Resilience Marker
General
Guidelines
(2022)
Humanitarian
Aid and Civil
Protection
© European Union, 2022
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision
2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330,
14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any
changes are indicated.
PDF ISBN 978-92-76-47518-7 doi:10.2795/683161 KR-01-22-097-EN-N
RESILIENCE MARKER / 3
1. What is resilience and how to integrate
it in humanitarian assistance?
“Resilience is the ability of an individual, a household, a community, a country or a region
to withstand, adapt and to quickly recover from stresses and shocks.”
(EU Joint Communication, A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU’s external action, 2017)
The European Commission is committed to strengthening resilience and reducing
vulnerabilities. Using different policy instruments, including humanitarian and
development assistance, the Commission’s approach to resilience aims at reducing
the impact of crises and at strengthening the capacities of individuals, communities
and countries (governments) to cope with them1.
DG ECHO’s mandate is to address the immediate needs arising out of natural
and human-induced crises2. However, these actions can present opportunities for
strengthening resilience. DG ECHO’s approach to resilience, and the intent of its
Resilience Marker, is to ensure that these opportunities are used to the greatest extent
possible without compromising humanitarian principles.
Four steps are key to anchor resilience in humanitarian programmes:
• Conduct an analysis of risks – whether from natural hazards, human-induced
threats, disease outbreaks/epidemics or environmental degradation - and an
analysis of vulnerabilities and their causes;
• Be risk-informed (i.e. ensure that the activities are designed on the basis of existing
risks and vulnerabilities and do not aggravate such risks or vulnerabilities);
• Contribute to building local capacities so that the most vulnerable can cope
better with a future crisis or an after-shock; and
• Include a deliberate strategy to reduce future humanitarian needs and identify
modalities to connect with ongoing/possible future development interventions
(both government-led or of international organisations).
It is critical to note that for resilience, context matters. The abilities and opportunities
of humanitarian actors to integrate resilience in their activities are different in sudden-
onset and slow-onset disasters, in conflict settings, in protracted emergencies, and in
situations with weak or strong local capacities. Therefore, the modality and degree to
which resilience can be strengthened has to be adjusted to the local context.
1
See EU COM (2012) 586.
2
See Council Regulation 1257/96 (1996).
4 / GENERAL GUIDELINES
2. What is the Resilience Marker and
why do we need it?
To implement its commitment to resilience, DG ECHO systematically includes
resilience strengthening objectives in its Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs).
Additionally, it has developed a Resilience Marker, which is a tool to assess to what
extent humanitarian actions funded by DG ECHO integrate resilience considerations.
The Marker seeks to enhance the quality of humanitarian actions by ensuring a
systematic consideration and inclusion of resilience considerations in context evaluation,
project design and implementation. In so doing, the Marker also contributes to:
• Creating a platform for partners and DG ECHO staff to discuss how resilience can
best be included in humanitarian programming;
• Encouraging reflection on what resilience means in practice in different contexts;
and
• Allowing DG ECHO to monitor and report on its own performance in supporting
resilience.
3. How does the Resilience Marker
work?
Four key elements help to promote resilience through humanitarian programming:
• An analysis of the risks – whether from natural hazards, human-induced threats,
diseases outbreaks/epidemics or environmental degradation - and an analysis of
the vulnerabilities and their causes;
• Implementing risk-informed programming;
• Strengthening local preparedness capacities (directly or in cooperation with other
actors); and
• Adopting longer-term strategies, possibly linking humanitarian activities to ongoing/
future development interventions.
RESILIENCE MARKER / 5
These elements are reflected in the four criteria or core questions of the Marker:
1. Do the proposed project activities
adequately reflect an analysis of risks
and vulnerabilities – including conflict, Yes Not sufficiently
environment and climate risks?
Provide details
2. Does the project adopt a do no harm
and conflict sensitivity approach and
include specific measures to ensure that
the identified risks and any environmental Yes Not sufficiently
impacts of the project are addressed
to the extent possible, and are not
aggravated by the action?
Provide details
3. Does the project include measures to
strengthen local preparedness capacities
(of individuals and national/local Yes Not sufficiently
institutions/organisations) to respond or
adapt to identified risks?
Provide details
4. Does the project contribute to long-
term strategies to reduce humanitarian
needs, underlying vulnerability and risks or
identifies modalities to link up with ongoing Yes Not sufficiently
development interventions (national and/or
international stakeholders)?
