CGE Training Materials for Vulnerability and Adaptation ...€¦ · Web viewFurther guidance on the application of multi-criteria assessments, and different types of such assessments,

CGE TRAINING MATERIALS FOR VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT

Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation

CONTENTS

9.1 INTRODUCTION 1

9.2 INTEGRATION 1

9.2.1 Integrating VULNERABILITY Assessment Outcomes 2

9.2.2 Integrating Adaptation Outcomes 9

9.2.3 Cost Benefit Analysis 11

9.3 MAINSTREAMING 12

9.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 16

9.5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 21

9.6 References 23

i


9.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of three interrelated components:

Integration; Mainstreaming; Monitoring and evaluation.

Integration, in this context, refers to the analysis of vulnerability and adaptation (V&A) assessment outcomes across sectors. The aim of integration is to understand the interrelationships between sector-specific climate change and the relative importance of risks to help inform impact and adaptation priorities. Mainstreaming focuses on tools and approaches to incorporate V&A assessment outcomes in national planning – thus ensuring that climate change is considered in development priorities. Finally, monitoring and evaluation is concerned with the process of review and reporting on adaptation implementation and using this process to improve adaptive decision-making.

9.2 INTEGRATION

As chapters 5–8 have clearly demonstrated, climate change impacts do not happen in isolation from each other. What happens in one sector, or region, can affect other sectors or regions. Indeed, impacts that are the result of a climate impact on another sector, region or population can be as important as the direct effects of climate change. For example, as clearly demonstrated in chapter 6, irrigated agriculture could be more sensitive to reduced deliveries of water for irrigation if climate change resulted in a decline in run-off than to the effect of higher temperatures on crop yields.

It is important for policy makers and other stakeholders to understand how a sector, community, region or nation could be affected in total by climate change, and what the total impact may be. This can be useful to understand the severity of climate change, to set policy goals for adaptation and mitigation, and to understand how climate change could affect sustainable development (e.g. meeting Millennium Development Goals). In addition, it may be important to know how different sectors, regions or populations compare in terms of relative vulnerability to help set priorities for adaptation that can guide the allocation of adaptation financing appropriately.

Approaches to integration are discussed separately for (i) impacts and (ii) adaptation.

Page 1


9.2.1 INTEGRATING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES

In broad terms, the outcomes of vulnerability assessment undertaken in different sectors, such as health, water and agriculture can be integrated in two ways:

(i) Cross-sectoral;

(ii) Multi-sectoral integration.

Cross-sectoral integration involves integrating impacts across related sectors. These are sectors that can be directly affected by climate change and by climate change impacts in other sectors. Cross-sectoral integration involves examining a small number of sectors that are strongly interrelated, such as water and health. For example, human health can be affected by changes in water resource management. Similarly, human health can be affected by decreases in food security, as a result of declines in agricultural production. Chapter 8 provides further information on the linkages between the implications of climate change on human health and their relationships with other climate change impacts.

The second type of integration, multi-sector integration, involves combining results across all impacts in all sectors. The objective is to estimate the total effects of climate change or to compare relative impacts and vulnerabilities across sectors. This can involve examining impacts across sectors using a common method to sum, compare or contrast results following sector-specific vulnerability assessments. Alternatively, integrated approaches can be used to inform vulnerability assessments overall, helping to ‘frame’ the approaches used and to ensure that V&A is undertaken in an integrated manner from the beginning.

CROSS-SECTORAL INTEGRATION

In early national communications there was often a strong sectoral assessment component to V&A that resulted in challenges in drawing linkages between sectors. As the understanding of the linkages of climate change vulnerabilities across sectors has increased – for example, the links between agricultural impacts, water and health in rural communities – sectoral assessments (chapters 5–8) are increasingly seeking to address such cross-sectoral issues.

