Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Assessing-Climate-Resilience---A-Generi 👈

1. 21
Year
23,
No.
21,
September
2021
A Nepalese Journal of ParƟcipatory Development

3. 1
Price: Individual Rs. 100/-, Institutional Rs. 200/-
Year 23, No. 21, September 2021
Editorial Team
Editor-in-Chief
Anoj Chhetri, PhD
Editors
Anita Pandey Pant Chet Nath Kanel, PhD Scholar
Earl James Goodyear, PhD Jhabindra Bhandari, PhD
Prof. Narbikram Thapa, PhD Shreeram KC
Uttam Uprety, PhD Scholar
Reviewers
Anila Jha, PhD Badri Aryal, PhD Scholar
Ravi Dhital Janak Raj Pant
Narayan Gyawali, PhD Scholar Ram Chandra Khanal, PhD
Sampad Jamarkattel, PhD Scholar
Distrubution: Tej Bohara and Tulasi Sapkota
Press: Dreamworks Printers, Kathmandu, Nepal. Tel: 9851005177
ISSN: 2565-4853
Cover Photos: "
Top photo represents homestay development contributed by Ram Chandra Sedai, Mountain
Heritage. Other photos from the left respectively are related with the Participatory Action
Research contributed by Gopal Tamng; education policies contributed by Ram Gaire, Nepal
Coalition for Education.
© Published by:
Nepal Participatory Action Network (NEPAN)
G. P. O. Box 13791, NEPAN Ghar
Dobhan Tole, Sahayogi Nagar, Janta Sadak, Koteshwor, Kathmandu-32, Nepal
Tel: 977-1-4154938
E-mail: nepan2021@gmail.com, Website: www.nepan.org.np
Facebook page: www.facebook.com/nepan
The views expressed on the PARTICIPATION are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
represent NEPAN or its members or even of any organisations with which authors of this
volume of PARTICIPATION are associated with.
Peer Reviewed Journal

4. 188 - 21 l September, 2021
Assessing Climate Resilience – A
Generic EvaluaƟon Framework
RAM CHANDRA KHANAL, PhD
Abstract
This article articulates that conventional evaluation approaches are no longer suitable
to address the complexities and uncertainties created by global climate change and its
interactions with other development interventions. Based on the literature review and
analytical approach undertaken in July 2021, the article discussed some challenges for
the evaluation of climate actions and proposed an evaluation framework embracing
a system thinking approach. It considers various aspects of climate resilience and its
assessment processes. It also provides generic guidelines for systematic data collection
and analysis that enables stakeholders to assess the contribution of climate actions in
strengthening resilience in a given circumstance.
Key Words: Climate Change, Evaluation, Paris Climate Agreement Resilience, and SDG
1. Introduction
The greatest danger for evaluators in times
of turbulence is not the turbulence—it is
to act with yesterday’s logic and criteria.
Michael Quinn Patton (2021)
Climate change has emerged as one of the
preeminent challenges facing humankind
in the twenty-first century. Impacts of
changing climate express themselves in
a multitude of ways including the severe
impact on the life and livelihoods of people
around the world. The climate change
effects are already visible and are expected
to be catastrophic globally unless they are
addressed immediately. It is disrupting
national economies now and is projected to
be affecting even more in the future (Uitto
et.al., 2017). Nepal is one of the countries
vulnerable to climate change. A study
carried out in Nepal showed that climate
change may produce a huge economic loss
(from 1.5 to 2% of annual GDP) by 2030
(IDS et al., 2014).
Over the years, Nepal’s development
strategies and policies have emphasized
addressing the challenge through the
implementationofadaptationandmitigation
measures to make its development actions
climate-resilient. It has also set its national

