WASH Climate

Resilient Development

Guidance Note

Risk assessments for WASH

About UNICEF
UNICEF works in more than 100 countries around the world to improve water supplies and sanitation facilities in
schools and communities, and to promote safe hygiene practices. We sponsor a wide range of activities and work
with many partners, including families, communities, governments and like-minded organizations. In emergencies
we provide urgent relief to communities and nations threatened by disrupted water supplies and disease. All
UNICEF WASH programmes were designed to contribute to the Millennium Development Goal for water and
sanitation.

About GWP
The Global Water Partnership is an intergovernmental organisation of 13 Regional Water Partnerships, 86 Country
Water Partnerships and more than 3,000 Partner Organisations in 183 countries. Its vision is a water secure
world. Its mission is to advance governance and management of water resources for sustainable and equitable
development through integrated water resources management (IWRM). IWRM is a process that promotes the
coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise economic
and social welfare in an equitable manner, without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems and the
environment.

© 2017 GWP and UNICEF

ISBN: 978-91-87823-39-8
Cover photo credit: © UNICEF/UN034855/Abassi
Design and layout by Strategic Agenda

Portions of the text may be reproduced for educational or non-commercial use without prior permission from
UNICEF and GWP, provided that the source is acknowledged, with mention of the complete name of the report,
and that the portions are not used in a misleading context. No use of this publication may be made for sale or other
commercial purposes. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed are those of the author(s) and do
not imply endorsement by UNICEF and GWP.

Prepared in cooperation with HR Wallingford and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Understanding risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introducing the Guidance Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Setting in the Strategic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Scope and target audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Using the Guidance Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Assessment approach in detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Initial steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Define the scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Identify hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Score hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Assign a confidence score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Further information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. Identify exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. Score exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3. Assign a confidence score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.5. Further information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1. Identify and score vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2. Assign a confidence score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.3. Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.4. Further information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.1. Identify and assess/score capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.2. Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.3. Further information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8. Risk prioritisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8.1. Assess risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.2. Confidence scores and sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8.3. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.4. Prioritise risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9. Next steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Acknowledgements

Figures
Figure 1.1: The impact of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity scores on the overall risk score . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2.1: Strategic Framework quadrants and associated Guidance Note and Technical Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2.2: Assessment parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2.3: Assessment approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2.4: Components of exposure, vulnerability and capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2.5: The source–pathway–receptor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2.6: Assessment approach in detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 4.1: Steps to assess hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 4.2: Hazards and the WASH sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 4.3: Scoring system based on frequency and intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 4.4: Scoring system based on intensity and geographical extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 5.1: Steps to assess exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 5.2: Components of exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 6.1: Steps to assess vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 6.2: Components of vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 7.1: Steps to assess capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 7.2: Components of capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Tables
Table 1.1: Key definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 3.1: Differences in scope and method between the two assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4.2: Recording hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4.3: Examples of hazards to be considered in the high-level assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 4.4: Examples of climate-related hazards to be considered in the detailed climate assessment . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 4.5: Classifying hazards according to frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4.6: Classifying hazards – example for present day and expected future frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4.7: Classifying hazards – example for present day and expected future geographical extent . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4.8: Classifying hazards according to frequency and intensity, for present day and expected future . . . . . . 16
Table 4.9: Examples of hazard scoring systems, high-level assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 4.10: Examples of how hazard scores would be recorded, high-level assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 4.11: Example hazard confidence scores, detailed climate assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4.12: How to combine confidence scores for the detailed climate assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 4.13: Hazard checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 5.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 5.2: Examples of hazards and their exposures for two countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 5.3: Example of combining exposures with the components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 5.4: Possible indicators of exposure to help scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 5.5: Possible classification of exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 5.6: Example of how exposure would be scored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 5.7: Exposure checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 6.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 6.2: Examples of elements and questions to consider when assessing vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 6.3: An example of how vulnerability might be scored for the high-level assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 6.4: Examples of vulnerability scoring systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 6.5: Examples of how hazard and exposure combinations may branch out with vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 6.6: Example confidence scores for vulnerability – detailed climate assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 6.7: Vulnerability checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 7.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 7.2: Examples of elements and questions to consider when assessing capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 7.3: An example of how capacity might be assessed for the high-level assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 7.4: An example of how capacity might be scored for the detailed climate assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 7.5: Capacity checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 8.1: Examples of scoring risk – high-level assessment, country X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 8.2: Examples of confidence scores, high-level assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 1. Introduction

1.1 Understanding risk

Risk-based programming in the WASH sector is Risk results from the interaction of hazard, vulnerability
essential. WASH systems that are informed by risk and exposure. Capacity also influences risk: high
assessments will be more resilient and more likely to capacity reduces risk while low capacity does not.
withstand shocks and stresses. Acting now to identify, Table 1.1 provides key definitions for hazard, exposure,
manage and minimise risks will offer benefits to long- vulnerability and capacity; and Figure 1.1 shows how
term WASH programme performance.1 scores for each can impact on the overall risk score.

Table 1.1: Key definitions

Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Capacity

The term hazard can be The term exposure can The term vulnerability The term capacity
defined as “a dangerous be defined as “people, can be defined as includes “infrastructure
phenomenon, property, systems, or “the characteristics and physical means,
substance, human other elements in places and circumstances of institutions, societal
activity or condition or settings that could a community, system coping abilities, as well
that may cause be adversely affected or asset that make as human knowledge,
loss of life, injury or by hazards and that it susceptible to the skills and collective
other health impacts, are thereby subject to damaging effects attributes such as social
property damage, potential losses”. of a hazard”. There relationships, leadership
loss of livelihoods and are many aspects of and management”.
services, social and vulnerability, arising Capacity is the ability
economic disruption, or from various physical, to prepare, respond,
environmental damage”. social, economic and recover and learn.
environmental factors.

Source: UNISDR (2009)

Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Capacity RISK

High High High Low HIGH

Medium Medium Medium Medium MEDIUM

Low Low Low High LOW

Figure 1.1: The impact of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity scores on the overall risk score

1
GWP and UNICEF (2014)

1
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

The WASH sector is at risk from a wide range of

hazards. These hazards might be climate-related – for
Risk assessment
example, floods and droughts affect a large number of
people and could affect more in the future (see Box 1). A risk assessment can be defined as “a
Other environmental hazards include geophysical methodology to determine the nature and
events and trends, such as volcanic eruptions and extent of risk by analysing potential hazards
earthquakes. The WASH sector can also be affected and evaluating existing conditions of
by: violent conflict; political/social unrest and instability; vulnerability that together could potentially
economic downturn and market instability; chemical harm exposed people, including specific
hazards; and biological hazards. Some hazards can groups such as children, property, services,
also be impacts that result from other hazards – for livelihoods and the environment on which they
example, pollution can also be an impact if it was depend”.6
caused by flooding.

There is a need to broaden the understanding of risk risk: populations, communities, infrastructure, or the
to encompass all the different hazards that could affect environment. Risk assessments are important because
the WASH sector. they provide valuable evidence for decision-making.

By assessing risks, you can:

„„ identify any hazards that could have an impact
Box 1: Climate variability and change
„„ identify who and what is exposed to these hazards
„„ Projections indicate warming by the end of „„ identify the vulnerabilities of those exposed, which
the 21st century of between 0.3 and 5°C.2 influences the damaging effects of a hazard;
„„ With a 2°C global temperature rise, up to „„ identify and consider capacity to understand how it
10 million more people could be affected influences risk
by coastal flooding each year. With a 4°C „„ consider how and to what extent the risks can be
temperature rise, a 50 percent decrease in reduced or mitigated.
water availability could occur in East Africa
and the Middle East.3 Many different risk assessment methods are available.
„„ In developing countries, the incidence They seek to determine the level of risk (such as high,
of diarrhoea is expected to increase by medium or low), either quantitatively or qualitatively.7
around 5 percent for every 1°C increase in
temperature.4 It is important to identify and assess the impact of all
„„ Since the original Rio Earth Summit in possible risks, and given the scarcity of resources,
1992, floods, droughts and storms have prioritise those that require action. The type of
affected 4.2 billion people (95 percent of all
action needed to reduce these risks and improve the
people affected by disasters) and caused
resilience of the WASH sector is dependent on current
US$1.3 trillion of damage (63 percent of all
capacity.
damage).5
By identifying and assessing all the risks to the WASH
sector, the case can be made to governments and their
WASH sector partners to take effective action. It also
1.2. Risk assessment enables disaster risk reduction (DRR) and adaptation
Risk assessments usually relate to a particular agendas to be brought together more explicitly in
exposure and aim to show who or what is most at tackling underlying issues and solutions.8

2
IPCC (2013)
3
Stern (2007)
4
Campbell-Lendrum and Woodruff (2007)
5
GWP and UNICEF (2014)
6
Adapted from UNISDR (2009)
7
AMCOW (2012)
8
GWP and UNICEF (2014)

2
 2. Introducing the Guidance Note

2.1. Setting in the Strategic Framework understand the risks facing the WASH sector. The main
The Strategic Framework for WASH Climate Resilient tasks in this phase of the Framework are to:10
Development advances sector thinking around WASH „„ Understand the priorities outlined in existing
and climate change, cutting across both development relevant strategies, plans and studies, and the
and emergency preparedness programmatic spheres, risks posed by climate variability and change. This
with climate resilience addressed as a cross-cutting informs the argument for new investment strategies
issue encompassing elements of both DRR and climate and guides the scope for further analysis.
change adaptation.9 The Framework serves to set out „„ Carry out stakeholder analysis to identify who has
the rationale and concepts for WASH climate resilient an interest or influence over WASH outcomes, and
development, as well as improve understanding of how ensure that their needs are taken into account.
to ensure that climate resilience is considered in WASH Engaging with stakeholders can help to better
strategies, plans and approaches. understand roles, responsibilities, risks and
uncertainties, with stakeholders providing inputs on
The objective of the Strategic Framework is to support many different aspects of the process.
WASH service delivery that is resilient to the climate, „„ Identify and understand hazards, exposure and
both now and in the future. The Framework is centred vulnerabilities, and the existing capacities to
around four quadrants of activity, and this Guidance respond.
Note sits under the ‘Understand the problem’ quadrant,
which covers the various elements that help to The quadrants are shown in Figure 2.1.

