ABSTRACT

Against this background, the shock of drought is mitigated by the level of insurance provided either by the individual and community (e.g., assets, stores and claims, or reciprocal self-help mechanisms) or by the state (e.g., safety nets, public works, or free food distributions). The provision of such insurance has undergone two major changes in SSA since the drought of the early 1970s. First, whereas household and community mechanisms have worked reasonably well in many cases, there is some evidence to suggest that they are now so strained as to cause great concern about their viability in the next cycle of drought. In particular, the ability of indigenous strategies to secure longer-term livelihood needs - including resili­ ence to drought - has been severely undermined (Duffield 1990b, Davies 1996). Second, and in contrast, the array of state mechanisms increased sub­ stantially in the 1980s, although interventions still tend to be in the form of emergency food aid distri­ butions. State insurance mechanisms have thus focused principally on the immediate consequence of low rainfall: reduced food security. There are few links between these two levels, which severely compromises the effectiveness of DPM.