Presentation of Resilience and Risk Management, economics homework help

User Generated

gnzre9

Economics

Description

I want a presentation with the notes about these 4 files that I attached.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper Ethiopia: camels replacing cattle While cattle and goats become emaciated in times of drought and no longer produce milk, camels are capable of surviving long periods without water and their milk provides a crucial source of nutrition. By herding camels, pastoralists are adapting and maintaining their traditional way of life. Picture: Tim Waites/DFID 2 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper CONTENTS Contents Foreword 4 1. Introduction 5 2. What is disaster resilience? 6 2.1 Defining resilience 6 2.2 How resilient is a country, community or household? 7 3. What do DFID disaster resilience programmes look like? 10 3.1 Conflict and fragility 10 3.2 Resilience-building interventions 11 3.3 Cost-effectiveness of building resilience to disasters 13 4. How will DFID take disaster resilience forward? 14 5. What can DFID contribute to the disaster resilience agenda? 16 Annex 1: Useful reading 18 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 3 FOREWORD Foreword In 2010 natural disasters affected more than 200 million, killed nearly 270,000 people and caused $110 billion in damages. In 2011, we faced the first famine of the 21st Century in parts of the Horn of Africa and multiple earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters across the world. The World Bank predicts that the frequency and intensity of disasters will continue to increase over the coming decades. The June 2011 UK Government Response to the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review presented disaster resilience as ‘a new and vital component [of our] humanitarian and development work.’1 Building on this, the UK Government’s Humanitarian Policy, Saving lives, preventing suffering and building resilience, puts resilience at the centre of our approach to addressing disasters, both natural and man-made. This includes commitments to embed resilience-building in all DFID country programmes by 2015, integrate resilience into our work on climate change and conflict prevention and improve the coherence of our development and humanitarian work. Bangladesh: small changes make a big difference The women in this photo are trained in how to feed, house and prevent disease among their ducks. Small changes, like rearing ducks instead of chickens, will help families to maintain a livelihood during the monsoon season. Picture: Zul Mukhida/Practical Action. 1 www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/hum-emer-resp-rev-uk-gvmt-resp.pdf?epslanguage=en 4 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction Adopting resilience as our core approach to tackling disasters means identifying where different areas of our work can complement and enhance one another. This includes disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, social protection, working in fragile contexts and humanitarian preparedness and response. We will start by focusing on the key challenges: the need for common analysis that supports a coherent approach to risk; financing mechanisms that allow early, predictable and sustained commitments; early warning systems that lead to early action; political commitment among governments in countries at risk of disasters and donor agencies; and a stronger interface between development and humanitarian actors. Disaster resilience draws together several strands of DFID’s work, and in the wake of the ongoing global financial crisis has become a concern at the highest level. Increasing efforts are being made in social protection, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, aiming to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable communities in developing countries. There is increasing attention being paid to issues such as the resilience of macroeconomic growth2 and ‘crisis-proofing’ progress towards the MDGs3. At the same time, there has been a growing interest in how principles of resilience can be employed in conflict-affected and fragile states.4 This Approach Paper is intended to inform the next phase of DFID’s work on resilience to both natural and man-made disasters,5 by providing a starting point for discussion within the Department and with our partners. Although the focus is on disasters, this is part of a wider process to mainstream resilience across all of DFID’s work which is being led by Policy Division. The paper begins with an outline of what resilience is and sets out a framework to improve understanding of the different elements to be considered in building resilience through DFID’s country operations. It then looks at a range of existing DFID resilience interventions at country and regional levels. The paper concludes by providing suggestions for what DFID can do to strengthen its work in this area and how it can provide strategic leadership across the international system. 2 www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2010/car051710a.htm ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_NATIVE_SEC_2009_0445_4_MDGS_EN.pdf 4 See 2009 European Development Report Background Paper: erd.eui.eu/media/BackgroundPapers/ERD-Background_Paper-Kaplan.pdf 5 This Approach Paper is based on a small-scale research process conducted in July 2011, with some 30 DFID staff and representatives of external partners consulted, and over 50 documents, books and reports reviewed. Details of external experts and essential documents can be found in Annex 1. 3 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 5 WHAT IS DISASTER RESILIENCE? 2. What is disaster resilience? 2.1 Defining resilience Resilience is the focus of a large and growing body of research. This work has sought to understand what the properties are that make a country, community or household resilient, to establish the principles and processes which strengthen resilience and to build the evidence for what projects and programmes really make people better able to withstand and recover from disasters. As a result of the research and its applications, the term resilience has acquired a range of definitions. Three widely cited examples are set out below6. Definitions of resilience “The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner” United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction “The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organisation, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change” The Resilience Alliance DFID has adopted a working definition: Disaster Resilience is the ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses - such as earthquakes, drought or violent conflict - without compromising their long-term prospects. This has been designed to support our latest thinking on resilience. It is intended to provide part of the basis for discussion, both internally and with our partners. Consequently, we are open to it developing and changing as these discussions progress. 6 For a more detailed discussion of different definitions and implications see the 2010 DFID funded report: The Resilience Renaissance community.eldis.org/.59e0d267/resilience-renaissance.pdf 6 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper WHAT IS DISASTER RESILIENCE? 2.2 How resilient is a country, community or household? Determining levels of resilience is an important part of understanding the concept. And most definitions of resilience share four common elements which can be used to do this: context; disturbance; capacity; and reaction. Together these elements form a resilience framework (see below) which can be used to examine different kinds of resilience (for example, of growth or of governance systems) and help determine the level of resilience that exists. The four elements of a resilience framework 1. Context 2. Disturbance e.g. social group, region, institution. e.g. natural hazard, conflict, insecurity, food shortage, high fuel prices. Shocks 3. Capacity to deal with disturbance Exposure 4. Reaction to disturbance e.g. Survive, cope, recover, learn, transform. Bounce back better Bounce back System or Process Sensitivity Stresses Adaptive capacity Recover but worse than before Collapse Resilience of what? Resilience to what? The framework above is a simplified representation of the elements to be considered when examining resilience. In practice the picture is more complex: the response curve could be slow and uneven due to, for example, the political context, secondary shocks or lack of information. Stresses can be cumulative, building slowly to become a shock, and both shocks and stresses may result in a number of different reactions. Each element of the resilience framework is explored below with specific reference to disaster resilience. Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 7 WHAT IS DISASTER RESILIENCE? Context Resilience should always be clearly contextualised – allowing a coherent answer to the question ‘resilience of what?’ Resilience can be identified and strengthened in a social group, socio-economic or political system, environmental context or institution. Each of these systems will display greater or lesser resilience to natural or man-made disasters. More work is needed to differentiate the significance of resilience for different social groups, resources and institutions across a range of different contexts. Disturbance Once the system or process of interest is determined, the next stage is to understand the disturbances faced, addressing the question ‘resilience to what?’ These disturbances usually take two forms:  Shocks are sudden events that impact on the vulnerability of the system and its components. There are many different types of disaster-related shocks that can strike at different levels. These include disease outbreaks, weather-related and geophysical events including floods, high winds, landslides, droughts or earthquakes. There can also be conflict-related shocks such as outbreaks of fighting or violence, or shocks related to economic volatility.  Stresses are long-term trends that undermine the potential of a given system or process and increase the vulnerability of actors within it. These can include natural resource degradation, loss of agricultural production, urbanisation, demographic changes, climate change, political instability and economic decline. Of course, countries will often face multiple interconnected shocks and stresses. Capacity to deal with disturbance The ability of the system or process to deal with the shock or stress is based on the levels of exposure, the levels of sensitivity and adaptive capacities.  Exposure to risk is an assessment of the magnitude and frequency of shocks or the degree of stress. For example, exposure to conflicts could be measured by the size and frequency of violent events caused by conflict or fragility, or the extent of political instability in other factors such as rule of law or human rights.  Sensitivity is the degree to which a system will be affected by, or respond to, a given shock or stress. This can vary considerably for different actors within a system. For example, women accounted for up to 80% of those who died during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and death rates among women were almost four times higher than those among men in the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone. Limited mobility, skills set and social status exacerbated sensitivity to the shock.  The adaptive capacities of actors – individuals, communities, regions, governments, organisations or institutions – are determined by their ability to adjust to a disturbance, moderate potential damage, take advantage of opportunities and cope with the consequences of a transformation. Adaptive capacities allow actors to anticipate, plan, react to, and learn from shocks or stresses. 