CARE Australia Resilience Integration Marker: environment, climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and
other shocks and stresses1
Version 1: October 2014
The CARE Australia Integration Marker: environment, climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and other shocks and stresses (the Resilience Marker) guides the
review of key elements of CARE Australia project designs. Applying the marker results in a code that indicates of the extent to which a project design has integrated
environment, climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and other shocks and hazards into project analysis, objectives, outcomes, activities, outputs, monitoring &
evaluation systems, environmental analysis and the risk matrix.
The marker will assist CARE Australia to better understand how project designs can contribute to reduced vulnerability, increased capacity, and increased resilience2. The
marker does not evaluate the quality of implementation or the impact of these projects, although its content may be used to guide tools and materials to support those
processes. The application of the marker is part of the CARE Australia Program Quality Framework. A project screening process in the Joint Planning Stage in the Program
Quality Framework determines the overall priority of integration and the plan to apply the marker. This screening includes likely relevance of the issues as well as project
criteria such as duration and budget.
The marker has been developed in the context of the overall approach to tackling the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice and to bring lasting change to the lives
of poor and vulnerable people of the CARE 2020 Program Strategy. Increasing resilience in the context of climate change, disasters and conflict is one of the three ways CARE
works to achieve this vision and the results of applying the Marker are an indication of progress towards work that increases resilience.
The tool results in numeric rating: 0-3 indicates the strength of integration (Table 1 below).
Table 1: Codes that indicate the strength and type of integration of CCA and/or DRR and/or other shocks and stresses
Strength of integration:
3: Evidence of strong inclusion of environment, CCA and/or DRR and/or other shocks and stresses: strong
contribution to reduced vulnerability, increased capacity, or increased resilience.
2: Evidence of moderate inclusion of environment, CCA and/or DRR and/or other shocks and stresses:
moderate contribution to reduced vulnerability, increased capacity, or increased resilience.
1: Evidence of limited inclusion of environment, CCA and/or DRR and/or other shocks and stresses: limited
contribution to reduced vulnerability, increased capacity, or increased resilience.
0: No visible inclusion of environment, CCA and/or DRR and/or other shocks and stresses: no visible
contribution to reduced vulnerability, increased capacity, or increased resilience.
1
Includes issues such as manmade hazards (industrial accidents, pollution), economic crises, and conflict. Also includes poor protection under the law, unsafe working conditions, lack of continuity of employment,
poor compensation for workers, violence, persecution, insecure land tenure, or political uncertainty
2
The marker refers to resilience and the CARE 2020 Program Strategy. It is relevant to note that CARE is still fomalising its definition and approach to resilience through projects and programs
How to determine the strength of integration?
Table 2: A number rating is allocated according to the number of areas within a project design which consider environment, DRR and CC:
Integration Code: 3
Addresses environment, CCA, DRR, or
other shocks or stressors in 5 or more of
the following sections:
 Addressed in Analysis
 Addressed in Design Objectives /
Outcomes
 Addressed in Design Activities /
Outputs
 Addressed in Design Monitoring
& Evaluation
 Addressed in Risk Matrix
 Addressed in Environment
Section
Integration Code: 2
Addresses environment, CCA, DRR, or
other shocks or stressors in 4 or more of
the following sections:
 Addressed in Analysis
 Addressed in Design Objectives
/ Outcomes
 Addressed in Design Activities /
Outputs
 Addressed in Design Monitoring
& Evaluation
 Addressed in Risk Matrix
 Addressed in Environment
Section
Integration Code: 1
Addresses environment, CCA, DRR, or
other shocks or stressors in 3 or more of
the following sections:
 Addressed in Analysis
 Addressed in Design Objectives
/ Outcomes
 Addressed in Design Activities /
Outputs
 Addressed in Design Monitoring
& Evaluation
 Addressed in Risk Matrix
 Addressed in Environment
Section
Integration Code: 0
Addresses environment, CCA,
DRR, or other shocks or stressors
in less than 3 or more of the
following sections:
 Addressed in Analysis
 Addressed in Design
Objectives / Outcomes
 Addressed in Design
Activities / Outputs
 Addressed in Design
Monitoring & Evaluation
 Addressed in Risk Matrix
 Addressed in
Environment Section
Table 3: Blank table to be completed in application of the marker process:
Addressed in Analysis
x
Comment / relevant
section:
Overall Code:
Overall comment:
Addressed in Design
Objectives / Outcomes
x
Comment / relevant
section:
Review results and final Integration Code
CCA and/or DRR and/or other shocks and stresses
Addressed in Design
Addressed in Design
Activities / Outputs
Monitoring & Evaluation
x
x
Comment / relevant
Comment / relevant
section:
section:
Addressed in Risk Matrix
x
Comment / relevant
section:
Addressed in
Environment Section
x
Comment / relevant
section:
Recommendations:




