Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

NGO climate adaptation efforts have been criticized as marginal. This article examines the contribution of the CARE ENSURE program in building climate resilience in the Zaka district. This qualitative study employed in-depth interviews, observation, focus group discussions, and secondary sources to collect data. In all, 18 project beneficiaries and 11 key informants participated in the study. The findings reveal that CARE Zimbabwe is moving beyond the criticisms, and improved three essential capacities: absorptive, adaptive, and transformative, which are critical for building the resilience of communities. A coordinated multistakeholder approach is needed to tackle climate change and build resilience to climate impacts.

Keywords

NGOs climate change vulnerability resilience adaptation absorptive adaptive transformative integrated partnerships

Introduction

Across the globe, climate-related disasters, including cyclones, drought, wildfires, and extreme heat, have increased significantly in the past few years. The Southern African region is warming up faster than the global average (Bauer and Scholz, 2010). Many rural communities rely on (NGOs) to help them prepare for, recover from, and adapt to climate impacts. Over the years, NGOs have implemented various adaptation interventions in rural communities. However, some scholars argue that NGO adaptation projects have a marginal effect (Angula and Kaundjua, 2016; Rahman, 2021). This argument emanates from the programming strategies used (Dube, 2021). Scholars have criticized NGOs for using prescriptive top-down strategies, imposing their projects on people, and promoting dependency syndrome (Banks et al., 2015; Osei, 2017). Other criticisms include the lack of beneficiary participation in adaptation projects because of the short time frames of the projects, undermining the empowering potential of the projects, and long-term sustainability of projects (Banerjee and Jackson, 2017; Banks et al., 2015; Osei, 2017; Smith, 2015).

NGO’s role in climate change is prominent in disaster situations. However, their interventions are reactive, distributing food to affected people, attending to health needs, providing temporary shelter, and assisting relocations (Mondal et al., 2015). NGOs also implement adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) to help people adjust to climate change. In line with the sustainable development agenda, NGOs are to move beyond mere adaptation to increase the adaptive capacity of poor and vulnerable communities, promote long-term adaptation, and enable communities to be resilient to climate change impacts (Appe, 2019; Frankenberger et al., 2014). Adaptive capacities must be transformational in areas where the likelihood of future climate damage is high and communities fail to adapt (Pelling, 2011).

Some NGOs in Zimbabwe have shifted from imposing projects to collaborating with communities, building their adaptive capacity to strengthen their resilience to climate change. Few scholars, if any, have explored this shift in Zimbabwe. This paper aims to understand how CARE’s ENSURE program builds people’s resilience to climate change in the Zaka district, Masvingo Province. The study addresses the following questions: What is the vulnerability of people in Zaka to climate-related impacts? How does CARE’s ENSURE program build people’s resilience to climate impacts? The study responds to world leaders’ urgent call for action at the 2023 COP 28 conference to find solutions for adaptation and mitigation for Africa and the world’s people. This is because of the increasing poverty, which makes it difficult for the people in rural communities to adapt. The findings of this study are also timely as they contribute to the community-level solutions to tackle climate change. The findings further support the 2024 Nairobi Declaration of Climate Change view, which acknowledges the critical role that local communities play in climate change adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation and resilience are emerging fields, and this paper contributes knowledge to this growing body of research.

Background and context

Zimbabwe lies in the semi-arid region of Southern Africa and experiences a subtropical climate characterized by dry winters and hot summer periods (Mavhura, 2018). The country has experienced the devastating effects of El Nino since 1982 (OCHA, 2024). The El Nino conditions are characterized by prolonged dry spells, increased temperatures, and less rainfall than the average, resulting in water shortages, extreme heat, and drought affecting food security (Mavhura, 2018). The last few years have also seen an increase in climate-related disasters, including drought, floods, cyclones, and extreme heat (Macheka, 2024; Mavhura, 2018; Ngwenya, 2018).

The country has been devastated by a series of flooding disasters, including Cyclone Eline in 2000, Cyclone Japhet in 2003, Cyclone Dineo in 2017, Cyclone Idai in 2019, Tropical Storm Chalane in 2020, Cyclone Eloise in 2021, Cyclone Ana in 2022, and Cyclone Freddy in 2023 (Macheka, 2024). Concurrently, drought periods have been on a relentless rise from 1982 to the present, with significant ones in 1992, 1995, 2000, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018, and 2020. The impact of these climate events is severe, with maize yields, for instance, declining significantly over the years and recurrent droughts leading to food insecurity. The 2023–2024 season has been declared a drought, and an estimated six million people are food insecure (OCHA, 2024). The Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (2023) reports that about 35% of rural households have inadequate water supply, while about 45% travel long distances to fetch water for household use and livestock. The shortage of drinking water caused by droughts in rural areas is a grave threat to human health. In the recent past, the country has recorded high temperatures of 45°C (113°F) in areas such as Victoria Falls, Kariba, Chiredzi, Masvingo, and Beitbridge, significantly above the average high of 30°C (86°F) (Zimbabwe Meteorological Services, 2024). Excessive heat is causing distress among rural populations as they lose their crops and livestock. Extreme temperatures are predicted to increase in frequency, duration, and severity as the region becomes hotter and drier than the global average (Bauer and Scholz, 2010). Meanwhile, the country is grappling with disaster response and management implementation challenges that must be aligned with the Sendai Framework. Zimbabwe’s policy documents overlook some crucial aspects. For instance, the Civil Protection Act (Chapter 10:06) does not address community resilience (Macheka, 2024) to align with climate policy and national response strategy, and there is no public health response to heat-related illnesses (Ngwenya, 2018). The Climate Policy and National Climate Change Response Strategy Policy documents do not outline how vulnerable groups will be protected from extreme heat.