5. 189
targets to contribute to international
commitments made through the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris
Agreement on climate change (NPC, 2016).
Sustainable Development Goal 13 (take
urgent action to combat climate change
and its impacts) is one of the 17 SDGs
established by the United Nations in 2015.
The Goal has 3 targets to be achieved by
2030 in Nepal and calls for urgent action to
combat climate change and its impacts. The
goal is intrinsically linked to all 16 of the
otherGoals.Inaddition,theParisAgreement
(2015)aimstostrengthentheglobalresponse
to the threat of climate change by keeping
a global temperature rise in this century to
well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to
pre-industrial levels. The agreement aims
to strengthen the ability of countries to
deal with the impacts of climate change,
through appropriate financial flows, a new
technology framework, and an enhanced
capacity-building framework. The Paris
Agreement is an important milestone on
the road towards a zero-carbon, resilient,
prosperous, and fair future.
Assessing the effectiveness of climate
interventions targeted by SDG 13 and
the Paris Climate Agreement requires
systematic and comprehensive evaluation
frameworks that help governments and
other stakeholders to design and execute
evaluation in meaningful ways and
support transformation (Patton, 2021;
Uitto et.al., 2017). The ‘Agenda 2030’
has also focused on the country-led
evidence-based evaluation. But, the current
approaches to evaluate climate actions
are far from adequate as the conventional
evaluation frameworks do not address the
current challenges, such as complexities,
knowledge gap, and other unknown
including temporal, spatial, and thematic
interconnectedness, posed by climate
change and other ongoing complex socio-
economic interactions (Uitto et.al., 2017;
Patton, 2021; Douxchamps et. al., 2017).
This article critically reviews various
documents, analyses ongoing challenges,
andassessespotentialevaluationapproaches
required to evaluate resilience. For this, the
author scanned relevant journal articles,
reports and other grey literature mainly
related to climate change, assessment of
resilience and evaluation. A review of
relevant theories such as general systems
theory, resilience theory was also carried
out. Based on the review, information was
categorized and analyzed based on the
themes of the study. Finally, a heuristic
modelforevaluatingresiliencewasprepared
based on the review as well as the author’s
ownexperience.Thearticleisfocusedonthe
evaluation of climate resilience (SDG target
13.1) and provides a generic evaluation
framework that might be useful to adapt to
specific circumstances and needs.
2. Evaluation of Climate Actions –
Approaches and Challenges
Evaluation refers to the process of
determining the merit, worth and value of
something, or the product of that process
(Scriven, 1991). Program evaluation is the
systematic collection of information about
the activities, characteristics, and outcomes
of programs to make judgments about the
program, improve program effectiveness,
and/or inform decisions about future
programming (Patton, 1997).
The SDG 13 and the Paris Climate
Agreement include a set of ambitious
objectives by addressing problems that
have multiple causes and at various levels.
Assessing Climate Resilience – A Generic Evaluation Framework