Provide details
6 / GENERAL GUIDELINES
The Marker records whether or not humanitarian actions meet each of these criteria
sufficiently or not. Actions receive an overall resilience mark depending on how many
criteria are met. This mark will be automatically calculated pending the number of
“Yes” or “Not sufficiently” replies on the 4 questions above.
The action meets none or 1 criterion = 0
The action meets 2 or 3 criteria = 1
The action meets 4 criteria = 2
In case of actions including a variety of activities, partners or implementation areas,
these actions might integrate resilience considerations to varying degrees. If so,
the answer for each of the four questions of the Marker should reflect the average
performance of the action in terms of integration of resilience considerations and
the differences should be noted in the text box provided in the electronic Single Form
(eSF) under each question. The eSF contains a text box for each of the four questions
so that partners can provide additional explanation on the approach and objectives of
the action as well as a justification in case the action does not sufficiently address a
specific question of the Marker.
4. How to fill in the Resilience Marker
and how is it assessed?
When partners submit a proposal for funding to DG ECHO using the eSF, they include
a self-assessment of the project. Subsequently, DG ECHO field staff enter their own
assessment into the DG ECHO internal project appraisal form (FichOp – see Annex
I), where it is validated by the responsible desk officers at Headquarters' level. DG
ECHO staff update their assessment at mid-term as part of the FichOp’s monitoring
or mid-term report. They also respond to questions on the risk-informed nature of
the assessed project. This assessment ensures that the Resilience Marker tracks the
actual performance of the project (rather than only the proposal) and that changes in
the context can be taken into account throughout the implementation period.
The final mark is determined by DG ECHO as part of the FichOp’s final report, based
on the overall resilience performance of the project. The mark is communicated to
the partner through the information system APPEL, with a possibility for follow up
discussion with responsible DG ECHO officers.
RESILIENCE MARKER / 7
5. What if the context or the type of
action makes it difficult to integrate
resilience building activities?
Integrating resilience concerns into humanitarian interventions can be challenging
in certain contexts and projects may not always be able to meet all the marker
criteria fully. For example, it may not be appropriate to align project activities with
government plans or strategies if the government is an active party to a conflict. Or
it may be appropriate to solely focus on providing immediate relief in a very acute
emergency, rather than including additional activities on how to prepare for a better
response to future hazards or threats. In these cases, criteria 3 and 4 might not be
fully met, not because of a low quality project, but because in this particular context
there are limits to a real integration of resilience building activities.
While the possible limitations caused by the context are well acknowledged and the
overall mark of the project does not constitute in itself a condition for funding (ref.
question 5), it is expected that the project attempts to address the questions of the
marker to the best possible extent, particularly regarding risk and vulnerability analysis
as the basis for the intervention. Furthermore, as the context evolves, the project may
be modified (if possible) to integrate further elements of resilience. In all these cases,
partner organisations are expected to explain any constraints in integrating resilience
in the text box under each question of the Resilience Marker.
For urgent actions and actions funded under emergency decisions3 that use the
simplified eSF, partners and DG ECHO staff do not have to fill out the Resilience Marker
at proposal stage to speed up the process. However, even urgent actions are expected
to take resilience into consideration. Therefore, it will be expected that partners explain
how these elements were addressed and will be addressed at the interim report stage
and final report stage.
It is to be noted that only in specific circumstances the Marker is not applicable in full.
These include projects that do not deal directly with affected populations such as, for
example, a research or study or a technical training programme for staff only. If this is
the case, the partners can briefly explain the reason why the Marker is not applicable
in the text box after each question.
3
For more on emergency decisions: www.dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu/ngo/financing-decision/emergency-
and-ad-hoc-decisions
8 / GENERAL GUIDELINES
6. Does the mark determine whether or
not DG ECHO funds a project?
No. Project proposals do not need to reach a pre-determined threshold in terms of a
mark to be eligible for funding. However, the answers provided will weigh into the
appraisal of the project, particularly in relation to the environmental impacts of
the project in line with the requirements set for partners starting from 20234. The
marker criteria reflect important quality indicators and allow for taking into account
variations between different humanitarian contexts. Projects are therefore expected
to meet the criteria of the Resilience Marker unless the context or the type of action
do not allow it (for more information, see question 5).