As a result, many recently submitted national communications now mention that some consideration of integration and/or inter-sectoral interactions and dependencies has been undertaken, albeit at a strategic level. For example, the second national communication of Malaysia states:

“Using a sector dependence approach wherein mutual reliance amongst sectors is considered, all sectors are found to be directly dependent on water resources, energy and the public health sectors.”

Page 2


Consequently, the assessment of cross-sectoral integration has tended to use qualitative methods that involve identifying links between sectors and highlighting the direction of impacts. These rely on application of expert judgement that can be undertaken by the national communications project team, or through an extended process using a broader group of stakeholders. Often, if such broader engagement processes are used there is wider view taken of all sectoral dependencies and interactions – rather than just between one or two sectors – and as such these processes become multi-sectoral analyses (as outlined in the multi-sector integration section).

Quantitative cross-sectoral integration approaches can be used to link the outputs from quantitative impact assessment models from one sector into quantitative impact assessment models from related sectors. In practice, the time, cost and effort required to consider undertaking such quantitative analysis between two sectors stimulates consideration of multiple sectoral interactions. As such, the use of quantitative integration approaches are generally applied to multi-sectoral integration analyses, as shown in the next section.

MULTISECTOR INTEGRATION

The purpose of multi-sector integration is to help understand how a society as a whole might be affected by climate change. It is intended to help understand the breadth of climate change impacts (e.g. what sectors, regions, populations might be affected) and the potential severity of impacts (e.g. how many people could be harmed, how much might economic output be changed). In addition, multi-sector integration can be applied to determine relative vulnerabilities across sectors. The intention of such integration is to both highlight priorities of specific impacts and also to ensure that the inter-dependence of impacts is explicitly considered.

To be effective, multi-sector integration should be as comprehensive as possible, covering as many affected sectors, regions and populations as possible.

The simplest, and most often used in national communications by non-Annex I Parties, is to use a narrative-based cross-sectoral analysis – or one that ‘tells the story’ of how sectoral impacts are judged to interact, and the implications of such interactions. The great majority of recently submitted national communications use this approach to discuss multi-sectoral dependencies and interactions, and describe how this narrative assessment has helped shape adaptation priorities.

An extension of the qualitative narrative-based multi-sectoral analysis is to use a set of common metrics to provide additional rigour to the assessment. Such ranking approaches can employ a range of qualitative indices through ‘multi-criteria analysis’. This approach has been used by least developed countries (LDCs) in the national

Page 3


adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs)1 and also by a number of non-Annex I Parties in their national communications.

An example of a simple approach to relative vulnerability ranking is shown in Table 9 - 1 which can be used for ranking current or future vulnerability. The first column of the table lists the sectors of concern, such as coastal resources, water resources, agriculture and human health. For each, current vulnerability can be ranked on a scale from low to high for various categories. Social impacts indicate human vulnerability. The rank assigned indicates the typical climate impact (e.g. the impact of reduced run-off on malnutrition, or how many lives may be lost because of flooding events). Economic vulnerability ranks the magnitude of climate impacts on, for example, agricultural livelihoods and industrial processes. The rank indicates the magnitude of climate impacts (e.g. how changes in water resources have affected sorghum production with subsequent contraction of the workforce, or infrastructure damage due to coastal inundation). Environmental impacts include effects on ecosystems, such as soil erosion and desertification. Other impacts can also be considered (e.g. how drought could affect the ability to meet Millennium Development Goals). The rankings can then be summed to provide a qualitative assessment of vulnerability.

Table 9-: Ranking vulnerability across multiple sectors

Sector Social impacts

Economic impacts

Environmental impacts

Other impacts Ranking

Water resources

Coastal Resources

Agriculture

Human Health

This approach to qualitative multiple-sectoral assessment can be used to examine the cross-linkages between sectors. For example, in the V&A assessment of the Bhutan’s second national communication section 4.9 Cross-cutting Issues (p.106), states:

1 <http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/ldc/application/pdf/annguide.pdf>.

