This paper presents a framework for climate change adaptation programming, including potential indicators, or indicator categories/types, for tracking and evaluating the success of adaptation support and interventions. The framework assesses: a) how well climate risks to development are managed by institutions (‘upstream’ indicators); and b) how successful adaptation interventions are in reducing vulnerability and keeping development ‘on track’ in the face of changing climate risks (‘downstream’ indicators). Its proposed indicators are not intended to substitute for context-sensitive country-level indicators. Rather, they are designed to ‘sweep’ existing frameworks and approaches in order to present an aggregated picture of overall progress towards adaptation goals.
Adaptation initiatives can be placed into three broad categories: 1) addressing the existing ‘adaptation deficit’; 2) managing incremental changes in climate-related risks; and 3) proactively addressing the more profound longer term impacts of climate change by transforming or replacing existing systems and practices.
Most climate change response evaluation frameworks essentially assume that adaptation will ‘neutralise’ the impacts of climate change, enabling development to meet targets that were originally set without any reference to the potential impacts of climate change. Such frameworks underestimate the potential need for transformative change.
The proposed two-track framework for the evaluation of adaptation ‘success’ aims to ensure that adaptation investments lead to climate resilient development and that development trajectories are maintained despite climate change effects. It involves the following elements.
Track 1 – Integration of climate change into policies and institutions:
- Qualitative assessments of the management competency and performance at different points of hierarchy
- Assessment of climate risk management by key national to local authorities
- Tracking of the extent of CRM policy implementation
- Examination of institutional capacity for CRM.
Track 2 – Identification, assessment and aggregation of development and vulnerability indicators:
- Identification of quantitative indicators of development performance and of the climate vulnerability of the climate vulnerable poor.
- Application, where possible, of existing development indicators to climate vulnerable populations.
- Preparation of protocols for collating baseline and monitoring data.
- Tracking changes in the developmental status and vulnerability of the climate vulnerable poor to estimate the costs of climate effects to these groups, and the costs and benefits of adaptation.
- Aggregation across adaptation interventions so as to estimate accumulative climate effects on development.
The following domains for indicators are proposed to evaluate the extent to which climate risk management is integrated into development processes, actions and institutions:
- The use of climate and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) information in policy and programme design
- How well national systems conduct climate risk management functions
- The proportion of development initiatives that are climate-proofed
- Mechanisms for targeting the climate vulnerable poor
- Institutional frameworks of regulatory and legislative support of adaptation
- The effectiveness of macro-economic management for climate resilience.
Suggestions for measures of the developmental impacts of adaptation include:
- Numbers of beneficiaries of climate change adaptation interventions (either absolute or in terms of proportion of national or other population)
- Coverage of climate change adaptation interventions
- Numbers of people experiencing reductions in vulnerability, represented by movement from more vulnerable to less vulnerable categories/scores in key indicators that are defined in particular contexts
- Value of assets and economic activities protected or made less vulnerable as a result of adaptation interventions
- Benefit/cost ratios of adaptation options identified/implemented.
Work remains to be done on evaluating and attributing impacts, both in terms of specific livelihood outcomes and demonstrating causal relationships between upstream and downstream processes. Further:
- The costs associated with defining baselines and indicators in national contexts need to be front-loaded into adaptation investments; it is worth investing up-front to ensure that the evidence base exists to support meaningful evaluation.
- The need to establish baselines should be viewed as an opportunity to build local analytical capacity on climate risk.
- Climate adaptation funds’ M&E and results-based frameworks might be improved by incorporating nationally-developed indicators that track climate risk management, and climate-relevant development and vulnerability indicators.