7. Where to include or find relevant
information in the e-Single Form?
The eSF is the format and tool for DG ECHO’s partners to submit their proposed
activities to DG ECHO. The information included in eSF proposals or reports therefore
forms the basis for completing the Resilience Marker. The table below shows where
in the eSF partners should include, and DG ECHO staff can find, information related
to resilience and environmental concerns - beyond the Resilience Marker. However,
DG ECHO field staff should also include additional information from discussions with
partner organisations, experiences with previous projects, monitoring visits and other
sources such as risk and vulnerability analyses in their assessment. This information
will be included in the FichOp (more on the FichOp in Annex 1).
4
Launched at the European Humanitarian Forum (EHF) 2022, year 2022 is considered a transition year for the
implementation of the environmental requirements, while full implementation will start as of 2023.
RESILIENCE MARKER / 9
CRITERIA RELEVANT SECTIONS IN THE E-SINGLE FORM
(1) Analysis of risks and Section 1.4: Executive summary of the action
vulnerabilities Section 4.1: Assessments dates and methodology
Section 4.2: Problems, needs and risks analysis
Section 5.1: Beneficiaries - identification criteria
(2) The project adopts a Section 1.4 : Executive summary of the action
do no harm and conflict Section 3.2: Synergies, links, complementarities
sensitivity approach, with your other actions
addresses and does
not aggravate the Section 4.3: Response analysis
identified risks and any Section 7: Logic of intervention
environmental impacts Section 10.3: Logistics
(3) The project strengthens Section 1.4: Executive summary of the action
local preparedness Section 4.3: Response analysis
capacities to respond or
adapt to identified risks Section 5.2: Involvement of beneficiaries in the
design of and in the action
Section 7: Logic of intervention
(4) A deliberate strategy to Section 1.4: Executive summary of the action
reduce future humanitarian Section 3.2: Synergies, links, complementarities
needs, underlying vulnerabil- with your other actions
ities and risks and identifies
modalities to link-up with Section 11.1: Operational coordination with other
ongoing development humanitarian actors
interventions Section 11.3: Coordination with national and local
authorities
Section 11.4: Coordination with development actors
and programmes
Additional comments or Section 8: Resilience Marker, individual text box
constraints concerning after each RM criteria
resilience
10 / GENERAL GUIDELINES
8. How to assess the different marker
criteria?
1. Analysis of risks and vulnerabilities
Indicative elements for consideration:
• The analysis identifies relevant existing and potential risks in the project area.
These should include current and future climate-related hazards, both sudden
(e.g. floods, hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons, forest fires, heatwaves, etc.) and slow-
onset (droughts, sea level rise, desertification, coastal erosion, salinification of
groundwater, etc.), geological hazards (landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions), environmental degradation (e.g deforestation, water pollution), food
price hikes, epidemics or technological hazards (e.g. oil spill, industrial explosion)
and equally threat of an outbreak or intensification of conflict or violence. The
analysis should inform the design of the intervention by considering the identified
risks and their impact on the target population/geographical area. The analysis
should therefore also identify the exposure (what areas might be affected), and
intensity and likelihood (i.e. the level of risk).
• The analysis identifies the vulnerability of different population groups (age,
gender, and disability, as well as contextually relevant social, ethnic, religious and
other diversity groups) to these hazards and threats (e.g. which population groups
will be most affected by the identified hazards and threats and why?).
• The analysis identifies what causes and drives these vulnerabilities.
• Coping mechanisms and livelihood patterns/strategies are also identified to
determine what capacities different population groups have to cope with shocks
and how these could be leveraged.
Please refer to the Disaster Preparedness Guidance Note section 3.2.1 on Risk Assessment
for more details.
Examples for the application of criterion 1:
“Yes”: A humanitarian organisation operating in a protracted emergency conducts a
detailed analysis of the root causes of vulnerability using existing information (e.g.
what drives conflict or what livelihood strategies and coping mechanisms do affected
populations have to deal with recurring droughts and floods, or whether any of the
coping mechanisms are further contributing to environmental degradation) and co-
ordinates this assessment with development actors.
