DELIVERED THROUGH TH E EXPERT ADVISORY CA LL- DOWN SERVICE (EAC D S) L O T B : STRENGTHENING RESILIENCE AND RESPONSE TO CRISES TOOLS FOR MEASUREMENT OF RESILIENCE IN NEPAL LITERATURE REVIEW NICK BROOKS, DAMIEN FAGET & PETER HEIJKOOP March 2019 IMPLEMENTING PARTNER S SERVICE IMPLEMENTATI O N B Y GARAMA 3C LTD & IMC WORLDWIDE A DAI CONSORTIUM EXPERT ADVISORY CALL DOWN SERVICE – L O T B STRENGTHENING RESILIENCE AND RESPONSE TO CRISES THE SERVICE Through the Lot B: Resilience service, DAI offers rapid response, high quality support to UK Government and other donors, across a wide range of development and humanitarian challenges. We offer support for risk informed design for development interventions across all sectors; risk and contingency financing; understanding changing systems; and strategic integration of humanitarian action and development. We offer a clear process for users that draws upon a well-established network of relevant expertise provided through over 60 consortium partners. We are able to build strong practical partnerships for rapid and responsive delivery through: A dedicated, easy-to-access Secretariat to manage new enquiries and assure delivery Consistent end-to-end quality assurance A user friendly, customer-oriented outlook A pro-active approach to knowledge sharing and communication A focus on due diligence, efficiency and cost effectiveness. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER This document has been produced by Garama 3C Ltd and IMC Worldwide with the assistance of the [name of Funding Organisation] contracted through the EACDS Lot B service ‘Strengthening resilience and response to crises’, managed by DAI Europe Ltd. under contract to the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The views expressed in this document are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent DFID’s own views or policies, or those of DAI. Comments and discussion on items related to content and opinion should be addressed to the authors, via [email protected]. Your feedback helps us ensure the quality and usefulness of all knowledge products. Please email: [email protected] and let us know whether you have found this material useful; in what ways it First Published has helped build your knowledge base and informed your work; or how it could be improved March 2019 CROWN COPYRIGHT CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II CONTEXT II METHODOLOGY II RESULTS II OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................ II METHOD 1: QUANTIFYING ‘RESILIENCE DIVIDENDS’ USING CBA.......................................... III METHOD 2: TRACKING RESILIENCE USING SCORECARD-BASED INDICATORS ...................... III METHOD 3: MEASURING RESILIENCE USING SECONDARY DATA ......................................... IV METHOD 4: MEASURING RESILIENCE BASED ON RECOVERY TIMES ..................................... IV OTHER METHODS/DATASETS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................ V PART I: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND STRUCTUE OF THIS LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................... 1 1.2 THE NEPAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................... 1 1.3 DFID NEPAL’S RESILIENCE AND WIDER PORTFOLIO ................................................. 1 1.3.1 DFID Nepal’s portfolio at large: key themes ........................................................... 2 1.3.2 Linking the Resilience and wider portfolios ............................................................ 2 2 MEASURING RESILIENCE: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3 3 RESILIENCE MEASUREMENT IN NEPAL 4 4 METHODOLOGY 5 STEP 1: IDENTIFICATION OF A ‘LONG-LIST’ OF LITERATURE .................................................. 6 STEP 2: ELIMINATION OF LITERATURE NOT RELATING TO TOOLS OR METHODS FOR MEASURING RESILIENCE .......................................................................................... 7 STEP 3: SORTING BY MEASUREMENT APPROACH AND ELIMINATION OF LESS RELEVANT LITERATURE ON TOOLS AND METHODS .................................................................. 8 STEP 4: DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANCE .................................................................. 8 STEP 5: QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF TOOLS AND METHODS ................................................... 8 STEP 6: PRIORITISATION OF TOOLS AND METHODS ............................................................. 9 STEP 7: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS .................................................................................... 9 PART II: RESULTS 9 5 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS 9 5.1 THE INITIAL LONG-LIST AND SCREENING FOR TOOLS & METHODS .......................... 