8 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper WHAT IS DISASTER RESILIENCE? Sensitivity and adaptive capacity are determined by the pool of assets and resources that can be mobilised in the face of shocks and stresses. Assets and resources can be social, human, technological, physical, economic, financial, environmental, natural, and political. Whether a system or a process is resilient is a function of its sensitivity and adaptive capacity. The other side to this is vulnerability - the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, the adverse effects of shocks and stresses. Reaction to disturbance In the best case, the reaction to a shock or stress might be a ‘bounce back better’ for the system or process concerned. In this case capacities are enhanced or sensitivities and exposures are reduced, leaving a system that is more able to deal with future shocks and stresses (see below). An alternative reaction might be a ‘bounce back’ to a normal, preexisting condition, or to ‘recover, but worse than before’ – the latter resulting in reduced capacities. In the worst-case scenario, the system or process might not bounce back at all, but ‘collapse’, leading to a catastrophic reduction in capacity to cope in the future. ‘Bounce back better’ The Zambezi Floodplain Management programme in Mozambique supports vulnerable communities to deal with persistent flooding of their farms. There has always been drought and flooding in this area, but in the last 10 years weather patterns have become more unpredictable. Instead of planting seeds in the main agricultural season in the lowlands, irrigation projects encourage farmers to plant in the highlands away from the floods. Alongside this, communities are helped to learn new skills which provide them with alternative sources of income. Communities decide on the kinds of livelihoods they want to develop and Save the Children provides training, technical support and funding to help them get started. Helping communities to grow crops all year and reduce their vulnerability to drought, whilst also diversifying livelihoods, increases their resilience to the effects of climate change. Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 9 WHAT DO DFID DISASTER RESILIENCE PROGRAMMES LOOK LIKE? 3. What do DFID disaster resilience programmes look like? To date, many humanitarian and development interventions supported by DFID have focused on individual elements of the resilience framework. For example, much disaster risk reduction work has focused on reducing sensitivity and exposure to particular shocks and stresses, while livelihoods work has focused on adaptive capacity, looking at assets and diversification of income. In DFID, and among its partner organisations, using resilience as a concept has enabled stronger dialogue and cross-fertilisation of ideas between different disciplines and programming areas. This has in some cases strengthened the harmonisation of different kinds of programmes – especially between disaster risk reduction, social protection and climate change adaptation (see below).7 Integration of disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and social protection Rwanda’s Vision 2020 Umurenge Program makes direct cash transfers to households without labour, connects poor households with an able-bodied member to public works and provides access to subsidised credit. The Vision 2020 Umurenge Program’s public works projects are dominated by anti-erosive ditches and ‘radical’ hillside terraces which explicitly aim at environmental protection. Such public works have clear disaster risk reduction, food security and climate change adaptation impacts as they reduce exposure and sensitivity to natural disasters – for example droughts and floods – improve soil productivity and increase the amount of land that can be cultivated. 3.1 Conflict and fragility Resilience has been applied more extensively in relation to natural disasters than to conflict and fragility, areas to which DFID can usefully take a consolidated approach. Work by International Alert indicates that the broader factors that enhance climate resilience are the same as those that enhance conflict resilience – including effective governance, equity and strong social contracts. A comprehensive approach to resilience across natural and conflict-related areas requires a focus on strengthening institutions at national, regional and local levels incorporating political, security, humanitarian and development considerations.8 This requires bringing together diverse disciplines, interests and groups to address the question: “What does disaster resilience look like in our context?” 7 The view of one external expert was frequently repeated: ‘resilience can act as a boundary term which facilitates cross-institutional and disciplinary dialogue and learning’. 8 erd.eui.eu/media/BackgroundPapers/ERD-Background_Paper-Kaplan.pdf 10 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper WHAT DO DFID DISASTER RESILIENCE PROGRAMMES LOOK LIKE? 3.2 Resilience-building interventions A key determinant of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity is the set of resources and assets that can be utilised in the face of a stress or shock. As such, resilienceenhancing activities can be usefully classified using the ‘assets pentagon’ from the sustainable livelihoods framework – social, human, physical, financial, and natural (see below). Types and levels of resilience building activities9 Social/ Human Technological/ Physical LEVELS OF INTERVENTION     Financial / Economic Global / regional National Municipal / local Community / household Political Environmental/ Natural However, the relationship between, for example, an environmental shock or stress and an environmental resilience intervention is not linear. Instead, as in the livelihoods approach, the full range of asset types needs to be considered when considering a resilience intervention. By classifying different interventions by type and level of operation, it is possible to map the existing portfolio of disaster resilience activities in a country or a region. DFID programmes that build resilience to disasters DFID is already doing valuable work in this area across a number of country and regional offices. This spans countries such as China, Bangladesh and Ethiopia and regions such as the Caribbean. Examples on page 12 show a range of these projects and programmes, ranging from rural livelihoods support to regional disaster insurance mechanisms and from pre-disaster household asset protection to housing upgrades. Interventions can also vary in scale, from global and regional level to that of communities and households. They can also focus on building disaster resilience before the shock or stress reaches a tipping point, during a disaster response, or after an event. 9 www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/2339.pdf Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 11 WHAT DO DFID DISASTER RESILIENCE PROGRAMMES LOOK LIKE? Examples of DFID projects on enhancing resilience to disasters DFID Ethiopia The Productive Safety Net Programme covers 7.8 million vulnerable people and has helped break the need for emergency food programmes by providing people with regular and predictable cash and food transfers. A new Risk Financing mechanism allows the Programme to expand in times of shock. This can for example increase the period of time over which an individual receives transfers (beyond the normal six months) or add more people to the programme. This mechanism is integral to protecting the asset base of households in times of shock and helps to prevent the programme from being diluted by beneficiaries sharing their transfers with non-participating households. DFID Bangladesh In 2008, the UK and Bangladesh signed a five year joint agreement to tackle climate change in which the UK committed funds to strengthen resilience to climate change. This included introducing enhanced early warning systems, raised plinths for villages to protect them from flooding, renovated embankments and roads, multipurpose cyclone shelters and climate-resilient crops. In the last six years, 66,000 homes on sand islands were raised onto earth platforms, protecting more than 400,000 people and their possessions from severe monsoon floods. DFID Africa Regional Department DFID is supporting the design and implementation of the Africa Risk Capacity, which will establish a pan-African disaster risk pool for food security. The initiative will provide participating countries with effective financial tools and funds to manage the risk of and respond to extreme weather events. The mechanism is being led by the Africa Union and the design phase managed by World Food Programme. DFID Pakistan DFID is supporting the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in school recovery programmes by the Health and Nutrition Development Society, Save the Children and others. This includes developing safety plans in schools, direct work with communities on awareness and training for how to respond to disasters. It also includes working with farmers to plant seeds resilient to flooding, mapping community vulnerabilities and providing flood-resistant seed storage so that communities can maintain food selfsufficiency and support to CARE and the Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development to build flood-resistant houses. These examples indicate a range of interventions which aim to ‘reduce vulnerability to disaster as a primary objective of the programme.’10 Many of these interventions are specifically targeted at addressing resilience to particular kinds of shocks and stresses. However, some programming – such as building education or health systems – might seek to enhance resilience more generally. 10 Andrew Clayton, Africa Resilience Note 12 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper WHAT DO DFID DISASTER RESILIENCE PROGRAMMES LOOK LIKE? 3.3 Cost-effectiveness of building disaster resilience Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of resilience-building activities is lacking in many areas. While economic appraisals of some aspects of resilience, such as community- based disaster risk reduction activities, have been carried out, other areas of resilience have had less cost-benefit analysis. More research is needed on the complementarities between strengthening disaster resilience and other development goals and on the costeffectiveness of individual investments, different financing arrangements and leveraging private sector financing. More work is also needed to set out the wider economic and financial evidence that could be used in support of more effective investment in disaster resilience to incentivise donors, partner governments, multilaterals and implementing agencies. Kenya: cash for work UK aid is helping provide a long-term ‘Safety Net’ programme to help people adapt and minimise the impact of drought. This includes providing regular work and secure income so families and communities can be better prepared to cope with future shocks and disasters. Picture: Thomas Omondi. Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 13 HOW WILL DFID TAKE DISASTER RESILIENCE FORWARD 4. How will DFID take disaster resilience forward? Previous mainstreaming efforts in DFID suggest that the priority country approach, to which the UK Government committed itself in its Response to the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review, is an appropriate one. The first round of priority countries, where work on resilience is already underway, consists of Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Bangladesh and Nepal. In Pakistan, Niger, Chad, South Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma, work to incorporate resilience is important but may include working through partners. The commitment to embed resilience in all DFID country programmes by 2015 requires the development of a timetable punctuated by measurable milestones. Implementation in country programmes should build on current activity and capacities and be tailored to the country context. In some country offices resilience will be mainstreamed through all sectors and programmes, in others it may be more appropriate to initially limit resilience-building to a particular sector or to embed resilience into specific projects and programmes. As better awareness and experience is developed, offices will mainstream resilience more widely and ensure that as a minimum requirement, no programming undermines resilience. There are further measures to be taken to meet the commitment to embed resilience in all DFID country programmes by 2015. We will: 1. Compile details of interventions that have successfully built disaster resilience in DFID countries and regions; 2. Develop minimum progress indicators for embedding resilience which all countries should meet as a 2015 objective. This process of determining appropriate indicators should be led by Country Offices and supported by regional departments and head office. 