Strategic Framework for WASH climate resilient development

Guidance Note: Technical Briefs:

n Risk assessments for n Linking risk with response:
WASH options for climate resilient
ap Id WASH
pr en n Appraising and prioritising
le d

ai tif
ob an
m

se y
pr st

options for climate resilient

op and
e er
th nd

tio WASH
U

ns
WASH climate
resilient
development
M
ns

m o
ov nit
tio

e or
lu

fo a
so

Technical Brief: rw nd Technical Briefs:

er

n Monitoring and ar n Integrating climate resilience

iv

d
el

evaluation for climate into national WASH strategies

D

resilient WASH and plans

n Local participatory water supply
and climate change risk
assessment: modified water
safety plans

Figure 2.1: Strategic Framework quadrants and associated Guidance Note and Technical Briefs

9
http://www.gwp.org/en/Our-approach/Thematic-Areas/Climate-Resilience-and-Water-Security/Global-Water-and-Climate-Programme/WASH-Climate-Resilient-
Development--a-GWP-UNICEF-Collaboration/
10
GWP and UNICEF (2014)

3
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

The Framework also complements the tools Climate Change in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene’,14 as
recommended by the GWP integrated water resources well as a variety of other sources.
management (IWRM) Tool Box, specifically the tools on
Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Assessment.11 2.3. Using the Guidance Note

2.2. Scope and target audience 2.3.1. The approach

This Guidance Note has been developed to support There are two parts to the assessment, shown in
national workshops in developing draft programmes, Figure 2.2. The first part is a high-level assessment for
strategies and plans. The Guidance Note: risks across all types of hazards. The second part is a
„„ sets out an approach for conducting risk detailed assessment for climate-specific risks only.
assessments for the WASH sector, to provide
evidence to support the prioritisation of risks
requiring action
Part 1: High-level assessment
„„ covers risks across a wide range of hazard groups
for risks across all hazard groups
that affect the WASH sector, as well as climate-
related risks in more detail
„„ is a resource for the WASH sector as a whole
„„ focuses primarily on rural WASH services
encompassing small-scale and community systems;
however, the approach set out in this Guidance Part 2: Detailed assessment
Note can be applied to both rural and urban for climate risks
settings.
Figure 2.2: Assessment parts
The Guidance Note forms part of the Strategic
Framework for WASH Climate Resilient Development,
produced under a collaboration between GWP and
UNICEF.12 Users of this Guidance Note will assess hazard,
exposure, vulnerability and capacity and bring these
The target audience is the same as the Strategic together to provide an overall scoring of risks. The
Framework. It includes government planners, following risk formula is used:
decision-makers and practitioners responsible for
WASH services provision at national, sub-national and Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability
local levels, and their associated WASH development
partners. The Guidance Note is primarily aimed at the The risk formula includes scores for hazard, exposure
national level; however, the approach is flexible enough and vulnerability. Capacity is not used in the equation,
to use at sub-national levels if required. but assessed separately to help prioritise risks for
identifying resilient options. While there are some
Risk is driven by multiple factors. The WASH sector has national-level elements of capacity to consider – such
a key role to play in this. This Guidance Note can be as the effect of political views on the ability to adapt –
used either in support of a wider multi-sector analysis, capacity is something which is mainly specific to the
or to produce a standalone assessment for the WASH regional or local level. Therefore, for a high-level
sector. assessment, it will be difficult to score capacity. It is not
used to determine the overall risk score because if it
The approach in this Guidance Note aligns with the is scored inaccurately there is a possibility that some
UNICEF Risk-Informed Programming Guidance.13 key risks may be ignored as the capacity score might
This outlines the method for UNICEF Country Offices inappropriately cancel out the vulnerability score. More
to carry out programmes that are grounded in an information on capacity is given in Section 7.
understanding of the risk landscape. The ideas in this
Note also bring together thinking from the Overseas Figure 2.3 outlines the approach to be used in the
Development Institute (ODI) report ‘Adaptation to assessment.

11
http://www.gwp.org/en/ToolBox/
12
GWP and UNICEF (2014)
13
UNICEF (2015a) and UNICEF (2015b)
14
Oates et al. (2014)

4
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Define
the scope

Gather
information

Identify and Identify and score

score hazards vulnerabilities

Identify and Identify and

score exposure score capacities

Assess
risk

Prioritise
risks

Figure 2.3: Assessment approach

The approach:
„„ includes a mix of literature reviews, data collection
and stakeholder consultation Box 2: Spreadsheet tool
„„ is flexible, recognising that the level of information To help you complete the assessments, a
available across the different hazards will vary spreadsheet tool has been developed to
widely for different countries accompany this Guidance Note. You can fill
„„ includes examples to guide users through the in each section as you progress through the
assessment process assessments, and easily edit and update
„„ provides links to further information. scores.

The approach given in Figure 2.3 is the same for

both the high-level and detailed climate assessments.
However, the method within each step may vary 2.3.2. Consultation
between the two assessments. At the beginning The high-level assessment will use stakeholder
of each step, a summary is given which specifies workshops. The detailed climate assessment may then
where the method varies between the two include expert elicitation. Box 3 explains the differences
assessments. between the two types of consultation.

5
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

2.3.3. Components of exposure, vulnerability and

Box 3: Stakeholder engagement and expert capacity
elicitation Exposure, vulnerability and capacity are considered in
„„ Stakeholder engagement is more six different components, given in Figure 2.4.
generalist than expert elicitation, higher-
level and based on consensus forming These components are used in this Guidance Note
workshops. to help identify and score exposure, vulnerability
„„ Expert elicitation is more selective about and capacity. All the components are important and
who is involved, can go into more detail potentially measurable in the context of risks to safe
depending on the expertise of those and sustainable WASH services.
involved, and is based on the judgements
of individuals and comparisons with fellow The source–pathway–receptor model is given in
experts. It does not necessarily require Figure 2.5. It is often used in environmental risk
a workshop, as experts can give their assessments to help understand the link between
opinions independently – although it is hazard and risk.
useful to have some form of follow-up
where experts can review/compare results. The components (from Figure 2.4) are used in
It is not specifically aimed at forming assessing exposure, vulnerability and capacity,
a consensus and is often more time- because these are all associated with the ‘receptor’ –
consuming. i.e. something that could be affected such as population
or infrastructure. The components are not used for

Social Financial Physical

Political (and
Environmental Human
institutional)

Figure 2.4: Components of exposure, vulnerability and capacity15

Source Pathway Receptor

e.g. storm, fluoride e.g. overtopping, e.g. population, infra-
in water, pollution spill abstraction, leaching structure, environment

Figure 2.5: The source–pathway–receptor model

15
Based on the vulnerability and capacity ‘components’ given in UNICEF (2015b). The physical component in the WASH sector refers to infrastructure, including
technology and aspects of design. The environmental component covers water sources and land types, including land use change.

6
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

assessing hazards because these are associated 2.4. Assessment approach in detail
with the ‘source’ and the ‘pathway’ (the way in which The approach used for the assessments is shown in
exposure might occur). The hazards also differ in more detail in Figure 2.6. The numbers refer to the
that they are organised into more clearly-defined relevant sections in this Guidance Note.
groups, given in Section 4. For the detailed climate
assessment, all hazards sit within the same group.

3.1 Define the scope

3.2 Gather information

4.1 Identify hazards 6.1 Identify and score

4.2 Score hazards vulnerabilities
4.3 Assign a confidence score 6.2 Assign a confidence score

7.1 Identify and

5.1 Identify exposure
assess capacities
5.2 Score exposure
Score capacities (detailed
5.3 Assign a confidence score
climate assessment only)

Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability 8.2 Confidence scores and

sensitivity analysis
8.3 Capacity
8.1 Assess risk
8.4 Prioritise risks

Figure 2.6: Assessment approach in detail

7
 3. Initial steps

3.1. Define the scope

The first step of the risk assessment is to define the
scope.

Table 3.1 outlines the differences in scope and method

between the two assessments.

Table 3.1: Differences in scope and method between the two assessments

Part 1 – High-level assessment Part 2 – Detailed assessment

for risks across all hazard groups for climate risks

Scope Provides a framework/method for Provides a framework/method for a

a group to undertake a high-level group to undertake a detailed climate
qualitative risk assessment for WASH, risk assessment for WASH, for their
for their particular geographic scope particular geographic scope

Method A qualitative assessment that uses Uses more detailed analysis if available
stakeholder engagement only and may also make use of expert
elicitation

3.2. Gather information The approach is flexible enough to allow for differences
For the assessments, you will need to use information in data availability. The high-level assessment is based
and data from existing sources and studies of on stakeholder workshops and qualitative assessments
relevance to the geographical area of interest. This only. The detailed climate assessment can use more
will involve workshop leaders, who will collate the detailed information where available, but can still be
information prior to any workshops being held. based on stakeholder workshops or expert elicitation
only, if existing data are limited.
The existing information will vary widely by country. For
example, in some countries assessments for some of Some key sources of information that can be used as
the hazards may already have been completed, while in the basis for the high-level and detailed climate risk
others, there may be limited data and literature to draw assessments for WASH are given in Box 4.
from. In some cases, anecdotal evidence, or very basic
estimation methods may be required. Data availability is
a common challenge and it is important that investments
are made to help build the evidence base.

The confidence scoring system described in

Section 4.3 is used to assign a level of confidence
to each of the scores for the hazard, exposure and
vulnerability steps of the process, and considers the
information or data that has been used to come up with
the score.

8
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Box 4: Key sources of information

Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)16 The Index for Risk Management - INFORM17

The ERP approach has been developed with the INFORM is a method that can be used to
aim of optimising ‘the speed and volume of critical quantitatively assess crisis and disaster risk. It
assistance delivered immediately after the onset of brings together a number of different indicators that
a humanitarian emergency’. measure the dimensions of risk: hazard, exposure,
vulnerability, and lack of capacity.
Conducted at a country level, one element of ERP
is risk analysis and monitoring, and the guidelines INFORM provides a way of simplifying lots of
help to develop a clear and common understanding information about crisis and disaster risk so it can
of risks. This includes identifying the hazards that be used for decision-making. The source data used
could trigger a crisis, and ranking them by impact in INFORM comes from international organisations
and likelihood. The identified hazards cover five and academic institutes, and is considered the most
different threat categories. reliable available. INFORM can be used at a global,
regional or national level.

EM-DAT – the International Disaster Database18 Other sources of information

EM-DAT, the Emergency Events Database, was „„ National Adaptation Programmes of Action
launched in 1988 by the Centre for Research on the (NAPAs)
Epidemiology of Disasters. „„ National Adaptation Plans (NAPs)
„„ Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
EM-DAT contains data on the occurrence and (NAMAs)
effects of disasters around the world, including „„ WASH sector strategies and plans
natural and technological disasters. The information „„ Water resources management plans
is used for humanitarian action at national and „„ WFP/UNICEF Hazard calendar
international levels. „„ UNICEF’s Climate Change Mapping
„„ National Communications produced for the
The database includes country profiles, which show United Nations Framework Convention on
a summary of disasters, as well as the top disasters Climate Change (UNFCCC)
that have occurred in the country. „„ Other national/sub-national/sectoral strategies
and plans.

16
IASC (2015)
17
INFORM Index for Risk Management (n.d.)
18
http://www.emdat.be/

9
 4. Hazards

There are three main steps to hazard assessment.

Hazard These are given in Figure 4.1.
The term hazard can be defined as “a
dangerous phenomenon, substance, Table 4.1 outlines the differences between the high-
human activity or condition that may cause level and detailed climate assessments for the hazards
loss of life, injury or other health impacts, steps of the process.
property damage, loss of livelihoods and
services, social and economic disruption, or
environmental damage”.

Source: UNISDR (2009)

Assign a confidence
Identify hazards Score hazards
score

Figure 4.1: Steps to assess hazards

Table 4.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring hazards

Step High-level assessment Detailed climate assessment

Identify hazards This looks broadly across different This looks at climate-related hazards
hazard groups. only, building on those identified in the
high-level assessment.

Score hazards Users will consider the characteristics of Users will consider the characteristics
the hazard to come up with a traffic light of the climate hazard to come up with
scoring system, with a score of 1 to 3 for a traffic light scoring system, with a
each hazard. It is anticipated that this score of 1 to 3 for each hazard. Greater
will be based on one main characteristic consideration will be given to the range
of the hazard but, if appropriate, more of characteristics of the hazard, which
than one can be considered. may result in more than one risk being
identified.

Assign a confidence One confidence score is assigned for Two confidence scores are assigned,
score each hazard. one for the hazard in the present day,
and one for the hazard in the future.

