Assessing resilience from a water sector perspective
Adapting the 3As framework to Just Transitions for Water Security
By Joseph Thompson (independent consultant), Ingrid Timboe (AGWA) and Katharina Welle (independent consultant).
Measuring climate resilience is central to UK International Climate Finance (ICF), but how it is measured depends on where programmes intervene. ICF Key Performance Indicator (KPI) 4 tracks the number of people whose resilience has improved as a result of programming, using beneficiary-level measurement across multiple resilience dimensions. Increasingly, however, climate programmes focus on strengthening the enabling environment – policies, markets, and investment systems – rather than delivering interventions directly to households. For programmes such as the Just Transitions for Water Security (JTWS), which work primarily through upstream changes in policy, accountability, and investment systems, this poses a methodological challenge.
In this blog, we explore how JTWS has adapted the 3As resilience framework to assess whether the systems that shape water resilience are strengthening or weakening over time.
Just Transitions for Water Security
JTWS aims to transform the way water is managed by strengthening the systems that underpin climate-resilient water security. Rather than focusing on household-level interventions, JTWS works upstream – targeting policies, accountability mechanisms, and investment incentives that shape how water is governed and financed.
JTWS reports against several ICF KPIs, yet the resilience KPI most conceptually relevant to the programme – KPI 4 – measures improved resilience at the level of people and households. As JTWS works primarily through upstream systems change, it does not generate the household-level data typically used to report against this indicator. This creates a gap between the level at which the programme intervenes and the level at which resilience is usually measured. To address this, we have adapted the ‘3As’ resilience framework, which underpins KPI 4, for use in a systems-focused water programme.
From households to systems: adapting the 3As
The 3As framework conceptualises resilience across three complementary capacities of social systems. These capacities are interrelated and dynamic, rather than linear stages. They are:
Anticipatory capacity – the ability to foresee and prepare for climate risks.
Adaptive capacity – the ability to learn and adjust in response to climate impacts.
Absorptive capacity – the ability to withstand shocks and maintain essential functions.
For JTWS, we kept the 3As framework but made two key adaptations:
We shifted the analytical lens from assessing resilience at the household level to examining the governance, economic, and financial systems that influence resilience outcomes.
We tailored the 3As to reflect the specific dynamics of the water sector.
The central idea is to apply a resilience framework suited to programmes operating at the level of governance, markets, and investment systems. Rather than assessing resilience directly at the household level, the adapted 3As framework examines whether the systems that shape resilience outcomes are strengthening their anticipatory, adaptive, and absorptive capacities over time.
What do the 3As look like in the water sector?
Applied to the water sector, this means examining whether policies integrate climate risk, whether supply chains respond to climate stress in ways that reinforce water security, and whether investment decisions account for climate and water risks. These are system-level expressions of anticipatory, adaptive, and absorptive capacities.
Anticipatory capacity: Risk-informed planning, early warning systems, and preparatory investments are embedded across governance, finance, infrastructure, and knowledge systems.
Adaptive capacity: Policies, standards, and investment strategies are reviewed and adjusted in response to climate impacts and emerging risks.
Absorptive capacity: Water systems are able to maintain acceptable quantity and quality during shocks, ensuring continuity for key water users, recognising that in some contexts longer-term adaptation or transformation may also be required.
Across all three dimensions, resilience is assessed in relation to key water users: households and communities (health and livelihoods), ecosystems (environmental integrity and services), and production systems such as agriculture and industry (economic activity and food security). These categories reflect the main systems that depend on reliable water resources, while water service providers, such as utilities, play an important role in enabling resilience across them.
WRT in Brazil
In Brazil, WRT is working with the National Water and Sanitation Agency (ANA) to assess water resilience across selected river basins as part of the forthcoming National Adaptation Plan for Water Resources, with a focus on monitoring performance and strengthening learning mechanisms. The WRT partners are also working with ANA to develop a toolkit of water resilience solutions for basin managers set to be finalized in early 2027.
