85007 Climate and Disaster Resilience THE ROLE FOR COMMUNITY-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT S O C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T D E PA R T M E N T Climate and Disaster Resilience THE ROLE FOR COMMUNITY-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT Margaret Arnold, Robin Mearns, Kaori Oshima, and Vivek Prasad S O C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T D E PA R T M E N T Copyright © 2014 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA All rights reserved. First printing: February 2014 Manufactured in the United States of America. Please cite this report as follows: Arnold, Margaret, Robin Mearns, Kaori Oshima, and Vivek Prasad. 2014. “Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development.” Social Development Department. World Bank, Washington, DC. Cover photo credit: Margaret Arnold. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, or its affiliated organizations, or to members of its board of executive directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. ii Contents Acknowledgements . ......................................................................................................................................... v I. Introduction . ................................................................................................................................................1 II. Why Does a CDD Approach Make Sense for Building Resilience? ................................................ 5 Understanding and Fostering Resilience ...........................................................................................................................................5 Scaling Up for Increasing Climate and Disaster Risk ....................................................................................................................7 Empowering Communities and Reducing Poverty Builds Resilience ..................................................................................7 Local Action to Address Local Impacts of Disasters and Climate Change ..................................................................... 9 Resilience Cannot be Achieved by Working at the Community Level Alone ............................................................... 9 Women’s Empowerment is a Key Ingredient for Resilience ..................................................................................................10 III. What Has Been the Investment Thus Far of CDD in Resilience? .................................................. 13 CDD Support to Disaster Recovery and Reduction . ................................................................................................................ 15 Different Sectors Supported by CDD Projects ........................................................................................................................... 17 CDD Activities Along an Adaptation Continuum ...................................................................................................................... 19 How Can CDD Support Resilience More Effectively? .....................................................................21 IV.  Information is Key and Must Blend Climate Science with Local Knowledge . .............................................................. 21 Find the Entry Points ............................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Maintain Flexibility in CDD Programs Dealing with Climate and Disaster Risk ............................................................ 23 Promote Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Ministerial Cooperation . ...................................................................................... 24 Provide Incentives for Innovation ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Explore Risk Financing Options .......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation for CDD and Resilience ........................................................................................ 25 V. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................29 ............................................................................................................................................................... 47 Annexes. 1 Useful Resources for Integrating Disaster and Climate Risk Management into CDD Programs ..................... 31 2 List of Projects Reviewed.................................................................................................................................................................. 35 3 Glossary of Key Terms ....................................................................................................................................................................... 41 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Boxes 1 Building Institutions of the Poor: India’s National Rural Livelihoods Mission............................................................. 8 2 Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province On-Farm Water Management Project....................................................10 3 CDD Projects Responding to Disasters. ....................................................................................................................................... 16 4 Strengthening Resilience in Bangladesh...................................................................................................................................... 16 5 Zambia Strengthening Climate Resilience Project. ................................................................................................................ 22 6 Building Resilience to Dzud in Mongolia....................................................................................................................................26 iii Figures 1 CDD Lending Amounts from Fiscal 2001–11. ............................................................................................................................... 13 2 Comparison of CDD Resilience Investment to Climate Adaptation Funding........................................................... 14 3 Share of CDD and Climate Resilience Lending by Sector (2001–11)................................................................................ 17 4 Entry Points for CDD and Climate Resilience...........................................................................................................................18 5 Activities Along an “Adaptation Continuum”..........................................................................................................................20 Tables 1 Examples of CDD Project Support................................................................................................................................................ 17 2 Examples of Projects by Areas of Support................................................................................................................................18 iv Acknowledgements This paper reviews the World Bank’s portfolio of community-driven development (CDD) proj- ects that support climate and natural disaster risk management activities. The review is part of a larger effort to document, assess, and promote scalable models and approaches that empower poor communities to manage increasing climate and disaster risk. The work was jointly undertaken by the World Bank’s Social Development Department and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. The study was also supported by the Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development. The study team was led by Margaret Arnold and included Robin Mearns, Kaori Oshima and Vivek Prasad. Mathan Ratinam of the Humanitarian Design Lab of Parsons the New School for Design provided valuable guidance and designed the infographics in the report. Susan Wong (sector manager, Social Development Department) provided overall guidance for the study. Gracie Ochieng provided valuable administrative support to the team. Many of the issues and lessons discussed in the report were identified through learning events organized by the Social Development Department with World Bank country office-based task teams via video-conferencing. The authors are grateful to the country teams from Bangladesh, Brazil, Bolivia, Ethiopia, India, Mongolia, Malawi, Morocco, the Philippines, Tajikistan and Tanzania for sharing the insights, lessons and challenges they face in supporting climate and disaster resil- ience through CDD and livelihood support operations. A number of colleagues provided comments that greatly improved the paper. The authors would like to thank peer reviewers Sofia Bettencourt and Maria Loreto Padua in addition to Patricia Fernandes, Yuka Makino, and Anna O’Donnell. Their perspectives and insights were greatly appreciated. v I. Introduction The World Bank’s goals of reducing extreme poverty and ensuring shared prosperity1 cannot be achieved without addressing the impacts of climate change. Climate change multiplies the existing vulnerability of the poor, pushing those living on the margins even closer to the edge. The World Bank report “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C World Must be Avoided” explored the developmental impacts of 2°C and 4°C of warming above preindustrial levels and established that the effects of a 4°C world will not be evenly distributed, nor would the consequences be simply an extension of those felt at 2°C of warming. The report established that the tropics will be most affected, affecting poorer countries more and that within wealthier countries, the poor will be harder hit (World Bank 2012c). Poor people in developing countries bear the brunt of climate change impacts while contributing very little to its causes. The World Bank recognizes that climate change is an issue of social justice and is wholly committed to helping those that will be the hardest hit to adapt while continuing to support aggressive mitigation efforts (Mearns and Norton, 2010). Analysis on the “Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change” estimates that the cost of adapting to 2°C of warming above preindustrial levels by 2050 will be in the range of US$70 to US$100 billion a year (World Bank 2010a). In line with the “polluter pays” principle, develop- ing countries demand that financing to mitigate and adapt to climate change be provided by wealthy countries in addition to Overseas Development Assistance. So far, US$2.5 billion has been mobilized globally for climate change adaptation in addition to existing Overseas Develop- ment Assistance flows. While the concept of additionality is important, the needs are too urgent and great to ignore the fact that a lot can and should be done with existing development financ- ing. It is imperative to integrate resilience-building approaches into development efforts to help the poor and vulnerable access the financial, technical, and institutional resources necessary to adapt to climate change. The World Bank is exploring instruments and strategies to help the poor manage risk more effectively in order to move out of poverty and build resilience to increasing climate and disas- ter risk. This paper is part of a larger effort to document, assess, and promote scalable models and approaches to empower poor communities to manage a climate and disaster risk agenda in support of their development goals and to identify practical ways of getting climate and disaster risk financing directly to the ground level where impacts are felt. Social funds, social protection systems and safety nets, community-driven development (CDD) projects, livelihoods-support, 1. The Common Vision for the World Bank Group was approved by the World Bank’s Development Committee on April 20, 2013, and states the goals of (1) alleviating extreme poverty by dropping the percentage of people living on US$1.25 a day to 3 percent by 2030, and (2) promoting shared prosperity by fostering income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population in each country. The document is available at www.worldbank.org. 1 2 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development and related operational platforms can serve as useful vehicles for promoting community-level resilience to disaster and climate risk. Community-driven development is an approach “… that gives control over planning deci- sions and investment resources to community groups and local governments.” Historically, programs using a CDD approach grew out of situations of crisis (financial shock, conflict, and even natural disasters) and were meant as transitional instruments for service delivery where governments (particularly newly installed administrations) lacked capacity to deliver services (Wong 2012). By optimizing the use of community actors, a CDD approach places less stress on government line agencies and at the same time is able to reach very large numbers of poor people. A CDD approach has traditionally been used by Social Funds, which are government agencies or programs that channel grants to communities for small-scale development projects. Social Funds typically finance a mixture of socioeconomic infrastructure (e.g., building or reha- bilitating schools, water supply systems, and roads), productive investments (e.g., microfinance and income-generating projects), social services (e.g., supporting nutrition campaigns, literacy programs, youth training, and support to the elderly and disabled), or capacity-building programs (e.g., training for civil and local governments) (World Bank 2009). This paper examines the World Bank’s CDD portfolio to assess experience to date and to explore the potential for building the resilience of vulnerable communities to climate and disaster risk through CDD programs. It aims to be useful to both the Climate Change Adapta- tion/Disaster Risk Management practitioner as well as the CDD practitioner. The paper assesses the scale of climate and disaster resilience support provided through CDD projects from 2001–11 and characterizes the forms of support provided. For the climate change adaption/disaster risk management (DRM) practitioner, it discusses the characteristics of a CDD approach and how they lend themselves to building local-level climate resilience. For the CDD practitioner, the paper describes the types of activities that support resilience building and explores future directions for CDD to become a more effective vehicle for reducing climate and disaster risk. Throughout the paper, project examples are used to demonstrate key points. While a number of resources are provided for working with communities on climate and disaster risk (see annex 1), this paper is not meant to be a detailed manual for integrating DRM and climate change adaption into CDD operations. Methodology A main component of this study consists of a review the Bank’s CDD project database from fiscal years 2001–11.2 The database is maintained by the CDD Community of Practice Secretariat housed in