How can climate change adaptation be tracked in a structured way? Standard development and environment indicators are unable to reflect the nature of adaptation, which is about capacity, behaviour and risk-reducing measures for the advancement of development outcomes. This chapter presents seven considerations for establishing adaptation monitoring and evaluation (M&E) approaches, and outlines an M&E framework for adaptation – the outcome of applying these considerations in the UNDP context.
Scaling up adaptation mainstreaming and mobilising funds for adaptation will require sound methods and clear results. In developing an M&E framework for adaptation, however, there are conceptual and practical challenges to be addressed. For example, the concept of adaptation is often misunderstood, leading to unrealistic expectations among stakeholders; a clear operational definition needs to be negotiated. Further, adaptive capacity and factors contributing to vulnerability vary greatly, and ‘calibration’ in the face of constantly changing climactic conditions is an ongoing issue.
It is important to recognise that: climate change includes changes in variability; adaptation policy and measures are assessed in a development context, not as freestanding projects; and that adaptation occurs at different scales, including at the local level. In addition, both the strategy and process of adaptation are equally important; stakeholder involvement is needed to help generate immediate, perceived benefits, thus maintaining incentives for continued adaptation so as to meet long-term goals.
The following considerations address the challenges of designing a framework for M&E – at portfolio, programme or project level. They apply both to climate-resilient development (mainstreaming adaptation) and to addressing priority climate change threats (specific adaptation programmes and projects).
- Identify links between development and climate change: Define common objectives, identify entry points for integrating climate change and select development-oriented indicators to validate adaptation over time.
- Focus the scope of adaptation on key sectors, themes or issues (without limiting integration among them): Link adaptation to sectors/themes such as water or agriculture and identify practical entry points and key actors.
- Identify processes, institutions and capacities to strengthen system-wide adaptive capacity. Capacity often relates to decision processes, governance structures and institutions.
- Identify adaptation practices/behaviours related to development outcomes, including the actors involved and the change sought: This involves ensuring that practices that increase vulnerability are adjusted toward practices that enhance resilience.
- Identify adaptation measures necessary to reduce climate-related risks.
- Incorporate climate hazard and capacity/vulnerability factors: Indicators and survey questions should reflect the role of both hazards and vulnerability in resilience.
- Balance quantitative, qualitative and narrative M&E tools to enable triangulation.
When applied to UNDP’s adaptation programme, these considerations resulted in an M&E framework structured around six thematic areas, five adaptation processes and four indicator types. A standard set of indicators was then developed that cover these processes, are applicable across different themes and use a variety of methods.
- Thematic areas: 1) Agriculture/food security; 2) water resources and quality; 3) public health; 4) disaster risk management; 5) coastal zone development; and 6) natural resources management.
- Adaptation processes: 1) Policymaking and planning; 2) capacity development and awareness-raising; 3) information management (including monitoring and analysis); 4) design and decision-making for investments; and 5) risk reduction practices / livelihood activities and/or resource management.
- Indicator types: 1) Coverage (quantitative); 2) impact (quantitative, qualitative, survey-based, narrative); 3) sustainability (quantitative, qualitative, survey-based, narrative); and 4) replicability (quantitative).
For further details, including of the indicators identified, see Jennifer Frankel-Reed’s AdaptNet report (2008). In addition, a partial preview of the chapter is available at Google Books on the link below.