9 5.2 INITIAL SCREENING FOR POTENTIAL RELEVANCE .................................................. 10 5.3 SCORING FOR RELEVANCE AND QUALITY .............................................................. 10 5.4 OVERVIEW OF THE 98 REFERENCES SUBJECT TO SCORING .................................... 11 5.5 PRIORITISATION AND THE FINAL SHORTLIST......................................................... 12 6 DISCUSSION OF PRIORITY TOOLS AND METHODS 12 6.1 HIGH-PRIORITY TOOLS/METHODS: HAZARD-FOCUSED APPROACH ....................... 14 6.2 HIGH-PRIORITY TOOLS/METHODS: IMPACT-FOCUSED APPROACH ........................ 15 6.2.1 Conventional CBA ................................................................................................. 15 6.2.2 Participatory CBA ................................................................................................. 15 6.3 HIGH-PRIORITY TOOLS/METHODS: SYSTEM-FOCUSED APPROACH........................ 16 6.3.1 Quantitative indicators using secondary data ........................................................ 16 6.3.2 Use of scorecards to measure resilience ................................................................ 17 6.3.3 Combining quantitative and qualitative indicators for resilience measurement ..... 18 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 19 METHOD 1: QUANTIFYING RESILIENCE DIVIDENDS USING AVOIDED LOSSES ..................... 19 METHOD 2: TRACKING RESILIENCE USING SCORECARD-BASED INDICATORS ..................... 20 METHOD 3: MEASURING RESILIENCE USING SECONDARY DATA ........................................ 21 METHOD 4: MEASURING RESILIENCE BASED ON RECOVERY TIMES .................................... 22 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 ANNEX 1 - OVERVIEW OF DFID NEPAL’S RESILIENCE PORTFOLIO 29 ANNEX 2. MAPPING OF ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMMES, MILESTONES AND INDICATORS 33 CLASSIFICATION OF RESILIENCE MEASUREMENT METHODS, DERIVED FROM INDICATORS AND MILESTONES .................................................................................................. 36 Resilience of people ............................................................................................................ 36 Resilience of infrastructure ................................................................................................. 36 Resilience of and derived from institutions ......................................................................... 36 Resilience in terms of avoided losses .................................................................................. 37 OPTIONS FOR CLASSIFYING RESILIENCE MEASUREMENT TOOLS AND METHODS .............. 38 ANNEX 3. DEFINITIONS OF RESILIENCE 39 ANNEX 4. DETAILS OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED 41 ANNEX 5. ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF METHODOLOGICAL STEPS 44 STEP 1: DETAILS OF SEARCH TERMS USED ......................................................................... 44 STEP 2: KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF TOOLS AND METHODS ................................................. 45 STEP 3: EXCLUSION CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 45 STEP 4 – RELEVANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 46 STEP 5 – QUALITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ......................................................................... 47 ANNEX 6. OCCURRENCE OF ‘RESILIENCE’ IN GOOGLE SEARCHES 49 ANNEX 7. LISTS OF REFERENCES 50 ANNEX 8. OUTLIERS IN THE LIST OF TOOLS AND METHODS THAT ARE OF INTEREST DESPITE LOWER SCORES. 51 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CBA Cost-benefit analysis CCA Climate change adaptation CEA Cost-efficiency analysis DRR Disaster risk reduction DFID Department for International Development GoN Government of Nepal HKH Hindu Kush Himalayas ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCA Multi-criteria assessment MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MLVI Multi-Level Vulnerability Index PCBA Participatory cost-benefit analysis SAHR South Asia Research Hub SoVI Social Vulnerability Index VACA Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTEXT This Literature Review presents the results of an assignment commissioned by DFID’s South Asia Research Hub (SARH) on behalf of DFID’s Nepal Country Office. The assignment was carried out by IMC Worldwide, in partnership with Garama 3C Ltd, and though DAI Europe. The purpose of the Review is to identify tools and methods for the measurement of resilience, that are potentially applicable to or adaptable for DFID Nepal’s Resilience Portfolio and wider portfolio, over the three themes of Growth, Governance and Inclusion. The principal purpose of the Review is to identify tools and methods that can be used to assess the resilience benefits delivered by the DFID Nepal portfolio.