Beyond the Harvest: Why Resilience in Eastern DRC Requires More Than Just Seeds

On November 27, 2025, in Chiriri village in South Kivu, a Community Scorecard session was abruptly interrupted. Armed elements linked to the M23/Wazalendo security crisis advanced, and the evaluation team had to evacuate under FAO security orders. Bombs detonated in nearby Walungu Centre hours later.

This is the operational reality of building food systems resilience in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

In a context defined by displacement, land conflict, and market isolation, resilience is not an abstract theory. It is whether a woman can still feed her children when roads close. It is whether farmers can resolve disputes without violence. It is whether local civil society organizations remain when international actors must withdraw.

The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (Global Agriculture and Food Security Program) was designed to scale agriculture globally. But in fragile contexts like eastern DRC, scaling production alone is not enough. The recent qualitative review of the GAFSP-supported RENUGL/MNHP intervention, implemented through an ActionAid-led Consortium including ESAFF, AsiaDHRRA, and COSADH, offers a critical lesson for donors and policymakers: resilience requires a Production–Market–Security framework, not a production-only model.

The Reality on the Ground: Trust Shock in a Fragile Food System

Eastern DRC sits at the heart of the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus. Agricultural productivity is undermined not only by climate variability, but by armed group movements, land disputes, and weak infrastructure.

When the M23 crisis escalated, international supervision mechanisms were forced into security compliance. Yet local Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), such as, SAFEKA, APV, JSD, AVUDS, and CARITAS, remained. Their staff live in the communities they serve. They do not “evacuate” from their own homes. This distinction matters. In fragile environments, local CSOs are not implementing partners. They are resilience anchors.

The Power of Farmer Field Schools and VSLAs

The evaluation engaged 164 smallholders across South Kivu and Tanganyika. The qualitative findings, captured through Community Scorecards and key informant interviews as well as Case studies, give human depth to the World Bank’s quantitative indicators. Numbers measure outputs. Stories reveal durability.

Across both provinces, Farmer Field Schools (CEP) created a “knowledge-to-yield” pathway. Farmers reported moving from random sowing to technical spacing and organic fertilization. Five out of seven community groups reported significant yield increases. One woman in Walungu described how three kilos of beans that once yielded four kilos now yielded up to thirteen.

“I was really discouraged from farming: when I planted 3 kilos of beans, I only harvested 4. But after the training and support from the agronomist, I sowed the same 3 kilos… and I harvested 10. For me, it is an extraordinary exploit.” — Domitille Mitima, Woman Participant, Chahunda, Walungu.

Bio-fortified maize and beans shifted dietary diversity. Kitchen gardens expanded micronutrient intake. Women consistently reported more varied meals and fewer hunger gaps. But productivity alone does not define resilience. Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs/AVECs) emerged as the most powerful stabilizer. They financed school fees, medical emergencies, and small businesses. They absorbed shocks. They changed household power dynamics. One male participant admitted that when his wife took a VSLA loan to buy a goat for a family obligation, she “saved us from shame.” That statement is not anecdotal, it signals a shift in gendered power relations and dignity.

My wife quickly brought a solution by taking a debt of 150,000 Congolese francs from her AVEC group [to buy a goat for a family wedding]. Henceforth, my wife has a special place in my family because she saved us from shame.” — Xavier Iragi Tabaro, Men’s CSC, Chiriri.

Yet the data also reveals the “double burden.” Women are now farming more productively, managing savings groups, and still carrying unpaid care work. Empowerment without redistribution of labor risks exhaustion, not transformation.

Social Cohesion Before Seeds

In Tanganyika, agricultural distribution was impossible until ethnic tensions between Bantu and Batwa communities were addressed. Dimitra Clubs (community dialogue platforms) created neutral spaces for reconciliation. Shared gardens became shared interests. In South Kivu, these same structures mediated farmer-herder disputes through negotiated local codes of conduct. In conflict zones, peacebuilding is not a parallel activity, it is a prerequisite to agriculture. The Nexus is not rhetorical here. Without the Peace component, the Development component fails.

The Market Gap: The Missing Middle

Despite yield gains, market access remains constrained. Farmers described their markets as “retressi” (restricted). High transport costs, insecurity, and absence of organized collection points trap producers in “subsistence plus.” The intended pathway;

Training → Yield Increase → Marketable Surplus → Income

stalls between surplus and income. Production rises; commercialization does not.

The project also faced a “trust shock” when a promised $1,000 VSLA acceleration fund was abruptly halted due to funding and security shifts. Some women had rented land on credit in anticipation. Without predictable financing, vulnerability deepened. 

This is the central lesson: resilience collapses when financial flows are unpredictable in fragile contexts.

Why Qualitative Evidence Matters

For donors accustomed to metrics, 30,000 households targeted, 184 VSLAs formed, 400 Farmer Field Schools established, qualitative data may appear secondary. It is not. Qualitative evidence captures the human soul of the numbers. It reveals the psychological shift when a woman gains financial agency. It exposes reputational risks when funds stop abruptly. It surfaces gender workload increases that quantitative dashboards cannot detect. It also reveals a critical institutional insight, local CSOs maintain the “resilience floor” when international partners must evacuate. 

Strengthening direct fiduciary relationships with them is not charity, it is risk management.

A Call to Action: From Production-Only to Production–Market–Security

If GAFSP’s goal is global agricultural scaling, the DRC offers a warning and an opportunity.

First, scale must include market infrastructure, collection points, aggregation systems, small-scale mechanization, and transport corridors, otherwise increased yields remain trapped in subsistence.

Second, funding streams must be synchronized and predictable in fragile environments. Two-speed disbursements between supervising entities undermine community trust.

Third, investments must explicitly account for the double burden on women. Household dialogue modules, labor redistribution strategies, and small-scale power tools can prevent empowerment from becoming overwork.

Fourth, local CSOs should be treated as core system actors, not peripheral contractors. Ring-fenced contingency funds managed at local level can preserve continuity during security shocks.

Finally, the Nexus must be operationalized, not cited. In eastern DRC, peacebuilding precedes planting. Financial inclusion protects harvests. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture saves lives.

Beyond the harvest lies the harder question: can we design agricultural investments that survive insecurity, strengthen markets, and redistribute power?

If the answer is yes, it will not come from seeds alone. It will come from listening to Chiriri, where resilience was tested under evacuation, and from reimagining scale not just as hectares planted, but as systems stabilized.

That is the future GAFSP must invest in.