Abstract

In the past few years, resilience has gained more and more attention in the context of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and development cooperation in general. Not least the fact that building resilience is a key objective of the ongoing negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction as well as the 2015 climate agreement, demonstrates its considerable political momentum. It is regarded as a new perspective on how to analyse and plan for the effects of shocks and stresses that threaten development progress (FSIN, 2014). Thus, resilience can contribute to bridging the gaps between the fields of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, as well as poverty reduction and sustainable development in general.

A multitude of strategies, programmes and projects targeting resilience have recently emerged. Furthermore, in order to monitor their adaptation efforts towards building climate resilience, several countries are currently establishing national Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) systems. Consequently, there is a growing need for concepts and approaches assessing and monitoring progress in achieving resilience on national, sub-national and regional level. Due to the lack of a common understanding and practical guidelines, however, a great number of interpretations exist on what exactly resilience means and how it can be assessed.

This discussion paper suggests an approach to assess and monitor climate resilience on national level. It pursues this goal by developing a generic climate resilience framework and proposing two complementary assessment tools, which have yet to be field tested. These tools may be used separately or in a combination, and can be flexibly adjusted to country specific circumstances. The discussion paper mainly targets policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of climate change, disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. It therefore focuses on a pragmatic approach on how to assess climate resilience instead of entering into the scientific debate.