Masvingo Province is one of the arid regions, which receives less rainfall than other regions, recurrent crop failure, and has persistent drought seasons that affect food security and nutrition (Brazier, 2015). The 2017 vulnerability assessment reported that 33% of children (0–5 years) had stunted growth due to malnutrition in the Zaka district. Drought has had a ripple effect as it affects livelihoods, which are agriculture-dependent, and affects underground water, resulting in the shortage of drinking water. In this district, the water shortage is causing many vector-borne diseases, including bilharzia in human beings, anthrax in livestock, and water and sanitation in the home.

About 61.4% of the Zimbabwean population reside in rural areas and are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change ZIMSTAT, 2022. These communities rely heavily on natural resources such as water, forests, and land, all adversely affected by climate change. As climate change impacts deepen and increase in frequency and severity, there is an urgent need to build people’s resilience to respond and recover from climate shocks and stresses. Many people in rural areas do not have any social protection or safety nets and lack the power to influence policies that affect their access to resources (Ensor and Berger, 2009). While people often employ their agency to cope and adapt, as climate impacts become more severe and persistent, many rural communities become more vulnerable as they deplete assets trying to manage. Failure to adapt is when households experience hazards whose extent of damage is high such that they cannot bounce back (Jiri and Mafongoya, 2017).

Resilience matters in climate change NGO programming

With growing uncertainty in climate predictions and increasing vulnerability of populations to experiencing frequent and severe climate impacts, resilience becomes central to improving their ability to respond, recover, and thrive again in the face of adverse climate. Resilience and adaptation are concepts often used interchangeably in literature, yet complementary. Adaptation is taking a series of actions and adjusting to current and future impacts. Resilience is about enhancing social, economic, cultural, financial, and political capacities to respond and recover well after experiencing a climate shock (Mehryar, 2022; Siders, 2019). To Smit and Pilifosova (2003), this is improving the adaptive capacity, which is defined as the enhanced practical means of coping with changes and uncertainties in climate change, building resilience.

Resilience is a contentious term stemming from its definition and measurement. Different scholars from different disciplines define resilience differently. Within the social sciences, the term is widely used in social ecology, sociology, and psychology. The term is also in greater use by NGOs, donors, agencies, and other key stakeholders in development (Frankenberger etal., 2014). The historical roots of resilience can be traced to the Social Ecology discipline, where Holling (1973) defines resilience as the ability of an ecological system to bounce back to its original state after experiencing a disturbance. In defining the concept, scholars have often contextualized the concept while maintaining the initial ecological conceptualization. In this paper, resilience is the ability of rural communities to respond to and recover from climate shocks within a changing climate. To help rural communities become resilient means developing people’s adaptive capacity to promote long-term adaptation, which strengthens the resilience of communities to respond to climate shocks and stresses and recover (Siders, 2019). NGOs, with their unique capabilities and resources, can play a crucial role in building rural communities’ adaptive capacity by strengthening their social, economic, political, cultural, financial, and ecological capacities to help them become resilient in a changing climate.

Another controversy around the concept of resilience is that of measurement. There is disagreement over how resilience can and should be measured. Frankenberger et al. (2012) developed a resilience framework emphasizing access to productive assets, institutional structures, livelihood strategies, prevention, preparedness, and response. Central to the framework is capacity, commonly known as the capacity approach, Frankenberger argues that building resilience requires improving three distinct but interrelated capacities, which are absorptive, adaptive, and transformational. Absorptive minimizes exposure to shocks through preventive measures such as social safety nets, social capital, DRR, and assets. Adaptive is about identifying alternative livelihood strategies such as diversification, remittances, knowledge, and skills. Transformative includes governance mechanisms, policies, and regulations that promote an enabling environment, such as access to local governance services, markets, gender, and participation in decision-making. These three reinforce each other and exist at multiple levels. International agencies and donors have used Frankenberger’s framework and capacity approach to measure resilience. For example, TANGO International (2018) evaluated the relationship between shocks, capacities, and responses to current and future states of well-being. They developed three quantitative indicators of resilience: well-being outcomes, shocks and stresses, and resilience capacities (absorptive, adaptive, and transformative).

IFAD (2015) argues that resilience cannot be measured with single quantitative indicators but by combining both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative indicators would include all dimensions of human life, including social, economic, cultural, financial, and political assets. These dimensions contribute to household and community resilience. IFAD (2015) further identifies four factors to consider when measuring resilience. These are well-being outcomes: shocks and stresses, absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities at different levels, and the responses of households and communities to shocks and stresses against the overall trajectory of well-being outcomes. These factors resonate with Frankenberger’s resilience framework and are common in TANGO and IFAD projects.

A resilient household can demonstrate a degree of toughness, resistance to climate shocks and stresses, and the ability to recover from the impact (Ashmawy, 2021: IFAD, 2015). To be resilient, households should be able to maintain a specific minimum threshold condition after exposure and experience a climatic shock or disturbance (Ensor and Berger, 2009). Within this changing climate, communities require knowledge and information to help them cope well with climate change (Ashmawy, 2021). Communities that are well-capacitated tend to prepare, respond, and recover well. NGOs are better placed to help communities mobilize these resources, which communities seldom realize they have (Green and Goetting, 2010). NGOs can mobilize resources from other stakeholders, including the government and private sector. Lassas (2018) study shows successful collaboration between the state, private sector, civil society, and NGOs. This triadic relationship is necessary for the future of resilience in a changing climate.