the Social Development Department. In addition to the full range of operations nor- mally covered by CDD portfolio reviews (social funds, community-based rural development, and 2. The CDD database lists the CDD portfolio since fiscal 2000, covering all projects that have used a CDD approach in any component of the project. This includes projects that do not necessarily have CDD as their primary focus but allocate a portion of World Bank funding to be used in a manner consistent with the CDD typology. The data are obtained through an end-of-fiscal year annual review of all project appraisal documents for World Bank- funded lending operations. CDD value-added data is extracted from the project appraisal documents and verified with the task team leader before being included in the database. It is accessible at www.worldbank.org/cdd. I. Introduction • 3 rural livelihoods support operations), the review also covers analytical work, including a recent review of the overall CDD portfolio; technical assistance; and operations supported by Climate Investment Funds that utilize a CDD approach, notably the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR).3 Project documents for operations included in the CDD project database were reviewed to identify activities that support climate and disaster resilience. While it is true that many investments aimed at improving the general welfare of poor households may contribute to their resilience to climate and disaster risk, this review takes a more conservative approach to identify clear and explicit linkages between project activities and outcomes aimed at reducing risk to climate change and natural hazards. For the purposes of this review, support for “climate resilience” is defined as actions that seek to reduce sensitivity to or increase adaptive capacity in the face of extreme weather events (drought, storm surges, cyclone-induced flooding, etc.) or longer-term climate changes (e.g., changing means of temperature or precipitation). The review also includes CDD operations related to geological hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis because building risk-management capacity for these hazards is assumed to have much in common with and spillover effects for climate risk management. Out of 804 CDD projects approved between 2001 and 2011, 161 projects were selected for the review based on an examination of Project Appraisal Documents, Project Documents, or Implementation Completion Reports. Criteria for including a project in the portfolio review were twofold. First, the project needed to allocate 30 percent or more of the overall proj- ect amount to CDD. Second, as discussed above, the project documentation had to articulate explicit objectives related to building disaster risk-management capacity and/or increasing adap- tive capacity to weather-related hazards or longer-term climate trends. A few projects from the database that allocate less than 30 percent of the total amount to CDD were included as exceptions because they explicitly aim at building climate resilience through a CDD approach. Because the study did not review every project-related document, there may be cases where a project mentions DRM or climate change adaption-related objectives in other documents (e.g., Operational Manuals) but were not identified as a climate or disaster-related project. Project documents for CDD climate and disaster resilience projects were then analyzed to assess the scale of investment in community-level resilience building and identify any trends in terms of the type of interventions they support. Project documents and other relevant studies were reviewed to specifically identify how resilience building was being supported and to extract lessons related to good practice or challenges that need to be addressed related to resilience building. Lessons were extracted from Implementation Completion Reports where available but mainly from learning events organized by the Social Resilience and Climate Change cluster of the Social Development Department, which brought together World Bank country office-based task teams via videoconferencing. Two such events were organized (in May and November 2011), including country teams from Bangladesh, Brazil, Bolivia, Ethiopia, India, Mon- golia, and Tajikistan, with additional participation from teams in Malawi, Morocco, Tanzania, 3. Known examples include the Strategic Programs for Climate Resilience in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Niger, Samoa, Yemen, and Zambia. 4 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development and the Philippines. The teams shared operational experience to exchange lessons and identify common challenges faced in supporting climate resilience through CDD and livelihoods support operations. As a final caveat, it should be noted that the findings presented here are not based on impact evaluations of CDD projects related to disaster and climate resilience. While available litera- ture on the impact of CDD projects more broadly was drawn on as a resource, this initiative was limited to a desk review of available project documents and the results of the learning events mentioned above. The study did not assess the impact of project activities against resilience- building goals. This is a critical area for further study, as discussed in the final chapter of the report. Why Does a CDD II.  Approach Make Sense for Building Resilience? Understanding and Fostering Resilience In order to understand how a CDD approach can help build resilience, it is first necessary to define resilience in a useful way and understand how it relates to climate change. While the concept of resilience is not new, it is experiencing resurgence in the humanitarian and develop- ment communities as agencies grapple with conceptualizing and measuring the resilience of communities in the face of climate change. Benson et al. (2012) presents a brief discussion on the evolution of resilience theory and offers a working definition of social resilience: ”The ability to withstand, recover from, and reorganize in response to crises so that all members of society may develop or maintain the ability to thrive.” This definition reflects the growing consensus among development and humanitarian partners that the definition of resilience needs to go beyond the definition traditionally used within the disaster risk management community that frames resilience as the ability to “cope or bounce back” from shocks or extreme events.4 In addition to resisting and recovering from shocks, thriving despite crisis in a changing cli- mate also requires the ability to reorganize, that is, to generate new ways of operating or new systemic relationships as necessary. While the starting point to understanding resilience is a clear understanding of existing levels of socioeconomic vulnerability and risk management capacity, climate change entails a number of characteristics that require a more dynamic view of vulnerability and new ways of supporting resilience—they are diverse, long-term, and unpredict- able. Adapting to these traits is challenging because they require making decisions under high levels of uncertainty. The 2010 World Development Report: Development and Climate Change, echoes this by stating, “Climate change adds an additional source of unknowns for decision mak- ers to manage” and that, “Accepting uncertainty [is] inherent to the climate change problem.” In this context, it is useful to consider the critical characteristics of resilience and how resil- ience-building efforts facilitate or promote these characteristics. Martin-Breen and Anderies (2011) identify three core properties of resilience: • Modularity (networks) • Diversity and redundancy • Responsive, regulatory feedbacks 4. Annex 3 provides a full glossary of key terms used throughout the report. 5 6 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development While others have developed more detailed, nuanced lists of resilience characteristics (see, for example, Bahadur et al. 2010), these three core properties resonate throughout most compila- tions. Based on this, a few broad categories for action can be identified for resilience building: • Support bottom-up approaches that make use of social networks and support autono- mous adaptation based on the lived experience of poor communities • Support communities to increase diversity and fallback options (e.g., diversification of liveli- hoods into activities less sensitive to climate-related or other forms of risk, such as through voluntary migration) • Enhance social learning and sound governance as a form of regulatory feedback (e.g., build- ing capacity in participatory approaches to scenario-based planning or measures to increase social accountability in the use of public finance for climate change response) • Understand the gender dimensions of climate change and empower women as resilience champions. Women are often the designers and builders of community resilience in poor communities. The final area on empowering women is based on evidence regarding the role of women in building resilience. For example, the experiences of grassroots women leading disaster recovery efforts has grown to include their engagement with local, national, and regional authorities to inform the development of policies and programs that support pro-poor, community-driven resilience building (Arnold and Burton 2011). There are also a number of examples where empow- ering women to exercise leadership within their communities contributes to climate resilience, ranging from disaster preparedness efforts in Indonesia and Nicaragua, to better forest gover- nance in India and Nepal, to coping with drought in the Horn of Africa (World Bank 2011b). There is no silver bullet for building the resilience of the poor. It calls for multiple, complemen- tary actions at different geographic and institutional scales. What’s more, assessing the impact of interventions to build social resilience is no easy task, particularly in the context of climate change. In their proposal for an adaptation results framework, Brooks et al. (2011) lay out some of the challenges, including: • Addressing the diverse nature of climate change impacts (extreme events, reduced agricul- tural productivity, vulnerability of infrastructure, water stress, loss of biodiversity, etc.) and the fact that there is no single metric for adaptation as there is for mitigation (greenhouse gas emissions) • Addressing the very long timeframes associated with climate change impacts, which may take decades to unfold and therefore decades to see if interventions achieved their intended results • Dealing with an ever-shifting climate risk baseline • Getting beyond adaptation as coping with existing climate variability and “climate proofing” business-as-usual development against incremental changes in existing risks. II. Why Does a CDD Approach Make Sense for Building Resilience? • 7 Therefore, while the success of adaptation measures will only become apparent over a long time period, the challenge is to identify activities that are likely to contribute to resilience. There are a number of characteristics inherent in the CDD approach that promote the core properties of resilience laid out above. The CDD approach operates on the principles of local empowerment, participatory governance, demand-responsiveness, administrative autonomy, greater downward accountability, and enhanced local capacity. CDD projects are known for delivering cost-effective infrastructure and services that tend to be better maintained due to the high level of ownership that communities have in the project. By involving people in making their own development investment decisions, they have the added benefits of building capac- ity from the bottom up and making decision makers accountable to the people they serve (Wong 2012). These and other characteristics are explored in greater detail below in terms of their potential contribution to resilience. Scaling Up for Increasing Climate and Disaster Risk The Bank’s 4 Degree report confirms that the adverse effects of a warming climate are “tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions” (World Bank 2012c). Millions of poor people will face greater challenges in terms of extreme events, health impacts, food security, livelihood security, migration, water security, cultural identity, and other risks. Urgent support is needed at the ground level where impacts are being felt, and national governments need to work at a scale greater than ever before. CDD programs have the potential to deliver resilience support at the scale necessary to address climate change adaptation and increasing disaster risk. CDD has the potential to reach large numbers of poor people directly and has been implemented in 105 countries. While CDD projects often start out as small-scale operations that work outside formal government systems, the second and third generations of these programs often scale up to regional or national levels. Indonesia, for example, has the largest ongoing CDD program that operates in more than 60,000 villages across the country. The Philippines CDD program has invested about US$118 million in 5,326 community subprojects in the poorest provinces and municipalities covering about 10 mil- lion rural poor and is expanding up to the national level. In Nigeria, the third phase of National Fadama Project covers all 37 states of the country, benefitting about 2.2 million households or about 16 million beneficiaries. Empowering Communities and Reducing Poverty Builds Resilience Strengthening community-level resilience requires addressing the underlying causes of vul- nerability in addition to specific disaster risk management and climate change adaptation activities. For more than three decades, humanitarian and development practitioners alike have been emphasizing the need to address the underlying drivers of vulnerability to natural hazards (e.g., poverty, marginalization, etc.) in order to make progress in reducing the social and economic 8 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Box 1. Building Institutions of the Poor: India’s National Rural Livelihoods Mission The National Rural Livelihoods Mission is scaling up a model that has proven successful in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, and other drought- prone states. The approach begins with empowering poor women through their own self-help groups to progressively build experience with savings and microloans. Over time, federations of self-help groups are supported that increase their bargaining power in gaining access to a wide variety of goods and support services on behalf of their members. The same institutional platform lends itself very well to building climate resilience by mediating access to specialized advice regarding on-farm drought adaptation measures; creating linkages with other government programs such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) that