6. 190 - 21 l September, 2021
The Paris Agreement aims to strengthen
the global response to the threat of climate
change by ‘increasing the ability to adapt to
the adverse impacts of climate change and
foster climate resilience and low greenhouse
gasemissionsdevelopment,inamannerthat
does not threaten food production, among
others (Agreement, P. 2015).
Assessingtheeffectivenessoftheseambitions
requiresaparadigmshiftinthewaysocieties
operate until now. To align with this shift,
it also requires an innovative evaluation
framework that enables us to assess the
effectiveness of climate actions (policies,
plans, programs, and projects related to
adaptation, mitigation, and resilience);
and provides learning to comprehend the
challenges and guides stakeholders to
find better and transformative solutions
considering the specific circumstances.
Besides,thisshouldalsoprovideopportunities
to stakeholders to innovate different
approaches including methods and organize
effectivelytoenhancewin-winsituationsand
reducepotentialtrade-offsofvariousclimate
actions (Patton, 2021, UNFCCC, 2019; and
William et. al., 2021).
But the evaluation of climate actions is
full of challenges. Some of the challenges
include i) climate change is a global
goal(so difficult to find who is responsible
to what extent); ii) climate actions are
frequently multi-sector, multi-objective,
multi-tiers complex programs that aim to
affect not just the environment but also
poverty, livelihoods, health, income, and
food security); iii) climate actions aim
(such as transformational objectives) to
affect not just immediate outcomes but
outcomes over generations; iv) inadequate
data and capacity related to climate
change risk and impacts; v) inadequate
innovative and proven approaches to
address the complexities brought by
climate change (Patton, 2021; Uitto et al.,
2017). In addition, vi) there is no clarity
on how climate change risk unfolds in
the future and how and to what extent
impact manifest itself as the impact are
highly context-specific; and vii) there is
a lack of universally agreed definitions
of various climate-related terms (such
as resilience, adaptive capacity) and
assessment protocols (i.e. indicators).
All these challenges make the intervention
environment extremely fluid, complex
and context-specific. The conventional
development evaluation approach is,
therefore, no more suitable to address
these complex situations. A new
approach is, therefore, required with an
evaluation framework that is sufficiently
comprehensive and responsive. A system
theory approach would be a foundation to
start work on this that may lead to serving
the evaluation objective while remaining
simple and manageable by the stakeholders.
2.1 Resilience and Systems Theory
There is no consensus on the definition
of resilience. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), resilience is defined
as the ‘ability of a system and its parts
to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or
recover from the effects of a hazardous
event in a timely and efficient manner’
(IPCC, 2012). The resilience derives
from three critical capacities: absorptive
(the amount of change that a system can
undergo while still retaining its function
and structure), adaptive (the amount of
learning, combining experiences and
knowledge, and adjustments to external
drivers), and transformative (the creation

7. 191
Assessing Climate Resilience – A Generic Evaluation Framework
of a new system when the initial state
is not bearable anymore) (Folke et al.,
2010, Folke 2016, Khanal and Pradhan,
2021). The resilience of a system results
therefore from the interactions (trade-offs
and synergies) between these three features
(capacities), as well as from the degree
to which the system is capable of self-
organization (Béné et al., 2014).
Inadequate clarity on the definition of
resilience and its construct makes it
difficult to know what it is and how it has
to be measured. Theoretical definitions and
frameworks on resilience assessment do
not provide easy ways to assess resilience
for some reasons. Current quantification
attempts while assessing resilience are
mostly limited to the household level.
There is no adequate straightforward work
carried out to link with the individual,
sector, and national levels. In addition, it
is difficult to measure adaptive capacity as
it has cognitive, cultural, social, political,
and financial components attached to
it. Similarly, there are other issues i. e.
vulnerabilities and future resilience that
limit the ability to measure resilience.
Measuring resilience needs to embrace
complex adaptive systems and their
components in a dynamic way (Khanal
and Pradhan, 2021, Khanal, 2017). This
complicates the choice of indicators.
Climate is a complex system with
variations, causes, and effects. It integrates
many scientific fields to explain and
predict the complex effects of greenhouse
gas, energy balance, weather patterns,
and ecosystems as well as economic and
social systems. The climate responses
(adaptation and mitigation) have synergies
and trade-offs with unintended effects at
various temporal and spatial scales. All
these themes with multiple objectives at
different tiers of management are part of
the climate actions management; hence
assessment of resilience. Considering these
interconnections and associated challenges,
a system theory approach integrating spatial
and temporal scales, agents, institutions,
and ecosystems is required to understand
and assess climate resilience.
The attempts made so far to assess climate
risk and improve climate resilience are
found mostly unidirectional and do
not adequately consider the dynamic
complexity of emergent properties of
the complex socio-technical systems.
Recognizing the nature of complexities,
it requires general system theory which
helps to understand the circumstances and
identify some plausible solutions. The
system theory has six important features
and they are i) holistic—whereby, emergent
issues that cannot be quantitatively resolved
are explored to reveal salient linkages; ii)
systematic—employs a methodological,
consistent, and repeatable approach; iii)
systemic—considers decision-making as
an emergent system where small things
integrate into complete wholes; iv) risk-
based—sets priorities to identify risks
associated with the domain being explored;
v) optimal—determines trade-offs between
competing factors such as quality of the
knowledge produced, time, and costs
associated with the learning processes; and
vi) sustainable—considers specific actions
which are capable of creating a lasting
footprint of networks and best practices
and reveals possible up-scalable activities
(Mkandawire et.al., 2021). With these
attributes, the system theory or approach
can help in solving challenges related to
assessing climate resilience.