10
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

4.1. Identify hazards

4.1.1. The approach

The purpose of this step is to identify the hazards that
Box 5: Points to consider to ensure you
could impact on the WASH sector. A list of hazards,
have identified the relevant hazards:
categorised into different groups, has been identified
(see Figure 4.2 and Table 4.3). This list does not cover „„ Have you collected and reviewed all the
all possible hazards, only those which are of relevance relevant literature?
to the WASH sector. „„ Have you identified and made use of any
existing resources that have information on
Using this list of hazards, a consideration will be hazards?
whether: „„ Have you engaged with all the relevant
„„ these hazards are of relevance to your situation stakeholders for their input?
„„ there are any additional hazards, besides those „„ Have you considered the full range of
included in the list, that you need to consider in the hazards irrespective of the available
assessment. information? Remember that the
information available for some hazards
Box 5 sets out some points to consider to ensure you might be limited.
have identified all the relevant hazards.

Once you have identified all the relevant hazards, you

will then need to record any available information you
have about them including:
„„ the frequency of the hazard
„„ any details on how the hazard is expected to Tips for identifying hazards
change in the future
„„ Make sure that you consider all the
„„ the duration of the hazard – i.e. how long the
hazards and whether they are of
hazard lasts
relevance to your situation.
„„ the intensity or magnitude of the hazard – for
„„ If you feel that it would be useful to record
example, if you have identified flooding as a hazard,
specific locations affected by the hazard
is it shallow, slow moving flood water; or deep and/
– for example, to produce a hazard map
or fast-moving flood water?
showing hotspots – then you can do so
„„ the extent of the geographical area affected by the
in the accompanying spreadsheet tool.
hazard
However, this information will not be used
„„ whether the hazard occurs at a particular time of
to assess risk in the high-level or detailed
year – for example, during the monsoon season.
climate assessments.

This information will be used to score the hazards in

the next step. The suggested format for recording this
information is given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Recording hazards

Hazard Geographical Time

Hazard Frequency Duration Intensity
group extent of year

11
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

4.1.2. The high-level assessment that influences vulnerability; more details are given
For the high-level assessment, you will need to in Section 6. Table 4.3 provides examples of hazards
consider both climate and non-climate hazards. The for each of the hazard groups that are relevant to
hazard groups used here are given in Figure 4.2. the WASH sector, to be considered in the high-level
assessment.
All these hazard groups are relevant to the WASH
sector and are important to consider in the assessment. 4.1.3. The detailed climate assessment
Table 4.4 provides examples of climate-related hazards
Land use change is not included in these hazard to be considered in the detailed climate assessment.
groups because it is an external factor that could Note that all of these are listed in Table 4.3; most
impact on any of the given hazards – deforestation, are in the environmental events and environmental
for example, could increase the number of landslides. degradation group but some are in the biological
Therefore, land use change is included as a factor hazards group.

Environmental
events and
environmental
degradation
Cross-border
Violent/
dynamics
potential
(as a destabilising
violent conflict
factor)

WASH
Current and
potential sector Biological
politics/social
hazards
unrest and
instability

Economic
downturn/shocks Chemical
and market hazards
instability

Figure 4.2: Hazards and the WASH sector

12
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 4.3: Examples of hazards to be considered in the high-level assessment

Environmental events (climate-related, meteorological, and geophysical events and trends)

and environmental degradation (pollution, industrial hazards)

„„ Drought „„ Storms – thunder, „„ Avalanche „„ Sea level rise (long-

„„ Flooding hail, dust, ice, wind „„ Rockfall term)
„„ Heavy rainfall „„ Tornado „„ Subsidence „„ Storm surge
„„ Heatwave „„ Tropical cyclone „„ Soil erosion „„ Tsunami
„„ Cold spell „„ Salinisation (dryland) „„ River bank erosion „„ Earthquake
„„ Blizzard „„ Desertification „„ River siltation „„ Volcanic eruptions
„„ Heavy snowfall „„ Wildfire „„ Coastal erosion „„ Pollution
„„ Melting of snow „„ Landslide, mudslide „„ Saline intrusion „„ Other
and ice
Violent/potential violent conflict (ongoing conflict, Current and potential political/social unrest and
socio-political tensions and possible triggers) instability
„„ Violent conflict „„ Social unrest and protests
„„ Riots „„ Political instability
„„ Other „„ Other

Biological hazards Chemical hazards

„„ Potential viruses/diseases „„ Arsenic

„„ Insect/animal infestation „„ Fluoride
„„ Plant or animal contagion „„ Nitrate
„„ Moulds and fungi „„ Phosphate
„„ Algal growth „„ Chemical spill
„„ Other „„ Other

Cross-border dynamics (as a destabilising factor) Economic downturn/shocks and market instability

„„ Displacement „„ Economic downturn

„„ Migration „„ Economic shock
„„ Cross-border violence „„ Market instability for specific commodities
„„ Other „„ Other

Table 4.4: Examples of climate-related hazards to be considered in the detailed climate assessment

Climate-related hazards

„„ Drought „„ Storms – thunder, „„ Avalanche „„ Storm surge

„„ Flooding sand, hail, dust, ice, „„ Rockfall „„ Pollution
„„ Heavy rainfall wind „„ Subsidence „„ Insect/animal
„„ Heatwave „„ Tornado „„ Soil erosion infestation
„„ Cold spell „„ Tropical cyclone „„ River bank erosion „„ Plant or animal
„„ Blizzard „„ Salinisation „„ River siltation contagion
„„ Heavy snowfall (drylands) „„ Coastal erosion „„ Moulds and fungi
„„ Melting of snow „„ Desertification „„ Saline intrusion „„ Disease
and ice „„ Wildfire „„ Algal growth
„„ Landslide, mudslide „„ Other

13
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

4.2. Score hazards expected to occur in the future, based on the available
information. The time horizon for looking at future risks
4.2.1. The approach is the near-term, over the next 15-20 years, rather than
In this step, you will score each of the hazards that longer periods where uncertainty becomes greater.
you have identified as relevant. The way to do this is This approach also fits in with WASH programming
to consider the characteristics of the hazard so that timescales and development.
each can be classified and assigned a score which
corresponds to a traffic light system. Characteristics to Remember that you will have a wide range of hazards
consider include: to score and the approach used will likely vary for
„„ the frequency with which the hazard occurs each. Depending on the hazard, it may be more
„„ the intensity or magnitude of the hazard appropriate to score the hazard using one of the
„„ the geographical extent of the hazard characteristics over another. For example, you may
„„ the duration of the hazard – i.e. how long the feel that it is more appropriate to score flooding based
hazard lasts. only on its frequency, while it is more appropriate
to score desertification based on its geographical
Whether you consider only one characteristic or two extent. Or it may be that two of the characteristics are
will depend on the data that are available. If data are relevant, such as duration and geographical extent for
available for two characteristics, then you should use drought.
both to assign a score to the hazard.
You will also need to make sure that you do not
To assess each hazard, you will need to consider what score the hazard using a characteristic that might be
has happened in the recent past, as well as what is inappropriate and would therefore result in a score that
is too low. For example, a tornado should be scored
based on its frequency and intensity, rather than its
duration.
Tips for scoring hazards
„„ The characteristics will not necessarily Box 6 provides some guiding questions that can be
be of relevance to all the hazards. considered when scoring a hazard based on frequency.
„„ If you think that more than two of the
characteristics are relevant to consider, Once you have decided which characteristic or
you should still only choose two on characteristics to base your assessment on for each
which to base your assessment. This hazard, you will need to come up with categories
avoids the approach becoming overly so that you can assign a score. Table 4.5 provides
complicated. an example of a scoring system to classify hazards
„„ If you are unsure that you have picked according to frequency. This shows present-day and
the two most relevant characteristics, expected future frequency in separate columns.
then you can try out more than one Both are assessed to give an overall score for the
combination to see whether the outcome hazard.
is sensitive to this decision. For more
details on sensitivity analysis, see
Section 4.3.
„„ Remember that existing information may
vary widely. For some hazards, there Box 6: Questions to guide scoring of
may be limited data and literature to hazards based on frequency
draw from, and in some cases, it may be „„ Is the hazard currently being experienced
necessary to use anecdotal evidence or or expected to occur in the future?
very basic estimation methods. This is „„ How often does the hazard occur? Is it
where sensitivity analysis of the scoring is annually or more regular? Does it occur
really useful and why use of a confidence only once every few years or is it rarely
score is so important. For more details experienced?
on assigning a confidence score, see „„ Is the hazard expected to increase in
Section 4.3. frequency in the future?

14
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

If the hazard is considered a high (H) hazard, then it used in the scoring system. An example for present
would score 3, a medium (M) hazard would score 2 and day and expected future geographical extent is given in
a low (L) hazard would score 1. Table 4.7.

Another way of classifying hazards is given in You may feel that two different characteristics are
Table 4.6. This shows more than one medium category considered relevant to the particular hazard. For

Table 4.5: Classifying hazards according to frequency

Frequency
Class Score
Present-day frequency Expected future frequency

High Occurs frequently Expected to continue to occur

3
frequently

Medium Occurs only occasionally Expected to continue to occur either

2
occasionally or more frequently

Low Rarely occurs Not expected to occur more frequently 1

Table 4.6: Classifying hazards – example for present day and expected future frequency

Frequency
Class Score
Present-day frequency Expected future frequency

High An existing problem Expected to increase in the future 3

Medium An existing problem Not expected to increase in the future 2

Medium Currently rarely a problem Expected to increase in the future 2

Low Currently rarely a problem Not expected to increase or occur in

1
the future

Table 4.7: Classifying hazards – example for present day and expected future geographical extent

Geographical extent
Class Score
Present-day extent Expected future extent

High Affects a large area Expected to increase in the future 3

Medium Affects a large area Not expected to increase in the future 2

Medium Affects a small area Expected to increase in the future 2

Low Affects a small area Not expected to increase or occur in

1
the future

15
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

example, for climate-related hazards, both the An example of a system for scoring a hazard based on
frequency and intensity of the hazard may be relevant, frequency and intensity, for both the present day and
with available information and/or knowledge on both. the expected future, is given in Table 4.8.

Figure 4.3 shows a scoring system based on frequency

and intensity, while Figure 4.4 shows a scoring system
based on intensity and geographical extent.

Low frequency, High frequency, Affects small Affects large

high intensity high intensity area, high area, high
intensity intensity
2 3 2 3
Intensity

Intensity
Low frequency, High frequency, Affects small Affects large
low intensity low intensity area, low area, low
intensity intensity
1 2 1 2

Frequency Extent

Figure 4.3: Scoring system based on frequency and intensity Figure 4.4: Scoring system based on intensity and geographi-
cal extent

Table 4.8: Classifying hazards according to frequency and intensity, for present day and expected future

Frequency and intensity

Class Score
Present-day frequency Expected future frequency
and intensity and intensity

High High frequency, high intensity High frequency, high intensity 3

Medium High frequency, low intensity High frequency, low intensity or high
frequency, expected to increase in 2
intensity

Medium Low frequency, high intensity Low frequency, high intensity or

expected to occur more frequently, 2
high intensity

Low Low frequency, low intensity Low frequency, low intensity or not
1
expected to occur in the future

Note that these systems are only a guide and classifying the hazards in this way would require expert moderation
within the project team.

Make sure that you record details of the classification system that you used to assign the score to the hazard in the
accompanying spreadsheet tool.

16
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

4.2.2. The high-level assessment different hazards that are of relevance. It shows which
Table 4.9 shows an example of a high-level characteristics were used to score some of the hazards
assessment where a country has identified a number of (with the scores shown in bold).