Role of NGOs in climate resilience—review of literature

NGOs and other humanitarian organizations are the first responders in disasters like drought and floods. Ensor and Berger (2009) highlight that vulnerable people affected by climate change use their capabilities, skills, knowledge, and technologies. They engage in various coping strategies, including crop diversification using religious beliefs and practices to adapt to climate shifts (Merid et al., 2017), indigenous practices such as organic manure to enhance soil fertility, pre-season tillage, and post-harvest mulching (Musa and Umar, 2017). Despite community efforts to adapt to climate change, the pervasiveness of the changing climate continues to affect their farming activities and livelihoods. It degrades the natural environment they usually turn to during times of crisis. This double tragedy results in households and communities lacking the adaptive capacity to cope independently (Simane, 2013).

As highlighted elsewhere in this paper, some scholars argue that NGO adaptation efforts are marginal, not achieving the desired results of building the resilience of households and communities to respond and recover from climate shocks (Angula and Kaundjua, 2016; Fitzpatrick and Molloy, 2014; Rahman, 2021). For some scholars, the absence of partnerships affects resilience. NGOs must build stronger partnerships with government institutions and communities to build resilience for affected people (Fitzpatrick and Molloy, 2014). Drakaki et al. (2023) emphasize the need to create sustainable partnerships to build the strength of communities to address climate change. NGOs educate communities on the importance of collective action and partnerships. Partnerships promote community empowerment and long-term sustainability and are critical in promoting climate resilience.

For other scholars, marginality results from using top-down strategies in adaptation that do not promote participation, empowerment, and sustainability. These four key debates have preoccupied scholars for a long time. Several scholars show that NGOs use structured methods in adaptation that provide little room for beneficiary participation, suggesting a prescriptive nature of NGO strategies (Angula and Kaundjua, 2016; Baruah, 2015; Meding et al., 2011). In Pakistan, Khan and Ali (2015) found that beneficiaries lacked ownership of projects, suggesting that NGOs were using top-down approaches that do not promote ownership of projects. Similarly, Pertiwi et al. (2019) found that NGO-led disaster preparedness programs in Indonesia were not providing people with the skills and knowledge to plan and implement DRR projects, suggesting that NGOs maintain an expert approach to programming. Lassa (2018) points out that local communities in DRR are often excluded from decision-making processes as the programs are top-down. In Lesotho, Kamara et al. (2019) found that the NGO had limited participation of beneficiaries and an overreliance on scientific knowledge. Other scholars report of the exclusion of traditional coping mechanisms and traditional knowledge in DRR plans and rarely consider the agency of rural people (Hamukwala et al., 2008; Harvey et al., 2019; Sahoo, 2013). The above studies show that NGOs’ contribution to resilience is marginal because of a lack of partnerships, top-down strategies, and community participation, affecting project ownership and sustainability. This suggests that NGO projects are not building communities’ adaptive capacity to become resilient.

However, literature also shows that some NGOs are adjusting their approaches, moving beyond just adaptation with single projects to promoting adaptive capacity by providing a range of options to enhance longer-term adaptation, which ultimately contributes to the resilience of communities. For example, Adem et al. (2017) report that CARE Ethiopia combines local knowledge and scientific data in implementing an integrated program that provides a framework for dialogue with and between communities and external stakeholders. This empowering program allows the local communities to drive their future by actively participating and inspires hope for a more resilient future. In Savelugu in Ghana, NGOs provided capacity-building programs to farmers, giving them information on climate change, skills and knowledge to deal adequately with climate shifts, mobilizing different forms of capital to assist in coping and adaptation, and financial assistance to build livelihoods (Tahiru et al., 2019). These projects point to an integrated program that creates the adaptive capacity of farmers. Other scholars support this kind of programming. For example, Jiri and Mafongoya (2017) argued for increased investments in adaptive capacity that combine the Indigenous Knowledge Systems and meteorological data, contributing to sustainable adaptation and resilience.

Advocates of adaptive capacity emphasize that interventions by institutions, such as NGOs, should aim for a range of options for communities. This includes shifting from a single project to integrated programming, informed decision-making, information, knowledge, skills, social equity, gender, participatory partnerships with communities, and incorporating local knowledge in programming (Adem et al., 2017; Drakaki et al., 2022; Frankenberger et al., 2014; Jiri and Mafongoya, 2017). Institutions supporting adaptation, programs, and projects must constantly collaborate with their communities (Simane, 2013; Tahiru et al., 2019). All these attributes are vital to building resilient communities.

Methodology

This study is based on a 4-year (2016–2019) qualitative ethnographic study of the contribution of CARE Zimbabwe’s ENSURE program implemented in Wards 14 and 16 of Zaka district, Masvingo Province. Although the program was being implemented in 11 wards in the district, the researcher chose Wards 14 and 16 to have a balanced view of ENSURE. In Ward 14, ENSURE was a complete project, while in Ward 16, the project was still ongoing. The two wards were also chosen because they were close to each other and, therefore, convenient and cost-effective for the researcher. The district is a semi-arid region in ecological zone III. This zone is characterized by less rainfall of between 600 and 630 mm compared to other regions. It is a drought-prone area (Brazier, 2015). ZimVAC (2017) reported a poverty prevalence of 69.6%, coupled with food insecurity and high stunting levels in children under five. The district reported the highest number of shocks per household and the highest severity of exposure to shocks. They also reported a low capacity to cope (ZimVAC, 2018).

