회복탄력성 관점에서 바라본 개발도상국의 기후변화 대응 과제와 협력 방안

BSBtf0v2Y5kwC4MqfD4AXA==

연구성과

연구보고서

회복탄력성 관점에서 바라본 개발도상국의 기후변화 대응 과제와 협력 방안 Reframing Climate Resilience in Development Cooperation: Concepts, Measurement, and Policy Directions for Korea

회복탄력성 관점에서 바라본 개발도상국의 기후변화 대응 과제와 협력 방안원문 다운로드 회복탄력성 관점에서 바라본 개발도상국의 기후변화 대응 과제와 협력 방안원문보기

보고서명
회복탄력성 관점에서 바라본 개발도상국의 기후변화 대응 과제와 협력 방안
보고서명(영문)
Reframing Climate Resilience in Development Cooperation: Concepts, Measurement, and Policy Directions for Korea

책임자 이은석
소속기관대외경제정책연구원
내부연구참여자오지영,정지선,이예림
외부연구참여자김유리
발행기관 대외경제정책연구원
ISBN978-89-322-1951-6 94320
출판년도2026
페이지292
보고서유형 기본연구보고서
연구유형 기초
표준분류 경제 > 경제일반
자료유형연구보고서
공공누리유형 4유형 (출처표시+상업적이용금지+변경금지)
주제어ODA, 개발협력, 기후변화, 회복탄력성