Table 4.9: Examples of hazard scoring systems, high-level assessment

Fluoride Political instability

„„ High: an existing problem, expected to increase in „„ High: an existing problem, expected to

frequency in the future increase in frequency in the future
„„ Medium: an existing problem, not expected to „„ Medium: an existing problem, not expected to
increase in frequency in the future increase in frequency in the future
„„ Medium: currently rarely a problem, expected to „„ Medium: currently rarely a problem, expected to
increase in frequency in the future increase in frequency in the future
„„ Low: currently rarely a problem, not expected to „„ Low: currently rarely a problem, not expected to
increase or occur in the future increase or occur in the future

Desertification Violent conflict

„„ High: affects a large area and is expected to „„ High: occurs frequently and is expected to
increase in area in the future continue to occur frequently in the future
„„ Medium: affects a large area and is not expected „„ Medium: occurs only occasionally and is
to increase in area in the future expected to continue to occur occasionally in
„„ Medium: affects a small area and is expected to the future
increase in area in the future „„ Low: rarely occurs and is not expected to occur
„„ Low: affects a small area and is not expected more frequently in the future
to increase in area or occur in the future

Table 4.10 shows how these hazard scores would be

recorded.

Table 4.10: Examples of how hazard scores would be recorded, high-level assessment

Hazard Description Score

Fluoride An existing problem, not expected to increase in frequency

M 2
in the future

Political instability An existing problem, expected to increase in frequency in

H 3
the future

Desertification Affects a small area and is not expected to increase in area

L 1
or occur in the future

Violent conflict Occurs only occasionally and is expected to continue to

M 2
occur occasionally in the future

17
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

4.2.3. The detailed climate assessment

In the detailed climate assessment, you will need
to give greater consideration to the range of Box 7: Classification of confidence19
characteristics (frequency, intensity, geographical „„ High Confidence – Based on reliable
extent, duration, speed of onset) of each hazard. This information or analysis with a strong
may mean that certain hazards branch out into two theoretical basis and widely accepted
or more different hazards. For example, a flash flood within the sector.
might be recorded separately from other flooding „„ Medium Confidence – Estimation of
hazards. Or you might record different types of drought, potential impacts or consequences,
such as meteorological and hydrological drought, as grounded in theory, using accepted
separate entries. methods and with some agreement across
the sector.
4.3. Assign a confidence score „„ Low Confidence – View based on limited
You will need to assign a confidence score of high, information such as anecdotal evidence, or
medium or low to each of the scores. very basic estimation methods.

Box 7 provides details on the guidance for assigning a

confidence score.
confidence scores for each of the confidence score
combinations. Note that the lowest confidence score is
For the high-level assessment, a single confidence
score will be assigned to the hazard. taken as the overall confidence score.

The approach to assigning a confidence score will So, for the example hazards given in Table 4.11, the
differ slightly for the detailed climate assessment. overall confidence scores would be:
Sometimes, it is relatively easy to score the present- „„ fluvial flooding: medium confidence
day hazard, but much more difficult to predict the „„ soil erosion: low confidence
hazard in the future. You will therefore need to assign „„ landslide: high confidence
two confidence scores, one for the hazard in the „„ tropical cyclone: medium confidence.
present day, and one for the hazard in the future.
Some examples of how this can be done are given in Those hazards with a low or medium confidence
Table 4.11. score but a medium or high hazard score can then,
if necessary, be flagged for further investigation and
The confidence scores will then be combined to give an sensitivity analysis. More details on sensitivity analysis
overall score for the hazard. Table 4.12 shows overall are given in Box 8.

Table 4.11: Example hazard confidence scores, detailed climate assessment

Hazard Confi- Confi-

Hazard Present day Future
score dence dence

Fluvial An existing problem Expected to increase

H H M
flooding in frequency

Soil erosion Affects a small area Expected to increase

M M L
in area

Landslide Rarely occurs Not expected to occur

L H more frequently in the H
future

Tropical Low frequency, Low frequency,

M H M
cyclone high intensity high intensity

19
Based on the classification of confidence from the UK’s first Climate Change Risk Assessment (Defra, 2012).

18
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 4.12: How to combine confidence scores for the detailed climate assessment

Confidence score A Confidence score B Overall confidence score

HIGH HIGH HIGH

HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM

HIGH LOW LOW

MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM

MEDIUM LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW

Box 8: Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis can be completed for any hazards, exposures, or vulnerabilities where there is
uncertainty or disagreement, by taking another look at the way they have been scored. This would be
carried out where there is either a low or medium confidence score and you would like to know whether
the outcome would change if scored differently.

Sensitivity analysis is useful because it enables further investigation of the scores and can be used to
ensure that there is agreement across the group involved in the assessment. For example, you might
score flooding based on its frequency and intensity, but may be unsure as to whether it would be best to
score it based on the geographical extent instead. You could decide to take another look at this and score
it again to see whether the outcome is sensitive to this decision.

Sensitivity analysis can be carried out when a specific step has been completed, or it can be done at the
end of the process when you are compiling and prioritising the list of risks.

4.4. Checklist
In this step of the analysis, you should have completed
the tasks given in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13: Hazard checklist

Task Complete?

Considered whether the presented hazards are of relevance

Identified any additional hazards not in the list that you need to consider in the assessment

Scored each of the hazards

Assigned a confidence score or scores to the hazards

Recorded details of the classification system that you used to assign the score to the
hazard, and the confidence score for each of the hazards

19
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

4.5. Further information „„ UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural

„„ Climate Change Team Environment Department Affairs (Defra). (2012) Climate Change Risk
World Bank (2012) Climate Change Knowledge Assessment Methodology Report, UK 2012 Climate
Portal: Brief User’s Guidance Manual. http:// Change Risk Assessment, Defra, London, UK.
sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm. „„ UNICEF ROSA. (2014) Child-Centred Risk
„„ Gassert, F. Landis, M. Luck, M. Reig, P. and Shiao, Assessment: Regional Synthesis of UNICEF
T. (2013) Aqueduct Global Maps 2.0, Working Assessments in Asia. UNICEF ROSA, Kathmandu,
Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Nepal
http://www.wri.org/publication/aqueduct-metadata- „„ United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
global. Reduction (UNISDR). (2004) Living with Risk. A
„„ Global WASH Cluster. (2011) Disaster Risk global review of disaster reduction initiatives –
Reduction and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene… Volume I.
Comprehensive Guidance. A Guideline for Field „„ Willows, R.I. and Connell, R.K. (Eds.). (2003)
Practitioners Planning and Implementing WASH Climate adaptation: Risk, uncertainty and decision-
Interventions. Global WASH Cluster, UNICEF New making. UKCIP Technical Report. UKCIP, Oxford,
York. UK.
„„ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K.
Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (Eds.)], p. 151. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland.

20
 5. Exposure

There are three main steps to assess exposure. These

are given in Figure 5.1.
Exposure
The term exposure can be defined as “people, Table 5.1 outlines the differences between the high-
property, systems, or other elements in places level and detailed climate assessments for the
or settings that could be adversely affected exposure step of the process.
by hazards and that are thereby subject to
potential losses”.

Source: Adapted from UNISDR (2009)

Assign a confidence
Identify exposure Score exposure
score

Figure 5.1: Steps to assess exposure

Table 5.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring exposure

Step High-level assessment Detailed climate assessment

Identify and score exposure Uses stakeholder engagement to Supported by more evidence and
identify and score exposure may use expert elicitation

5.1. Identify exposure or only primary sources in your assessment? What

In this step, you will need to relate the identified is considered critical infrastructure? You may want
hazards to exposure. to specify different types of critical infrastructure as
separate entries for certain hazards. For example,
To determine what the exposure for a particular hazard flooding may affect latrines, but not protected
might be, consider whether the hazard will affect: wells. You can record these additional details in the
„„ any people (if so, any specific groups such as ‘comments’ column in the accompanying spreadsheet
children) tool.
„„ critical infrastructure
„„ water sources (if so, are these primary water Definitions may vary from one risk assessment to
sources?) another, but you need to make sure that you are being
„„ any other types of assets in the area. consistent for your risk assessment.

Remember that there may be other types of exposure You will need to identify the exposure for the full list of
that you will need to consider. hazards that you have identified, considering all the
indicators of exposure that relate to a particular hazard.
Carefully consider what you mean by different Record this information by including the different types
exposures. Will you be considering all water sources of exposure as individual entries.

21
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 5.2 shows how five example hazards have „„ Political instability affects populations in both
different exposures in two different countries: countries.
„„ Flooding affects population and critical infrastructure „„ Cryptosporidium affects water sources and
(latrines) in country A; in country B, it affects critical populations in both countries.
infrastructure (latrines). „„ Desertification only affects country B, specifically
„„ Fluoride affects population and water sources in population and water sources.
both countries. However, it only affects primary
water sources in country B.

Table 5.2: Examples of hazards and their exposures for two countries

Country A Country B

Hazard Exposure Hazard Exposure

Flooding Population Flooding Critical infrastructure –

latrines
Flooding Critical infrastructure – Fluoride Population
latrines
Fluoride Population Fluoride Water sources,
including primary
Fluoride Water sources, Political instability Population
not primary
Political instability Population Cryptosporidium Water sources

Cryptosporidium Water sources Cryptosporidium Population

Cryptosporidium Population Desertification Population

Desertification Water sources

5.2. Score exposure

In this part of the assessment you will score exposure.

Exposure can be considered in six different
components, given in Figure 5.2.

Social Financial Physical

Political (and
Environmental Human
institutional)

Figure 5.2: Components of exposure

22
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 5.3 shows which of the components correspond Table 5.3: Example of combining exposures with
to the exposures identified for country A (given in the components
Table 5.2).
Exposure Component
To help you to score exposure, some suggested
indicators of exposure have been identified for four of Population Human
the components. These are given in Table 5.4.
Critical infrastructure – Physical
You will need to come up with a score for each exposure. latrines
Water sources Environmental
Table 5.5 provides suggestions for scoring the
components of exposure. Note that these are
suggestions only. It may be that you have identified
other indicators of exposure that are not included in this
table, or you wish to be more (or less) precise with the For both the high-level assessment and detailed
descriptions. These indicators of exposure may cover climate assessment, you need to consider the
all six components, or they may only cover one or two exposures across all the different components, and
of the components. For example, a hazard may affect come up with a score for each one.
water sources only, so will therefore only cover the
environmental component.

Table 5.4: Possible indicators of exposure to help scoring

Component Possible indicators of exposure

Physical Percentage of critical infrastructure affected

Environmental Number of water sources affected

Percentage of a certain land type affected
Human Percentage of population affected
Number/percentage of communities disrupted/affected
Financial Percentage of GDP
Income from livelihoods according to sector, e.g. agriculture, fishing, etc.

Table 5.5: Possible classification of exposure

Component High Medium Low

Physical >20% of critical 5–20% of critical 0–5% of critical

infrastructure affected infrastructure affected infrastructure affected
Environmental >20% of water sources 5–20% of water sources 0–5% of water sources
affected affected affected
Human >5% of population 0.5–5% of population <0.5% of population
affected affected affected
Financial Costs – major damage Costs – moderate Costs – minor damage
and disruption damage and disruption and disruption

Source: Based on the guidance on classification of relative magnitude from the UK’s first Climate Change Risk Assessment
(Defra, 2012)

23
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Tips for scoring exposure

„„ Remember that you do not need to consider intensity or frequency here, as this comes under the
‘score hazards’ step. In this step, you need to think about who or what is exposed to the hazard.
„„ When scoring exposure, think about whether the exposure is going to change during the time period
that you are considering. For example, might people move into the area affected by the hazard during
that time? The scores will need to reflect this, projecting what will happen over the next 15–20 years.
„„ If you feel that it would be useful to record specific local observations – for example, about how people
might move into areas affected by hazards – then you can do so in the accompanying spreadsheet.
However, this information will not be used to assess risk in either the high-level or detailed climate
assessments.