RESILIENCE MARKER / 11
“Not sufficiently”: A health clinic operating in a refugee camp in a cyclone-prone
region was initially not designed to resist high winds because there was no risk
assessment. After a project review, the structure was strengthened and contingency
plans put in place. The original proposal would have been marked not sufficient and
the mark would have been revised following this change.
2. The project adopts a do no harm and conflict sensitivity
approach, addresses and does not aggravate the
identified risks and any environmental impacts
Indicative elements for consideration:
• The proposed activities are designed on the basis of the risk and vulnerability
analysis conducted so that they respond to the identified risks and vulnerabilities.
Additionally, the proposal identifies where the proposed activities may create or
increase risks and vulnerability for the assisted population in order to mitigate
such an event.
• The proposal identifies potential negative environmental impacts of the proposed
activities, during and after the implementation of the action, using an existing
(NEAT+5, CEDRIG6) or an adapted methodology. The proposal mentions which
methodology was used. Examples of negative environmental impacts by sector
can be found here: www.ehaconnect.org/clusters/
• The proposal includes adequate measures to avoid or mitigate the negative
effects identified (e.g. targeting criteria or location of services are chosen in
consultation with communities to prevent hostilities potentially leading to conflict
and to safeguard access; clean energy is provided in camps to limit deforestation
and therefore reduce the risk of landslides, fossil fuel use is replaced with renewable
energy, e.g. solar power, use of plastic is reduced but ideally avoided, water over-
abstraction is prevented, more environmentally sustainable relief items are procured,
and proper waste management is integrated into the project)7.
• Projects are able to adapt or scale up their activities since future hazards
or threats as these have been identified in the risk analysis and hence
interventions adjusted (e.g. hospitals with mobile teams able to react to
disasters or incidents of violence; systems enabling scale-up of operations during
emergencies).
5 www.eecentre.org/resources/neat
6 www.cedrig.org
7 For more ways to mitigate negative environmental impacts consult the Report on Environmental Footprint of
humanitarian assistance for DG ECHO, 2020. Available at: www.urd.org/en/publication/report-on-environmental-
footprint-of-humanitarian-assistance-for-dg-echo-2020
12 / GENERAL GUIDELINES
• The proposal includes adequate measures for protecting project outputs
from risks (e.g. choosing sites for warehouses and distributions that are not at
risk of floods, landslides or earthquakes; providing tents that are storm-proof;
continuity measures in case of escalation of risk or violence – so services can be
maintained if access becomes limited).
3. The project strengthens local preparedness capacities
to respond or adapt to identified risks
Examples for the application of criterion 2:
“Yes”: A humanitarian organisation operating in a fragile context identifies a high risk
for conflict to break out. It proposes to involve various communities when identifying
water points in order to avoid aggravating tensions. It also adopts a decentralised
approach to provide water to affected villages. In each village, local committees are
trained to manage water points and distribution to avoid water over-abstraction and
so that if violence escalates, water will still be available. Leaks in water distribution
systems are identified and repaired to prevent water wastage.
“Not sufficiently”: A project providing emergency shelter, food assistance and WASH
to temporary, tented settlements does not indicate if there will be protective shelter
or drainage for the upcoming rainy and hurricane season. It also does not include
management of the waste from the food packaging or from the shelters once they
reach end-of-life.
Indicative elements for consideration:
• The proposal include training or assets components that help communities,
national/local institutions and other local relevant actors (e.g. civil society, private
sectors, etc.) to respond and/or adapt in a timely and effective way to hazards
and threats (e.g. strengthen the capacity of local institutions and communities;
use cash-for-work for protective structures; support a multi-sectoral analysis of
needs and response).
RESILIENCE MARKER / 13
• The activities are geared towards establishing legal provisions, protocols and
resources that support response operations (e.g. establish arrangements,
protocols and/or operating procedures for and/or implementing anticipatory or
early actions8; strengthen shock responsive social protection systems; contribute
to sector contingency plans; development of contingency plans; strengthening of
Early Warning Systems; etc).
• The proposal identifies if the proposed activities could undermine the capacities
of individuals, communities, local governments and civil society to cope with
future hazards and threats and includes adequate measures to avoid or mitigate
negative effects (e.g. the provision of services by international actors could
undermine the capacity of local institutions; the sustained delivery of relief
goods could undermine livelihoods and create dependency among beneficiaries;
providing relief could reduce incentives for local authorities to address root
causes or prepare for disasters).
