1. ROME FEBRUARY 19-21, 2013 SUMMARY OF THE EXPERT CONSULTATION ON MEASURING RESILIENCE TANGO International, April 2013

2. WHY AN EXPERT CONSULTATION? Given: Heavy focus on resilience in development sector Lack of consensus on measurement approach Goals of consultation: Determine what types of data need to be collected, at what scale, how often Determine appropriate types of analysis

3. WHY AN EXPERT CONSULTATION? Participants: international NGOs (CRS, CARE, WV, Mercy Corps, Oxfam) UN organizations (UNICEF, WFP, FAO, IFAD) donors (USAID, WB, EU, German government, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) universities (Tulane, University of Florence, Cornell) research institutes (IDS, CGIAR, ILRI)

4. WHY MEASURE RESILIENCE? Recurring crises underscored need for new approach, combining humanitarian emergency response and development goals Need for verifiable measures to support evidence of program impact and to inform planning/ programming  Need empirical evidence of what factors contribute to resilience, under what contexts, and for what types of shocks.

5. The ability of countries, communities and households to anticipate, adapt to and /or recover from the effects of potentially hazardous occurrences (natural disasters, economic instability, conflict) in a manner that protects livelihoods, accelerates and sustains recovery, and supports economic and social development Defining Resilience

6. RESILIENCE PRINCIPLES General principles for measuring resilience: Context-specific  measures resilience of a specific target (who) to a specific shock/stress (what);  context changes over time (is affected by previous conditions/affects future conditions) Temporal considerations  panel data collected from same households over time

7. RESILIENCE PRINCIPLES Thresholds/tipping points  point(s) at which changes in behavior and performance lead to shifts (transitions) from one response trajectory to another; can be structural or transitory Technical capacity  resilience measurement should reflect inherent complexity of concept  sophisticated methods of analysis  match methods to available human/financial resources (factor analysis vs. qualitative methods)

8. RESILIENCE PRINCIPLES Cultural relevance  engage local stakeholders and affected communities  benchmarks for success that are locally/culturally meaningful Community/higher level measurement  formal/informal governance and institutional processes and systems enhance/limit individual and household resilience  policies, knowledge/ information management, laws, programming

9. RESILIENCE PRINCIPLES Inter-scalar relationships  inter-related hierarchy of dependencies (individual, household, community, regional)  take into account functional connections and interactions that cause one level to influence another Aspirations/motivations  Influences preferences, choices, and behaviors of individual, households and communities  shaped by socio-cultural, gender-based and religious attitudes and norms  affects willingness to take risks (leading to improved outcomes)

10. RESILIENCE PRINCIPLES Natural resources/ecosystem health  livelihoods depend on natural resources  health of ecosystems important for long-term sustainability  need to measure state of health, not just physical access

11. CURRENT PRACTICES FAOMercy Corps WFPOxfam GB USAIDACCRA Tufts UniversityFood Economy Group Tulane UniversityKimetrica CRSIFAD University of Florence Current efforts in measuring resilience include those by:

12. SUMMARY OF SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH Focus on household and community characteristics of resilience regardless of the nature of the shock (e.g., Oxfam, ACCRA) Focus on capturing changes over time by monitoring coping/adaptive strategies in response to specific shocks (e.g., CRS, Mercy Corps) Focus on outcome monitoring; are well-being indicators stable/changing in relationship to shocks (e.g., HEA, WFP)

13. SUMMARY OF SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH Use existing data (e.g., USAID, FAO, HEA, WFP) Few approaches include psychosocial components of resilience (e.g., Tulane, Mercy Corps) Very few approaches are measuring resilience at the community level or at multiple levels (e.g., IFAD, Oxfam, Mercy Corps) Limited use of participatory approaches to measuring resilience (e.g., Tulane)

14. KEY POINTS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE Focus of measurement  Value for money, planning/programming, impact  Need more analytical work on relative costs/benefits of different interventions within different contexts  What works in one situation may not work in another; or provide the same value for money Unit of analysis  Household, community, higher systems level  Household-level measurements may not capture certain indicators (e.g., social capital)

15. KEY POINTS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE Types of measurement  Subjective/objective  Consultative/participatory processes  Shed light on higher level factors difficult to capture through objective measures Data collection  Assessment fatigue: too many household surveys, too lengthy  Piggy-back on on-going efforts; core set of questions

16. KEY POINTS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE Timing/frequency of data collection  Appropriateness of development timeline (3-5 years)  Needs to account for longer-term processes (e.g., institutional, governance)  Use of “lighter” questionnaires, applied more often Qualitative approaches  Enhance understanding of resilience – drivers, constraints  Use iteratively with collection of quantitative data

17. KEY POINTS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE Technical standards  Need to ensure validity and reliability of resilience measurements  Care in assigning weights, identifying factors of resilience Harmonization of indicators  Standard measures  measurement principles  New ways of assessing/analyzing existing indicators

18. KEY POINTS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE Analytical framework  General enough to be applied in different contexts  Flexible enough to be contextualized  Measures include:  Initial well-being/basic conditions measures  Disturbance measures  Resilience measures  End-line well-being/basic conditions measures

19. Food security Health/ nutrition index Asset index Social capital index Access to services index Infrastructure Ecological/ ecosystem services index Psychosocial measure Poverty measures End-line Well-being and Basic Conditions Measures Resilience Response Measures Disturbance Measures (shocks/stresses) Bas eline Well-being and Basic Conditions Measures Frequency, duration, intensity of: Covariate shocks/ stressors Drought Flood Health shocks Political crises Market prices Trade/policy shocks Idiosyncratic shocks/stressors Illness/death Loss of income Crop failure Livestock losses Absorptive Capacity Coping behavior Risk management Informal safety nets Conflict mitigation Disaster mitigation & EWS Savings groups Food security Health/ nutrition index Asset index Social capital index Access to services index Infrastructure Ecological/ ecosystem services index Psychosocial measure Poverty measure Proposed Analytical Framework for Measuring Food Security Resilience Indicators Adaptive Capacity Human capital Debt and credit Use of assets & info Psychosocial Dependency ratio Livelihood diversification Transformative Capacity Governance mechanisms Community networks Protection and security Use of basic services Use of formal safety nets Use of markets Use of Infrastructure Policies/regulations

20. KEY POINTS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE Resilience learning  Identification of what constitutes resilience within various contexts  Establishment of “resilience hubs”  Tulane currently working with 20 universities across Africa to contextualize drivers of household/ community resilience within different environments

21. NEXT STEPS: FACILITATED THROUGH FOOD SECURITY INFORMATION NETWORK Short-term (within 6 months)  Establish Community of Practice and Technical Working Group  Prepare and distribute workshop proceedings  Agree on common analytical framework  Map who is doing what and where  Initiate data mining/meta-analysis  Begin online consultation/facilitated dialogue between programming and decision-makers  Produce publications, briefs, etc. on results of work  Call for papers as incentive to Community of Practice

22. NEXT STEPS: FACILITATED THROUGH FSIN Medium-term (within 1 year)  Technical Working Group to review papers and publish  Case studies, pilots, further testing of approaches in different contexts  Identification of good practices  Develop guidelines for resilience measurement (e.g., data collection, risk/trend analysis)

23. NEXT STEPS: FACILITATED THROUGH FSIN Longer-term  Identify set of common indicators to measure resilience in food and nutrition security  Identify new indicators to better measure resilience  Use Community of Practice to identify and share best practices