Page 4


“It is expected that climate change impacts and vulnerabilities will not occur in isolation. Non-climate factors, linkages between sectors, as for instance the link between glaciers and GLOFs and water resources and energy production and the subsequent impacts on agriculture and human health and settlements should also be taken into consideration.”

As a result, Bhutan’s second national communication2 prepared a matrix to analyse the linkages between the different sectors in this assessment presented in Table 9-. Importantly, the analysis in Bhutan provided the context for including specific reference to cross-cutting sectors within the sectoral adaptation priorities.

Table 9-: Bhutan cross-linkages between targeted sectors (Bhutan, second national communication)

The Second national communication for Colombia3 used an innovative process to explicitly address integrated vulnerability themes (Figure 9-). Colombia used a broad consensus-building approach within a risk-based framework (see chapter 2) to develop a method to estimate and provide an integrated evaluation of vulnerability “to allow comparisons to be made and assign values for different sectors, ecosystems and institutions in the face of climate change.”

To do this, Columbia used the outputs of climate change models (see chapter 4) to develop sensitivity index (ISA) to the relative affectation index (IRA) that was:

“… based on the discussion and consensus of more than 80 professionals in different sectors and specialties; the intention was to introduce priorities with

2 <www.nec.gov.bt/climate/snc/>

3 http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/items/2979.php

Page 5


using the judgement of experts to identify each of the coverage, ecosystems or territories which might suffer impact from adverse events in climate change in the worst scenario.” (Second national communication for Colombia, Executive Summary p.57)

Figure 9-: Integrated multi-sectoral vulnerability assessment process used in the Colombia second national communication

The most complex form of multi-sectoral analysis is to undertake integrated assessment of economic impacts as the common ‘currency’ across sectors and areas, using benefit/cost approaches. For example, under the World Bank Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC)4 programme, seven country-level assessments (Mozambique, Ghana, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Bolivia and Samoa) were undertaken in parallel to a global-level economic analysis.

For Samoa, EACC applied records of past economic loss due to natural disasters to develop a macro-economic model of the interactions between climate and the economy.

4 <http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/country-case-studies-economics-adaptation-climate-change>.

Page 6

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/country-case-studies-economics-adaptation-climate-change

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/country-case-studies-economics-adaptation-climate-change


The estimated costs of impact without adaptation and with adaptation were compared. In addition, the study applied a cost-benefit test to assess the appropriate timing of adaptation projects identified in Samoa’s NAPA (World Bank, 2010b). Such data and modelling intensive approaches are valuable in communicating the need for adaptation and can inform policy design.

In the Ethiopian EACC project, an economy-wide modelling exercise was undertaken which linked a dynamic multi-sectoral and multi-regional computable general equilibrium model (CGE) with a range of sectoral climate change impact models that generate quantitative estimates of effects on water systems, agriculture, hydro-energy and road transport infrastructure (World Bank 2010a) (Figure 9-).

Figure 9- Flow chart of model sequencing (World Bank, 2010a)

Page 7


The use of integrated economic assessments is an emerging approach within non-Annex I Parties, given both the technical capacities required, the data requirements and also the treatment of ‘non-market’ values, such as ecosystem services and social/cultural values. There is clearly a trend towards the use of such models, and it is likely that specific training and capacity-building activities will take place in coming years.

9.2.2 INTEGRATING ADAPTATION OUTCOMES

The exercise of setting priorities across vulnerabilities, as outlined in the previous section, can be particularly useful for identifying which adaptation options are considered of highest priority and which adaptive actions can be considered as addressing ‘key’ vulnerabilities. There are a variety of approaches to assist in setting priorities among adaptation measures, including:

Screening tools; Multi-criteria assessment; Benefit-cost analysis.

These tools can be used either as extensions of the same (or similar) approaches used in helping to consider the multi-sectoral integration of vulnerability assessments, or as stand alone adaptation assessments. Ideally, the choice of tool to help prioritize adaptation actions (by either absolute priority or the urgency of implementation) will link to tools used for assessing relative vulnerabilities.