The choice of qualitative methodology was deliberate, as it was best suited to the nature of the study. The advantages of qualitative research were seen in drawing meaning from people’s experiences of a phenomenon (Patton, 2005). Adopting qualitative methodology allowed for the study of people in their natural settings, which promotes interaction with respondents in a natural way in most cases in their homes and the site where participants experience the phenomenon and try to make sense of the meanings they experience (Creswell, 2013). With qualitative methodology, the interaction was mostly face-to-face, allowing the researcher to observe how they work with NGOs and document their narratives on their experiences. At the same time, the qualitative methodology accorded beneficiaries some level of empowerment as they shared their experiences (Creswell, 2013). The advantage of this was neutralizing the power relationship between the researcher and participants, who could listen more and allow the participants to share their experiences. It is worth noting that the study was conducted with the utmost respect for the ethical standards, ensuring the privacy and dignity of the participants.

The case study design was chosen because of its ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of a single case within a real-life context (Yin, 2003). This research design was particularly suited to provide a detailed “thick description” of the CARE programming as the case being investigated. Using in-depth interviews, direct observation, focus group discussions (FGDs), and documentary analysis as data collection methods further enhanced the study’s comprehensiveness. The analysis of CARE reports, the conduct of FGDs, and follow-up in-depth interviews all contributed to a thorough understanding of how CARE is building resilience to climate impacts. Key informant interviews corroborated the participants’ interviews and FGD views. At the time of data collection, the dam project in Ward 14 was complete and fully functional, while the researcher observed the ongoing dam construction project in Ward 16.

The study employed a non-probability sampling technique in line with the qualitative case study research design. Purposive sampling was used, where the researcher deliberately selected respondents who participated in the ENSURE program. In line with the case study design, a sample should not be too small to achieve data saturation. Thus, a sample of 18 in-depth interviews was selected. Four FGDs, two from each ward with 6–8 participants in each group were held. FDGs were meant to complement the weaknesses of other data collection methods (triangulation). FGDs allowed participants to freely discuss issues they would not feel comfortable discussing during interviews. A total of 11 key informant interviews were held with two CARE officials—Program manager and Program officer, one informant from Agritex, one from the Ministry of Gender, two from Local Government—Social Services Official and Liaison officer, one from the Department of Irrigation, one from Environmental Agency, and three traditional leaders composed of two headmen from each ward and one Sadunhu (leader of the area). The key informants from local government, Agritex, and traditional leaders work closely with communities and other organizations such as the Ministry of Gender, the Department of Irrigation, and the Environmental Agency. These are also the institutions that CARE linked with communities to oversee the projects after CARE exited the district in 2020. In tandem with the case study research design, data were collected and analyzed in two stages in an iterative process that ensured the thoroughness and validity of the findings. The first stage involved coding data from the transcripts and field notes, while the second stage involved identifying emerging patterns and grouping them into themes. Two themes emerged from the study: vulnerability to climate change impacts and the role of CARE in building resilience.

Findings and discussion

Vulnerability to climate change impacts

Evidence from the study revealed that rural communities in the Zaka district are experiencing various climate-related shocks, including drought, heat waves, and cyclones. This confirms evidence from related literature that the country is experiencing the worst impacts of climate change (Macheka, 2024; Mavhura, 2018). Experiencing cyclones for four consecutive years from 2020 to 2023 suggests an increase in the frequency of cyclones (Macheka, 2024), confirming scientists’ climate predictions that extreme temperatures will likely increase in frequency and severity (Bauer and Scholz, 2010). Findings from in-depth interviews indicated that drought periods have become recurrent, resulting in food insecurity, and during drought periods, adults and children eat less unbalanced meals, contributing to stunted growth in children. CARE key informant confirmed that the region was experiencing recurrent drought seasons and cyclone floods.

Responses from FGDs pointed to communities relying on their local knowledge, beliefs, and practices, such as holding traditional rain-making ceremonies known to them as mikwerera; crop diversification, including growing drought-resistant crops, was cited as a common coping and adaptation strategy for the communities. This corroborates findings from related studies that people use their agency to respond and adapt to the shifting climate (Ensor and Berger, 2009; Jiri and Mafongoya, 2017). Although they tried to cope and adapt to climate change, they exhausted all their assets as they experienced one disaster after another every few years. One participant said we have many catastrophes here. We are suffering because our food stocks do not last two years. Moreover, we sold our chickens and goats to send children to school. Findings revealed that rural communities in Zaka are at risk of experiencing more frequent severe climate shocks in the future because of their semi-arid location. Participants indicated that they were now learning to live with climate change, suggesting that they are aware of climate shifts and are learning to adapt. Lack of social protection worsens these rural communities’ ability to cope independently. The poor and vulnerable often lack resources to respond and recover from climate change impacts (Ensor and Berger, 2009). To increase their adaptive capacity, CARE Zimbabwe implemented an integrated program.

Role of CARE in building resilience of rural communities

CARE’s ENSURE program

ENSURE is an acronym for Enhancing Nutrition, Stepping Up Resilience and Enterprise. CARE key informant highlighted that the ESURE program directly responded to shocks and stressors identified during a baseline survey in the district by CARE Zimbabwe. CARE Zimbabwe reports (2014, 2018) confirmed that the program is an integrated one, with three projects: Health and Nutrition, DRR, and Agriculture and Economic Development. The findings are similar to those obtained by Adem et al. (2017) where CARE Ethiopia is implementing an integrated program, suggesting an emerging shift in NGO programming from focusing on single projects to combining them. ENSURE aimed to increase long-term food security caused by recurrent drought and growing poverty. The Health and Nutrition project was a supplementary feeding program to improve the nutrition of 0- 5-year-old children, pregnant, and lactating mothers. This project responded to the stunting problem highlighted in the ZimVAC Report, 2017. The second project DRR, was designed to increase preparedness for future disasters by creating community assets, such as weir dams (small dams), nutritional gardens, and early warning systems. The Agriculture and Economic Development project was designed to increase household income through microfinance schemes, farming as a business (FAB), and poultry projects. The project mainly empowered women in agricultural production and income-generating projects because, in Zimbabwe, women make up a significant percentage of the labor force in the agriculture sector in rural areas. The garden project was set to increase household income by taking FAB. This project promoted value chains by establishing producer groups producing ground and round nuts, livestock, and poultry projects, thereby increasing income streams. Capacity-building programs designed to increase the knowledge about climate change impacts, how they can adapt, and what the projects were intended to do to increase their adaptive capacity and become resilient to food insecurity complemented the three projects.