provides paid labor for eligible households in public works, including building watershed management structures; and facilitating opportunities for fam- ily members through labor migration. A GEF project under preparation—the Sustainable Livelihoods and Adaptation to Climate Change project—seeks to strengthen the potential of the National Rural Livelihoods Mission and MGNREGA to jointly leverage investments in climate and livelihood resilience. costs of disasters.5 While the global climate change debate has swung the pendulum back to an emphasis on the hazard/exposure side of the equation, there is a growing recognition that climate resilience will be mainly built by addressing the underlying, nonclimate-related sources of vulnerability (Ribot 2010). CDD projects can support a range of activities that address both the underlying causes and impacts of disasters. CDD programs can provide communities with a broad platform for empowerment and pov- erty reduction in addition to a diverse range of risk management options. Over the past decade, CDD programs have become a key operational strategy for national governments as well as numerous international aid agencies for the delivery of services and as a way to promote bottom-up development approaches where existing systems are not working. To date, approxi- mately 105 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Devel- opment Association countries have undertaken projects with a CDD approach. Wong (2012) summarizes the evidence of these aspects from 17 rigorous impact evaluations of the World Bank-supported CDD programs. Out of nine projects that reported impacts on the household welfare, seven found positive change. For example in the Nepal Poverty Alleviation Fund, the estimated net program impact for the participants on real per capita consumption growth was 19 percent. Where a participatory well-being ranking was used, a larger decline of 24 percentage points in food insecurity for households in disadvantaged castes or ethnic groups was found. Positive findings were also evident in CDD projects in India (Andhra Pradesh) and the Philippines. Finally, improvements in the access to and use of services, especially in health, education, and drinking water, are evident across the CDD programs reviewed. In Senegal, for example, the National Rural Infrastructure Program improved access to clean water and health services by 22.4 percent and 24.1 percent, respectively, in the treatment areas as compared to the control areas. The National Rural Livelihoods Mission in India (box 1) provides another good example of a broad-based approach to poverty reduction and community empowerment. 5. Important works in this area include those by Sen (1981), Cuny (1983), Wijkman and Timberlake (1984), Anderson and Woodrow (1989), IDS (1989) and OAS (1990). See also the Hyogo Framework for Action at www.unisdr.org. II. Why Does a CDD Approach Make Sense for Building Resilience? • 9 Local Action to Address Local Impacts of Disasters and Climate Change The impacts of climate change are local; action to address it must engage those most affected. Climate science is critical to understanding the potential impacts that communities will be facing in the near and distant future. Yet while the science is improving every day, it is still relatively limited at the local level. This need not be a constraint on thinking about how to build resil- ience. By drawing on the lived experience of communities, much can be learned about both the impacts of climate change and ways in which autonomous adaptation can be supported. National governments, development agencies, the private sector, and researchers rarely have a good understanding of the strategies poor communities are already implementing to adapt to climate change and increasing disaster risk. The findings of work from Moser et al. (2010) suggest that delivering resources at the local level to support these strategies can be an effective part of long-term investment for building climate resilience. CDD offers the ability to tailor interventions to the local context. By channeling funds directly to the community level and engaging communities in making the investment decisions, CDD projects can make use of local knowledge and expertise for a more effective outcome. Saint Lucia’s Second Disaster Mitigation Project (2009–11) supported the expansion of the Manage- ment of Slope Stability in Communities (MoSSaiC) program, which helps communities manage landslide risk. The concept arose in 2004 from discussions with the Government of Saint Lucia and the local social fund that were implementing a project to improve footpath access in a low-income urban community. Rainfall-triggered landslides were known to be a major problem in this and many other communities. However, advice to that point had suggested that little could be done to stabilize the hillsides. Outside experts believed that improved surface water management could provide an inexpensive way of improving urban slope stability and con- ducted house-by-house discussions with community residents to identify the localized causes of the landside issues and confirm that surface water drainage would improve slope stability. Residents’ detailed knowledge of highly localized slope features was combined with the local engineers’ knowledge of landslide processes to develop a community-wide drainage plan that then engaged local contractors in its construction. Drains were designed to intercept overland flow of rainfall and capture household water (roof water and grey water) and, at the same time, reduce landslide hazard (Anderson and Holcombe 2013). Resilience Cannot be Achieved by Working at the Community Level Alone Scaling up and sustaining community-based resilience calls for bridging the gap between the local, subnational, and national levels, and for understanding the complementary roles of formal and informal institutions. World Bank research (Agarwal et al. 2011; World Bank 2011a) has found that strong local institutions (both formal and informal) are essential for the success- ful implementation of community-based adaptation strategies. However, there is often a gap in terms of boundary organizations that can effectively link local-level adaptation actions and 10 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Box 2. Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province On-Farm Water Management Project In Pakistan, irrigation and drainage systems faced severe problems, including water scarcity, water-logging and salinity, over-exploitation of groundwater, inadequate operation and maintenance, and insufficient cost recovery. There were no effective fora for farmers to raise their concerns and excessive intervention of the government in irrigation management did not encourage meaningful participation of farmers in the system management. To address the challenge, through the North West Frontier Province On-Farm Water Management Project, Farmer Organizations/Federation of Water Users Associations were established and formally contracted with government agencies for transferred or joint management of the irrigation systems. The farmer bodies participated in the planning, design, construction, and main- tenance of irrigation systems and water resources. Farmers also made financial contributions to the capital cost of investments and regular O&M of their irrigation systems. The formal contracts have empowered farmer organizations with clear legal status and roles, which have positively affected farmers’ linkages and working relationships with the Irrigation and Drainage Authority. It was found that beneficiary participation was more effective in cases where the irrigation management was formally and fully transferred to farmer organizations. national and subnational-level planning, and where they exist, their capacity is usually limited and the support they receive from national and subnational agencies is often inadequate. Com- munities must be connected to higher-level policy, technical assistance and information for effective adaptation and DRM support. The CDD approach can help to promote the objective of working across scales. CDD programs that have been scaled up work to create linkages between decentralized sector ministries, local government, and community-based initiatives within a “local space”—a concept of interme- diate scale above the community and below the regional and national levels. For example, in Benin, the National Community Driven Development Project sought to structurally integrate the CDD approach into the decentralization process, which successfully provided capacity-building opportunities to communities as well as to local governments and sectoral ministries. In Malawi, over the past two decades, the Malawi Social Action Fund evolved from an autonomous (parallel) Social Fund to the Government’s main Local Development Financing mechanism. The focus of the project also shifted from emergency response to general local development and livelihoods. The Niger Pilot Program for Climate Resilience provided recommendations for the Community Action Project for Climate Resilience as well as the Phase II of the Community Action Project to integrate the climate dimension into local council development plans, give more responsibili- ties to community institutions, and envisage the planning/implementation of inter-communal actions to combat climate change (World Bank 2011c). Women’s Empowerment is a Key Ingredient for Resilience Climate change efforts provide an important opportunity to engage women as active agents of resilience building rather than passive recipients of adaptation support. Women are dis- proportionately vulnerable to the impacts of extreme events, and this must be addressed when supporting communities’ ability to adapt. Perhaps more importantly, however, climate change provides an opportunity for positive social transformation on gender equity. The briefing note on Gender and Climate Change: Three Things You Should Know (World Bank 2011b) details the II. Why Does a CDD Approach Make Sense for Building Resilience? • 11 benefits of empowering women as climate and disaster risk-management champions and docu- ments the impact that women’s leadership can have on building climate resilience and promot- ing low-emissions development pathways. When properly designed, CDD projects can also contribute to women’s empowerment, which, in turn, builds resilience. Well-designed CDD projects are an effective tool for empowering women at the local level in developing countries, using measures to promote the capacity build- ing and participation of women throughout the whole project cycle. For example, in pastoral communities of Kenya and Ethiopia, livelihood diversification made possible through capacity- building support to women’s savings and loans groups helped communities better manage the risks associated with the 2005–08 drought cycle by generating income, preserving assets, and enhancing food security. In this case, women played an important leadership role, inspired in part by exchange visits across the Kenyan–Ethiopia border. In India, the National Rural Livelihoods Mission also has a strong focus on women’s empowerment, working to strengthen women’s self-help groups and progressively building experience with savings and microloans (see box 1). What Has Been the III.  Investment Thus Far of CDD in Resilience? Between 2001–11, the World Bank’s overall CDD portfolio averaged US$2.27 billion a year in new lending commitments (figure 1). There were a total of 375 CDD projects undergoing imple- mentation when this review was conducted. Regionally, most projects are being implemented in the Africa Region, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean and South Asia. Sectorally, the bulk of the portfolio is with Agriculture and Rural Development, followed by Social Protection, Social Development and Urban Development. Over fiscal 2001–11, 161 CDD projects invested US$12 billion in climate resilience. This portfo- lio review looked at World Bank-supported CDD projects that were approved over an 11-year period, from fiscal 2001 through fiscal 2011. The value of the project components (World Bank funding plus any co-financing) that contribute to building climate and disaster resilience is US$12 billion, more than US$1 billion per year over this period. Figure 1. CDD Lending Amounts from Fiscal 2001–11 6 5.1 5 CDD amount 4 US$ billion 3 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fiscal year 13 14 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development  omparison of CDD Resilience Investment to Figure 2. C Climate Adaptation Funding Total World Bank lending 2001–11: Amount needed annually to adapt to $308 B climate change: $100 B CDD investment in Total amount mobilized globally climate resilience: to date for CCA financing: $12 B $2.5 B While US$1 billion annually is a significant investment, the needs are enormously greater. It is important to put these numbers into perspective. International climate law6 stipulates that developed countries provide “new and additional” climate change financing to developing countries. While there is no consensus on how to determine additionality and how the concept applies to developed-country financial pledges, the concept is critical to reaching an interna- tional agreement and making progress to address climate change. As mentioned previously, the World Bank estimates that the cost of adapting to 2°C of warming above preindustrial levels by 2050 will be approximately US$100 billion a year (World Bank 2010a), and in the absence of urgent mitigation action, we are likely to reach 4°C of warming by 2100 (World Bank 2012a. To date, only US$2.5 billion has been mobilized globally for climate change adaptation in addition to existing Overseas Development Assistance flows. It is an injustice to make the poor pay for a problem they did not create. It is arguably an even greater injustice, however, if development agencies fail to ensure that existing development support effectively contributes to building the resilience of the poor to climate change. 