3. Share experiences and ideas across countries and regions. This will help to strengthen and accelerate the process and build the evidence base and business case for resilience-related investments. This might usefully include the establishment of a global resilience network to make links at country and regional levels. A set of principles, which can be expanded upon through dialogue within DFID and with partners, should guide DFID in meeting its disaster resilience commitments. 14 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper HOW WILL DFID TAKE DISASTER RESILIENCE FORWARD Principles for enhancing disaster resilience DFID’s resilience-building activities will:          Be anchored in national and local actors’ realities and contexts; Be shaped by local understanding and priorities – taking a tailored approach to both the specific Context and the Disturbance; Be owned at country level, in accordance with the Paris Declaration; Be iterative and flexible, with regular adaptations, revisions and check-backs; Understand and plan for the fact that women, children, older and disabled people and politically marginalised groups are disproportionally impacted; Take multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary approaches that bring together development and humanitarian efforts and that establish common ground between climate change adaptation, social protection, disaster risk reduction and work in fragile states; Be long-term and collaborative, building on local relations and new partnerships; Be consistent with international and national commitments such as Hyogo, state and peace building; Ensure that overall the intervention/response does not undermine resilience. Nepal: barriers to disaster Nepal is prone to natural hazards, of which flooding is the both the most common and most damaging. Building flood barriers from local stones, reeds and wood helps communities control the extent to which floods affect their lives in the future. Picture: Shradha Giri Bohora/Practical Action Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 15 WHAT CAN DFID CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISASTER RESILIENCE AGENDA? 5. What can DFID contribute to the disaster resilience agenda? There are a number of opportunities for strengthening how disaster resilience is taken forward by the international community. DFID can play a key role in the following areas: Financing Financing for disaster resilience work is inadequate and unpredictable. Recent evidence suggests that disaster risk reduction-related investments amount to only 1% of the $150 billion spent in the 20 countries that received the most humanitarian aid over the past five years - a ‘disastrously low’ amount.11 A coalition of interested donors, working through the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative, might be able to work towards better, more consistent and more predictable funding for disaster resilience. This could have both a global dimension (for example, pooled funds) and an operational dimension (to ensure effective resilience leadership in different disasters). Advocacy There is currently significant interest in the concept of resilience – this should be capitalised upon. In the humanitarian sphere, this means different actors need to make the case for resilience in the context of both new and ongoing emergencies. In the development sphere, resilience – both to disasters and more generally – should feature more strongly in the build-up to post-2015 / post-Millennium Development Goal policies. Networks Effective resilience-building requires better relationships between a range of actors: national governments, civil society, municipal and local authorities, communities, the private sector, scientists and national military and civil protection bodies. International actors such as United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and the World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery are also vital players, both as actors in their own right and as convenors. Knowledge and evidence Improved understanding of the processes that help to strengthen resilience at different levels is needed to inform methodologies for monitoring and evaluating impact and effectiveness. Research and evidence products such as case studies of resilience-related improvements and approaches to learning are needed. Studies that analyse the costbenefits of resilience and the value for money of different types of interventions are also needed, particularly at institutional, national and international levels. Integration The activities that address different aspects of resilience-building currently do so in silos, which limits the wider benefits. Work DFID has supported on adaptive social protection illustrates that targeted support can help break down these silos. This requires (1) research work on the benefits of bringing approaches together, (2) practical efforts on helping different institutions adapt to challenges of programming resilience and (3) adjustments to 11 www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/gha-report-2011.pdf 16 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper WHAT CAN DFID CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISASTER RESILIENCE AGENDA? the funding streams to ensure that resilience work does not fall through the cracks of different funding envelopes or donors’ organisational structures. It is also important that institutions themselves work collectively and in a cross-organisational way on resilience. Most importantly, this agenda needs to focus on uncovering how development and humanitarian work can complement and enhance each other. To paraphrase one of DFID’s partners in Bangladesh: ‘disaster resilience is everyone’s business’. Bangladesh: the lifeline of cyclone shelters The Government of Bangladesh has built local cyclone shelters in coastal areas. They provide a vital lifeline to villagers – and their livestock, which shelter in the open area on the ground floor during cyclones. Picture: Rafiqur Rahman Raqu/DFID Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 17 ANNEX 1 Annex 1: Useful reading Adger W.N. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24(3): 347-364. Bahadur, A et al (2010) The resilience renaissance? Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change http://community.eldis.org/.59e0d267/resilience-renaissance.pdf Côté IM, Darling ES (2010) Rethinking Ecosystem Resilience in the Face of Climate Change. PLoS Biol 8(7): e1000438 Dawson, T.P., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Chobotová, V. & Stirling, A (2010) Dynamic properties of complex adaptive ecosystems: implications for the sustainability of service provision. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19(10) 2843-2853. Folke, C. (2006) ‘Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses’, Global Environmental Change 16: 253–67 Holling, CS 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems 4: 390–405 Kaplan, S (2009) Enhancing resilience in fragile states European Development Report Background Paper http://erd.eui.eu/media/BackgroundPapers/ERD-Background_PaperKaplan.pdf Ramalingam, B et al (2008) Exploring the Science of Complexity, ODI Working Paper 285 http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/583.pdf Ramalingam, B (2011) The Globalisation of Vulnerability http://aidontheedge.info/2011/01/11/the-globalisation-of-vulnerability/ Richard J.T. Klein, Nicholls R.J., and Thomalla F (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is the concept? Environmental hazards 5: 35-45. Rockefeller Foundation (2009) Building Climate Change Resilience, Rockefeller Foundation White Paper Twigg, J. (2007) ‘Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community’, a guidance note to the DFID DRR Interagency Coordination Group 18 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper 19 The Department for International Development: leading the UK Government s fight against world poverty. Department for International Development 1 Palace Street London SW1E 5HE UK and at: Abercrombie House Eaglesham Road East Kilbride Glasgow G75 8EA UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7023 0000 Fax: +44 (0)20 7023 0016 Website: www.dfid.gov.uk Facebook: www.facebook.com/ukdfid Email: enquiry@dfid.gov.uk Public enquiry point: 0845 3004100 or +44 1355 84 3132 (if you are calling from abroad) © Crown copyright 2011 Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Crown. This publication (excluding the logo) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright with the title and source of the publication specified. Published by the Department for International Development, November 2011. 20 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper IDS WORKING PAPER Volume 2015 No 459 Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Resilience Interventions: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations Christophe Béné, Tim Frankenberger and Suzanne Nelson July 2015 Disclaimer Support for this paper was provided by Technical and Operational Performance Support (TOPS), a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programme. The authors' views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the TOPS programme, USAID or of the United States Government. www.thetopsprogram.org/about-tops Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Resilience Interventions: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations Christophe Béné, Tim Frankenberger and Suzanne Nelson First published by the Institute of Development Studies in July 2015 IDS Working Paper 459 © Institute of Development Studies 2015 ISSN: 2040-0209 ISBN: 978-1-78118-248-2 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. Reproduction, copy, transmission, or translation of any part of this publication may be made only under the following conditions: • with the prior permission of the publisher; or • with a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd., 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1P 9HE, UK, or from another national licensing agency; or • under the terms set out below. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for teaching or nonprofit purposes, but not for resale. Formal permission is required for all such uses, but normally will be granted immediately. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher and a fee may be payable. Available from: Communications and Engagement Unit, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1273 915637 E-mail: bookshop@ids.ac.uk Web: www.ids.ac.uk/publications IDS is a charitable company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No. 877338) 2 Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Resilience Interventions: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations Christophe Béné, Tim Frankenberger and Suzanne Nelson Summary As resilience programming gains more and more prominence as an approach for addressing chronic vulnerability of populations exposed to recurrent shocks and stressors, empirical evidence will be needed for measuring how well households, communities, and systems manage shocks and stressors and how interventions and programmes that are designed to strengthen these capacities, perform. However, despite progress on the conceptual side, academics, practitioners and donors are still struggling with pragmatic issues - in particular, how to measure, and monitor and evaluate resilience interventions. Developing a robust resilience measurement and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework is therefore a priority. The objective of this paper is to contribute to this agenda. After reviewing some of the progress made recently in relation to resilience measurement, the paper adopts a logical framework (logFram) and uses both theoretical and empirical examples to present the different components that an project M&E needs to include in order to monitor adequately resilience. Keywords: resilience; monitoring and evaluation; measurement; impact; assessment. Christophe Béné worked with the Vulnerability and Poverty Reduction team at IDS for five years (2010-2014) before joining the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) based in Cali, Colombia. There he works as Senior Policy Advisor in the Decision and Policy Analysis Program (DAPA). He has over 15 years of experience in inter-disciplinary research and advisory work focusing on poverty alleviation, vulnerability and food security, initially through the analysis of the socio-political economy of natural resources, more recently through resilience analysis and evaluation of vulnerability reduction programmes in relation to disasters and climate change. Tim Frankenberger is the President of TANGO International and a global expert on food security, livelihood approaches and resilience. Tim has over 30 years of experience in international development, with specialised skills in project design, M&E, and policy analysis. He previously served as Senior Food Security Advisor and Livelihood Security Coordinator at CARE and a farming systems research specialist at the University of Arizona. Tim has published numerous articles on household food security and resilience. Tim’s graduate work includes an MA as well as doctoral studies in Anthropology with a minor in Agricultural Economics. Suzanne Nelson is a Senior Research Scientist with TANGO International. Trained in agronomy and plant sciences, she has many years of experience in developing countries working in conservation and use of agro-biodiversity, natural resources management, and community-level capacity building. Her current research focuses on resilience, adaptation to climate change, food and livelihood security, vulnerability and poverty alleviation. 