Learning to support co-production
Approaches for practical collaboration and
learning between at risk groups, humanitarian
and development practitioners, policymakers,
scientists and academics
Learning paper #3
October 2016
Women’s Savings and Credit Association meeting in Seru, Ethiopia, October 2015 / Photo: Sophie Rigg
1.0Introduction
This policy brief (Learning Paper #3i) explores the
process of co-production and learning (see Box 2)
and looks at the challenges and opportunities that
have arisen in the first half (or year and a half) of
the project relating to learning within the consortia.
Findings draw from interviews undertaken with
partners in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and the UK, as
well as members of BRACED’s Knowledge Manager
(KM), led by the Overseas Development Institute
(ODI). This brief brings together perspectives from
local, national and international humanitarian
and development partners, including those with
communications expertise, as well as national and
international climate information providers.
Learning has been a principal concern of the two
Christian Aid-led consortia from the outset. As the
partner leading research and learning across the
two Christian Aid-led consortia, King’s College
London (KCL) has developed a range of crossconsortium learning tools. These include an overall
project learning framework to guide and promote
learning designed during the Project Development
Box 1: Building Resilience and Adaptation to
Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED)
BRACED is a DFID-funded multi-country programme
launched in 2014. The programme supported a
six-month Project Development Phase (PDP), with
inception of approved projects in January 2015.
It aims to benefit 5 million people facing climate
extremes and disasters across the Sahel, East Africa
and Asia.
Christian Aid leads BRACED consortia in Burkina Faso
(granted £7m, aiming to benefit 1.3 million people in
four provinces) and Ethiopia (granted £4m, aiming to
benefit 700,000 people in 12 woredas - districts). Both
consortia seek to build the resilience of vulnerable
people to climate shocks and stresses through
strengthening climate information services, risk
communication, behavioural change and the sharing
of skills and technology. In both projects KCL leads on
learning, and also on resilience research. Additional
learning opportunities are provided by Christian Aid’s
Monitoring and Evaluation functions and the BRACED
programme Knowledge Manager (led by ODI).
King’s College London
2
Phase (PDP). This framework sought to combine
monitoring, evaluation, research and learning. It
specifically promotes learning through a range
of activities including exchange visits, multimedia peer-review, training and regular meetings
tailored for each consortium. Within the learning
framework, partners agreed to a set of research
and learning principles including: supporting
opportunities for ongoing learning within and across
partners and more widely; respecting each other’s
knowledge and value systems; and ensuring rigour
and quality of evidence.
Learning has been targeted at opportunities:
1. With partner organisations1
2. Between partners
3. With communities collaborating in BRACED
activities
4. Between communities, partners and local
and national government agencies
5. With the BRACED Knowledge Manager and
other BRACED projects
6. With external international organisations
Box 2: Key Terms
Co-production is the bringing together of different
knowledge sources and experiences from across
different disciplines, sectors and actors to jointly
develop new and combined knowledge ii
Organisational learning: how organisations create,
retain and transfer knowledge iii
Social learning: a change in understanding that goes
beyond the individual, to become situated within
wider social networks or communities of practice iv
Reflexivity is a process of critical self-reflection
enabling participants the time and space to examine
the assumptions underlying their actions, draw on
their own experiences and evidence and map out
barriers and successes. It allows a space for decisionmaking outside the pressures of the ‘group’ and
may surface underlying as well as visible tensions in
values, aspirations and preferred goals or processes
within a group v
The term ‘partner’ used here includes local, national and international
humanitarian and development partners involved in the Christian Aidled consortia, including those with communications expertise, as well
as national and international climate information providers.
1
1.1
What is learning?
Learning can be described as the uptake of
information based on prior experiences and/or
observations to regulate behavior (Bandura, 1971).
Individual learning has historically been the primary
focus of social science learning theories. When
dealing with science-policy and the humanitarian
and development sectors, the concepts of
organisational and wider social learning are also
important (see definitions in Box 2). Learning can
occur within and between individuals, organisations
and wider networks. How learning is communicated
between these levels is a major focus of research
and policy within work on knowledge coproduction.
Co-production of knowledge has been defined
as the “collaborative endeavor of academic and
non-academic actors.” (Pohl, 2010 Page 269).
This collaboration has the purpose of creating a
public space in which science meets the public,
and in which the public speaks back to science
(Nowotny et al. 2001), see Figure 1. The coproduction of knowledge is not limited to bridging
the science-public gap. It describes efforts to
integrate between any knowledge sources or ways
of framing information, including local, indigenous
or traditional knowledge, religion, and cultural
practices (Roncoli et al, 2002; Mercer, 2007)
Learning is a process, rather than a series of
isolated acts (Szulanksi 2000). This is especially so
in co-production where learning involves interacting
with different people and agencies. Co-production
entails recognising and respecting other people’s
knowledge and value systems, being able to
appreciate the influence of contrasting contexts
on other’s knowledge formation and allowing for
the development of a shared understanding. This
can take time. Within collaborative work, learning
can be felt as self-assessment and reflection to
enable improvements in the implementation of joint
activities (this can include improvements in the
learning process itself).
Working collaboratively in learning processes
requires skills or mechanisms that can overcome
boundaries (Pohl et al. 2010). These boundaries can
be organisational, siloing organisations according
to expertise and project goals and discouraging
the sharing of knowledge. Boundaries can also
be inter-personal, such as established hierarchies
and competition that can hinder collaboration and
sharing of knowledge.
Learning to support co-production
policy makers, practitioners, researchers, students
and, most importantly, those people whose lives
and livelihoods are directly impacted.
PUBLIC
SPACE
Figure 1: Interactive knowledge creation through co-production.
1.2
Why is learning important in the BRACED context?
Building resilience to climate extremes and disasters
demands innovative partnerships and approaches,
making learning a vital component of the multicountry BRACED programme. In recognition of this,
BRACED has a dedicated Knowledge Manager (KM)
responsible for generating and sharing resilience
knowledge, amongst consortia partners and at
risk groups beyond those directly benefiting from
programme activities.