8. 192 - 21 l September, 2021
2.1.1 Climate Resilience in Nepal’s SDG 13
The SDG 13 in Nepal aims at (i)
strengthening resilience and adaptive
capacity to climate-related hazards
and natural disasters, (ii) integrating
climate change measures into national
policies, strategies, and planning, and (iii)
improving education, awareness-raising,
and human and institutional capacity on
climate change mitigation, adaptation,
impact reduction, and early warning, among
others (NPC, 2016).This article has focused
on the resilience theme of the first target.
The review noted that the list of indicators,
such as Green House Gas (GHG) emission
from agriculture, transport, industries)
provides a narrow focus on quantitative
indicators and no appropriate and adequate
indicators are provided to assess how the
climate actions strengthen resilience at the
individual, institutional and systems level.
3. Evaluation Framework
An evaluation framework provides a
structure and process of systematically
collecting data/information by using a
variety of methods and sources that can be
used to assess progress and learn from the
interventions and support decision making
process based on the evidence collected
through the framework.
Therearenotheoriesthatsolveallproblems.
In this case, the general system approach
can be inclusive and appropriate as it
would help in managing ongoing climate
challenges through enhanced understanding
of socio-ecological interdisciplinary
structures & interrelationships and system
dynamics and collaborative works among
the key actors (Mkandawire et.al., 2021).
Given the challenges brought by the
climate change and complex interactions
within the socio-ecological systems, there
are some frameworks available (Contas
et.al., 2014, Douxchamps et. Al., 2017)
on resilience-based evaluation but they
are not adequate to address the dynamic
nature of the complexities. Considering
these frameworks and the system theory
approach, the proposed framework
integrated other important aspects which
are critical to for assessing resilience.
They include, for example, development of
theory of change at the outset, assessment
of ongoing socio-ecological systems,
emergence, and development trajectories
recognizing the multi-dimensional, multi-
directional, multi-tier and non-linear nature
of resilience and provides a process to
assess the resilience under changing socio-
ecological systems.
Figure 1: Climate Resilience Evaluation Framework
Source: Adapted from various sources including Contas et.al., 2014, Douxchamps et. Al., 2017.

9. 193
The evaluation framework has seven
important components. They include;
i) identification of interventions zones
(domains,boundaries,spatial&temporal
scales, and agents), ii) developing a
theory of change and review of the
theory of change; iii) capturing states
assets, use of assets, institutions, and
capacity; iv) assessing emergence and
development trajectory (to see the
interaction of transformational actions
with the development trajectories); v)
assessing the status of climate shocks
and stresses and stability (during the
implementation time); vi) monitoring
ongoing socio-ecological systems and
dynamics, and vii) proposing a mixed-
methods approach of data collection
and analysis (figure 1). Based on
the nature of climate change and its
risk, qualitative methods may include
process tracing, pattern matching,
sense-making, inductive reasoning
by using participatory tools such
as key informant interviews, focus
group discussions, change mapping,
stakeholder analysis, rubric and
spinning wheel analysis whereas
quantitative methods may employ
household survey, multi-dimensional
index, and multi-stage factor analyses.
4. Conclusion
The climate change has a serious impact
on the environment and sustainable
development; hence it is considered
one of the biggest challenges in the
21st
century. International communities
devised development strategies and
mechanisms, such as the SDGs and the
Paris Climate Agreement, to address
climate risk both now and in the future.
But with the rapidly changing climate
and other socio-ecological factors,
there is a need to have a comprehensive
evaluation framework to assess whether
the climate investment is demonstrating
theresultsinthewaytheyweredesigned
and what contribution the interventions
are making in strengthening climate
resilience. It requires a new systems-
thinking approach in evaluation to
capture the issue of complexities,
interconnectedness, and transformation.
Forthis,agenericevaluationframework
has been suggested to assess the climate
resilience by considering various
aspects of resilience and how it can be
assessed. The framework considers the
local context and multi-dimensional
nature of resilience that can be used in
different contexts with some adaptation.
References
Agreement, P. (2015, December). Paris agreement. In Report of the Conference of the Parties to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (21st Session, 2015: Paris). Retrieved December (Vol.
4, p. 2017).
Béné, C., Newsham, A., & Davies, M. (2008). Review article: resilience, poverty and development. Annu
Conf Hum Dev Capab Assoc New Delhi 623: 1–30.
Constas, M., Frankenberger, T. &Hoddinott, J. 2014. Resilience Measurement Principles: Toward anAgenda
for Measurement Design. Resilience measurement Technical Working Group. Technical Series No. 1.
Rome: Food Security Information Network, World Food Program and Food andAgriculture Organization.
Assessing Climate Resilience – A Generic Evaluation Framework