조회수

조회수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

4
다운로드

다운로드 수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

0

기후위기가 전 세계적으로 심화되고 개발도상국의 취약성과 대응역량 간 격차가 확대되는 상황에서 ‘회복탄력성(resilience)’은 국제개발협력의 핵심 개념으로 부상하고 있으나, 실제 정책･사업 전반에서 회복탄력성이 정교하게 개념화되거나 체계적으로 적용되지 못하고 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 문제의식을 바탕으로 ‘기후 회복탄력성(climate resilience)’의 개념을 개발협력 맥락에서 체계적으로 재정립하고, 기후 회복탄력성의 측정 방법과 국제사회의 접근 방식, 한국 ODA의 현황과 제약을 종합적으로 분석하였다. 이를 통해 한국의 개발협력에 실질적으로 적용 가능한 구조적･제도적 개선 방안을 제시하는 데 중점을 두었다.
제2장에서는 회복탄력성(resilience) 개념의 이론적 기반과 발전 과정을 살펴보고, 스코핑 리뷰(scoping review)를 통해 다양한 측정지표와 평가 방법을 검토하였다. 기후 회복탄력성의 개념은 단순히 위기에 대응하는 기술적 역량이 아니라, 개인과 사회, 제도, 생태 시스템 전반의 지속가능성을 높이는 통합적인 접근 틀로 발전하고 있으며, OECD의 RSA(Resilience Systems Analysis), 세계은행의 RRS(Resilience Rating System), FAO의 RIMA(Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis), WHO의 HSR(Health System Resilience) 등 국제기구를 중심으로 측정 가능한 개념으로 발전하고 있다. 스코핑 리뷰 결과, 최근 기후 회복탄력성 측정 연구가 증가하고 있으나, 충격 발생 여부에 따른 인과 식별의 어려움, 사회적･제도적 역량의 정량화 한계, 데이터 가용성의 불균형 등이 공통적인 제약으로 나타났다. 표준화된 지표 체계 마련, 객관적･주관적, 양적･질적 데이터의 결합, 시계열적 분석 강화, 그리고 제도적･사회적 역량을 포함하는 포괄적 접근이 요구된다는 점이 향후 기후 회복탄력성 연구와 정책 설계에서 개선해야 할 과제로 도출되었다.
제3장에서는 ND-GAIN과 세계은행 A&R 지수를 활용하여 개발도상국의 기후 취약성과 준비도를 분석하고, OECD CRS 통계의 텍스트 분석을 통해 개발도상국의 기후 회복탄력성 강화를 위한 국제사회의 협력 현황과 시사점을 분석하였다. 국제사회는 기후 회복탄력성 강화를 위해 저소득･취약국 등 기후 고위험 국가를 중점 대상으로 협력을 확대하고 있다. 환경보호, 농업, 에너지, 식수 및 위생 등 기후적응과 직결된 분야에의 지원이 증가하고 있으며, 다자기구나 국제 이니셔티브를 활용한 재원 동원 노력도 계속되고 있다. 대부분의 공여국은 회복탄력성을 경제･사회･생태계･제도 전반을 아우르는 통합적 개념으로 인식하고, 인프라 구축과 인적 역량 강화뿐 아니라 제도의 개선과 이행을 포함한 종합적인 지원 접근을 취하고 있다. 동시에, 기후 회복탄력성 평가에서 다수의 개발도상국에서 제도 이행･기술 역량, 재원 부족이 약점으로 지적된 만큼, 정책 이행과 기술 역량 강화를 위한 분야 간 연계와 현지 특성에 맞춘 접근의 필요성을 확인하였다. 다만, 지원의 성과를 평가할 수 있는 명확한 성과지표의 미비, 수원국 역량 강화 부족, 데이터 기반의 정책결정 한계 등은 전반적인 한계로 나타났다.
제4장에서는 한국의 기후 회복탄력성 ODA 추진 현황, 전략･지표 체계, 사업 사례를 종합적으로 분석하였다. 한국의 ODA는 2015년 이후 기후･회복력 관련 사업이 증가했으나, 기후(C-only)･회복력(R-only)･기후 회복력(CR) 사업 간 구분이 불명확하며, 회복탄력성 개념이 사업 설계나 PDM, 성과지표에 충분히 내재화되지 않은 경우가 많았다. 한국은 최근 그린 ODA 확대, 기후변화 대응 강화, 취약국 지원 전략 수립 등을 통해 기후 관련 협력의 범위를 넓혀가고 있으나, 정책 문서와 사업 수준에서 회복탄력성 개념이 체계적으로 반영된 사례는 아직 제한적이다. 국제개발협력 중기전략과 CPS 등 상위 문서에서는 ‘기후변화 대응’이나 ‘지속가능성’이 반복적으로 언급되지만, 회복탄력성을 명시적 목표나 지표로 설정한 경우는 드물다. 한편 사업에서는 회복탄력성의 요소가 점차 확대되고 있다. 농업 분야에서 기후스마트 농업과 지역공동체 기반 대응체계, 보건 분야의 감염병 감시체계와 보건시스템 강화, WASH 분야에서는 식수 관리와 지역 운영관리체계 개선 등 회복력 강화를 목표로 하는 사업들이 증가해 왔다. 아직 사업의 논리모형이나 성과관리에 회복탄력성의 개념이 체계적으로 내재화되지는 못하였으나, 정책과 사업을 연계하여 기후 회복탄력성을 통합적으로 접근할 수 있는 가능성을 확인하였다.
이러한 연구 결과를 종합하여 제5장 결론에서는 ‘기후 회복탄력성’의 핵심 구성요소와 작동 메커니즘, 측정･관리의 중요성, 분야별 적용 가능성을 체계적으로 정리하고, 이를 바탕으로 정책･전략 수준과 사업 수준에서 필요한 제도적 내재화 방향과 실질적 통합 방안을 제시하였다. 특히 상위 정책･전략에서 회복탄력성을 명확히 반영하는 구조적 개선과 더불어, 사업 단계에서는 위험분석, 변화이론(ToC) 기반의 설계, 성과지표 개발, 데이터 관리체계 강화 등 구체적 실행 과제를 제안하였다.