Adaptation actions can be organized by sector, vulnerability or region, depending on decision-making preferences. Evaluating and ranking adaptation options can be useful for setting priorities for domestic action.

There is no right or wrong way to evaluate adaptation options and set priorities. However, involvement of stakeholders is critical because any ranking of adaptation options will involve value judgements. Importantly, LDC Parties that have prepared NAPAs (and in the future national adaptation plans (NAPs) may build on the information contained in these documents to prepare subsequent national communications.

SCREENING ANALYSIS

One simple method is the screening analysis. It involves answering yes/no questions about adaptation options. Those options with the most yes’s can either be given the highest priority or be subject to more rigorous analysis, such as multi-criteria assessment or benefit–cost analysis. The matrix prepared by Antigua and Barbuda (Table 9-) as part of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Country Studies Program is an example of application of a screening analysis.

Page 8


Table 9-: Screening matrix used in Antigua and Barbuda (Mizina et al., 1999)

(Note: Italics indicate adaptation measures that ranked highest)

High priority means that adaptation needs to be addressed now, or soon, rather than delayed. A target of opportunity is a decision that is being made now to address other issues that are sensitive to climate, and should consider climate change. The other categories are self-explanatory.

MULTICRITERIA ASSESSMENT

A more quantitative approach to evaluating adaptations is multi-criteria assessment . This can be a particularly good tool to use with stakeholders who can identify criteria to be

Page 9


used in assessing adaptations. The criteria need not be measured using common metrics. The stakeholders can rank how well each adaptation does in meeting the criteria, using an ordinal (e.g. high, medium or low) or quantitative scale (e.g. 1–5). If a quantitative scale is used, scores can be summed to determine which options are the highest priority. Criteria can be weighted to reflect relative importance. Adaptation options can also be evaluated for different climate change scenarios. Results can be added using weights for likelihood of the scenarios (or also considering present climate and weighting it based on its importance relative to the climate change scenarios).

Further guidance on the application of multi-criteria assessments, and different types of such assessments, are provided in the UNFCCC Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change5.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Cost-effectiveness analysis typically involves comparing the relative costs of different options that achieve the same or similar outcomes. For example, analysis of the relative costs of options to protect coastal areas would fall into the category of cost-effectiveness analysis (provided the outcomes of the options are similar) . One form of cost-effectiveness analysis is to examine the relative costs of achieving a certain outcome, such as saving a human life. Cost-effectiveness analysis would examine the ‘costs per life saved’ as a way of comparing the cost-effectiveness of options.

Further guidance on the application of cost-effectiveness analysis is provided in the UNFCCC Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change.

9.2.3 COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is the most in-depth type of analysis that can help prioritize adaptive actions. The key advantage is that, because benefits of adaptation actions are expressed in monetary terms and used to compare these with the costs of inaction, a powerful case can be made for the ‘economic efficiency’ of adaptive actions. Such analyses have been developed in some Annex I countries within the broader context of assessing the relative costs of mitigation and adaptation, for example the Stern Review on the economics of climate change in the UK.6 5 www.unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_workprogramme/compendium_on_methods_tools/items/2674.php >.

6 Stern, N., S. Peters, V. Bakhshi, A. Bowen, C. Cameron, S. Catovsky, D. Crane, S.Cruickshank, S. Dietz, N. Edmonson, S.-L. Garbett, L. Hamid, G. Hoffman, D. Ingram, B. Jones, N. Patmore, H. Radcliffe, R. Sathiyarajah, M. Stock, C. Taylor, T. Vernon, H. Wanjie, and D. Zenghelis (2006), Stern

Page 10

http://www.unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_workprogramme/compendium_on_methods_tools/items/2674.php

http://www.unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_workprogramme/compendium_on_methods_tools/items/2674.php


However, for CBA to be meaningful it requires expression of all benefits (e.g. avoided adverse impacts from an adaptation) and costs in a common metric, to allow benefits and costs to be compared to estimate whether the benefits exceed the costs. This may be straightforward if benefits concern goods bought and sold in markets: these have well-established prices. Other benefits that are not bought and sold in markets, such as illness, human life and biodiversity, are more difficult to express in monetary terms.

