1. REACH and Impact/Outcome PIIRS DATA on Resilience
Martina Luskova contribution of Wieteke Overbeek
July 2019

2. Table of content Reach data and Resilience Marker (RM)
Resilience Marker dimensions and links with climate change
Impact/outcome data
Lessons learnt

3. Development of Resilience Marker (RM)

4. FY18 REACH DATA on Resilience

5. Application of Resilience Marker

6. Average Resilience Marker & other markers
FY18

7. Share in projects per Resilience Marker score of the total 965 projects in FY18

8. Outcome areas and projects with excellent resilience building (4) and good resilience building (3) in FY18

9. Project Budget above 1 million and Resilience Marker

10. FNS&CCR outcome area and projects with excellent resilience building (4) and good resilience building (3) in FY18

11. Average Resilience Marker Score per Region in FY18
2.30 Africa - Southern
2.20 Africa - Western
1.89 Africa – East & Central
1.85 Middle, EastNorth Africa & Europe
1.71 Latin America and the Caribbean
1.79 Asia and the Pacific
rural areas (1.93) X urban/peri-urban areas (1.51)

12. Five countries with the highest average Resilience Marker score in FY18

13. Average RM score and project focus area in FY18

14. RM score 0 and 1 & scores of Gender and Inclusive Governance markers
No resilience built
(0)
Average score per all projects
Poor resilience
built (1)

15. FY18 Resilience Marker dimensions and links with climate change

16. To what extent did the project/initiative have a strategy to address current or future social and environmental vulnerability caused by climate change

17. Projects and their strategy addressing vulnerability caused by climate change

18. Three main categories of shocks and stresses that are relevant to the context of the project

19. Categories of shocks and stresses in project context
15 out of 84 projects with full strategy addressing vulnerability caused by climate change identified the climate change as a major shock and stress to their project

20. 397 Projects identified climate change as shocks and stresses & RM

21. Strengthening capacities of vulnerable individuals or communities to manage the three main shocks and stresses identified
Out of 955 projects, 830 projects strengthen capacities of vulnerable communities/individuals to manage the 3 main shocks

22. Projects with full strategy addressing vulnerability caused by climate change & strengthening capacities

23. Strengthening assets

24. Projects fully addressing vulnerability caused by climate change (84) and how they strengthen assets of vulnerable individuals or communities to deal with the three main shocks and stresses identified

25. Project influencing formal or informal rules, plans, policies or legislation to increase resilience of vulnerable individuals and communities to the three main shocks and stresses identified

26. 85 Project with full strategy influencing the enabling environment

27. Resilience Marker and Impact/Outcome Data

28. Average RM score reported on indicator 15 and 21
RMS Average of overall projects 1,89
Indicator 21 :# and % of men, women, boys and girls that have actively engaged in reducing their vulnerabilities to the drivers of shocks and stresses that affect them - average RMS is 2,88 (74 projects; 4,1 million )
Indicator 15: # of people better able to build resilience to the effects of climate change and variability - average RMS is 3,20 (56 projects; around 1,5 million )

29. Average RM score and indicator 15 FY18

30. Average RM Score and Indicator 21 FY18

31. Resilience and Impact/Outcome Data

32. Food & Nutrition Security and Climate Change Resilience (FNS&CCR) impact and outcome area and its indicators
Number of impacted people per indicator

33. Food& Nutrition Security and Climate Change Resilience (FNS&CCR) impact and outcome area in and FY15 –FY17 and FY15-FY18
Impacted people

34. Indicator 15
FY16-FY18:
Indicator 15: # of people better able to build resilience to the effects of climate change and variability
Increased abilities to build resilience to the effects of climate change and vulnerability for close to 1,5 mil people an increase of 22.9 percentage points
56 projects, in 22 countries
52, 9% women impacted
In FY16-FY17:
Increased abilities to build resilience to the effects of climate change and vulnerability for over 1,335,000 people (1,335,120 ), an increase of 31.6 percentage points (44 projects, in 20 countries)

35. Indicator 21
FY16-FY18:
21. # and % of men, women, boys and girls that have actively engaged in reducing their vulnerabilities to the drivers of shocks and stresses that affect them
Helped over 4 mil people actively engage in reducing their vulnerabilities to the drivers of shocks and stresses that affect them (4,096,823 ), an increase of percentage points
74 projects, in 32 countries
55,2% women impacted
33 same projects reporting on indicator 15 and 21
FY16-FY17:
Helped over 1,850,000 people actively engage in reducing their vulnerabilities to the drivers of shocks and stresses that affect them (1,850,472 ), an increase of 31.7 percentage points (52 projects, in 23 countries)

36. Lessons learnt on Resilience Marker Review of CARE’s Resilience Marker by UC Berkeley Master of Development Practice

37. External evaluation on Resilience Marker
Respondents appreciate the new resilience marker more than before;
Allowing more nuance than the gender marker;
RM is too complex X RM oversimplifying resilience;
Quality of RM marker is in the eye of the beholder;
Recommendations
To make text boxes to allow for notes/writing down deliberations on scores (followed up already)
Need for continued outreach and training, as there are clear differences in levels of knowledge/capacity on resilience within and between offices
Look for approaches such as the Gender cohort to have qualified, trained staff in countries to help
Planning of more case studies to show how resilience can be integrated and scored in different outcome areas
Conduct more webinars during PIIRS season and where feasible conduct trainings in COs or at regional level

38. Case study on Application of Markers by CARE Sierra Leone
Practice-oriented training session organised on application of all 3 markers in Benin in Sep 2018
Recommendations:
Access to more documents to know how to improve our projects based on the markers
More explanations on what to put in the lessons learnt part of the vetting forms and on what “Unaware, Tokenistic, Accommodating, Responsive, and Transformative or “Harmful, Neutral, Sensitive, Responsive, Transformational” exactly mean
Short video presentations for all 3 markers
Understanding and awareness to see the tool earlier (before the project implementation)

40. Learning from applying the Resilience Marker
Challenges regarding the application of the marker:
E.g. advocacy, education, health and humanitarian projets
Do we need the marker questions for diffrent types of programmes?
What learning do you have that we need to pay the attention to?

41. https://app. powerbi. com/view

42. Thank you for your attention