Capacity-building programs

From the in-depth interviews, the study found that the ENSURE program began with capacity-building management, workshops on project management, information sharing about climate change, and its terminologies to ensure that communities understand in their local language. This increased their climate change awareness, risk factors, and vulnerability to climate change impacts. They understood vulnerability in their local language because one of the participants was asked to stand in the sun without an umbrella in one of the workshops. They understood vulnerability as kuyanikika (exposure). They understood the climatic challenges they faced as zvigozhero. In a DRR workshop, beneficiaries understood DRR in their local language, as kuderedza matambudziko munharaunda (reducing challenges or dangers in the local environment). Risk was understood as a fumuro ku ngozi (exposure to danger). They also understood early warning systems and how they can prepare for disasters such as floods or drought. Capacity-building workshops helped deepen their understanding of climate change and the actions they needed to take to increase their ability to respond. One participant said CARE has taught us a lot about the changes in climate and what we should do to survive. This is very important for us so that we know when and what to plant.

Project management was also covered in the capacity-building workshops where communities were involved in decision-making from problem identification to design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Beneficiaries were allowed to put into practice the knowledge learned. For instance, they came together to list 10 challenges they face in the order of priority. The central issue that affected communities was water shortage, and they suggested that a dam would solve their challenge. CARE then partnered with communities in building small dams, suggesting the transfer and sharing of power between NGOs and rural communities, essential in building adaptive capacity. Other training programs for human capacity building included conservation agriculture, livestock production, post-harvest and handling, nutrition, water, and sanitation. Communities adopted new production strategies such as water harvesting technologies.

Partnership approach using local resources

From the capacity-building workshops, a partnership approach was established. CARE partnered with the community to construct a small dam. Although this study focused on CARE Zimbabwe’s ENSURE program, findings from FGDs revealed that NGOs operating in the district, including Christian Care, Aquaculture Zimbabwe, Plan International, and World Vision, were partnering with communities in similar projects. This agrees with arguments in the literature that tackling climate change requires a collective effort between institutions and the local people (Drakaki et al., 2022; Jiri and Mafongoya, 2017). In the dam project, CARE provided the technical expertise (Engineer), materials, and equipment, while the communities provided the labor. In this partnership, communities used knowledge from project management to design and implement the projects. The members formed committees to run the projects. Women formed most committee members, and this researcher witnessed first-hand women taking charge of the projects in Ward 16. This was novel because women traditionally never led any project; men did. While communities provided the labor in the construction of the nutritional garden, CARE provided pipes, technical personnel, cement, fences, and poles.

Findings from FGDs indicated that beneficiaries built the garden, toilet with a hand washing unit, and ponds to draw water from, and connected the pipes with technical guidance from CARE and Agritex, Mechanization Department for Irrigation. In the Agriculture and Economic Development project, beneficiaries had the opportunity to apply the skills they learned from the workshops on how to effectively run an enterprise, such as community-based microfinance projects, different poultry projects, get involved in producer groups and nutritional gardens where they would get vegetables for consumption and sale and increase their incomes. Such partnerships are what Drakaki et al. (2022) call sustainable partnerships that contribute toward sustainable development.

The partnership between CARE and communities, known to beneficiaries as Mushandirapamwe (Working Together) in DRR, is more than a collaboration. To them, partnership in ENSURE is known as ndezvedu (this is ours), suggesting a sense of ownership of the projects through working collectively. The key theme in all participants’ responses on ENSURE was that CARE had changed and that the ENSURE program recognized them as people who can contribute to their community development given the opportunity, knowledge, skills, and resources. One participant said CARE has changed from how it was before. They used to give us food and now they are making us work for our community. They recognized CARE as a partner in ENSURE, which is evidence of the success of the partnership approach. These findings align with the literature on partnerships, where scholars advocate for collective action through partnerships (Drakaki et al., 2022). CARE key informant highlighted that they used the local term “mushandirapamwe” to ensure that beneficiaries understand and take up the idea of collective participation. In as much as beneficiaries were aware of the partnership, there is no evidence from participants to suggest that beneficiaries agreed to the partnership. Instead, it was CARE telling beneficiaries what was going to happen. This may suggest power dynamics at play where beneficiaries cannot question NGOs imposing on communities how things were to be done, suggesting unequal top-down partnerships where NGOs have control over the programming processes and beneficiaries lack the power to question NGO decisions. The findings agree with observations by Osei (2017) that in Ghana, beneficiaries could not question NGOs’ decisions for fear of losing NGO support. However, this could also be a form of participation, an information-sharing stage, where the NGO explains to beneficiaries how the project would be rolled out to avoid confusion and ensure that all stakeholders know the specific details about the program.