Further guidance on the application of CBA analysis is provided in the UNFCCC Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change. In addition, the World Bank Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change reports provide a valuable resource on the theory, methods and constraints of the practical application of CBA in assessing potential adaptive actions.

9.3 MAINSTREAMING

Adaptation mainstreaming is defined by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as:

“The iterative process of integrating adaptation considerations into policy-making, budgeting and implementation processes at national, sector and subnational levels. It is a multi-year, multi-stakeholder effort that entails working with government actors (head of state’s office, environment, finance and planning bodies, sector and subnational bodies, political parties and parliament, national statistics office and judicial system), non-governmental actors (civil society, academia, business and industry, general public and communities, and the media) and development actors. (UNDP, 2007)

Mainstreaming is the process of integrating climate concerns and adaptation responses into relevant policies, plans, programmes, and projects at the national, subnational and local scales (USAID, 2009). The concept developed based on the recognition that adaptation measures are rarely implemented solely in response to climate change. Rather, adaptation measures also commonly achieve other development benefits through a focus addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability (see chapter 2). A useful way of assessing climate change is through consideration of strategic and operational scales. Strategic mainstreaming refers to the incorporating of climate change within policies and plans, while operational mainstreaming can refer to the evaluation of risks to achievement of development objectives associated with climate variability and change, and identifying effective, efficient and equitable measures to deal with those changes.

Review: The Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London.

Page 11


Adaptation strategies for climate change can also be made more effective when all the parties can be affected, participate in a decision-making process. There are significant socio-economic differentiations between men and women that are also deeply rooted in social structures around the world. These include differences in access to and control of resources and education, as well as unequal opportunities to participate and influence the decision-making process. In this respect, it is critical to also take the following into account:

Access, control and distribution of benefits;

Levels of vulnerability, resilience and autonomy of men and women when confronted with different threats;

Importance of local knowledge for socio-economic development;

Subsistence and adaptation gender strategies.

The UNDP mainstreaming framework outlines three components to effective climate change mainstreaming (Box 9-) (UNDP, 2007).

Box 9-: UNDP mainstreaming framework

1. Finding the entry points and making the case is concerned with setting the stage for mainstreaming. It involves understanding the linkages between climate change and national development priorities and understanding the governmental, institutional and political contexts that inform efforts to define pro-poor adaptation outcomes, find entry points into development planning, and make the case for adaptation mainstreaming.

2. Mainstreaming adaptation into policy processes focuses on integrating climate change adaptation issues into an on-going policy process, such as a national development plan or sector strategy, based on country-specific evidence (i.e. impact, vulnerability and adaptation assessments, socio-economic analysis and demonstration projects).

3. Meeting the implementation challenge aims at ensuring mainstreaming of climate change adaptation into budgeting and financing, implementation and monitoring, and the establishment of mainstreaming as standard practice.

Mainstreaming climate change should be viewed as a process. While it is important to assess progress in mainstreaming (through the incorporation of climate change into sector policies and national plans), it is also important to monitor the ‘process’ of mainstreaming. CARE (2009) outline a number of elements that provide an enabling environment for mainstreaming at the strategic level:

Page 12


Staff and financial resources: additional work and increased responsibility will be required to incorporate climate change adaptation across all sector programmes. Increased budgets may also be required to employ additional project officers;

Leadership: it is important that there are ‘champions’ to promote climate change adaptation within the national government. Without champions the issues will struggle to gain profile in the short-term, and in the long-term it may be difficult to achieve coordination and monitoring of progress;

Skills and knowledge: there is a need to understand the importance and relevance of climate change to achieving sustainable development. Such skills and knowledge are crucial to increasing understanding, ownership and effective implementation of adaptation. Capacity can be developed through: briefings; training materials; short courses for staff and partners; and regular knowledge and information exchange between staff and partners working in different sectors and in ‘lessons learned’;

Time: building ownership of climate change adaptation and subsequently achieving ‘full integration’ is a process that will take time. Understanding how this change can be achieved and how to manage the change will require continued dialogue within the organization to assess progress and approaches.