Table 5.6 provides an example of how exposure could 5.3. Assign a confidence score
be scored, based on the classification of exposure You will need to assign a confidence score (high,
given in Table 5.5. The table also provides the medium or low) for each of the exposures. To do this,
corresponding hazards, identified in the earlier step. It follow the guidance given in Section 4.3. The method
shows that there is more than one exposure for some used to score confidence is the same for the high-level
of the hazards. These are recorded separately. Other assessment and detailed climate assessment.
hazards may have the same exposure, but these would
also be recorded and scored separately. For example, Those exposures with a low or medium confidence
in Table 5.6, population is recorded as an exposure for score, but a medium or high exposure score can then
both fluoride and political instability. be flagged for further work and sensitivity analysis
to investigate them in more detail, if considered
The scores for exposure are kept separate to make necessary. More details on sensitivity analysis are
the approach more explicit and traceable. You can given in Box 8 in Section 4.3.
add the identified exposures and their scores to the
accompanying spreadsheet.

Table 5.6: Example of how exposure would be scored

Hazard Exposure High Medium Low

Flooding Critical infrastructure – latrines 3

Flooding Critical infrastructure – wells 1

Fluoride Population 2

Fluoride Water sources, including primary 2

Political instability Population 3

Cryptosporidium Water sources 1

Cryptosporidium Population 1

Desertification Water sources 2

24
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

5.4. Checklist
In this step of the analysis, you should have completed
the tasks given in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7: Exposure checklist

Task Complete?

Identified the exposure for the full list of hazards

Recorded this information by including the different types of exposure as individual entries

Assigned a score to exposure by considering specific indicators of exposure

Assigned a confidence score to each exposure

Recorded the exposure scores

Recorded the confidence scores

5.5. Further information

„„ Chen, C., Noble, I., Hellmann, J., Coffee, J., Murillo,
M. and Chawla, N. (2015) University of Notre Dame
Global Adaptation Index: Country Index Technical
Report. http://index.gain.org/about/methodology#
„„ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p.
582 [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.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, and New York, USA.

25
 6. Vulnerability

There are three main steps to assess vulnerability.

These are given in Figure 6.1.
Vulnerability
The term vulnerability can be defined as Table 6.1 outlines the differences between the high-
“the characteristics and circumstances of level and detailed climate assessments for the
a community, system or asset that make vulnerability steps of the process.
it susceptible to the damaging effects of
a hazard”. There are many aspects of
vulnerability, arising from various physical,
social, economic and environmental factors.

Source: UNISDR (2009)

Select vulnerability
Score components Assign a confidence
elements/questions
of vulnerability score
to consider

Figure 6.1: Steps to assess vulnerability

Table 6.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring vulnerability

Step High-level assessment Detailed climate assessment

Identify For the high-level assessment, the aim is to Factors are scored for each component.
and score get a single score for each component (see This means that, depending on the study,
vulnerability. Figure 6.2). there could be more than one score for
each of the six components, depending on
the exposures you have identified in the
previous step of the assessment.

6.1. Identify and score vulnerabilities

Social Financial Physical
6.1.1. The approach
In this step, you will identify the different vulnerabilities
with respect to the WASH sector.
Political (and
Environmental Human
Vulnerability can be considered in six different institutional)
components, given in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2: Components of vulnerability

26
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 6.2 sets out the six components with respect to Make sure that you record details of what has been
the WASH sector, together with different vulnerability considered together with the scores.
factors for each of these components.20 You can use
this table to help you consider and score the areas of
vulnerability for both the high-level and detailed climate
assessments. Box 9: Role of inequity in shaping
vulnerability and resilience
Those who are in the most vulnerable
Tip for identifying and scoring vulnerability groups are more likely to be adversely
You should not necessarily consider more affected because they are more sensitive,
factors, elements or questions in the climate are susceptible to harm, and have a lack of
assessment simply because it is more capacity to cope or adapt to hazards. Inequity
detailed. These factors are also of relevance plays a key role in shaping vulnerability and
to the high-level assessment, they are just resilience. For example, the ability to access
assessed and scored in a different way. important information affects the level of
knowledge and awareness of potential risks; a
lack of access increases vulnerability because
it means people are less able to make and
For each of the factors in each component, there are a act on informed decisions. It is important,
number of elements and questions to consider, given in therefore, that WASH programming is
Table 6.2. These are provided as examples to guide your informed by an understanding of who or what
assessment of vulnerability; you do not have to consider is most vulnerable to hazards and why.
all of them. You may also think of other elements or
questions that you want to use for the assessment.

Table 6.2: Examples of elements and questions to consider when assessing vulnerability

Social

Factor Element Question

Social networks (access Access to social networks Is there adequate access to social
to social networks such as support networks such as informal social
informal social safety nets) safety nets?
Community-wide knowledge Community-based risk Are there any community-based risk
and understanding of risks assessments assessments?
and WASH benefits
Engagement in early warning Is there sufficient engagement in early
systems warning systems?
Norms/practice Open defecation What is the level of open defecation/ use
of improved toilets?
HWTS What is the level of safe household
water treatment and safe storage?
Community awareness of Is there good awareness in communities
protection of water sources of the need to protect water sources?
Social cohesion Conflict Are there (strong ) conflicts between
different groups / community members?
Marginalised groups Are there marginalised groups /
population?

Continued on next page

20
Based on the information provided in the ODI report, Adaptation to Climate Change in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Oates et al. (2014).

27
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Financial

Factor Element Question

Routine WASH sector WASH public investment as % How much investment is there in the
budget allocations, including of GDP WASH sector?
recurrent budgets (sufficient
Adequacy of WASH recurrent Is the WASH recurrent budget
routine investments are an
budget adequate?
obvious pre-requisite for
resilience)
Budget disaggregation Budget lines Are there clear WASH budget lines?

Budget for mitigation, Is there separate budget for mitigation,

prevention, preparedness and prevention, preparedness and response,
response, and adaptation and adaptation?
Ability to draw on Contingencies Are there contingencies in budgets, and
emergency funds how quickly can they be released?
Decentralised funding Is there a practice of channelling
spending and accounting for
decentralised funding?
Service provider Cash reserves/insurance Can service providers draw on cash
vulnerability reserves or insurance to rehabilitate
services?
Mitigate emergencies Have service providers taken steps to
mitigate emergency water supply? Do
they have funds? Are they incentivised?

Physical

Factor Element Question

Resilience of WASH Technology What technology is available/used for

infrastructure – e.g. WASH infrastructure? For example,
designing for appropriate which latrine types are predominantly
levels of climate variability used? Are they resilient?
(design and construction
Existence of sound design/ What are the design/construction
standards confer resilience on
construction standards standards? Do any sound standards
WASH physical infrastructure:
exist?
reliability/yield, water quality
protection, infrastructure Standards observed in Are the design and construction
damage) implementation standards observed in implementation?
Water storage infrastructure Is water supply held in storage
infrastructure? What is the storage
capacity (in days)? How does this vary
for different uses, e.g. domestic?
Geographic conditions Is the technology designed based on
existing hazards (e.g. earthquakes,
floods, etc.)

Continued on next page

28
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Environmental

Factor Element Question

Environmental degradation Rate of deforestation What is the rate of deforestation?

(land use change is a major
cause of vulnerability) Soil degradation Is there any soil degradation resulting
from human activities? How extensive is
this?
Water quality Does water quality meet national
standards? Is it particularly poor and
are there any issues surrounding this?
Are there any known dangerous spills
entering water sources, or any detected
leakages?
Resilience of water sources Siting of water sources Are water points poorly sited, e.g.
(poor siting and protection of outside of areas that can provide reliable
WASH sources make systems and safe supply? Are hydrogeological
vulnerable, leading to outages investigations carried out to site water
and reduced services) sources?
Protection of water sources Are water sources adequately
protected? Are some better protected
than others?
Sustainability of abstractions Are abstractions sustainable?
Are groundwater resources being
replenished (naturally or artificially)?
Alternative water sources Alternative water sources Are there alternative water sources to
(the use of alternative water use if necessary? Are the water supply
sources if necessary and plans systems relying on a single source?
in place to use these)
Waste disposal (poorly Landfill sites Are landfill sites inappropriately sited or
managed waste disposal – used? Are landfill sites poorly managed?
domestic and industrial)
Sewage disposal Is sewage being disposed of safely?
What about industrial waste?
Degradation of sub-surface Sub-surface and groundwater Is there any degradation of sub-surface
and groundwater sources source degradation and groundwater sources? If so, how
extensive is this/how many sources are
affected?

Continued on next page

29
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Human

Factor Element Question

Demographic characteristics Human Development Index What is the HDI? Are there other similar
(age, levels of education, (HDI)21 factors that are relevant?
health and poverty)
Age of population Is there a large population of very old or
young people?
Knowledge and Knowledge and understanding How knowledgeable are people about
understanding (lack of of local hazards local hazards and how to protect latrines
knowledge reduces efficacy of and water supply systems?
behavioural change and can
Knowledge and understanding How knowledgeable are people about
lessen the demand for WASH
of WASH benefits WASH benefits?
services)
Population growth/ National population growth What is the population growth rate?
urbanisation (rapid population
growth and urbanisation are Urban population growth What is the rate of urbanisation?
major causes of vulnerability)
Demand for water What is the expected change in the
demand for water?

Political (and institutional)

Factor Element Question

WASH policies (incl. for Government effectiveness Is there public policy to provide the
climate), public institutions and necessary guidance for identifying and
governance (public policy and addressing vulnerabilities and risks?
public institutions provide the
WASH and other policies Are there appropriate WASH policies in
necessary national guidance
place? Are there policies in place that
for dealing with vulnerabilities
specifically include climate resilience?
and risks)

Source: Adapted from Oates et al. (2014)

6.1.2. The high-level assessment Table 6.3 provides an example of how vulnerability

For the high-level assessment, the aim is to get a single might be scored for the different components for the
score of 1, 2 or 3 for each component, depending on high-level assessment, together with notes on which
whether the vulnerability is low, medium or high. Having elements and questions have been considered in the
one score for each component ensures that the method assessment.
does not become overly complicated.

21
Data available here http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

30
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 6.3: An example of how vulnerability might be scored for the high-level assessment

Score
Elements or questions
Component Notes
considered
H M L

Social Access to social networks. There is limited access to

Are there any community- social networks. There are
3
based risk assessments? only a few community-based
risk assessments.
Financial How much investment is There is some investment;
there in the WASH sector? Is however, partner support for
there effective development WASH service delivery could 2
partner support for WASH be more effective.
service delivery?
Physical What are the design/ Standards do exist and they
construction standards? are generally observed in
Do any sound standards implementation for water
1
exist? Are the design and supply and sanitation.
construction standards
observed in implementation?
Environmental What is the rate of Environmental damage is
environmental damage? high and the quality of the
Does water quality meet water is poor and does not
3
national standards? Are meet national standards;
water sources adequately water sources are not
protected? adequately protected.
Human What is the population growth Population growth is
rate? expected to increase. There
How knowledgeable are is some knowledge on local
2
people about local hazards? hazards and wider knowledge
What is the Human on WASH benefits. HDI is
Development Index (HDI). medium.
Political (and Is there public policy to Policies are not very
institutional) provide the necessary effective. There are
guidance for identifying and insufficient WASH policies
3
addressing vulnerabilities and in place.
risks? Are there appropriate
WASH policies in place?