The Christian Aid-led BRACED consortia are
amongst the few BRACED projects to have
integrated a project-specific learning component
from the outset. This acknowledges the vital
importance of strengthening understanding
about the complex sets of relationships required
to enable the development of decision-relevant
risk information, as well as the capacities to
appropriately act on this. King’s College London
plays an internal knowledge and learning role,
Christian Aid’s programme management Monitoring
and Evaluation unit provides internal assessment
and the programme Knowledge Manager supports
multi-country, programme-wide knowledge
production and communication.
1.3
Why have an Academic Partner,
Monitoring and Evaluation and a
Knowledge Manager?
Here we outline the different functions of these
Learning Partners. This original configuration
of learning contributes to BRACED and wider
development work that is concerned with sharing
lessons from practice amongst a wider audience of
The academic partner is a critical friend to
the BRACED project partners. KCL plays this
role and sits with policy partners (e.g. national
meteorological offices) and implementation
partners (e.g. NGOs) to together create new, useful
knowledge. The aim of the relationship is for the
academic partner to facilitate learning within the
consortium, and for the consortium. This entails
developing close relationships with partners to
understand working practices and motivations,
challenges, scope for practical adjustments to the
project and constraints to improved outcomes.
If partners feel able to openly express their aims
and concerns and talk about their own objectives
and performance, this will greatly benefit our
understanding of how individuals, organisations
and networks can learn. This openness is key to the
functioning of the relationship and requires trust.
The academic partner also brings scientific rigour
to this process of shared learning while being
well-situated to respond to emerging questions
and lessons. In addition, through its position in the
academic sphere, the academic partner is able to
bring BRACED-learnt lessons to the international
research context and communicate them in
academic literature and networks.
Working alongside the academic partner, but
playing distinctly different roles, are Monitoring
and Evaluation and the Knowledge Manager.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) works under
a formal structure and is evaluative; the primary
audience is internal but also has an important
role in compliance with donor regulations. M&E
generates new knowledge and informs partner
practice; academic research can complement
this knowledge by adding more depth to support
possible innovation. The Knowledge Manager is
external to the BRACED project partners. Its role
is to work across the BRACED projects to identify
and share innovations within and beyond the
programme. It can draw on M&E and academic
partner data and analysis to inform wider learning
and can also support learning by introducing ideas
and experiences from across and beyond the
BRACED projects.
Figure 2 shows the relationships between project
partners, the academic partner, M&E and the
Knowledge Manager. Any partner is able to benefit
from three relationships to support learning: the
academic partner facilitates questioning, problem
raising and resolution and access to international
3
formal framework to assess and review progress towards stated goals; the Knowledge Manager integrates
partner practice and lessons across the BRACED programme and more widely. There are relationships between
the three
Partners too. M&E provides benchmark data for project and programme-level analysis, the
King’sLearning
College London
4
academic partner translates M&E and Knowledge Manager data and information needs into project-relevant
questions and analysis; the Knowledge manager draws programme-wide relevance from academic partner
and M&E analysis.
Science partner
Academic
(KCL)
Provide data for
projects analysis
Monitoring and Evaluation
(Christian Aid)
Establish benchmarks
benchmarks for
forperformance,
performance,
provide formal
formalstrucrture
structure for
forreflection
reflection
and assessment
Create questions, understand challenges
and responses by joining scientific
methods with partner experience
PARTNER
Establish benchmarks for performance,
Direct knowledge exchange,
provide formal strucrture for reflection
programme steering and learning
and assessment
Translate between programme and
project lessons, data and analysis
BRACED programme knowledge Manager
(ODI)
Figure 2: Roles and relationships for learning in Christian Aid’s
Figure
BRACED
projects2: Roles and relationships for learning
science; M&E provides a formal framework to
assess and review progress towards stated goals;
the Knowledge Manager integrates partner practice
and lessons across the BRACED programme and
more widely. There are relationships between
the three Learning Partners too. M&E provides
benchmark data for project and programme-level
analysis, the academic partner translates M&E
and Knowledge Manager data and information
needs into project-relevant questions and analysis;
the Knowledge manager draws programme-wide
relevance from academic partner and M&E analysis.
2.0
Mid-project lessons: Challenges
and opportunities for learning and
co-production. Identifying spaces
for ongoing learning
Having described the reasons why learning is
considered vital to the consortia, we now look at
the challenges and opportunities for learning and
co-production that have arisen during the first half
of the project.
Provide data for programme wide
analysis
in Christian Aid’s BRACED projects
risk reduction and development expertise. The
implementation of BRACED demands collaboration
to build a common approach and shared
understanding across sectors, disciplines and
levels of decision-making. The formal creation and
administration of such a consortia is in itself a
time-consuming process. For some partners, this
was the first experience of working in a consortium.
Some humanitarian and development agencies had
not worked with national meteorological agencies
before. Some scientific partners were inexperienced
in engaging in this type of collaborative
development-focused work, while national
meteorological agencies in both Burkina Faso and
Ethiopia were, at the same time, facing high-levels
of demand to engage with a wide range of climaterelated initiatives.
Allowing adequate time for relationship building
and an understanding of each partner’s core
competencies, structures and ways of working has
been essential. For example, during the PDP a series
of inception reports were developed, concerning
household economic analyses, communications
networks, the status of climate science and
assessment of national meteorological services.
These provided important foundation knowledge,
and began the continuous process of building
relationships and establishing trust.
Multiple new partners
The two Christian Aid-led BRACED consortia
have brought together local and global actors,
scientific, communications, humanitarian, disaster
Time and resources for co-producing relevant
risk information
A number of partners in each consortium felt that
Learning to support co-production
they had underestimated the amount of time and
resources required to develop and communicate
decision-relevant climate information. Moreover,
prior to project inception there was limited common
understanding across consortia partners of the coproduction process through which relevant climate
information would be developed.