From the workshops and training, communities could identify community resources, which to them is known as kushanda nezvatinazvo (working with what we have), including using manure instead of fertilizer. The researcher observed heaps of manure in the garden and the Chairperson explained how they collect leaves from the environment and mix them with vegetable and banana leaves to make manure. They understood that they had money generated from microfinance schemes, ukama (social relations), traditions, simba redu (our labor), zviwanikwa (natural resources from the environment), and their local knowledge, beliefs, and practices. These findings resonate with findings by Green and Goetting (2010) that rural people are endowed with resources they do not know they have. Within the sustainable development paradigm, local resources play a crucial role in achieving sustainable community development at the local level (Dahie, 2019). This emphasis on local resources inspired in them a sense of optimism and hope in tackling climate change at a local level.

Putnum’s three social capital concepts of bonding, bridging, and linking applied to the study. In terms of bonding, the ENSURE program brought them together as households and communities. The program allowed communities in different wards to build the dam and construct the nutritional garden. Bridging social capital permitted community members to interact and network with others from various wards. However, this may also bring conflicts as they fail to relate with each other, mainly when working in the garden. Using the Constitution as a legal document and project management knowledge and skills may help reduce conflicts. Regarding linking social capital, CARE connected communities with external institutions, including local authorities and markets, for their produce. However, some government institutions such as Agritex and the Department of Irrigation, while they exist in rural centers, are often limited in terms of resources such as fuel to visit rural communities, and remote areas tend to suffer more because of lack of access. One key informant alluded that government institutions usually do not have functional equipment to help the communities. For instance, when a pump breaks down, the Department of Irrigation may be unable to replace it immediately; sometimes, it never does. In such cases, there is a need to increase the political will of the government to formulate a policy and allocate resources to address such issues.

Building resilience within a changing climate

For most beneficiaries, understanding resilience revolves around what they know as “being strong” to respond and recover from any climate shocks. Participants indicated that the ENSURE program had given them the power and assets to tackle food insecurity in their district. One beneficiary said

We now have our dam as a community where we get water for garden and livestock, we get vegetables to eat and sell, and we have many projects such as mikando (microfinance) and poultry projects giving us money for our microfinance. We also have ruzivo (knowledge). We are strong now.

This aligns with Frankenberger et al. (2012) resilience framework, which emphasizes access to productive assets, tangible and not, that generate income and appreciate over time, institutional structures, and processes. The program has created productive assets such as small dams, nutritional gardens, microfinance, and poultry projects that meet the current needs of the communities. Having a dam means that communities can rely on the dam for irrigation during drought seasons and future generations may benefit from the same resource. This is preparedness and prevention in the Frankenberger framework. A key element of sustainability critical in developing resilience, identified by Frankenberger et al. (2012) is the aspect of developing institutional structures and processes, such as having a committee and a constitution in every project. Findings revealed that each project had a committee to manage it. There were more women than men in each of the committees surveyed, suggesting gender equity in community projects. The constitution is a legal document developed by groups involved in microfinance schemes. The constitution spelled out how the project would work. The same document was used in the garden project, where the members came together and agreed on how the garden would function, the rules each member should respect, and how violations would be dealt with. The Police department ratified the constitution as a legal document. Having a committee and constitution increases ownership and participation in decision-making, contributing to the long-term sustainability of projects.

A critical element in Frankenberger’s resilience framework is that of capacity. Findings revealed that the program developed absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities summarized in the table below:

Absorptive	Adaptive	Transformative
Bonding social capital, Collective action, social cohesion	Bridging social capital	Linking social capital
Microfinance	Education and training	Availability of markets
Asset creation—dam and garden assets	Microfinance	Gender equity
Disaster preparedness	Decision-making	Institutions—Local government, EMA, Agritex, Department of Irrigation
	Safety nets—supplementary feeding	DRR committees to the Civil Protection Unit

EMA: Environmental Management Agency.

To build absorptive capacity so as to minimize exposure, ENSURE created opportunities for people to interact, creating bonds and networks to rely on during times of crisis. They interacted in village loans and savings (microfinance), working together and creating bonds during community asset creation—building dams and gardens promoting social cohesion and collectivism. Thus, the first line of response was created in the community because of the bonds created. In practice, they would turn to each other before the Civil Protection Unit (CPU) or donors, which is more sustainable. Disaster preparedness was also part of preventive measures, including weather forecasting and early warning. In terms of adaptive capacities, the program opened opportunities for diversified livelihoods, increasing income streams through FAB, microfinance, poultry projects, education, knowledge, and skills received during capacity-building workshops reinforced their ability to respond and recover from climate shocks. Microfinance schemes provided people experiencing poverty with capital to start small businesses. CARE key informant highlighted that ENSURE influenced some aspects of transformative capacities. For example, the program created links with the outside markets for garden produce. The program linked DRR committees that were created at the community level to provide information to the civil protection unit at the district level. However, the program failed to influence structural changes at the national level to have the DRR committees recognized and included in the policy. This is an issue of concern raised by Macheka (2024).

Thus, the program strengthened the economic, social, financial, cultural, and political assets essential to building resilience (Mehryar, 2022). Economically, ENSURE created community assets through dams and gardens; financially, multiple income streams were created through producer groups, microfinance, poultry, and FAB to purchase productive assets at the household level. Socially, the program created networks they can use and rely on in times of need and disasters. Findings from in-depth interviews revealed that ENSURE made participants realize the value of their nutritious indigenous foods. One participant said we used to look down upon our traditional knowledge and food, but CARE has opened our eyes again western foods had killed us. The program linked them to markets outside their communities where they would sell their produce and poultry products. DRR committees were created locally, and linkages with CPU enhanced their political capacity. Their physical participation in dam construction and nutritional gardens reinforced their adaptive capacity to become resilient. Capacity-building projects complemented the capacities in that communities acquired knowledge about the changing climate, project management, and DRR early warning systems, as well as skills to manage and preserve the dam and its environment. The skills they gained helped them take care of their environment and community assets, such as building ridges around the dam to prevent siltation. To CARE key informants, these are the building blocks to resilience, and adaptive capacity is a pillar of resilience. According to Frankenberger et al. (2012), the extent to which capacities have been enhanced results in two pathways: resilience and vulnerability. Findings revealed that resilience outcomes included food security, adequate nutrition, and environmental security. Stunting reduced from 33% in 2017 to 26.3% in 2018 (ZimVAC, 2018).