6. See, for example, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992, Art. 4.3), the Kyoto Protocol (1997, Art. 11.2), the Bali Action Plan (2007, Para 1e), and the Copenhagen Accord (2009, para 8). III. What Has Been the Investment Thus Far of CDD in Resilience? • 15 The CDD “climate/disaster resilience portfolio” can be looked at through different lenses that offer some insights into the types of interventions, key entry points for supporting resilience, and supporting efforts along an “adaptation spectrum.” Interventions to support climate and disaster resilience through CDD include a number of public and private goods both for disaster response and recovery and for ex ante risk reduction. Projects could include any one or a com- bination of the following activities (see table 1 for a few examples): • Construction or reconstruction/repair of productive or protective infrastructure • Labor-intensive public works • Building institutions of the poor: social capital and community mobilization • Safety nets/cash transfers for disaster relief/recovery or longer-term resilience • Microfinance services, including savings and credit • Weather insurance • Disaster risk management/early warning and response capacity • Natural resource-based livelihood support • Agriculture-based livelihood support • Livelihood diversification support • Policy support (district, state, or national level) • Capacity development for collective action • Improved access to climate information • Climate resilient planning CDD Support to Disaster Recovery and Reduction Perhaps one of the simplest ways to classify CDD resilience projects is according to whether they support post-disaster recovery and reconstruction or ex ante risk climate and disaster risk reduction. Looking at the portfolio of 161 projects over the 11-year period, one may expect to see a trend corresponding to the evolution that has taken place over the past years within the humanitarian and development communities of shifting from a reactive, post-disaster response approach to one of proactive, ex ante risk reduction. While no such clear trend emerges across the entire portfolio, there are a couple of noticeable aspects regarding disaster risk management: • While not in the original design, a number of ongoing CDD programs have provided effec- tive disaster response and recovery support. When CDD programs were up and running in places where a natural disaster struck, their on-the-ground presence allowed a rapid and flexible response to local emergency needs. The use of CDD “infrastructure” (e.g., estab- lished village committees and processes for resource flows and implementation) are quite adaptable to delivering in emergencies. A review of impact evaluations of 17 CDD programs (Wong 2012), noted that while five countries suffered setbacks in implementing their CDD programs when a disaster struck, several programs were able to serve as community safety nets in response to the emergency (see box 3 for examples). 16 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Box 3. CDD Projects Responding to Disasters In Madagascar, the Community Development Fund Project supported communal development plans, subprojects in communities, and ca- pacity building of community associations and officials. When cyclones hit the country in 2004, the already-established local participatory platform of the project executing unit served as a vehicle for emergency response, including the distribution of nutritional supplements and other provisions for pregnant and lactating women and children under five; critical medicines to combat outbreaks of disease, such as respiratory infections, pneumonia, and malaria; and the distribution of drinking water, soap, and water treatment kits. More recently, several Madagascar social funds have also helped promote climate resilient norms in social and productive infrastructure (e.g., schools and health centers). When the earthquake and tsunami hit Aceh, Indonesia in 2004, Phase III of the Urban Poverty Project was under preparation and the Kecamatan Development Project was ongoing in Aceh. The post-disaster project provided supplemental support to Urban Poverty Project III to address the particular needs of recovery. It provided grants for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of community infrastructure in the areas identified to be most in need. The project provided effective disaster recovery support and had the added benefit of support- ing the psychological recovery process of affected people by empowering them to be the drivers of the reconstruction process of their communities. • Within a number of long-running CDD programs in hazard-prone countries, there is an evolution from a reactive to a more proactive risk management approach. In a number of cases, ongoing CDD programs have become de facto emergency response and recovery mechanisms. In these programs, there were explicit efforts to integrate disaster risk reduc- tion into the reconstruction efforts, and in some cases there are initiatives to integrate a more proactive risk management approach to both natural hazards and longer-term climate change (see box 4). Box 4. Strengthening Resilience in Bangladesh When Bangladesh was hit by Cyclone Sidr in 2007 and Cyclone Aila in 2009, the first phase of the Empowerment and Livelihood Project, which began in 2003, provided effective recovery support. In 2012, building on this experience, the second phase of the project, locally referred to as “Nuton Jibon (New Life),” considered vulnerability to natural hazards in the project design. The project aims to support the rural poor to improve their livelihoods, quality of life, and strengthen their resilience to climate variability, natural hazards, and other shocks. In addition to poverty and market accessibility, criteria for the selection of subdistricts are also based on criteria related to natural hazard exposure. The focus on building institutions of the poor through direct financing to village-level institutions has been maintained with an enhanced focus on building preparedness to hazard events and long-term resilience. Once a village has adopted the program, it follows a sequence of planning and implementation steps that make up the Village Develop- ment Cycle. Communities undertake a participatory planning process to determine local priorities and the best use for their funds. Given the core risk reduction and resilience goals of the proposed project, one of the key steps for the communities is participatory vulnerability analyses, which result in disaster preparedness plans and investments that enable villages to better anticipate, withstand, and recover from shocks and disasters. For example, the locations and design of community centers, rural roads, tube wells, and other works are informed by the vulnerability analysis. The analysis and subsequent risk reduction efforts are fully integrated into the Village Development Cycle and, collectively, they make up the “Resilience Cycle” named by the project. III. What Has Been the Investment Thus Far of CDD in Resilience? • 17 Table 1. Examples of CDD Project Support Country Project (Year) Description of Approach/Support India Rajasthan Rural The climate adaptation component supports various adaptation approaches at the household and Livelihoods Project community level in the areas of community water resources management, diversification of farm and (2010–16) nonfarm livelihoods, and climate risk management tools. It also provides assistance to the state’s policy framework on climate change adaptation and knowledge development for climate resilience. Zambia Emergency Drought The project combined an immediate response of public works component with medium- to long-term Recovery Project capacity-building efforts for the country to cope with natural events. It strengthened the government’s (2002–05) early warning system, drought management arrangements, and a cohesive and responsive longer-term safety net framework at the central and the district government levels. Algeria Rural Employment In the Soil Erosion Control component, activities such as reforestation, riverbank management, Project (2003–08) terracing and biological control, flood control infrastructure, and forestry rehabilitation are selected by a participatory approach. The Agricultural Development component supported activities including rain-fed and irrigated fruit tree plantations, land clearing, rural roads upgrading and rehabilitation, small livestock production, beekeeping, and handicraft activities with specific consideration given to women’s participation. Lao PDR Agricultural The project increased crop production and farm income of poor small-scale subsistence farmers Development Project through the provision of a secure irrigation system during the dry season, improved water control during (2000–08) the wet season, better on-farm water management, better farming practices through extension and on-farm research, and access to improved seeds and production diversification. It also supported social infrastructure (water supplies, sanitation, and access roads), resulted in both direct social and economic benefits to all rural households in the project area. Income-generating activities under the Village Investment for the Poor component specifically targeted poor landless households. Different Sectors Supported by CDD Projects Resilience efforts supported through CDD approaches have focused on a number of sectors over the period reviewed, with Agriculture and Rural Development comprising more than half of the support. Social Protection is the second largest area of focus, with 12 percent of the resilience lending. Social protection programs, which are comprised of both social assistance (e.g., cash transfers, school feeding, targeted food assistance, and subsidies) and social insurance  hare of CDD and Climate Resilience Lending by Sector Figure 3. S (2001–11) 6% Water 7% Urban development 12% Social protection 11% Social development 0% Health 59% Agriculture and 4% Private sector rural development 1% Environment 18 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Figure 4. Entry Points for CDD and Climate Resilience Natural resources management Infrastructure Livelihoods Projects (such as old-age, survivorship, disability pensions, and unemployment insurance), sometimes use a CDD approach in their projects and are another powerful tool to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. A broader, more detailed view and guidance on using social protection as a tool for climate resilience is presented in greater detail in other studies, including “Social Protection for Climate Resilience” (World Bank 2012b) and “Building Resilience to Disasters and Climate Change through Social Protection” (World Bank 2013). Table 2. Examples of Projects by Areas of Support Support Areas Country Project Year NRM - - Nigeria Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project 2004 NRM - - Yemen Sana’a Basin Water Management Project 2003 NRM - - Philippines Participatory Irrigation Development Project 2009 - Infra - Honduras Social Investment Fund 2001 - Infra - Cameroon Urban and Water Development Support 2007 - Infra - Tonga Post Tsunami Reconstruction Project 2011 - - Livelihoods Brazil Rural Poverty Reduction Projects—Bahia/Ceara 2001 NRM - Livelihoods Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Project 2007 - - Livelihoods Bangladesh Empowerment and Livelihood Improvement “Nuton Jibon” Project 2010 - Infra Livelihoods Zambia Emergency Drought Recovery Project 2003 - Infra Livelihoods Malawi Social Action Fund 2003 Infra Livelihoods Ghana Community-based Rural Development Project 2004 NRM Infra Livelihoods Mongolia Sustainable Livelihoods Program II 2011 NRM - Livelihoods Turkey Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project 2004 NRM - Livelihoods India Rajasthan Rural Livelihoods Project 2011 NRM Infra - Tanzania Water Sector Support Project 2007 NRM Infra - Nicaragua Poverty Reduction and Local Development Project 2001 NRM Infra Livelihoods Armenia Natural Resources Management and Poverty Reduction Project 2002 NRM Infra Livelihoods India Orissa Rural Livelihoods Project 2009 III. What Has Been the Investment Thus Far of CDD in Resilience? • 19 Regardless of the sector, CDD project components focused on disaster and climate resilience adopt one or more of three key entry points: livelihood support, natural resource manage- ment, and/or infrastructure. The majority of CDD resilience projects support infrastructure interventions, followed by livelihood support and natural resource management. A few projects support two of the areas, and two of the 161 projects reviewed cover all three areas. (Table 2 provides some illustrative examples.) CDD projects are typically designed with villages or a local administrative grouping as the unit of operations. As the impacts of disasters and climate change do not limit themselves to administrative boundaries, it may be useful to design CDD programs with a particular hazard area or risk profile in mind, particularly when there is a focus on natural resource management activities. CDD Activities Along an Adaptation Continuum Another useful way to categorize CDD resilience activities is to situate them along an “adap- tation continuum.” The idea of an adaptation continuum was first suggested by a team at the World Resources Institute (McGray et al. 2007) to help clarify the relationship between devel- opment and adaptation. Development activities that address the underlying causes of human vulnerability lie at one end of the continuum, and at the opposite end, there are more special- ized interventions targeting distinct impacts of climate change that fall outside the realm of “traditional” development. In between the two extremes lies a broad spectrum of interventions that focus on addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability or on specific climate impacts to varying degrees (see also Ribot 2010). Figure 5 positions a number of typical instruments sup- ported by CDD and climate resilience projects along such a continuum. CDD programs already include poverty reduction goals that address the underlying causes of vulnerability. In the face of increasing climate and disaster risk, it is important to analyze whether those development goals can still be achieved in the face of increasing climate and disaster risk. In addition, it would be beneficial for CDD programs to address both (general) vulnerability and (climate and disaster) impacts. CDD activities could be included in high-risk areas that address specific impacts of climate change and natural hazards and that encourage households and communities to change risk behavior. 20 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Figure 5. Activities Along an “Adaptation Continuum” Addressing Building Climate Confronting Vulnerability Response Risk Climate Drivers Capacity Management Charge 1 Vulnerability Focus Impact Focus 2 3 4 4 5 1 6 6 7 Weather insurance Savings/credit Building institutions Protective infrastructure of the poor: social capital and community mobilization Labor intensive public works Disaster risk reduction/early warning and response systems Safety nets/cash transfers Source: McGray et al. 2007.  