Consortia partners now recognise that their role
encompasses creating formal and informal spaces
for sharing experience at many levels, including:
• Enabling experiences to be shared between
•
•
•
•
•
households, across communities and via local
radio programmes;
Using pre-established listening groups to enable
at risk people to discuss climate and adaptation
information transmitted on local radios;
Instigating direct discussions with the at risk
groups with whom activities are proposed, as
well as sharing information about ongoing and
proposed activities more widely through local
radio programmes;
Sharing at risk groups’ experiences with local
and national government and project partners;
Creating opportunities for regular programmatic
and technical review; and
Consolidating project learning to share with the
BRACED Knowledge Manager and more widely.
accessible climate information should be developed
gains importance when the implementation of such
systems are central to project design. However,
this challenge is not unique to BRACED: BRACED
will benefit from protocols being established by the
work by the World Meteorological Organisation
(WMO) Global Framework for Climate Services
(GFCS) which is developing national frameworks for
climate services.
Across the entire BRACED programme, the KM
plays a key role in facilitating learning. Lack of
clarity within the PDP on learning as a formal
component of BRACED, together with delays
in finalising the role and function of the KM,
led to complications with financing the scale of
monitoring, evaluation and learning subsequently
required during project implementation. Partners
suggested that an alternative approach could have
been to initiate the KM in-country with operational
partners after the inception phase. Some partners
felt that the KM and other UK-based partners were
too distant. Some were unclear about the differing
learning and research roles of the KM and KCL.
Inter-country, cross-sectoral partnerships
The resources and the global reach of the KM
combined with KCL’s integrated partnership with
the Burkina Faso and Ethiopia projects provide a
good model for co-production and wider knowledge
sharing. For example the KM and KCL are working
together on an in-depth study into the role of
NGOs in resilience-building programming linked
with climate information. The topic has been
recognised as extremely important for the project
by the partners. Lessons learned will benefit from
project insights coordinated by KCL and the broader
perspective from across BRACED projects that the
KM has access to. To this affect, cross-referenced
outputs are being produced by both institutions (see
ODI BRACED Resilience Intel Paper 4: The changing
role of NGOs in supporting climate servicesvi).
Establishing partnerships and enabling learning
between partners in different countries can also
be difficult. Some partners had no prior experience
of the country where the project was being
undertaken. There have been considerable language
constraints at many levels. Within the consortia,
there has been a need to support communication
between anglo- and franco-phone partners as well
as with a number of local languages, and translate
the sector-specific, technical terminologies of
meteorology, climate science, humanitarian aid,
development and resilience building programming
and academic research.
Roles and responsibilities
There has been a high turn-over of staff amongst
partners. This has placed strain on investment to
sustain institutional knowledge and relationships
between partners. Efforts to overcome these
challenges have included the retention of former
staff as external consultants to allow continued
learning. This has required flexible administrative
and staffing systems, and committed individuals.
The need for clarity on roles and responsibilities
continues into project implementation with, for
example, uncertainty over which agency should
be responsible for long-term translation of climate
information into contextualised advice on livelihood
approaches (See further Box 3).
The challenge of defining how relevant and
Staff turn-over
5
6
King’s College London
Presentation of the research to village representatives in Passoré, Burkina Faso, March 2016 / Photo: Camilla Audia
Differing priorities and approaches for learning
As separate entities with very different roles and
missions, consortia partners have prioritised
different elements of the learning process within
BRACED. Some have focused on the procedure
of developing consortia and bringing together
organisations’ very different approaches to project
development. Some highlighted the need to ensure
that innovative approaches to resilience building
do not adversely affect the most vulnerable,
while others emphasised the need to strengthen
organisational capacity for measuring resilience.
International and national meteorological services
have been able to share, examine and understand
differing data sets. Operational partners have
highlighted their preferences for practical
approaches that can support experiential learning,
including through trainings and exchanges both
between at risk groups and BRACED consortia
partners.
These different priorities have been welcomed,
since they show how a consortium can learn
together whilst meeting individualised needs.
However, all partners have agreed that there is a
need to consolidate project learning to share with
the BRACED Knowledge Manager and more widely.
In terms of tools for sharing and communicating,
partners have expressed making only limited use
of the resources available on the BRACED website.
Instead one of the consortia has established a
Cloud-based platform (DropBox) to share project
documents, since this allows them to build
something that more readily responds to their
individual needs.
To be useful, learning activities and approaches
need to be relevant to the full range of consortia
partners. There are clearly tensions in establishing
learning approaches which support effective
collaboration between international and in-country
partners, are accountable to those people at risk on
whose behalf the activities are being undertaken,
and are also able to meet donor and academic
requirements. A number of consortia partners
requested for those leading the learning elements
– both the KM and research partners – to place
less focus on the number of learning products,
and greater emphasis on developing operationallyrelevant learning and putting this into practice.
These findings emphasise the need for very early
agreement between partners on the strategic role
and purpose of learning activities to maximise
accessibility, relevance and utility.
To address this challenge, KCL has worked to
develop a strong relationship with the country
partners in order to better understand their learning
requirements. This has been done through regular
communication including prolonged field visits
and knowledge of both consortia contexts and
languages. By understanding the successes and
challenges of project implementation and being
receptive to partners’ interests in specific areas,
KCL is able to undertake research to support
and provide evidence for real-time adaptations,
beneficial to project design and delivery.
Learning events have offered a way to support
direct communication amongst partners, the
development of a shared understanding of project
approaches and have led to concrete follow-on
activities (see Box 3). Within these activities, KCL
has also sought to identify synergies with the
learning activities of complementary ongoing
projects, such as the DFID-funded Future Climate
for Africa Monsoon Multi-disciplinary Analysis
Learning to support co-production
(AMMA)-2050 project and the DFID-Disasters and
Emergencies Preparedness Programme (DEPP)
Linking Preparedness, Response and Resilience
project.
KCL is also undertaking part of its BRACED research
in partnership with researchers at the Universities of
Addis Ababa and Ouagadougou. This collaborative
research recognises the tremendous value of
engaging and developing in-country expertise,
as well as building in-country relations between
humanitarian and development and academic
partners.
3.0
Moving forward
Many partners of the Christian Aid-led BRACED
consortia recognised that building resilience to
climate extremes, disasters and change requires
new forms of collaboration which bring together
the capacities of a wide range of cross-sectoral
partners. Effective collaboration is, in turn,
dependent on the creation of effective methods for
learning through which partners can co-produce
relevant resilience building approaches. This
highlights the importance of being aware of the
respective strengths and weaknesses of consortium
partners, and being willing to share problems and
so develop joint solutions.