As climate change intensifies globally, developing countries face increasingly complex and compounding challenges. Widening gaps between their exposure to climate risks and their capacity to respond threaten to reverse decades of development gains and undermine sustainable development pathways. In this context, 'climate resilience' has emerged as a central concept in development cooperation, encompassing not only the capacity to withstand climate shocks but also the ability to adapt and pursue transformative change in response to long-term climate stress. Despite its growing prominence in international discourse, however, the concept has not been sufficiently translated into operational frameworks and measurable practices. Within Korea's ODA system in particular, climate resilience has yet to be systematically developed as an analytical and operational framework: it frequently appears in policy language and project titles without being meaningfully embedded in strategic design, results frameworks, or performance management. This conceptual ambiguity limits the effectiveness of climate resilience investments and undermines accountability for results.
This study addresses this gap by systematically reconceptualizing climate resilience within the context of development cooperation. It examines how the concept has evolved theoretically, how it has been measured in academic literature and by international organizations, how it is reflected in global cooperation trends, and how it is currently positioned within Korea's ODA system. On the basis of these analyses, the study proposes policy directions for the structural and operational integration of climate resilience into Korea's development cooperation.
Chapter 2 examines the conceptual foundations and measurement of climate resilience. Originally rooted in ecology as a concept describing a system's capacity to recover from disturbance, resilience has been progressively extended into the social, economic, and institutional domains. In international development, it now encompasses a multi-dimensional set of capacities: the ability to anticipate and prepare for climate risks, to absorb shocks when they occur, to adapt over time, and to pursue transformative change toward more sustainable configurations. This expanded understanding is reflected in the frameworks developed by major international organizations, including the OECD's Resilience Systems Analysis (RSA), the World Bank's Resilience Rating System (RRS), FAO's Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA), and the WHO's Health Systems Resilience (HSR) approach. These frameworks have contributed to translating the concept into measurable terms relevant to development programming.
To map the current state of climate resilience measurement in the academic literature, this study conducted a scoping review of 52 peer-reviewed articles published between 2015 and 2025. In terms of definition, most studies emphasize absorptive and adaptive functions, while a smaller but growing share incorporates transformative capacity; a notable proportion, however, leaves the concept undefined. The concept is most frequently applied in sectors such as agriculture, urban systems, disaster risk management, water resources, and public health, with heat stress, flooding, and drought as dominant hazards. While household and individual levels remain the primary units of analysis, studies also extend to urban, national, and governance-system levels. Resilience is consistently measured as a multi-dimensional construct, most commonly organized around social, physical, economic, environmental, institutional, and human capital dimensions, and often structured through established frameworks such as the five capitals model or the absorptive–adaptive–transformative typology. Methodologically, composite indices remain prevalent, with secondary data most commonly used (46.2%), followed by primary data (38.5%) and mixed approaches (15.4%), alongside a growing use of mixed methods and satellite-derived data. Persistent limitations include the difficulty of capturing institutional and social dimensions, limited longitudinal data, and the lack of standardized frameworks for cross-context comparison.
In Chapter 3, the study turns to the international landscape of climate resilience cooperation in developing countries. Using indices such as ND-GAIN and the World Bank's Adaptation and Resilience (A&R) Index, the analysis finds that climate vulnerability is most acute in low-income, fragile, and climate-exposed countries, where institutional capacity and governance constraints significantly limit resilience outcomes. A striking pattern is that many developing countries have made measurable progress in formulating climate adaptation plans and policies, yet continue to face significant gaps in implementation capacity, highlighting the need for ODA to move beyond policy support and strengthen the institutional and technical systems required for effective action.
International cooperation has increasingly focused on these high-risk contexts, with growing investments in sectors directly linked to climate adaptation, including agriculture, water, energy, and water and sanitation (WASH). Text analysis of OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) project descriptions reveals that two themes emerge as dominant in reported activities: food security and community-based climate adaptation on one hand, and institutional capacity and organizational resilience on the other. Donor approaches have also evolved toward more integrated and system-oriented strategies, combining infrastructure development with capacity building and institutional strengthening. At the same time, important limitations persist: clear and standardized resilience indicators are often absent, capacity-building efforts are rarely linked to measurable outcomes, and long-term impact monitoring remains weak across most donor programs.