3 Contents Summary, keywords and author notes Acknowledgements Acronyms Introduction 1 3 5 5 6 What do we know about measuring resilience? 1.1 Resilience as a mean rather than an end 1.2 Resilience measurement integrated framework 1.3 Emphasis on shocks and stressors 1.4 Resilience as a combination of capacities 1.5 Certain responses can lead to undesirable outcomes 1.6 Combined effects of shocks/stressors and the responses employed to deal with them 1.7 More than just vulnerability analysis 1.8 Resilience capacity is measured at multiple levels and scales 1.9 Building resilience capacities 7 7 8 9 9 10 2 Monitoring and evaluation of resilience interventions 2.1 Intermediate outcome indicators 2.2 Outcome indicators 2.3 Impact indicators 2.4 Shocks and stressors indicators 2.5 Data collection 2.6 Monitoring contextual changes 14 16 17 18 19 19 20 3 Conclusion 20 Annex 1 Resilience conceptual framework Glossary References 22 23 24 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 11 12 13 13 10 12 Figure 6 Generic theory of change of a resilience intervention Resilience measurement integrated framework Resilience as the result of absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities Conceptual representation of a resilience framework Resilience capacity-mediated relationship between shock exposure and household food insecurity (HFIAS) Logframe for M&E of resilience programming interventions Tables Table 1 Coping Strategy Index (CSI) 18 Figure 4 Figure 5 7 8 14 16 4 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Greg Collins (USAID), Mark Constas (Cornell University), and Richard Longhurst (Institute of Development Studies) for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also thank Mark Fritzler and the Technical and Operational Performance Support (TOPS) program for support. The paper was also informed by research implemented under the project ‘Tangled in their own (safety)-nets? Resilience, adaptability, and transformability of small-scale fishing communities in the face of the World fisheries crisis’ funded by the UK DFID-ESRC joint scheme programme on Poverty Alleviation. Acronyms BRACED Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters CCA Climate Change Adaptation CES-D Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CSI Coping Strategies Index DAPA Decision and Policy Analysis Program DFID UK Department for International Development DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DRM Disaster Risk Management FEWSNET Famine Early Warning Systems Network FSIN Food Security Information Network HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Score HHS Household Hunger Scale IPC Initial Planning Conference M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-governmental Organisation NSP Nutrition Surveillance Programme PRIME Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion PTSD Post-traumatic Stress Disorder SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation TOPS Technical and Operational Performance Support USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 5 Introduction Over the last three years, the commitment by various donors and development agencies to support resilience-building initiatives in relation to their humanitarian and/or development agenda has been substantial. Although a precise global figure is difficult to estimate, some unofficial calculations suggest figures exceeding US$4-5 billion. The EU alone has announced that it intends to mobilise €1.5 billion for resilience programming in the Sahel between 2014 and 2020 through the 11th European Development Fund. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) recently committed £140 million through their Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) programme funded under the UK's International Climate Fund. USAID, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Swedish International Development Cooperation (SIDA) have jointly committed US$100 million through the Global Resilience Partnership. In addition to these bilateral and multilateral commitments, countries themselves are investing increasing amounts of their national budgets in resilience programmes. The government of Kenya for instance has committed US$1.6 billion (in addition to US$1.5 billion in donor commitments) through its National Drought Management Authority. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also getting involved. More than 15 major international NGOs (including Action Aid, Christian Aid, Care International, Concern Worldwide, Mercy Corps, Oxfam GB, Plan International, Practical Action, Save the Children, Tearfund, and World Vision) have made resilience one of their major programmatic priorities for the near future and have invested large amounts of human and financial resources in interventions aimed at strengthening resilience. Major progress has been made recently on understanding resilience in a development context, and some consensus seems to be emerging at the international level regarding an appropriate conceptual definition of resilience. The Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group1, for example, defines resilience as ‘the capacity that ensures stressors and shocks do not have long-lasting adverse development consequences’ (Constas, Frankenberger and Hoddinott 2014a: 6). In other words, resilience is about the ability of individuals, households, communities, institutions or higher-level systems to adequately deal with shocks and stressors. Despite progress on the conceptual side, academics, practitioners and donors are still struggling with pragmatic issues - in particular, how to measure, and monitor and evaluate resilience interventions (Vaitla et al. 2012; Béné 2013). Published highlights of the recent international conference on resilience noted for instance: ‘questions of what to measure, whom to measure, how often to measure, what methods to use, and at what scale are still being debated’ (IFPRI 2014: 7). Yet the issue is important. Without being able to measure resilience, policy-makers, donors, implementing partners and other stakeholders, will not be in a position to identify and support interventions that have the most positive effect on people’s ability to respond to and accommodate adverse events. Developing an operational resilience measurement and M&E framework is therefore a priority. The objective of this paper is to contribute to this agenda. The paper is aimed mainly at practitioners, scholars or development agencies engaged in resilience-building interventions. 1 The Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group is an FAO-WFP-IFPRI joint-coordinated effort under the Food Security Information network (FSIN) and funded by EU and USAID. 6 1. What do we know about measuring resilience? This section summarises some of the recent progress that has been made in relation to resilience measurement in the last three years, and highlights the implications of this improved understanding for resilience programming. 1.1. Resilience as a means rather than an end Resilience should not be seen as the final goal of a development programme. Instead resilience should be seen as an intermediate outcome required for achievement of a more fundamental goal related to a longer-term developmental ambition (Béné et al. 2014; Brown 2013; UNDP 2014), typically a measure of wellbeing (e.g., food security, health/nutrition status, poverty) (Constas et al. 2014a). Understanding resilience as a means rather than an end is increasingly acknowledged in the literature and several development agencies have already structured their resilience frameworks to reflect this approach (see, e.g., DFID 2012). As such, this means that programmes cannot have resilience as a primary objective. Rather, this conception emphasises the importance of wellbeing as the ultimate goal of programming. Framed into a theory of change, this new understanding of resilience implies that programme interventions that focus on resilience strengthening should be designed and implemented so that they lead to an intermediate outcome (e.g., strengthened resilience capacity of the target population), which itself should then lead to an appropriate response outcome (e.g., improved resilience of the target population), which should eventually lead to the programme’s ultimate goal, that is, improving the wellbeing of the target population. This generic theory of change for resilience interventions is represented in Figure 1. Figure 1. Generic theory of change of a resilience intervention Programme activities Resilience capacity strengthened Effective resilience response Individual wellbeing improved (or maintained) Source: authors’ own. An important element illustrated by Figure 1 is the recognition that the process of formulating a theory of change also brings measurement requirements into focus. In particular, it highlights some of the key components that will need to be included in the M&E system. These will be discussed in detail in Section 2 below. 7 1.2. Resilience measurement integrated framework To measure improvements in resilience, empirical evidence is needed on what factors contribute to it, under what contexts, and for what types of shocks. The ability to measure the relationship between the different components that constitute a resilience analysis (i.e., the relationship between shocks, responses, and future states of wellbeing) depends on the analysis of a number of substantive dimensions and structural features (Constas et al. 2014b). Those highlight the specific indicators and data that need to be collected so that insights related to resilience dynamics can be measured. In this context, causal frameworks are useful because they focus measurement activities and provide a potential link between the structure of interventions and the organisation of data analysis that follows measurement. The resilience causal framework presented in Figure 2 provides a further organisational scheme in which the task of developing resilience measures can be conceptualised and implemented (Constas et al. 2014b). Figure 2. Resilience measurement integrated framework Source: Constas et al. (2014b). Reproduced with kind permission of FAO, IFPRI and WFP.2 Substantive features comprise initial- and end-state measures, disturbance measures, and capacity measures. The indicators required to measure resilience fall under the following components: i) ex ante component (i.e., initial states and capacities), ii) disturbance component, which represents shocks and stressors, and iii) ex post component that represents subsequent states and trajectories (Constas et al. 2014b). Resilience measurement should be focusing on multiple scales (e.g., individuals, households, community, district/provincial, national and larger systems). 2 FAO, IFPRI and WFP 's endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. 