Co-production is an ongoing-collaborative process,
in which the knowledge resources of all partners
are valued. Experience across the BRACED
consortia and a range of related complementary
initiatives makes clear that all partners need to
share responsibilities for learning. Co-production
requires each organisation to develop its capacities
for collaborative learning across sectors and
levels of decision making. While one organisation
may take the lead in enabling learning, learning
is a communal activity with each partner
needing to have a clear understanding of its role,
responsibilities and expectations.
Within a collaborative project, each partner benefits
from identifying an organisational learning lead
to take up responsibility for championing learning
within their own organisation and more widely.
Integration is best when it can extend to the
identification of budgeted learning milestones and
specific learning activities with relevant, tangible
outputs.
Learning should be recognised as an inherent
part of every stage of the project from design and
implementation to review. Partners recognised
the benefits of investing time and resources in
Box 3: Co-production in theory and practice:
The process of developing decision-relevant
climate information
The workshop on communicating climate information
held in Burkina Faso in 2016 provided a first
opportunity for the national meteorological agency,
the Direction Générale de la Météorologie (DGM), to
directly discuss with humanitarian and development
partners the climate information which they currently
produce as a foundation from which to develop a
common understanding about the process required
to produce and deliver decision-relevant climate
information. The learning event resulted in the
development and communication of a range of
products tailored to support agro-pastoralists in the
2016 rains in the four zones where BRACED partners
are operating.
KCL undertook participant surveys before and after
this learning event. These made clear that:
•
•
•
Most participants understood communication as
the one-way transmission of information before
the workshop but identified it as a two-directional
exchange process after the workshop.
Many said that they had a clearer understanding
of DGM climate information products and the
need to transform climate information.
There were notable difference in partners’
assessment of their abilities to communicate the
probabilistic nature of climate information.
Respondents found the workshop useful in terms
of understanding how climate information needs
to be processed to become relevant to the target
communities and appreciating the respective roles of
BRACED partners in this process. Partners recognised
that this process entails:
1. Translation of technical forecasts into easily
comprehensible language;
2. Bringing together scientific products with local
and indigenous knowledge sources;
3. Ensuring that climate information is accompanied
by specific livelihood advisories; and
4. Developing a common approach and the regular
channels for dialogue required to develop and
communicate relevant information which reaches
those most directly affected.
Partners were reticent to take on responsibility for
translating technical forecasts into relevant livelihood
advisories, highlighting the need for ensuring
engagement with, amongst others, livestock and
agricultural extension services. Further learning
events initiated by the partners will start addressing
this challenge. For example a workshop in Ethiopia
is planned to facilitate an overview of current climate
services, including the different channels through
which information is communicated
7
8
King’s College London
Learning to support co-production
developing frameworks for learning which moved
beyond contractual and formal relations to support
informal relations, particularly between partners
with limited experience of collaboration and where
activities required engagement across sectors,
disciplines and countries.
There remains an opportunity to better understand
which types and approaches of learning best
support the at risk people for whom an initiative
is being undertaken. There is an important task to
consider whether the embedded learning enabled
through integrating researchers as key partners
within operational consortia is an approach which
can support wider resilience building initiatives.
There also remains a tremendous need to identify
which are the most effective ways to share
emerging learning across and amongst the wide
No.resilience-related
405, 2012.
Vulnerability.
of
range of Contribution
ongoing climate
and
Working Group II to the Third
A Otzelberger,
The Double
initiatives - learning that can14.
encourage
changed
Assessment Report of the
Injustice of Climate Change and
behavior and Panel
improved
outcomes
on
the
ground.
Intergovernmental
on
Gender Inequality, London: CARE
Endnotes
Rethinking Resilience: Prioritizing
1. D Ackerley, B B Booth, S
Gender Integration to Enhance
H E Knight, E J Highwood, D J
Household and Community
Frame, M R Allen and D P Rowell,
Endnotes
Resilience to Food Insecurity in
‘Sensitivity
of Twentieth-Century
Climate Change, J J McCarthy, O
the Sahel,
MercyCorps,
Sahel
Rainfall to
Sulfate Aerosol
andin Seru,
Interviewing
community
leaders
Ethiopia,
October2015,
2015 /
International, 2014.
FVulnerability.
Canziani, N A
Leary, D J Dokken,
www.mercycorps.org/sites/
CO2
Journal
of Climate,
No. 405, 2012.
Contribution
of
Photo:
Camilla
Audia
Rethinking Resilience: Prioritizing
1. DForcing’,
Ackerley,
B
B Booth,
S
Rethinking resilience: prioritizing
Endnotes
KWorking
S WhiteGroup
(eds), IICambridge:
default/files/Mercy%20Corps%20
No.
2011,Epp4999-5014.
to the Third
Gender Integration to Enhance
H E24,
Knight,
J Highwood,
DJ
14. A Otzelberger,
Double
gender
integration toThe
enhance
Cambridge
University
Gender%20and%20Resilience%20
Assessment
Report ofPress.
the Annex
Household and Community
Allen andand
D PPRowell,
FFrame,
C Lott,MNRChristidis
A Stott,
Injustice
ofand
Climate
Change and
household
community
No.
405,
2012.
Vulnerability.
Contribution
of
Rethinking
Resilience:
Prioritizing
1. D Ackerley, B B Booth,
S
B:
Glossary of terms.
September%202014.pdf.
Intergovernmental
Panel on
Resilience to Food
Insecurity in
‘Sensitivity
of East
Twentieth-Century
‘Can
the 2011
African
drought
Gender
London:
CARE
Working Group II to the Third
Gender Integration to Enhance
H E Knight,
E J Highwood, D J
resilience
to food insecurity
in
the
14. A Inequality,
Otzelberger,
The Double
Climate
Change,
J Report
McCarthy,
the
MercyCorps,
Sahel
Rainfalltotohuman-induced
Sulfate
Aerosol
and andBarriers
9.
B Walker,
C SJHolling,
SofRtheO
to resilience:
The2015,
impact
of
be
attributed
Assessment
Household
and
Community
Frame,
M R Allen
D P Sahel,
Rowell,
International,
2014. Change
Sahel,
MercyCorps,
2015, www.