Chapter 4 evaluates Korea's development cooperation practice through the lens of climate resilience. Statistical analysis of Korea's ODA portfolio from 2015 to 2024 shows that while climate-related (C) and resilience-related (R) projects have each expanded considerably, projects that explicitly address both dimensions together (CR projects) account for roughly one percent of total ODA by volume. KOICA and EDCF together implement the great majority of CR-coded projects, concentrated in environment, infrastructure, agriculture, water and sanitation, and health. At the strategic level, while 'climate change response' and 'green ODA' feature prominently in key policy documents, ‘resilience’ as a clearly defined and operationalized concept remains largely absent. This partly reflects insufficient recognition within Korea's development cooperation system of the urgency and centrality of climate resilience as a cross-cutting concern. Only four of 26 Country Partnership Strategies (CPS) systematically reflect a climate resilience perspective. This points to the need to reframe climate resilience not as a sub-category of climate adaptation, but as a core integrating framework for sustainable development.
Case study analysis of six representative projects—spanning health, agriculture, water and sanitation, infrastructure, and ecosystem restoration across Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia—reveals a mixed picture. Positive examples exist: the Amazon health project explicitly defined climate resilience in its design rationale and applied WHO-based composite indicators to track resilience outcomes, while the Guatemala GCF project integrated ecological, economic, and social dimensions of resilience into its project logic. However, many projects continue to treat resilience as a label added onto conventional sector projects without meaningfully redefining the underlying project logic. Climate resilience is often absent from the problem analysis and logic model, and key assumptions in the PDM rarely reflect the climate risks and vulnerabilities that define the operating context. This is critical because projects targeting climate-exposed communities depend on well-specified assumptions about external conditions; when those conditions change, as they frequently do, only projects with adaptive management mechanisms built in are equipped to respond. The most pervasive weakness remains the absence of medium- and long-term outcome indicators, leaving results frameworks output-focused and ill-suited for tracking systemic resilience gains.
Chapter 5 synthesizes the study's findings and proposes an integrated analytical framework for climate resilience in development cooperation. The study argues that climate resilience is best understood along three defining axes: the subject of resilience (who or what must become more resilient), the object (resilience to what types of climate risks), and the means (how resilience capacities are built and strengthened). Subjects range from individuals and households through communities, national institutions, ecosystems, to interconnected socio-economic systems as a whole. Objects encompass acute climate shocks, such as floods and droughts, alongside chronic stressors like rising temperatures, groundwater depletion, and land degradation, as well as cascading indirect impacts such as food insecurity, disease outbreaks, displacement, and institutional failure. Means are organized along the well-established trajectory from anticipation and prevention, through absorptive and adaptive capacities, to long-run transformative change.
The chapter introduces a conceptual pathway model illustrating how the level of a society's climate resilience determines the development trajectory it follows after a climate shock. At the high-resilience end of the spectrum, a system experiences limited decline, recovers quickly, and ultimately reaches a higher developmental equilibrium than before. In contrast, systems with weak resilience may experience sharp and prolonged decline, permanent loss of previously achieved gains, or an inability to recover without major external intervention. This framing highlights that the goal of climate resilience programming in development cooperation is not simply to minimize damage, but to ensure that development gains are stable, durable, and capable of continuing to advance even in the face of recurring climate stress. The chapter further provides sector-specific guidance for agriculture, health, water and sanitation (WASH), and transport infrastructure.
The study concludes with policy recommendations at two levels. The most immediate priority at the policy and strategy level is to establish climate resilience as an explicit and operational objective. This should be reflected in Korea’s development cooperation strategies, sector guidelines, and country partnership strategies, supported by cross-agency coordination among KOICA, EDCF, and other relevant actors. At the project level, the study calls for a fundamental shift in how climate resilience is treated within the project cycle: from a label applied to titles and descriptions, to a design principle embedded throughout problem analysis, project logic and assumptions, and monitoring and evaluation systems. Ultimately, climate resilience should become not just the goal of select projects, but the operating logic of Korean development cooperation as a whole. It is an essential condition for delivering lasting, system-level impact in an era of accelerating climate risk.

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

별점5점만점에 5점 별점5점만점에 4점 별점5점만점에 3점 별점5점만점에 2점 별점5점만점에 1점

의견(0)

연구성과에 따른 의견과 무관한 글, 선정적인 글 및 비방글 등의 게시물은 관리자에 의해 언제든 삭제 조치 될 수 있으며, 주민등록번호 형식 및 연속된 숫자 13자리는 입력할 수 없습니다.

입력 가능 Byte : 4000 Byte 현재 입력 Byte : 0 Byte

자동등록방지 숫자를 순서대로 입력하세요.

NKIS 국가정책연구포털

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

연구보고서

회복탄력성 관점에서 바라본 개발도상국의 기후변화 대응 과제와 협력 방안

Reframing Climate Resilience in Development Cooperation: Concepts, Measurement, and Policy Directions for Korea

국문초록

영문초록

목차

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

연구보고서

정책연구자료

세미나

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

의견(0)