6.1.3. The detailed climate assessment To decide what the scores should be, a scoring system
For the detailed climate assessment, the method is to can be used for the elements or questions used for
score factors for each component. This means that, each of the factors. Examples of scoring systems are
depending on the study, there could be more than one given in Table 6.4. For some of the factors it may be
score for each of the six components. However, it is possible to assign quantitative thresholds that define
not necessary to have a score for each of the factors. the ranges of high, medium and low; however, this will
You may decide that one of the factors is not relevant depend on the context.
to your assessment. This will depend on the different
exposures you have identified in the previous step of
the assessment.

31
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 6.4: Examples of vulnerability scoring systems

Social: community-wide Social: community-wide

Social: social networks such
knowledge and understanding knowledge and understanding
as informal social safety nets
of risks and WASH benefits of risks and WASH benefits

Is there adequate access to Are there any community-based Is there sufficient engagement in
informal social safety nets? risk assessments? early warning systems?
„„ High: there is limited access to „„ High: there are very few or „„ High: there is limited
social networks no community-based risk engagement in early warning
„„ Medium: there is some access assessments systems
to social networks „„ Medium: there are some „„ Medium: there is some
„„ Low: there is good access to community-based risk engagement in early warning
social networks assessments systems but this could be
„„ Low: there are many improved
community-based risk „„ Low: there is sufficient
assessments engagement in early warning
systems

Financial: routine WASH sector Financial: routine WASH sector Physical: resilience of WASH
budget allocations, including budget allocations, including infrastructure – sanitation
recurrent budgets recurrent budgets

How much investment is there in Adequacy of WASH recurrent What technology is available/used
the WASH sector? budget for WASH infrastructure?
„„ High: there is limited/ „„ High: the WASH recurrent „„ High: only poor or basic
inadequate investment in the budget is inadequate and technology is available/used
WASH sector needs to be greatly improved „„ Medium: some more advanced
„„ Medium: there is some „„ Medium: there need to be technology is available/used
investment in the WASH some improvements to the „„ Low: more advanced
sector but this could be WASH recurrent budget technology is widely used
improved „„ Low: the WASH recurrent
„„ Low: there is plenty/adequate budget is adequate
investment in the WASH
sector

Physical: resilience of WASH Physical: resilience of WASH Physical: resilience of WASH

infrastructure – water supply infrastructure – sanitation infrastructure – water supply

Do sound design/construction Are the design and construction Is water supply held in storage
standards exist? standards observed in infrastructure?
„„ High: no or very few standards implementation? „„ High: supply is rarely held in
exist „„ High: standards are rarely storage infrastructure
„„ Medium: some design/ or never observed in „„ Medium: only some supply is
construction standards exist implementation held in storage infrastructure
but they could be improved „„ Medium: standards are „„ Low: it is common for
„„ Low: there are sound design/ sometimes observed in supplies to be held in storage
construction standards implementation infrastructure
„„ Low: standards are always
or almost always observed in
implementation

Continued on next page

32
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Environmental: environmental Environmental: environmental Environmental: environmental

degradation degradation degradation

Rate of deforestation Is there any soil degradation Water quality

„„ High: the rate of deforestation resulting from human activities? „„ High: water quality is generally
is high „„ High: there is widespread soil poor
„„ Medium: there is some degradation „„ Medium: water quality is poor
deforestation „„ Medium: there is some soil in some areas but generally
„„ Low: the rate of deforestation degradation adequate
is low „„ Low: there is no or very little „„ Low: water quality is adequate
soil degradation or good in most or all areas

Environmental: resilience of Environmental: resilience of Environmental: alternative

water sources water sources water sources

Protection of water sources Are abstractions sustainable? Are there alternative protected
„„ High: the majority of water „„ High: all or most abstractions water sources to use if
sources have little protection are unsustainable necessary?
„„ Medium: some water sources „„ Medium: some abstractions „„ High: there are no or very
are adequately protected are unsustainable limited alternative water
„„ Low: most or all water sources „„ Low: only a few abstractions sources
are adequately protected are unsustainable „„ Medium: there are some
alternative water sources
available to use
„„ Low: there are plenty of
alternative water sources/
alternative water sources in
most or all locations

Human: demographic Human: demographic Human: knowledge and

characteristics characteristics understanding

Human Development Index (HDI) Is there a large population of Knowledge and understanding of
„„ High: in low human young people – i.e. is more than local hazards
development group based on 50% of the population under the „„ High: there is poor or limited
HDI rank age of 18? understanding of local hazards
„„ Medium: in medium human „„ High: yes „„ Medium: there is some
development group based on „„ Medium: yes, in some areas understanding of local hazards
HDI rank „„ Low: no „„ Low: there is good
„„ Low: in high or very high understanding of local hazards
human development group
based on HDI rank

Continued on next page

33
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Human: knowledge and Human: population growth/ Human: population growth/

understanding urbanisation urbanisation

Knowledge and understanding of National population growth Urban population growth

WASH benefits „„ High: population growth rate „„ High: urban population is
„„ High: there is poor or limited is high increasing
understanding of WASH „„ Medium: population growth is „„ Medium: urban population is
benefits stable stable
„„ Medium: there is some „„ Low: population is declining „„ Low: urban population is
understanding of WASH declining
benefits
„„ Low: there is good
understanding of WASH
benefits

Political (and institutional): Political (and institutional):

WASH policies, public WASH policies, public
institutions and governance institutions and governance

Is there public policy to provide Are there appropriate national

the necessary guidance for WASH policies in place that
dealing with vulnerabilities and include climate resilience?
risks? „„ High: no WASH policies or
„„ High: no policies or insufficient insufficient policies in place
policies in place „„ Medium: some appropriate
„„ Medium: some policies are in WASH policies are in place
place „„ High: sufficient WASH policies
„„ Low: sufficient policies are in are in place
place

If you would like to consider more than one element combination may branch out to accommodate two
or question for a factor in your assessment, assess or more vulnerability scores. Table 6.5 provides an
each of the relevant elements and/or questions example of how a hazard and exposure combination
equally to decide on an overall score for the factor. may do this, so as to accommodate more than one
The vulnerability scores for each factor should be kept vulnerability score.
separate, which means that a hazard and exposure

Table 6.5: Examples of how hazard and exposure combinations may branch out with vulnerability

Hazard Exposure Vulnerability

Heatwave Population Poor knowledge of local hazards and WASH benefits

(knowledge and understanding factor)

Heatwave Population HDI score is medium (demographic characteristics

factor)

34
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

6.2. Assign a confidence score In the high-level assessment, a confidence score of

You will need to assign a confidence score of high, high, medium or low will need to be assigned for each
medium or low for each vulnerability. To do this, follow of the components of vulnerability.
the guidance given in Section 4.3.
In the detailed climate assessment, a confidence score
Those vulnerabilities with a low or medium confidence will need to be assigned to each vulnerability factor
score, but a medium or high vulnerability score can assessed. For example, if both the ‘environmental
then be flagged for further work and sensitivity analysis degradation’ and ‘resilience and protection of water
to investigate them in more detail, if considered sources’ factors in the environmental component have
necessary. More details on sensitivity analysis are been assessed, then each will need to have a confidence
given in Box 8 in Section 4.3. score. Some more examples are given in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6: Example confidence scores for vulnerability – detailed climate assessment

Vulnerability
Component Factor Confidence
score

Social Knowledge and understanding 2 LOW

Financial Routine WASH sector budget allocations, including

1 MEDIUM
recurrent budgets

Physical Resilience of WASH infrastructure 3 MEDIUM

Environmental Environmental degradation 3 HIGH

Resilience and protection of water sources 2 HIGH

Human Population growth/urbanisation 3 HIGH

Demographic characteristics 2 HIGH

Knowledge and understanding 1 LOW

Political (and WASH policies (incl. climate), public institutions, good

2 MEDIUM
institutional) governance

35
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

6.3. Checklist
In this step of the analysis, you should have completed
the tasks given in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Vulnerability checklist

Task Complete?

Carefully selected the vulnerability elements and/or questions to consider

Scored the six components and factors of vulnerability based on the selected elements
and questions

Assigned a confidence score to each of the components of vulnerability in the high-level

assessment and each of the factors assessed in the detailed climate assessment

Recorded the vulnerability scores and confidence scores, along with details of
the vulnerability elements and questions that were considered

6.4. Further information „„ Oates, N., Ross, I., Calow, R., Carter, R. and
„„ Chen, C., Noble, I., Hellmann, J., Coffee, J., Murillo, Doczi, J. (2014) Adaptation to Climate Change
M. and Chawla, N. (2015) University of Notre Dame in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Assessing
Global Adaptation Index: Country Index Technical Risks and Appraising Options in Africa. Overseas
Report. http://index.gain.org/about/methodology#. Development Institute, London, UK.
„„ Climate Change Team Environment Department „„ Oppenheimer, M., Campos, M., Warren, R.,
World Bank. (2012) Climate Change Knowledge Birkmann, J., Luber, G., O’Neill, B., and Takahashi,
Portal: Brief User’s Guidance Manual. http:// K. (2014) Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities.
sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
„„ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, India Project on Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
India (CCA RAI). (2014) A Framework for Climate Panel on Climate Change, pp. 1039-1099 [Field,
Change Vulnerability Assessments. C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
„„ Fritzsche, K., Schneiderbauer, S., Bubeck, Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,
P., Kienberger, S., Buth, M., Zebisch, M. and Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel,
Kahlenborn, W. (2014) The Vulnerability A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
Sourcebook: Concept and guidelines for L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
standardised vulnerability assessments. Deutsche Cambridge, UK and New York, USA.
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit „„ United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
(GIZ) GmbH, Bonn and Eschborn. Reduction. (2004) Living with Risk. A global review
„„ INFORM Index for Risk Management (n.d.) of disaster reduction initiatives – Volume I.
INFORM Global Model – interpreting and applying.
Guidance Note. http://www.inform-index.org/
„„ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p.
582 [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.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, and New York, USA.

36
 7. Capacity

risk while a low capacity does not. As a result, capacity

can be used to help prioritise risks.
Capacity
The term capacity includes “infrastructure There are two main steps to assess capacity, given in
and physical means, institutions, societal Figure 7.1. The components of capacity referred to in
coping abilities, as well as human knowledge, this figure are provided in Figure 7.2.
skills and collective attributes such as social
relationships, leadership and management”. Table 7.1 outlines the differences between the high-
level and detailed climate assessments for the capacity
steps of the process.
Source: UNISDR (2009)

Capacity is the ability to prepare, respond, recover

and learn. The resilience of people, infrastructure, Tip for scoring capacity in the detailed
the environment, or anything else that is exposed to climate assessment
a hazard therefore depends on its level of capacity.
You do not need to assess confidence for
Capacity can be influenced by awareness, knowledge,
capacity, because the capacity scores will not
data, monitoring and whether appropriate plans and
be used to determine the overall risk score.
policies are in place. It is really important to consider
capacity as it influences risk; a high capacity reduces

Record comments/
Select capacity
score for each
elements/questions
of the components

Figure 7.1: Steps to assess capacity

Table 7.1: Differences between assessment methods for identifying and scoring capacity

Step High-level assessment Detailed climate assessment

Identify and score The method involves Capacity will be scored; however, these scores will
capacity considering the be used only to help prioritise risks for identifying
elements and questions climate-resilient WASH options. They will not be used
for each of the to determine the overall risk score. Factors for each
components of capacity. component will be scored so there could be more
Capacity is not assigned than one score for each of the components.
a score like the other
components of risk.