Injustice
of Climate
and
FinCanziani,
A Leary,
D JPanel
Dokken,
www.mercycorps.org/sites/
CO2 Forcing’,
Journal
of Climate,
Intergovernmental
on
Resilience
Food InsecurityCarpenter,
‘Sensitivity
of Twentieth-Century
ANKinzig,
Resilience,
gender
inequality
on foodtosecurity,
climate
change?’,
Geophysical
Gender Inequality,
London:
CARE
mercycorps.org/sites/default/
Rethinking
resilience:
prioritizing
Change,
J J McCarthy,
Sahel, MercyCorps, 2015,
Rainfall to Sulfate
Aerosol and
K S WhiteClimate
(eds),
Cambridge:
default/files/Mercy%20Corps%20
No. 24, 2011,
pp4999-5014.
adaptability
and transformability
in O files/Mercy%20Corps%20
Concern,
2015, the
www.concern.net/
Research
Letters,
No.Sahel
40, 2013,
International, 2014.
gender integration
to enhance
F Canziani,
N A Press.
Leary, DAnnex
JA,Dokken,
www.mercycorps.org/sites/
CO2 Forcing’,
Journal
of Climate,
Pohl,
C,
Rist,
S,
Zimmermman,
Fry,
P,
Gurung,
G,
Schneider,
F,
BRACED
Knowledge
Manager
(2015)
Learning
about
resilience
through
Cambridge
University
Gender%20and%20Resilience%20
social–ecological systems, Ecology
sites/default/files/media/resource/
pp1177–1181.
F C Lott, N Christidis No.
and24,
P A Stott,
Rethinking
resilience:
prioritizing
Gender%20and%20Resilience%20
K C,
S White
(eds),
default/files/Mercy%20Corps%20
pp4999-5014.
household
and
community
Speranza,
Kiteme,
B, Cambridge:
Boillat,
S,
E, Hadorn,
G and
Wiesmann,
the BRACED programme,
An 2011,
introduction
to the role of the
BRACED
B:
Glossary
of
terms.
September%202014.pdf.
and
Society,
vol
9, no.2,
article
5, Serrano,
concern_gender_resilience_report.
gender integration to enhance
‘CanCthe
2011
East African
drought
Cambridge
University
Press.
Annex
Gender%20and%20Resilience%20
September%202014.pdf.
resilience
to
food
insecurity
in the
U
(2010)
Researchers’
roles
in
knowledge
co-production:
experience
Knowledge
Manager
2.
Bene,
‘Resilience:
New
F C Lott, N Christidis and P A Stott,
household and community from
p7,
2004,
www.ecologyandsociety.
pdf
B:
Glossary
of terms.S R
September%202014.pdf.
9.
B Walker,
C S Holling,
Barriers
to resilience:
The impact of
be attributed
human-induced
‘Can
the 2011 East African
drought
sustainability
research
in Kenya, Switzerland,
Bolivia
and
Nepal,
Science
Sahel,
MercyCorps,
2015,
www.
Utopia
or NewtoTyranny?
Reflection
Barriers
to
resilience:
The
impact
resilience
to
food
insecurity
in
the of
org/vol9/iss2/art5
Carpenter,
ABKinzig,
Resilience,
gender
inequality
on
food
security,
climate
change?’,
Geophysical
9. Policy
Walker,
C Spp267-281
Holling, S R
Barriers
to resilience:
The impact
be attributed
human-induced
5.
C Pohl,
S Rist,
A Zimmermann,
andofPublic
37 (4),
Dilling
and
Lemos (2011)
Creating
usable
science:
Opportunities
and
mercycorps.org/sites/default/
Sahel,
MercyCorps,
2015, security,
www.
about
the
Potentials
and
Limits to
gender
inequality
on food
Carpenter,
A
Kinzig,
Resilience,
gender
inequality
on
food
security,
adaptability
and
transformability
in
climate
change?’,
Geophysical
Concern,
2015,
www.concern.net/
Research
Letters,
No.
40,
2013,
10. Thriving, Resilient Livelihoods:
Fry, G
S Gurung,for
F Schneider,
constraints
for climate
knowledge
implications
science
mercycorps.org/sites/default/
files/Mercy%20Corps%20
of
the Concept
of Resilience
in use andP their
2015, www.concern.net/
adaptability
and transformability
in Concern,
www.concern.net/
Research
Letters,21,
No.C
40,
2013,
social–ecological
systems,
Ecology
sites/default/files/media/resource/
pp1177–1181.
Reed et al
(2010)
What
is social
learning?
Ecology
and Society 15(4): r1.
policy.
Global
Environmental
Change,
680-689
files/Mercy%20Corps%20
Christian
Aid’s
Approach.
Briefing,
I Speranza,
B Concern,
Kiteme, 2015,
S Boillat,
Gender%20and%20Resilience%20
Relation
to Vulnerability
Reduction
sites/default/files/media/resource/
social–ecological
systems,
Ecology
sites/default/files/media/resource/
pp1177–1181.
Gender%20and%20Resilience%20
and
Society,
vol
9,Aid,
no.2,
article 5,
[online]
URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/
concern_gender_resilience_report.
London:
Christian
2012.
E
Serrano,
G
H
Hadorn
and
U
September%202014.pdf.)
Programmes’,
IDS Working
Paper,
and Society, vol 9, no.2, article 5, concern_gender_resilience_report.
concern_gender_resilience_report.
2. C Bene,
New
September%202014.pdf.
Kniveton
et al‘Resilience:
(2016) A2.practical
onWiesmann,
how
weather
and climate can
p7, 2004,p7,
www.ecologyandsociety.
pdf
C Bene,guide
‘Resilience:
New
‘Researchers’
roles
2004,
www.ecologyandsociety.
pdf
No.
405,
2012.
11.
These
capacities
as
understood
pdf
Utopia or
New Tyranny?
Reflection
Barriers
totoresilience:
Theimpact
impact
Roncoli, C,
Ingram, K and Kirshen, P (2002)
Reading
the
rains: Local
support
livelihood
and Utopia
local
government
decision
making:
An example from
or New Tyranny?
Reflection
Barriers
resilience:
The
of of
org/vol9/iss2/art5
in
knowledge
co-production:
org/vol9/iss2/art5
5.