ow Can CDD IV. H Support Resilience More Effectively? It is important to note the limitations of this portfolio review in assessing the experience of CDD projects related to building resilience to disaster and climate risk. The review was limited to available data, which included the CDD project database for fiscal 2001–11, and the respec- tive project documents. For completed projects, Implementation Completion Reports were included, and broader evaluation reports of CDD programs were also reviewed. This initiative has also built on the experience shared among project teams working on CDD projects related to disaster and climate resilience. Moving forward, it would be beneficial to undertake some specific impact evaluations on the impact of CDD programs on building resilience at the community level. Based on the review, however, there are clearly a number of CDD projects and programs that are moving toward a more proactive, strategic, and holistic approach to building resilience to disasters and climate change. There are several lessons that emerge and some important challenges to flag if CDD programs are to reach their full potential as effective platforms for resilience building. The fol- lowing recommendations are suggested to strengthen CDD’s contribution to resilience building. Information is Key and Must Blend Climate Science with Local Knowledge There is a need to bring the climate science into the planning discussions for CDD projects in order to avoid maladaptation. Maladaptation refers to actions or investments that do not take potential climate change impacts into account and may inadvertently increase exposure or vulnerability to climate risk rather than decrease it. Such investments may provide a short-term benefit, but in the longer-term could end up doing more harm than good. Examples include agri- cultural investments that decrease livelihood and food security if the climate becomes unsuit- able for particular crops, promoting human settlements in an area that will become highly risky due to climate change, or infrastructure that overlooks climate impacts and ends up having a shorter life span than expected (OECD 2012). In many country programs, the impetus for taking action on climate change adaptation is usually current climate shocks. And for the most part, project documents reviewed for this paper indicate that CDD projects addressing disaster risk are doing so based on current levels of climate variability. Taking a more proactive approach to reducing risk before disaster hits is certainly a positive and worthwhile investment. The Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre 21 22 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Box 5. Zambia Strengthening Climate Resilience Project The Phase II PPCR project in Zambia, approved in May 2013, provides subgrants to support participatory adaptation at the community, ward, and district level. On the planning side, the project engages established nongovernmental organization partners to work with targeted community/farmers groups to identify local adaptation priorities and develop climate-resilient plans. In this process, the non- governmental organizations will work closely with traditional leaders as well as district-level technical staff to assess community exposure and vulnerability to both climate-related disasters and long-term climate trends. The priority activities will consider both short-term and long-term measures (i.e., responses to current climate variability as well as how projected changes in climate are likely to interact with future population and asset exposure (taking into account demographic changes, location of physical infrastructure, and changes in liveli- hoods). The planning process takes into account the different vulnerabilities experienced by people distinguished by income level, gender, age, and ethnic group. The facilitators aim to establish “adaptive processes,” whereby community groups could assess their vulnerability at regular intervals and integrate lessons learned into the investments supported by the subgrants. (2012) has put forth a list of minimum standards for making local investments in disaster risk management “climate smart.” The minimum standards serve as a practical tool to help communi- ties and local governments integrate changing climate risks into their efforts to reduce risk to extreme events and disasters. For other sectors, practitioners could start with some basic information on future climate scenarios to see how the planned investment will be affected.7 Beyond this, engaging the cli- mate science community in the planning discussions could go further to help avoid maladaptive investments and build awareness on climate change at the local level. Since climate science is limited at the local level, community members must be recognized as equal partners with expertise and experience in building resilience rather than merely as project beneficiaries. Poor communities are dealing with localized, recurrent “everyday” disas- ters that are the result of persisting poverty, environmental degradation, social marginalization, and other factors unrelated to natural hazards or climate change. The strategies that communi- ties use to manage risk are often poorly understood or ignored by governments and develop- ment partners. The design of future CDD programs should develop a better understanding of the “autonomous adaptation” and social innovations that are taking place at the local level on a daily basis so that they can be effectively supported. Tools such as participatory scenario development (World Bank 2011a) can help. It will also be important to provide CDD practitioners and community facilitators with some training on climate change and disaster risk management issues. The PPCR Phase II supported project in Zambia provides a good example. Find the Entry Points In the absence of recurrent extreme events, it may be challenging to identify the key entry points to engage communities in more proactive disaster and climate risk management. As noted above, managing current extreme events is a common and useful entry point to focus communities and local and national governments on the need to manage risk with a more 7. A good resource is the World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/. IV. How Can CDD Support Resilience More Effectively? • 23 proactive, ex ante approach. In other cases, the very long time horizons involved in climate change discussions may seem less relevant to stakeholders, particularly to poor communities that are likely managing a variety of more pressing, nonclimate-related risks on a day-to-day basis. However, there are often activities that can deliver important co-benefits in terms of building resilience to disasters and climate change together with other developmental gains. For example, public works programs, such as those supported through Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program, support the dual goals of ensuring livelihoods and food security as well as climate risk management by providing participants with cash for work focused on activities such as land terracing, reforestation, and the like. Another example is the Management of Slope Stability in Communities program in the Caribbean, which, as described earlier, designed a drainage system for improved surface water management that captured rainfall (roof water and grey water) for household use, and at the same time reduced landslide risk by diverting the rainwater. Keeping it simple helps. While many communities are already feeling the impacts of climate change, they may not understand the climate drivers of the changes they are experiencing. They may have a general sense that weather patterns are changing without understanding why or what more is to come. Climate change information can be confusing, and people can be put off by the science and jargon. The Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre (2007) offers useful advice on how community facilitators can become comfortable talking about climate change and how to relate weather events being experienced by communities to climate change. Overall, the guidance recommends keeping language simple to ensure that planning for climate change remains rooted in local priorities and understanding. This may not involve discussing climate change at all, but instead asking questions about observed changes in the weather to raise awareness and to get people thinking about building resilience. Other tools, such as spatial planning, may also help communities visualize risk that may be more difficult to grasp in the short term. For example, by comparing the coast line of 50 years ago with today’s, communities are able to see how coastal erosion progresses. Or, by simulating the impacts of climate change, communities can make more informed decisions on whether to protect a settlement or relocate. In Samoa, for example, an overlay of maps showing how the coastline had changed due to erosion led the chiefs to ban sand mining, a difficult decision that may not have been otherwise taken. Maintain Flexibility in CDD Programs Dealing with Climate and Disaster Risk Climate change means making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, which will require flexible, “learning-by-doing” approaches. Rather than designing an investment for a specific climate scenario or level of exposure, investments will need to be designed to allow for the unknowns about climate impacts. CDD programs have demonstrated their flexibility for post- disaster response in a number of countries. In Indonesia, efforts were rapidly mobilized follow- ing the disasters in Aceh (2004 tsunami), Yogyakarta, and Central Java (2006 earthquake) and in Central Java (2010 Mt. Merapi eruption). On the same day, the government declared it safe for residents to return to their neighborhoods, trained already-established facilitators in the com- munities to work with beneficiaries to assess needs, prepare community settlement plans, and 24 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development allocate block grants. The key is to have programs in place before the onset of extreme events, with flexible targeting, financing, and implementation arrangements (Jha, Bloch, and Lamond 2011). The same flexibility is needed for activities focused on broader resilience building in order to integrate learning along the way and adjust to changing community vulnerabilities. Promote Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Ministerial Cooperation Increasing climate and disaster risk require interdisciplinary approaches and cooperation across sectors and ministries. A number of the CDD programs reviewed demonstrated the benefits of promoting collaboration between different government programs and policies, both horizontally and vertically. For example, in India National Rural Livelihood Mission, strategic links were made to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Schemes under this act provide 100 days of wage labor per year to eligible poor households. The public works made under MGNREGA include watershed management and landscape restora- tion, thereby helping to build resilience at the landscape level as well as at the household level through short-term wage employment. Despite their achieving a measure of success in fostering cross-sectoral ways of working, many of the projects reviewed illustrated the challenges of collaboration. Sources of funding and new, dedicated sources of climate finance in particular, may offer opportunities to seek new forms of collaboration, but this also runs the risk of driving a wedge between ministries and agencies who face powerful institutional incentives to try to capture such funds and control the agenda in ways that suit their own purposes. This can happen institutionally as well within the World Bank if a specific sector is managing a CDD program and unintentionally limits the choice of resilience building investment options. The Zambia PPCR and the Ethiopia Produc- tive Safety Net Program both provide additional examples of intersectoral and cross-ministerial collaboration. Provide Incentives for Innovation There is a need to provide incentives for innovation in resilience building. Climate resilience is not about finding a silver bullet. Rather, it is usually a question of introducing simple new practices (e.g., sustainable land management technologies such as terracing, water harvesting, and agroforestry) or combining existing practices in new ways. In addition to technology, there may be other forms of innovation related to institutional forms that allows for the adoption or scaling up of new practices. Access to information on the part of potential users is often a major constraint, as are incentives to adopt innovations. Vulnerable communities need greater access to the right information, such as good seasonal forecasts, early warning systems, and knowledge of innovative practices. Information and communication technology can play an important role in providing users with direct access to better climate information. In a number of African coun- tries, for example, local stakeholders are increasingly relying on SMS or Internet distribution lists that provide hazard warnings. There are a few projects that include specific mechanisms to support innovation. China’s Heilongjiang Dairy Project included a climate change mitigation component that supported IV. How Can CDD Support Resilience More Effectively? • 25 research programs to assess climate change through experimental technology. During implemen- tation, the component increased the number of research topics funded from 6 to 16 because of its success in identifying innovative technologies for application by farmers. The Zambia PPCR project is piloting a way to promote innovation by providing community groups and individuals with grants for climate adaptation activities that meet certain criteria. Recipients of the grants will be first identified by local poverty assessment groups and then awarded grants based on their engagement in visible, transformative, or innovative adaptation practices. Grants are also earmarked for women-headed households in order to promote women as resilience champions. Explore Risk Financing Options CDD resilience projects may tap into a broader range of financing instruments than conven- tional CDD projects in order to manage risk. CDD serves as an effective delivery mechanism for recovery support down to community level. As discussed earlier, a number CDD programs became de facto recovery support programs after being hit with a disaster. With this goal in mind, CDD project design could plan for contingencies by including a Zero Sum Contingent Component, which is a nonfunded component that can receive reallocations from other com- ponents in the event of an emergency. Governments could also link a CDD program with a CAT-DDO (Development Policy Loan with a Differed Draw Down Option), which would help the government manage fiscal risk and at the same time provide rapid access to funds that can be channeled to scale up a CDD program for emergency response and recovery. For households and community groups, CDD programs can go beyond savings and loans to explore insurance products for risk management. Over the past decade or so, a number of programs have piloted index insurance products for poor farmers or herders to protect their livelihoods from disaster shocks. While these products have produced mixed results in terms of their impact on household welfare, there are some promising models, which indicates the potential for insurance to complement other mechanisms like safety nets. Examples include the Index Based Livestock Insurance Project in Mongolia and insurance products linked to the Productive Safety Net Program in Ethiopia.8 Strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation for CDD and Resilience An important gap in current knowledge is how to assess, measure, monitor, and evaluate climate resilience. Metrics for monitoring and evaluating resilience efforts are lacking. Baselines and counterfactuals are difficult to establish for resilience, and there is no “finish line” due to the constantly shifting climate risk. Most indicators in current use are adapted from standard development indicators or develop lists of resilience characteristic based on the traits of com- munities that seem to thrive despite shocks. A number of development partners are grappling with the metrics of resilience, mainly focused on establishing leading indicators that may lead to resilience. CDD programs could provide an important laboratory for studying the indicators and impacts of resilience-building efforts. 