Conclusion and recommendations

This paper sets out to understand how CARE’s ENSURE program in the Zaka district is building the resilience of rural communities to respond to and recover from climate-related shocks. The article asserts that CARE is responding to and moving beyond the criticisms of marginality, dependency, lack of participation, empowerment, and sustainability. Findings revealed that CARE attempts to transcend the aforementioned concerns by shifting its focus from a single project to implementing an integrated program with three projects that combine local and modern knowledge to boost the adaptive capacity of people in rural Zaka, thereby strengthening their resilience to the shocks engendered by climatic shocks. Through a partnership approach, the ENSURE program increased the absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities. The program promoted the active involvement of beneficiaries in the project’s design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. As the article argues, such an approach should be read as an empowering process that increases ownership of projects and promotes the sustainability of projects. CARE’s capacity-building workshops were designed to share knowledge and information on climate change impacts and project management, enhancing rural communities’ adaptive capacity to become resilient to future climate shocks. CARE’s ENSURE program enhanced resilience by strengthening networks and relations, economically creating community assets, financially increasing income streams, ecologically addressing food insecurity challenges, and disaster preparedness. These insights can be taken as best practices that have the potential to be replicated elsewhere in and beyond Zimbabwe. This article argues that CARE’s program has reconfigured the climate action landscape in rural Zimbabwe by adopting bottom-up and participatory interventions that enhance sustainable resilience to climatic shocks. The ENSURE project in the Zaka district ended in 2020, so further research is required to assess the resilience of communities after NGO withdrawal from the area to confirm or refute the findings of this paper. There is a need to understand the response and recovery after experiencing another climate shock. The paper recommends that instead of working as independent NGOs, which does not fully promote the long-term sustainability of projects, NGOs should collaborate and pull resources with other NGOs and implement solid integrated programs that empower communities to become resilient and transform their lives. The paper further recommends climate policy reforms that include DRR committees’ responses at the ward level. At the same time, the government should ensure that DRR committees are recognized in the Civil Protection Unit Act.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kiriana Dube

Author biography

Kiriana Dube is a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Africana Studies at University of Pennsylvania. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Johannesburg in South Africa in 2020. Her teaching and research interests include vulnerability, climate change and resilience. She can be contacted at kiridubs@gmail.com

References

Adem

Deering

Molla

(2017) Building adaptive communities through integrated programming: CARE Ethiopia’s experience with Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA). In: Filho

Belay

Kalangu

, et al (eds) Climate Change Adaptation in Africa: Fostering Resilience and Capacity to Adapt. London: Springer, pp. 217–234.

Angula

Kaundjua

(2016) The changing climate and human vulnerability in North-Central Namibia. Jamba Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 8(2): 1–7.

Appe

(2019) Reflections on sustainability and resilience in the NGO sector. Administrative Theory and Praxis 41(3): 307–317.

Ashmawy

IKI

(2021) Stakeholder involvement in community resilience: evidence from Egypt. Environment, Development and Sustainability 23(5): 7996–8011.

Banerjee

Jackson

(2017) Microfinance and the business of poverty reduction: critical perspectives from rural Bangladesh. Human Relations 70(1): 63–91.

Banks

Hulme

Edwards

(2015) NGOs, states, and donors revisited: still too close for comfort?’ World Development 66: 707–718.

Baruah

(2015) NGOs as intermediaries in post-disaster rural reconstruction: findings from research in India. Development in Practice 25(7): 951–965.

Bauer

Scholz

(2010) Adaptation to climate change in Southern Africa: new boundaries for sustainable development? Climate and Development 2(2): 83–93.

Brazier

(2015) Climate Change in Zimbabwe Facts for Planners and Decision-Makers. Harare: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

10.

CARE Zimbabwe (2014) Gender Analysis Report. Harare: CARE Zimbabwe.

11.

CARE Zimbabwe (2018) Ensure Mid term Report.

12.

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

13.

Dahie

(2019) Role of nongovernmental organizations on poverty reduction: empirical study from local NGOs in Mogadishu-Somalia. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences 7(1): 43–55.

14.

Drakaki

Kovacs

Tzionas (2023) No one stands alone: partnerships for community resilience. Natural Hazards (116): 1433–1462.

15.

Dube

(2021) A review of the strategies used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to reduce vulnerability in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Social Work 11(6): 371–378.

16.

Ensor

Berger

(2009) Understanding Climate Change Adaptation. Warwickshire: Practical Action: London.

17.

Fitzpatrick

Molloy

(2014) The role of NGOs in building sustainable community resilience. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 5(3): 292–304.

18.

Frankenberger

Constas

Nelson

, et al (2014) Approaches to resilience programming among nongovernmental organizations: lessons for policymakers. Food policy report - International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

19.

Frankenberger

Spangler

Nelson

, et al (2012) Enhancing Resilience to Food Security Shocks in Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper (7 November 2012).

20.

Green

Goetting

(2010) Mobilizing Communities: Asset Building as a Community Development Strategy. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Hamukwala

Muuka

Wheelock

, et al (2008) “NGO project managers” perception of the sustainability of development projects: empirical evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African Business 9(1): 191–217.

22.