Examples for the application of criterion 3:
“Yes”: The project strengthens the capacities of disaster management structures
to establish or strengthen multi-hazard preparedness and response systems to
ensure effective Early Warning and Early Action. This includes development and
operationalization of multi-hazard contingency plans, improving early warning systems
and enhancing surge capacity, with a view to accessing and expanding anticipatory
action mechanisms.
“Not sufficiently”: An organisation operating in a protracted complex emergency
proposes to provide free health services. It intends to hire and train local health
practitioners. However, it does not explain how it would relate to existing community
health committees and it provides no analysis of the effects the project could have on
existing private health facilities or how these effects could be mitigated.
8 Anticipatory or Early Actions (AA/EA) are taken when a disaster is imminent (or, in the case of a slow-onset
disaster, when it is about to reach a peak). Therefore, they are carried out before a crisis occurs, or before a significant
development within a crisis. Early actions are implemented according to a pre-determined protocol, which describes the
activities to be undertaken and pre-agreed triggers established on the basis of historical and current forecast analysis
[Disaster Preparedness Guidance Note – for more information please refer to section 6.2 of the Guidance Note].
14 / GENERAL GUIDELINES
4. A deliberate strategy to reduce future humanitarian
needs, underlying vulnerabilities and risks and to link up
with ongoing development interventions
Indicative elements for consideration:
• The risk and vulnerability analysis is developed in consultation with other actors and
stakeholders (including humanitarian and development organisations, government,
civil society and private sector – as appropriate).
• The project demonstrates a good understanding of the multi-sectoral assistance
required and of who delivers it and complements or supports other assistance
plans where beneficial (e.g. the proposal contains a mapping of humanitarian
and development actors and their activities in relevant sectors; it uses existing
mechanisms and systems avoiding duplication; funds are requested for international
medical teams and supplies, while the need for strengthening local health systems
is emphasised).
• As much as the context permits, the project links and contributes to relevant
government plans or strategies (e.g. project activities use existing support channels;
necessary information and updates are provided to relevant local actors).
Examples for the application of criterion 4
“Yes”: After responding with emergency interventions during a severe drought and food
insecurity, an NGO partner continues to work with communities, building their resilience
through water source development, livestock health services, income generation and
improved drought early warning. In the intervention, different partners co-ordinate with
local authorities in a programme that combines disaster risk management, livelihood
building, improving basic social services and increasing access to Government safety nets.
“Not sufficiently”: An NGO proposes to work in collaboration with a consortium of
other NGOs to provide multi-sectoral support to an earthquake-affected district to
meet immediate and anticipated needs for a six-month period. The proposal contains
little information on how services provided will be sustainable or how pre-existing
capacities (e.g. for water distribution, health) will be utilised or re-established. The NGO
is new to the area and has not demonstrated an understanding of the context and has
not established mechanisms for coordinating with local institutions.
RESILIENCE MARKER / 15
9. Annex I: FichOp section on the
Resilience Marker
The FichOp is a document internal to DG ECHO with all observations, comments, and
initial appraisals, report of monitoring and final decision from field and desk staff on
a project funded by DG ECHO. There is a dedicated section on the Resilience Marker
as follows:
Is the marker applicable YES or NO/N.A. (Not Applicable)
Marker overall score on the basis of Technical Assistant answer to all questions: 0 – 1 – 2
[Scoring: None or 1 YES = 0; 2 or 3 YES = 1; 4 YES = 2]
If the mark differs from that self-assessed by the partner, please explain where the discrepancy is.
The action:
is risk-informed
is risk-informed and integrates one or more disaster preparedness result(s)
is a targeted Disaster Preparedness action
has embedded considerations of climate risks and contributes to climate resilience
has embedded considerations of environmental impact and includes mitigation
measures to this end
has embedded considerations of conflict sensitivity (if applicable)
DG ECHO uses the information provided in the FichOp, particularly the checklist above,
to track its performance against policy priorities.
Getting in touch with the EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres.
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/
contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can
contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
Finding information about the EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://op.europa.eu/en/
publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe
Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).
EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu
Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (https://data.europa.eu/en) provides access to datasets from the
EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial
purposes.
KR-01-22-097-EN-N
ECHO web page
facebook.com/ec.humanitarian.aid
twitter.com/eu_echo
ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024_en