Operationalising the 3As: nine system-level indicators
To translate the framework into measurable terms, we developed nine impact-level indicators – one for each combination of the three resilience capacities and JTWS’s three areas of intervention.
| Intervention | Anticipatory | Active | Absorptive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy | Water-related legislation and plans integrate risk reduction measures | Water-related policies and plans revised in response to climate impacts | Policy and public resources ensure continuity of water quantity and quality during shocks |
| Accountability | Catchment-level climate and water risks assessed and acted upon by public and private sector actors | Supply chain standards and practices adapted in response to stresses to safeguard water security for key water users | Supply chain standards and practices ensure continuity of water quantity and quality for key water users |
| Investment | Climate and water risks integrated into investment deal structuring | Investment plans adjusted in response to climate impacts to ensure long-term water resilience | Private and blended investments strengthen the ability of water systems to recover and maintain continuity during shocks |
These indicators do not directly measure improved resilience among people, nor do they substitute for KPI 4 reporting. Instead, they assess whether policies, accountability structures, and investment systems are strengthening in ways that support resilience over time.
How the methodology works in practice
The adapted 3As methodology is applied at the baseline, midline, and endline in each of the JTWS case study countries. Each application:
Assesses at least two of the 3As, depending on programme focus.
Draws on desk reviews and key informant interviews.
Evaluates both broader country progress and JTWS’s plausible contribution.
Includes commentary on whether change is occurring along an inclusive trajectory.
Documents trade-offs, where resilience improves for some users but not others.
A scoring system tracks movement over time. The approach is trajectory-based, recognising that many resilience impacts will materialise beyond the programme’s lifespan. The methodology is currently being tested through JTWS’s baseline assessment.
Reflections on the 3As systems approach
Strengths
Flexibility. The 3As provide a strong conceptual anchor while remaining adaptable.
Alignment with ICF. As the methodology builds on the same 3As analytical framework as KPI 4, it aligns conceptually with existing ICF approaches to resilience measurement.
Suitability for catalytic programmes. The framework enables structured reflection on enabling conditions before downstream outcomes are visible.
Limitations and risks
Adaptation timing and non-linearity. System reforms may take years to influence resilience outcomes, and effects may be non-linear or interrupted by political turnover, financing gaps, or implementation challenges. Positive movement in upstream indicators should therefore be interpreted as evidence of a trajectory towards resilience, not proof that resilience has already improved in practice.
Qualitative judgement. The methodology depends on qualitative evidence and expert assessment. Clear documentation and triangulation are essential to manage subjectivity.
Performance risk. The existence of policies, plans, or coordination mechanisms does not necessarily mean they are implemented effectively or improve resilience in practice. Where possible, the framework should assess not only whether systems exist, but whether they are functioning and influencing decisions. Tracking these indicators over time also helps assess whether systems are evolving and improving in practice.
Attribution challenges. Disentangling programme contribution from broader country dynamics is inherently complex. The framework assesses plausible contribution, not attribution.
Assessing inclusiveness at scale. Distributional impacts may only become visible over time. Meaningfully capturing inclusiveness at a systems level remains an ongoing methodological challenge.
Complementing global efforts: reflections alongside the Global Goal on Adaptation
JTWS partners are also engaged in discussions under the Paris Agreement’s Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), which seeks to establish globally comparable indicators to track progress in adaptation.
In 2025, Parties adopted 59 voluntary indicators to support GGA reporting. These include water-related indicators – largely aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 6 – as well as indicators covering key stages of the adaptation policy cycle, such as risk assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring, and finance. The GGA indicators primarily focus on measuring status and action.
While the GGA framework supports global aggregation and accountability, the adapted 3As methodology used in JTWS is designed for programme-level learning and contextual analysis. Rather than assessing whether policies or systems exist, it asks whether they are strengthening anticipatory, adaptive, and absorptive capacities over time.
Through the Water Resilience Tracker, JTWS partners support countries to strengthen the water dimension of national adaptation planning in alignment with emerging GGA reporting. WRT partners have also developed technical guidance for designing water resilience indicators that align with the GGA while remaining adaptable to national contexts.
The two approaches serve different purposes:
GGA indicators prioritise global aggregation and accountability across countries under the UNFCCC framework.
The adapted 3As methodology prioritises contextual analysis and assessment of whether systems are strengthening anticipatory, adaptive, and absorptive capacities over time.
Looking ahead
As more climate programmes focus on systems change, the sector must grapple with how to assess resilience at multiple scales. The adaptation of the 3As within JTWS represents one attempt to do so and remains a work in progress as it is tested and refined.
We are currently applying this analytical framework through JTWS’s baseline assessment and will share reflections on its application as evidence emerges. Strengthening resilience measurement is a collective endeavour, and continued dialogue will be essential.