Glossary
Climate Change: any change in climate over time, whether due to natural vulnerability or as a result of human activity (IPCC)
Climate Change Adaptation: An adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli of their effects, which moderates harm or
exploits beneficial opportunities (IPCC 2007 Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the IPCC).
Disaster Risk Reduction: the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including
through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for
adverse events (UNISDR, Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction 2009).
Hazard: In the context of DRR a hazard is defined as a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health
impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage (UNISDR, 2009, Terminology: Basic terms of disaster
risk reduction). Hazards may include: droughts, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, epidemics, windstorms, heavy precipitation, chemical spills, conflict, and others
(Turnbull at el (2013) Toward Resilience: A Guide to Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation).
Resilience: Systems, communities and societies are able to take the shock of a hazard event or that there is capacity to deal with long term stresses, that they are able to
(quickly and) fully recover from it effectively all while improving on the original situation of the community or society (Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction CARE
International, FY12-FY15, 2011).
Vulnerability: The degree to which a system [natural or human] is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and
extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC
Working Group 2, 2001 Third Assessment Report, Annex B: Glossary of Terms).
Guidance questions have been adapted from the following sources:
 CARE International 2014 Working for Poverty Reduction and Social Justice: CARE 2020 Program Strategy
 CARE International,2010 Tool Kit for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Projects Version 1.0 July 2010
 CARE International 2011 CARE International Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy, 2012-2015
 Turnbull M, C Sterrett and A Hilleboe 2013 Towards Resilience: A Guide to Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation
Appendix 1
Detailed Guidance for the application of the CARE Australia Integration Marker: environment, climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and other shocks and
stresses
These are potential considerations that could be made to strengthen the integration of environment, climate change adaptation (CCA), disaster risk reduction (DRR) and
other shocks and stresses3 into the key elements of a project design to better understand how the project can contribute to reduced vulnerability, increased capacity, and
increased resilience. This could be considered as a menu of options that can be applied and amended based on country and project-specific needs in consultation with
advisors at CARE Australia. These can also be used to develop feedback on a project design. This additional guidance is grouped under:
1. Analysis
2. Design Objectives / outcomes
3. Design Activities / Outputs
4. Monitoring and Evaluation
5. Risk Matrix
6. Environment
Design section / content
1. Analysis
Shocks and stresses
Questions for consideration




Vulnerabilities and impact
groups




3
Have past, present and projected future natural and man-made shocks and stresses been identified for the targeted area? This
includes but is not limited: to weather related shocks and stresses from climate variability and climate change; disaster risks
from climate and non-climate hazards and other shocks and stresses4.
Have the effects of these shocks and stresses (on assets, resources, and facilities that community members’ wellbeing and
livelihoods depend) been analysed and existing coping strategies reviewed for sustainability under future conditions?
Have political conditions and socio economic issues been included? (e.g. poor protection under the law, unsafe working
conditions, lack of continuity of employment, inadequate compensation for workers that are victims of workplace hazards,
marginalization/persecution, insecure land tenure)
Is there future risk of any of these shocks and stresses increasing due to migration, population growth, land degradation and
poor natural resource management etc?
Have the different vulnerabilities and capacities of livelihood groups and different socio-economic groups (women, men, elderly,
PWD, ethnic minorities, children, socially marginalized) been analysed?
Has there been consideration of how these different groups currently deal with these shocks and stresses (identified above)?
How effective and sustainable their coping methods are?
Has knowledge, attitudes, practices, roles and responsibilities of women and men with regards to these shocks and stresses
been determined?
Have dynamic and root causes of vulnerability been identified?
These include issues such as manmade hazards (industrial accidents, pollution), economic crises, and conflict, or stressors that may arise due to poor protection under the law (unsafe working conditions, lack of
continuity of employment/compensation for workers, violence, marginalization/persecution, insecure land tenure), or political uncertainty.
4
Includes issues such as manmade hazards (industrial accidents, pollution), economic crises, and conflict. Also includes poor protection under the law, unsafe working conditions, lack of continuity of employment,
poor compensation for workers, violence, persecution, insecure land tenure, or political uncertainty


