C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y

Quantitative Impact Assessment for Community-

based Drought Risk Reduction Initiatives

Outline of Presentation

Aims and Objectives of assignment

Overview of the conceptual framework (today)

What is resilience?

How to measure resilience?

How to link resilience with programming interventions?

Overview of the proposed methodology (tomorrow)

Aims and Objectives

1. Develop a Quantitative Impact Assessment Methodology

1. Develop a rigorous conceptual framework and standardized methodology for measuring and assessing the impacts of community-based DRR interventions on local/national resilience building

2. Introduce broadly applicable and comparable indicators/indexes that evaluate and aggregate short- and long-term changes and trends in drought resilience as a result of various interventions comprehensively in quantitative values

Aims and Objectives

This methodology will support the development of two further aims:

1. Capacity Development: Improve the capacity of local/national/regional disaster management institutions to plan, implement and monitor drought interventions against their contributions to long-term community resilience building.

2. Policy Advocacy: Raise awareness among decision-makers at local, national and regional levels in the potentials of community-based DRR for drought vulnerability reduction in the HOA and enhancing their capacity to integrate proven practices into policy and planning processes.

What is Resilience?

“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.” (DFID Approach Paper 2011)

“the capacity to absorb stress or destructive forces; to manage, or maintain certain basic functions and structures, during disastrous events and; the capacity to recover or ‘bounce back’ after an event

(John Twigg; Characteristics of Disaster Resilient Communities 2007)

“the capacity to monitor, anticipate, respond to and manage known risks as well as uncertainties to inform effective decision-making” (Inter-agency Resilience Working Group 2012)

Important Aspects of Resilience

Multi-dimensional – a factor of many things – like development

Resilience is a dynamic concept and constantly changing

It is a factor of both long term and short term interventions and strategies

Each household’s resilience will vary – issues in aggregation to community level

Needs to be measured in response to actual or potential specific shock(s) – drought not the only shock to the system

Resilience Frameworks

DFID/TANGO’s Resilience Framework

FAO Resilience Framework

Is your household resilient?

Shock or Change

You loose your job

Your rent doubles

You break your back

You crash your car

Power outages 3 times a week

Strategies to Cope

Level of education enables you (or other family member) to get other employment

Savings enable you to live for some time without work

Downsize accommodation

Health and car insurance means medical / car repair costs covered

Government social security will cover basic needs / disability pension

Can afford to buy a generator

Get work and chores done on power days

Stop eating out, cancel holiday

Is Resilience a Universal Concept?

What needs to be measured when assessing resilience?

Core components

Indicators to measure components

The shock(s) – nature, scale, scope, frequency and duration

Same things for all communities and contexts?

Standard Dimensions and Indicators

Component of

Resilience

Indicative Indicators

Income and Food

Access

Ave person / hh monthly income

Ave person / hh monthly expenditure

Ave household annual food production/consumption

Dietary diversity and food frequency

Access to Basic

Services

Access to water (proximity/ quality/ cost)

Distance to nearest school / enrollment rates

Access to road, electricity, telecommunication networks (cost and quality etc)

Physical access to health services

Range and quality of health services

Social Safety Nets Amount of cash / in-kind formal assistance per person / hh per month/year e.g.

food aid

Amount of cash / in-kind informal assistance per person / hh per month/year

e.g. remittances

Frequency of assistance

Quality of targeting of assistance

Assets Livestock owned (per person/hh)

Ave amount/ value of crops or other good in stock / storage

Productive capital e.g. ploughs; generators; irrigation

Ave household savings

Land, buildings and other assets owned

Less Tangible / Non-Standard Components

Stability Adaptive Capacity

Agricultural

Practices and

Technologies

Formal and

Informal

Governance

Income (or

expenditure) change

(monthly /seasonal /

annual fluctuations)

Safety net

dependency (as a %

total income)

Annual / seasonable

variation in crop /

livestock prices

Consistency of basic

service provision

(water/electricity/

comms etc)

Incidence /

frequency of conflict

related instability

Diversity of income

sources

Educational level

(household average)

Dependency ratio (#

productive hh

members divided by

total hh members)

Available coping

strategies

(sustainable and

unsustainable)

Actual / potential

range of crops /

livestock / livestock

products produced

Use of organic /

inorganic fertilizer(s)

Use of improved seeds

/ breeds

Utilisation of vet

services

Use of pesticides

Use of modern storage

/ processing practices

Participation in

formal governance

structures /

traditional

governance

structures / CBOs

Levels of consultation

by formal governance

structures /

traditional

governance

structures / CBOs

Levels of satisfaction

with performance of

formal government/

traditional

governance

structures / CBOs

Indicative Indicators

Developing a Usable Methodology

Number of Components: 5 – 8

Number of Indicators per Component: 3-5

Mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques

Large scale surveying to be avoided

Use existing processes wherever possible

Mapping Resilience Scores

Assessing the Impact of Interventions

• Resilience is a “Holistic” assessment not a project specific measurement

• Assesses characteristics individual programmes or interventions were never set up to affect

• If done ex-post and ex-ante will also measure unintended outcomes and contextual changes that may undermine programme

• Better as a regular monitoring framework to track progress along a resilience pathway

Linking the Methodology to Policy, Planning and Investment Decisions

• Value is that it identifies areas which have been relatively well addressed as well as gaps requiring further programme development

• Can be used to compare the relative progress of different communities or groups

• Over time useful in assessing the magnitude of impact, vs cost, timeframe, and sustainability of different potential interventions

• Can be used in holistic planning processes at community, district and wider levels