8. For a detailed review of these and other cases, see Arnold et al., “Insuring Resilience?: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?” (World Bank, forthcoming). 26 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Box 6. Building Resilience to Dzud in Mongolia The World Bank-supported rural development program in Mongolia has evolved over the last fifteen years to provide a combination of instruments, including investment operations, policy support, and analytical support, geared to address three conceptually distinct risk layers, all resting on a foundational CDD platform provided by the Sustainable Livelihoods Program. The Sustainable Livelihoods Program, an APL now in its third phase, supports activities to reduce losses in Layer I (up to 6 percent mor- tality) through pastoral risk management by local herder communities and local authorities including community-based natural resource management, land-use, and contingency reserve planning; financing local public and club goods to improve winter preparedness (hay and fodder production and fodder storage); demonstrating new technologies to improve resilience; distance learning for herders on pasture management and herd management to improve winter preparation; and testing new institutional arrangements for pastoral risk manage- ment. In addition, livelihood diversification into less climate-sensitive income-earning activities has been facilitated through access to microfinance; short-term employment has been created through community-managed public investments in small-scale infrastructure; and public investments in health, education, and transportation have helped access markets and wider employment opportunities. Layer II risks are not easily absorbed by herders. Additional tools required for risk transfer include index-based insurance, which would allow herders to transfer some risk to the private insurance market (between 6 percent and 30 percent of losses), backed by international reinsurance. The Index-Based Livestock Insurance Project has been successfully piloted since 2005 and is currently being scaled up to achieve nationwide coverage. Insurance payouts are not based on actual losses at the level of individual households but on aggregate losses at the district level exceeding predetermined risk thresholds. Reaching smaller, more vulnerable herders remains a challenge. This can be tackled by facilitating marketing through herder losses groups, keeping premium rates low, and linking insurance Layer III: Very low frequency, very high losses: with credit to make it more affordable to herders. these are rare, catastrophic events Layer III risks are “noninsurable” as losses are too high. (such as 2010 dzud, 1944) This layer requires direct targeted interventions support- 30% ed by the government for catastrophe losses (30 percent Layer II: Low frequency, medium losses: mortality or higher). A combination of approaches may less common events (e.g., one in ten years); be required at this level, such as public catastrophe causing significant losses of livestock coverage and targeted social safety nets. A World Bank- 6% supported study examined herder responses to the 2010 dzud (Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2012). Findings sug- Layer I: High frequency, low losses: these are near annual events that cause gest that collective action among herders can improve relatively low levels of livestock losses resilience up to a certain level, but that government, frequency donor, and humanitarian funding was too little, too late in reaching herders. Cross-level institutions to manage Conceptualizing risk “layers” associated with dzud in Mongolia pastoral risk are needed but are currently lacking. This would require improving the overall monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems of CDD programs. As Wong (2012) points out, while the number of rigorous impact evaluations of CDD projects has increased, the number is miniscule when considering over 400 active CDD programs and 25 years of implementation. Wong’s review identified only 17 World Bank official impact evaluations that had been completed on CDD programs. She further identified the need to focus strategic impact evaluations on the issue of sustainability of CDD programs, which is highly relevant to resilience building. IV. How Can CDD Support Resilience More Effectively? • 27 It would be very useful to undertake a longitudinal study to assess how a community either recovered from an extreme event or reduced risk to specific hazards using a CDD approach. This could go beyond evaluating whether a CDD project allowed faster access to recovery resources in the face of a disaster to assessing CDD activities against indicators related to the core properties of resilience, as discussed earlier. Examples include: whether social networks (modularity) improved community cohesion and provided more effective psychosocial recov- ery of community members, whether community-level investments provided additional coping mechanisms (diversity and redundancy), or whether communities employed a learning-by-doing approach and adjusted their risk management strategies over time (regulatory feedbacks). V. Conclusions Many poor communities in developing countries are already feeling the impacts of climate change. As discussed, the World Bank’s 4 Degree report has confirmed that these impacts will worsen and that the poor will be hit the hardest. The poor will bear the brunt of climate change impacts while having contributed very little to its causes. The impacts of climate change mean greater challenges in terms of extreme events, health impacts, food security, livelihood security, migration, water security, cultural identity, and other risks for millions of poor people. There is a true sense of urgency to identify effective tools to help the poor manage increasing risk and build resilience to what may come. CDD projects have already made a significant investments over the past decade in helping communities deal with disaster and climate risk. They have demonstrated their ability to pro- vide effective and agile responses to disaster emergencies in addition to having positive impacts on poverty reduction and service delivery. There are several characteristics of the CDD approach that lend themselves to supporting resilience building, including the ability to link communities with local and national authorities; flexible approaches that can be tailored to the local context and to changing needs; and the ability to serve as a general platform for empowerment, address- ing the underlying causes of vulnerability in addition to specific interventions for disaster and climate risk management. Perhaps most critically, CDD programs have the ability to reach large numbers of poor people directly, which allows governments to work at the scale required in the context of climate change and increasing disaster risk. This review suggests that there is great potential for a CDD approach to serve as a powerful tool for building disaster and climate resilience at the local level. If this potential is to be realized, there are a number of things that CDD practitioners need to keep in mind, including integrating climate science into program design; identifying appropriate entry points to engage communities on the topic; and, promoting flexibility, cross-sectoral solutions, and cooperation as well as innovation specific to the challenges of increasing disaster and climate risk. Moving forward, it would be useful to develop more detailed guidance for the CDD practi- tioner on integrating disaster and climate resilience efforts into CDD programs. This could go beyond the suggestions and resources listed here and build on previous efforts, such as the CDD toolkit on integrating DRM into CDD programs,9 which does not address climate change. 9. The formal title of the toolkit is “Building Resilient Communities: Risk Management and Response to Natural Disasters through Social Funds and Community-Driven Development Operations” (World Bank 2009). Also see annex 1, Useful Resources for Integrating Disaster and Climate Resilience into CDD programs. 29 30 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Finally, there is a need for more evidence of impacts on resilience building from past CDD projects. It would be important to undertake specific impact evaluations on the impact of CDD programs on building resilience at the community level. These efforts could provide some impor- tant learning to strengthen understanding of resilience and how to measure it. More importantly, it could guide governments, development partners, and communities to improve the effective- ness of resilience-building efforts. Annex 1. Useful Resources for Integrating Disaster and Climate Risk Management into CDD Programs Climate Change and General Information World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/ The Climate Change Knowledge Portal Beta is a central hub of information, data, and reports about climate change around the world. Aimed at development practitioners, users can query, map, compare, chart, and summarize key climate and climate-related information. The Climate Change Knowledge Portal contains environmental, disaster risk, and socioeconomic datasets as well as synthesis products, such as the Climate Adaptation Country Profiles, which are built and packaged for specific user-focused functions like climate change indices for a particular country. The portal also provides intelligent links to other resources and tools. Social Resilience and Climate Change Operational Toolkit (World Bank 2011c) http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/12/05/ 000386194_20111205033312/Rendered/PDF/658860WP00PUBL0lkit0FINAL200PUBLIC0.pdf This note is written for World Bank task teams and explains how an understanding of the social dimensions of climate change can enhance the sustainability and quality of World Bank-sup- ported operations while mitigating potential risks. The note reviews major challenges involved in addressing the social dimensions of climate change, outlines how social development approaches can help to solve these challenges, highlights the main social development analytical and opera- tional tools in relation to the social dimensions of climate change, and provides operational examples to highlight strategies that focus on the social dimensions of climate change. Gender and Climate Change: Three Things You Should Know (World Bank 2011b) http://www-esd.worldbank.org/sdvpubs/index.cfm?Page=Search&DocID=548&sr=1 Women’s empowerment is critical for climate resilience and much can be done to improve the effectiveness of climate finance and actions on the ground by ensuring that gender relations are taken into account in design, implementation, and measurement of results. This policy brief provides an overview of the gender dimensions of climate change and provides examples of the role that women play in building climate resilience. 31 32 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Specific Tools to Work with Communities Participatory Scenario Development Approaches for Identifying Pro-Poor Adaptation Options (Bizikova et al, 2010) http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/PSD-Pro-Poor- Adaptation_EACC-Social%20.pdf Participatory scenario development (PSD) is a process that involves the participation of stake- holders to explore the future in a creative and policy-relevant way. PSD is used to identify the effects of alternative responses to emerging challenges, to determine how different groups of stakeholders view the range of possible policy and management options available to them, and to identify the public policies or investment support needed to facilitate effective future actions. PSD approaches help to identify locally relevant pathways of autonomous and planned adaptation in the context of development choices and decisions while informing actors of potential tradeoffs and possible consequences of adaptation actions. The publication provides the theoretical foundations, describes the workshop design and process, and provides a number of cases where PSD has been applied. Building Resilient Communities: Risk Management and Response to Natural Disasters through Social Funds and Community-Driven Development Operations (World Bank 2009) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSF/Resources/Building_Resilient_Communities_ Complete.pdf This toolkit is designed to help Task Teams on World Bank social funds and CDD operations iden- tify disaster risk management issues in their programs and projects and to design and implement appropriate responses. The toolkit introduces the concepts and components of community- based disaster risk management and their key relationship to the achievement of the develop- ment and poverty reduction objectives of the World Bank, including those of social funds and CDD operations within this context. The nine modules of the toolkit correspond to key thematic areas of community-based disaster risk management. Each module can be used separately or in combination with others. The toolkit is particularly useful to determine the most effective ways to manage operational challenges in relation to the rapid mobilization and scaling up of emer- gency response operations, but it needs to be updated to integrate climate change concerns. Annex 1. Useful Resources for Integrating Disaster and Climate Risk • 33 Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Guide (Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre (2007) http://www.climatecentre.org/site/publications/85?type=3 The Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Guide presents five years of experiences from more than thirty national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, particularly in developing countries. It relates the experiences of Red Cross and Red