Policy environment





Livelihoods



Do target stakeholders have a voice in local, district and national decision making; critical livelihood resources; and equal access
to infrastructure and services?
Are measures in place to provide women and men with relevant information about climate, hazards, etc in order for them to
make informed decisions?
Are there existing conflicts that impede action to adapt to and prepare for shocks and stresses?
What policies and institutions exist at the national and subnational level to support action to address climate change, disaster
risk and other shocks and stresses? How strong are linkages between national, district and local levels?
What are the obstacles and gaps for government and non-government organizations implementing action to address climate
change, disaster risk and other shocks and stresses? What is the capacity of government and civil society organizations in the
target area to address climate change, disaster risk and other shocks and stresses? What is their capacity to respond to
gendered capacity and needs?
What organizations may be potential partners and opponents in project activities? Are appropriate partners engaged in the
project in some?
Are there any private sector activities that present opportunities or obstacles for action to address climate change, disaster risk
and other shocks and stresses?
What is the existing capacity of target population’s livelihoods to cope and thrive despite shocks and stresses? (including
knowledge, skills, organizations and networks, physical and economic assets) and how these might be developed to build
resilience?
Are livelihoods diverse? Do they include non weather dependent activities?
Are livelihoods exposed to these shocks and stresses? (Consider land and natural resources, equipment and infrastructure,
transport and access, water supply and storage etc PLUS as identified above: poor protection under the law, unsafe working
conditions, lack of continuity of employment, inadequate compensation for workers that are victims of workplace hazards,
marginalization/persecution, insecure land tenure.
2. Design: Objectives and Outcomes
Shocks and stresses
 Do the objectives respond to identified needs for adaptation and / or response to climate change, disaster risk reduction and
other shocks and hazards?
 Do objectives include reduced vulnerability, increased capacity, and increased resilience? Is there adequate detail included
about what these mean for the project?
Vulnerabilities and impact
 Do the objectives to address climate change, disaster risks and other shocks and hazards that take into consideration the needs
groups
and capacities of women, men and other groups?
 Do the objectives address the underlying causes of vulnerability to hazards and impacts of CC, including poverty, gender and
marginalization?
Policy environment
 Do the objectives seek to influence local plans and policies to support climate change, disaster risk and other shocks and
stresses?
 Do the objectives strengthen governance and services that are important to adaptation and disaster risk reduction, such as
financial and social protection?
Livelihoods
 Do the objectives include diversified and more resilience livelihoods, particularly for most vulnerable people?
3. Design Activities / Outputs
Shocks and stresses






Vulnerabilities and impact
groups


Policy environment





Livelihoods

Has further assessment of vulnerabilities and capacities been included in activities? (CVCA, HVCA, Beneficiary Section)
Will community based plans be developed that address CCA DRR and/or other shocks and stresses? Are there actions to develop
capacity of local institutions to integrate CCA and DRR into government planning processes?
Is there reference to functional early warning systems or their establishment?
Will hazard mapping, and disaster management plans be developed by communities in partnership with local stakeholders?
Are actions included to protect key assets such as shelter and water resources from shocks and stresses?
Are there action to strengthen services that are important to adaptation and disaster risk reduction, such as financial and social
protection?
Do activities promote participation of communities, particularly vulnerable groups, in local governance?
Do activities address challenges faced by marginalized groups in securing their livelihoods, and taking action to adapt to and
respond to climate change, DRR and other shocks and stresses
Are issues of access to and control over resources addressed?
Do activities seek to resolve current or future resource based conflict?
Do activities encourage local, regional, and national decision makers to consider CCA and DRR? (Stakeholder analysis)
Do project activities include advocacy for appropriate polices, adaptation and DRR?
Are there actions to develop capacity of local institutions to monitor, analyse and disseminate information on current and future
risks and to respond to climate events and disasters?
Do activities address diversifying and strengthening livelihoods of targeted stakeholders? (e.g. sustainable livelihoods,
diversification, efficient use of available resources, access to services, access to climate and disaster risk information for risk
analysis and planning)
4. Monitoring and Evaluation





Have appropriate indicators been developed to measure progress made in addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability to
shocks and stresses?
Have indicators been identified for sector specific issues?
Will monitoring systems be established to track changes in shocks, stresses and contributing factors such as environmental
degradation and migration? Will project delivery be modified as needed?
Is there a clear strategy for building knowledge of staff, partners, and target stakeholders on climate change adaptation, disaster
risk reduction and other shocks and stresses
Are learnings to be captured and shared with other communities, organizations and government?
5. Risk Matrix





6. Environment
Are specific shocks and stresses identified as a risk to project success? To particular groups?
Are elements that may increase shocks and stresses and their negative effects on society, communities, women and men
identified? (eg environmental degradation, migration etc)
Does the design consider an approach to minimize negative effects on society, community, women and men? Is there a strategy
to deal with residual risks?
Is appropriate risk monitoring in place for risks, including triggers for responding to slow and rapid onset hazards?
Do risk mitigation strategies include integration of disaster risk reduction strategies?





Is the information in this section appropriate or should it be included elsewhere?
Are potential environmental impacts identified?
Is there a strategy proposed to manage any impacts?
Is the strategy justified appropriately? What assumptions are made? Are these valid? Is there a monitoring strategy needed?
Does the design explain how it will meet the guidance in the current DFAT Environmental Management Guide or appropriate
donor material?