37
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

7.1. Identify and assess/score capacities

Social Financial Physical
7.1.1. The approach
The next step is to identify capacity with respect to the
WASH sector.
Political (and
Capacity can be considered in six different Environmental Human
institutional)
components, given in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2: Components of capacity
Table 7.2 sets out the six components with respect to the
WASH sector, together with different capacity factors,
elements and questions.22 You can use this table to help
you consider and score different areas of capacity for Tip for identifying and scoring capacity
both the high-level and detailed climate assessments.
You should not necessarily consider more
factors, elements or questions in the climate
You will notice that a couple of the factors are also
assessment simply because it is more
provided as examples to consider when assessing
detailed. These factors are also of relevance
vulnerability. These include:
to the high-level assessment, they are just
„„ Knowledge and understanding can influence the
assessed and scored in a different way.
capacity to prepare, respond, recover and learn, but
can also increase the vulnerability of the population
or a community if the threat from a hazard is
underestimated. reducing the ability to move elsewhere temporarily,
„„ A lack of social networks can increase vulnerability or by making evacuation more difficult; but it can
by, for example, reducing access to alternative also reduce the ability to communicate and work
water supplies and informal social safety nets; with others, affecting capacity.

Table 7.2: Examples of elements and questions to consider when assessing capacity

Social

Factor Element Question

Planning, knowledge and Community preparedness Are there any community preparedness
tools. Communities may plans plans? How detailed are the plans?
and often do have significant What was the level of community
capacities to mitigate and participation? How often are plans
respond to hazards. revised? Is there a designated individual
or group responsible for coordinating the
response to a hazard?
Knowledge and tools for What knowledge and tools are there in
prevention activities the community to mitigate and respond
to hazards?
Social networks and Access to social networks and Are social networks in place? Is there
communications tools.23 communications tools access to communications tools such as
radios and megaphones?
Civil society and civil society Strength of environmental/ What is the strength of environmental/
representation. The ability governance and accountability governance and accountability CSOs
of civil society organisations civil society organisations and media?
including the media to speak (CSOs) and media
out on public issues.
Continued on next page
22
Based on the information provided in the ODI report ‘Adaptation to Climate Change in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene’ Oates et al. (2014).
23
Also included in Table 6.2 as it influences both vulnerability and capacity.

38
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Financial

Factor Element Question

Adequate mitigation, Emergency processes and Are there adequate emergency

prevention, preparedness procedures processes and procedures in place?
and response WASH sector
Emergency budgets and Are there sufficient emergency WASH
budget allocations. This
residual risk coverage (e.g. sector budget allocations?
includes sufficient reserves for
insurance)
dealing with emergencies.
Effective development Development partner support Is there effective development partner
partner support for WASH and resources for WASH support and resources for WASH service
service financing and service delivery delivery?
sustainability. The level and
Emergency aid Can development partners convert their
effectiveness of support from
funding for development projects to
development partners can
emergency aid?
increase capacity to withstand
the effects of shocks and Mitigation and preparedness Do partners support mitigation and
stresses. preparedness?

Budget disaggregation. Budget for mitigation, Is there separate budget for mitigation,
prevention, preparedness and prevention, preparedness and
response response?

Physical

Factor Element Question

Aspects of physical Technology Is technology available that would

infrastructure design. help improve capacity, e.g. rainwater
Aspects of design which mean harvesting, water reclamation and reuse
that infrastructure can respond
Aspects of design Has infrastructure been designed to
to hazards.
give it the capacity to better respond to
hazards, e.g. flexible design
Maintenance of infrastructure Are plans in place to maintain
infrastructure? Is infrastructure in an
accessible location for maintenance?
Human capacity/resources Supply chain for replacement Is there a supply chain for parts
for operation and parts (replacements/spare parts)?
maintenance.
Skills to operate and maintain Do people have the necessary skills to
infrastructure operate and maintain toilets and water
supply systems?

Continued on next page

39
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Environmental

Factor Element Question

Effective environmental Monitoring agencies Do monitoring agencies exist? How

(weather, groundwater, effective are they?
surface water, land use)
Monitoring networks Are there monitoring networks in place?
monitoring networks and
Are these adequate?
institutions. Given the
immense uncertainty over Environmental data Are any environmental data available?
direction and magnitude Are these of sufficient quality, e.g. are
of environmental change, they accurate and have they been
monitoring is a clear pre- collected on a regular basis?
requisite for observing and
understanding such change.
Alternative water sources. Sub-surface and groundwater Is there any degradation of sub-surface
source degradation and groundwater sources? If so, how
extensive is this/how many sources are
affected?
Plans to use alternative water Are there plans in place to use
sources alternative protected water sources
where available?

Human

Factor Element Question

Knowledge and Level of knowledge and Do people have adequate knowledge to

understanding. To prepare, understanding prepare, respond, recover and learn?
respond, recover and learn.
Adequate socio-economic Human Development Index What is the HDI? Is there a high or a low
stability. Capacity to respond (HDI)24 Multidimensional MPI?
to shocks and stresses through Poverty Index (MPI) (if
appropriate self-protection available)25 If these are unavailable consider the
capabilities and coping individual components that make up the
capacities. HDI and MPI, e.g. health, education,
income. Are there other similar factors
that are relevant?
Diversification of livelihoods. Livelihood diversification Is livelihood diversification possible? Are
Livelihood diversification to strategies there plans in place to support this?
enhance capacity to respond
to hazards.

Continued on next page

24
Also included in Table 6.2 as it influences both vulnerability and capacity.
25
Data available here http://hdr.undp.org/en/data.

40
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Political (and institutional)

Factor Element Question

Capacity of (institutional) Response plans for WASH Are there response plans in place? Are
systems for preparedness, emergencies these plans adequate?
response and recovery.
Coordination mechanisms for Are there any coordination mechanisms
emergencies in place for emergencies? Are these
regularly reviewed, and if so, are they
effective?
Training and equipment Is there sufficient staff, training and
adequate equipment?
Collaboration between Does any collaboration exist between
departments the departments responsible for WASH,
DRR, environment and climate? Is
this collaboration sufficient or could it
improve?
Political will to assess and What is the political view on climate
mitigate risk and adapt change? Does this affect the
assessment and mitigation of risks and
the ability to adapt?

Source: Adapted from Oates et al. (2014)

7.1.2. The high-level assessment Table 7.3 provides an example of how capacity might
In this step of the high-level assessment, capacity is be assessed for the different components, together
not assigned a score like the other components of with notes on which elements and questions have
risk. While there are some national-level elements of been considered in the assessment. Note that you do
capacity to consider – such as the effect of political not have to consider all of the elements and questions
views on the ability to adapt – capacity is something that are given in Table 7.2; these are provided as
which is mainly specific to a regional or local level. examples to guide your assessment of capacity. You
Therefore, for a high-level assessment, it will be difficult may also think of other elements or questions that
to score capacity. There would be less confidence in you want to base the assessment on. Record details
the scores, and if capacity is scored inaccurately there of what has been considered together with your
is a possibility that some key risks may be ignored as comments.
the capacity score might inappropriately cancel out the
vulnerability score. 7.1.3. The detailed climate assessment
For the detailed climate assessment, capacity will be
Therefore, for capacity you should consider the scored. However, these scores will be used only to help
elements and questions given in Table 7.2. and record prioritise risks for identifying climate-resilient options.
the findings. You can use this information to help They will not be used to determine the overall risk
prioritise risks for identifying resilient options. score, because if capacity is scored inaccurately there

41
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

is a possibility that some key risks may be ignored as elements and questions in Table 7.2 are provided as
the capacity score might inappropriately cancel out the examples to guide your assessment of capacity; you
vulnerability score. do not have to consider all of them. You may also think
of other elements or questions that you want to base
The method is the same as that used for vulnerability: the assessment on. Record details of what has been
factors for each component will be scored. This means considered together with the different scores. Note
that, depending on the study, there could be more than that high capacity would have a score of 3, medium
one score for each of the six components. However, it capacity a score of 2, and low capacity a score of 1.
is not necessary to have a score for each of the factors.
You may decide that some of the factors are not Table 7.4 provides an example of how capacity might
relevant to your assessment. be scored.

You will need to carefully select the elements and

questions to consider to come up with the scores. The

Table 7.3: An example of how capacity might be assessed for the high-level assessment

Component Element or question considered Notes on assessment

Social Are there any community preparedness There are plans, however some do not go
plans? How detailed are the plans? Are any into enough detail. There are lots of social
social networks in place? networks in place that improve capacity to
respond to hazards.

Financial Are there adequate emergency processes No – there needs to be more in place.
and procedures in place?

Physical Is technology available that would help There is limited technology available to
improve capacity? Has infrastructure been improve capacity. Some infrastructure has
designed to better respond to hazards? been well-designed but most needs to be
improved.

Environmental Do monitoring agencies exist? How There is a monitoring agency but

effective are they? Are any environmental the effectiveness could be improved.
data available? Environmental data are sparse and more
needs to be done to collect data.

Human Knowledge and understanding and There is poor knowledge and

Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) understanding, and a high MPI.

Political (and Are there response plans in place? Are There are some response plans in place
institutional) these plans adequate? Is there sufficient but these need to be improved. There is
training and adequate equipment? currently not enough training available or
adequate equipment.

42
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 7.4: An example of how capacity might be scored for the detailed climate assessment

Score
Elements or
Component Factor Notes
questions considered
H M L

Social Social networks Is there adequate Access to networks and

access to social tools varies. It needs to
2
networks and be improved in some
communications tools? areas.
Planning, What knowledge Generally, there is good
knowledge and and tools are there knowledge and available
tools in the community to tools to mitigate and 3
mitigate and respond to respond to hazards.
hazards?
Financial Effective Is there effective Yes – effective
development development partner development partner
partner support support for WASH support is widely 3
for WASH service service delivery? available.
delivery
Physical Technology Is technology available The technology used
that would help improve is basic; improvements
capacity? to technology are 1
needed to help improve
capacity.
Aspects of design Has infrastructure been Some types of
designed to better infrastructure have
respond to hazards? factored this into their 1
design; however, most
have not.
Environmen- Effective Are there monitoring There are a few
tal environmental networks in place? Are monitoring networks in
monitoring these adequate? Are place, although some
2
networks and any environmental data are inadequate. There
institutions available? are some environmental
data available.
Alternative water Are there plans to use There are plans to
sources alternative protected use alternative water
2
water sources where sources only in some
available? locations.
Human Adequate socio- Multidimensional The MPI is high.
1
economic stability Poverty Index (MPI).
Diversification of Is livelihood Yes – some livelihood
livelihoods diversification possible? diversification is
2
Are there plans in place possible, with plans in
to support this? place to support this.
Political (and Capacity of Are there response Yes – there are
institutional) systems for plans in place? Are adequate response
preparedness, these plans adequate? plans in place. 3
response and
recovery

43
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

7.2. Checklist
In this step of the analysis, you should have completed
the tasks given in Table 7.5.

Table 7.5: Capacity checklist

Task Complete?

Carefully selected the capacity elements and/or questions to consider.

Recorded your comments (and assigned scores for the detailed climate assessment) for
each of the components for the selected capacity elements and/or questions.