Crescent staff and volunteers all around the world trying to understand and address the risks of climate change. The guide begins with the basics about climate change: the scientific consensus, the humanitarian consequences, and the general implications for the Red Cross and Red Crescent. This is followed by six thematic modules: (1) Getting Started; (2) Dialogues; (3) Communications; (4) Disaster Management; (5) Community- Based Disaster Risk Reduction; and (6) Health. Each module begins with a background section with real-life Red Cross and Red Crescent experiences and perspectives, followed by a “how-to” section with specific step-by-step guidance. The 140-page guide is available in English, French, Arabic, Spanish, and Russian. Building Resilient Communities: A Training Manual on Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction http://www.cordaid.org/en/publications/ building-resilient-communities-training-manual-community-based-disaster-risk-reduction/ The training manual and resource book provides trainers and community facilitators with a com- prehensive guide and reference materials to conduct a basic two-week course on Community Driven Disaster Risk Reduction. The manual is divided into four booklets: (1) CMDRR Training, Design and Implementation (2) Module 1: CMDRR Concepts, Principles and Practices (3) Module 2: Facilitating CMDRR Methods and Processes (4) Module 3: Sustaining CMDRR First published by Cordaid in 2007, a revised edition was published in May 2013 to include more attention to Climate Change Adaptation and Eco Systems Management. The guide is available in the following languages: English, Spanish, French, Bahasa Indonesia, Bangla, Tamil, and Hindi. Annex 2. List of Projects Reviewed Climate Total Bank Resilience Project Loan/Credit Amount Year ID Country Project Name (US$ million) (US$ million) Africa Region 2001 P044695 Uganda National Agricultural Advisory Services Project 45.00 83.40 2002 P069901 Nigeria Community-Based Urban Development Project 110.00 43.90 P072996 Niger Private Irrigation Promotion Project 38.72 39.46 P050383 Ethiopia Food Security Project 85.00 77.32 2003 P081773 Ethiopia Emergency Drought Recovery Project 60.00 55.00 P075911 Malawi Social Action Fund 60.00 42.00 P065991 Niger Community Action Program 35.00 22.00 P080612 Zambia Emergency Drought Recovery Project 50.00 56.38 P059073 Tanzania Dar es Salaam Water Supply and Sanitation Project 61.50 126.05 P002952 Uganda Northern Uganda Social Action Fund Project 100.00 130.00 P078058 Kenya Arid Lands Resource Management Project Phase Two 60.00 46.32 P080368 Malawi Emergency Drought Recovery Project 50.00 40.00 P075915 Ethiopia Pastoral Community Development Project 30.00 52.00 2004 P074266 Chad Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project 20.00 19.67 P081368 Mauritania Community-Based Rural Development 45.00 30.00 P069892 Nigeria Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project 70.00 43.68 P063622 Nigeria Second National Fadama Development Project 100.00 81.00 P075247 Malawi Community-Based Rural Land Development Project 27.00 13.00 2005 P081482 Ghana Community-Based Rural development 60.00 91.80 P085786 Tanzania Tanzania Second Social Action Fund 150.00 41.00 P088978 Madagascar Community Development Fund Project 50.00 28.00 P064558 Burundi BI-Agriculture Rehabilitation & Sustainable Land Management 35.00 34.57 2006 P093165 Mozambique Market Led Smallholder Development in the Zambezi Valley 61.00 38.00 P085752 Tanzania Tanzania Agricultural Sector Development Project 90.00 116.00 2007 P087154 Tanzania Water Sector Support Project 200.00 121.00 P084002 Cameroon Urban and Water Development Support Project 80.00 42.00 P074106 Kenya Western Kenya CDD and Flood Mitigation Project 86.00 77.60 P096296 Madagascar MG-Community Develop. Fund/Additional Financing (FID IV)— 18.00 11.30 Supplemental 35 36 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Climate Total Bank Resilience Project Loan/Credit Amount Year ID Country Project Name (US$ million) (US$ million) P098378 Burkina Faso Second Phase Community Based Rural Development Project 74.00 48.00 P098093 Ethiopia Productive Safety Nets APL II 175.00 175.00 P100762 Kenya Kenya Arid Lands Resource Management Project Emergency 60.00 30.00 Additional Financing 2008 P107139 Ethiopia Sustainable Land Management Project 20.00 21.00 P111117 Ghana Community Based Rural Development Project Supplemental 22.00 6.50 P096323 Ethiopia Tana & Beles Integrated Water Resources Development 45.00 5.75 P108932 Ethiopia Pastoral Community Development Project II 80.00 120.80 2009 P111984 Madagascar Rural Development Support Project Additional Financing 30.00 12.00 P115952 Tanzania Additional Financing for Tanzania Second Social Action Fund 30.00 45.00 (TASAF II) P111633 Uganda Second Northern Uganda Social Action Fund Project (NUSAF2) 100.00 15.00 2010 P114931 Rwanda Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting, and Hillside Irrigation 34.00 38.00 P107343 Burundi BI—Agro-Pastoral Productivity and Markets Development Project 43.00 26.00 P113220 Ethiopia Productive Safety Net APL III 480.00 1,200.00 2011 P121027 Cameroon Urban and Water Development Support Project Additional 28.70 46.00 Financing P107598 Mozambique MZ PROIRRI Sustainable Irrigation Development 70.00 58.00 P125049 Togo Emergency Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Energy Project— 9.50 9.50 Additional Financing P113030 Chad Local Development Program Support Project II 25.00 40.00 P124844 Africa— West Africa Regional Fisheries Program APL A1 Additional Financing 2.00 55.68 Regional P121120 Malawi Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods and Agricultural Development Project 12.70 7.50 East Asia and Pacific 2001 P073025 Indonesia Kecamatan Development Project (02) 320.20 2170.00 P065973 Lao PDR Agricultural Development Project 16.69 12.80 P062748 Vietnam Community Based Rural Infrastructure Project 102.78 25.00 2002 P067770 Mongolia Sustainable Livelihoods Project 18.73 20.87 P059936 Vietnam Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction Project 110.00 36.00 2003 P071146 Cambodia Rural Investment and Local Governance Project 22.00 50.00 P059931 Indonesia Water Resources & Irrigation Sector Management Program 70.00 93.00 P079156 Indonesia Third Kecamatan Development Project 249.80 71.00 2004 P125648 Indonesia Community-based Settlement Rehabilitation and Reconstruction 11.50 11.50 Project 2005 P092019 Indonesia Kecamatan Development Project 3B 160.00 46.00 Annex 2. List of Projects Reviewed • 37 Climate Total Bank Resilience Project Loan/Credit Amount Year ID Country Project Name (US$ million) (US$ million) P096647 Indonesia Community Recovery in Earthquake affected areas through the 17.90 6.00 Urban Poverty Project 2006 P081255 China Changjiang/Pearl River Watershed Rehabilitation Project 100.00 197.20 P084742 China Irrigated Agriculture Intensification Loan III 200.00 110.48 2007 P096439 Mongolia Sustainable Livelihoods II 33.00 37.01 P084967 Philippines Mindanao Rural Development Project—Phase 2 83.75 16.00 P104185 Indonesia KDP3 Second Phase—Additional Financing 123.00 40.00 2008 P105002 Indonesia National Program for Community Empowerment in Rural Areas 231.19 190.62 (PNPM) P087716 Lao PDR Khammouane Development Project 9.00 3.00 2009 P108505 Lao PDR Sustainable Forestry for Rural Development II 10.00 17.50 P088926 Philippines Participatory Irrigation Development Project 70.36 92.00 P096556 China Eco-Farming Project 120.00 370.00 2010 P099751 China Sustainable Development in Poor Rural Areas 100.00 64.20 P113493 Vietnam Second Northern Mountains Poverty Reduction Project 150.00 93.00 2011 P121075 Cambodia Ketsana Emergency Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project 70.00 28.50 P098078 China Huai River Basin Flood Management and Drainage Improvement 200.00 299.00 P114348 Indonesia Water Resources and Irrigation Sector Management Program 2 202.56 100.00 P120595 Tonga Tonga Post Tsunami Reconstruction 5.00 4.20 P125504 Mongolia Second Sustainable Livelihoods Project Additional Financing 11.00 2.00 P121631 Solomon Additional Financing—Solomon Islands Rural Development Program 6.00 3.00 Islands Europe and Central Asia 2001 P055068 Georgia Irrigation & Drainage Community Development Project 27.00 25.51 2002 P057847 Armenia Natural Resources Management & Poverty Reduction Project 8.30 6.40 P008860 Tajikistan Poverty Alleviation 2 Project 13.80 17.72 2003 P077297 Albania Community Works 2 Project 15.00 12.00 P055434 Bosnia and Small-Scale Commercial Agriculture Development Project 12.00 7.70 Herzegovina 2004 P077454 Tajikistan Community Agriculture & Watershed Management Project 10.80 12.00 P070950 Turkey Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project 20.00 43.07 2005 P082375 Albania Natural Resources Development Project 7.00 23.18 2007 P096409 Kyrgyz Second On-farm Irrigation Project 16.00 2.50 Republic 2011 P107617 Azerbaijan Water Users Association Development Support Project 114.30 89.90 38 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Climate Total Bank Resilience Project Loan/Credit Amount Year ID Country Project Name (US$ million) (US$ million) Latin America and Caribbean 2001 P064906 Nicaragua Poverty Reduction and Local Development Project 60.00 1.00 P064895 Honduras Social Investment Fund Project (05) 60.00 30.00 P057649 Brazil Rural Poverty Reduction Project—Bahia 54.35 11.00 P073035 Honduras Access to Land Pilot (PACTA) 8.00 1.17 P050875 Brazil Rural Poverty Reduction Project—Ceara 37.50 11.00 2002 P039437 Ecuador Poverty Reduction and Local Rural Development (PROLOCAL) 25.20 35.88 P066170 Brazil Rural Poverty Reduction Project—Rio Grande do Norte 22.50 15.00 P074085 Brazil Rural Poverty Reduction Project—Sergipe 20.80 14.50 2003 P076837 Jamaica National Community Development Project 15.00 13.00 2004 P064914 Honduras Forests and Rural Productivity 20.00 21.60 P080830 Brazil Maranhao Integrated Program: Rural Poverty Reduction Project 30.00 19.00 2006 P052256 Brazil Rural Poverty Reduction Project—Minas Gerais 35.00 26.00 P093787 Brazil Bahia State Integrated Project: Rural Poverty 54.35 33.00 P100791 Brazil Additional Financing for the Rural Poverty Reduction Project— 37.50 22.00 Ceara 2007 P082651 Brazil APL 1 Para Integrated Rural Development Project 60.00 58.00 P101879 Brazil Additional Financing for the Rural Poverty Reduction Project— 30.00 30.00 Pernambuco P089011 Brazil Municipal APL1: Uberaba 17.27 15.36 P089839 Haiti Haiti Rural Water and Sanitation Project 5.00 2.50 2008 P108974 Nicaragua Nicaragua Hurricane Felix Emergency Recovery Project 17.00 15.70 P106699 Haiti Urban Community Driven Development Project (PRODEPUR) 15.70 6.68 P083997 Brazil Alto Solimoes Basic Services and Sustainable Development Project 24.25 13.54 in Support of the Zona Franca Verde Program P102446 Argentina AR Additional Financing Small Farmer Development Project 45.00 118.00 (PROINDER) 2009 P104752 Brazil Para√≠ba Second Rural Poverty Reduction 20.90 12.00 P114775 Haiti Community-Driven Development (CDD) Additional Financing 8.00 10.00 P110614 Brazil Sergipe State Integrated Project: Rural Poverty 20.80 11.00 2010 P107666 Peru Water Resources Management Modernization 10.00 14.00 P118139 Haiti Rural Community Driven Development—Additional Financing II 15.00 41.00 P101508 Brazil Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Rural Development Project 39.50 55.00 P110617 Brazil Bahia State Integrated Rural Poverty Additional Financing 30.00 32.00 P107416 Guatemala Expanding Opportunities for Vulnerable Groups 114.50 35.00 2011 P121833 Haiti Housing Reconstruction—Urban Community Driven Development 30.00 30.00 Additional Financing Annex 2. List of Projects Reviewed • 39 Climate Total Bank Resilience Project Loan/Credit Amount Year ID Country Project Name (US$ million) (US$ million) Middle East and North Africa 2001 P062714 Yemen Irrigation Improvement Project 21.30 22.30 2003 P076784 Algeria Second Rural Employment Project 95.00 124.20 P072317 Tunisia Northwest Mountainous and Forestry Areas Development Project 34.00 38.20 P064981 Yemen Sana’a Basin Water Management Project 24.00 23.40 P069124 Morocco Rainfed Agriculture Development Project 26.80 26.30 2007 P100026 Morocco National Initiative for Human Development Support Project (INDH) 100.00 250.00 P089259 Yemen Rainfed Agriculture and Livestock Project 20.00 22.83 2009 P107037 Yemen Yemen-Water Sector Support 90.00 160.00 2011 P117355 Djibouti Rural Community Development & Water Mobilization/PRODERMO 6.13 3.35 South Asia 2001 P067216 India Karnataka Watershed Development Project 100.40 118.00 P071092 Pakistan North West Frontier Province On-Farm Water Management Project 21.35 12.82 P059143 Bangladesh Second Poverty Alleviation Microfinance Project (Microfinance II) 151.00 39.00 2002 P040610 India Rajasthan Water Sector Restructuring Project 140.00 179.26 P071033 India Karnataka Community-Based Tank Management Project 98.90 67.91 2003 P053578 Bangladesh Social Investment Fund 18.24 18.00 P071272 India Andhra Pradesh Rural Poverty Reduction Project 150.03 135.00 P078550 India Uttaranchal Decentralized Watershed Development Project 69.62 87.49 P082977 Pakistan Second Poverty Alleviation Fund Project 238.00 68.00 P073369 India Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation “Jalswarajya” Project 181.00 111.00 P078997 Pakistan Sindh On-Farm Water Management Project 61.14 68.84 P082621 Pakistan NWFP Community Infrastructure Project II (NWFP CIP2) 37.10 23.00 P074872 Sri Lanka Community Development and Livelihood Improvement 51.00 42.50 “Gemi Diriya” Project 2005 P094513 India Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project 465.00 545.00 P094193 Maldives Post Tsunami Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Project 14.00 9.50 2006 P093720 India Himachal Pradesh Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project 60.00 74.00 P099043 Pakistan NWFP-OFWM—Earthquake Additional Financing 10.00 10.00 P099038 Pakistan Additional Financing for Rehabilitating Earthquake Affected 100.00 100.00 Communities 2007 P090768 India Tamil Nadu Irrigated Agriculture Modernization and Water-Bodies 485.00 249.50 Restoration and Management Project P100789 India Andhra Pradesh Community-Based Tank Management Project 189.00 145.00 P083187 India Uttaranchal Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project 120.00 105.00 40 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Climate Total Bank Resilience Project Loan/Credit Amount Year ID Country Project Name (US$ million) (US$ million) P104393 Pakistan Additional Financing for Rehabilitating Earthquake Affected 138.00 3.50 Communities II P090764 India Bihar Rural Livelihoods Project—”JEEViKA” 63.00 33.00 2008 P089378 Pakistan Balochistan Small Scale Irrigation Project 25.00 17.00 P040712 Bangladesh Water Management Improvement Project 102.26 116.00 P102328 India Karnataka Community Based Tank Management Project 64.00 68.99 (Supplement) P084302 Pakistan Sindh Water Sector Improvement Project Phase