Harvey

Jones

Cochrane

, et al (2019) The evolving landscape of climate services in sub-Saharan Africa: what roles have NGOs played? Climatic Change 157: 81–98.

23.

Holling

(1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 4: 1–23.

24.

IFAD (2015) How to measure climate resilience. Niger project for the promotion of local initiatives for development.

25.

Jiri

Mafongoya

(2017) A synthesis of smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change in Southern Africa: averting adaptation vacuum. In: Filho

Simane

Kalangu

, et al (eds) Climate Change Adaptation in Africa: Fostering Resilience and Capacity to Adapt. London: Springer, pp. 247–265.

26.

Kamara

Agho

Renzaho

AMN

(2019) Combating recurrent hazards: evidence from rural Lesotho and Eswatini—a qualitative study. Environmental Hazards 19: 421–441.

27.

Khan

Ali

(2015) NGOs and disaster risk reduction in Pakistan. In: Rahman AU, Khan A and Shaw R (eds) Disaster Risk Reduction Approaches in Pakistan. Japan: Springer, pp. 281–294.

28.

Lassa

(2018) Roles of non-government organizations in disaster risk reduction. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-45 (accessed 11 January 2025).

29.

Macheka

(2024) Climate change and ecological sustainability in Zimbabwe: interrogating the role of Higher Education Institutions in disaster management. Climate Resilience and Sustainability 3(2),: e68.

30.

Mavhura

(2018) Disaster risk reduction policy and management in Zimbabwe. In: Madu CN and Kuei CH (eds) Handbook of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 589–612.

31.

Meding

Oyedele

Cleland

, et al (2011) Mapping NGO competency to reduce human vulnerability in post-disaster communities. International Journal of the Humanities: Annual Review 8(11): 119–138.

32.

Mehryar

(2022) What is the difference between climate change adaptation and resilience? The London School of Economics and Political Science, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Available at: lse.ac.uk (accessed 31 May 2024).

33.

Merid

Emirie

Simane

(2017) Local climate change perceptions and adaptation strategies in East Gojjam zone, Northwestern Ethiopia: anthropological approach. In: Filho

Belay

Kalangu

, et al (eds) Climate change adaptation in Africa: fostering resilience and capacity to adapt. London: Springer, pp. 567–586.

34.

Mondal

Chowdhury

Basu

(2015) Role of non-governmental organizations in disaster management. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6: 1485–1489.

35.

Musa

Umar

(2017) Advancing the resilience of rural people to climate change through indigenous best practices: experience from northern Nigeria. In: Filho

Belay

Kalangu

, et al (eds) Climate Change Adaptation in Africa: Fostering Resilience and Capacity to Adapt. London: Springer, pp. 109–124.

36.

Ngwenya

Oosthuizen

Cross

, et al (2018) A review of heat stress policies in the context of climate change and its impacts on outdoor workers: evidence from Zimbabwe. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD) 9(1): 1–11.

37.

OCHA (2024) Zimbabwe: drought flash appeal May 2024–April 2025 (May 2024) | OCHA. Available at: unocha.org (accessed 6 July 2024).

38.

Osei

(2017) Self-help without the self: critique of non-governmental organizational approaches to rural development in Ghana. International Social Work 60(2): 494–506.

39.

Patton

(2005) Qualitative research. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa514

40.

Pelling

(2011) Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. London: Routledge.

41.

Pertiwi

Llewellyn

Villeneuve

(2019) People with disabilities as key actors in community-based disaster risk reduction. Disability and Society 34(9–10): 1419–1444.

42.

Rahman

(2021) Sustainability challenges of adaptation interventions: do the challenges vary with implementing organizations? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 26(7): 31.

43.

Sahoo

(2013) Doing development or creating dependency? NGOs and cvil society in India. South Asian Studies 36(2): 258–272.

44.

Siders

(2019) Adaptive capacity to climate change: a synthesis of concepts, methods, and findings in a fragmented field. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10(3): e573.

45.

Simane

(2013) The sustainability of community-based adaptation in the choke mountain watersheds, Blue Nile highlands, Ethiopia. Sustainability 5(1): 1–24.

46.

Smit

Pilifosova

(2003) Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. Sustainable Development 8(9): 880–912.

47.

Smith

(2015) Rethinking dependency and development between international and indigenous non-governmental organisations. Development in Practice 25(2): 259–269.

48.

Tahiru

Sackey

Owusu

, et al. (2019) Building the adaptive capacity for livelihood improvements of Sahel Savannah farmers through NGO-led adaptation interventions. Climate Risk Management 26(2019): 100197.

49.

TANGO International (2018) Methodological Guide: A Guide for Calculating Resilience Capacity. TANGO International. Available at: https://www.resiliencelinks.org/system/files/download-count/documents/2019-08/methodology_guide_nov2018508_0.pdf.

50.

Yin

(2003) Applications of Case Study Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

51.

Zimbabwe Meteorological Services (2024) Climate Update. Available at: www.weatherzw.org.zw

52.

ZIMSTAT. Census 2022: National Report. Harare: Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency (ZIMSTAT), 2022.

53.

ZimVAC (2017/2018/2023) Rural Livelihoods Assessments. Harare: Zimbabwe Food and Nutrition Council.

Non-Governmental Organizations,Climate Change,and Resilience: A Case of CARE Zimbabwe’s ENSURE Program

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background and context

Resilience matters in climate change NGO programming

Role of NGOs in climate resilience—review of literature

Methodology

Findings and discussion

Vulnerability to climate change impacts

Role of CARE in building resilience of rural communities

CARE’s ENSURE program

Capacity-building programs

Partnership approach using local resources

Building resilience within a changing climate

Conclusion and recommendations

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biography

References