8 There are four key factors to consider in measuring resilience:     Identify the wellbeing outcomes to be achieved, and measure resilience in relation to these outcomes. Identify the shocks and stressors that individuals, households, communities and larger systems are exposed to and the severity and duration of these shocks and stressors. Measure the absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities in relation to these shocks and stressors at different levels. Identify the responses of individuals, households, communities and larger systems to these shocks and stressors and trajectories of wellbeing outcomes. The following categories of indicators need to be measured:    Ex ante component: resilience capacity; initial wellbeing outcomes; and initial vulnerability level. Disturbance component: natural disasters; pest/disease outbreaks; political conflicts; and economic shocks/stressors. Ex post component: resilience capacity; wellbeing outcomes; and vulnerability level. All three components must be understood in relation to contextual factors. These contextual factors include a wide range of political, agro-ecological, and cultural conditions that are generally recognised to have a strong influence on households and communities. Agroecological conditions can be considered as both context (from the view point of household or community resilience) as well as part of the resilience system itself (i.e., when higher-level systems are considered). Structural and methodological features highlight the way in which data will be collected in terms of scale, timing, and types of measurement employed to measure resilience (Frankenberger et al. 2014). Annex 1 illustrates how these dimensions of measurement interact. 1.3. Emphasis on shocks and stressors Resilience interventions are about improving (or at least maintaining) the wellbeing of people in the context of shocks and/or stressors. Thus, analysis of programming designed to strengthen resilience cannot be done without assessing the shocks and stressors (both covariate and idiosyncratic) that affect people’s lives. To some extent, a resilience analysis could be seen as a livelihoods analysis, but with a stronger emphasis on the shocks/stressors context3 and on the capacities and responses of individuals, households, and communities to deal with these shocks/stressors. In that respect, adopting a resilience lens means recognising the importance of uncertainty, risks, shocks and changes (Berkes, Colding and Folke 2003). It also means recognising that shocks, stressors and trends affect not only individuals and households but also communities, institutions, infrastructures and higher-level systems (e.g., agro-ecological systems, market systems, governance systems). Thus, the unit of analysis and the level of intervention cannot be implemented at the household level only, even if the programme's ultimate goal is to improve or maintain household wellbeing. The M&E plan must include analysis and measurement of intermediate outcomes (resilience capacity) and outcomes (resilience response) at multiple levels as well. 1.4. Resilience as a combination of capacities Resilience reflects how people or systems (or parts of a system) respond to shocks and stressors. More specifically, it is the ability or the capacity of individuals, groups of people, 3 The original version of the sustainable livelihood framework (Frankenberger 1995; Scoones 1998) or the subsequent DFID version (DFID 1999) already includes a vulnerability element in their framework. 9 organisations, institutions, or systems to deal effectively with shocks/stressors. It is useful to conceptualise resilience as a property that combines three dimensions (Figure 3): (1) an absorptive capacity that includes all the various risk management strategies by which individuals and/or households moderate or cope with the impacts of shocks on their livelihoods and basic needs; (2) an adaptive capacity that reflects the ‘capacity to learn, combine experience and knowledge, adjust responses [in a pro-active way] to changing external drivers and internal processes, and continue operating’ (Berkes et al. 2003); and (3) a transformative capacity, i.e., the capacity to create an enabling environment through investment in good governance, infrastructure, formal and informal social protection mechanisms, basic service delivery, and policies/regulations that constitute the necessary conditions for systemic change. Figure 3. Resilience as the result of absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities Resilience Change Stability Intensity of responses Flexibility Transformative capacity (transformational responses) Adaptive capacity (incremental adjustment) Absorptive coping capacity (persistence) Intensity of shock/stressor impact Mild Moderate Severe Source: authors’ own; Béné et al. (2014). Note that absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities can occur simultaneously and are not strictly dependent on the severity of a shock or stressor. For instance, transformative capacity can be built during less stressful times. Furthermore improving enabling environments (e.g., service delivery, governance, infrastructure, policies, access to social protection) can also have a positive synergistic effect on the absorptive and adaptive capacities of households, communities, and higher-level systems. 1.5. Certain responses can lead to undesirable outcomes It is important to realise that not all responses to shocks and stressors necessarily result in positive wellbeing outcomes, either in the short- or longer-term. It is well documented that certain risk management strategies (e.g., distress selling of assets, reduction of expenses or food consumption) can have very detrimental effects on the immediate or long-term wellbeing of households (e.g., nutritional status, food security) (Dercon, Hoddinott and Woldehanna 2005; Hoddinott 2006; Kazianga and Udry 2006; Sinha, Lipton and Yaqub 2002). This detrimental long-term outcome, however, can also be observed in the case of adaptive (or even transformative) responses, leading to what is referred in the climate change literature as "maladaptation" (Barnett and O'Neil 2013; Macintosh 2013). A pertinent example in the context of this discussion would be the case of a household living in the 10 coastal belt of Bangladesh (where saline intrusion makes life increasingly difficult), who decides to migrate to Khulna or to Dhaka (provincial and country capitals, respectively). This adaptive/transformative response4 could turn out to be positive: the family is taken care of by a wealthy uncle living in Dhaka who manages to provide support for the family to settle and start a new life. But the same decision (to migrate) could lead to negative outcomes: the head of the household fails to find a new job, leading him to engage in some illegal activities while the family, which has no connections and no support, rapidly falls into destitution. What this particular example tries to convey is that resilience strengthening is not simply about avoiding/preventing negative coping strategies and promoting adaptive or even transformative strategies – as if coping strategies were intrinsically ‘bad’ and adaptive or transformative responses were naturally ‘good’. This polarised view is too simplistic/mechanistic and incorrect (see Béné et al. 2012: 23-25). This Bangladeshi story was chosen precisely to illustrate this point: the strategy adopted by the family is not a coping strategy but an adaptive/transformative response (i.e., they decided to shift livelihood base). Yet, as suggested here, an adaptive response can still lead, in some circumstances, to negative long-term outcomes. In fact the term maladaptation is precisely the recognition of this reality. As documented in the literature (Black et al. 2011), migration can lead to positive changes but can – and does – also lead to negative outcomes. What this implies is that, fundamentally, resilience interventions are about strengthening the ability of households (or society) to choose – from a whole ‘portfolio’ of options – what they perceive at that time as the “right” response(s), rather than be forced by circumstance to pick the only option they have at their disposal at that moment, which might be detrimental overall (e.g., selling assets). This is referred to as the ‘capacity [to avoid] long-lasting adverse development consequences,’ or resilience (Constas et al. 2014a). 1.6. Combined effects of shocks/stressors and the responses employed to deal with them It is also critical to realise that the final wellbeing state (e.g., food security) is not merely the result of an initial shock or stressor (e.g., destruction of assets, loss of livestock), but is rather the combined result of the effect of the shock, the capacities that people drew on, and the response(s) that individuals, households or communities used in an attempt to deal with the shock. That is, when a flood hits a community for example, the observed effect on food security and nutrition – at least in some households – is not the result of the flood event per se, but is rather the result of the effect of the flood event (e.g., destruction of property, loss of crops) and how households used their capacities and responded – or not – to that event. An appropriate response (e.g., using social capital, accessing savings) increases the chance to lead to positive outcomes, while an inappropriate or ill-chosen one often leads to vulnerability. In the present example of a flooded community, some households are likely to be less affected, particularly in the long-term, even if they were equally or more exposed to the initial shock, simply because they drew on their capacities and responded in a different (e.g., more appropriate) way than other households to the shock. This combined nature of the effect of the shock, capacities and the response(s) that individuals, households or communities adopt is represented graphically in Figure 4. 4 We consider this response as partially “transformative” because it is in line with the initial definition of transformation as presented in Walker et al. (2004: 5): ’to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable’. 11 Figure 4. Conceptual representation of a resilience framework trends community and wider context stressors shocks shock/stressor effect ability to handle household characteristics, capacities and wellbeing response recovery impact (e.g. food security restored or deteriorated further ) decision state t state t+1 time Source: authors’ own. Note, however, that this framework, which is conceptually useful to highlight the distinction between the direct effect of an event and a response, is nevertheless slightly reductionist in the sense that it assumes that events and responses occur within distinguishable cycles (one event → one response → recovery → measurable impact). The reality faced by households living in risk-prone areas or in zones of recurrent crises such as droughts is one where the continuous effect of recurrent and/or permanent shocks often results in failure to recover before the next shock strikes, which can ultimately lead to a downward spiral of divestment, destitution, and increase reliance on humanitarian assistance – either seasonally or permanently. 1.7. More than just vulnerability analysis Another important progress that was made in recent years is that resilience analysis should include – and go beyond – a vulnerability analysis. Typically, a vulnerability assessment focuses on the (participative) identification of the shocks, risks and stressors that affect people’s livelihoods at multiple levels. As such vulnerability is useful for understanding how people are exposed to a hazard or longer-term disturbance, how this differs between different groups, and ideally what the root causes of this vulnerability are. Resilience analysis adds to vulnerability analysis in at least two domains. First, resilience analysis considers two elements that are not usually included in vulnerability analysis: (i) the identification of existing absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities and (ii) the analysis of the responses that individuals, households and communities put in place following (or in anticipation of) the shocks and stressors identified through the vulnerability assessment. Second, resilience analysis shifts emphasis from a perception of passive, vulnerable “victims” of an event/disaster, to an “active” agent reacting to that event. Indeed, acknowledging that resilience is about the capability of individual, households or community members to adapt, change, anticipate, or respond—in this case to shocks and (future) uncertainty—is also recognising that resilience is about agency and about the ability of people to make informed decisions that have an effect on their own lives (Béné et al. 2014). 