For information on approaches to monitor the progress in mainstreaming, refer to section 9.4 – Monitoring and evaluation. There is a broad range of information available to support Parties mainstreaming climate change adaptation actions. A selection of these is shown in Table 9-.

Table 9-: Selected resources on mainstreaming climate change

Resource Year Description Link

UNDP-UNEP

Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning: A Guide for Practitioners

2011 Practical guidance document on the concepts, methods and approaches for mainstreaming

<http://www.unpei.org/knowledge-resources/publications.html>

CARE International

2009 The handbook provides a comprehensive understanding of what mainstreaming climate change

<http://www.careclimatechange.org/

Page 13

http://www.careclimatechange.org/adaptation/integration-initiatives


http://www.unpei.org/knowledge-resources/publications.html




Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation: A Practioner’s Handbook

adaptation means, as well as detailed guidance on how mainstreaming climate change adaptation can be put into practice. While the handbook was designed for CARE programme management staff and project partners, it provides a good introduction to the mainstreaming climate change into projects and programmes

adaptation/integration-initiatives>

GIZ: International Workshop on Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change: Guidance and Tools

2009 Presents outcomes of stock-take assessment of climate-mainstreaming tools (largely vulnerability and adaptation assessment tools) and methods. Annex 1 provides an overview of each tool, target group, costs, and levels of expertise required for implementation

<http://www.gtz.de/en/28511.htm>

USAID

Adapting to Coastal Climate Change

A guidebook for development planners

2009 The Guidance Manual is aimed at USAID country missions to assist in the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation in all projects. Chapter 4 is specifically focused on climate change mainstreaming. The chapter highlights entry points to mainstream climate change, at national, sector and local scales

<http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/water/news_announcements/coastal_climate_change_report.html>

OECD

Policy Guidance on Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Cooperation

2009 Excellent resource that provides recommendations to integrate climate change into national, sectoral and project levels. Presents key challenges and priorities for action

<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/9/43652123.pdf>

Page 14

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/9/43652123.pdf



http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/water/news_announcements/coastal_climate_change_report.html



http://www.gtz.de/en/28511.htm






9.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

This section focuses on the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) aspects of implementation of the priority adaptation measures identified through the national communication process.

M&E is a performance assessment tool that informs management, learning and accountability. M&E can enhance the effectiveness of adaptation programmes, policies and strategies by establishing links between past, present and future interventions (adaptive actions) and results (UNDP, 2009). It provides insight into the effectiveness and efficiency of adaptation activities, by defining if they are delivering progress towards their objectives in the most effective manner.

The aim of monitoring and evaluating adaptation interventions is to:

Improve future programmes and projects through feedback of lessons learned; Provide a basis for accountability, including the provision of information to the public; Inform policy and practice; To test assumptions and create opportunities for learning.

Specifically, monitoring is an on-going activity that aims to provide early indications of progress, or lack thereof, in achievement of results. Monitoring can include assessment of inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. Evaluation aims to systematically and objectively assess progress towards, and achievement of, outcomes (UNDP, 2009).

Thus, from the perspective of climate change adaptation, M&E is the process of reviewing and analysing adaptation measures to determine whether they are achieving intended outcomes. M&E can lead to a number of benefits including providing outputs to communicate performance and inform the design and implementation of new adaptation policies (Table 9-).