C
Pohl,
S
Rist,
A
Zimmermann,
through
Bene’s
resilience
C Pohl, S Rist, A Zimmermann,
about
theThe
Potentials
and
Limits
Endnotes
inequality
on
food
security,
about
theKenya,
Potentials
and Limits
knowledge
and 3D
rainfall
forecasting in Burkina
Faso,
Society
and
Natural
the
Adaptation
Consortium
in
Working
Draft, Met 5.
Office
M
Taylor,
Political
Ecology
of
gender
inequality
on food
security,
Cgender
McOmber,
A Panikowski,
S
experience
from
sustainability
10.
Thriving,
Resilient
Livelihoods:
10.CThriving,
Resilient
Livelihoods:
P Fry, in
G S Gurung,
P Fry,FGSchneider,
S Gurung, F Schneider,
framework.
Bene, No.
‘Resilience:
of the Concept
Resilience
of the Concept
Resilience
in 1. Dof
Concern,
2015,
www.concern.net/
Resources:
Journal,
15:5,Concern,
409-427
2015,
www.concern.net/
Climate
Change of
Adaptation,
Oxon:
W
Bartels,
S Russo,
405, 2012.
ContributionAn
of International
Rethinking Resilience: Prioritizing
Ackerley,
B B Booth, S in Kenya,
research
Switzerland,
Christian
Aid’s
Approach.
Briefing, McKune,
CKiteme,
I Speranza,
B Kiteme, SVulnerability.
Boillat,
Christian
Aid’s
Approach.
Briefing,
I Speranza,
BGender
StoBoillat,
Relation
Vulnerability
Reduction
Working
Group
II to the
Third
Integration
Enhance
New
Utopia
or New
Tyranny?
H E Knight, EIJC
Highwood,
D J K (2007)
sites/default/files/media/resource/
Mercer,
D,toKelman,
and
Lloyd
The potential
RelationJ,toDominey-Howes,
Vulnerability
Reduction
14.
A Otzelberger, The Double Investigating
sites/default/files/media/resource/
Routledge,
2015.
Climate
Information
London:
Christian
Aid,
2012.
Assessment
Report
of
the
Household
and
Community
E
Serrano,
G
H
Hadorn
and
U
Frame,
M
R
Allen
and
D
P
Rowell,
Bolivia
and
Nepal’,
Science
and
Injustice
of Climate Change and
Programmes’,
IDS
Working
Paper,
London:
Christian
Aid,
2012.
concern_gender_resilience_report.
E
Serrano,
G
H
Hadorn
and
U
Reflection
about
the
Potentials
and
Szulanski, Gon(2000) The
process of knowledge
transfer:
A diachronic
for
combining indigenous
andPaper,
western
in reducing
Programmes’,
IDS Working
Intergovernmental
Resilience vulnerability
to Food Insecurity in
‘Sensitivityknowledge
of Twentieth-Century
concern_gender_resilience_report.
Gender Inequality, London: CAREServices
through
a Gendered
Wiesmann,
‘Researchers’
rolesChange, J JPanel
No.
405,
2012.
3.
N
Ranger,
Topic
Guide
Public
Policy,
No.
37
(4),
2010,
11.
These
capacities
as
understood
Climate
McCarthy,
O
pdf
the
Sahel,
MercyCorps,
2015,
Sahel
Rainfall
to
Sulfate
Aerosol
and
Wiesmann,
‘Researchers’
roles
International,
2014.
analysis
stickiness.
Organisational
behavior
human decision
to
environmental
island
developing states,
Limits
of of
the
Concept
of understood
Resilience
No.
405, 2012. hazards in smallCO2
11.
as
pdf and
in Environmental
knowledge co-production:
F Canziani,
NThese
A Leary, Dcapacities
J Dokken,
www.mercycorps.org/sites/
Forcing’, Journal of Climate,
Lens,
CCAFS Working Paper no.
through
Bene’s
3D resilience
Adaptation:
pp267-281.
Rethinking
resilience: prioritizing
M Taylor,under
The
Ecology
of
K S White
(eds), Cambridge:
default/files/Mercy%20Corps%20
processes,
82,Vulnerability
9-27
Hazards 7:4,decision
245-256making
No.Political
24, 2011, pp4999-5014.
in
knowledge
co-production:
C McOmber, A Panikowski, S
in
Relation
to
experience from sustainability
through
Bene’s
3D C
resilience
gender
integration
to enhance
42,
CGIAR
Program
framework.
Bene,
‘Resilience:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Annex
Gender%20and%20Resilience%20
M
Taylor,
The
Political
Ecology
of
C
McOmber,
Panikowski,
Climate
Change
Adaptation,
Oxon:
uncertainty, Evidence on Demand,
F C Lott, N Christidis
P A Stott,from sustainability
McKune,Research
WA
Bartels,
S
Russo,S on
household
and community
experience
research in Kenya, Switzerland,
B: Glossary
of terms. Programmes’,
September%202014.pdf.
Reduction
IDS
FandCleaver,
Development
framework.
CUtopia
Bene,or
‘Resilience:
‘Can the 20116.
East African
drought
New
New
Change,
Agriculture
and
resilience
toTyranny?
food insecurity in the Climate
Routledge,
2015.
Climate Change
Adaptation,
Oxon:
Investigating
Climate
Information
McKune,
W
Bartels,
S
Russo,
2013.
Nowotny,
H, Scott,
P and
Gibbons,
M (2001)
Re-thinking
Science:
9. and
B
Walker,
C
S
Holling,
S
R
Barriers
to
resilience:
The
impact
of
be attributed
to
human-induced
Bolivia
and
Nepal’,
Science
research
in
Kenya,
Switzerland,
Sahel,
MercyCorps,
2015, www.
Working
Paper,
No.about
405
Christian
Through Bricolage,
Routeledge:
Reflection
the
Potentials
and Food
New
Utopia
or New
Tyranny?
Carpenter,
A Kinzig,
Resilience,
gender inequality on food security,
climate change?’, Geophysical
Security
(CCAFS),
2013,
Services
through
a Gendered
Routledge, and
2015.
mercycorps.org/sites/default/
Investigating
Climate
Information
Knowledge
the Public
an Age
of
Uncertainty.