12 1.8. Resilience capacity is measured at multiple levels and scales Much has already been said about the necessity to recognise the multi-scalar and multi-level nature of resilience (see Constas et al. 2014a: 11; Béné 2013, Fig.3). In particular, the literature stresses the central importance of the intimate links between resilience at household and community levels and the condition of the agro-ecological system (i.e., higher level systems) on which they depend. Although these links are yet to be rigorously demonstrated, there is a wide consensus amongst academics and practitioners that such links exist and are critical. What we argue here is that acknowledgement of the need for a multi-scalar, multi-level approach to measuring capacity also applies to measuring the responses put in place by individuals, communities or even societies. Current resilience measurement practices focus on the “recipients” (i.e., targeted households and communities) of the intervention(s). However, the ultimate effect of a shock or stressor – on the targeted population – does not depend only on their responses. Rather, the effect of a shock or stressor on a target population also depends on how other – non-direct beneficiary – actors respond to the shock or stressor and at what level (e.g., local, district, provincial). For example, local authorities may implement responses that reduce the ultimate effect of a shock or stressors for certain groups within a community, but may increase it for others. The 2011 flood in Bangkok serves as an example. As the flood threat continued to increase in October 2011, efforts to build additional sandbag flood walls were undertaken by the municipal authorities in order to prevent the Chao Phraya River from overflowing into the city. While the flood walls were successful at keeping the centre part of Bangkok dry, they essentially diverted the flood of the Chao Phraya River to several districts in eastern Bangkok that were located outside the flood wall and were thus severely affected by flooding that resulted from the diversion.5 Resilience analysis should include therefore an evaluation of the effect of different resilience responses at multiple levels (i.e., households, communities, local, provincial and national authorities). This is particularly important in terms of power dynamics and political willingness (or lack thereof) to ensure equitable responses to shocks and stressors. Thus, the trade-offs between different resilience-building approaches need to be assessed in terms of their effects not only on target populations but on other components of the system (Leach 2008). 1.9. Building resilience capacities If resilience is about the ability of individuals, households, communities, or local/national authorities to adequately deal with shocks and stressors, then resilience interventions should be designed around capacity building activities that reduce engagement of those individuals, households, communities and local/national authorities in detrimental responses while at the same time increase their ability to adopt appropriate responses to shocks and stressors through improved absorptive, adaptive or transformative capacity. The relationship between shock exposure, resilience capacity, and wellbeing outcomes was recently examined in a study of the Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion (PRIME) project in Ethiopia (Smith et al. 2014). Results suggest not only that increased resilience capacity has a positive impact on household food security (even after controlling for wealth), but that transformative capacity has a greater impact than adaptive capacity, which has a greater impact than absorptive capacity. Households with greater resilience capacity are likely to have greater food consumption, higher dietary diversity, reduced food insecurity overall (as measured using the Household Food Insecurity Access Score (HFIAS)), and reduced hunger. These results suggest that households with higher resilience capacity are better able to withstand and recover from shocks through not only improved absorptive, adaptive or transformative capacity, but also through improved 5 Bangkok Post (2011) Govt moves to protect inner city, 12 October, (accessed 9 December 2011). 13 responses. Although shock exposure increases household food insecurity, resilience capacity helps to reduce the negative impacts of shocks. The resilience capacity-mediated relationship between shock exposure and household food insecurity is illustrated in Figure 5 (Smith et al. 2014). It shows the implied impact of shock exposure on the HFIAS at three values of the resilience capacity index: the mean, the mean minus ten points, and the mean plus ten points. The smaller is the slope of the line, the higher is the level of resilience capacity. Further, as resilience capacity increases, food insecurity decreases for any given level of shock exposure. Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) Figure 5. Resilience capacity-mediated relationship between shock exposure and household food insecurity (HFIAS) 22 RC=39.2 20 RC=49.2 (mean) 18 16 RC=59.2 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shock exposure index NOTE: The figure shows the relationship between the shock exposure and the HFIAS implied by regression results at three different values of the resilience capacity index, the mean (49.2) +/- 10 points. RC==Resilience Capacity. Source: authors’ own; Smith et al. (2014). 2. Monitoring and evaluation of resilience interventions To structure the discussion and in particular identify the appropriate indicators to be measured as part of the M&E system of a resilience intervention, we propose to start with a logical framework approach (i.e., logframe) as currently adopted in the majority of development programmes. A conventional logframe would include the following components: input => activities => outputs =>intermediate outcome => outcome => impact. Figure 6 summarises these components for a resilience programme, including the nature of indicators, levels of interventions, and frequency of data collection. Illustrative examples of indicators are also presented. 14 Figure 6. Logframe for M&E of resilience programming interventions6 Activities/ outputs Interm. outcomes Input measurable indicators Activity / outputs measurable indicators Resilience capacity indicators Effective resilience response indicators Level of intervention Programme level Programme level Individual, household, community or system levels Individual, household, community or system levels Data collection frequency As required As required baseline-endline High Frequency Input Nature of indicators Examples of indicators Outcomes Impact Wellbeing indicators Individual level High Frequency  Donor payments  Training workshop  Social cohesion  Reduction of  CHANGE in organized in time  Women made in time coping strategies Nutrition or food (activity) empowerment  Adoption of  Number of security indicators  Number of  Access to fieldtrips sustainable • z-scores information  Number of NGO households adaptive strategies  CHANGE in attending (activity)  Collective action  Adoption of workers, etc. wellbeing indicators  Kilometres of road  Innovation sustainable • asset/income constructed (output) taking up transformative level  Number of kits strategies • Quality of Life distributed (output) indicators shock / Stressor Shock stressor indicators Individual, household, community or system levels High Frequency  Early warning system  Environmental indicators • River flood data • Rainfall data Source: authors’ own. Some of the indicators to be used in an M&E plan for a resilience-building programme do not necessarily differ from the types of monitoring data that are currently measured in any programme being properly monitored. These include:   Indicators of programme inputs such as the number of field staff involved in programme implementation or percentage of the total budget allocated to different activities. Indicators of programme activities/outputs such as number of training workshops delivered, percentage of women attending from targeted households or communities, kilometres of roads built, dykes constructed, people trained. These indicators should be collected at the programme level and the frequency of monitoring should be based on the deliverable schedule. 2.1. Intermediate outcome indicators As indicated above, resilience can be conceptualised as the combination of three types of capacities: absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities. These capacities are interconnected, mutually reinforcing, exist at multiple levels (e.g., individual, household, community, district, national, ecosystem) and are built or strengthened through project 6 Note that although the shock module is represented on the right hand side directly opposite wellbeing, shocks and stressors can affect every component, from inputs through to wellbeing. 15 interventions. In this sense, they represent intermediate outcomes in that they are necessary results along the pathway to achieving the project’s overall goal or impact (i.e., improved wellbeing). Absorptive capacities - Improving the absorptive capacity of households and communities facilitates their ability to cope with the impacts of shocks and stressors without incurring permanent, negative effects on their longer-term livelihood security. Interventions should consist of preventative measures and coping strategies that allow for quick recovery while avoiding permanent, negative impacts. Interventions often also include Disaster Risk Reduction/Disaster Risk Management (DRR/DRM) approaches, risk-financing mechanisms (e.g., crisis-modifiers) to trigger early response, improved access to savings, and informal safety nets (i.e., bonding social capital). Additionally, cash or in-kind transfers contribute to absorptive capacity by helping protect household assets and food security in the face of shocks and stressors. Adaptive capacities - Adaptive capacities of households and communities are strengthened by improving their ability to make pro-active and informed decisions about alternative livelihood strategies based on an understanding of changing conditions (Levine, Ludi and Jones 2011). Interventions may include both humanitarian and development activities, and typically focus on livelihoods diversification, climate change adaptation (CCA), human capital (e.g., skills building, health and nutrition status, education), asset accumulation and diversification, climate-smart agriculture, and access to financial services (e.g., credit). Transformative capacities - Long-term and sustainable resilience building is not possible without building transformative capacity, which addresses the underlying drivers of risk and vulnerability, and promotes social cohesion through public assets and human capital (TANGO 2015). Transformative capacity refers to system-level changes that enable more lasting resilience and often challenge the status quo in a substantial way (O'Brien 2012). It is enhanced through investments in good governance, infrastructure (e.g., markets, roads, communications systems), formal and informal social protection mechanisms, basic service delivery (e.g., health, education, sanitation, water), and policies/regulations that constitute the enabling environment necessary for systemic change (i.e., enable households to maintain good health and nutrition, diversify or even change their livelihoods, and to exercise their individual and collective rights).7 Empirical evidence on what factors contribute to resilience capacities and under what contexts is limited – though growing. At the present time, many implementing partners, practitioners, and academics rely on “logical” (or gut-feeling) assumptions – some of which may still need to be more systematically tested and/or verified. For example, it may be reasonable to assume that social capital or social cohesion would have a positive effect on resilience capacity (Boyd et al. 2008; Schwarz et al. 2011), and social capital was shown for instance to have a strong impact on resilience capacity in the PRIME Impact Evaluation study (Smith et al. 2014). Yet other empirical studies suggest that this is not the case in all circumstances. Rather, there may be cases where forms of social capital (e.g., social cohesion) can in some specific circumstances be non-adaptive and jeopardise long-term wellbeing. Coulthard (2011) shows how fishing communities in India that are characterised by a very strong social identity associated with their traditional customary management system (called the Padu system) turned out to be less resilient than groups that have less loyalty to these customary systems; ‘the high social values attributed to the Padu system, alongside complex power structures, [had] hinder[ed] institutional adaptation’ and prevented the community from engaging in the transformation of their livelihood basis that was necessary to “survive” the drastic changes they were facing (Coulthard 2011: 405). Thus, 7 In that regard, the potential link between transformative capacities and transformative social protection (Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler 2004) is worth noting; see Béné et al. (2012) for a discussion of this point. 