addressing methodological challenges: measuring resilience + international coherence juliet field...

Addressing methodological challenges: measuring resilience + international coherence

Juliet FieldClimate and Environment Dept

Where fits with TAMD framework

Resilie

nce

mea

sure

–

hh/co

mm

unity

leve

l

Under Track 1 the framework measures how well adaptation programmes have led to the

integration of climate risk management into development

processes

Under Track 2 the framework measures the extent to which adaptation programmes have led to positive development

outcomes

Measuring Resilience

Resilience measure

Project inputs

Project outputs

Outcome = improved

resilience of beneficiaries

Impacts (loss

and well-being indicators)

Climate hazards

Theory of change: without the programme beneficiaries would have been less resilient to climate hazards and therefore performance of development indicators (e.g.

income, deaths) would be worse than in the with programme scenario

• Measure underlying factors that make people likely to experience negative effects when they are exposed to stresses or shocks

• If these factors are identified they can be targeted by the project and monitored regularly even in the absence of the shock

• Link in a TOC where resilience is a project outcome that contributes to impact of improvement in well being in the face of climate change

Resilience method – in brief

Step 1: Define resilience context (of whom, to what, for what)

Step 2: Identify key resilience factors – participatory methods Step 3: Quantitative and qualitative indicators based on factors, separated by dimensions (convert to scores where aggregated)

Proposed dimensions of resilience

Assets Safety nets

Access to services Livelihood viability

Adaptive Capacity Institutional and governance context

Income and food access

Natural and built infrastructure context

Personal circumstances

Resilience measure cont.

Step 4: Link in a flexible TOC to project outputs and impacts – describe processes and mechanisms

Step 5:Identify any confounding factors

Step 6: Sampling methodology

Step 7: Calculate numbers with improved resilience

Step 8: Attribution – control groups, feedback etc.

Project inputs

Project outputs

Outcome = improved


Impacts (loss


Climate hazards



Piloting the method (BRACED)

• Flexibly adapt method to all BRACED projects (21 shortlisted) at the same time

• KM support to apply• Project and programme evaluations will provide contextual

information, validate and triangulate (incl experimental methods)

Project inputs

Project outputs

Outcome = improved


Impacts (loss


Climate hazards



Mon

itorin

g du

ring

proj

ect

lif

etim

e

Long

tim

efra

mes

Resilience measure – challenges addressed


Project inputs

Project outputs

Outcome = improved


Impacts (loss


Climate hazards


income, deaths) would be worse than in the with programme scenario Can

mon

itor

with

out

wai

ting

for

a cl

imat

e ha

zard

to

occu

r

Project inputs

Project outputs

Outcome = improved


Impacts (loss


Climate hazards



Attribution easier – shorter timeframes

Attribution harder


Resilience measure – additional benefits

Project inputs

Project outputs

Outcome = improved


Impacts (loss


Climate hazards



Predictive link and accountability

Con

text

sp

ecifi

c

Areas still to address

• Designed primarily with community level projects in mind, theoretically applicable for institution building (track one) but need to determine sampling approach etc.

• Link between resilience outcomes and impact on well being• Determining which resilience factors directly attributable to

project outputs and which not (controlling for confounding factors)

• Applying to mainstreamed climate programmes (e.g. Significant rather than Principal)

International approaches to ada M and E

• International coherence on methodological challenges and adaptation m and e

• Relevant to GCF adaptation framework design• Emerging thinking on a set of suggested principles for

international approaches• Feedback welcome

International approaches to ada M and E

• Ensures coherence of internationally funded programmes with the priorities determined in countries own national adaptation planning processes.

• Builds on and reflects country results frameworks. • Uses both qualitative (e.g. scorecard approaches) and

quantitative indicators to track both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ results.• Ensures that results are disaggregated across all areas so

that impacts for the most vulnerable e.g. poverty levels and women and girls, are recorded.

• Allows the framework to evolve along with concepts and definitions (e.g. resilience).

• Allows ‘mainstreamed’ approaches to be tracked

Principles for international approaches?

Principles for international approaches?

• Allows some aggregation of results in areas recognised as important to achieve climate resilience, an illustrative list of ‘strategic areas’’ are:i) Knowledge, and awareness; information availability and usage;ii) Capacity and institutions; including level of mainstreaming, and delivery abilityiii) Enabling environment: policy, regulation and standardsiv) Financial flows: domestic and international, public and private and leverage; andv) Quantitative impacts: number of people helped to cope, increased resilience/reduced vulnerability, value of assets protected, hectares restored etc.

addressing methodological challenges: measuring resilience + international coherence juliet field...

Documents