I 150.20 83.10 P104724 India Andhra Pradesh Rural Poverty Reduction: Drought Adaptative 65.00 60.00 Initiative Project 2009 P093478 India Orissa Rural Livelihoods Project 82.40 52.00 P105075 Pakistan Third Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Project 250.00 115.00 2010 P119152 Sri Lanka Additional Financing Community Livelihoods in Conflict Affected 12.00 11.00 Areas Project P087145 Sri Lanka Second Community Development and Livelihood Improvement 75.00 45.00 Project P073886 Bangladesh EMPOWERMENT AND LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT “NUTON 115.00 20.00 JIBON” PROJECT 2011 P102329 India Rajasthan Rural Livelihoods Project (RRLP) 183.80 114.60 P125855 Sri Lanka Second Additional Financing for P086747 the Community 48.00 79.00 Livelihoods in Conflict Affected Areas Project Annex 3. Glossary of Key Terms Adaptation: In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate (Field et al. 2012). Adaptive capacity: The combination of the strengths, attributes, and resources available to an individual, community, society, or organization that can be used to prepare for and undertake actions to reduce adverse impacts, moderate harm, or exploit beneficial opportunities (Field et al. 2012). Autonomous adaptation: Adaptation that does not constitute a conscious response to climatic stimuli but is triggered by ecological changes in natural systems and by market or welfare changes in human systems (i.e., any system in which human organizations play a major role). Often, but not always, the term is synonymous with “society” or “social system” (e.g., agricultural system, political system, economic system, etc.). Also referred to as spontaneous adaptation (Field et al. 2012). Climate change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statisti- cal tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes, external forcings, or persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use (Field et al. 2012). Climate (change) scenario: A plausible and often simplified representation of the future climate based on an internally consistent set of climatological relationships and assumptions, typically constructed for explicit use as input to climate change impact models. A “climate change sce- nario” is the difference between a climate scenario and the current climate (Field et al. 2012). Climate proofing: A process that makes projects, strategies, policies, and measures resilient to climate change, including climate variability, by systematically examining programming docu- ments and projects to identify ways to minimize climate change risks and optimize adaptation (i.e., climate risk screening) and integrating these ways into programming and projects (i.e., main- streaming) (Asian Development Bank 2005). Climate variability: Variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of the climate at all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability may be due to natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability) or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forcing (external variability). (Field et al. 2012). 41 42 • Climate and Disaster Resilience: The Role for Community-Driven Development Coping: The use of available skills, resources, and opportunities to address, manage, and over- come adverse conditions with the aim of achieving basic functioning in the short to medium term (Field et al. 2012). Disaster: A serious disruption in the functioning of a community or society involving wide- spread human, material, economic, or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease, and other negative effects on human physical, mental, and social well being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption, and environmental degradation (UNISDR 2009). Disaster risk: The likelihood over a specified time period of severe alterations in the normal functioning of a community or a society due to hazardous physical events interacting with vul- nerable social conditions, leading to widespread adverse human, material, economic, or environ- mental effects that require an immediate emergency response to satisfy critical human needs and that may require external support for recovery (Field et al. 2012). UNISDR defines disaster risk as potential disaster losses in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets, and services, which could occur in a particular community or society over some specified future time period (UNISDR 2009). Disaster risk management: Processes for designing, implementing, and evaluating strategies, policies, and measures to improve the understanding of disaster risk, foster risk reduction and transfer, and promote continuous improvement in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery practices with the explicit purpose of increasing human security, wellbeing, quality of life, and sustainable development (Field et al. 2012). Exposure: The presence of people, livelihoods; environmental services and resources; infrastruc- ture; or economic, social, or cultural assets in places that could be adversely affected (Field et al. 2012). Hazard: The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, and environmental resources (Parry et al. 2007; Field et al. 2012). Examples of natural hazards are earthquakes, landslides, droughts, floods, storms, and tsunamis, while unnatural hazards include deaths and damages that result from human acts of omission and commission (World Bank 2010b). Maladaptation: Actions or investments that do not take potential climate change impacts into account and may inadvertently increase exposure or vulnerability to climate risk rather than decrease it (authors). Annex 3. Glossary of Key Terms • 43 Resilience: In this report, “the ability to withstand, recover from, and reorganize in response to crises so that all members of society may develop or maintain the ability to thrive” (Benson et al. 2012). In the IPCC report (Field et al. 2012), it is defined as the ability of a system and its com- ponent parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including through ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions. Social learning: The process by which agents and organizations continuously frame and reframe the issues at stake and develop enhanced content and relational capabilities to deal with com- mon problems, which individuals often cannot resolve on their own (Nilsson and Swartling 2009). Vulnerability: The degree to which a system is susceptible to or unable to cope with the adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability. Vulnerability is a function of the charac- ter, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (Parry et al. 2007). References Agarwal, Arun, Robin Mearns, Nicolas Perrin, and Minna Kononen. 2011. Area-Based Development, Local Institutions, and Climate Adaptation: A Comparative Analysis from West Africa and Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank. Anderson, M.G., and E.A. Holcombe. 2013. “Community-Based Landslide Risk Reduction: Managing Disasters in Small Steps. World Bank, Washington DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12239. Anderson, M.B., and P. Woodrow. 1989. Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disaster. Boulder and Paris: Westview Press and UNESCO. Arnold, Margaret, and Cynthia Burton. 2011. “Protecting and Empowering Vulnerable Groups in Disaster Recovery.” World Reconstruction Conference: Proceedings, pp. 210–240. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Asian Development Bank. 2005. “Climate Proofing: A Risk-based Approach to Adaptation.” Asian Development Bank Pacific Studies Series. http://www.adb.org/publications/climate-proofing-risk-based-approach-adaptation. Bahadur, A. V., M. Ibrahim, and T. Tanner. 2010. The Resilience Renaissance? Unpacking of Resilience for Tackling Climate Change and Disasters. Brighton, United Kingdom: Institute of Development Studies (for the Strengthening Climate Resilience [SCR] consortium). Benson, Charlotte, Margaret Arnold, and Alejandro de la Fuente. 2012. “Financial Innovations for Social and Climate Resilience.” Unpublished framework paper. World Bank, Washington, DC. Bizikova, Livia, Samantha Boardley, and Simon Mead. 2012. “Participatory Scenario Development (PSD) Approaches for Identifying Pro-Poor Adaptation Options.” The World Bank, Washington DC. Brooks, N., et al. 2011. “Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development,” IIED Working Paper 1. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Coppock, D. Layne, Solomon Desta, Seyoum Tezera, and Getachew Gebru. 2011. “Capacity Building Helps Pastoral Women Transform Impoverished Communities in Ethiopia.” Science 334(6061): 1394–1398. Cuny, F.C. 1983. Disasters and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E., B. Batkhishig, and B. Batbuyan. 2012. “Cross-Boundary and Cross-Level Dynamics Increase Vulnerability to Severe Winter Disasters (Dzud) in Mongolia.” Global Environmental Change 22: 836–851. Field, C.B., 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, and P.M. Midgley, eds. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Holcombe, E.A., S. Smith, E. Wright, and M.G. Anderson. 2012. “An Integrated Approach for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Landslide Hazard Reduction in Vulnerable Communities in the Caribbean. Natural Hazards 61(2): 351–385. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9920-7. IDS. 1989. IDS Bulletin 20(2) (April): 1–74. Jha, Abhas K., Robin Bloch, and Jessica Lamond. 2011. Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and Urban Poor. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/Data/wbi/wbicms/files/drupal-acquia/wbi/disaster_risk_urban_ poor_final.pdf. Martin-Breen, Patrick, and J. Marty Anderies. 2011. “Resilience: A Literature Review.” Unpublished paper prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation (September). McGray, Heather, Anne Hammill, and Rob Bradley, with E. Lisa Schipper and Jo-Ellen Parry. 2007. Weathering the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and Development. World Resources Institute. Mearns, Robin, and Andrew Norton, eds. 2010. Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World. Washington, DC: World Bank. 45 46 • References Moser, Caroline, Andrew Norton, Alredo Stein, and Sophia Georgieva. 2010. “Pro-Poor Adaptation to Climate Change in Urban Centers.” World Bank. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/0 8/18/000333038_20110818000457/Rendered/PDF/549470ESW0whit0eport0549470GLB0web2.pdf. Nilsson, Annika E., and Åsa Gerger Swartling. 2009. “Social Learning about Climate Adaptation: Global and Local Perspectives.” Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. http://www.sei-international.org/ mediamanager/documents/Publications/Policy-institutions/social_learning_wp_091112.pdf. OAS. 1990. “Disasters, Planning, and Development: Managing Natural Hazards to Reduce Loss.” Department of Regional Development and Environment, Organization of American States, Washington, DC. OECD. 2012. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation: Policy Guidance. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dac/43652123.pdf. Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_ fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm. Rawlings, Laura, L. Sherburne-Benz, and J. van Domelen. 2003. Evaluating Social Funds: A Cross-Country Analysis of Community Investments. Washington DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/1098 6/15057/278340PAPER0Evaluating0social.pdf?sequence=1. Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre. 2012. “Minimum Standards for Local Climate Smart Disaster Risk Reduction Enabling Integration of Local Capacities into National Climate Adaptation Strategies.” Policy Brief. Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands. www.climatecentre.org/minimumstandards. Ribot, Jesse. 2010. “Vulnerability Does Not Fall from the Sky: Toward Multi-Scale, Pro-Poor Climate Policy,” in Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World, edited by Robin Mearns and Andrew Norton, 47–74. Washington, DC: World Bank. Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and Famine: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. UNISDR. 2009. UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology. Wijkman, A., and L. Timberlake. 1984. Natural Disasters: Acts of God or Acts of Man. London: Earthscan. Wong, Susan, 2012. “What Have Been the Impacts of World Bank Community-Driven Development Programs?” CDD Impact Evaluation Review and Operational & Research Implications. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www-wds. worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/06/14/000386194_20120614062031/Rendered/ PDF/695410WP0SW0CD00Box370017B00PUBLIC0.pdf. World Bank. 2009. “Building Resilient Communities: Risk Management and Response to Natural Disasters through Social Funds and Community-Driven Development Operations.” World Bank, Washington, DC. _____. 2010a. “The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change.” World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www-wds. worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/06/27/000425970_20120627163039/Rendered/ PDF/702670ESW0P10800EACCSynthesisReport.pdf _____. 2010b. Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr.org/files/nhud/files/NHUD-Overview.pdf. _____. 2010c. World Development Report: Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://wdronline. worldbank.org/worldbank/a/c.html/world_development_report_2010/abstract/WB.978-0-8213-7987-5.abstract _____. 2011a. “Costing Adaptation Through Local Institutions: Synthesis Report.” World Bank, Washington, DC. _____. 2011b. “Gender and Climate Change: Three Things You Should Know.” World Bank, Washington, DC. _____. 2011c. Social Resilience and Climate Change: Operational Toolkit. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1232059926563/5747581-1239131985528/Operational-Toolkit- FINAL.pdf. _____. 2012a. Project Highlight from St Lucia, Eastern Caribbean. “On the Ground Implementation of Ex-ante Landside Hazard Reduction.” http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLACREGTOPURBDEV/Resources/84033-1335817365701/ PH_Issue_12_MOSSAIC_WEB.pdf. References • 47 _____. 2012b. “Social Protection for Climate Resilience.” World Bank, Washington, DC. _____. 2012c. “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4 Degree World Must Be Avoided.” World Bank, Washington, DC. _____. 2013. “Building Resilience to Disasters and Climate Change through Social Protection.” World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. 2013. Building Resilience: Integrating Climate and Disaster Risk into Development. The World Bank Group Experience. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr.org/files/WBG_2013_Building_Resilience_Full_Report-English.pdf. The World Bank Group Social Development Department 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.worldbank.org/cdd