16 although certain assumptions (e.g., social capital contributes positively to resilience) seem reasonable, supposing a strict linear relationship is over-simplistic and more nuanced analyses is still required. Notwithstanding the potential for a negative relationship between resilience and certain “assumed” resilience-enhancing factors, intermediate programme outcomes should be measured through changes in resilience capacities, i.e., the factors that make up absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities. For instance, if women’s empowerment is recognised to contribute to strengthened resilience capacity in the target group, specific intermediate outcome indicators that capture changes in the level of women’s empowerment should be included in the M&E plan. All these changes are linked to the programme’s activities (e.g., training) and these different resilience capacity indicators should be monitored as part of the follow-up of the programme baseline (prior to the start of programme activities) and in the endline survey.8 2.2. Outcome indicators The next important group of indicators to be considered are the outcome indicators (i.e., results). These correspond to effective resilience response indicators which need to be monitored through high frequency data collection activities. There is currently much on-going discussion in the literature regarding what these indicators are or should be (e.g., Barrett and Heady 2014). Following the logframe approach presented above, a resilience outcome indicator should confirm that the targeted group (individuals, households, communities) is able to effectively respond to and recover from a shock or stressor in an appropriate manner. These outcomes are effectively the responses implemented by stakeholders as an attempt to deal with a shock or stressor (cf. Fig.4 above). In essence, these represent the results of programme interventions designed to improve resilience capacity response of the targeted group. In the context of food security as the measure of overall programme impact, the Coping Strategies Index (CSI) (CARE and WFP 2003; Maxwell and Caldwell 2008) represents a viable outcome indicator as it measures the occurrence of specific detrimental coping strategies (Table 1). Thus, resilience-building interventions should include activities that aim at reducing the occurrence of these detrimental coping strategies in the aftermath of a shock (i.e., households' CSI should go down if the project has been successful). Note however that the CSI focuses on short-term consumption-related behaviour after a shock or stressor. Other short-term ex-post responses might also be relevant such as these focusing on cash or money-borrowing strategies, easily measured by indicators that capture access to or utilisation of financial services (e.g., savings groups, credit). The long-term impact of accessing credit could potentially have a detrimental effect, depending on where (or from whom) the money is borrowed. 8 Measuring resilience capacities provides a measure of progress that can be particularly useful (at least once their mediating effect between shocks on one hand and wellbeing outcomes on another have been empirically established) in the event shocks do not occur during the span of the programme. 17 Table 1. Coping Strategy Index (CSI) 1 Dietary change a. Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods 2. Increase short-term household food availability b. Borrow food from a friend or relative c. Purchase food on credit d. Gather wild food, hunt or harvest immature crops e. Consume seed stock held for next season 3. Decrease number of people f. Send children to eat with neighbours g. Send household members to beg 4. Rationing strategies h. Limit portion size at mealtimes i. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat j. Feed working members of household at the expenses of non-working members k. Reduce number of meal eaten in a day l. Skip entire days without eating Source: Maxwell and Caldwell (2008). Improved resilience capacity, however, is not simply about avoiding detrimental short-term response strategies that undermine absorptive capacity in particular. It is also about nurturing or fostering the ability of actors to engage in positive and sustainable responses that improve all three resilience capacities, i.e., absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacity. A good example of effective resilience behaviour would be the increased use of early warning system information amongst nomadic communities in arid or semi-arid regions for making decisions on livestock movement or destocking, or, in the context of the typhoon-prone coastal areas of many South East Asia countries, the increase in percentage of population that are aware of, have access to, and effectively use typhoon shelters. 2.3. Impact indicators If we accept that the ultimate goal of resilience programming is not achievement of resilience per se, but rather improvement (or at a minimum non-deterioration) of long-term individual or household wellbeing in the face of shocks and stressors, then the indicators used to measure programme impact should be capturing the change in an individual’s or household’s wellbeing. Appropriate indicators could include nutritional indicators (e.g., child weight-forage z-score), food security indicators (e.g., HFIAS) (Coates, Swindale and Bilinsky 2007), monthly expenditure per capita, subjective wellbeing indicators (OECD 2013), or psychological indicators such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or the CES Depression Scale (CES-D) (Kohn et al. 2005). However, the critical point to understand is that the absolute value of these indicators is not informative with regards to individual or household levels of resilience. The absolute value of a z-score tells us about the actual severity of malnutrition, but does not tell us about the degree to which that level of malnutrition results from a particular shock or stressor; nor does it tell us about the connection between exposure to a given shock or set of shocks that might 18 be mediated by a given resilience capacity or combination of capacities. It is only the change observed in the value of the indicator following the event (compared to its value prior to the event) that indicates the relative impact of that event on the indicator.9 One direct implication of this is that resilience measurement will only be possible if the wellbeing indicators are measured with a high enough frequency to capture these changes. For instance, the Ethiopia’s PRIME Impact Evaluation is utilising a real-time recurrent monitoring system to capture exposure (incidence and severity) to shocks and stressors as well as real-time responses by households (TANGO 2015). Triggered by a shock or stressor, monitoring involved interim panel surveys (i.e., using a subset of households surveyed at baseline) conducted every two months over a 12-month period. The brief (20-minute) interim survey included modules on shocks and recovery, productive assets, access to and use of services, Household Hunger Scale (HHS) and Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS), coping strategies, and confidence and risk tolerance. 2.4. Shocks and stressors indicators The last specific component that also needs to be monitored regularly in a resilience programme is the shocks/stressors component. Although an increasing number of living standard household surveys propose some form of module for measuring shocks, a lack of standardisation and uniformity (e.g., in definitions and terms) across surveys would need to be addressed in order for accurate and comprehensive resilience measurement to occur (Carletto, Zezza and Banerjee 2015). Perhaps even more limiting is the low frequency at which these surveys are typically conducted, making it difficult to capture how resilience responses – particularly to different types of shocks – may change over time. To monitor shocks and stressors, indicators expected to reflect sudden changes – or slower trends – in the risk landscape (e.g., river water level, rainfall) should be regularly recorded at the relevant spatial scale and at frequencies that are appropriate to capture their dynamics (e.g., variability, seasonality). Ideally three levels of indicators could be considered: at the national (or higher) level through national early warning systems (e.g., IPC, FEWSNET); at a local level through community-based early warning systems; and at the household level to capture household perceptions of shocks and their ability to recover. There are two distinct but related reasons for measuring shocks and stressors as part of M&E for resilience programmes. First, it would be impossible to assess the success (or lack thereof) of a particular resilience programme unless one can measure simultaneously the occurrence of the shocks or stressors, the resilience responses adopted by the programme’s beneficiaries as an attempt to handle the shocks and stressors (i.e., the outcome), and the ultimate impacts of the combined effect of the shock and the response as measured by changes in wellbeing indicators of the targeted population. Second, measurement of the shocks and stressors, along with the programme’s intermediate outcomes, outcomes and impact also enhances our own understanding about “resilience dynamics” by systematically looking for emerging patterns and potential correlations between intermediate outcomes (i.e., capacities), outcomes (i.e., responses), and impacts (i.e., wellbeing indicators). Figure 5 is an example of these types of potential correlations. 2.5. Data collection The type of data, as well as the timing and frequency of its collection are key aspects of M&E for resilience programming. In order to capture the dynamics of shocks (which are often unpredictable), the types of responses employed, and the impact on individual or household 9 This is where the link to the more engineering interpretation of the concept of resilience can be useful. This literature identifies broadly two key dimensions in the ‘measurement’ of resilience: the ‘depth’ or severity of the change (i.e., the relative change in the indicator following the shock) and the time of recovery (i.e., the time it takes for the indicator to return to its original values after the shock) (Ludwig, Walker and Holling 1997). 