Cambridge:
Polity
Press
3. NinRanger,
Topic
Guide
Public
Policy,
No.
37
(4),
2010,
Bolivia
and Nepal’,
and
adaptability
and
transformability
Concern,Science
2015, www.concern.net/
Letters,
No. 40,2012.
2013,
Limits
ofin the
Concept
of Resilience
Aid,
2012.
Oxon,
Reflection
about
thefiles/Mercy%20Corps%20
Potentials
and
Lens, CCAFS
Working
Paper no.
D Kniveton, E Visman,Adaptation:
A Tall, MResearch
Copenhagen,
Denmark.
social–ecological systems, Ecology
decision making under
sites/default/files/media/resource/
pp267-281.
pp1177–1181.
Services
through
a Gendered
in Relation
toGender%20and%20Resilience%20
Vulnerability
3. N Ranger, Topic Guide
Public Policy, No.
37 (4), 2010,
and Society,
vol 9,
article
5,
concern_gender_resilience_report.
42, CGIAR Research Program on
Limits
ofno.2,
the
Concept
of Resilience
September%202014.pdf.
Diop, R Ewbank, E Njoroge
and2.Evidence
L C Bene, ‘Resilience:
uncertainty,
12.
M
Taylor,
The
Political
Ecology
7.on Demand,
C Bene,
‘Resilience:
New
New
Lens,
CCAFS
Working
Paper no.
p7, 2004, www.ecologyandsociety.
Reduction Programmes’, IDS
pdf
6. F Cleaver, Development
Adaptation: decision making under
Climate Change, Agriculture and
Utopia or New pp267-281.
Tyranny? Reflection
Barriers to resilience: The impact of
org/vol9/iss2/art5
in Climate
Relation
to Vulnerability
Pearson, ‘Dealing with2013.
uncertainty:
of
Change
Adaptation,
Utopia
or New 5.Tyranny?
Reflection
C Pohl, S Rist,
A Zimmermann,
Working
Paper,
No.
405 Christian
Through
Bricolage,
Routeledge:
about the Potentials
and Limits
CGIAR
Research
Program
gender
inequality
on food security,42,Food
Security
(CCAFS),
2013, on
uncertainty, Evidence on Demand,
10. Thriving,
Resilient Livelihoods:
PDevelopment
Fry, G S Gurung, F Schneider,
of the Concept6.
of Resilience
in
Concern, 2015,
Reduction
Programmes’,
IDSwww.concern.net/Climate Change, Agriculture
F the
Cleaver,
integrating
local and scientific
Aid,
2012.2015.
2012.
Oxon:
Routledge,
about
and
Limits
i
iv Aid’s Approach.
Christian
Briefing,
C Oxon,
I Speranza,
B Kiteme,
S Boillat,
D Kniveton,
E Visman,
A Tall,
MtoPotentials
and
Copenhagen,
Denmark.15(4): r1.
Relation
to Resilience
Vulnerability
Reduction
Learning Paper #1, Rigg
et al, Building
climate
shocks
and
Reed
et
al
(2010) What
is social learning?
Ecology
and Society
sites/default/files/media/resource/
2013.
London:
Christian
Aid,
2012.
E
Serrano,
G
H
Hadorn
and
U
Working
Paper,
No.
405
Christian
Through
Bricolage,
knowledge
of the climate
and
Programmes’,
IDS
Working
Paper,
of
the
Concept
of
inroles
Diop,
R Ewbank,
E Njoroge
and
L
12. ‘Resilience:
M
Taylor,concern_gender_resilience_report.
The New
Political Ecology Food Security (CCAFS), 2013,
7. Resilience
CRouteledge:
Bene,
New
stresses: addressing the
knowledge
gap,
and ‘Resilience:
[online]
URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/
Wiesmann,
‘Researchers’
C Bene,
No. 405,
2012.King’s College London
11. 13.
These
capacities
as understood
pdf
Aid, 2012. Climate Change Adaptation,
Oxon,
2012.
Pearson,
‘Dealing
uncertainty:
weather’,
Disasters,
No.
2015
inUtopia
knowledge
orco-production:
New
Relation
toof Learning
Vulnerability
Reduction
through Bene’s 3D resilience
D Kniveton,
Eavailable
Visman,
A39,
Tall,
MM Taylor, with
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian
AID,
at:
https://goo.gl/nIF4jy,
and
Paper
#2,Tyranny? Reflection
The Political Ecology
C McOmber,
A Panikowski, S
Utopia or of
New Tyranny?
Reflection
experience from sustainability
framework. C Bene, Oxon:
‘Resilience:
integrating local
scientific
Routledge,
about
the
Potentials
Climateand
Change
Adaptation, Oxon:
McKune,2015.
W Bartels, S Russo,
Programmes’,
IDS
Working
Paper,and Limits
research
ininstitutional
Kenya,
Switzerland,
v
Diop,
R
Ewbank,
E
Njoroge
and
L
Audia
et
al,
Investigating
resilience
at
local,
organisational
and
12.
M
Taylor,
The
Political
Ecology
7.
C
Bene,
‘Resilience:
New
Newabout
Utopia
or the
New
Tyranny?
Potentials
and
Limits
KCL
(2015)
Research
Intent,
Policy
Brief; Kniveton et al (2016) A practical
Routledge,
2015.
Investigating
Climate
Information
4. A Otzelberger, The
Double of the climate and
knowledge
Bolivia
and Concept
Nepal’, Science
and
of
the
of
Resilience
in
Reflection
about
the
Potentials
and
C Bene,Adaptation,
‘Resilience:
No.
405,orP21,
Services through aNew
levels:
a methodological
note, King’s
College
London
and2012.
Christian
AID,
Pearson,
uncertainty:
3. N Ranger,
Topic
Guide
of
Climate
Policy, No. 37
(4), 2010,
Utopia
Tyranny?
guide
on 13.
how
weather
and
climate
can support livelihood and local
of
Concept
of Resilience
in Gendered
Limits
ofthe
the Concept
ofChange
Resilience
weather’,
Disasters,
No.