10. 194 - 21 l September, 2021
Douxchamps, S., Debevec, L., Giordano, M., & Barron, J. (2017). Monitoring and evaluation of climate
resilience for agricultural development–A review of currently available tools. World Development
Perspectives, 5, 10-23.
Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society 21(4):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES!09088!210444
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., &Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking:
Integrating resilience. Adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15, 20.
IDS-Nepal, PAC and GCAP (2014). Economic Impact Assessment of Climate Change in Key Sectors in
Nepal. IDS-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
IPCC (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. In
C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach,
G.-K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), A special report of working groups I
and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Khanal, R. C. & Pradhan, P. (2021). Approach Towards Building Climate Resilient Irrigation Systems for
Food Security in Nepal. In V. P. Pandey, S. Shrestha & D. Wiberg (Eds.), Water, Climate Change, and
Sustainability, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021. p 225-238.
Khanal, R.C. (2017). Integrating Resilience Concept in the face of Changing Climate: Learning from Some
NRM Projects in Nepal. In N. M. Josh, S. Subedee& D. R. Pandey (Eds.), Irrigation in LocalAdaptation
and Resilience" Proceedings of the Seventh International Seminar Held on 11-12April 2017, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Mkandawire, B., Thole, B., Mamiwa, D., Mlowa, T., McClure,A., Kavonic, J., & Jack, C. (2021).Application
of Systems-Approach in Modelling Complex City-Scale Transdisciplinary Knowledge Co-Production
Process and Learning Patterns for Climate Resilience. Systems, 9(1), 7.
NPC(2016). Nepal SDG Status and Roadmap. Kathmandu: GoN-National Planning Commission.
Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ and Hanson CE (eds). 2007. Impacts,Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. SAGE Publications.
Roychoudhury, A., Shepardson, D. P., Hirsch, A., Niyogi, D., Mehta, J., & Top, S. (2017). The Need to
Introduce System Thinking in Teaching Climate Change. Science Educator, 25(2), 73-81.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. SAGE Publications.
Uitto J.I., Puri J., van den Berg R.D. (2017). Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development:
Introduction. In: Uitto J., Puri J., van den Berg R. (eds) Evaluating Climate ChangeAction for Sustainable
Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43702-6_1.
UNFCCC (2019). Methods and approaches for assessing adaptation, adaptation co-benefits and resilience
Workshop report by the secretariat. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/
sb2019_01E.pdf
Williams,A., Dickman, J., &Smurthwaite, R. (2021).Advancing Evaluation and Learning onTransformational
Change: Lessons From the Climate Investment Funds’ Transformational Change Learning
Partnership. American Journal of Evaluation, 42(1), 90-109.
(Dr. Ram Chandra Khanal is an independent evaluator – associated with the Community of Evaluators [Nepal
and South Asia]. Email: khanalrc@gmail.com.)
Assessing Climate Resilience – A Generic Evaluation Framework