7.3. Further information „„ United Nations Development Programme (2015)

„„ Chen, C., Noble, I., Hellmann, J., Coffee, J., Murillo, Human Development Report 2015: Work for
M. and Chawla, N. (2015) University of Notre Dame Human Development. United Nations Development
Global Adaptation Index: Country Index Technical Programme, New York, USA.
Report. http://index.gain.org/about/methodology#. „„ United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
„„ INFORM Index for Risk Management (n.d.) Reduction (2004) Living with Risk. A global review
INFORM Global Model – interpreting and applying. of disaster reduction initiatives – Volume I.
Guidance Note. http://www.inform-index.org/
„„ Oates, N., Ross, I., Calow, R., Carter, R. and
Doczi, J. (2014) Adaptation to Climate Change
in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Assessing
Risks and Appraising Options in Africa. Overseas
Development Institute, London, UK.

44
 8. Risk prioritisation

8.1. Assess risk „„ fluoride affecting water sources, considering the

In this step, you will combine the individual scores for environmental vulnerability component
hazard, exposure and vulnerability to come up with „„ political instability affecting the population,
an overall score for risks. These scores can then be considering the human vulnerability component
used to rank the risks to determine priorities. You may „„ cryptosporidium in water sources, considering the
want to use a threshold to decide which of the risks environmental vulnerability component.
you should take forward to the next quadrant of the
Framework ‘Identify and appraise options.’ The risks have been reordered (according to rank) and
a threshold applied to determine which should be taken
The following risk formula is used in this Guidance forward to the next step: identifying and appraising
Note: options. The threshold used in this example is rank four
– i.e. all of those that fall within ranks one to four. You
Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability may decide that you want to use the same threshold,
or you may choose a different one; this depends on the
Capacity is not used in the equation, but assessed resources available.
separately to help prioritise risks for identifying
resilient options.

Tip for assessing risk

A similar table will be produced for the detailed
Tip for assessing risk climate assessment. Remember that hazard
You can combine scores across different and exposure combinations may branch out
components of exposure and vulnerability. further with the different vulnerability factors.
For example, latrines (critical infrastructure)
as an exposure might have a corresponding
physical vulnerability score and a financial
vulnerability score – both of which are
important to consider. There would then be
8.2. Confidence scores and sensitivity
two different entries in the list of risks for analysis
critical infrastructure – latrines, with separate Separate confidence scores have been assigned
overall scores, as shown in Table 8.1 (the throughout the assessment. When looking at the overall
hazard is flooding). risk, it will be important to have an understanding of
what the confidence is for each individual component.
However, you may decide to combine This will help you to identify where you may need to do
exposure with its corresponding vulnerability sensitivity testing for some of the risks, to ensure you
score only, if you feel that the other are happy with the overall scores.
components of vulnerability are not important
for that particular exposure. Some examples of confidence scores are given in
Table 8.2. It shows that the exposure of population
to fluoride has low confidence, so may need to be
investigated in more detail. You may also decide to look
Some examples of risk for the high-level assessment at some of the hazards, exposures or vulnerabilities
are provided in Table 8.1. The risk column shows the that have a medium confidence score.
overall score of country X, while the rank column can
be used to order the risks. In this example, the top Sensitivity analysis can also be particularly useful
scoring risks are: if a risk has not made it to the prioritised list of risks
„„ flooding of latrines, considering the financial and there is disagreement over whether it should be
vulnerability component included.

45
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

Table 8.1 shows that desertification has low scores for low. You might therefore decide to carry out sensitivity
hazard and exposure, so this risk has not been taken analysis for desertification, to be sure that it should not
forward to the prioritised list; but Table 8.2 shows that be in the prioritised list.
the scores for confidence for both of these are also

Table 8.1: Examples of scoring risk – high-level assessment, country X

Hazard Exposure Vulnerability

Risk
Rank
score
Description Score Description Score Description Score

Critical infrastructure –
Flooding 3 3 Financial 2 18 1
latrines*
Water sources,
Fluoride 2 3 Environmental 3 18 1
including primary

Political instability 3 Population 3 Human 2 18 1

Cryptosporidium 2 Water sources 3 Environmental 3 18 1

Cryptosporidium 2 Population 3 Human 2 12 2

Critical infrastructure –
Flooding 3 3 Physical 1 9 3
latrines*

Fluoride 2 Population 2 Human 2 8 4

Critical infrastructure –
Flooding 3 1 Financial 2 6 5
wells
Critical infrastructure –
Flooding 3 1 Physical 1 3 6
wells

Desertification 1 Water sources 1 Environmental 3 3 6

*Exposure has more than one vulnerability component to consider

Table 8.2: Examples of confidence scores, high-level assessment

Hazard Confidence Exposure Confidence Vulnerability Confidence

Critical infrastructure
Flooding HIGH HIGH Physical MEDIUM
– latrines
Critical infrastructure
Flooding HIGH MEDIUM Physical MEDIUM
– wells

Fluoride MEDIUM Population LOW Human HIGH

Desertification LOW Water sources LOW Environmental HIGH

46
 WASH Climate Resilient Development | Guidance Note

8.3. Capacity
The capacity assessment can help you to identify what For the detailed climate assessment, you will be able to
types of actions are needed. Where capacity is high, use the capacity scores to help compile the final list of
limited interventions may be needed. Where capacity is prioritised risks. If capacity is low (or very low), then you
low, the intervention needs to be much bigger. may want to include that risk in the list, even if you have
not scored the risk as high (especially if confidence is
You can also use your assessment of capacity to help low). On the other hand, if capacity is high, you might
in prioritising risks, if you have a lot of risks with the decide that you do not need to take that risk forward to
same score or rank. One way of doing this is to look the next steps of the process.
at your assessment of capacity for your top risks to
determine whether this would influence its inclusion in 8.4. Prioritise risks
the next steps of the process. For example, if you have Consider the following questions to make sure that you
used a threshold that includes ranks one to four, and are satisfied with the list of prioritised risks:
you have a lot of risks that have a rank of four, then „„ Are you satisfied with the total number of risks to
you might want to look at the capacity assessments for take forward for further analysis?
these to determine whether they should be included in „„ Are there any risks in the prioritised list that you
the final list of prioritised risks or not. Where capacity think should not be included?
is better for one risk than another, then you might only „„ Are there any risks not in the prioritised list that you
want to include the risk where capacity is poorer. think should be included?

47
 9. Next steps

By following this guidance, you will have completed „„ Deliver solutions: this covers the integration of
a high-level assessment or a detailed climate options into existing strategies and plans, and their
assessment. The assessments will have resulted implementation.
in a list of key risks to consider and will hopefully „„ Monitor and move forward: this covers monitoring
have improved your understanding of the hazards, and the lessons learned from the implementation of
exposures, vulnerabilities and capacities. climate resilient development activities.

The next steps would be to complete some more The next step is to identify and appraise climate-
detailed analysis of the risks, or to try and begin the resilient options for each of your prioritised risks. There
process of identifying options that would improve are two Technical Briefs that provide guidance on how
resilience in the WASH sector. Risk management is an to support this. The first sets out a long list of potential
iterative process. Therefore, as long as decisions can climate-resilient options for dealing with the climate-
be made with due regard to the uncertainties, then it is related risks and pressures identified by following this
possible to move on to the next steps of the Strategic Guidance Note; and the second shows how these
Framework having only completed a high-level options can be appraised and evaluated against set
assessment, even with medium or low confidence risks. performance criteria.

The list of prioritised risks that you have identified can

be taken forward to the next quadrants in the Strategic
Framework. These are:
„„ Identify and appraise options: this covers the
identification and appraisal of options to improve
climate resilience.

48
 10. References

African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW). (2012) UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Water Security and Climate Resilient Development. (2012) Climate Change Risk Assessment Methodology
Technical background document. Report, UK 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment,
Defra, London.
Campbell-Lendrum, D. and Woodruff, R. (2007) Climate
Change: Quantifying the Health Impact at National and UNICEF. (2015a) Risk-informed Programming
Local Levels. Editors, Prüss-Üstün, A., Corvalán, C. Guidance – Summary. Module 1 – Introduction.
(WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Series No.14).
World Health Organization, Geneva. UNICEF. (2015b) Risk-informed Programming
Guidance – Substance. Module 2 – Risk analysis.
Global Water Partnership (GWP) and UNICEF. (2014)
WASH Climate Resilient Development. Strategic UNISDR, Geneva, Switzerland.
Framework. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction. (2012) Impacts of Disasters since the 1992
INFORM Index for Risk Management (n.d.) INFORM Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. UNISDR. http://www.
Global Model – interpreting and applying. Guidance preventionweb.net/files/27162_infographic.pdf
Note. http://www.inform-index.org/.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Inter-Agency Standing Committee. (2015) Emergency Reduction. (2009) UNISDR terminology on Disaster
Response Preparedness (ERP): Risk analysis and Risk Reduction.
monitoring, minimum preparedness, advanced
preparedness and contingency planning - draft for field
testing. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/files/
emergency-response-preparedness-0.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner,
M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia,
V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge and New York, 1535 pp, doi:10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.

Oates, N., Ross, I., Calow, R., Carter, R. and Doczi,

J. (2014) Adaptation to Climate Change in Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene: Assessing Risks and
Appraising Options in Africa. Overseas Development
Institute, London.

Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change:

The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge and New York.

49
Acknowledgements

Preparation of the Strategic Framework for WASH Climate Resilient Development was led by a joint Global Water
Partnership-United Nations Children’s Fund (GWP-UNICEF) team including Cecilia Scharp, Jose Gesti Canuto
and Emily Bamford UNICEF; and Jacques Rey, Alex Simalabwi, Susanne Skyllerstedt, Armand Houanye, and Sara
Oppenheimer Global Water Partnership (GWP). The Framework documents were prepared by HR Wallingford
in collaboration with the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Peter Bury on behalf of GWP and UNICEF.
The lead authors for the Guidance Note Risk assessments for WASH, which supports implementation of the
Framework, were Jemima Kennedy, Helen Udale-Clarke and Nigel Walmsley (HR Wallingford).

We are grateful for the valuable input from regional and country-based experts, and practitioners from UNICEF,
GWP, WaterAid and others who took part in our consultation exercises and also reviewed drafts of the Framework
documents. These included: Arinita Maskey Shrestha and Overtoun Mgemezulu, UNICEF Nepal; Kelly Ann Naylor
and Anne-Cecile Vialle, UNICEF Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); Peter Harvey, UNICEF Eastern and
Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO) Nairobi; Chander Badloe, Erik Kjaergaard, Maya Igarashi-Wood and
Guy Mbayo Kakumbi, UNICEF East Asia & Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO); Pierre Fourcassie, UNICEF Regional
Office for the Middle East & North Africa; Hendrik van Norden, UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia (ROSA);
Michael Emerson Gnilo and Simone Klawitter, UNICEF Philippines; Alex Heikens, Climate Change Advisor,
UNICEF Division of Policy; Antony Spalton, UNICEF Programme Division; Kalanithy Vairavamoorthy, GWP TEC;
Frederik Pischke, Francois Brikké, Danka Thalmeneirova, Kenge James Gunya and Ralph Philip, Maika Mueller
GWPO; Priyanka Dissanayake, GWP South Asia; Andrew Takawira, GWP Water, Climate and Development
Programme (WACDEP) Coordination Unit; and Vincent Casey, WaterAid West Africa. We are also indebted to
the panel of experts who have reviewed and commented on our draft reports. These were: Alan Hall, GWP Senior
Advisor; Merylyn Hedger, GWP Senior Advisor; Michele Messina, independent; Belynda Petrie, OneWorld;
and Melvin Woodhouse, independent. Thanks also to Monika Ericson, GWPO, for coordinating the production
of the publications.
 UNICEF Global Water Partnership
3 United Nations Plaza Global Secretariat
New York, NY PO Box 24177, SE-104 51 Stockholm
United States Sweden
www.unicef.org www.gwp.org, www.gwptoolbox.org