39,
2015NewPublic
Injustice
of‘Dealing
Climatewith
Change
and
Relation
to Reflection
Vulnerability
Reduction
Lens,
CCAFS Working
Paper no.
Adaptation: decision making under
pp267-281.
Utopia or New
Tyranny?
Reflection
in Relation
to Vulnerability
available
at: local
https://goo.gl/oEVM9J
integrating
and
scientific
42,
CGIAR
Research Program on
Oxon:
Routledge,
2015.
about
the Climate
Potentials
and
Limits
government
decision
making
uncertainty, Evidence
on Demand,
Relation
to
Vulnerability
Reduction
8.
IPCC,
Change
IDS Working
Paper,
Gender
Inequality,
London:
CARE
Reduction
Programmes’,
IDS
6.Programmes’,
F Cleaver,
Development
about the Potentials
andAgriculture
Limits and
Climate Change,
4. A and
Otzelberger,
The Double
2013.
Working
Paper, No. 405 Christian
knowledge of2014.
the climate
Bricolage,
Routeledge:
of theImpacts,
ConceptThrough
of Resilience
in
No.
405,
P21,
2012.
Foodof
Security
(CCAFS), in
2013,
Programmes’,
IDS
Working
Paper,
2001:
Adaptation,
and
International,
of the
Concept
Resilience
13. C Bene,
‘Resilience:
New
Injustice of Climate
Aid, 2012.
Oxon, 2012.
ii
D Kniveton, Change
E Visman, Aand
Tall, M
Copenhagen, Denmark.
vi
KCL policyDisasters,
brief 1 andNo.
2 39, 2015
weather’,
Relation
to
Vulnerability
Reduction
Jones,
L.,
B.
Harvey
&
R.
Godfrey-Wood
(2016). The changing role of
Relation
to
Vulnerability
Reduction
8.
IPCC,
Climate
Change
Diop, R Ewbank,
E Njoroge
and L
12. M
Taylor, Theor
Political
Ecology
7. C Bene, ‘Resilience: New
Gender Inequality,
London:
CARE
Utopia
New
Tyranny? Reflection
Pearson, ‘Dealing
with uncertainty:
of and
Climate
Change
Adaptation,
Utopia
orWorking
New
Tyranny?Paper,
Reflection
Programmes’,
IDS Limits
Working
Paper,
IDS
2001:
Impacts,
Adaptation,
NGOs
in2015.
supporting
climate
services.
BRACED Resilience Intel Paper 4.
International,
2014. localProgrammes’,
about
the
Potentials
and
integrating
and scientific
Oxon:
Routledge,
about the Potentials and Limits
4.
A
Otzelberger,
The
Double
iii
of the
climate
Huber 1991; Argote 1999 citedknowledge
in Szulanski,
G and
(2000)
of
London,
Overseas
of
the process
Concept of Resilience
in
No.
405,
P21,The
2012.
13. Cof
Bene,
‘Resilience:
New of Development
the
Concept
Resilience in Institute
Injustice of Climate Change andweather’, Disasters, No. 39, 2015
Relation to Vulnerability Reduction
Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection
knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organisational
Programmes’, IDS Working Paper,
aboutRelation
the Potentials to
and Vulnerability
Limits
Reduction
8. TheIPCC,
4. A Otzelberger,
Double Climate Change
Gender
Inequality,
London:
CARE
No.
405,
P21,
2012.
behavior and human decision processes,
82, Change
9-27).
of the Concept of Resilience in
Injustice of Climate
and
Programmes’,
IDS Working Paper,
2001:
Impacts,
and
Relation
to Vulnerability Reduction
8. Adaptation,
IPCC, Climate Change
International, 2014.
Gender Inequality,
London:
CARE
References
International, 2014.
2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Programmes’, IDS Working Paper,
UK registered charity no. 1105851 Company no. 5171525 Scot charity no. SC039150
UK registered charity no. 1105851 Company no. 5171525 Scot charity no. SC039150
NI charity no. XR94639 Company
no.no.
NI059154
charityROI registered
no. 20014162/CHY
NI charity
XR94639 ROI registered
Company no. NI059154
charity no.6998
20014162/CHY 6998
Company no. 426928. The Christian
name
and
logo
of
Christian
Aid.
Company Aid
no. 426928.
The Christian
AidCompany
nameno.and
logo
are trademarks
of Christian Aid.
UK registered
charity
no. are trademarks
1105851
5171525
Scot charity
no.
SC039150
charity no. XR94639 Company no. NI059154 ROI registered charity no. 20014162/CHY 6998
Aid is aNI
key
member
of ACT Alliance.
© Christian
Aid
June
2015.
Christian Aid is a key memberChristian
of ACT Alliance.
© Christian
Aid
June
2015.
Company no. 426928. The Christian Aid name and logo are trademarks of Christian Aid.
Front
page photo:
Sophie
Printed
on 100%
recycled
paper.
Aidrecycled
is aRigg
key member
of ACT Alliance.
© Christian
Aid June
2015.J4222
Front page photo: Sophie Rigg
Printed
onChristian
100%
paper.
J4222
Front page photo: Sophie Rigg Printed on 100% recycled paper. J4222
UK registered charity no. 1105851 Company no. 5171525 Scot charity no. SC039150
This material
has been
funded
byby
UK
theUK
UK
This material
has been
funded
UKaid
aidfrom
from the
Government. However, the views expressed do not
necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies.
This material has been funded byGovernment.
UK aid from the UKHowever, the views expressed do not
Government. However, the viewsnecessarily
expressed do not
reflect the UK Government’s official policies.
necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies.
Authors:
Visman,
Pelling,
Camilla Audia,
Rigg,6998
Frances Crowley and Tyler Ferdinand
NI charity no.Emma
XR94639
CompanyMark
no. NI059154
ROI registered
charity no.Sophie
20014162/CHY
This material has been funded by UK aid from the UK
Company no. 426928. The Christian Aid name and logo are trademarks of Christian Aid.
Government. However, the views expressed do not
Christian Aid is a key member of ACT Alliance. © Christian Aid June 2015.
necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies.
Front page photo: Sophie Rigg Printed on 100% recycled paper. J4222