19 wellbeing, high frequency monitoring (e.g., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly) is required. In order to follow changes in response that occur at the household level, panel data should be collected (i.e., from the same households) as the baseline. A sub-optimal option is to use quasi-panel data, i.e., data collected from the same communities (as opposed to the same households). In that case, however, the level of analysis would have to be the community, not the household. Helen Keller International’s nutrition surveillance programme (NSP) provides an example of using high frequency (bi-monthly) quasi-panel data sets (Bloem, Moench-Pfanner and Panagides 2003). In addition to the frequency and the panel-nature of the data, the length of time over which data should be collected needs to be considered. The responses used to deal with a shock may vary over time, potentially becoming more negative with a lack of recovery. A timesensitive component was included in the resilience model described by the Resilience Measurement Working Group in order to capture how changes in the factors contributing to resilience capacity change over time (Constas et al. 2014b). For example, long-term wellbeing may be sacrificed in order to meet “more urgent” wellbeing needs. Thus, data collected over a short period of time after a shock may not adequately capture response dynamics. At a minimum, 6-9 months post-shock should be considered, although longer might be even more informative. 2.6. Monitoring contextual changes Finally, M&E systems for resilience programmes need to monitor changes in context in order to determine if adjustments are needed to the programme’s theory of change for promoting resilience. Contextual factors that need to be taken into account include a wide range of political, agro-ecological, economic and cultural conditions that not only affect underlying vulnerabilities but also influence how households, communities, and higher-level systems respond to shocks and stressors. 3. Conclusion As resilience programming gains more and more prominence as an approach for addressing chronic vulnerability of populations exposed to recurrent shocks and stressors, empirical evidence will be needed for measuring how well households, communities, and higher-level systems manage shocks and stressors and how interventions and programmes that are designed to strengthen their resilience capacities, perform. M&E systems measuring outcomes and impacts of these interventions will become key in providing such information. As argued in this paper, in order to do so, these M&E systems will need to focus on how to measure the occurrence of the shocks or stressors, resilience capacities (intermediate outcome), and the resilience responses adopted by the programme’s beneficiaries as an attempt to handle the shocks and stressors (i.e., outcomes). These M&E systems will also need to measure the ultimate impacts of the combined effect of shocks and responses through changes in wellbeing indicators of the targeted population (i.e., impacts). This paper explores the different steps necessary to monitor and evaluate a resilience programme, the overall structure of which does not completely differ from that of other M&E systems (i.e., for “conventional” programmes).10 In fact some of the steps and indicators are quite similar (in particular monitoring of, and indicators for inputs, activities, and outputs). The intermediate outcomes and outcomes components described in Figure 6, however, will differ more significantly from a conventional M&E system in the sense that in a resilience programme intermediate outcomes correspond to indicators of absorptive, adaptive or 10 With the exception, however, of the shock/stressor monitoring component, which is quite specific to resilience monitoring. 20 transformative capacities. They are defined as intermediate outcomes in a resilience M&E system because they measure whether individuals, households, communities or higher-level systems have gained or strengthened one or more of these resilience capacities and whether they are on a resilience pathway. In a “conventional” development programme (especially those focusing on capacity building), changes in these capacities would more typically be considered as (higher-level programme) outcomes, or even as impacts. M&E systems designed for resilience programmes, however, should measure outcomes through indicators of resilience response (i.e., how people responded). In that regard, appropriate resilience response indicators include those that measure changes in both positive and negative behaviours. For example, a reduction in the adoption of detrimental coping strategies (i.e., a lower CSI) might serve as one universal indicator in resilience programmes. However, resilience response indicators should also measure changes in adaptive and transformative behaviour, such as increases in the adoption of appropriate responses by households or communities as well as decreases in the prevalence of maladaptive responses. Those indicators monitoring the occurrence of appropriate/inappropriate responses are expected to have a strong local (spatial and temporal) connection that reflects the specific nature of the initial event(s) to which the households/communities are responding. These responses also have to be understood in relation to the specific social and ecological contexts and constraints within which these households are operating. Finally, the M&E system of a resilience programme also differs in the way the impact is monitored. Regardless of what wellbeing measures are used as indicators of impact (e.g., zscore, household assets, HFIAS or PTSD), what is important to monitor is the change in the value of that indicator. Only the change observed in the value of the impact indicator following the event (compared to its value prior to the event) will inform us about the actual success/effectiveness of the resilience intervention. The importance of this point cannot be overemphasised. Too often measures of resilience proposed in the literature are wrongly associated with the measurement of absolute values of wellbeing (or food security) indicators. By definition, what matters from a resilience viewpoint is the relative change (or absence of change) in these indicators in the face of shocks. Last but not least, the M&E system of a resilience programme will finally differ from a conventional M&E by one more aspect: the frequency of measurement. In order to capture the dynamics of the change in the impact indicators, but also to monitor shocks, as well as the responses employed (the outcome of the programme), high frequency monitoring will be required. 21 Annex 1. Resilience conceptual framework Resilience Framework Context e.g., social, ecosystems, political, religious, etc. Disturbance e.g., natural hazard, conflict, food shortage, fuel price increase Absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities Adaptive state to shock Reaction to disturbance e.g., survive, cope, recover, learn, transform Livelihood Outcomes (-) Resilience pathway Bounce back Sensitivity Livelihood Strategies Structures/processes Stresses Livelihood Assets Shocks Exposure Level of aggregation Context Food Security Bounce back better Recover but worse than before Vulnerability pathway Collapse Adequate nutrition Environmental security Food Insecurity Malnutrition Environmental degradation (+) 22 Glossary Adaptive capacity - The ability to make proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood strategies based on changing environmental, climatic, social, political and economic conditions. Absorptive capacity - The ability of individuals, households, communities or higher-level systems to minimise their exposure to shocks and stresses and to recover quickly when exposed. Conflict - Organised violence that includes the use or threat of physical force by a group or groups. These include state actions against other states or against civilians, civil wars, electoral violence between opposing sides, communal conflicts based on regional, ethnic, religious, or other group identities or competing economic interests, gang‐based violence and organised crime and international non‐state armed movements with ideological aims (World Bank 2011). Disaster - Severe alterations in the normal functioning of a community or a society due to hazardous physical events interacting with vulnerable social conditions, leading to widespread adverse human, material, economic or environmental effects that require immediate emergency response to satisfy critical human needs and that may require external support for recovery (IPCC 2014). Exposure - The magnitude, frequency, and duration of shocks or stressors. Hazard - The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems and environmental resources (IPCC 2014). Resilience - The capacity that ensures stressors and shocks do not have long-lasting adverse development consequences. Risk - The potential for adverse consequences of an uncertain event or trend on lives, livelihoods, health, property, ecosystems and species, economic, social and cultural assets, service provision (including environmental services) and infrastructure (IPCC 2014). Shocks - External short‐term deviations from long‐term trends that have substantial negative effects on people’s current state of wellbeing, level of assets, livelihoods, or safety, or their ability to withstand future shocks (Zseleczky and Yosef 2014). Stressors - Long-term trends or pressures that undermine the stability of a system and increases vulnerability within it (Bujones et al. 2013). Transformative capacity – The ability to create an enabling environment through investment in good governance, infrastructure, formal and informal social protection mechanisms, basic service delivery, and policies/regulations that constitute the conditions necessary for systemic change. Vulnerability - The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, the adverse effects of or harm due to exposure to a hazard. 23 References Barnett, J. and O'Neil, S. (2013) ‘Maladaptation’, Global Environmental Change 20: 211–13 Barrett, C. and Headey, D. (2014) ‘Measuring Resilience in a Volatile World: A Proposal for a Multicountry System of Sentinel Sites’, 2020 Conference Paper 1, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute Béné, C. (2013) Towards a Quantifiable Measure of Resilience, IDS Working Paper 434, Brighton: IDS Béné, C.; Godfrey-Wood, R.; Newsham, A. and Davies, M. (2012) Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? - Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes, IDS Working Paper 405, Brighton: IDS Béné C.; Newsham, A.; Davies, M.; Ulrichs, M. and Godfrey-Wood, R. (2014) ‘Resilience, Poverty and Development’, Journal of International Development 26: 598–623 Berkes, F.; Colding, J. and Folke, C (2003) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Black, R.; Bennett, S.R.G.; Thomas, S.M. and Beddington, J.R. (2011) ‘Comment: Migration as Adaptation’, Nature 478: 447–9 Bloem, M.W.; Moench-Pfanner, R. and Panagides, D. (2003) Health and Nutritional Surveillance for Development, Singapore: Helen Keller Worldwide Boyd, E.; Osbahr, H.; Ericksen, P.; Tompkins, E.; Carmen Lemos, M. and Miller, F. (2008) ‘Resilience and “Climatizing” Development: Examples and Policy Implications’, Development 51: 390–6 Brown, K. (2013) Resilience, Development and Global Change, Routledge: 316 p Bujones A.; Jaskiewicz, K.; Linakis, L. and McGirr, M. (2013) A Framework for Analyzing Resilience In Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations, USAID Final Report, Columbia University SIPA 2013 CARE and WFP (2003) The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual, Nairobi: CARE and WFP. www.wfp.org/content/coping-strategies-index-field-methods-manual-2ndedition Carletto, C.; Zezza, A. and Banerjee, R. (2015) ‘Data Sources for Measuring and Understanding Resilience’, DRAFT, for discussion at the Resilience Measurement Technical Briefing, F...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know Can you please confirm if you have received the work? Once again, thanks for allowing me to help you R

Resilience and Risk
Management
Name

What is resilience?
–The capacity to adapt
to setbacks in life,
and “bounce back”

Understanding Resiliency

–The levels of
resilience change
over time; hence, it is
not always present

Additional Resilience
Skills
–Patience and time-taking
–Seeking assistance if nee
d be
–Implementation of a
suitable action plan

Areas to develop
capacity for resilience
1. Being autonomous
2. Being socially competent

3. Having a positive attitude

Improving Resiliency
–Stay in touch
–Obtain meaning

–Make journal
entries

–Staying jovial

–Be ready to change

–Learn from past
mistakes

–Create a workable
goal

–Don’t lose hope

–Stay focused

Resilience and Mental Health

–Inequalities in Mental
Health
–Community and
individual are interdependent on each other

Resilience as Protection
–Evading depression and
social anxiety
–Social support
–Treatment of ...


Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags