
6. Participatory approach to response identiﬁcation. The RAIT should be used with groups ofstakeholders, including people from the affected communities and other people such as local service
providers and key informants (local community, local and national authorities, civil society and private
sector stakeholders, and other humanitarian actors). Be sure to include representatives of vulnerable
groups and take into consideration gender and age aspects. A participatory approach as described in
SEADS Principle 2 can be used in each step of completing the RAIT.
7. Timing of the RAIT. The RAIT should be done as part of the initial assessment and planning for acrop-related crisis response. It can also be done before a crisis as part of your preparedness planning or
when designing organizational agriculture and/or food security strategies. Doing the RAIT outside of acrisis allows your organization to identify response areas that are likely to have a signiﬁcant impact on
livelihoods in your operational context (see SEADS Principle 3).
8. Completing the RAIT. There are three steps to completing the RAIT:
Step 1: Identify relevant crop production stages for each response area. A relevant stage is one that
occurs during the time in which the response will be implemented. Understanding how the crop production
cycle aligns with the potential project cycle is critical to determining this relevance. Stakeholders can help
interpret initial assessment ﬁndings to determine this relevance. The following questions can be asked of
the group to determine relevant stages: What stage of the crop production cycle will we be in when the
response starts? How long will it take us to deliver the assistance to the affected communities? What stage
will we be in then? For those stages that are not relevant, mark the corresponding cell with N/A (for “notapplicable”).
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

41

Step 2: Rate each response area for its potential impact on each livelihood objective. Moving across eachrow to each relevant cell (i.e., those not marked with N/A), determine the level of impact that can likely beachieved. When a response could have a “signiﬁcant impact” mark a 3 in the cell. When a response could
have “some impact” mark a 2 in the cell. When a response could have “little impact” mark a 1 in the cell.
When a response is not likely to have any impact, mark N/A in the cell. When you have ﬁnished one row,move to the next, until all cells have been ﬁlled.
Step 3: Prioritize the response area(s). Looking across all combinations, identify those with the highest
scores. Response areas with the highest scores have the greatest potential for impact on livelihoods, aremost feasible, and are within your organization’s capabilities to execute. For example, in the RAIT scenario
in Appendix 4.2 the seed and seed systems response area is likely to have a signiﬁcant impact onprotecting essential crop-related livelihoods. A RAIT template is available in Appendix 4.3.
9. Decision trees. Do not explore response areas with little or no potential for livelihood impact (score of 1
or N/A). However, once you have identiﬁed the highest-rated response areas, go to the chapter that
corresponds to that response area (Chapter 5, 6, or 7). Review the importance of the response area, thetechnical options, and the timing tables as set out in those chapters. Use initial assessment ﬁndings tocomplete the decision trees in those chapters to identify one or more technical options, then work throughall of the minimum standards that apply to your context. The decision tree may indicate you should notundertake activities in the response area(s). In this case, seek additional information to complete thedecision tree or return to the RAIT and consider different response areas with high potential for livelihood
impact.

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

42

Recommended reading
Details of references cited in this chapter are in Annex C. Further recommended reading includes:
Byrne, K. (2022). Applying adaptive management to livelihoods in emergency settings: challenges andopportunities. Mercy Corps (as part of the Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, andEnvironment (SCALE) Associate Award). https://www.fsnnetwork.org/resource/applying-adaptivemanagement-livelihoods-emergency-settings-challenges-and-opportunities
Byrne, K. (2022). Resources to strengthen adaptive management for livelihoods programming in emergency
settings. Mercy Corps (as part of the Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment(SCALE) Associate Award). https://www.fsnnetwork.org/resource/resources-strengthen-adaptivemanagement-livelihoods-programming-emergency-settings
CHS Alliance (2014). Core humanitarian standard on quality and accountability.
https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/the-standard/language-versions
Cosgrave, J., Buchanan-Smith, M. & Warner, A. (2016). Evaluation of humanitarian action (EHA) guide.
ALNAP. https://www.alnap.org/help-library/evaluation-of-humanitarian-action-guide
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019). The programme clinic. Designing
conﬂict-sensitive interventions: Approaches to working in fragile and conﬂict-affected contexts. Facilitation
guide. https://www.fao.org/resilience/resources/resources-detail/en/c/1206211/
FAO & International Labour Organization (2009). The livelihood assessment tool-kit: Analysing andresponding to the impact of disasters on the livelihoods of people. https://www.fao.org/resilience/resources/resources-detail/en/c/171069/
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2013). Baseline basics.
https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Baseline%20Basics%202013.pdf
Lorenzen, H. & Sullivan, L. (2021). Sphere in context and for assessment, monitoring, evaluation and learning.
Sphere. https://www.spherestandards.org/resources/sphere-in-context-and-for-assessment-monitoringevaluation-and-learning/
OECD/DAC Network on Development Evaluation (2019). Better criteria for better evaluation: Revised
evaluation criteria, deﬁnitions and principles for use. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/revisedevaluation-criteria-dec-2019.pdf
SEADS (2021). Emergency agriculture interventions: Reviewing evidence on the impacts on livelihoods, foodsecurity and nutrition. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SEADS_brief1_4.26.
21.pdfINITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

43

Appendix 4.1: Example questions to gather initial
and technical data
The following are suggested questions to help you gather information described in Minimum Standards 4.2
and 4.3. These questions can be adapted to your context.

Is a crop-related response appropriate?
These questions will help you gather data on the role of crop production and markets in livelihoods (seeGuidance note 1 of Minimum Standard 4.3).
1. Do crops play a signiﬁcant role in the livelihoods of the affected people and is a crop-related response
therefore appropriate? If so, is a market-based response also appropriate?
2. What are the main livelihood strategies in the affected area in normal times? Is the target populationinterested in engaging in crop production?
3. What crops and which varieties are grown, what area is cultivated of each, what quantities are
harvested, and what are the key uses of crops (for food, fodder, or seed, or to barter, pay debts, or sell)?
4. What is the relative importance of different crops as staple foods? What is the seasonality of
consumption of those foods?
5. What percentage of household income is derived from crop production in normal times?
6. What are the features of the agriculture calendar? How many cropping cycles are possible in one year?
Which crops are produced in each cycle? What is their relative importance to household food security
and income?
7. What are the main coping strategies and indicators for diﬃcult times (for example, less frequent or lesspreferred meals, changes in crop choice, changes in market sales, dispersal of household members,
sale of assets)?
a. Do these strategies have negative implications for future crop-based activities?
b. What are the possible acute and chronic drivers of these strategies (for example, environmental,
climate, weather, economic, social, political)?
8. Is production primarily intensive (in close quarters, limited space, close to home) or extensive (spreadout, potentially far from home)?
9. What are the key shocks or crises impacting household food security and livelihoods (for example,
climate change, conﬂict, health)?
a. How do these shocks affect crop production and population displacement?
b. Which environmental hazards pose a threat to future crop production or may cause displacement?
10. What services and facilities are usually available?
11. Which markets do crop producers use to buy inputs and sell products? How far are they, and can all
people access these markets in normal times?
12. What relationships exist along the crop value-chain; for example, between formal and informal input
sellers, market management committees, transporters, producers, producer-processors, end markets,and policy makers?
13. What are common challenges for people selling inputs and crop products in these markets in normal
times?
14. What are common challenges for buyers trying to access these products?
15. Are essential crop production inputs (goods and services) generally available, affordable, and ofsuitable quality in normal times?

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

44

Is a crop-related response necessary?
These questions will help you gather data on the crisis context (see Guidance note 1 of Minimum Standard 4.3).
1. Is an emergency intervention necessary?
2. Is it a rapid-onset, slow-onset, or complex crisis?
3. What is the cause of the crisis (for example, drought, ﬂood, conﬂict)?
4. Which phase has the crisis reached (immediate aftermath, early recovery, recovery)?
5. What populations and geographic zones or regions are affected?
6. What has been the impact of the crisis on crop production strategies? Speciﬁcally:a. At what point in the agriculture season did the crisis occur (for example, planting, harvest)?
b. What is the impact on access to ﬁelds, orchards, or garden plots?
c. What is the impact on access to water resources for irrigation?
d. What is the impact on transportation of people and goods to and from ﬁelds, orchards, or gardenplots?
e. What is the impact on the labor force used for ﬁeld preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting, andprocessing?
f. What is the impact on services and facilities that are usually available (such as government
administration and extension, seed multiplication and certiﬁcation, private sector technicalassistance, or ﬁnancial services)?
g. What is the impact of the crisis on natural resources?
h. What is the impact of the crisis on the division of labor by gender and age?
i. What is the impact on crop-related markets for inputs and sales?
j. What plans do the affected people have for future crop production?
7. What is the impact of the crisis on annual, perennial, and horticulture crops? Speciﬁcally:a. Have crops been lost? If so, how signiﬁcant are the losses?
b. Have perennial crops been damaged? If so, how signiﬁcant is the damage?
c. Has there been an impact on production assets (such as equipment, machinery, or storage)? If so,
how signiﬁcant is the impact?
8. What is the forecast (where relevant) for the coming season (such as anticipated drought, ﬂoods,
increasing insecurity, or access to food)?
9. How has the crisis affected the population and speciﬁc vulnerable groups?
a. Who has been most impacted by the disaster? Consider age, gender, wealth, ethnic, or other groups.
How have these populations been affected?
b. Do households have continued access to adequate and healthy food?
c. What are current food security levels?
d. Can vulnerable groups continue with crop-related livelihood activities?
10. Has there been signiﬁcant migration or displacement of all or parts of the affected populations?
a. If so, who has migrated and do they still have access to their ﬁelds, orchards, or garden plots?
b. What is the impact on the host community?

Is a crop-related response feasible?
These questions will help you gather data on the operational context (see Guidance note 2 of MinimumStandard 4.3).
1. What is the operating environment?
2. What are potential logistical constraints and areas of overlap or potential complementarity with otherstakeholders?
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

45

3. Who are the key humanitarian actors in the affected area, what are they doing, or what are they likely todo?
4. Is any stakeholder playing a coordination role?
5. What is the history of crisis response in the affected area, both positive and negative, and what are thelessons learned from it?
6. What is the current operational context? The following questions (a through f) become especiallysigniﬁcant, and in some cases identify insurmountable barriers to implementing a response, in conﬂict
situations:a. How are communications functioning?
b. What is the security situation?
c. What are the implications for movement to and from ﬁelds, orchards, and garden plots?
d. What are the key protection issues facing crop producers?
e. What is the condition of the current infrastructure, such as roads and transport?
f. Are there any cross-border crop-related issues or threats (such as locusts, fall armyworm)?
7. In situations of conﬂict, what are the causes and the implications for programming?
8. What political factors and timelines have the potential to affect programming?
9. What is the context for supporting or hindering crop-related activities?
a. Have there been recent, or recurrent, efforts to support crop-related livelihood activities?
b. Are there risks that goods provided by crop-related crisis response could be reallocated to anotheruse (for example, fertilizer for explosives or hand tools as weapons)?
c. What policy and/or legal constraints affect crop production? Examples include seed certiﬁcation
requirements, bans on genetically modiﬁed seed, restricted or prohibited pesticide use, security oftenure, coordination of aid organizations, national emergency management policies, andorganizational policies of key stakeholders.
d. Have recent changes in policy affected vulnerability?
10. What are the capacity and constraints of the market system in the target area? Pre-Crisis Market
Analysis guidance (IRC 2016) and the EMMA Toolkit (Albu 2010) include detailed market assessment
processes and key questions.
11. How have supply chains for critical inputs and services been impacted?
a. In what way has the number or types of sellers in these markets changed as a result of the crisis?
b. Has the availability or quality of essential crop-related inputs, goods, and services changed since thecrisis? Are sellers still able to buy, store, and sell suﬃcient quality and quantities of inputs andservices? (See Appendix 5.1: Initial assessment checklist for seed and seed systems responses,
Appendix 6.1: Initial assessment checklists for tools, equipment, and other non-seed input
responses, and Appendix 7.1: Initial assessment checklist for crop-related infrastructure responses.)c. Are sellers able to increase their stocks if needed to respond to increased demand from amarket-based response?
d. Are ﬁnancial services still available?
12. Since the crisis, can people from all ethnic, religious, political, and social groups access key markets? If
not, what challenges do affected people face to access markets?
13. How have prices of crop-related inputs, goods, services, and products increased or decreased in thesemarkets since the crisis and how do these changes impact affected people?
14. Since the crisis, are there any tensions related to ethnic, religious, political, or social aﬃliations in thesemarkets?
15. How do people prefer to receive assistance (cash, voucher, in kind, other)?

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

46

What sociocultural factors inﬂuence the possibility and likelihood of livelihood
impacts from a crop-related response?
These questions will help you gather data on the sociocultural context (see Guidance note 1 of MinimumStandard 4.4).
1. What is the role of non-crop-related livelihoods in the area?
2. What are the different social and wealth groups in the area?
3. How does wealth status affect crop production and use of crops?
4. What speciﬁc social inequities exist in the affected area?
5. How do social norms inﬂuence which groups of people produce perennial, annual, or horticulture crops,
with particular reference to wealth and vulnerability?
6. What roles do different household members play in crop production, and how do gender and age affectthat? Do those roles vary across agriculture seasons?
7. What responsibilities do different household members have for making decisions related to household
food consumption, crop production and sales, and the use of income derived from crop sales?
8. What key social relationships and power dynamics affect crop production?
9. How do family customs or traditional knowledge inﬂuence how crops are used and how householdincome is managed? Who controls the use of crops?
10. What Indigenous knowledge informs the way crop producers interact with each other to produce, store,or market crops?
11. What customary institutions and leaders are involved in crop production, and what are their roles?
12. How do family customs or traditional knowledge help people cope with a crisis and adapt to new
livelihood contexts?
13. What common terms or concepts in local languages describe people’s relationship to crop production?
14. Do differences in culture, power relationships, livelihood groups, and/or age groups lead tomisunderstanding, tension, or competition over resources necessary for crop production?

How well are local services, input suppliers, and markets functioning?
These questions will help you identify the local actors and how the crisis has affected their abilities (seeGuidance note 1 of Minimum Standard 4.4).
1. Are local actors with technical skills still in the affected area?
2. Are these actors still able to support the affected community?
3. Are any government employees with crop-production skills or infrastructure knowledge part of thecommunity affected by a crisis?
4. Are any value-chain actors with expertise in crop production part of the community affected by a crisis?
5. What essential crop-production services did these actors provide prior to the crisis?
6. What resources do local technicians have to do their jobs?
7. What resources are they lacking?

What are appropriate targeting criteria and methods?
These questions will help you establish the targeting criteria and methods to determine the most vulnerable
groups to be assisted (see Guidance note 2 of Minimum Standard 4.4).
1. How do social and wealth groups differ among themselves regarding: access to land, quality of land,
crops cultivated, area under cultivation, means/assets available for cultivation, use of inputs and labor,level of self-suﬃciency, income sources, distribution of expenditures, level of food security, ability to sellcrops, and ability to recover by themselves?
2. Which social and wealth groups are more vulnerable or affected by the crisis than others?
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

47

3. Are there existing safety net groups in the community, and what are their characteristics and capacities?
4. Which groups/people in the community are recognized or trusted by everybody in the village? Who are
the “power players” in the community?

Appendix 4.2: RAIT example
This example shows how participants in a facilitated workshop used the RAIT to determine priority
response areas for a rapid-onset crisis caused by heavy rain and ﬂoods in Gaza. The participants used data
gathered during the initial assessment. In this scenario, participants were all staff of a humanitarianorganization and one key informant they were able to bring into the discussion by phone. They knew that:• A signiﬁcant amount of ﬁeld crops and vegetables were destroyed during three weeks of heavy rain andﬂoods.
• Irrigation systems were ﬂooded; silt had built up in the channels and irrigation equipment (pumps, gates)
was damaged.
• Funds were available to respond immediately.
• The sowing season had passed for the current cropping season.
• Before the crisis, crop production provided more than 50% of household income in the area.
• To make up for the certain lack of income due to the missed sowing season, conditional cash wasneeded to buy inputs before the next season.
• Locally tested ﬂood-tolerant seed varieties were available and preferred by participants, but were notwidely used. The high cost of ﬂood-tolerant seed varieties was considered in the calculations of cash
assistance to encourage use.
• Irrigation channels could be cleared using a cash-for-work scheme before the next planting season. This
would prepare the infrastructure for next season’s production and increase its ability to withstand future
ﬂoods, while also allowing households to earn cash.
• Private contractors were available to repair and extend the lifespan of equipment and storage facilities
before the next season.
The workshop facilitator led the participants through the three-step process to complete the RAIT (seeGuidance note 8 of Minimum Standard 4.4). Figure A4.1 shows the completed RAIT.
Crucial aspects of the workshop discussion are described in the following steps. In this scenario, the next
step would be to understand the seed and seed system response area (Chapter 5), its technical options andtiming, and then complete the decision tree. The discussion informed the selection of priority response
areas and could also inform selection of technical options.

Step 1: Identify relevant crop production stages for each response area.
• Because the crops were completely destroyed, the participants agreed that nothing should be done
related to marketing. They marked all the cells below marketing with “n/a”.
• The participants agreed that there could be appropriate responses for the pre-production/planning,production, and post-production stages, so they left those cells blank.

Step 2: Rate each response area for its potential impact on each livelihood
objective.
• The participants worked through the matrix, starting with pre-production/planning and working down
through production and ﬁnally post-production. The questions, answers, and responses recorded in the
RAIT for the pre-production/planning column were:– Question: “What is the potential impact of seed and seed systems response on providing immediate
livelihood beneﬁts during pre-production/planning?”
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

48

–

–

–

–

–

–

Answer: Little impact
Matrix response: They marked a 1 in the appropriate cell.
Question: “What is the potential impact of a seed and seed systems response on protecting essential
crop-related livelihoods during pre-production/planning?”
Answer: Signiﬁcant impact
Matrix response: They marked a 3 in the appropriate cell.
Question: “What is the potential impact of a seed and seed systems response on rebuilding or
supporting crop-related production, infrastructure, and systems to strengthen livelihoods during
pre-production/planning?”
Answer: Some impact
Matrix response: They marked a 2 in the appropriate cell.
Question: “What is the potential impact of a tools, equipment, or other non-seed inputs response on
providing immediate livelihood beneﬁts during pre-production/planning?”
Answer: No impact. A tools, equipment, or other non-seed inputs response is not appropriate as there
is no damage to these items.
Matrix response: They marked n/a in all cells related to tools, equipment, and other non-seed
responses because a response in this area is not necessary.
Question: “What is the potential impact of a crop-related infrastructure response on providing
immediate livelihood beneﬁts during pre-production/planning?”
Answer: Signiﬁcant impact
Matrix response: They marked a 3 in the appropriate cell.
Question: “What is the potential impact of a crop-related infrastructure response on protecting
essential crop-related livelihoods during pre-production/planning?”
Answer: No impact
Matrix response: They marked n/a in the appropriate cell.
Question: “What is the potential impact of a crop-related infrastructure response on rebuilding or
supporting crop-related production, infrastructure, and systems to strengthen livelihoods during
pre-production/planning?”
Answer: No impact
Matrix response: They marked n/a in the appropriate cell.

Step 3: Prioritize the response area(s) that have the greatest potential for impact
on livelihoods (those with the highest scores), are most feasible, and are withinyour organization’s capabilities to execute.
The participants reviewed the RAIT and saw that seed and seed systems response and crop-related
infrastructure response had scores of 3 for the upcoming pre-production and production stages. The
organization that led the RAIT (and would implement the response) had signiﬁcant experience with seed
and seed systems projects, but they did not have experience with infrastructure responses. Therefore, theparticipants agreed to prioritize a seed and seed systems response and highlighted the one priority cell.
Based on the results of the RAIT, the organization would use Chapter 5 to understand the technical options
and timing tables, and work through the decision tree to design the response.
The participants recognized the need for an infrastructure response but could not undertake this response.
However, they had worked with another organization that focuses on infrastructure, so they would contactthat organization to share the results of their RAIT and suggest that an infrastructure response might beappropriate (see SEADS Principle 5).

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

49

Figure A4.1: An example of a completed response-area identiﬁcation tool (RAIT)

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

50

Appendix 4.3: RAIT template
Figure A4.2: Blank Response-area identiﬁcation tool (RAIT) template

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

51

Appendix 4.4: The three SEADS response areas caneach impact livelihoods
Table A4.1: The three SEADS response areas can each impact livelihoods
Livelihood objectives

Response area and technical options

Minimum project
durationObjective 1: To provide
immediate livelihood beneﬁts tocrop-producing households
affected by crisis

Seed and seed systems• Facilitate access to seed
• Provide seed
Tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputs6 months• Facilitate access to inputs• Provide inputs
Crop-related infrastructure• Facilitate community-led rehabilitation
Objective 2: To protect
crop-related livelihoods ofhouseholds affected by crisis

Seed and seed systems

6 months• Facilitate access to seed
• Support seed systems• Provide seed
Tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputs• Facilitate access to inputs• Provide inputs• Support formal and informal input
systems
Crop-related infrastructure• Facilitate community-led rehabilitation• Lead and implement direct
infrastructure rehabilitation

Objective 3: To rebuild or
support crop-related production,
infrastructure, and systems toensure livelihoods forhouseholds affected by crisis

Seed and seed systems

9 months• Facilitate access to seed
• Support seed systems
Tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputs• Facilitate access to inputs• Support formal and informal input
systems
Crop-related infrastructure• Facilitate community-led rehabilitation• Lead and implement direct
infrastructure rehabilitation

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CROP-RELATED CRISIS RESPONSE

52

CHAPTER 5:
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMSAnnex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of some of the technical terms used in SEADS.

This chapter provides options for assessing, designing, and implementing seed and seed system
responses.
Seed includes any plant part, including grains (botanic seeds) and vegetative materials, used to propagate
annual, perennial, and horticultural crops. Seed systems are the means through which crop producers
access and select the seed or planting material they want and need. These systems include actors that playa role in the research, production, supply, regulation, and certiﬁcation of seed and planting material. Seedsystems can be formal, informal, or integrated.
A crisis affects seed and seed systems in different ways. During a rapid-onset crisis, such as a ﬂood or
hurricane, or a complex crisis:

•
•
•
•

Availability of, access to, and quality of crop seed and planting material may be affected.
Stores of saved crop seed may be damaged or lost completely in natural disasters.
Stores of saved crop seed may be left behind, looted, or destroyed during displacement.
Private sector activities that supply crop seed to local markets and seed production may be temporarilyor permanently abandoned due to insecurity or inaccessibility.

During a slow-onset crisis, such as a drought or pest infestation, existing seed varieties may be found to beunsuitable for the crisis conditions. Access to appropriate varieties becomes a critical part of crop-related
crisis response.

Links to the SEADS livelihood objectives
Crisis response that addresses seed and seed systems relates to all three SEADS livelihood objectives:
1. to provide immediate livelihood beneﬁts to crop-producing households affected by crisis.
2. to protect crop-related livelihoods of households affected by crisis.
3. to rebuild or support crop-related production, infrastructure, and systems to ensure livelihoods forhouseholds affected by crisis.
If seed is available, accessible, and of suitable quality, crop production can be restored and protected after
the crisis and it can continue in early recovery. This provides crop producers and their families withlivelihood beneﬁts of food and income (Objectives 1 and 2). Seed and seed system responses can improve
preparedness and disaster risk reduction, protecting and strengthening crop production into the future(Objectives 2 and 3).

The importance of seed and seed systems in crisis
response
Crops harvested for food and income begin with seed—the most important input for crop producers. For
these same crop producers, seed system services can ensure that seed is available, accessible, and ofsuitable quality. Together, seed and seed systems support seed security, which has an important impact on
crop-based livelihoods. Without seed security, crop producers may face reduced or failed harvests andincreased hunger and poverty. They may have to sell assets to cope with a lack of food or income. They
might be forced to purchase seed for the next season.

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

55

The concept of seed security has been used for the last 20 years to assess constraints to and improvecrop-related livelihoods (Remington et al. 2002). This concept is adapted in Table 5.1 for use in crisis
contexts.
Seed and seed system responses are most likely to impact livelihoods when constraints are correctly
identiﬁed and addressed. The Minimum Technical Standards for Seed System Assessment in Emergencies(FAO et al. 2020) and the Seed Emergency Response Tool (Sperling et al. 2022) can help identify constraints
by crop that exist for households affected by crisis. Where assessment determines that seed security is not
a problem, a seed response may not be necessary, and development and resilience programming may be
more appropriate (Bramel et al. 2004).
Other essential inputs and infrastructure assets are often needed to ensure that planted seeds result in
food, income, and other livelihood impacts. An approach that combines seed and non-seed responses may
be necessary to achieve livelihood objectives. For example, the SEADS (2021) evidence review found someevidence that direct seed distribution combined with the provision of fertilizer, irrigation equipment, tools,
and/or training resulted in either higher levels of food security, reduction in food expenditures, or additional
income (FAO 2012a, FAO 2012b, World Bank 2012, Pretari & Anguko 2019, Cullis 2020).

Technical options for supporting seed and seedsystems
Seed and seed system responses are common in every type of crisis, and across all agro-ecological zones
and farming systems. This chapter presents three technical options and several sub-options for ensuring
seed security in a crisis:• facilitate access to seed• support seed systems• provide seed.
The technical options assume that if crop producers lack suitable seed to plant, providing them with seed
will enable them to produce food or income. This assumes that crop producers have access to otherproduction inputs, that agro-climatic conditions and the security context are favorable to crop production,and that the food produced can be stored until it is consumed or sold.
Case Study 5.1 (see SEADS website) provides an example of seed and tool provision resulting in extra
months of food self-suﬃciency.
These three technical options were selected based on available evidence of impact from agriculture
responses in humanitarian crisis (SEADS 2021) and on expert opinion. However, evidence did not
disaggregate what caused the impact on livelihoods when a combination of seed and non-seed response
areas and technical options was used to address all identiﬁed constraints.
Evidence indicates that combinations of technical options can improve livelihood outcomes, either throughincreased food security, reduced food expenditures, or increased income. See for example Mollet 2010,
FAO 2012a, FAO 2012b, World Bank 2012, Pretari & Anguko 2019, and Cullis 2020 in the SEADS Evidence
Database.
Case Study 5.2 (see SEADS website) focuses on seed systems issues in crisis and provides example oflinking the type of seed security constraint with the response area selected.

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

56

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

Table 5.1: To assess seed security, assess t hree main constraints
Constraint
Availability

AccessCharacteristics required for overcoming theconstraint
Suﬃcient quantity of seed of adapted crops iswithin reasonable proximity (spatial availability) andin time for critical sowing periods (temporalavailability)

Producers can acquire the seed that they need andprefer, without:• economic barriers to purchase or barter• physical barriers, including distance to market,
security threats, and quarantine• cultural and social barriers, including disabilities,
age, gender, ethnicity, and other biases, language
gaps, and limited access to information
Seed quality

Seed:• is adapted, productive, and has desired traits(variety quality)• can germinate and develop into a healthy crop
(physiological quality)• is free from impurities (physical quality)• is free of diseases or pests (phytosanitary
quality)
See Minimum Standard 5.5 for more detail

Prevalence in a crisis• Seed is usually available, even after a crisis, though seedavailability may be limited in formal channels or in a speciﬁc
location and time period• In a slow-onset or complex crisis, seed is usually available.
Only on rare occasions do these types of crisis prevent
markets from providing seed (Rohrbach et al. 2005)• Seed may be unavailable after a rapid-onset crisis, whereseed stocks in the region have been destroyed or damaged
beyond use and where crop producers procured seedthrough formal channels• Crop producers often supplement seed received via aid withseed from their stock or own sources (Mollet 2010, FAO
2012a, FAO 2012b)• Crisis-affected households may consume their seed during
an acute food security crisis• In a complex or rapid-onset crisis, crop producers may beunable to afford the seed they need, as they may have lost
assets and sources of income• Insecurity can prevent access to markets where seed ispurchased• Rapid-onset crises can destroy infrastructure, such as
roads, that are needed to get to markets• Seed quality constraints are not often caused by a crisis andare usually chronic (except in pest infestations). SEADS
does not cover chronic stress contexts• Seed available in a crisis is often not from formal channels
and its quality may not be ideal. However, it may still beselected and used by producers (Sperling et al. 2020)57

Technical options related to tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are discussed in Chapter 6: Tools,
Equipment, and Other Non-seed Inputs. Crop-related infrastructure responses are discussed in Chapter 7:
Crop-related Infrastructure. Common responses that may be appropriate to combine with a seed response
are listed in Table 6.3 and Table 7.1.

Technical Option 1: Facilitate access to seedThis refers to any market-aware action that helps crop producers get seeds in time for planting. It excludes
direct distribution of seed, which is covered under Technical Option 3: Provide seed. Before, during, or after
a crisis, access to seed can be rapidly facilitated in many ways depending on the context.
Access to seed can motivate crisis-affected households to restart crop production. If the minimum
standards in this chapter are achieved, it can also allow them to increase their crop production. Several
examples of market-aware (or market-based) sub-options that address the three barriers to access (seeTable 5.1) are listed in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Several technical sub-options are available to address seed access constraints
Technical sub-options

Access constraints
PhysicalSociocultural

1.3. Provide cash to seed sellers or physicallytransport them closer to targeted participants(for example, seed fairs)xx

1.4. Provide cash grants or credit to seed sellers
to move supplies to remote areasxx

Economic
1.1. Provide cash to targeted participants sothey can buy suitable seed that is available inlocal markets

x1.2. Provide cash to targeted participants sothey can use safe transportation to markets tobuy seedxCase Study 5.3 (see SEADS website) shows how voucher assistance has been used alongside foodassistance and the impact the combination had on livelihoods.

Technical Option 2: Support for the seed system
Seed system activities are those that support the actors in the seed supply chain. In normal times, wherecrop production plays a primary role in livelihoods, state and non-state systems and services ensure thatcrop producers have the seed they need to produce, harvest, and market crops. These systems include bothgovernment and private actors that have a role in the research, production, supply, sale, regulation, andcertiﬁcation of seed and planting material.
Crises can often disrupt those systems or weaken already weak systems further without destroying themcompletely. Support to the seed system can be rapid and address availability and quality constraints.
Support to seed systems can improve them by strengthening formal and informal sellers’ and state actors’ability to cover the required seed demand before, during, and after a crisis. This support can encourage
early recovery and economic growth and ensure future production, thus decreasing dependence on
repeated cycles of aid. Several examples of sub-options that address the availability and quality constraints
described in Table 5.1 are listed in Table 5.3.
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

58

Table 5.3: Several sub-options are available to support the seed system
Technical sub-options

Availability constraints
PhysicalTemporal

2.1. Raise crop producers’ and seed
sellers’ awareness of seed quality
2.2. Provide cash support to formal andinformal seed multipliers to produce seed
for future seasons. Often used for tubers(for example, sweet potatoes)

Seed quality constraintsxx

2.3. Provide credit or loan guarantees tolocal seed sellers to buy seed forhumanitarian tendersxx

2.4. Provide technical assistance to seedmultipliers or sellers to improve quantityand quality of their planting materialx2.5. Provide technical assistance andfunding to establish community seed
banks

x

x

x

x

Case Study 5.4 (see SEADS website) provides practical examples of supply-side, market-led support in theformal seed sector, with the goal of ensuring availability of improved seed varieties.

Technical Option 3: Provide seed
Direct seed distribution (DSD) provides seed directly to crop producers in time for them to plant for thetargeted cropping seasons. DSD may also introduce improved varieties or certiﬁed seed that beneﬁciaries
are familiar with, but which are not available locally. It can also renew lost or damaged seed stocks from thesame improved seed variety.
DSD is only suitable when seed is unavailable and markets are not functioning, a rare context even in acrisis. In this rare context, without DSD, no seed of any quality would be available to plant.
DSD often reﬂects food distribution models in that seed is procured and brought to the crisis-affected area.
Targeted participants gather in central locations to receive their allotted seed for free.

Advantages and disadvantages of each technicaloptionThe advantages and disadvantages of each technical option for supporting seed and seed systems are
summarized in Table 5.4.

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

59

Table 5.4: Each technical option has advantages and disadvantages
OptionAdvantages

Disadvantages

1. Facilitate
access to seed

• Rapid, except seed fairs• Supports crop producerdetermined priorities and choice ofcrops and varieties• Cash injected into local formal andinformal economies• Can be done face to face (directcash) or using digital transfers• Bolsters all seed systems crop
producers use, formal andinformal, and has greater
long-term impact (Rohrbach et al.
2005, Sperling et al. 2008, McGuire& Sperling 2013)• Can be designed to support
women’s role in seed sale andmarketing system• Seed choice can be tracked to
inform future responses(Henderson & Herby 2019)• Cash provided may not be used forseed as crop producers have many
competing priorities• Seed quality control may be weak
depending on sellers participating,requiring suﬃcient market andagronomic competencies (seeAnnex B) to monitor that suﬃcient
good-quality seed of the rightvariety is consistently available• Seed fairs can be labor intensive toorganize and implement, may only
reach a relatively small number ofcrop producers, and cannot bedone if people cannot congregate• When using vouchers, beneﬁts to
informal seed systems may belimited if informal sellers are
excluded in favor of sellers who
are registered or carry only
certiﬁed seed

2. Support seedsystems• Naturally aligns with SEADS
Principle 2• Offers an exit strategy fororganizations trying to breakrepeated cycles of aid• Creates inclusive business
relationships between value-chain
actors• Builds on existing community
strengths• Favors coordination and links todevelopment efforts (SEADS
Principle 5)• Links research results withextension and communities• Strengthens local seedcertiﬁcation and regulation
processes• Strengthens availability of
improved varieties• Requires suﬃcient market andsupply chain knowledge to avoid
creating artiﬁcial markets, as withsweet potato vine multiplication,for instance, that has no realmarket beyond relief (see Annex B)• If program requirements allow only
formal sellers and state actors,
informal sellers and systems may
be undermined• May require more time for initialassessment if target systems are
not already known and understood

3. Provide seed

• Familiar to donors, affected
people, and implementers• Logistically relatively easy for
implementer• Can reach large populations• Range of crops and varieties onoffer and choice among them arelimited. Range may not be thosemost suitable to address stress

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

60

…continued• Can control initial seed quality (ifcertiﬁcation regimes, or rigorous
controls by implementers, are inplace)• Easily quantiﬁable in terms ofamount of seed distributed andnumber of clients served• In some settings may becost-effective if routine sellers are
spread out and remote from crop
producer aid recipients• Easier to monitor as standard
output indicators are used as wellas baselines and targets• May support a competitive
nascent seed sector and eveninformal markets and sellers whencombined with small lot tenders(for example, a 2-ton limit pertender per crop and variety proﬁle)and preference for local sellers• Quantities of seeds given may beﬁxed or not tailored to the speciﬁc
preferences and needs of eachcrop producer• Unregistered crop varieties may
not be allowed• May undermine markets, bothformal and informal• After controlling for quality, seed
often arrives to crop producers late
• May have challenging transport
logistics, including the need for
additional trucking and warehousecapacity associated withcentralized procurement• Done repeatedly, it can alter local
crop and diversity proﬁles• Often done repeatedly, it createscrop producer dependency• Contract delays are common

Timing of seed and seed systems technical options
Timing of seed and seed system technical options should be inﬂuenced predominantly by the agriculture
calendar and the selected option, as shown in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Different seed and seed system technical options are relevant at different stages of the
agriculture calendar

A seed or seed system response must be completed in time for crop producers to have seed in hand before
the accepted sowing season for that crop in that location. Any delay beyond the optimal sowing datemeans less production for crop producers. For example, each week of delay reduced wheat yields by 4.2%
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

61

in Syria (van Duivenbooden et al. 2000). With climate change, crop producers’ optimal sowing date may bedifferent (and earlier) than in the past (Waha et al. 2013). When facilitating access to seed includes support
to seed sellers or other value-chain actors, this support is most relevant when it begins well in advance ofthe sowing season, and as early as harvest, storage, and handling of the previous season. It is not suitableto facilitate access to seed or provide seed during production or post-production, as they are not needed at
this time and may be consumed or sold. Technical options that support the seed system are more ﬂexible
and can be considered during any point in the agriculture calendar.
Depending on the location and cultural traditions of crop producers, the cycle of planning, production,
post-production, and marketing may repeat as many as three times in one calendar year. Different crops
may be sown during different cycles. Often there is a main season when staple crops with longer growth
cycles—such as corn, beans, or wheat—are planted and a shorter secondary season when short-cycle
crops—such as vegetables—are cultivated.
The crop production stage is generally more relevant to a seed or seed system response than the type ofcrisis, due to the time-bound nature of crop production. However, the type and phase of the crisis inﬂuence
the timing of different technical options, as shown in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Different seed and seed system technical options are relevant at different phases of a crisis
response

In a rapid-onset crisis, all three technical options can be done during preparedness if access to program
participants may be cut off or income shocks are likely. They can also all be done during early recovery if
there is alignment with the agriculture calendar. Technical options that facilitate access to or provide seedshould not be done in the immediate aftermath of a rapid-onset crisis, unless the optimal sowing date of acrop critical to food security and livelihoods will occur before early recovery.
In a slow-onset crisis, it is highly unlikely that seed availability constraints require seed to be provided.
However, constraints related to seed quality, or other weaknesses in the prevailing seed system, may trigger
the need to facilitate access or support and strengthen the seed system.
The recovery phase of either a rapid- or slow-onset crisis is not a suitable time to consider providing seed.
During recovery, the seed system will be capable of resolving any seed availability constraints.

Decision tree to select technical options
A decision tree can guide your choice of technical options. It prompts you to consider the variables in asystematic way. Decision tree questions are ordered in terms of priority to program quality.

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

62

Figure 5.1: Decision tree for seed and seed systems

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

63

Answer Question 1 ﬁrst (either “yes” or “no”). The decision tree directs you to a new question based on youranswer. “No” responses indicate that other suitable responses identiﬁed in the RAIT should be consideredor that further training or capacity building may be required to answer “yes” to the questions. As multiple
technical options may be appropriate, when one technical option has been selected, the decision tree willlead you to consideration of others.
Answers should be based on all data at your disposal, but in particular:• the results of the initial assessment (see Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response)• a theory of change (see Minimum Standard 8.2: Project objectives)• your organization’s capacity to achieve relevant minimum standards in this chapter (see Annex B).
SEADS recommends that you complete a RAIT (see Minimum Standard 4.4: Selecting response areas)
before completing a decision tree. The RAIT will indicate whether seed and seed system responses arenecessary, appropriate, and feasible, and which livelihood objective they may have the greatest impact on.
Use Figure 5.1 to test whether seed and seed systems should be part of a crop-related response and, if so,which technical options will be most appropriate.

Seed and seed system minimum standards
Minimum Standard 5.1: Assessment and planning
Assessment determines the seed security constraint(s), market functionality, and needs.

Key actions• Use the Minimum Technical Standards for Seed System Assessment in Emergencies (FAO et al. 2020) to
identify seed security constraints (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Ensure seed security assessment (SSA) is participatory and meets SEADS Principle 2: Use aparticipatory approach in all aspects of crisis response (see Guidance note 3).
• Use Appendix 4.1 and Appendix 5.1 to select assessment questions.
• Identify acute and chronic seed security constraints and link with development programs to address
chronic constraints (see Guidance note 4).
• Ensure staff have relevant technical competencies and provide training to ﬁll gaps (see Annex B).
Case Study 5.5 (see SEADS website) demonstrates how assessment and planning are critical to achieving
livelihood impacts in vegetable seed responses.

Guidance notes
1. Food security versus seed security. It is common in crisis response to use food security assessment
as a proxy for seed security, but the two are quite different. A household may be food insecure, but stillretain seed for future planting. A SSA considers seed security speciﬁcally, by considering the main channels
crop producers use to obtain seed for key crops and how well these channels are functioning in a crisis
setting. SSAs consider four seed security constraints: seed availability, accessibility, health, and varietal
suitability. The Minimum Technical Standards for Seed System Assessment in Emergencies suggest
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

64

elements to include in your assessment, as well as suggested methods and processes (FAO et al. 2020). An
SSA is the ﬁrst step in the design and planning of your seed and seed system support response (FAO 2016).
2. Formal and informal seed channels. Crop producers rely on both formal and informal systems toachieve seed security. The formal system operates through government, commercial companies, orhumanitarian channels, and offers improved varieties of a few key crops. Seed offered through the formal
system is typically certiﬁed and of reliable quality. However, the formal system is often challenging forsmallholders to access due to distance and minimum purchase requirements. The informal systemprovides seed from producers’ own harvest (called farmers’ varieties or landraces), social networks, andlocal markets. It offers different seed quality and price points, although quality claims tend to be lessreliable than in the formal system.
Crop producers may use multiple channels for procuring their seed out of necessity, beneﬁt-cost concerns,
and preference. These channels may differ by crop. For instance, some crop producers may access hybridmaize seed from agro-dealers, but common bean from own stocks or local markets. Others may source
vegetable seed from an agro-dealer and sorghum from own stocks or neighbors. Multiple channels may be
used for a single crop. For example, producers may source some bean seed from own stocks and somefrom local markets, supplemented by new improved varieties from research. A breakdown in formal
channels during a crisis may therefore affect some crops, but those sourced through informal channels
may be unaffected. Note also that crop producers use different channels in a crisis. For instance, when theylose their own seed stocks, crop producers may use local markets to supplement their seed supply. It is
important to assess how all these channels function together. A common mistake is to assess supply only
from the formal sector channels, ignoring the contributions of informal seed channels that may beespecially important during a crisis. An SSA differentiates between different channels and considers crop
producers’ needs and preferences. An SSA should give you an understanding of the characteristics of acuteand chronic seed security constraints and allow you to identify a response strategy and programming plan(see Minimum Standard 5.2).
Case Study 5.6 (see SEADS website) draws evidence from SSAs done in different contexts. It shows thatwhile formal seed systems help producers withstand and recover from future shocks, informal systems areoften more important, particularly for local markets and sellers.
3. Participation. Each crop, crop producer, and crop-producing region differs both agro-ecologically andanthropologically. Understanding these differences can signiﬁcantly improve program quality and impact. A
participatory approach that engages both those that demand (i.e., are in need of) seed and those that
supply seed can identify these nuances. For example, participants can share the coping mechanisms they
use regarding where and how they obtain seed in a crisis, or why they plant in a particular pattern, or why
they prefer a particular crop when they are faced with insecurity. Active engagement from project
participants in the SSA can identify preferred markets and why, and which ones are functioning better thanothers. See SEADS Principle 2 for guidance on ensuring effective participation in your assessments andChapter 4 for methods and tools to support participation.
4. Acute versus chronic constraints. Assessment can reveal both acute and chronic seed insecurity, as
they often exist together where crises are common. Acute seed insecurity is brought on by distinct, shortterm events that can affect a broad range of the population. It can be spurred by failure to plant, loss of aharvest, or high pest infestation in storage. Chronic seed insecurity is independent of a speciﬁc crisis,
although it may be exacerbated by it. Chronic seed insecurity may occur in populations who have been
marginalized economically, ecologically, or politically. Crisis response is not well suited to address thesechronic problems directly. Nevertheless, humanitarian organizations have a responsibility to understandthese chronic problems so as not to exacerbate them. When chronic constraints are identiﬁed in thedecision tree in Figure 5.1, this can be a signal to share information and collaborate on program design withearly recovery and development programs and host governments. This collaboration can provide a forum inwhich to share knowledge of chronic seed security constraints identiﬁed through SSAs, and to raiseawareness of how crop-related crisis response may exacerbate chronic constraints.

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

65

Minimum Standard 5.2: Identifying technical options and timing
Selected technical option(s) alleviate the seed security constraints identiﬁed by the SSA, consider
market-aware responses, and are completed in time for crisis-affected households to have seed inhand for the sowing season.

Key actions• Use the decision tree in Figure 5.1 to select appropriate technical options given the identiﬁed
constraints; where possible, favor market-based response options (see Guidance note 1).
• Use participatory approaches to conﬁrm that the technical options are acceptable to crop producers(see SEADS Principle 2, Chapter 4, and Appendix 5.1).
• Base the scale of assistance on appropriate targeting, real-time costs, sowing rates, and access toassets (see Guidance notes 2 and 3).
• For the technical options chosen, devise a timeline from delivery date backward and assess bottlenecks
for the potential to delay delivery beyond a useful date (see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Constraints and security context alignment. If seed and seed system responses do not explicitly
mitigate identiﬁed seed security constraints, crop-related crisis responses can jeopardize households’
ability to produce food or earn income. For example, if in a speciﬁc zone seeds are provided or access isfacilitated year after year, crop producers and markets become dependent on humanitarian funding tofunction. In these circumstances, rather than repeated emergency seed distributions, linking with
development programs to help crop producers generate income or ﬁnd alternative livelihoods can be useful.
People affected by crisis have to feel conﬁdent that the situation is stable and secure enough for them tocultivate, harvest, fully process, and market their crops. If seed is provided in an unstable or insecuresituation, it may encourage displaced populations to return to farming before the risk is removed or before
they are fully comfortable doing so. This would be undesirable in many situations, such as in areas affectedby conﬂict or with active landmines.
The decision tree (see Figure 5.1) and Minimum Standard 5.1 provide guidance on how to ensure that yourselected technical response has the potential to alleviate identiﬁed seed security constraints. SEADS
Principle 1 provides information on market-based responses.
2. Targeting. A participant selection process (Weatherall 2019), using simple selection criteria, andinformation sharing between humanitarian actors are crucial to target the most vulnerable crop-producing
households (Rohrbach et al. 2005). See Minimum Standard 4.4 for more detail on targeting.
3. Scale of assistance. Once a technical option is selected, determine the scale of assistance required.
For example, estimate factors such as the cash needed to facilitate access to seed and the amount of seedneeded to address availability constraints. Align the scale of assistance with livelihood targets, such as
speciﬁc levels of income from crop sales or speciﬁc levels of food consumption. Consider the cost ofservices, such as transportation, that are needed to access seed, and the cost of seed itself. Use that
information either to budget for procurement or to convert into a cash value for a market-based response(see SEADS Principle 1). Knowledge of historical prices can help with these calculations, but in a crisis
costs can ﬂuctuate dramatically and rapidly. MERS Asset Distribution Standard 1 provides useful guidance
and tools. MISMA Key Action 5: Market Monitoring provides guidance on monitoring costs and adapting
programs when needed.
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

66

Calculations of how much seed to provide also rely on an understanding of realistic sowing rates andaverage surface area cultivated in each community. Participatory assessment and design activities canhelp corroborate suitable sowing rates and surface areas. Indeed, crop producers are not only seed
consumers and users, but also seed producers and seed managers. Even when free seed is provided, inmost cases crop producers also plant seed from their stock or own sources (Mollet 2010, FAO 2012a, FAO
2012b). Direct observation of a representative sample of active (not fallow) ﬁelds can provide a realistic
gauge of how much land households are capable of seeding, maintaining, and harvesting. Where direct
observation is not possible, interviews with knowledgeable crop producers and ﬁeld-based value-chain
actors can serve as a proxy. For example, seed sellers might know how much seed households buy on
average each year by crop.
It is rare that 100% of seed or transportation costs is needed. Knowledge of target participants’ coping
strategies can determine whether households may still have some assets with which to meet their needs.
For example, in temporary, short-term displacements, people may be able to take their seed stores orsavings with them. In all of these calculations, vulnerability dynamics will inﬂuence calculations of need,
and an understanding of these dynamics is essential to a rights-based approach. Appendix 5.1 provides
guiding questions to ensure calculations of assistance are equitable and realistic.
4. Oft-repeated bottlenecks. Seed and seed system responses often face with common bottlenecks thatcan jeopardize their livelihood impacts. In a complex crisis, where security is uncertain, crop producers may
delay land preparation until they have seed in hand. In this case, timelines for delivery dates of cash or seed
need to be calculated to include time for land preparation, not just to the latest planting date. For DSD, there
are often problems with contract delays, seed quality checks, and import permits. For voucher programs,
frequent bottlenecks arise with printing processes and screening sellers. For seed fairs, there are often
delays in fair planning and logistics and e-voucher set-up. Previous project reports, participation fromcrisis-affected crop producers, and coordination with other organizations can help illuminate the mostcommon bottlenecks for the target area and type of response.

Minimum Standard 5.3: Systems-based assistanceMarket-based seed and seed system support is aligned with a livelihoods-based approach andsupports systems, services, and markets that support crop-based livelihoods.

Key actions• Use a livelihoods-based approach to guide market-based seed and seed system responses (seeGuidance note 1).
• Ensure seed responses encourage producer choice of seed (see Guidance note 2).
• Ensure seed responses leverage local and existing seed sources (see Guidance note 3).
• Ensure seed responses create healthy competition among sellers or sources of seed (see Guidancenote 4).
• Ensure seed responses support systems that are accountable to crop producers (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes
1. Livelihoods approach. Under a livelihoods approach to seed and seed system responses, assistanceprograms consider all components that link seed to livelihoods (see SEADS Principle 1). For example,
suitable land access is necessary to realize any beneﬁts from seed responses. Can the available seed thrive
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS67

in the type of land accessible to crop producers? Can that access be safely assured from the time of land
preparation until harvest? Another critical link between seed and livelihoods is through pre-existing
systems, services, and markets such as seed multipliers and sellers. For example, prior to the crisis, which
sellers did crop producers use for seed? Have these sellers been affected by the crisis, and can they still
provide seed? How well are the markets functioning? Assessment tools, such as the Emergency Market
Mapping and Analysis Toolkit (Albu 2010), when focused on the seed value-chain can highlight thestrengths and weaknesses of seed-related systems, services, and markets.
2. Producer choice of seed. Producers prioritize crop and source by considering factors such as end useof the crop, distance to sellers, risk, labor availability, and cash or credit availability. Market-based programswith the greatest level of choice are most likely to effectively meet crop producers’ needs and have an
impact on livelihoods. However, the greater the choice, the more complicated the logistics of screening andintegrating seed sellers. When given complete free choice, through unconditional cash, experience has
shown that even when SSAs show that there is an economic access constraint to seed, participants will
spend a portion of their assistance on non-seed items. A good cash-for-seed response considers thatpeople have other needs, focuses on useful seed choices, and may provide a larger transfer value to makesure people are meeting basic needs, or it may provide cash for seed in conjunction with lifesaving
responses. Case Study 5.3 (see SEADS website) provides an example of producers making the best-use
choice in a voucher and seed fair approach.
3. Local and existing seed sources. Seed can be procured from outside the agro-ecological region inwhich a crisis occurs, or it can be procured from the affected region itself. Procuring local seed within theaffected region may support the local economy. However, market-based purchases may overlook
functioning informal seed systems. For example, crop producers often store and manage their own seed.
They typically share and access seed based on kinship and social relations. Informal systems supply thebulk of off-farm seed and are an important seed source for poorer crop producers. They offer a diversity of
seed for varied crops and varieties, including open-pollinated varieties (particularly common bean andgroundnut). Cash and voucher-based assistance can often overlook, downplay, or directly work against
functioning informal systems. Some local seed markets use bartering, not cash, so participants in thosemarkets will not beneﬁt from cash transfers. Where informal local sellers are weaker than formal sellers, it
may be possible to improve the functionality of the seed system by supporting seed sellers in conjunction
with explicit market-based approaches; for example, by providing training on safe storage of seed or seed
quality.
4. Competition. Competition between sellers or sources of seed can keep prices from inﬂating when
demand increases. While local market seed prices normally increase at the start of the sowing period,
competition can moderate such price changes. At the same time, competition also incentivizes sellers tooffer better quality in order to attract new customers. In addition, having multiple providers can increase therange of crops and varieties offered, with a higher likelihood that these will meet crop producers’
preferences and be well adapted to their growing conditions. Effective competition for price, quality, andselection within market systems allows crop producers to make better choices.
5. Accountability. Value-chain actors who operate throughout the year in the targeted areas have strong
incentives to be accountable, as they may offer other goods and services to crop producers and have
reputations to maintain. Participatory planning and implementation of system-based assistance allows
stakeholders to agree on processes for handling complaints about seed quality, and for publicizing theseprocedures. If a seed seller beneﬁts from system support, their goal is to get a share of the market or be
established as a trusted source of suitable seed at a speciﬁc location. Consequently, they must be
accountable for the products they sell to crop producers in order to ensure a sustainable market positionand customer base. If seed sellers are contracted (often through DSD, fairs, or vouchers), measures should
be in place to ensure seed quality and to penalize any seller of poor-quality seed.

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

68

Minimum Standard 5.4: Crop and variety choice
The crops and varieties involved in the response are suitable for the context: adapted, usable undercrop producers’ management, and deemed acceptable by producers.

Key actions• Conﬁrm producer and gender preferences, donor and host government acceptability, and ecologicalsuitability of selected crops for the targeted season (see Guidance notes 1, 2, and 3).
• Document your process for conﬁrming that varieties are acceptable to targeted growers and can beproductive under their management conditions. Consider open-pollinated varieties (see Guidancenote 4).
• Ensure that an array of crops and varieties are included in the options on offer (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes
1. Livelihood objectives. If the targeted livelihood goal of the response is to provide immediate beneﬁts to
producers, long-cycle crops, such as cassava or fruit trees, may not be appropriate.
2. Household preferences. Crop producers sow different crops and varieties. Especially when facing highstress, households may intensify certain strategies and dramatically alter others. Producers beneﬁt fromﬂexible crop and variety choice so they can tailor sowing needs to their own household needs(incorporating men’s and women’s preferences). In conﬁrming crop producers’ preferences, focus on bothconsumption traits (like taste and cooking time) and sale traits. Women and men may assess traits
differently, with women emphasizing household needs and men focusing on traits needed for marketing.
3. Choice and suitability. In direct seed responses, the distributed varieties (open-pollinated varieties
versus hybrid or local versus globally purchased seeds) must be appropriate for the agro-ecologicalconditions and local crop production practices (Buruchura et al. 2002, Haugen & Fowler 2003, Pincus et al.
2017, McGuire & Sperling 2013). A crisis can provide an opportunity to introduce crop types or varieties that
may be more suitable for the changing climate. In many countries, use of genetically modiﬁed organisms
may be restricted by the government or avoided by crop producers. Understanding the legality of genetically
modiﬁed organisms in the program area can avoid undesired delays in implementation and ensure
acceptability of crop choice and variety.
Case Study 5.7 (see SEADS website) shows how a suitable crop choice has helped crop producers tomaintain production in the remaining period of the rainy season.
4. Local (farmers’ varieties or landraces) or modern (improved) varieties. Varieties offered may be local
or modern, depending on crop producers’ needs, wants, and prior experience. In a crisis response, do not
introduce varieties that have not been previously tested in the area with crop producers’ involvement.
Support for improved varieties that have been tested locally can encourage local seed production andknowledge transfer. When combined with support to local sellers and seed producers, this support canraise the proﬁle of landraces and crop producers’ preferred varieties. Seed in small packets allows crop
producers to test unfamiliar seed varieties with minimal risk to overall production.
5. Realistic management conditions. Crops and varieties should be shown to perform well under routine
and realistic producer management conditions, not only under ideal growing conditions with purchased
inputs. Formal seed-sector regulations tend to encourage varietal purity. However, crop producers often
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

69

consume their own harvest, sell it locally, or sow in a risk-prone and variable environment. For these uses,
purity might be less important. Self- and open-pollinated varieties are often preferred for crisis responses
because crop producers can save the seed from the harvest to plant in the following season. Hybrid
varieties of ﬁeld crops are generally not recommended for crisis responses as crop producers have torepurchase seed if they continue sowing that variety. Hybrids should be considered only where people
affected by crisis have prior experience with hybrids, such as in horticulture, can independently source
them, and explicitly want them.

Minimum Standard 5.5: Seed quality
The quality of the seed in the response meets the needs and requirements of crop-producing
communities, practitioners, and donor organizations.

Key actions• Decide on seed quality criteria to be met and justify why these criteria have been chosen (see Guidancenotes 1 and 2).
• Conﬁrm that the quality is at least as good as what crop producers routinely use, and that it isacceptable to farming communities, donors, authorities, and practitioners (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Allow suﬃcient time to check seed quality against requirements prior to procurement. Be prepared toreject bad-quality seed (see Guidance note 3).
• Decide if seed should be treated with pesticides or fungicides (and why). If there is packaging, ensurethat labels and instructions are intelligible locally (see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Aspects of seed quality. Seed quality is important for all crop types. It is particularly important forvegetatively propagated crops, in which the planting material is not a grain but a vegetative part of the plant(stem, root, vine, sucker) (FAO 2010a). It is also important for saplings in tree-based responses. A primaryconcern about using these materials in crisis responses is that pests and diseases might be present on orin the living tissue of vegetative planting materials. These can be transmitted when transported to otherareas, where they can potentially infect not only the crop but other species as well. Participation of project
participants in the assessment of seed quality can ensure that seed that is provided or available in themarket is of acceptable quality because they know the source and the practices used for plant
multiplication and selection of planting material. This type of participation has led to the understanding thatgroundnuts retain the best quality if they are provided in their shells, despite the added labor for project
participants. It is important to note, however, that seed quality alone does not mean that seed will grow inan area and that crop producers will want it. The genetic quality desired by crop producers also has to be
met. The Voluntary Guide for National Seed Policy Formulation (FAO 2015) details different types of quality
indicators, such as truth in labeling, certiﬁcation, quality-declared seed, and non-certiﬁed seed.
2. Avoiding stereotypes. Many practitioners and donors deﬁne quality according to the formal sector
deﬁnition and equate quality with certiﬁed seed. However, certiﬁed improved seed is not always goodquality, especially once it reaches the crop producer. Conversely, some producer-saved seed (farmers’varieties/landraces) may be of ﬁne quality. In addition, poor storage or transport conditions can affect seed
quality. Other seed quality assurance can expand seed offerings beyond certiﬁed seed (see Guidance notes
3 and 4).

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

70

3. Meeting quality criteria. Seed quality must be suﬃcient to result in strong, reliable production. It mustalso be free of seed-borne pathogens that could spread and infect non-aid seed stocks and neighboringﬁelds. Appendix 5.2 suggests indicators and typical targets for meeting seed quality criteria. See FAO(2010b) for detailed information on evaluating seed quality. The International Seed Testing Association
sets out internationally recognized seed quality testing rules (ISTA 2022). Where seed testing may not be
feasible, a visual inspection (adapted from indicators in Appendix 5.2) may be suﬃcient.
4. Treatment and labeling. Seed treatment against pests, such as fungi, may be necessary to ensure
procured stocks of seed maintain their quality until they are distributed. Warn recipients of such seed that it
is toxic and therefore inedible. There can be a disconnect between the label and the quality of seeddelivered to crop producers if the quality deteriorates in storage or during transport. Germination rates atthe sites of distribution can provide a minimum of assurance that quality has survived transport.

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

71

Recommended reading
Details of references cited in this chapter are in Annex C. Further recommended reading includes:
Berti, P.R., Krasevec, J. & FitzGerald, S. (2004). A review of the effectiveness of agriculture interventions in
improving nutrition outcomes. Public Health Nutrition 7, 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2003595
Buruchara, R., Sperling, L., Ewell, P. & Kirkby, R. (2002). The role of research institutions in seed-related
disaster relief: Seeds of Hope experiences in Rwanda. Disasters 26, 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/146
7-7717.00207
Byrne, K. (2022). Resources to strengthen adaptive management for livelihoods programming in emergency
settings. Mercy Corps (as part of the Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment(SCALE) Associate Award). https://www.fsnnetwork.org/resource/resources-strengthen-adaptivemanagement-livelihoods-programming-emergency-settings
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2006). Quality-declared seed system. FAO Plant Production andProtection Paper 185. http://www.fao.org/3/a0503e/a0503e00.htm
FAO (1999). Restoring farmers’ seed systems in disaster situations. Plant Production and Protection Paper#150. FAO.
Iannotti, L., Cunningham, K. & Ruel, M. (2009). Improving diet quality and micronutrient nutrition: Homesteadfood production in Bangladesh. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Keane, J., Brick, G. & Sperling, L. (2019). Study on cash transfers for seed security in humanitarian settings. A
Feed the Future Global Supporting Seed Systems for Development activity (S34D) report. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/107948
Mollet, M. (2009). Emergency support for the restoration of food security in the areas of southern Myanmar
affected by Cyclone Nargis: Beneﬁciaries results assessment (BRA) survey. Unpublished. FAO.
Olney, D.K., Pedehombga, A., Ruel, M.T. & Dillon, A. (2015). A 2-year integrated agriculture and nutrition andhealth behavior change communication program targeted to women in Burkina Faso reduces anemia,
wasting, and diarrhea in children 3–12. 9 months of age at baseline: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Nutrition 145, 1317–1324. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.114.203539
Oxfam (2007). Evaluation of sustainable livelihoods, internally displaced persons’ (IDP) support, andemergency seed distribution projects in Eritrea. Oxfam GB. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/OXFAM-2007-Eritrea.pdf
Richards, P. (2005, 29 June – 2 July). The history and future of African rice: What we can learn fromobserving rice farming in West Africa war zones [conference paper]. Africa-Europe Group forInterdisciplinary Studies conference, School of Oriental and Africa Studies, London.
Richards, P., Bah, K. & Vincent, J. (2004). Social capital and survival: Prospects for community-driven
development in post-conﬂict Sierra Leone. Social development papers: community-driven development;
conﬂict prevention and reconstruction series. Paper no. 12. World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/
en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/685811468762926067/social-capital-and-survivalprospects-for-community-driven-development-in-post-conflict-sierra-leone
Ruel, M.T. & Alderman, H. (2013). Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: How can they help toaccelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? Lancet 382, 536–551. https://doi.org/10.101
6/S0140-6736(13)60843-0

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

72

Schreinemachers, P., Patalagsa, M.A. & Uddin, N. (2016). Impact and cost effectiveness of women’s training
in home gardening and nutrition in Bangladesh. Journal of Development Effectiveness 8, 473–488.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2016.1231704
Sperling, L., Osborn T. & Cooper, D. (eds.) (2004). Towards effective and sustainable seed relief activities.
Plant Production and Protection Paper #181. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/y5703e/y5703e00.htm#Contents
Sperling, L., Remington, T. & Haugen, J. (2006). Seed aid for seed security: Advice for practitioners. Practicebriefs 1–10. International Center for Tropical Agriculture and Catholic Relief Services. https://www.crs.org/
sites/default/files/tools-research/seed-aid-for-seed-security.pdf
Walsh, S. & Sperling, L. (2019). Review of practice and possibilities for market-led interventions in emergency
seed security response. International Center for Tropical Agriculture. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/108655
World Bank (2007). From agriculture to nutrition: Pathways, synergies and outcomes. World Bank.
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/28183

Appendix 5.1: Initial assessment checklist for seed
and seed system responses
These are suggested questions to ask when planning a seed or seed system response. The objective is toensure that the minimum data are collected for assessment and response identiﬁcation so that seed andseed system responses meet SEADS minimum standards. None of the questions is mandatory. Adapt thelist to suit the context.

Background questions
1. What is the agriculture calendar?
2. What are the most important and preferred crops for food security, nutrition, and income in the main
season and in any secondary seasons?
3. What are realistic sowing rates for main and secondary crops?
4. How much land does the average household plant per crop per season?
5. What gender dynamics exist in seed selection, knowledge transfer, sales, storage, and sowing?
6. How do formal and informal actors operate in the targeted area? What roles do crop producers play, andwhat roles do other actors play?
a. Where do crop producers get seed?
b. Who produces seed?
c. Who improves seed?
d. Where is seed stored?
e. How is seed transported?
7. How do most crop producers get to markets to buy inputs or sell crops?
a. What is the cost, if any, of that transportation?

Conclusion/exit
Do you understand the context of crop production and use of seed in normal times in the targeted area?

Crisis context
1. When in the agriculture calendar did the crisis occur?
2. Is land or soil available and safely accessible for crop production?
SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

73

3. Do crop producers have access to productive assets and labor?
4. Are crop producers ready to engage in agriculture?
5. Can crops sown be reasonably expected to grow to maturity and be harvested in the current crisis
context?
6. Are there any risks to speciﬁc vulnerable groups in their accessing markets at this time?
7. Do the risks of gender-based violence differ by response option? Does one response option pose fewer
risks for women than another? How can gender-based violence risks of each possible option be
mitigated?
8. Has the crisis affected preferred crops, sowing rates, production location and surface area, or formal
and informal value-chain actors?

Conclusion/exit
Has an SSA been conducted, and what acute seed security constraints exist? If any, can they beappropriately addressed at this phase of the crisis? If the constraint is deemed acute:a. Has seed and seed system support been provided in the target area for more than two seasons in a row
in the past? If so, why?
b. Can the need continue to be considered acute?

Response identiﬁcation and timing
1. Have people needing seed security-related assistance been adequately deﬁned?
2. Is the response option acceptable to program participants? To crop producers?
3. If access to or provision of seed is selected:
a. Does the drafted implementation timeline show consideration of oft-repeated bottlenecks anddelivery of seed in time for the sowing season?
b. Are there testing facilities? If no testing facilities are available, what alternative system can be used
to assure seed quality?
c. Is the seed quality on offer at least as good as producers routinely use and is the quality accepted bythem?
d. Is the quality also acceptable to donors, governments, and practitioners?
4. Do the objectives and proposed response strategy address the seed security constraint?
5. Is the required expertise and capacity in place to achieve the objectives (both within the lead institution
and via collaborators)?
6. Have possible negative effects of the response been anticipated and necessary actions been
programmed?
7. Is there time to implement the response before the targeted season?

Conclusion/exit
Can a proposed seed security response be completed in time for crop producers to have seed in hand fortheir normal planting period?

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS74

Appendix 5.2: Suggested seed quality indicators andtargets
Table A5.1: Suggested seed quality indicators and targets
Attribute

Suggested indicators

TargetPhysicalA minimum of damaged seed (broken,
cracked, or shriveled)

Minimum 95–98% pure, as
determined by analysis anddependent on the crop

Physiological

Germination rate: percentage of seedthat can germinate and develop into
normal seedlings

Minimum 70–80% depending on
crop

Seed vigor

Veriﬁed by crop producers and key
informants

Adapted to local soil types, soil fertility,
diseases, pests, day length, moistureregimesVeriﬁed by crop producers and key
informants

Suitable for local agronomic practices,such as manual or machine harvestingVeriﬁed by crop producers

Suitable for end use, including
processing, cooking, and in terms ofcolor and taste

Veriﬁed by end user

Pest and disease tolerant

Veriﬁed by crop producers and key
informants

A minimal number of diseased seeds,
and absence of disease-causingorganisms, such as fungi, bacteria,
viruses, pests

Visual check: discoloration or
staining on the seeds may indicate
diseaseGenetic

HealthModiﬁed from FAO (2010b)

SEED AND SEED SYSTEMS

75

CHAPTER 6:TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEEDINPUTS

Annex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of some of the technical terms used in SEADS.

This chapter presents options for providing tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs in a crop-related
crisis response.
In a slow-onset crisis resulting from drought, pests (such as fall armyworm), and diseases (such as wheatrust), producers typically retain their tools and equipment and remain on their land. However, a multiyear
drought or successive years of severe pest and disease infestations may result in the forced sale ofproduction assets, such as livestock, tools, equipment, other non-seed inputs, and even land (AKLDP 2016).
Where crop producers are affected by a crisis but retain access to their land, they can typically return tonormal crop production within two to three years, through temporary sharecropping arrangements ordiversifying their cropping to more resilient crops and varieties.
In contrast, the outcome of a rapid-onset or complex crisis may be mixed. For example, crop producers
affected by ﬂood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, typhoon, or conﬂict may not only lose production assets,
but also be displaced from their land and homes. Whether displaced or not, such households may require
support to be able to grow crops again. If they can integrate locally, return, or relocate safely, displaced crop
producers may also require other forms of support to restore former cropping systems.

Links to the SEADS livelihood objectives
Providing tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs relates to all three SEADS livelihood objectives:
1. to provide immediate livelihood beneﬁts to crop-producing households affected by crisis.
2. to protect crop-related livelihoods of households affected by crisis.
3. to rebuild or support crop-related production, infrastructure, and systems to ensure livelihoods forhouseholds affected by crisis.
The livelihood beneﬁts of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs can only be achieved if crops can beproduced via grains (botanic seeds) or vegetative materials. See Chapter 5: Seed and Seed Systems toassess this pre-requisite to a tools, equipment, or non-seed input response.
If crop production is possible, and tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs (see Table 6.1) are available,
accessible, and of suitable design and quality (see Table 6.2), crop production can be restored andprotected after the crisis and continue in early recovery. This provides crop producers and their families
with livelihood beneﬁts of food and income (Objectives 1 and 2). Like seed and seed system responses,
tools, equipment, and non-seed input responses can also improve preparedness and disaster risk reduction,
protecting and strengthening crop production into the future (Objectives 2 and 3).
While the provision of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs may contribute to each of the SEADS
livelihood objectives, it may not be adequate to meet all crop producers’ needs. This is because mostsmall-scale crop producers are net consumers who depend on diversiﬁed livelihoods (Woodhill et al. 2020).

The importance of providing tools, equipment, andother non-seed inputs in crisis response
Access to appropriate tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs is critical for crop production. Tools andequipment enable land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting, and storage. Soil amendments, includingorganic and inorganic chemicals, nurture soil health, protect growing crops, and increase yields. Cashtransfers and access to credit support the seasonal hire of labor and machinery (Sustainable Food Lab

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS78

2016). Without such inputs and the systems that support them, crop producers would be unable to produce
crops, hunger and poverty would increase, and longer-term sustainable livelihoods would be put at risk.
Table 6.1 gives examples of the tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs that are typically provided in a
crop-related crisis response.
Table 6.1: Crop producers need a range of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs to support theirlivelihoods
Tools

Equipment

Other non-seed inputs

•
•
•
•
•
•

• Work boots• Protective clothing (forhandling chemicals)• Crop storage sacks or bins
• Replacement water pumps,
grinding mills, and oil
expellers• Temporary fencing
materials, including posts,
rails, wire netting, nails, andstaples• Topsoil• Sacks (for sack gardens)• Stones for building terrace
and keyhole gardens• Soil amendments (ash,mulch, compost, and lime)• Organic and inorganic
fertilizer• Organic and inorganic
pesticides• Cash and credit for the hireof seasonal labor,
machinery, and purchase offuel for equipment

Hand hoes
Slashers
Sharpening stones
Watering cans
Corn huskers
Winnowing sieves

Providing tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs overcomes four potential constraints, described in Table
6.2. These constraints mirror those in Table 5.1.
Table 6.2: Four types of constraints typically affect crop producers affected by a crisis
Constraint

Characteristics required to overcome the constraint

Availability

An adequate quantity of appropriate tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputs is available in the area (spatial availability), at the right time to support
seasonal cropping activity (temporal availability), including land preparation,
sowing, weeding, protection, and harvesting

AccessCrop producers and others interested in growing crops for the ﬁrst time acquire
the tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs they need without:• economic barriers to purchase or barter• physical barriers, including distance to market, security threats, andquarantine restrictions• sociocultural barriers (disability, age, gender, ethnicity, and other biases),language gaps, and diﬃculty accessing information

QualityTools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are adapted to local crop
production systems and have desired and appropriate local traits. See
Minimum Standard 6.5 for details

Design suitability

Tools and equipment meet different crop producers’ (men, women, andchildren) preferences

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS79

In addition to supporting the intended recipient, responses also beneﬁt wholesalers, sellers, and othervalue-chain actors, as recipient households may seek the services of local blacksmiths and agricultural
engineers for the maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement of tools and equipment. Tools andequipment may also be used for other livelihood needs, such as to construct and improve housing andlivestock shelters. They can be shared between different households, including those of internally displaced
people and refugees, affected by a crisis (Cullis 2020, Pajot 2020).
Finally, there is increasing evidence that growing food and ﬂowers improves self-esteem and mental health(Millican et al. 2019, RHS 2021) and builds resilience (Cullis 2020). Recognizing these additional beneﬁts,
an increasing number of humanitarian actors are providing the necessary tools, equipment, and othernon-seed inputs for households affected by crisis to grow crops for food and to grow ﬂowers.

Technical options for supporting tools, equipment,
and other non-seed inputs
This chapter presents three technical options and several sub-options for providing tools, equipment, andother non-seed inputs in a crisis:• facilitate access to inputs• provide inputs• support formal and informal input systems.
Wherever possible, prefer facilitated access over direct distribution, as the latter should only be used where
markets are not working. Support for formal and informal systems can, over time, strengthen input systems
affected by disasters and support a transition from direct distribution. It may be appropriate to support
different options for different user groups even in the same community. For example, some households
may beneﬁt from commodity vouchers for tools, equipment, or fuel for an irrigation pump. Others, who
need to plant on poorer land, may beneﬁt from compost distribution, while others may beneﬁt from support
to local blacksmiths for improved lightweight tools.
These three technical options were selected based on available evidence of impact from agriculture
responses in humanitarian crisis (SEADS 2021) and on expert opinion. However, evidence did not
disaggregate what caused the impact on livelihoods when a combination of response areas and technicaloptions was used to address all identiﬁed constraints.
Evidence indicates that combinations of response areas and technical options can lead to crop productivity
increases and improve livelihood outcomes, either through increased food security, reduced foodexpenditures, or increased income. See for example, Mollet 2009, FAO 2012a, FAO 2012b, World Bank 2012,
Pretari & Anguko 2019, and Cullis 2020 in the SEADS Evidence Database. As such, the technical options andguidance in this chapter can also be used when providing household kits for community-led infrastructure
rehabilitation covered in Chapter 7: Crop-related Infrastructure.
Case Study 5.1 (see SEADS website) provides an example of seed and tool provision resulting in extra
months of food self-suﬃciency.

Technical Option 1: Facilitate accessFacilitated access to tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs includes any action that reduces
economic, physical, or sociocultural barriers to access. As a result, crop producers can again prepare theirland, plant, weed, nurture, protect, and harvest increased yields.

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

80

Importantly, a market-based response (see SEADS Principle 1: Use livelihoods-based programming) tofacilitating access to tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs can restore crop production while
supporting local sellers and markets (see MERS). Table 6.3 lists various market-based sub-options and theaccess barriers that they address.
Table 6.3: Several sub-options are available to facilitate access to tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs
Technical sub-options

Barriers addressed
PhysicalSociocultural

1.3. Transport subsidies for sellers to transport
inputs to markets close to targeted crop
producersxx1.4. Grants to input sellers to supply internallydisplaced people’s camps

x

x

x

x

Economic
1.1. Cash support for producers to purchasetools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs
available in local markets

x1.2. Cash support for blacksmiths, agricultural
engineers, and sellers to reach disaster-affected
areas

x

1.5. Grant support for input fairsxCase Study 6.1 (see SEADS website) illustrates an innovative unconditional cash cost-share arrangement.

Technical Option 2: Provide inputs
Where tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are unavailable, including in remote, inaccessible, andinsecure areas where markets are non-functional, it may be necessary to procure, transport, and directly
distribute inputs to crop producers affected by crisis.
Humanitarian actors may distribute these inputs, or they may seek the support of local stakeholders, suchas producer cooperatives and women’s groups, to undertake distributions. Engaging local stakeholders not
only builds local capacity, but also may help reduce operational delays that often characterize large-scale
government and humanitarian responses. See SEADS Principle 2: Use a participatory approach in all
aspects of crisis response for more guidance on including local stakeholders in assessment, design, andimplementation.
Case Study 6.2 (see SEADS website) illustrates how direct distribution of fertilizer and hand tools resulted
in production above self-suﬃciency levels in an area where a typhoon had destroyed irrigated rice, coconut,
and other crops.

Technical Option 3: Support to formal and informal input systems
In normal times, service providers and systems provide access to tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputs for crop producers. Crises may weaken or temporarily end such service provision. They are, however,
seldom destroyed, except in a long-term complex crisis. Where this has happened, support in the form ofgrants and loans can help rebuild services and systems. The process of rebuilding is often complex, takes
several years, and may require a mixture of public and private investment.

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

81

Support for service and systems strengthening should be balanced across a range of providers throughout
the different stages of the production cycle (land preparation, improving soil health, crop production,
harvesting, and storage). Grants and credit schemes, technical and skills training for tool and equipment
makers, and support for research and development of adapted tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs areexamples of support to formal and informal systems.

Advantages and disadvantages of each technicaloptionThe advantages and disadvantages of each technical option for providing tools, equipment, and non-seed
inputs are summarized in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Each tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs option has advantages and disadvantages
Disadvantages

OptionAdvantages

1. Facilitate
access to inputs• The use of cash and vouchers• Cash distributions may not be
improves timely delivery
fully used for the planned• Supports crop producers’ priorities
procurement of tools, equipment,
and choices
and other non-seed inputs, as• Cash injections strengthen the local
households affected by a crisis
economy through the multiplier
typically face a range ofeffectcompeting priorities, including• Delivery is ﬂexible, including
food, health, and education
through mobile phones, electronic• Local input fairs requirevouchers, cards (for example,
considerable organization, may
pre-paid, ATM, smart, credit, or debit
delay access to critical inputs,
cards), or cash distributions
reach relatively small numbers,• Support can be tailored to theand be inappropriate in areas
different needs of men, women,
affected by conﬂict
children, and marginalized groups• To meet quantity or quality• Tools, equipment, and non-seed
requirements, voucher schemes
input choices can be monitored andmay not equitably beneﬁt
inform the design of futuresmall-scale input sellers, who
programs
cannot provide storage ortransportation or simply because
it is logistically challenging tocontract with a diversity ofvendors

2. Provide inputs• Distributions can target and reachremote areas that are poorly
serviced by markets• Familiar to humanitarian actors andcrop producers facing recurrent
crises• Process and assistance can be
standardized across contexts• Possible to reach large numbers ofcrisis-affected crop producers

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS• Standard packages may not meetthe needs and priorities ofdifferent groups (men, women,children, and marginalized andminority groups) or beappropriate for different crop
production systems

82

…continued• Quality issues can be relatively
easily controlled through spot
checks• Simplicity of monitoring, including
the number and range of tools,
equipment, and other non-seed
inputs delivered and the number ofrecipients

3. Support toformal andinformal input
systems• Large-scale responses favorlarge-scale operations at theexpense of small-scale, local
input sellers• Procurement and logisticalchallenges, including availabilityof storage warehouses, that may
result in delayed distributions andfailure to meet livelihood
objectives• Direct distributions can become
the norm and undermine local
formal and informal markets,
including those recovering fromcrisis• Large-scale direct distributions
can disrupt systems, reduce
diversity and choice, create
dependency, and stiﬂe innovation• Support can be tailored to the• Support can result in theneeds of blacksmiths, agriculturaldevelopment of designs andengineers, and agriculture supply
products that have little or nostores, including those displaced bysustained market value
a crisis• Subsidies can support ineﬃcient• Support can improve the design ofsmall business enterprises thattools and equipment to meet theare not competitive in normal
needs of different user groups
times(men, women, and different age
groups)• Support has a potential multipliereffect in the local economy• Support can be tailored to build
relations between local input sellers
and affected crop producers

Timing of tools, equipment, and other non-seed
input technical options
Crop production crisis responses typically take place after essential lifesaving responses are managed. Use
local agriculture calendars to ensure timely support. FAO’s Crop Calendar Information Tool provides online
versions of local calendars (2021). Table 6.5 presents example timelines for implementing the threetechnical options across a generic agriculture calendar for maize and beans.
The provision of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs is time sensitive, as delays can affect crop
growth, health, and yield and because crop producers need to plan and organize required labor ahead oftime. If, due to lack of conﬁdence in a planned input response, they feel unable to plan and organize labor,
they may move scarce labor resources to other economic and livelihood activities, and opportunities are
lost.
TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

83

Table 6.5: Timing of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs technical options to coincide with local
cropping seasons—example of maize and beans production

The phase of the crisis also informs response timing for tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs, as Table
6.6 shows.
For example, in the immediate aftermath of a rapid-onset or complex crisis, priority is rightly given to
lifesaving responses, so support for tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs should be delayed until
basic needs are met.
The response for a slow-onset crisis, such as those caused by drought, pests, or disease, is different. For
multiyear droughts, organizations are often already operational, so providing tools, equipment, and othernon-seed inputs ahead of the next growing season should not pose signiﬁcant challenges. However,providing such inputs would be inappropriate during the crisis itself and during the recovery phase.
Before committing to a response, whether in a rapid-onset, slow-onset, or complex crisis, consult national
and international meteorological services. If normal conditions are expected, then the response can goahead. If, however, the forecast is for poor rains, it may be better to delay the response and wait until thenext forecast for good rains.
State and non-state actors can support and strengthen services and systems for providing tools,
equipment, and other non-seed inputs in all phases of a crisis as long as they do not interfere with theprovision of basic needs.
TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

84

Table 6.6: Different tools, equipment, and other non-seed input technical options are relevant at different
phases of a crisis

Decision tree to select technical options
A decision tree can guide your choice of technical options. It prompts you to consider the variables in asystematic way. Decision tree questions are ordered in terms of priority to program quality.
Answer Question 1 ﬁrst (either “yes” or “no”). The decision tree directs you to a new question based on youranswer. “No” responses indicate that other suitable responses identiﬁed in the response-area identiﬁcation
tool (RAIT) should be considered or that further training or capacity building may be required to answer“yes” to the questions. As multiple technical options may be appropriate, when one technical option has
been selected the decision tree will lead you to consideration of others.
Your answers should be based on all data at your disposal, but in particular:• the results of the initial assessment (see Chapter 4: Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response)• a theory of change (see Minimum Standard 8.2: Project objectives)• your organization’s capacity to achieve relevant minimum standards in this chapter (see Annex B).
SEADS recommends that you use a RAIT (see Minimum Standard 4.4: Selecting response areas) before
completing a decision tree. The RAIT will indicate whether tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs
responses are necessary, appropriate, and feasible, and which livelihood objective they may have thegreatest impact on.
Use Figure 6.1 to test whether tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs should be part of a crop-related
response and, if so, which technical options will be most appropriate.

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

85

Figure 6.1: Decision tree for tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

86

Tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs
minimum standards
Minimum Standard 6.1: Assessment and planning
Assessments are conducted to determine the level of interest in returning to crop production; theneed for tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs; and the functionality of local market-based
services and systems.

Key actions• Carry out initial assessment using participatory approaches to understand the demand for tools,
equipment, and non-seed inputs (see Guidance note 1).
• Ensure staff have relevant technical competencies to understand and utilize key information (seeGuidance note 2).
• Use Appendix 4.1: Example questions to gather initial and technical data and Appendix 6.1: Initialassessment checklist for tools, equipment, and other non-seed input responses to select assessment
questions.
• Understand acute availability, access, quality, and design quality constraints that impact tools,
equipment, and non-seed inputs used for cropping (see Guidance note 3).
• Link long-standing chronic input needs with development programs (see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Initial assessment. The crisis may have resulted in new and different livelihood aspirations (especiallywhen people are displaced), as hunger is no guarantee of continued interest in or commitment to growing
crops. An initial assessment can identify changed expectations or need for tools, equipment, or non-seed
inputs (see SEADS Principle 1, SEADS Principle 2, and Chapter 4). Appendix 6.1 includes questions that canbe used to assess whether a tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs response will have livelihood beneﬁts.
It is important to assess the needs of different groups, including women, different age groups, and persons
with disabilities, and not necessarily expect them to use tools and equipment designed for men (Cronin2020). Facilitating cooperation between different user groups and local input service and systems
providers may result in the production of lightweight or specially adapted tools and equipment. Adapted
tools and equipment enable different groups to work more effectively and typically result in less damage to
growing crops. In the same way, different crop producers may have different levels of interest in accessing
soil amendments, organic and inorganic pesticides and fertilizers, and grants and credit to hire seasonallabor or machinery, or purchase fuel to run irrigation pumps.
Case Study 6.3 (see SEADS website) describes how an imported combine harvester was adapted to ﬁt local
needs.
2. Team competencies. An effective response will depend on an understanding of the frequency of use oftools, equipment, and non-seed inputs in normal times. It also requires an understanding of the services
and systems that underpin them, including local blacksmiths and agricultural engineers, and that needsvary across different population groups. Annex B provides guidance on the desired and essential elements
TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS87

of team competencies for design, implementation, and evaluation of crop-related responses. Without theseskill sets, key contextual information can be overlooked and the design of planned assistance can be
ﬂawed.
3. Tailored support. Crop producers seldom have the same amount of land, work the same soils, choose
the same crops, have access to the same amount of labor, or use identical non-seed inputs. The same istrue for displaced households. Some may accept access to one or two relatively small containers in whichto establish a small kitchen garden. Others may want to rent plots and ﬁelds from host community
members. Other people in the same camp setting may have little or no experience in growing crops, whileothers may be displaced blacksmiths, agricultural engineers, and input sellers. Service providers may be
more interested in re-establishing themselves in their former trades than growing crops. Finally, somedisplaced individuals, including those suffering trauma, may be more interested in growing ﬂowers thancrops.
Tailoring tools, equipment, and other non-seed input support to the needs and interests of different
households can meet diverse needs and ensure that inputs are used and value for money is achieved.
Case Study 6.4 (see SEADS website) describes how refugee households increased food availability, access,and sales following distribution of a tailored bundle of seeds, tools, soil amendments, training, and fencing
materials. The questions in Appendix 6.1 can help to determine those speciﬁc needs.
4. Acute versus chronic constraints. Assessment can help differentiate between acute and chronic needs(see Appendix 4.1). Crisis responses are not well suited to address chronic unmet tools, equipment, or
non-seed input needs, which are better resolved through longer-term poverty reduction and development
programs.

Minimum Standard 6.2: Identifying technical options and timing
Appropriate tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are delivered in time for the growing season.

Key actions• Use the decision tree in Figure 6.1 to select appropriate technical options for the type of crisis and theagriculture calendar. The options identiﬁed should promote social equity (see Guidance note 1).
• Estimate response costs based on appropriate targeting, real-time costs, and appropriate and safedelivery mechanism(s) (see Guidance notes 2 and 3).
• Devise a timeline for the identiﬁed response and assess and address potential bottlenecks that might
delay delivery (see Guidance note 4).
• Identify and reduce protection risks that might arise from the identiﬁed response (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes
1. Participatory approaches and social equity. SEADS Principle 2 and Chapter 4 provide more detail onparticipatory approaches and emphasize the importance of inclusive participation. Conﬁrm theappropriateness of the technical option(s) selected, considering whether longer-term development
assistance is available to planned recipients.

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

88

2. Scale of assistance. Having identiﬁed potential technical options, the next step is to calculate the cost
and tailor the scale of assistance, in terms of the cost per recipient (depth of response) and the number ofrecipients (breadth of response). To do this, consider the full costs of the response, including procurement,
transport, and operational support. Operational costs in crisis contexts may ﬂuctuate and be inﬂated. The
MERS Asset Distribution Standard 1 provides useful guidance.
3. Targeting. Design a real-time participatory approach to targeting based on a comprehensive
understanding of social and cultural norms. Community-based targeting typically provides a more effectivemeans of ensuring the appropriate and full distribution of assistance to all vulnerable groups (see SEADS
Principle 2).
4. Delivery bottlenecks. Delays in delivering tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs can result in a failure
to meet livelihood objectives. Such delays are particularly problematic when tools for land preparation are
involved and a cropping season is put at risk. Delays are common in areas of conﬂict and remote locations
where roads are poor and the cost of transport higher, so it helps to anticipate and plan for them.
5. Do no harm. A crisis, particularly a complex crisis that is compounded by conﬂict and violence, typicallyresults in theft, looting, coercion, exploitation, deprivation, and sexual violence. For people recovering fromtrauma, it is important that the delivery of tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs does not put them atfurther risk and that participatory decision making ensures appropriate delivery systems (see theProtection Principles in the Sphere Handbook).

Minimum Standard 6.3: Market-based services and systems support
Preference is given to the provision of appropriate tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs
through market-based services and systems.

Key actions• Use livelihoods-based programming to inform delivery options (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Ensure responses foster vibrant local services and systems that ensure longer-term choice of tools,
equipment, and other non-seed inputs (see Guidance note 3).
• Use specialist advisory support for the design of responses (see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Livelihoods-based approach. Use a livelihoods approach to consider all aspects of the cropping
system, including availability of and access to land through the entire cropping season, soil health, accessto appropriate tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs, and existing market-based services andsystems (see SEADS Principle 1). The Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit (Albu 2010) can help
highlight strengths and weaknesses in tools, equipment, and other non-seed input markets, services, andsystems.
2. Market choice. Crop producers are familiar with markets, and many routinely attend weekly local
markets. Those who do are typically comfortable with selecting tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputs. The appropriateness of a market-based delivery mechanism depends on factors such as availabilityof household labor, cash, and credit. The wider the choice, the more likely markets are to have a positive
impact on livelihoods.
TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

89

3. Local versus external service and systems strengthening. Experience suggests that cash-based
responses can be biased towards larger tools, equipment, and non-seed input companies over local
blacksmiths, agricultural engineers, and agriculture supply stores, who cannot achieve required levels ofscale. Direct distributions particularly beneﬁt external value-chain actors and do not support local services
and systems. Where it is not possible to use local value-chain actors to facilitate access or directly
distribute tools, equipment, and non-seed inputs, it may be possible to support them through grants,
improved access to credit, and support for research and innovation.
4. Humanitarian bundling. Tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are typically a component of alarger bundle of humanitarian assistance that might include cash and/or food assistance, shelter, othernon-food items, and seeds. Where distributed with other assistance, involving specialists (such as crop
specialists and agricultural engineers familiar with crisis contexts) in the design of non-seed inputs
responses results in improved outcomes. See Annex B for desired and essential competencies.
Case Study 6.5 (see SEADS website) describes how agriculture specialists working on longer-term projects
in the region developed a responsive package of assistance that supported internally displaced people toproduce food and make impressive food security gains.

Minimum Standard 6.4: Choice of tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputsTools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are appropriate for local agro-ecological conditions andadapted for different users.

Key actions• Ensure that tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are tailored to the needs of households withdifferent labor availability and capacities (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Conﬁrm donor and host government acceptability of selected tools, equipment, and other non-seed
inputs (see Guidance note 3).
• Carefully consider the beneﬁts of introducing new tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs in a
crop-related crisis response (see Guidance note 4).
• Assess the need for training to ensure the appropriate use of inputs (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes
1. Livelihood objectives. Tailor tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs to meet the SEADS livelihood
objectives (see Table 2.1 and SEADS Principle 1). This might result in the delivery of different packages formen, women, different age groups, and marginalized groups. For example, one package might be tailored tosupport early beneﬁts and another to support the longer-term rebuilding of cropping systems affected by
the crisis. Providing hand tools for land preparation and planting, or providing cash for fuel for an irrigation
pump to support a standing crop, is more time sensitive than providing compost or other amendments thatbuild soil health over time.
2. Household preferences. Households recovering from a rapid-onset or complex crisis may choose toplant different crops and varieties than they did before the crisis. Their needs for tools and equipment may
similarly change. Conﬁrming current needs and priorities of different households, including the needs and
TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

90

priorities of women, child-headed, and marginalized families, is therefore important (see the Protection
Principles in the Sphere Handbook and SEADS Principle 2). Consider the weight of tools, as those that are
too heavy for the user typically result in handling injuries and damage to growing crops.
3. Context acceptability. Different donors and host governments may have different requirements,
restrictions, and regulations to govern the use of organic and inorganic amendments, fertilizers, andpesticides. The initial assessment can include aspects of acceptability and support adaptation to different
restrictions and regulations and ensure input package acceptability. It may be necessary to distribute
packages of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs—including fuel for irrigation pumps—in several
rounds so key inputs are available on time. For equipment that can be temporary or permanent, consider
factors such as how long targeted participants will be in the crop production location or whether temporary
equipment can be modiﬁed later to become more permanent. Chapter 7 provides guidance on permanent
infrastructure and Chapter 8 of the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards on livestock shelter andsettlement includes considerations for deciding on temporary or permanent infrastructure.
4. Traditional versus modern. Crop producers typically have strong preferences for tools, equipment, andother non-seed inputs, shaped by years of experience. Ensuring that tools of choice are available, including
traditional designs, is important. This may be particularly important for people that have suffered trauma,
as familiar inputs may have mental health beneﬁts. In other cases, working with women, children, andmarginalized groups to improve the design of tools and equipment may result in the production of
improved, lightweight tools that are more appropriate for them. Supporting increased choice may help morehouseholds achieve SEADS Livelihood Objective 1. Likewise, consider providing choice when replacing
wear parts of irrigation pumps to assess the possibility of upgrades and green technology. Note that wear
parts of irrigation pumps may be part of permanent infrastructure that needs rehabilitation, which iscovered in Chapter 7.
5. Training and capacity building. Design training and capacity-building support to ﬁll essential
knowledge gaps, including the appropriate and safe use of soil amendments, fertilizers, and pesticides(both organic and inorganic). Tailor all training and capacity building to the needs and interests of different
groups (men, women, children, and marginalized groups) using participatory training techniques. Local
sellers and extension services can provide useful guidance and support, including appropriate handling ofagro-chemicals (see SEADS Principle 4: Selecting response areas).

Minimum Standard 6.5: Input quality
Tools, equipment, and other non-seed input responses meet the minimum quality required bycrop-producing communities, practitioners, and donor organizations.

Key actions• Conﬁrm the quality of the tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are at least as good as crop
producers are routinely used to and therefore are acceptable (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Allow adequate time to check tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs at the point of distribution,and be prepared to reject bad-quality inputs (see Guidance note 2).
• Ensure that all chemicals are properly labeled in the local language (see Guidance note 3).

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

91

Guidance notes
1. Aspects of quality. Tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs should perform at or above
anticipated levels and be suﬃciently durable to ensure a long service life with normal use. In the same waythat quality tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs can have a positive impact on livelihoods, poorquality inputs threaten impacts. Breakages may result in personal injury. The initial assessment andtechnical analyses should therefore establish quality criteria and screen out sellers who do not meet them.
Equally important quality issues are associated with the distribution of other non-seed inputs, such as
topsoil, soil amendments, fertilizers, and pesticides. Topsoil should be as described, and not poorer-quality
sub-soil, and soil amendments need to be of high quality to enrich poor soil and build soil health. Fertilizers
and pesticides also need to be of high quality, not exceeding the expiration date or stored in poor
conditions. Do not distribute fertilizers and pesticides that do not meet agreed quality criteria.
2. Quality checking. Planning a small number of spot checks at procurement, distribution, andperiodically through the life of the response can address quality issues and also maintenance, repair, andreplacement needs.
3. Labeling. Whether organic or inorganic, fertilizers and pesticides should be clearly labeled, including
guidance on recommended application rates and safe use. Labeling should be in the local language and beclear in written and pictorial form, so everyone in the community can learn how to protect themselves andthe environment.

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

92

Recommended reading
Details of references cited in this chapter are in Annex C. Further recommended reading includes:
Boedeker, W., Watts, M., Clausing, P. & Marquez, E. (2020). The global distribution of acute unintentional
pesticide poisoning: Estimations based on a systematic review. BMC Public Health 20.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09939-0
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2021, 12 May). Q&A on pests and pesticide management. FAO.
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1398779/icode/
FAO & World Health Organization (2016). International code of conduct on pesticide management:
Guidelines on highly hazardous pesticides. FAO & WHO. https://www.fao.org/pest-and-pesticidemanagement/pesticide-risk-reduction/hhps/en/
Gerard, B., Baudron, F. & Yahaya, R. (2019). Debunking myths about agricultural labor and mechanization in
Africa: Fact sheet. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) https://repository.cimmyt.
org/handle/10883/20122
Gill, H.K. & Garg, H. (2019). Pesticides: Environmental impacts and management strategies. In M.L.
Larramendy & S. Soloneski (eds.), Pesticides (Chapter 8). IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/
chapters/46083
Gummert, M. (2019). Post-harvest technologies for small farmers. International Rice Research Institute(IRRI). https://flar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/009_Post-harvest-technologies-foe-small-farmers_
MGummert.pdf
IRRI (2022). Rice knowledge bank [website]. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/
Maulu, S., Hasimuna, O. J., Mutale, B., Mphande, J. & Siankwilimba, E. (2021). Enhancing the role of rural
agricultural extension programs in poverty alleviation: a review. Cogent Food & Agriculture 7. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1886663
Mock, N. & Vallet, M. (2018). Review of food for peace market-based emergency food assistance programs –Sierra Leone case study report. TANGO International. https://www.calpnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/20
20/03/pa00t2c4-1.pdf
Sims, B. & Kienzle, J. (2006). Farm power and mechanization for small farms in sub-Saharan Africa. FAO.
https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/6e76ecd0-1097-588c-ab99-7c5d29a6d055/
Sims, B., Kahan, D., Mpagalile, J., Hilmi, M. & Valle, S.S. (2018). Hire services as a business enterprise: A
training manual for small-scale mechanization service providers. FAO. http://www.fao.org/family-farming/
detail/en/c/1166249/
Sphere (2019). Reducing environmental impact in humanitarian response. Sphere Thematic Sheet 1.
https://spherestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Sphere-thematic-sheet-environment-EN.pdf
United Nations Oﬃce for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2021). Global risk assessment framework(GRAF) [webpage]. https://www.preventionweb.net/understanding-disaster-risk/graf

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

93

Appendix 6.1: Initial assessment checklist for tools,
equipment, and other non-seed input responses
These are suggested questions to ask when planning a tools, equipment, and other non-seed input
response. The objective is to ensure that the minimum data are collected for assessment and response
identiﬁcation so that the tools, equipment, and other non-seed input response meets the SEADS minimum
standards. None of the questions is mandatory. Adapt the list to suit the context.

Context
1. What key tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs for each of the primary and secondary crops dodifferent households require, from land preparation to harvesting (according to wealth, andmen/women/child-headed households)?
2. What are the normal market service providers and systems that make tools, equipment, and othernon-seed inputs available?
a. Who produces them?
b. Where are they produced?
c. How are they transported?
d. Who is involved in the transport and sale at each stage?
e. How accessible are they to different wealth groups and men/women/children?

Crisis context
1. What are the main tools, equipment, and other non-seed input constraints to producing crops safely?
2. What tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs are most needed to ensure that affected crop
producers can produce preferred crops through to harvest?
3. Are these tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs available in local markets, and are there any risks
to speciﬁc groups in accessing markets?
4. Do any of the response options result in increased risks for any group (men, women, children,
marginalized groups)? How can risks be mitigated?

Response identiﬁcation and timing
1. Have those people who need tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs been adequately deﬁned?
Have the needs of men, women, children, and marginalized groups been deﬁned?
2. Is the planned response option acceptable to the recipients including men/women and children andother marginalized groups?
3. If access to or provision of tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs is selected:
a. Do the draft implementation timelines address bottlenecks and ensure delivery of tools, equipment,
and other non-seed inputs in time for the sowing season?
b. Are the tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs of similar quality to inputs that are routinely
used and accepted?
c. Is the quality also acceptable to donors, governments, and practitioners?
4. Do the objectives and proposed response strategy address the tools, equipment, and other non-seed
input constraint(s)?
5. Does the lead implementing institution have the required livelihoods, market, and technical expertiseand capacity to achieve SEADS livelihood objectives?
6. Have possible unintended impacts and the necessary adjustments been considered?

TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER NON-SEED INPUTS

94

CHAPTER 7:
CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

Annex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of some of the technical terms used in SEADS.

This chapter provides options for rehabilitation of crop-related infrastructure. Rehabilitation includes therepair, rebuilding, replacement, or protection of temporary or permanent crop-related infrastructure used byindividual households or groups of households in a community. Crop-related infrastructure includes
buildings and property used for the production, transport, storage, and marketing of crops. Examples
include greenhouses, shades, irrigation works, ponds, dams, roads, bridges, fencing, market stalls, silos,
and warehouses.
Different types of crisis affect crop-related infrastructure in different ways:• A rapid-onset crisis, such as ﬂoods, earthquakes, and typhoons, can damage or destroy infrastructure,
preventing users from continuing their livelihood activities.
• A complex crisis can affect infrastructure in a similar way to a rapid-onset crisis, but multiple issues
happen simultaneously. If conventional war is an element of a complex crisis, crop-related infrastructure
may become unusable due to direct damage and remnants of war, such as landmines and unexploded
ordnance.
• A slow-onset crisis, such as drought, can lead to the accumulation of dust, silt, and debris, which causes
irrigation infrastructure malfunction when the water ﬂows again.

Links to the SEADS livelihood objectives
Rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure relates to all three of the SEADS livelihood objectives:
1. to provide immediate livelihood beneﬁts to crop-producing households affected by crisis.
2. to protect crop-related livelihoods of households affected by crisis.
3. to rebuild or support crop-related production, infrastructure, and systems to ensure livelihoods forhouseholds affected by crisis.
The extent to which rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure contributes to each objective depends onwhen it occurs in the crop production cycle. Infrastructure rehabilitation always contributes to Objective 3,
as this objective is the least time sensitive.
Whether rehabilitation has an immediate impact on crop production depends on the time of the year. Some
infrastructure rehabilitation, when implemented in the aftermath of a crisis, can have an immediate impact
on crop-related livelihoods. Activities such as cleaning an irrigation canal, repairing terraces, demining, andclearing debris can therefore contribute directly to Objective 1.
Objective 2 relates to livelihood protection, which can best be done during the preparedness phase by
reinforcing infrastructure to make it less vulnerable to hazards (for example, retroﬁtting buildings or
repairing lightly damaged infrastructure to prevent further deterioration), locating it in places of lower
vulnerability, or increasing the capacity of water reservoirs to protect crops against droughts. In a conﬂict
context, rehabilitating infrastructure in an inclusive way and supporting crop-related livelihoods that
promote trade and communication among different parties will also contribute to Objective 2.
The minimum standards in this chapter focus on:• avoiding further asset deterioration or losses and ensuring continued production.
• ensuring and increasing future production and ability to withstand future shocks.
• improving preparedness and recovery by linking to long-term development.

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

97

The importance of crop-related infrastructure incrisis response
Crop-related infrastructure is essential at all stages of the crop production cycle. For example:• Irrigation, terracing, and fencing are essential for crop production.
• Transport and market infrastructure promote linkages between producers and value-chain actors at
different stages of the crop production cycle.
• Storage infrastructure and shade structures maintain the quality of inputs and products, and protect
equipment and machinery.
Rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure after a crisis may also bring temporary and permanent
employment opportunities, increasing the potential of infrastructure rehabilitation to contribute to therecovery of affected communities. Rehabilitation presents an opportunity to make infrastructure lessvulnerable to natural or human-induced hazards by considering existing vulnerabilities based on pastexperiences and predicting and preparing for future hazards.
Rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure requires materials, labor, and technical knowledge and skills. If therequired rehabilitation exceeds the affected community’s capacity in one or more of these three areas, local
government, humanitarian actors, or specialized sub-contractors may need to be involved.
Table 7.1 lists examples of infrastructure used at each stage of crop production, issues that may result
from a crisis, and possible solutions.
Case Study 7.1 (see SEADS website) provides an example of how rehabilitating a water-harvesting
structure can improve crop-related livelihoods.

Technical options for supporting crop-related
infrastructureThis chapter presents two technical options and several sub-options for rehabilitating crop-related
infrastructure:• Facilitate community-led infrastructure rehabilitation.
• Lead and implement direct infrastructure rehabilitation.
These two technical options were selected based on available evidence of impact from agriculture
responses in humanitarian crisis (SEADS 2021) and on expert opinion. However, evidence did not
disaggregate what caused the impact on livelihoods when a combination of response areas and technicaloptions was used. Productivity increases may also result from a combination of response areas.
Evidence indicates that combinations of response areas and technical options can improve livelihood
outcomes, either through increased food security, reduced food expenditures, or increased income. See, forexample, Mollet 2011, Walter et al. 2017, ICRC 2019, and Trust Consultancy & Development 2020 in the
SEADS Evidence Database.

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

98

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

Table 7.1: Different infrastructure rehabilitation solutions can address issues throughout the crop production cycle
Crop production
stage
Pre-production

Production

Post-production

Issue

Infrastructure solution

Existing crop-related infrastructure is vulnerable tocrisisProtect and retroﬁt to reduce vulnerability

Gullies are created or deepened, and terraces arebroken, leading to erosion and loss of soil

Repair terraces and ﬁll gullies

Debris, mines, and unexploded ordnance make itdiﬃcult or impossible to prepare land and irrigation

Clear ﬁelds and irrigation canals of debris, mines, andunexploded ordnance

Access to land and infrastructure is impossible due todamage, destruction, or the presence of mines andunexploded ordnance

Rehabilitate or demine roads, bridges, culverts, andother crop-related infrastructure to ensure safe access

Access to input sellers is impossible or restricted

Repair and rebuild marketplaces and access roads

Livestock invade ﬁelds, compacting soil and eating
crops

Repair or provide permanent fences

Machinery, equipment, and inputs need to be storedsafelyRepair or rebuild shades, warehouses, and silos

Excess water on soil does not allow roots to breathe

Rehabilitate drainage infrastructure

Lack of water for crops to grow

Rehabilitate irrigation infrastructure (Muthigani et al.
2010)

Lack of heat and humidity for crops to grow faster oroff season

Rehabilitate greenhouses

Harvest cannot be transported, as roads are notpassable

Rehabilitate or rebuild roads, bridges, and culverts

Harvest needs to be stored for consumption by thecommunity or until it is sold

Repair, rebuild, or reinforce warehouses and silos

Marketplaces are destroyed by the crisis so thecommunity has no proper place to sell the harvest

Repair, rebuild, or reinforce market stalls (Marocchino
2009)
Rehabilitate interior market roads and drainage

99

Technical Option 1: Facilitate community-led infrastructure rehabilitation
Three sub-options are available:
1.1. Provide the required tools, materials, or funds for the rehabilitation, either as household kits (forcrop-related infrastructure at household level) or for the whole community (for community
infrastructure, to be managed by local leadership). This sub-option contributes to localization, in linewith the Grand Bargain. Coordination with support to crop production through tools, equipment, andother non-seed inputs (Chapter 6: Tools, Equipment, and Other Non-seed Inputs) is essential to ensure
relevance of this sub-option and achievement of livelihood impacts.
1.2. Provide legal and technical assistance to secure sustainable access to and use of the infrastructureby all users and to ensure the infrastructure meets the required technical standards. This support canbe provided at the household or community level.
1.3. Facilitate employment schemes to complete the rehabilitation. This option is usually most suitable forrehabilitation projects requiring unskilled manual labor in a context of relative stability after a crisis,
when the community has a long-term perspective for the rehabilitation work.
Case Study 7.2 (see SEADS website) shows how rehabilitating irrigation schemes can be implemented
through a cash-for-work approach.

Technical Option 2: Lead and implement direct infrastructure rehabilitation
This option is likely to be effective in complex or costly rehabilitation projects or because the local policies
and laws require it. Two sub-options are available:
2.1. Organizations do the rehabilitation work themselves, as they have the technical capacity to procurematerials and hire and manage skilled laborers.
Case Study 7.3 (see SEADS website) presents an example of direct assistance by the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to rehabilitate greenhouses in the Gaza Strip.
2.2. Organizations hire private contractors to do the rehabilitation work.
Option 2 and its sub-options can be used for permanent infrastructure if required, but it is particularly well
suited to households in need of livelihood support in an unstable context (for example, internally displaced
people, refugees, conﬂict). In such situations, a rapid rehabilitation can be done if directed by theorganization. Option 2 is also likely to be the most feasible for demining, which requires speciﬁc equipment
and skills and technical knowledge of military tactics and weapons.

Advantages and disadvantages of each technicaloptionBoth technical options ensure that humanitarian principles and livelihood objectives are respected. They
incorporate the need to build back better while considering climate change adaptation, local traditional
techniques, and local materials and laws. Both options also require operations and maintenance systems
to ensure the long-term sustainability of the rehabilitated infrastructure. The advantages and disadvantagesof each option are summarized in Table 7.2.

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

100

Table 7.2: Each crop-related infrastructure option has advantages and disadvantages
Advantages

Disadvantages

1. Facilitatecommunity-led
rehabilitation• Increased community
ownership• Builds on traditional
community-based systems• Reduced cost due tocommunity contributions(labor, materials)• Opportunities for capacity
building, not only at technicallevel, but also in local
people’s management andleadership• Might be more sustainable ifmaintenance remains with
communities• May be more diﬃcult to manage if
there is conﬂict or tension among
different groups in the community
or restrictions that limit
participation of people according
to their ethnicity, gender, religion,or disability• May keep people away from theirown livelihoods or from temporary
migration to earn higher income inurban areas or neighboring
countries• May not be possible because thepeople in the community are busy
with their livelihoods or have
temporarily migrated• May present unacceptable safety
risks to community members
unless they have technicalknowledge of mines andunexploded ordnance

2. Lead andimplement direct
rehabilitation• Easier to implement a more
inclusive scheme• Can ensure humanitarian
standards in respect of labor
law, safety norms, child labor,
and equal and fair wages• Builds local capacities if local
people are hired• Can establish acomprehensive operations
and maintenance system toensure sustainability• Easier to arrange, supervise,and manage• Can plan and guarantee thequality of the rehabilitation• Easier to arrange a high levelof skills and equipment if
required• Opportunity to bring new,improved technologies to thecommunity• May undermine traditional
community-based systems andcreate dependency on support• May compete with localorganizations or companies that
could also do the rehabilitation• If done through a sub-contractor
from outside the community, theresources paid go out of thecommunity• If a private contractor is used, thepossibility of local capacity
building is small• It is diﬃcult to create acomprehensive operations andmaintenance system, as theorganization’s involvement islimited to short-term contract
compliance and supervision

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

101

Timing of crop-related infrastructure technicaloptions
Rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure usually starts in early recovery after a crisis, once essential
lifesaving responses are in place or routinely managed. However, if the rehabilitation provides labor
opportunities for unskilled workers in the affected community, then in-kind payments or cash and voucher
assistance can enable people to meet their basic needs, and the rehabilitation work could be done early inthe response.
For a rapid-onset crisis, retroﬁtting and protection of crop-related infrastructure prior to an expected crisis
might be appropriate. Emergency preparedness and early actions can be implemented where a crisis canbe predicted or anticipated, such as typhoons and earthquakes.
In a slow-onset crisis, such as a drought, it is sensible to increase the capacity of water deposits andreservoirs for irrigation.
In a complex crisis, there is a risk that rehabilitated infrastructure may be repeatedly damaged. This isparticularly the case with conﬂicts and civil unrest where people’s livelihoods are targeted. Therefore,
conditions need to be stable enough to reduce the risk of recurrent damage.
Table 7.3: Different crop-related infrastructure options are relevant at different phases of a crisis response

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

102

The legal and technical assistance sub-option (Technical Option 1.2) might be needed before therehabilitation work starts to ensure that all stakeholders understand the requirements, with particularattention to the most vulnerable groups. Unlike other technical options, this assistance may continue into
recovery if future hazards are anticipated. If they are, assistance should be coordinated with development
projects.
Table 7.3 summarizes the most effective timing for rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure in different
phases of a crisis.
The crop production cycle has less inﬂuence on infrastructure rehabilitation timing than the phase of thecrisis or forecasts of future hazards. Nevertheless, infrastructure rehabilitation may require signiﬁcantcommunity labor, and thus it should avoid times of peak local labor demand, such as the harvest, or ofseasonal migration to urban areas or abroad for work. Use seasonal agriculture and labor calendars to
identify peak periods. Eﬃciencies can be gained in implementation by timing infrastructure rehabilitation
support with other types of crop-related response. For safety reasons, the removal of mines andunexploded ordnance may need to be done well before the agricultural season.
Rehabilitation work is usually better done during dry periods as the rain disturbs the work and it takes
longer for construction work to dry during the rainy season.
Table 7.4 presents example timelines for infrastructure rehabilitation against the stages of crop production.
Table 7.4: Different crop-related infrastructure options are relevant at different stages of the agriculture
calendar

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

103

Decision tree to select technical options
A decision tree can guide your choice of technical options. It prompts you to consider the variables in asystematic way. Decision tree questions are ordered in terms of priority to program quality.
Answer Question 1 ﬁrst (either “yes” or “no”). The decision tree directs you to a new question based on youranswer. “No” responses indicate that other suitable responses identiﬁed in the Response-area identiﬁcation
tool (RAIT) should be considered or that further training or capacity building may be required to answer“yes” to the questions.
Your answers should be based on all data at your disposal, but in particular:• the results of the initial assessment (see Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response)• a theory of change (see Minimum Standard 8.2: Project objectives)• your organization’s capacity to achieve relevant minimum standards in this chapter (see Annex B).
SEADS recommends that you complete a RAIT (see Minimum Standard 4.4: Selecting response areas)
before completing a decision tree. The RAIT will indicate whether crop-related infrastructure responses arenecessary, appropriate, and feasible, and which livelihood objective they may have the greatest impact on.
Use Figure 7.1 to test whether crop-related infrastructure should be part of a crop-related response and, if
so, which technical options will be most appropriate.

Crop-related infrastructure minimum standards
Minimum Standard 7.1: Assessment and planning
Assessment identiﬁes the key infrastructure rehabilitation needs and the technical requirements for
implementing.

Key actions• Identify the key infrastructure constraints as well as factors to consider in determining the mostappropriate and timely response (see Guidance notes 1, 2, and 3).
• Consider the positive and negative environmental impacts of the infrastructure rehabilitation (seeGuidance note 3).
• Understand the local legislation, preferred construction techniques, materials, and building codes. Usethem for the design and planning of the rehabilitation work (see Guidance notes 3 and 4).
• Understand existing ownership and access inequalities and consider ways to overcome them (seeGuidance note 5).
• Collect the relevant information to build back better so that the rehabilitation work reduces vulnerability
to future crises (see Guidance notes 6 and 7).
• Ensure staff have relevant technical competencies and provide training to ﬁll gaps (see Annex B).
• Use Appendix 4.1: Example questions to gather initial and technical data and Appendix 7.1: Initialassessment checklist for crop-related infrastructure responses to select assessment questions.

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

104

Figure 7.1: Decision tree for crop-related infrastructure

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

105

Guidance notes
1. Initial assessment. Assess the context for crop-related infrastructure rehabilitation, including the levelof damage to critical crop-related infrastructure as a result of the crisis and the community’s capacity tosupport rehabilitation work. Consult broadly to understand ownership, access, and use of the infrastructure.
Clarify who will beneﬁt from the rehabilitation work and how the crisis response will help those mostvulnerable meet their basic needs and/or recover their livelihoods (see SEADS Principle 2: Use aparticipatory approach in all aspects of crisis response and Chapter 4).
2. Market assessment. As a component of initial assessment, a market assessment is an opportunity tocollect relevant information on materials and services available locally for the rehabilitation work. This
includes information about seasonal labor availability and demand, wages, construction materials, andlocal contractors in the market. For planning the rehabilitation, it’s useful to have information on labor andresource availability, cost, and quality, as well as on the reliability of supply. That information allows you to
avoid creating scarcity at the local level.
3. Environmental assessment. Initial assessment should include information about relevant
environmental aspects regarding the location of the infrastructure, sourcing of tools, equipment, andmaterials, and management and disposal of any by-products and debris. Understand and comply with local
environmental legislation and avoid negative impacts on the environment (see SEADS Principle 4: Consider
climate change and minimize environmental impacts).
4. Local legislation, norms, and building codes. The assessment should provide an understanding of
local practices, traditions, techniques, technology, norms, and speciﬁcations for infrastructure construction
and rehabilitation. This will identify potential constraints posed by some response options and can identify
the need for legal advice to clarify technical requirements and issues relating to ownership of, access to,and use of crop-related infrastructure. Such information will also be useful when organizing operations andmaintenance post-rehabilitation.
5. Equity. Historical inequalities in the community will probably be reﬂected in the location of, ownershipof, and access to crop-related infrastructure. For example, it is probably located closer to wealthier, moreinﬂuential members of the community. By comparison, more vulnerable users will typically live farther awayfrom the infrastructure, increasing their travel costs, time, and exposure to protection risks. Ownership andaccess may also be limited by gender and ethnicity. It is diﬃcult to change and challenge sociocultural
norms in a crisis response, particularly one characterized by existing conﬂict. However, understanding thepower system that created those sociocultural norms may help to increase inclusiveness and promote
some actions to address them (see SEADS Principle 1: Use livelihoods-based programming).
6. Build back better. Infrastructure rehabilitation is an opportunity to provide the community with betterand more resilient infrastructure that can withstand future crises. Building codes deﬁne how strong andresilient the infrastructure should be. The assessment should identify the relevant codes from the local
legislation and use them for planning and design. Building back better can also include consideration ofopportunities to improve technologies, especially consideration of green technologies, such as replacing adiesel-engine pump with a solar-powered pump. While many donors tend to prioritize rehabilitation,
especially in protracted crises where the infrastructure no longer exists, new construction can enable fasterrecovery and provide a foundation for development.
7. Disaster risk mapping. Within a community, some locations are more vulnerable to certain hazards
than others (for example, ﬂood plains or a location near a gasoline deposit). The assessment should map
all these risks and vulnerability to hazards so that they are considered in the response design and planning(CRS 2017).
Sometimes, governments may revise policies after a crisis to reduce impacts should a similar crisis occur
again. For example, after the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in 2004, the Sri Lankan government
created a buffer zone to prevent organizations from rehabilitating close to the sea. New and revised
regulations have an important impact on any rehabilitation plan.
CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

106

Climate change will lead to increasingly frequent and powerful crises. Therefore, assessments made on thebasis of previous events may be misleading because the next event may be more extreme. Use Climatechange projections done by a reputable institution or the government to design and plan an appropriate
response. Be aware that building codes may be revised in response to those same predictions.

Minimum Standard 7.2: Technical speciﬁcations
The rehabilitated infrastructure is safe, meets the required local technical speciﬁcations, and isappropriate for the intended use.

Key actions• Conﬁrm that the identiﬁed technical option complies with the applicable planning and building codes,
material speciﬁcations, and quality speciﬁcations (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Increase the technical capacity of local people, which will increase the sustainability of the rehabilitation
and reduce the need for external assistance in the future (see Guidance note 3).
• Build back better and promote safe rehabilitation practices to meet needs and reduce future risks (seeGuidance note 4).
• Establish an appropriate project management system and establish an operations and maintenancesystem for sustainability of the infrastructure (see Guidance note 5).
• Assess environmental baseline conditions and identify available local resources and environmental
hazards. Minimize negative environmental impacts during infrastructure rehabilitation, operation, andeventual decommissioning. Incorporate an environmental management plan into operations andmaintenance procedures (see Guidance note 6).
• Coordinate with other organizations to optimize infrastructure rehabilitation practices and local
livelihood opportunities (see Guidance note 7).

Guidance notes
1. Local building codes. Local building codes should reﬂect local culture, climatic conditions, resources,
local materials, and maintenance capacities, as well as accessibility and affordability. For household-level
infrastructure, ensure that infrastructure rehabilitation allows users to meet the required codes andspeciﬁcations. Where there are no existing speciﬁcations, use United Nations standards. Establish
minimum speciﬁcations in collaboration with the local authorities and relevant stakeholders to ensure theymeet safety and performance requirements. Where relevant and possible, relocate crop-related
infrastructure to avoid future damage or destruction from future crises. If the location cannot be changed,
consider opportunities to apply speciﬁcations beyond those in any existing building codes.
2. Sourcing materials. Sourcing materials locally may affect the local economy, environment, oravailability of labor. Sometimes adequate materials may not be available locally and other alternatives mayneed to be used. If this happens, consider the impact of using materials that are unfamiliar to the local
culture. Ensure that environmental concerns are addressed and promote reuse of salvaged materials.
Select the most sustainable materials among the viable options. Prefer those that do not deplete local
natural resources or contribute to long-term environmental damage (see SEADS Principle 4).
3. Local competencies and participation. Infrastructure rehabilitation should be compatible with local
practices. That requires ongoing engagement with people affected by the crisis (see SEADS Principle 2).
Training programs and apprenticeship schemes can maximize opportunities for affected people to
CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

107

participate directly in infrastructure rehabilitation. Provide opportunities for women and persons withdisabilities to participate. People less able to undertake physical tasks can contribute to complementary
activities such as site monitoring. Training and awareness-raising builds technical capacity among theaffected populations, local authorities, local building professionals, skilled and unskilled labor, landlords,
and local partners. In locations vulnerable to seasonal or cyclical hazards, involve local experts who haveknowledge of and experience with local rehabilitation practices, building codes, and suitable materials.
Case Study 7.4 (see SEADS website) illustrates how active involvement and participation increases
competencies at the community level.
4. Build back better. Initial assessment should identify why the infrastructure failed or was damaged or
destroyed. It should also identify ways to avoid this failure, damage, or destruction happening again. Thisrequires an understanding of the vulnerability of the infrastructure location to similar future events.
Consider the impact of climate change based on existing studies and projections. climate change may
have an additional negative impact on vulnerability to hazards, which will require additional protection. The
assessment may suggest that moving the infrastructure to another location is an option for reducing future
vulnerability.
5. Project management. Develop a rehabilitation plan or calendar that includes target milestones and startand completion dates. The schedule should note the onset of seasonal weather and include a contingency
plan for unforeseen events. Set up a management and monitoring system for materials, labor, and site
supervision. This should address sourcing, procurement, transportation, handling, and administration
throughout the process. Develop a comprehensive operations and maintenance plan to ensure effective
long-term operation. Key components of a plan include users’ participation, deﬁning roles andresponsibilities, and having a cost-recovery or cost-sharing plan. For repairs, check that materials and spareparts are available in the market, as well as local technicians with the skills to make the required repairs.
6. Environmental protection. Environmental protection associated with infrastructure rehabilitation
should reﬂect SEADS Principle 4. For example, stabilize the soil by retaining vegetation, using naturalcontours for roads, pathways, and drainage networks, and establishing drainage systems under roadways
or planted earth banks. Debris management activities immediately after the crisis should promote safe
disposal or reuse, depending on local attitudes and the proximity of businesses willing to purchase thedebris. Minimize the use of non-renewable energy and promote the use of renewable energy sources.
Include energy-eﬃcient designs using passive approaches for heating and cooling.
7. Linkages to other humanitarian standards. Rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure might overlap withother humanitarian actions. Consider the potential implications and synergies as well as relevant
humanitarian standards (see SEADS Principle 5: Establish coordinated responses). For example,
rehabilitating irrigation infrastructure and water deposits for livelihoods use may increase access topotable water. However, it may also create breeding places for disease vectors, such as mosquitos.
Infrastructure rehabilitation is also likely to beneﬁt from close cooperation with organizations engaged in
shelter and settlements projects.

Minimum Standard 7.3: Location, lifetime, and timing
Crop-related rehabilitated infrastructure is located in the right place at the right time and meets therequired lifetime for its users.

Key actions• Decide if the infrastructure should be temporary or permanent (see Guidance note 1).
• Locate the infrastructure in the most suitable place from a functional, accessibility, protection, andequity perspective (see Guidance notes 2 and 3).
CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

108

• Time the infrastructure rehabilitation so it is available, accessible, and ready to use at the right time (seeGuidance notes 4 and 5).

Guidance notes
1. Lifetime requirements of the infrastructure. Crop-related infrastructure may be required for a deﬁned
period of time or for as long as possible. For instance, refugees or internally displaced people may be in acamp for several months or years, giving them the opportunity to grow and market crops; for that they needcrop-related infrastructure on a temporary basis. Temporary infrastructure may also be appropriate for acommunity affected by a complex crisis, as the additional investment required for permanent infrastructure
may be diﬃcult to justify given that it could be again damaged or destroyed during the crisis. The decisionon which option to choose should be based on the initial assessment, the technical options available, andbeneﬁt-cost analysis. The rehabilitation of permanent infrastructure typically requires the use of specialized
technology, a longer implementation timeframe, strong community participation, and linkages to thesustainable development of the community. At the same time, it should contribute to or ﬁt into the national
development plan. Permanent infrastructure should have an agreed lifespan and a decommissioning plan,
ideally developed at the design phase of the response. On the other hand, temporary infrastructure will
require higher technical skills and materials that will need to be implemented directly by the organization ora specialized sub-contractor (Technical Option 2). Temporary infrastructure may need to be easily
mountable and dismountable, requiring specialized skills, materials, and ﬁnancial resources. For example, a
temporary warehouse may use a metallic structure while a permanent one would use concrete, which ismuch cheaper and the materials, funds, and skills are more likely to be locally available. Some temporary
infrastructure, such as fences, could be treated like a tool or equipment by the organization. See Chapter 6
for guidance.
2. Location of the infrastructure. The location of the infrastructure should allow people to use it
appropriately, safely, and in a timely manner. For household-level infrastructure, each household can decide
where to locate it within their property. For community-level infrastructure, location needs to be discussed
and agreed in consultation with representatives of all the people and institutions involved. When
determining the best location for community-level infrastructure, consider property rights, ownership, andpotential beneﬁts for vulnerable groups (see SEADS Principle 1).Consider any protection risks for the usersof collective crop-related infrastructure. Users should not be put at risk when traveling from home to theinfrastructure. If possible, minimize the distance to travel and provide night lighting. Provide appropriate ﬁresafety equipment and training, as well as evacuation plans and escape routes. Locations near industrial
hazards, including fuel storage facilities, pose unnecessary risks and are best avoided. If they cannot be
avoided, appropriate risk reduction measures will be required. Similarly, in conﬂict areas, locating theinfrastructure near a military base or the house of an authority may also affect the security and safety of
those using the infrastructure.
3. Protection and equity considerations. Consider all-weather access, security risks, and potential access
restrictions due to gender, ethnicity, religious aﬃliation, disability, or other sociocultural barriers, such as
language or literacy (see the Protection Principles in the Sphere Handbook).
4. Timing of the rehabilitation. Ideally, rehabilitation of crop-related infrastructure should align with thelocal agriculture calendar. For instance, rehabilitate the irrigation canals before the crops need to bewatered and ensure silos are available before the grains are harvested. In general, it is easier to do
rehabilitation work during dry periods, as the rain may disrupt the work and delay completion. Conﬂict
situations may also impose unavoidable constraints on timing, including the risk that the infrastructure may
be destroyed during the conﬂict. Transport infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, is frequently targetedby warring parties. However, be aware that any delays in infrastructure rehabilitation affect the speed withwhich local crop-based livelihoods can return to normal. For security reasons, mines and unexploded
ordnance may need to be removed as soon as possible, regardless of the agricultural season.

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

109

5. Conﬂict reduction and peace building. Rehabilitating crop-related infrastructure at the right time
protects existing livelihoods, speeds up their recovery, and promotes trade among different and diverse
communities. That increases communication and cooperation between those communities, reducing thepossibility of future conﬂicts.

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

110

Recommended reading
Details of references cited in this chapter are in Annex C. Further recommended reading includes:
Catholic Relief Services (2013). Toward resilience: A guide to disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation. Practical Action Publishing. https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/research-publications/
toward-resilience
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2016). EcoSec review report: ILOT Gaza – Greenhouserehabilitation project. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Asia_04-ICRC-ILOTGreenhouse-rehabilitation.pdf
ICRC (2019). EcoSec post distribution monitoring report: ILOT – Rehabilitation of rainwater harvesting pondsin Abssan and Khuzaa border areas of Gaza Strip. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/
04/Asia_06-ICRC-ILOT-Rehabilitation-rainwater.pdf
ICRC (2019). EcoSec project review report: ILOT – Rehabilitation of agricultural lands in the border area
(100–300 m) from the security fence. Summary report. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/05/Asia_03-ICRC-Approved-Summary-Review-report-ILOT-Land-rehabilitation.pdf
Mendelsohn, R. (2009). The impact of climate change on agriculture in developing countries. Journal ofnatural resources policy research 1, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390450802495882
Robillard, S., Atim, T. & Maxwell, D. (2021). Localization: A “Landscape” report. Feinstein International Center,
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. https://fic.tufts.edu/publication-item/
localization-a-landscape-report/
SEEP Network (2017). Minimum economic recovery standards (3rd edn.). Practical Action Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780446707
Stern, P. (1979). Small-scale irrigation. Intermediate Technology Publications. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781
780443362
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (2008). Manual for manufacturing metal silos for grain
storage. https://postharvest.nri.org/images/documents/Metal_silos/Metal_silo_manual_English.pdf
Tembo, S. & Blokhuis, F. (no date). Manual for supervision of labour based road rehabilitation works. ILO
ASIST. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_policy/---invest/documents/
instructionalmaterial/wcms_asist_8051.pdf
UNOCHA (2011). Disaster waste management guidelines. Joint United Nations Environment
Program/OCHA Environment Unit. https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/DWMG.pdf

Appendix 7.1: Initial assessment checklist for
crop-related infrastructure responses
These are suggested questions to ask when planning to rehabilitate crop-related infrastructure. The
objective is to ensure that the minimum data are collected for assessment and response identiﬁcation sothat the rehabilitation plan and implementation of the crop-related infrastructure meets the SEADS
minimum standards. None of the questions is mandatory. Adapt the list to suit the context.

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

111

Assessment and planning
1. What secondary data are already available on the affected community about crop-related infrastructure
rehabilitation?
2. What are the local speciﬁcations, building codes, and local technologies available for infrastructure
rehabilitation?
3. Who are the owners of the crop-related infrastructure? Are there any ownership certiﬁcates or titles?
Have these titles been affected by the crisis?
4. What are the local regulations for the use of, management of, and access to the infrastructure? Any
restrictions to some parts of the population?
5. Have the local authorities made any recent post-crisis legal changes to land use or construction
speciﬁcations due to the crisis that could affect the rehabilitation work?
6. Which crop-related infrastructure has been affected by the crisis? What is the extent of the damage?
How technical is the likely ﬁx?
7. What constraints does that damage place on crop producers’ ability to carry out normal pre-production,
production, post-production, and marketing activities?
8. In the current location, how vulnerable is the crop-related infrastructure to crisis and disasters (naturaland human-made), including climate change? How can this vulnerability be reduced?
9. What material, ﬁnancial, and human resources are available to meet some or all of the infrastructure
rehabilitation needs?
10. What is the seasonal labor calendar in the community? When is unskilled labor available andunavailable? What is the daily wage and its variation throughout the year? What is the labor law for
short-term employment schemes?
11. Is there skilled labor in the community? Is it available and suﬃcient? How does availability change
throughout the year? What is the wage for skilled labor?
12. Are there local companies or consultants with the skills to undertake infrastructure rehabilitation?
13. Would people in the community participate in vocational training and short-term employment schemes?

Materials, design, and construction
1. What initial solutions or materials have the affected users or other actors provided?
2. What existing materials can be salvaged from the damaged site for use in the rehabilitation?
3. What are the typical rehabilitation practices of the affected people, and what materials do they use?
4. In normal times, when is rehabilitation, repair, and construction work traditionally done in the year?
5. How can women, youth, persons with disabilities, and older people be trained or assisted to participate
in the rehabilitation work? What are the constraints?
6. Are there any legal requirements or restrictions for harvesting or purchasing rehabilitation materials?
Could the rehabilitation harm the local environment if these legal requirements are not considered? For
example, purchase of bamboo or timber from protected forest.
7. Are tools, spare parts, and construction materials of the required quality and at affordable prices
available in the local market? Is availability and cost constant throughout the year or does it vary? If it
varies, how?

CROP-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

112

CHAPTER 8:
IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND
EVALUATION

Annex A: Glossary contains deﬁnitions of some of the technical terms used in SEADS.

This chapter describes the minimum standards for the monitoring and evaluation of crop-related crisis
responses. There is a need for more impact evaluation of crop-related crisis responses, while also
recognizing the operational challenges and the diversity of actors in humanitarian contexts. At present,
many organizations focus on monitoring project implementation and expenditure, rather than impact.
Impact evaluation in crop-related crisis responses is challenging because:• Livelihood impacts are often not expected until many months after a crop-related crisis response ends,
particularly for short-term projects that respond to a rapid-onset crisis.
• Supporting crop production does not automatically lead to livelihood impacts.
The SEADS minimum standards recognize that most humanitarian organizations already have monitoringand evaluation systems in place. However, these systems are seldom speciﬁc to crop-related responses.
The minimum standards in this chapter provide guidance on how to reﬁne existing systems to improveunderstanding of crop-related responses.

Impact-oriented monitoring and evaluation minimum
standards
Minimum Standard 8.1: Participatory approaches
Active community participation is part of monitoring and impact evaluation of crop-related crisis
responses.

Key actions• Work jointly with communities to agree to expected impacts of crop-related responses and identify
relevant impact indicators (see Guidance note 1).
• Involve communities actively in the monitoring of response implementation and in end-of-projectreviews and impact evaluations of crop-related crisis responses (see Guidance note 2).
• Use locally appropriate participatory methods during monitoring and impact evaluation (see Guidancenote 3 ).
• Ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are involved in monitoring and impact evaluation (seeGuidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Impacts and impact indicators. Participatory initial assessment should lead to a rapid understanding of
the role of crop production in livelihoods, the crop production cycle, and speciﬁc crop production practices.
As responses are identiﬁed and discussed, the likely impacts of these responses can also be discussed. An
initial assessment is therefore an opportunity to gather information for the design of monitoring and
IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

115

evaluation activities and the selection of impact indicators. Example questions in Appendix 4.1 will support
data collection to monitor impacts. Appendix 8.1 provides examples of impact indicators.
2. Participatory monitoring, review, and impact evaluation. In line with SEADS Principle 2: Use aparticipatory approach in all aspects of crisis response. Participatory approaches should be used formonitoring, impact evaluation, end-of-project reviews, and learning activities. participatory approaches,such as focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and proportional piling, require working
relationships with communities that involve joint identiﬁcation of relevant impacts (see Guidance note 1).
They also require regular meetings and dialogue during response implementation to jointly track planned
and actual implementation and discuss any changes to the response. An end-of-project review (seeMinimum Standard 8.5) or impact evaluation (see Minimum Standard 8.6) should also use participatory
approaches to compare actual results to the project objectives. Appendix 8.2 illustrates various
participatory methods that can be used to monitor, review, or evaluate crop-related crisis responses.
3. Qualitative and quantitative data. Participatory methods are commonly associated with qualitative
information. However, they can also produce quantitative information, such as market prices, crop
production data, or proportion of income derived from crop sales. Some of this information can becross-checked with secondary data, such as earlier livelihood or food security assessments and research
reports or statistics from local agriculture oﬃces or markets. Larger development projects often use
quantitative baseline surveys in monitoring and evaluation. However, quantitative surveys contradict SEADS
Principle 2 of participation. Even in development projects, quantitative surveys are relatively uncommon
and tend to be used by larger organizations with relatively more ﬁnancial and human resources. In crises,
the added value of quantitative baselines over rapid participatory assessment is open to question,
especially if quantitative information can be obtained from participatory methods and secondary data.
4. Vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. An important aspect of community participation isunderstanding the needs of marginalized or vulnerable groups within communities and tailoring responses
accordingly. Inclusive monitoring can mean holding separate meetings with poorer households or people
who are marginalized due to ethnicity, faith, gender, disability, or other reasons. Design and implement
project reviews and impact evaluations in ways that enable marginalized and vulnerable groups toparticipate, such as by using participatory methods speciﬁcally with these groups. Information collectedduring monitoring, reviews, and impact evaluations should be disaggregated according to local contexts
and the presence of marginalized sub-groups within communities.

Minimum Standard 8.2: Project objectives
The design of crop-related crisis responses shows clear technical plausibility of livelihood impacts
as the basis for monitoring and impact evaluation.

Key actions• Use speciﬁc, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) project objectives to express
and quantify expected livelihood impacts (see Guidance note 1).
• Incorporate SMART objectives into project design tools, such as a theory of change or logical framework(see Guidance note 2).

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

116

Guidance notes
1. SMART objectives. A monitoring and evaluation system that supports learning about livelihood
impacts should include objectives that state and quantify the intended livelihood impacts on speciﬁchouseholds within a speciﬁc timeframe. SMART objectives are an important outcome of good-quality initialassessment and response identiﬁcation. As explained in Chapter 2: The Scope and Approach of SEADS,
crop-related crisis response should aim to achieve one or more of the SEADS livelihood objectives.
Therefore, SMART objectives at the project level should directly relate to one or more of the SEADS
livelihood objectives. They should also align with the SEADS principles in Chapter 3: SEADS Principles. See
Tables 5.5, 5.6, 6.5, 6.6, 7.3, and 7.4 for considerations related to timing for different response areas.
Appendix 8.3 provides an example of applying SMART objectives to a crop-related crisis response. In thisexample, key information for developing the SMART objective is drawn from participatory initialassessment and response identiﬁcation activities at community level (see Minimum Standard 4.2: Initialassessment approach). This approach is eﬃcient in humanitarian situations because it does not require
return visits to the project areas for the purpose of designing a monitoring and evaluation system orcollecting baseline data; the key livelihood impacts have already been identiﬁed jointly with local
stakeholders during the initial assessment and response identiﬁcation.
2. Technical plausibility and theory of change. SMART objectives indicate whether a project objective istechnically plausible, which means that a stated type of response, timing, and amount of inputs (including
services, repairs, and reconstruction) will likely lead to an expected impact at household level. During
project design, technical plausibility can be demonstrated using simple project design tools, such as atheory of change or logical framework. Different organizations have different preferences for the use of
these tools, and there are various versions of each tool. When used properly a theory of change (or logicalframework) will show:• the technical plausibility of project inputs leading to project livelihood impacts• how project managers can identify and prioritize items that need to be monitored and the frequency ofmonitoring• the key predicted livelihood impacts in a quantiﬁed form and in terms of when these impacts shouldoccur• the key assumptions and risks that affect the progression of inputs to impacts; these assumptions andrisks need to be tracked during the project.
In crisis responses, attention to technical plausibility and use of a theory of change are especially useful
because livelihood impacts are often predicted to occur months after a project ends. In these cases,
participatory end-of-project reviews can ensure some understanding of likely impacts, even if an impact
evaluation is not possible.
Appendix 8.4 is an example of a simple theory of change for a crop-related crisis response that delivered
seeds and fertilizer. This example shows that a theory of change does not need to be complex in order toshow technical plausibility and that various assumptions and risks affect how crop production leads tolivelihood impacts. The theory of change also indicates areas of additional support that a project mightprovide to try to reduce the risk of low impact. For example, if there is a high risk of households selling the
inputs to meet their basic food needs, the project could consider adding food or cash transfers to prevent
seed sale.
A detailed example of technical plausibility is available in Case Study 8.1 (see SEADS website).

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

117

Minimum Standard 8.3: Process monitoring and indicators
Regular and systematic process monitoring allows tracking of and adjustments to response
implementation, and ensures alignment with SEADS minimum standards.

Key actions• Monitor process indicators to check the progress of response implementation, check alignment withSEADS minimum standards, and make real-time adjustments as needed (see Guidance note 1).
• Integrate the tracking of context and response risks and assumptions into routine process monitoring(see Guidance note 2).
• Update the response area identiﬁcation tool (RAIT), the decision trees, and the theory of change as
implementation evolves (see Guidance note 3).

Guidance notes
1. Process indicators. This type of indicator measures the progress of response implementation, or what
is being done. In most crop-related crisis responses, monitoring focuses on measuring inputs using
process indicators. This often involves simple counts of people targeted and/or reached or items provided.
Examples include the amounts of inputs provided to target households, the value of vouchers distributed, or
the length of irrigation channels rehabilitated. The timing and duration of activities is also commonly
included in process indicators. Process indicators track the quality and accountability of implementation.
They:• assist project managers to track response implementation and, when needed, make timely adjustments• often relate to project expenditure and so support ﬁnancial accountability of a project• contribute to impact evaluation by describing activities relative to the project design and implementation
plan; this enables predictions of outcomes and impact to be revised if needed.
Process indicators are used to check how implementation aligns with SEADS minimum standards.
Examples of key process indicators for relevant minimum standards are provided in Appendix 8.5.
Use process indicators to monitor response implementation regularly, according to organizational anddonor requirements. When combined with community focus groups and tracking of risks and assumptions,process monitoring enables timely adjustments to response implementation.
2. Context, assumptions, and risks tracking. During response implementation, the wider context canchange, requiring adjustments in project design. Therefore, it is important to track the operational context
over time as well as the assumptions and risks in the project theory of change or logframe, and makeadjustments to project implementation as needed. Checks on project implementation can involve activities
such as community focus groups. This dialogue can include the use of a checklist of assumptions andrisks, drawn from the theory of change. It can also potentially expose the exploitation of children, which iscovered by the Child Protection Minimum Standard on child labor (The Alliance 2020). As illustrated in
Figure A8.1, some assumptions and risks are constant throughout the project, whereas others are only
relevant at certain phases of the project. Therefore, the checklist can vary over time to cover topics that are
relevant at each phase. In insecure environments, very frequent tracking of the security situation might beneeded such as daily reviews of security issues. Tracking is particularly important when a crisis is complex,
long term, or slow onset, and whenever the context changes.
IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

118

3. Updating decision support tools during implementation. As implementation progresses, the crop,
crisis, or operational context may change signiﬁcantly. Participatory approaches to process monitoring will
provide early signals of these changes. Return to your completed RAIT (see Minimum Standard 4.4:
Selecting response areas) when changes are evident to ensure that a crop-related response remains
necessary, appropriate, and feasible. Review your responses to questions in the decision trees to ensurethat your selected technical option remains likely to have livelihood impacts. It is particularly important to
update the assumptions and risks that are included in your theory of change as they can also change overtime. A survey done by the Global Food Security Cluster’s Agriculture Working Group (2022) of partners
engaged in crop-responses in 2022 indicated that approximately 40% of partners engage with farmers at
some level to monitor outcomes and see if anything needs to change in the project. However, 78% ofpartners say that more and better engagement is needed.

Minimum Standard 8.4: Impact indicators
Response reviews and impact evaluations use meaningful impact indicators.

Key actions• Select livelihood impact indicators for crop-related crisis response that directly show impacts onhouseholds (see Guidance note 1).
• Select indicators that show impacts on pre-existing systems, services, or markets where relevant (seeGuidance note 2).
• Ensure that household-level livelihood impacts are meaningful (see Guidance note 3).

Guidance notes
1. Household-level impact indicators. In general, household-level impact indicators are not well deﬁned
or used in crop-related crisis responses. SEADS aims to ensure that responses have livelihood impacts, andthese impacts tend to coincide with one or more of the ﬁve main assets in typical livelihood frameworks:
ﬁnancial, natural, physical, human, and social. Deﬁnitions of these assets, and speciﬁc examples of
livelihood impact indicators are provided in Appendix 8.1. Further reading at the end of this chapter
provides additional examples of process indicators (Appendix 8.5).
Some organizations use a composite index, such as a coping strategy index or a dietary diversity score, tomeasure impact. In terms of participatory approaches, a challenge with these measures is that populations
affected by a crisis are unlikely to propose them as indicators of livelihood impact. Instead, local people
tend to express intended crop-related impacts in terms of basic needs, such as amounts of money andfood or shares of income and self-suﬃciency. Where possible, use impact indicators that are based on
local expressions and needs and which all stakeholders will understand (see SEADS Principle 2). A
composite index may be useful to measure vulnerability or for comparability across time and space as abasis for learning.
In contrast to process monitoring, it is usually not eﬃcient to measure impact indicators during theimplementation of crop-related crisis responses. This is because livelihood impacts are most likely to occur
toward the end of a response or after it ends. Impact indicators can be measured during impact evaluation,and the analysis of the ﬁndings can be supported by collated process-monitoring data and records of any
changes during implementation.

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

119

Case Study 8.2 (see SEADS website) provides examples of crop-related responses that led to impacts onhousehold incomes.
2. Other impact indicators. SEADS Principle 1: Use livelihoods-based programming highlights the need for
crop-related crisis responses to support pre-existing systems, services, and markets where possible.
Therefore, livelihood impact indicators can also measure impacts on systems, services, and markets. See
examples in Appendix 8.1.
3. Meaningful impact indicators. Impact indicators for crop-related crisis responses are usuallyquantitative, expressing impact in terms of an absolute number, such as “average household income fromcrop sales.” However, this indicator has limited meaning unless it is related to a reference point, which inthis case could be “total required household income” or “income required from crop sales.” Similarly, a
project might report that a household consumed 30 kg of maize that was produced because of project
support. But this measure has limited meaning unless the household size and composition is known andthe period of consumption is stated. A stronger indicator would relate the maize consumption to thehousehold’s nutritional needs.
Further examples of meaningful impact indicators with a reference point are provided in Appendix 8.1.

Minimum Standard 8.5: Participatory end-of-project review
A participatory end-of-project review predicts future livelihood impacts.

Key actions• Conduct a participatory end-of-project review if livelihood impacts are expected months after a projectends (see Guidance note 1).
• Consider using beneﬁt-cost analysis to complement a participatory end-of-project review (see Guidancenote 2).

Guidance notes
1. Participatory end-of-project review. A participatory end-of-project review is needed for projects forwhich the main livelihood impacts are expected months after a project ends. In these situations, theimplementing organization might no longer be present, or might not have the resources to evaluate future
impacts. The end-of-project review is an opportunity for community members and project staff to review
the implementation process, including the theory of change (or logical framework) and risks andassumptions that were applied. participants can also consider if the completed project is likely to achieve
the desired livelihood impacts, even though those impacts may not yet be evident. The end-of-project review
need not be elaborate or time-consuming; it can simply involve community meetings supported by collated
process-monitoring data and records of risks and assumptions. Simple ranking or scoring tools can assess
the likelihood that project impacts will be achieved, assuming that certain conditions remain in place.
This type of predictive review process is imperfect because future events are uncertain. In general, thelonger the time between the end of the project and the expected impacts, the greater the likelihood of
impact predictions being inaccurate. However, a well-documented end-of-project review can contribute tolearning and future project design.

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

120

Some organizations have a long-term presence in the areas where crop-related crisis responses are used.
Two common situations are long-term development projects and repeated short-term humanitarian
projects in a complex crisis. In both situations, this continued presence can enable follow-up of previous
crop-related crisis responses many months after the responses took place. This follow-up can involve
repeating the end-of-project review process, or a participatory impact evaluation (see Minimum Standard
8.6).
2. Beneﬁt-cost analysis. In some situations, beneﬁt-cost analysis can complement a participatory review.
In livelihoods-based programming there is often a trade-off between the number of people or households
who receive support and the type or amount of support they receive. If a donor or organization prioritizes
the number of beneﬁciaries over the quality or relevance of the support, there is a risk that large numbers ofhouseholds will receive support that is not suﬃcient to support livelihoods. Beneﬁt-cost analysis canprovide useful information on the cost eﬃciency of a response for a given level of livelihood impact. It canalso identify program costs that can be reduced without substantially reducing the impacts. This can leadto future programs being designed to provide similar livelihood beneﬁts to a larger number of people. Whenapplied to different responses in similar socioeconomic and operational contexts, beneﬁt-cost analysis
enables a comparison of the cost eﬃciencies of different responses.
For projects with SMART objectives, a theory of change, and either an end-of-project review or an impact
evaluation (see Minimum Standard 8.6), beneﬁt-cost analysis is straightforward. You will need to know the
project costs, including the cost of inputs, such as seeds or tools, and the cost of overheads and technical,
logistical, monitoring and evaluation, and support staff. You will also need to estimate a monetary value ofthe livelihood impacts predicted in the end-of-project review. Because it cannot be based on actual
livelihood impacts, a beneﬁt-cost analysis done as part of an end-of-project review will only be indicative.
Beneﬁt-cost analysis also requires a good understanding of non-project costs that contributed to theimpacts. For example, the value of any labor, seed, fertilizer, or other inputs provided by crop producers
themselves should be calculated and included in the analysis.
Case Study 8.3 (see SEADS website) shows how costs and beneﬁts can be estimated for crop-related
projects.

Minimum Standard 8.6: Participatory impact evaluation
Participatory impact evaluation measures livelihood impacts during or at the end of a project.

Key actions• Compare the project objectives with the actual livelihood impacts that are evident at the end of the
project (see Guidance notes 1, 3, and 4).
• Ensure that participatory impact evaluation assesses project contribution (see Guidance note 2).
• Consider the use of beneﬁt-cost analysis to complement participatory impact evaluation (see Guidancenote 2 of Minimum Standard 8.5).

Guidance notes
1. Participatory impact evaluation. Participatory impact evaluation of projects is needed where livelihood
impacts are expected during a project (or soon after) or to complement an end-of-project review where
additional impacts are expected after a project ends. An important advantage of using SMART objectives
IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

121

and a theory of change that both specify livelihood impacts is that the key questions for the evaluation canrelate directly to the project objectives, theory of change, and the corresponding indicators. For example,
were the project objectives/livelihood impacts achieved and if not, why not? Other questions might examine
impacts on speciﬁc gender or wealth groups or aim to identify changes to project design that might
improve future impacts. A further question might cover the cost eﬃciency of the project and include a
beneﬁt-cost analysis.
2. Assessing project contribution. An impact evaluation should aim to not only measure livelihood
impacts, but also to understand how these impacts happened. What were the speciﬁc causes of the
impacts and the relative importance of these causes? These questions are often captured using theconcept of contribution, which assesses a project’s contribution to impact relative to non-project factors(ALNAP 2016). For example, a household might need 75 kg of seed but only be able to produce 25 kg ofseed (that is, 33% of their needs) themselves. If the balance of 50 kg of seed (that is, 67% of thehousehold’s needs) is provided as part of a crop-related crisis response, then the response contributes to
67% of the harvest. Household contribution is often overlooked in impact evaluations. When this or othernon-project factors are omitted from evaluations, contribution cannot be fully assessed and project
impacts can be inﬂated.
Using the theory of change in Appendix 8.4 as an example, the project provided seeds and fertilizer but it
did not provide other inputs, such as tools, labor, and pest control, that were needed to ensure production.
Production also needed the right climatic conditions and secure land access. Market access andreasonable prices were needed to ensure livelihood impacts. While crop producers themselves might haveprovided tools and pesticide, these inputs might also have been provided by other humanitarianorganizations. Therefore, although the theory of change in this case is relatively simple, the assessment ofcontribution is complex. Understanding the project contribution of crop-related crisis response requires youto:• Examine the project objectives and theory of change (or logframe), taking account of any changes toimplementation that occurred; revise the expected impacts as needed.
• Use simple participatory scoring or proportional piling methods with targeted households to list andscore the main factors that are viewed as contributing to the impacts.
Use probing questions to check the technical plausibility of the responses.
3. Crop production. Many crop-related crisis responses will have a theory of change that includes crop
production as an output or outcome. Therefore, a measure of crop yields is useful for understanding
contribution, while also recognizing that crop production alone is not a livelihood impact. Obtaining thetarget yield does not automatically mean the expected livelihood impact will be achieved. Commodity
prices can ﬂuctuate hugely, losses in crop storage may be signiﬁcant, and/or there may be limited accessto markets. If you make assumptions about the livelihood impact of a particular yield, test these throughdiscussions with crop producers.
Methods for estimating yields vary in terms of their cost-effectiveness, scale, and accuracy. Select one thatﬁts the context you are operating in and makes the best use of available resources (see Appendix 8.6).
4. Quantitative impact evaluation. Quantitative impact evaluation uses evaluation designs and methods
that are similar to those that are used in quantitative research. It often uses techniques such as random
sampling and sample size estimates using mathematical formulas; this requires specialized technicalsupport. The effectiveness of an intervention is usually based on statistical tests. Quantitative impact
evaluation might produce statements such as, “Post-harvest household income was signiﬁcantly higher forcrop producers who received project inputs relative to those who received no inputs, and therefore theproject was effective in supporting livelihoods.” Quantitative impact evaluation can complement
participatory review or impact evaluation, especially if policy makers or senior technical experts prefer touse quantitative research to guide decision making or for advocacy. In humanitarian contexts, it isimportant that quantitative research approaches be as ﬂexible and participatory as possible, and that
IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

122

assessment and evaluation teams have the required technical expertise to carry them out. Although tools
such as mobile apps can speed up data collection in quantitative surveys, to align with SEADS Principle 2
individual surveys should be complemented with other participatory impact and monitoring methods (seeAppendix 8.2).
A further challenge with some quantitative impact evaluations of crop-related crisis response relates to theuse of randomized control trials. This approach can exclude some people from assistance by using themas a control group. This contradicts the basic principles of humanitarian action as deﬁned by the Core
Humanitarian Standard. Randomized control trials that take place when assistance is being rolled out instages or scaled up over seasons can avoid this exclusion.

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

123

Recommended reading
Details of references cited in this chapter are in Annex C. Further recommended reading includes:
Byrne, K. (2022). Applying adaptive management to livelihoods in emergency settings: challenges andopportunities. Mercy Corps (as part of the Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, andEnvironment (SCALE) Associate Award). https://www.fsnnetwork.org/resource/applying-adaptivemanagement-livelihoods-emergency-settings-challenges-and-opportunities
Foresti, M. (2003). A practical guide to assessment, monitoring, review and evaluation. Save the Children.
https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/practical-guide-assessment-monitoring-review-andevaluation-2nd-edition/
Global Food Security Cluster (2020). Food security and livelihoods indicator handbook. Programme Quality
Working Group. https://fscluster.org/page/indicators
Guenet, D. & Uyen, V.N. (2011). Cost-beneﬁt analysis for interventions supported by the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC) in Vietnam through the PSARD project. Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC).
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) (2012). Accountability to affected populations: Tools to assist in
implementing the IASC AAP commitments. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/legacy_files/TOOLS%20to%20assist%20in%20implementing%20the%20IASC%20AAP%20Commitments.pdf
Save the Children, International Rescue Committee (IRC) & Mercy Corps (2022). Multi-purpose cash
assistance M&E toolkit. https://www.fsnnetwork.org/resource/multi-purpose-cash-assistance-mpca-metoolkit
Sud, U., Ahmad, T., Gupta, V. & Chandra, H. (2017). Methodology for estimation of crop area and crop yieldunder mixed and continuous cropping. Technical report series: GO-21-2017. FAO. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349075583
Willenbockel, D. (2011). A cost-beneﬁt analysis of practical action’s livelihood-centred disaster risk reduction
project in Nepal. Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. http://hdl.handle.net/11283/366214

Appendix 8.1: Examples of livelihood impact
indicators for crop-related crisis response
Table A8.1: Examples of livelihood impact indicators for crop-related crisis response
Livelihood asset

Illustrative impact indicators for crop-related crisis responses

Financial

Income derived from the sale of crops per household, relative to total
household income. Secondary impact income indicators could focus on thespeciﬁc uses of income, such as to buy food, crop production supplies, or
medicines, or to pay school fees

NaturalArea of land accessed per household relative to baseline (for a response thataims to ensure access or expand crop production land)

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION124

…continued
PhysicalUse of new or rehabilitated infrastructure relative to baseline (for a projectaiming to construct or rehabilitate crop-related infrastructure)

Human

Proportion of household dietary energy requirements from own-crop
consumption

SocialStrengthening of social networks and collaboration between network members

Livelihood impact indicators are most meaningful if they include a reference point, such as the total amountof a certain crops consumed in a normal year or the total household income required.
For example, for a project that provides rice seed and fertilizer, you might measure:• average proportion of household rice food needs met relative to a normal year
• average proportion of total household income derived from rice sales• average uses of income derived from rice sales.
This type of project might produce impacts such as, “On average, project households were able to meet
62% of their rice food (own consumption) needs, and an average of 27% of household income was derived
from rice sales. Of this income, 40% of income was spent on agricultural inputs, 40% on food, 10% onschool fees, and the remaining 10% on other items.”
For a project that aims to rehabilitate a damaged community irrigation scheme, you might measure:• average area of irrigated land planted relative to the pre-crisis situation• average proportion of crop-based food needs met per household• average income from crop sales relative to average household income needs.
This type of project might produce impacts such as, “On average, project households were able to plant
0.3 hectares (ha) relative to pre-crisis cultivation of 0.4 ha. The average income from irrigated crop sales
was US$400 relative to annual household income needs of US$5,200.”
For projects that aim to support pre-existing systems or services, impact indicators could include:• number of private sector input sellers at seed fair and average value of vouchers redeemed per seller
and type of inputs sold• partnership with local government extension agents for detecting and controlling crop pests• use of loans or subsidies to private sector transporters• use of local tool producers and average value of tools purchased per producer.
ICRC’s Economic Security Indicators Cookbook provides additional examples (2021).

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

125

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Appendix 8.2: Participatory methods for monitoring and impact
evaluation of crop-related crisis responses
Table A8.2: Examples of participatory methods and illustrative uses for monitoring and impact evaluation of crop-related crisis responses
Participatory method

Illustrative uses

Notes

Can be used to collect information on any topic

Semi-structured approach combines structurewith ﬂexibility

Interviewing methods
Individual semi-structured
interviews

Information can be quantitative (for example,
income from crop sales) or qualitative (forexample, security situation during project
implementation)
Important method for cross-checking andprobing information from visualization andscoring methods

Group semi-structured
interviews (focus group
discussions)

Cross-check with other methods andprocess-monitoring data
Repetition of interviews that produce quantitative
data enables data to be summarized using
statistics as needed

As above

As above

Timeline

Timing of responses against crop production
cycle

Useful for assessing the timeliness andrelevance of project support

Participatory mapping

Community and land boundaries

Areas of land cultivated or rehabilitated can bequantiﬁed if a scale is applied to maps

Visualization methods

Areas of land rehabilitated relative to all farming
landAreas of land cultivated relative to all farming
landService maps

Before-and-after project access to markets andinput sellers

Useful for projects that aim to improve market
access or links between producers and sellers

Transect walks

Observations of crop production

Useful especially when cross-checked withinformal interviews

Observations of use of project-supplied tools
Observations of crops managed for pest control
126

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION…continued
Causal diagrams

Participatory video andphotographs

Project contribution—visualizing linkages fromproject and non-project inputs and issues tolivelihood impacts

Review ﬁndings against project theory of change

Recording issues and impacts during a project
as selected by community members

Can use photovoice approaches

Before-and-after proportions of types ofhousehold income and changes in total income

Most useful when the method is repeated withdifferent individual informants or groups ofinformants; results can then be summarizedusing statistics as needed

Linkages can be weighted or scored; repetition of
method produces data that can be summarizedusing statistics as needed
Can be used to compare priorities andperspectives of different social or wealth groups

Ranking and scoring methods
Proportional piling

Before-and-after proportions of food types
consumed and changes in total foodconsumption

Matrix scoring

Comparison of issues and impacts of different
responses:• agricultural and non-agricultural• different crop-related responses

Cross-check results against theory of change anda review of technical plausibility; support withcausal diagrams
Useful for understanding the relative impacts ofdifferent responses
Findings might be compared with beneﬁt-cost
analyses of the responses
Repetition enables statistical summaries andanalyses as needed

Adapted from Gujit (1998) and Catley et al. (2014)127

Appendix 8.3: An example of applying SMART
objectives to a crop-related crisis response
An NGO project proposal states the following objective: “Improve the agricultural production of crisisaffected households through provision of seed and other inputs.” This objective outlines what the project istrying to achieve but is far too vague to support an assessment of technical plausibility or impact. Althoughimpact indicators could be identiﬁed for the objective, it is more eﬃcient to use a SMART objective.
A SMART objective for the same project could be: “In Hamsi district of Amuristan, provide wheat seed anddiammonium phosphate and urea fertilizer to 700 vulnerable households so that production covers own
consumption and seed needs, and sales contribute to at least 15% of household income in the 2005
post-harvest season.” This objective is:Speciﬁc because it states the project area, the type of household to be targeted, and the speciﬁc type ofseed and fertilizer to provide.
Measurable because it states a quantiﬁed target for the income impact (15% of income) and targets forwheat consumption (100%) and wheat seed needs (100%), as identiﬁed with focus groups during the
response identiﬁcation.
Achievable because it is based on a participatory initial assessment in which focus groups describedsources of crop and non-crop-related income, uses of wheat, and average incomes from wheat sales in a
typical year.
Relevant because in the participatory initial assessment, focus groups described the characteristics ofmore-vulnerable households, the relative importance of different sources of crop- and non-crop-related
income, and the relative importance of different crops as sources of income.
Time-bound because it speciﬁes when the livelihood impact will occur and draws on the crop production
cycle described by focus groups during the initial assessment.

Appendix 8.4: Example of a simple theory of change
for a crop-related crisis response that delivered
seeds and fertilizer
This example of a theory of change is from a project in south-central Asia that responded to a complex
crisis. A kit of improved certiﬁed wheat seeds was provided for each household for irrigated cultivation,
along with diammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizer and urea fertilizer. Different organizations deﬁne
outputs, outcomes, and impacts differently when using a theory of change, but in this example, agriculture
production has been positioned as an outcome.

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

128

Figure A8.1: A simple theory of change for a crop-related crisis response that delivered seeds and fertilizer

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

129

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Appendix 8.5: Tracking alignment with SEADS—key process indicators
Table A8.3 provides examples of process indicators that help monitor alignment with SEADS principles and minimum standards. Note that
disaggregation of indicators by vulnerability status can help distinguish how key processes may or may not have been appropriate for certain
groups.
Table A8.3: Key process indicators to monitor alignment with SEADS principles and minimum standards
No.

Key process indicator

Principles and standards monitored

1

Key response team members trained in use of SEADSAll

2

Key response team members with essential knowledge and skills as in Annex B

All

3Targeted participants are actively and equitably engaged in assessment, response
identiﬁcation, targeting, implementation, and evaluation of crop-related responses

SEADS Principle 2, MinimumStandards 4.1, 8.1, 8.6

Initial assessment
4

Appendixes 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 were used to select assessment questions

Minimum Standards 5.1, 6.1, 7.1

5Technical data were collected at the same time as initial assessment data where
possible

Minimum Standards 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 6.1,
7.1

6

Initial assessment is completed in a participatory manner and written report(s), in
appropriate local language(s), is/are available to team members

Minimum Standards 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1

7Acute constraints to crop production have been identiﬁed and links have been madewith development programs to address chronic constraints

Minimum Standards 5.1, 6.1, 7.1

8

Approach to data collection draws on existing secondary data and information

Minimum Standards 4.2, 4.3

9Initial assessment and technical data from different sources cross-checked forconsistency

Minimum Standards 4.1, 4.2

10

Initial assessment determined that a crop-related response is or is not appropriate,
necessary, and feasible

SEADS Principle 1, Minimum Standard
4.2

11

Criteria of selection for targeting the most in need are deﬁned and relevant to thecontext

Minimum Standard 4.3

12

Different targeting methods are considered and the most suitable identiﬁed

Minimum Standard 4.3

130

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION…continued
13

Where livestock play a critical role in livelihoods alongside crop production, Livestock
Emergency Guidelines and Standards Chapter 3: Initial Assessment and Identifying
Responses was used to inform initial assessment

SEADS Principles 1 and 5, MinimumStandard 4.3

Response identiﬁcation
14

SEADS livelihood objectives and their relevance to the context are understood

SEADS Principle 1, MinimumStandards 4.4, 5.2, 6.2, 7.2, 8.2, 8.4

15

A participatory RAIT is complete and potential response areas identiﬁed

Minimum Standard 4.4

16

Scoring of the RAIT was based on initial assessment and technical data andconsensus of participants

SEADS Principles 1 and 2, MinimumStandard 4.4

17

Decision tree results identifying appropriate technical options and related minimum
standards are available and show links between assessment results and technicaloptions selected

Minimum Standards 4.4, 5.2, 6.2, 7.2

18

Market-based responses have been considered and favored where possible

SEADS Principle 1, MinimumStandards 5.2, 6.2, 7.1

19Timeline(s) with potential delivery bottlenecks relative to critical seasonal tasks for alltechnical options identiﬁed

Minimum Standards 5.2, 6.2, 7.3

20

Quality criteria for seed, tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs were establishedthat were at least as good as crop producers routinely used, and were acceptable tofarming communities, donors, authorities, and practitioners

Minimum Standards 5.5, 6.5

21

Quality and technical speciﬁcations veriﬁcation throughout the response timed toreject bad-quality seed, tools, equipment, other non-seed inputs or infrastructure, if
neededMinimum Standards 5.5, 6.5, 7.3

22

Crop-related responses are coordinated with other actors delivering responses in thetarget area

SEADS Principle 5

23

Crop-related responses include activities to ensure environmental protection

SEADS Principle 4, Minimum Standard
7.2

24

Calculations of the scale of assistance are based on appropriate targeting, real-timecosts, sowing rates, access to assets, and appropriate and safe delivery mechanisms

Minimum Standards 5.2, 6.3

25

Written timeline showing consideration of sowing season and bottlenecks

SEADS Principle 1, MinimumStandards 4.2, 5.2, 6.2, 7.3

131

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION…continued
26

A participatory assessment identiﬁes the key infrastructure rehabilitation needs, thetechnical requirements, and the location, lifetime, and timing for implementing therehabilitation, including:• understanding inequalities in ownership, access, and who would beneﬁt most(security of tenure)• local legislation, preferred construction techniques, building codes• positive and negative environmental impacts• risk mapping• how to build back better

SEADS Principles 1, 2, MinimumStandard 7.1

Implementation of SEADS response areas
27

Data on market prices and crop producers’ buying power is available

SEADS Principle 1, MinimumStandards 5.3, 6.3

28

Local and existing seed, tools, equipment, and other non-seed input sources andsystems leveraged

SEADS Principle 1, MinimumStandards 5.3, 6.3

29

All seed, tools, equipment, other non-seed inputs, and infrastructure used in a
crop-related response:

SEADS Principle 1, MinimumStandards 5.4, 5.5, 6.4, 6.5• were known, tried, and tested in the area (varieties, types)• were acceptable to all participants (choice, quality, amounts)• met different requirements and regulations of donors and governments(certiﬁcations, planning and building codes)• perform well under crop producers’ realistic management conditions• were tailored to the needs and capacities of different crop producers

132

30

Consideration of crop producer choice, limits, and ﬁnal recommendations documented

Minimum Standards 5.4, 6.4, 7.2

31

Seed treatment and labeling associated with all inputs were assessed and completed
as needed

Minimum Standards 5.4, 5.5, 6.4, 6.5

32

Safety training delivered as required to protect participants

Minimum Standard 6.4

33

Crop-related infrastructure is rehabilitated according to agreed safe practices for the
speciﬁc context and hazards

Minimum Standards 7.2, 7.3

35

Target participants report the seed, tools, equipment, other non-seed inputs, orinfrastructure was functional and accessible and safe when it was needed(disaggregated by in kind or cash and delivery mechanism)

SEADS Principle 1, MinimumStandards 5.2, 6.2, 7.2, 7.3

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION…continued
Monitoring and impact evaluation
36

Project objectives are speciﬁc, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound(SMART)

Minimum Standard 8.2

37

A theory of change or logical framework exists for the project and includes SMART
objectives, and risks and assumptions

Minimum Standard 8.2

38

Process monitoring was done and real-time adjustments made as needed. The RAIT,
the decision trees, and the theory of change were updated as needed

Minimum Standard 8.3

39Impact indicators directly show meaningful impacts on households

Minimum Standard 8.4

40

If livelihood impacts are expected months after a project ends, a participatory
end-of-project review was completed and beneﬁt-cost analysis considered

Minimum Standard 8.5

41

If livelihood impacts are expected at the end of the project, a participatory impact
evaluation was completed

Minimum Standard 8.6

42

Rationale for the choice of evaluation is available

Minimum Standards 8.5, 8.6

133

Appendix 8.6: Methods for estimating crop yields
Table A8.4: Cost-effectiveness, scale, and accuracy in estimation, errors, and biases of methods for
estimating crop yields
MethodCost-effectiveness

Scale

Accuracy in estimation, errors,
and biases

Crop cutTime and labor
intensive

Field, farm, andsometimes
landscape level

Tendency to overestimate

Farmer’s
estimate

Cheap and quick
method that saves
time and money

Farm to landscape

Fairly accurate estimation, butneeds adequate supervision

Sampling
harvest unit

Cost-effective

Farm to landscapeError prone in the condition wherecrop producers harvest frommultiple areas at a time and not
possible with staggered harvesting

Whole plot
harvestCost and labor
intensive

Plot level, farmlevel, case study

Almost bias/error-free

Expertassessment

Moderately
cost-effective

From farm tolandscape level

Chance of error increases if
different teams of experts areused or extension people are used
to estimate yield in their own area

Subjective

Subjective
Crop cards

Cost and labor
intensive

Field to farm level

Bias due to illiteracy, use of local
units, etc.

Crop modeling

Cost-effective

LandscapeMore accurate if adequatelyparameterized and calibrated.
Does not include induced
improvements in agricultural
technology

Purchaser’s/
insurance record

Cost-effective

Field scale

Suitable for cash crops only withno household consumption

AllometricmodelsCost-effective

Field scale

Suitable for few crops

Remote sensing

Cost-effective

LandscapeChance of error in cases where
different crops have the same
signature

Adapted from Sapkota et al. (2016)

IMPACT-ORIENTED MONITORING AND EVALUATION

134

ANNEXES

Annex A: Glossary
Agricultural inputs

The resources that are used in farm production, such as chemicals,
equipment, feed, and seed. Also referred to simply as inputs.

Alarm

The second phase of a slow-onset crisis.

Alert

The ﬁrst phase of a slow-onset crisis.

Anticipatory action

Short-term crisis risk management responses that are implemented after it is
known that a crisis is likely to occur but before it actually occurs. These
actions aim to prevent and/or mitigate the impact of the crisis on vulnerable
households.

AssetsA resource of value. Includes livelihood assets, permanent assets, andproductive assets.

Build back better

The use of the recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phases after acrisis to increase the resilience of communities and households throughintegrating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physicalinfrastructure and societal systems, and into the revitalization of livelihoods,
economies, and the environment (United Nations General Assembly 2016).

Cash and voucher
assistanceCash or vouchers are provided, either physically or via remote transfer, to givethe recipient crop producers purchasing power.

Cash for work

A form of conditional cash payment, whereby eligible people are required tocomplete speciﬁed public or community work programs before receiving acash payment. Typically used when an organization wishes to directly support
people and repair or rehabilitate permanent assets and/or natural resources.

Cash grant

Provision of cash without restriction on its use. Also referred to as
unconditional cash or cash relief.

Certiﬁed seed

Seed of a known variety produced under strict, formally regulated standards
to maintain varietal purity and high degrees of seed health. Seed lots mustalso be free of inert matter and weed seeds. All certiﬁed seed must pass ﬁeld
inspection, be conditioned by an approved seed conditioning plant, and thenbe sampled and pass laboratory testing before it can be sold as certiﬁed seed.

Chronic emergency

A crisis in which the phases (alert, alarm, emergency, recovery) keep
repeating themselves without returning to normal.

Complex emergency

A humanitarian crisis in a country, region, or society where there is total orconsiderable breakdown of authority resulting from internal or external
conﬂict and which requires an international response that goes beyond the
mandate or capacity of any single organization and/or the ongoing United
Nations country program (IASC 1994).

Crisis response

A set of actions and decisions taken before, during, and after a crisis thattogether make up the response. SEADS notably includes preparedness andanticipatory action as part of crisis response and has three response areas:
seed and seed systems; tools, equipment, and other non-seed inputs; andcrop-related infrastructure.

Crop

A cultivated annual, perennial, or horticulture plant that is grown as food.

Crop producer

Anyone who produces food from annual, perennial, or horticulture crops for
consumption or income. SEADS livelihood objectives focus on those who rely
on crop production for their livelihoods although they may also do otherincome-generating activities, such as livestock production.

ANNEXES136

Delivery mechanism

Means by which cash assistance is distributed to targeted participants, suchas vouchers, cash, or mobile money.

Direct seed distribution(DSD)

A crisis response in which seed is procured for and delivered to crop
producers because seed is unavailable locally. It is the most widely used
response to seed availability constraints.

Disaster risk reduction(DRR)

Efforts to prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through theimplementation of integrated and inclusive economic, structural, legal, social,health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political, andinstitutional measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure andvulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery,
and thus strengthen resilience (United Nations Oﬃce for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015).

Early recovery

The second phase of a rapid-onset crisis. It is a set of speciﬁc responses tohelp affected people move from humanitarian support toward self-sustaining
development. It encompasses the restoration of basic services, livelihoods,
shelter, governance, security and rule of law, environment, and social
dimensions, including the reintegration of displaced populations.

Emergency

The third phase of a slow-onset crisis.

Evaluation

A comprehensive, usually formal, assessment of a project. Typically, it relates
project activities and achievements of project objectives, so the value of anevaluation depends partly on the clarity and relevance of the stated project
objectives. Evaluation can also assess the eﬃciency of work in relation toresources, particularly ﬁnancial inputs, and can look at the sustainability andlong-term implications of projects. Evaluations usually take place at the endof projects.

Exclusion error

An error in targeting that results in people who should be included in a
response (because they meet the criteria) not being included.

Formal seed system

Production and supply of seed of modern varieties and certiﬁed seed throughan organized chain, including specialized plant breeders, regulated seedproducers, specialized commercial outlets, or government extension
agencies. It always includes the process of certiﬁcation.

HybridThe ﬁrst-generation seed of a cross between two different parent seeds,
which often displays special vigor. The seed cannot be replanted with thesame expected performance. To maintain vigor, hybrid seed has to berebought every planting season.

Immediate aftermath

The ﬁrst phase of a rapid-onset crisis; the period just after the crisis, when theimpact is greatest.

Impact evaluation

Looks at a project’s effects on people, the environment, or institutions. It
identiﬁes the changes that have occurred in people’s livelihoods during a
project and determines whether and how these changes relate to project
activities. Humanitarian and development organizations often refer to the link
between project activities and impact as “contribution” or “attribution,” which
is similar to the more scientiﬁc terms “association” or “causation.”

Impact indicator

Point of reference for measuring the result of actions taken in terms of theireffect on people’s livelihoods (LEGS Glossary).

Inclusion error

An error in targeting that results in people being included in the response whoshould not be because they do not meet the criteria.

ANNEXES

137

Indicators

Measurements (either qualitative or quantitative) of the progress of a
response; they are divided into process indicators and impact indicators.

Informal seed system

Seed obtained from crop producers’ own harvests and social networks, andselected from local markets. These seed systems, which can diffuse local ormodern varieties (which are recycled), tend to be governed by local norms ofpractice rather than oﬃcial or government standards. Seed is not backed byformal certiﬁcation.

Initial assessment

The collection and analysis of initial information about the role that crops
play in livelihoods, about the nature and impact of the emergency, and asituation analysis (LEGS Glossary).

Integrated pest
management

The careful consideration of all available pest control techniques andsubsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage thedevelopment of pest populations. It emphasizes the growth of healthy crops
with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural
pest control mechanisms (FAO 2022).

Integrated seed system

Combination of different aspects of the formal and informal seed supply
systems. An example is a community-based seed group that gets outsidetechnical support.

Key action

Key step or measure that contributes to achieving the standard.

Livelihood

The capabilities, assets (including both material and non-material resources),and activities required to make a living.

Livelihood assets

The resources, equipment, skills, strengths, and relationships that are used byindividuals and households to pursue their livelihoods; they are categorized
as social, human, natural, ﬁnancial, and physical and form part of thelivelihoods framework (LEGS Glossary).

Livelihoods framework

A model showing how individuals and households use their different assets
and livelihood strategies to make a living but are also affected by their own
vulnerabilities and the policy and institutional context in which they work
(LEGS Glossary).

Livelihood impact

Impacts that affect targeted participant livelihood assets. See Livelihood
assets and Appendix 8.1.

Livelihood objective

The purpose for which a crop-related response is undertaken in SEADS.
Generally, this is to improve long-term livelihood security and quality of life.
SEADS promotes three livelihood objectives:
1. to provide immediate livelihood beneﬁts to crop-producing households
affected by crisis.
2. to protect crop-related livelihoods of households affected by crisis.
3. to rebuild or support crop-related production, infrastructure, and systems
to ensure livelihoods for households affected by crisis.

MarketAn organized exchange between buyers and sellers of goods and services.

Market system

A multiplayer, multilocation, and multifunction arrangement that allows orinﬂuences the functioning of a speciﬁc good/service market. A market
system has three main parts: the core (the market chain), the environment(law and regulations), and the support structure (services and infrastructure).

ANNEXES138

Modern variety

A seed variety developed by formal plant breeders that is distinct, uniform,and stable. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms“high-yielding variety” and “improved variety” but in performance may notnecessarily have these characteristics, especially when used under actual
farming conditions.

Monitoring

The systematic measurement of a project over time. It usually involves theregular collection of information. It allows changes to be made during the
project, while also providing information for periodic reviews, impact
assessments, or evaluations.

Participatory approach

Approaches in which the people implementing the response and theparticipants in the response work together to understand the situation andchange it for the better. These approaches are ﬂexible, can be adapted to
local conditions, and acknowledge local people as experts by emphasizing
their involvement in planning for projects and assessing project impact.

Permanent assets

Assets that support farming households that cannot be easily transported
away from a location without dismantling or deconstructing them. This
includes buildings, irrigation works, roads or tracks, and fencing.

Process indicator

A measure of the progress of response activities or what is being done.
Examples of process indicators to measure alignment with SEADS are listed
in Appendix 8.5.

Productive assets

Items that crop producers use to produce the crops they grow to eat or sell.
These assets include cash, seed, machinery and equipment, buildings, andland.

Rapid-onset crisis

A crisis such as an earthquake, ﬂood, or tsunami that hits suddenly andsometimes without warning. It is normally divided into three key phases:
immediate aftermath; early recovery; and recovery (LEGS Glossary).

Recovery

The last phase of a slow-onset and rapid-onset crisis. The goal of therecovery phase is to bring the area back to normalcy.

Response

A sum of decisions and actions taken before, during, and after a crisis,
including preparedness, immediate relief, early recovery, and rehabilitation.
SEADS recognizes three response areas: seed and seed systems; tools,
equipment, and other non-seed inputs; and crop-related infrastructure.

Review

An assessment of a project at a speciﬁc point in time. It can focus onparticular aspects of the project, and involves a more detailed analysis of
issues than is possible with monitoring alone. A review is often conducted in
response to a speciﬁc issue or problem that has arisen. An end-of-projectreview might be used when suﬃcient time or resources are not available foran evaluation, or if project objectives or impacts are not expected to beachieved at the end of the project.

Seed

Anything used as planting material. It may be in the form of a grain or a partof a plant (stem, vine, sucker, tuber).

Seed fairAn organized market where crop producers use vouchers distributed by aidorganizations to procure seed from sellers, who may be other crop producers,
sellers, or formal sector representatives (from government seed agencies or
private companies).

ANNEXES139

Seed quality

The potential performance of a seed lot, which is determined by three
attributes: physical qualities of the seed in the speciﬁc seed lot; physiologicalqualities, which refer to aspects of performance of the seed; and seed health,which refers to the presence or absence of diseases and pests within a seedsample.

Seed security

Seed security exists when men and women within the household have
suﬃcient access to adequate quantities of good-quality seed and planting
materials of preferred crop varieties at all times in both good and bad
cropping seasons (FAO 2016).

Seed security
assessment (SSA)

An assessment that examines all the seed channels crop producers mightuse. It focuses on the supply and demand side and determines if there areconstraints in seed availability, access, or quality. The assessment is used todetermine if a seed-related intervention is needed.

Seed systemSee formal seed system and informal seed system.

Self (or openpollinated) variety

Reproduction type in crops that will “breed true.” When sown, the seeds willproduce plants roughly identical to their parents. Some crops in this category
include beans, groundnuts, wheat, and sorghum.

Slow-onset crisis

A crisis, such as a drought or extreme cold season, whose effects are felt
gradually. It is normally divided into four phases: alert, alarm, emergency, andrecovery (LEGS 2014).

Standard

A qualitative statement applicable in any crisis context that deﬁnes minimum
actions and outcomes to achieve.

Technical option

An action (done as part of a crisis response) that seeks to address identiﬁed
production constraints and achieve one or more SEADS livelihood objectives.
Each SEADS response is divided into different technical options, which
present different ways of delivering a response (for example, facilitate seed
access versus support the seed system).

Theory of change

A comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desiredchange is expected to happen in a particular context. It is focused on
mapping out how program inputs and activities are expected to lead todesired outputs, outcomes, and impact. A theory of change is created by ﬁrst
identifying the desired long-term goals and then working back from these to
identify all the conditions (outcomes) that must be in place (and how these
relate to one another causally) for the impact to be achieved.

Value-chain actors

Private sector, civil society, and state actors who produce and sell goods andservices in the crop-related value-chain, such as transporters, seed producers,
extension agents, and input dealers.

Vegetatively
propagated crops

Reproduction type whereby a new plant grows from a fragment of the parent
plant or grows from a specialized reproductive structure (or cutting), such asa tuber, stem, or vine. Some crops in this category include cassava, sweet
potato, and bananas.

Annex B: Elements of Team Competency
If key response team members (managers, grant writers, and technical advisors) have crop-related
knowledge, experience shows crop-related responses will be more likely to be relevant, appropriate, andhave no negative effects. Depending on the technical knowledge of the organization’s full-time staff,
additional part-time specialists (such as agronomists and engineers) could also be included.
ANNEXES140

Assess competencies
During preparedness for future hazards, organizations can assess local and international partners’
capacities to plan and implement crop-related responses that will be able to achieve SEADS minimum
standards and have livelihood impacts. Table B.1 describes the relative desirability of various technicalqualiﬁcations required for the response areas in SEADS minimum standards. It can be used to develop
assessments, write job descriptions, and advocate to donors.

Strengthen competencies
While most international NGOs have a robust capacity-strengthening component for their own staff, theGrand Bargain Localization Workstream (2020) has highlighted the importance of an equal emphasis on
strengthening and sharing the capacity of local actors. Ideally, international actors and donors include andallow budget line(s) for these responses in all projects and partnership agreements. Local actors shouldcommit time and other resources to invest in their own capacity and organizational development during
normal (non-crisis) periods.
It is best to build staff skills during preparedness or as a crisis context is normalizing. Organizations should
strive to achieve the skills in Table B.1 over time. When an organization does not have the necessary
in-house expertise for a particular response, it should seek assistance from other organizations (see Core
Humanitarian Standard 6: Coordination). The speciﬁc proﬁle and skill set of the technical staff will dependon the type of response.
Table B.1: Achievement of SEADS minimum standards requires a range of knowledgeable team members
Knowledge areaor skill

Humanitarian
standards, inparticular LEGS,MERS, and MISMA

Minimum standards
Initialassessment
andresponsearea
identiﬁcation
Essential

Livelihoods- andrights-based andparticipatory
approaches

Essential

Vulnerability
mainstreaming(see HIS
Standards)

Essential

Logistics/planning(see ULS 2021)

Essential

Local agriculturalcontext

Desired

ANNEXES

Seed andseed systems

Crop-related
Tools,
equipment, infrastructure
and othernon-seed
inputs

Impactoriented
monitoring
andevaluation

Essential

DesiredNot needed

Desired141

…continued
Private sector
engagement

Not needed

Essential

Essential

Essential forcommunal
rehabilitation(otherwise notneeded)Not needed

Assessments:
market and seed
security

Essential

Essential

Essential

DesiredNot needed

Market and pricemonitoring

DesiredEssential

Essential

DesiredEssential

Agronomy

LocalexpertisedesiredEssential

DesiredEssential

Local
expertisedesiredAgricultural orwater engineering

DesiredNot neededNot
neededEssential

Not needed

Annex C: References
Chapter 1: How to Use this Handbook
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2021). Fisheries and aquacultureinternational guidelines. FAO. https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/code/guidelines
Sphere Association (2018). The Sphere handbook: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards inhumanitarian response. Practical Action Publishing. https://handbook.spherestandards.org/en/sphere/#ch001

Chapter 2: The Scope and Approach of SEADS
Age and Disability Capacity Programme (2018). Humanitarian inclusion standards for older people andpeople with disabilities. https://www.hi-us.org/humanitarian_inclusion_standards_for_older_people
The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (2020). Minimum standards for child protection inhumanitarian action. https://alliancecpha.org/sites/default/files/technical/attachments/cpms_2019_final_en.pdfCamp Management Standards Working Group (2021). Minimum standards for camp management.
https://cccmcluster.org/resources/minimum-standards-camp-management
Committee on World Food Security (CFS) (2015). Framework for action for food security and nutrition in
protracted crises. CFS. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1415/FFA/CFS_FFA_Final_Draft_
Ver2_EN.pdf
FAO (2017). The Impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security: 2017. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/I8656EN/i8656en.pdf
FAO (2021). The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security: 2021. FAO. http://www.fao.
org/3/cb3673en/cb3673en.pdf

ANNEXES

142

FAO Data Lab (2021). Daily food prices acceleration monitor. FAO. http://www.fao.org/datalab/website/web/food-prices
Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning (IMPEL) (2022). Study of the impacts of COVID-19 and otherrecent shocks in Haiti (Vol. I). IMPEL Associate Award. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00Z9SD.pdf
Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies (2010). Minimum standards for education:
Preparedness, response, recovery. https://inee.org/minimum-standards
Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Project (2014). Livestock emergency guidelines andstandards (2nd edn). Practical Action Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780448602
OCHA (2020). Global humanitarian response plan: COVID-19. United Nations Coordinated Appeal
April–December 2020, July update. OCHA. https://www.unocha.org/publication/global-humanitarianresponse-plan/global-humanitarian-response-plan-covid-19-july-0
Pelly, I. & Juillard, H. (2018). Minimum standard for market analysis (MISMA). CaLP Network.
https://www.calpnetwork.org/publication/minimum-standard-for-market-analysis-misma/
SEADS (2021). Emergency agriculture interventions: Reviewing evidence on the impacts on livelihoods, foodsecurity and nutrition. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SEADS_brief1_4.26.
21.pdf
SEEP Network (2017). Minimum economic recovery standards (3rd edn). Practical Action Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780446707
Sphere Association (2018). The Sphere handbook: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards inhumanitarian response. Practical Action Publishing. https://handbook.spherestandards.org/en/sphere/#ch001
Tschunkert, K. & Delgado, C. (2022). Food systems in conﬂict and peacebuilding settings: Ways forward.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2022/otherpublications/food-systems-conflict-and-peacebuilding-settings-ways-forward
World Bank (2016). Who are the poor in the developing world? Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report 2016:
Taking on Inequality. Background Paper. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/18701147541654
2282/pdf/WPS7844.pdf
World Bank (2021, 15 April). Poverty: Overview – context [webpage]. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/
poverty/overview

Chapter 3: SEADS Principles
FAO (2022). Climate smart agriculture sourcebook. FAO. https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculturesourcebook/en/
Forcier Consulting Sudan (2017). Darfur community peace and stability fund phase II evaluation. Darfur
Community Peace & Stability Fund. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ForcierConsulting-Sudan-2017.pdf
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2019). EcoSec project review report: ILOT – Rehabilitationof agricultural lands in the border area (100–300 m) from the security fence. Summary report. ICRC.
https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Asia_03-ICRC-Approved-Summary-Reviewreport-ILOT-Land-rehabilitation.pdf

ANNEXES143

Jones, C., Guerten, N., Hillesland, M. & Koechlein, E. (2020) Applying an inclusive and equitable approach to
anticipatory action. FAO. https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB1072EN/
Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Project (2014). Livestock emergency guidelines andstandards (2nd edn). Practical Action Publishing. http://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448602
Momoh, H. & Browne, A. (2019). Terminal evaluation of strengthening conﬂict prevention throughestablishing of multi-stakeholder platforms and improved alternative livelihoods for concession affected
communities project. UN Development Program & FAO. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/04/Momoh-and-Browne-2019.pdf
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) (2021). Demystifying “tenure” for humanitarian practitioners. NRC.
https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/wp-content/uploads/Demystifying-Tenure-for-HumanitarianPractitioners-2021.pdf
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Institutefor Development Studies, University of Sussex. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3390/Wp72.pdf?sequence=1
SEADS (2021). Emergency agriculture interventions: Reviewing evidence on the impacts on livelihoods, foodsecurity, and nutrition. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SEADS_brief1_4.26.
21.pdf
UNEP/OCHA Joint Environment Unit (2021). Nexus environmental assessment tool (NEAT+).
https://resources.eecentre.org/resources/neat/
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2017). Green recovery and reconstruction: Training toolkit for humanitarian aid(GRRT). WWF & American Red Cross. https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/6yv
8ayzl1y_Combined_GRRT.pdf?_ga=2.71116373.478864359.1636482104-1642110664.1634207796

Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related Crisis Response
Albu, M. (2010). Emergency market mapping and analysis toolkit. Practical Action Publishing.
https://www.emma-toolkit.org/toolkit
ALNAP (2021). Targeting for improved humanitarian response portal [website]. UNHCR. https://targeting.
alnap.org/
Global Food Security Cluster (2022). Farmers’ engagement survey. Agriculture Working Group.
https://fscluster.org/sites/default/files/documents/farmer_engagement_survey_report_final_draft_rev.pdf
IRC (2016). Revised pre-crisis market analysis. International Rescue Committee. https://www.emma-toolkit.
org/pre-crisis
Schoonmaker Freudenberger, K. (2008). Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA): A
manual for CRS ﬁeld workers and partners. Catholic Relief Services (CRS). https://www.crs.org/sites/
default/files/tools-research/rapid-rural-appraisal-and-participatory-rural-appraisal.pdf
Stewart, S. (1998). Learning together: The agricultural worker’s participatory sourcebook. Heifer ProjectInternational.

Chapter 5: Seed and Seed Systems
Albu, M. (2010). Emergency market mapping and analysis toolkit. Practical Action Publishing.
https://www.emma-toolkit.org/toolkit
ANNEXES144

Bramel, P.J., Nagoda, S., Haugen, J.M., Adugna, D., Dejene, T., Bekel, T. & Traedal, L.T. (2004). Relief seedassistance in Ethiopia. In L. Sperling, T. Remington, J.M. Haugen & S. Nagoda (eds.), Addressing seed
security in disaster response: Linking relief with development (pp. 111–134). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/
103352
Cullis, A. (2020). An impact assessment of permagardens in Palabek refugee settlement, northern Uganda.
African Women Rising. https://www.africanwomenrising.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AWRPermagarden-PIA-2019-FINAL.pdf
FAO (2010a). Quality declared planting material: Protocols and standards for vegetatively propagated crops.
Plant Production and Protection Paper 195. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i1195e/i1195e.pdf
FAO (2010b). Seeds in emergencies: A technical handbook. Plant Production and Protection Paper 202. FAO.
https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/0c46c45f-eeec-5dcb-8c22-519f116297d1/
FAO (2012a). Kharif 2011 intervention report. Post harvest survey and effects of the 2011 ﬂoods in Sindh
Province: Part of FAO’s ﬂood response Pakistan. Unpublished. FAO.
FAO (2012b). Post harvest survey report, Zaid Rabi 2011/12 agricultural interventions under projects
OSRO/PAK/107/AUL and OSRO/PAK/109/UK, part of FAO’s ﬂood response in Pakistan. Unpublished. FAO.
FAO (2015). Voluntary guide for national seed policy formulation. FAO. https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/
tools/toolbox-for-sustainable-use/details/en/c/1071260/
FAO (2016). Seed security assessment: A practitioner’s guide. FAO. https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/tools/
toolbox-for-sustainable-use/details/en/c/1071289/
FAO, SeedSystem & USAID/OFDA (2020). Minimum technical standards for seed system assessment (SSA)in emergencies. https://fscluster.org/sites/default/files/documents/minimum-seed-systems-standardsfinal-.pdf
Haugen, J.M. & Fowler, C. (2003). Re-assessing the need for emergency seed relief post-disaster: The caseof Honduras after Hurricane Mitch. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance.
Henderson, R. & Herby, L. (2019). Ditekemena emergency food security project evaluation September to
October 2019. CRS, Democratic Republic of Congo. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Henderson-R-2019.pdf
International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) (2022). International rules for seed testing [webpage]. ISTA.
https://www.seedtest.org/en/publications/international-rules-seed-testing-1168.html
McGuire, S. & Sperling, L. (2013). Making seed systems more resilient to stress. Global Environmental
Change 23, 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.001
Mollet, M. (2010). Report on outputs and outcomes obtained by the project; Emergency provision ofagricultural inputs and support to agriculture sector and food security cluster coordination in Georgia. FAO.
Unpublished.
Pincus, L., Dubois, T., Marks, P. & Sperling, L. (2017). Emergency vegetable seed interventions: Can we expect
improved nutrition or income generation among beneﬁciaries? CRS. https://seedsystem.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/05/Emergency-Vegetable-Seed-Interventions-final.pdf
Pretari, A. & Anguko, A. (2019). Livelihoods in South Sudan: Impact evaluation of the “South Sudan Peace andProsperity Promotion” project. Effectiveness Review Series 2016/17. Oxfam GB. https://seads-standards.
org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Pretari-2019.pdf

ANNEXES

145

Remington, T., Maroko, J., Walsh, S., Omanga, P. & Charles, E. (2002). Getting off the seeds-and-tools
treadmill with CRS seed vouchers and fairs. Disasters 26, 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00
209
Rohrbach, D.D., Mashingaidze, A.B. & Mudhara, M. (2005). Distribution of relief seed and fertilizer in
Zimbabwe: Lessons from the 2003/04 season. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid
Tropics (ICRISAT) and FAO. Unpublished.
SEADS (2021). Emergency agriculture interventions: Reviewing evidence on the impacts on livelihoods, foodsecurity and nutrition. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SEADS_brief1_
4.26.21.pdf
Sperling, L., Cooper, H. & Remington, T. (2008). Moving towards more effective seed aid. Journal of
Development Studies 44, 586–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380801980954
Sperling, L., Gallagher, P., McGuire, S., March, J. & Templer, N. (2020). Informal seed traders: The backboneof seed business and African smallholder seed supply. Sustainability 12, 7074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1
2177074
Sperling, L., Mottram, A., Ouko, W. & Love, A. (2022). Seed emergency response tool: Guidance forpractitioners. Produced by Mercy Corps and SeedSystem as a part of the ISSD Africa activity.
https://issdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/SERT_Digital_Jun22.pdf
Van Duivenbooden, N., Pala, M., Studer, C., Bielders, C.L. & Beukes, D.J. (2000). Cropping systems and cropcomplementarity in dryland agriculture to increase soil water use eﬃciency: A review. NJAS: Wageningen
Journal of Life Sciences 48, 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(00)80015-9
Waha, K., Müller, C., Bondeau, A., Dietrich, J.P., Kurukulasuriya, P., Heinke, J. & Lotze-Campen, H. (2013).
Adaptation to climate change through the choice of cropping system and sowing date in sub-SaharanAfrica. Global Environmental Change 23, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.001
Weatherall, J. (2019). After action review (AAR): Agricultural recovery and resilience project (ARRP). CRS.
Unpublished.
World Bank (2012). Implementation completion and results report for a Zimbabwe emergency agricultural
input project. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/World-Bank-2012-Zimbabwe.pdf

Chapter 6: Tools, Equipment, and Other Non-seed Inputs
Agriculture Knowledge, Learning, Documentation and Policy (AKLDP) Project (2016). El Niño in Ethiopia:
Early impacts of drought in Amhara National Regional State. Field notes. https://agri-learning-ethiopia.org/
wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AKLDP-Field-Notes-Amhara-Jan-2016.pdf
Albu, M. (2010). Emergency market mapping and analysis toolkit. Practical Action Publishing.
https://www.emma-toolkit.org/toolkit
Cronin, D. (2020, 11 November). Farm tools designed for men pose problems for female farmers. Harvest
Public Media. https://givingcompass.org/article/farm-tools-designed-for-men-pose-problems-for-femalefarmers/
Cullis, A. (2020). An impact assessment of permagardens in Palabek refugee settlement, northern Uganda.
African Women Rising. https://www.africanwomenrising.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AWRPermagarden-PIA-2019-FINAL.pdf

ANNEXES146

FAO (2012a). Kharif 2011 intervention report. Post harvest survey and effects of the 2011 ﬂoods in Sindh
Province: Part of FAO’s ﬂood response Pakistan. Unpublished. FAO.
FAO (2012b). Post harvest survey report, Zaid Rabi 2011/12 agricultural interventions under projects
OSRO/PAK/107/AUL and OSRO/PAK/109/UK, part of FAO’s ﬂood response in Pakistan. Unpublished. FAO.
FAO (2021). Crop calendar – information tool for crop production. FAO. https://cropcalendar.apps.fao.org/#/
Millican, J., Perkins, C. & Adam-Bradford, A. (2019). Gardening in displacement: The beneﬁts of cultivatingin crisis. Journal of Refugee Studies 32, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fey033
Mollet, M. (2009). Emergency support for the restoration of food security in the areas of southern Myanmar
affected by Cyclone Nargis: Beneﬁciaries results assessment (BRA) survey. Unpublished. FAO.
Pajot, G. (2020, 28 January). The secret gardens of Rohingya refugees. Equal Times. https://www.equaltimes.org/the-secret-gardens-of-rohingya?lang=en#.YYToOi-l3s0
Pretari, A. & Anguko, A. (2019). Livelihoods in South Sudan. Impact evaluation of the “South Sudan Peaceand Prosperity Promotion” project. Effectiveness review series 2016/17. Oxfam GB. https://policy-practice.o
xfam.org/resources/livelihoods-in-south-sudan-impact-evaluation-of-the-south-sudan-peace-and-prosp-62
0864/
Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) (2021). Transforming lives [webpage]. https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/
health-and-wellbeing/real-life-stories
SEADS (2021). Emergency agriculture interventions: Reviewing evidence on the impacts on livelihoods, foodsecurity and nutrition. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SEADS_brief1_
4.26.21.pdf
Sustainable Food Lab (2016). Empowering smallholder farmers to improve their incomes.
https://sustainablefoodlab.org/empowering-smallholder-farmers-to-improve-their-incomes/
Woodhill, J., Hasnain, S. & Griﬃth, A. (2020). Farmers and food systems: What future for small-scale
agriculture? Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford. https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/food/
downloads/Farming-food-WEB.pdf
World Bank (2012). Implementation completion and results report for a Zimbabwe emergency agricultural
input project. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/World-Bank-2012-Zimbabwe.pdf

Chapter 7: Crop-related Infrastructure
CRS (2017). Guide to facilitating community-led disaster risk management. CRS. https://www.crs.org/ourwork-overseas/research-publications/guide-facilitating-community-led-disaster-risk-management
ICRC (2019). EcoSec post distribution monitoring report: ILOT – Rehabilitation of rainwater harvesting pondsin Abssan and Khuzaa border areas of Gaza Strip. ICRC. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/04/Asia_06-ICRC-ILOT-Rehabilitation-rainwater.pdf
Marocchino, C. (2009). A guide to upgrading rural agricultural retail markets. FAO. http://www.fao.org/
docrep/016/ap295e/ap295e.pdf
Mollet, M. (2011). “Final evaluation results of the 1st and 2nd phase of the EU funded project Restoration andimprovement of agriculture based livelihoods and food security for new Internally Displaced Persons (IDP)
settlements and returnees in the Area Adjacent to South Ossetia (AASO)”. Unpublished. FAO.

ANNEXES147

Muthigani, P., European Committee for Agricultural Training & European Commission (2010). Manual forinvestigation, design and rehabilitation of irrigation systems, design manual. European Committee forTraining and Agriculture Somalia. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=SO2005100133
SEADS (2021). Emergency agriculture interventions: Reviewing evidence on the impacts on livelihoods, foodsecurity and nutrition. SEADS. https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SEADS_brief1_4.
26.21.pdf
Trust Consultancy & Development (2020). Supporting Syrian refugee families in achieving food security
through income-generating vegetable production in Hatay and Midyat (SYR 1052). Welt Hunger Hilfe.
https://seads-standards.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Trust-Consultancy-and-Dev-2020.pdf
Walter, N., Varela, D.F., Tellez, J. Montoya, A. & Huntington, H. (2017). Land and rural development
programme (LRDP). Mid-term performance evaluation report. USAID. https://seads-standards.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/Walter-et-al.-2017.pdf

Chapter 8: Impact-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation
The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (2020). Minimum standards for child protection inhumanitarian action. https://alliancecpha.org/sites/default/files/technical/attachments/cpms_2019_final_en.pdf
ALNAP (2016). Evaluating humanitarian action guide. ALNAP Guide. London: ALNAP/ODI.
Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D. & Suji, O. (2014). Participatory impact assessment: A design guide. FeinsteinInternational Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. https://fic.tufts.
edu/publication-item/participatory-impact-assessment-a-design-guide/
Global Food Security Cluster (2022). Farmers’ engagement survey. Agriculture Working Group.
https://fscluster.org/sites/default/files/documents/farmer_engagement_survey_report_final_draft_rev.pdf
Gujit, I. (1998). Participatory monitoring and impact assessment of sustainable agriculture initiatives: An
introduction to the key elements. SARL Discussion paper no. 1. IIED. https://pubs.iied.org/6139iied
ICRC (2021). Economic security indicators cookbook. https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/4505-economicsecurity-indicators-cookbook
Sapkota, T., Jat, M., Jat, R., Kapoor, P. & Stirling, C. (2016). Yield estimation of food and non-food crops insmallholder production systems. In T.S. Rosenstock, M.C. Ruﬁno, K. Butterbach-Bahl, L. Wollenberg & M.
Richards (eds.), Methods for measuring greenhouse gas balances and evaluating mitigation options insmallholder agriculture (pp. 163–174). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29794-1

Annex A
FAO (2016). Seed security assessment: A practitioner’s guide. FAO. https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/tools/
toolbox-for-sustainable-use/details/en/c/1071289/
FAO (2022). Pest and pesticide management. FAO. https://www.fao.org/pest-and-pesticide-management/
ipm/integrated-pest-management/en/
IASC (1994). Deﬁnition of complex emergencies. IASC. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/
files/legacy_files/WG16_4.pdf
Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Project (2014). Livestock emergency guidelines andstandards (2nd edn.). Practical Action Publishing. http://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448602
ANNEXES148

United Nations General Assembly (2016). Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working groupon indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. Seventy-First Session, Item 19(c). A/71/644.
United Nations Oﬃce for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction
2015–2030. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf

Annex B
Grand Bargain Localization Workstream (2020). Guidance note on humanitarian ﬁnancing for local actors.
IASC. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/2020-05/Guidance%20note%20on%20
financing%20May%202020.pdf
Universal Logistics Standards (ULS) (2021). Universal logistics standards. https://ul-standards.org/

Annex D: Acknowledgments and Contributors
SEADS steering group
Ugo Bernieri (International Committee of the Red Cross)
Dina Brick (Catholic Relief Services)
Andy Catley (Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts
University)
Salih Abdel Mageed Eldouma (SOS Sahel Sudan)
Ludger Jean Simon (American University of the Caribbean)
Neil Marsland (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
Themba Sibanda (Norwegian Refugee Council)
Cathy Watson (Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards–LEGS).

Former steering group members
Adam Riddell (World Vision International)

SEADS coordination team
Racey Henderson (Catholic Relief Services)
Anne Radday (Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts
University)

Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards–LEGSThe SEADS Project gratefully acknowledges the signiﬁcant support received from LEGS during the
production of the SEADS minimum standards. SEADS has beneﬁted from LEGS’ experience and learning,
including identifying an evidence base and using a global consultation process.

ANNEXES149

In addition:• The structure of SEADS is based on LEGS (2nd edition 2014 and forthcoming 3rd edition).
• Key concepts and tools, including the livelihoods-based approach and livelihood objectives, the decision
trees, timing tables, and advantages and disadvantages tables, are taken directly from LEGS.
• The SEADS response-area identiﬁcation tool (RAIT) is based on the LEGS participatory response
identiﬁcation matrix (PRIM).
Much of the content in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 is drawn directly or adapted from the LEGS 2nd edition Chapter
1: Livestock, Livelihoods and Emergencies, Chapter 2: Core Standards and Cross-Cutting Themes Common
to All Livestock Interventions, and Chapter 3: Initial Assessment and Identifying Responses, written by
Cathy Watson and Andy Catley.

Donor
The SEADS Project gratefully acknowledges the US Agency for International Development’s Bureau for
Humanitarian Assistance for their ﬁnancial support to this project.

SEADS evidence contributors
Interested stakeholders were invited to contribute to the SEADS Project evidence review in 2021. Thisevidence review formed the basis for the minimum standards in SEADS. A wide range of people, too many
to be named here, provided their support and expertise. The SEADS Project gratefully acknowledges all
contributors for their valuable inputs.

Chapter contributors
Chapter 1: How to Use this Handbook

Racey Henderson

Chapter 2: The Scope and Approach of SEADS

Racey Henderson and Andy Catley

Chapter 3: SEADS Principles

Racey Henderson, Andy Catley, and Adrian Cullis

Chapter 4: Initial Assessment for Crop-related
Crisis Response

Racey Henderson, Andy Catley, and Anne
RaddayChapter 5: Seed and Seed Systems

Louise Sperling with Matthias Mollet, Racey
Henderson, and Edward Walters

Chapter 6: Tools, Equipment, and Other
Non-seed Inputs

Adrian Cullis

Chapter 7: Crop-related Infrastructure

Isidro Navarro

Chapter 8: Impact-oriented Monitoring and
Evaluation

Andy Catley and Stewart Gee

Additional technical support
Shawn McGuire (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)Thomas Ølholm (Norwegian Refugee Council)
Matthias Mollet (private consultant)
ANNEXES

150

Field team members
iDE Nepal
ICRC EcoSec Team, GazaSouth Sudan Food Security and Livelihood Cluster
World Vision International—Mozambique

ANNEXES151

IndexA
acceptability, of tools/equipment and non-seeds input 91
accessdirect distribution 80
land 21seeds 57–58, 60
tools/equipment 80–81
water 21accountability 16, 68
active engagement 23–24
anticipatory actions 26
appropriateness, of crop-related crisis responses 44
assessments 122
demand for tools/equipment 87
environmental 106
environmental impact 27
markets 106
pre-crisis markets 37
project contributions 122
assistance, scale 66
assistance, speed of 8
availability, of seeds 57, 59

B
Bangladesh 13
barriers, to participation 28
beneﬁt-cost analysis 121
bottlenecks
delivery of seeds 67
delivery of tools/equipment 89
build back better principle 106, 108
building codes 106–107
bundling, humanitarian 90
Burkina Faso 72

Ccapacity-building 91
checklists for initial assessments
infrastructure rehabilitation 111–112
seeds/seed systems 73
tools/equipment and non-seed inputs 94
children see vulnerable groups
climate change 12, 27, 107
Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook 27
collaboration, with other development programs 26
communications, digital 28
communities
inequalities in 106
infrastructure rehabilitation and 100
participation of 40
SEADS and 9
competencies
local 22, 107
teams 36, 87
competition 68
complex crises 10, 12
composition, of teams 36
conﬂict reduction 110
contexts
emergency 73, 94

operational 38
tracking of 118
coordination
development programs 27, 28, 108
recommended reading on 31
Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability(CHS) 14, 16
COVID-19 pandemic 12
criteria
seed quality 71
targeting 40, 47
crop producers
access to assets by 25crises affecting
examples of 12–13
impacts of 10–12
overview 10–11
crop and variety choices of 69
general 7, 9
market choices of 89
seed channels and 65
seed choices of 68
targeting criteria for 40
tools/equipment needs of 79, 91
crop production, stages in 22, 41, 48
crop-related crisis responses
accountability in 16
appropriateness of 44
coordination of 27
covered by SEADS 7
evidence-based approaches to 7
feasibility of 45
general vii
HDP nexus and 9
importance of 6
infrastructure rehabilitation and see crop-related
infrastructurelevels of 34
livelihood-based approaches to see livelihoods-based
approaches
monitoring and evaluation see evaluations; monitoringnecessity of 45
non-seed inputs and see non-seed inputs
objectives of 6participatory approaches to see participatory approaches
preparedness in 25
quality in 16
rights-based approaches to 9
seed/seed systems and see seeds/seed systems
socio-cultural factors in 40, 47
tools/equipment and see tools/equipment
crop-related infrastructure
importance of 98
rehabilitation ofenvironmental protection and 108
examples of solutions 99
general 97
initial assessment checklist for 111
initial assessment of 106
lifetime requirements of 109
152

livelihood objectives and 97
location of 109
other humanitarian standards and 108
project management in 108
protection risks of 109
recommended reading on 111
social equity and 109
technical speciﬁcations for 107
timing of 109
crops
choice of 69
estimation of yields of 134
production of 122
realistic management conditions and 69
varieties of 69

D
decision support tools 119
decision trees
rehabilitation of crop-related infrastructure 104
response areas selection 42
seeds/seed systems 62
tools/equipment 85
delivery mechanisms 22
development programs
collaboration in other 26
coordination of 27–28, 108
disaster risk reduction in 26
markets 22
digital communications 28
disabled people see vulnerable groups
disadvantaged groups see groups
disaster risks
mapping of 106
reduction of 25–26
displaced crop producers see crop producers
distribution, directaccess 80
tools/equipment 81
do no harm principle 89

Eearly-warning systems 22, 26
elderly people see vulnerable groups
emergency contexts 73–74, 94
emergency contingency plansdevelopment of 26
initial assessments and 37
end-of-project reviews 120
engagement, active 23
environment
assessment of 106
climate change and 27
protection of 108
Ethiopia 12
evaluation
general 115
impact indicators and 119
impacts and 115
participatory approaches 24, 116, 126participatory impact 121
project objectives 116
recommended reading on 124
ANNEXESevidence-based approaches 7–8
expertise, local 22, 107

F
farmers’ varieties 69
feasibility, of crop-related responses 45–46
foodright to 9
security of 64

G
Gaza 48–49
gender 24–25
gender-based violence 74
governments, responsibilities of 28
Green Recovery and Reconstruction Toolkit 27
groupsvulnerable and disadvantaged 24, 25, 39, 116
guidance notes 4

H
Haiti 13
HDP nexus 9household preferences
crops and varieties 69
tools/equipment 90–91
HSP see Humanitarian Standards Partnership (HSP)
humanitarian bundling 90
Humanitarian Charter 13–15
Humanitarian Standards Partnership (HSP)
main aim of 16
SEADS and 3, 15
website of vii, 3
humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus
crop-related crisis responses and 9
SEADS and 9I
impacts
complex crises 10–12
evaluation of 121
indicators of 119, 124–125
monitoring and evaluation and 115
quantitative evaluation of 122
rapid-onset crises 10, 12
slow-onset crises 10, 12
improved varieties 69
information
gaps in 40
pre-existing 37
qualitative and quantitative 116
RAIT and 41
initial assessments
checklists
infrastructure rehabilitation 111
seeds/seed systems 73
tools/equipment and non-seed inputs 94
emergency contingency plans and 37
general 34
impacts/impact indicators in and 115–116
importance of 34–35
information gaps and 40
infrastructure rehabilitation 106
153key questions in 38, 44
methods selection in 38
outcomes of 35
participants in 39
participatory approaches 23
pre-existing information and 37
recommended reading on 43
response areas selection in 39
seeds/seed systems 73
team competency and composition in 36
timing in 36
tools/equipment provisions 87

K
Kenya 13
key actions 4
key process indicators 4, 130–133
key questions/questions
infrastructure rehabilitation 111
initial assessments 38, 44–48
seeds/seed system responses 73
tools/equipment and non-seed input responses 94

Llabeling 71, 92
land tenure 22
land, access to 21–22
landless crop producers see crop producers
landraces 69
legislation, local 106
life with dignity, right to 9
lifetime requirements, of infrastructure 109
livelihood objectives
crop-related infrastructure and 97
general 8long-cycle crops and 69
relevance of 40–41
response areas and 52
seed/seed systems and 55
tools/equipment and other non-seed inputs and 78, 90
livelihoods see also livelihoods-based approaches; livelihood
objectives; livelihoods-based programming
deﬁnition of 8
response areas and 52
livelihoods-based approaches
general 6, 8–9
seeds/seed system responses 67–68
tools/equipment and 89
livelihoods-based programming
access to land and water 21
general 21
pre-crisis market characteristics 22
recommended reading on 29
seasonal conditions and 22
Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) 8
long-cycle crops 69

Mmaintenance, of production/marketing activities 8
management see also project management
crops 69
marginalized groups see vulnerable groups
ANNEXES

market gardeners see crop producers
market-based approachesdelivery mechanism and 22
tools/equipment provision 81, 89
marketing activities 8
markets
assessments of 106
choice of 89
development programs for 22
functioning of 47
pre-crisis assessments of 37
pre-crisis characteristics of 22
materials, sourcing of 107, 112
menassessment teams 36
crops and 69
roles of 24
mental healthimprovement of 80
methods selection, in initial assessments 38–39
minimum standards (of HSP) 15
minimum standards (SEADS)
crop-related infrastructureassesment and planning 104–107
location, lifetime and timing 108–110
technical speciﬁcations 107–108
initial assessments
approach to 36–37
questions and methods 37–39
timing and team competency 35–36
monitoring and evaluation
impact indicators 119–120
participatory approachesin 115–116
participatory end-of-project review 120–121
participatory impact evaluation 121–123
process monitoring and indicators 118
project objectives 116–117
response areas selection 39–42
seeds/seed systems
assessment and planning 64–65
crop and variety choice 69–70
identifying technical options and timing 66–67
seed quality 70–71
systems-based assistance 67–68
structure of 3–4
tools/equipment and other non-seed inputs
assessment and planning 87–88
choice of tools/equipment and other non-seed
inputs 90–91
input quality 91–92
market-based services and systems support 89–90
technical options and timing 88–89
Minimum Technical Standards for Seed System Assessment
Emergencies 56
monitoring
active engagement 24
general 115
impact indicators and 119
impacts and 115
participatory approaches to 116, 126–127
processes and indicators 118–119
project objectives of 116
recommended reading on 124154

N
natural disasters 12
Nexus Environmental Assessment Tool (NEAT) 27
non-seed inputs 91
acceptability of 91
assessment of demand for 87
choice of 90
crop producers’ needs for 79
initial assessment checklist for 94
livelihood objectives and 78
provision ofbottlenecks in 89
constraints in 79, 88
general 78
importance of 78
market-based approach to 89
planning of 87
tailored support for 88
team competencies and 87
timing of 88
quality of 91
recommended reading on 93
traditional vs. modern 91

Opreparedness
general 25
recommended reading on 30–31
principles (SEADS)
climate change and environmental impacts 27
coordinated responses 27–28
guiding character of 2
livelihoods-based programming see livelihoods-based
programming; livelihoods-based programming
overview 21
participatory approaches see participatory
approaches 23–25
preparedness 25–26
prioritization, of response areas 42, 49
process indicators 118
production activities, maintenance of 8
project management see also management
crop-related infrastructure rehabilitation 108
Protection Principles (Sphere Handbook) 13
protection risks, of infrastructure 109
provision
seeds 59–61
tools/equipment see provisionQ

operational contexts
key questions and 38
organizations, infrastructure rehabilitation and 100
orphans see vulnerable groups

quality
crop-related crisis responses 16–18
seeds 57, 75
tools/equipment and non-seeds input 91
questions see key questions

PR

participants see also participation
active engagement of 23
initial assessments 39
seeds/seed systems and 65–66
targeting of 23
participation see also participants; participatory approaches
barriers to 28
communities 40
infrastructure rehabilitation 107–108
initial assessments 37
participatory approaches
core elements of 23
end-of-project reviews 120
impact evaluation 121, 126monitoring 126
monitoring and evaluation 115
RAIT and 41
recommended reading on 29
tools/equipment and 88
peace building 110
peoplebeneﬁtting from SEADS 7
support of resilience of 8
Philippines 12planning
active engagement 23
demand for tools/equipment 87
plausibility
response 117
post-harvest processors 7
ANNEXESRAIT see response-area indentiﬁcation tool
rapid-onset crises 10–12
recommended readingon coordinated responses 31
on crop-related infrastructure rehabilitations 111
on initial assessments 43
on livelihoods-based programming 29
on monitoring and evaluation 124
on participatory approaches 29
on preparedness 30
on scope and approach of SEADS 19
on seeds/seed systems 72–73
on tools/equipment and non-seeds inputs 93
reduction, of risks 25
resilience 8
resources, eﬃcient use of 28
response areas 39
livelihoods and 52
rating of 42, 48–49
selection of 39–42
response-area identiﬁcation tool (RAIT) see also responseareas
example of 48
general 41–42
template for 51
reviews, end-of-project 120
rightfood 9life with dignity 9
rights-based approaches 9155risks reduction 25
risks tracking 118

S
scale, of assistance 66
SEADS
applicability of 2
approaches to crop-related crises of 7–9
CHS and 16
communities and 9–10
coverage of 7
deﬁnition of 2
foundations of 13–16
how to use 2–3
HSP and 3, 15
HSP initiatives and 16
humanitarian responses and 16–18
livelihood objectives of see livelihood objectives
people beneﬁtting from 7
principles see SEADS
website of 3
when to use 4
who should use 2
seasonal conditions 22
Seed Emergency Response Tool 56
seed quality
aspects of 70
avoidance of stereotypes 70
criteria for 71
general 57
indicators and targets 75
treatment and labeling of seeds and 71
seed security
assessment of 57
constraints of 65–66
food seccurity 64–65
seed security assessment (SSA) 57
seed systems, support for 58–60
seeds see also seed systems, support for; seeds/seed systems
access to 57–58, 60
availability of 57
channels for 65
labeling of 71
provision of 59–60
quality of 75
sources for 68
treatment of 71
vouchers for 28
seeds/seed systems see also seeds; seed systems, support forbottlenecks in 67
crop and variety choice and 69
importance of 55–56
initial assessment checklist 73–74
livelihood objectives and 55
livelihoods-based approach to 67–68
participation in 65, 66
scale of assistance 66–67
seed quality 70
seed security and 56, 65–66
systems-based assistance in 67
technical options in support ofaccess to seeds 58
advantages and disadvantages 59
ANNEXESdecision tree for 62
general 56–58
provision of seeds 59
timing of 61–62
self-esteem 80
service providers
access to assets by 25
expertise of 22
functioning of 47
general 7
local vs. external 90
support of 8, 81–82
skills, local 22, 107
slow-onset crises
anticipatory actions for 26
impacts of 10, 12
smallholders see crop producers
SMART objectives 117, 128
social equity
crop-related infrastructure and 106
general 88
infrastructure and 109
promotion of 24
socio-cultural factors 40, 47
speed, of assistance 8
Sphere Handbook 13, 15
stereotyping, of seed quality 70
subsistence crop producers see crop producers
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework 21
Syria 12Ttargetingcommunity-based 23, 89
criteria and methods 40, 47
selection process 66
teams, competencies and composition 36
technical options
crop-related infrastructureadvantages and disadvantages of 100–101
community-led 100
decision tree for 104–105
general 98
organizations and 100
timing of 102–103
general 34
tools/equipment and non-seeds inputs
advantages and disadvantages of 82–83
decision tree for 85–86
direct distribution 81
facilitation of access 80
general 80
minimum standard on 88
support for input systems 81
timing of 83–84
theory of change 117, 122, 128–129
timinginfrastructure rehabilitations 109
infrastructure technical options 102
initial assessments 36
RAIT 41seeds/seed systems technical options 61
156

tools/equipment and non-seeds input responses 94
tools/equipment technical options 83
tools/equipment
acceptability of 91
assessment of demand for 87
choice of 90
crop producers’ needs for 79
initial assessment checklist for 94
livelihood objectives and 78
provision ofbottlenecks in 89
constraints in 79, 88
importance of 78–80
market-based approach to 89
planning of 87
tailored support for 88
team competencies and 87–88
timing of 88

ANNEXES

quality of 91
recommended reading on 93
traditional vs. modern 91
training 91, 107–108
Typhoon Hiyan 12Vvalue-chain actors 68
varieties of crops 69
vulnerable groups 24–25, 39, 116Wwater, access to 21
weather, severe 12
women see also vulnerable groups
crops and 36
roles of 24
tool use by 87157