Table 9-: What motivates evaluation and what are the benefits (modified from USAID, 2009)

Type of activity Motivation for evaluation Benefits of evaluation

Place-based plan or programme

• Planned/regular review

• Special request from government

• Unanticipated (e.g. result of natural disaster)

• Communicate performance

• Adjust design of adaptation measures

• Adjust implementation strategy

Page 15


• Identify and implement emergency measures

• Compile lessons learned

• Replicate plan or programme

National/regional policy

• Planned/regular review

• Special request from government

• Unanticipated (e.g. result of natural disaster)

• Communicate performance

• Guide design and implementation of new policies and adaptation measures

• Identify and implement emergency measures

• Compile lessons learned

To monitor and evaluate performance, it is important to be clear on what the adaptation action is aiming to achieve. Adaptation actions should be linked to intended outputs, outcomes and impacts. This is commonly achieved through development of a logical framework.

There are a number of recognized barriers to monitoring and evaluating climate change adaptation (Box 9-). However, the field of monitoring and evaluating adaptation interventions is rapidly evolving and there are a number of resources that can provide guidance (refer to Table 9-).

Box 9-: Challenges to monitoring and evaluation adaptation (Gigli, 2008; OECD, 2009)

Challenges related to measuring the performance of adaptation interventions, includes difficulties in clearly:

Defining adaptation goals and objectives (i.e. what is successful/effective adaptation?);

Defining success against uncertainty of impacts and moving baselines of climate conditions and disaster risk;

Page 16


Determining adequate timing for the evaluation of adaptation activities to derive a useful measure of effectiveness and efficiency of the intervention;

Accounting for the reverse logic phenomenon (i.e. how to measure success if the event addressed by the intervention does not occur?);

Distinguishing a project’s contribution to particular development outcomes in light of many other influencing factors (attribution gap);

Identifying conclusive indicators for the performance and obtain the necessary reliable and measurable data.

There are four key steps to M&E for the specific purpose of reporting on implementation of adaptation priorities identified in the national communications:

Establish monitoring and evaluation

The first task is to incorporate adaptation priorities within a logical framework, specifying the activities, inputs, intended outputs and outcomes. In addition, baselines highlighting current conditions and indicators to monitor progress should be aligned to outputs and outcomes. There are no agreed baselines or indicators to measure progress in building climate change resilience. Rather, appropriate indicators will be context specific and should be selected based on an understanding of the principles of good M&E.

A core component of an M&E framework is the selection of appropriate and measurable indicators. While outputs and outcomes outline what the activity hopes to achieve, indicators show how results will be measured. Indicators can be used to prioritize inputs and communicate outcomes (Lamhauge et al., 2011).

Evaluation questions can also be used to monitor progress towards achievement of outcomes. Evaluative questions are defined based on criteria used to assess adaptation measures and should be identified early in the M&E framework development process. For example, the final stage of national communication preparation will entail reviewing the outcomes of the chapter to define adaptation priorities. For each adaptation priority, evaluative questions can be developed. By establishing evaluation questions as a first step, the necessary baselines and data monitoring and management procedures can be put in place to support the evaluation.

Importantly, M&E frameworks should be managed in a flexible manner to review and update indicators and evaluative questions to ensure they align with country level needs. It is important that any M&E process adopts principles of adaptive management and continual learning.

Page 17


Developing an evaluation plan

An evaluation plan outlines the roles and responsibilities for the evaluation, the methods that will be applied in the evaluation and the timeline for conducting and completing the evaluation.

Conducting evaluation

External (independent) or internal evaluators can conduct the evaluation. External evaluation can enhance transparency and accountability; while internal evaluators can benefit from direct reflection on performance and results to guide framework review and update.

Communicate results

The outputs of evaluation can be used to inform the development and reporting in subsequent national communications. The contribution of selected adaptation measures to vulnerability reduction across each sector and the overall benefits of adaptation actions in building national resilience can be evaluated. Lessons learned can inform subsequent vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Other benefits of M&E are outlined in Table 9-.

There are a number of factors that contribute to the successful implementation of an M&E framework:

Clear objective(s) and specific means to track progress towards; An understanding of how baseline data will be collected, where required; Identification of key participants in the M&E process and their needs and roles; Provision for learning, reflection and feedback into decision-making; Assurance of adequate resources (financial and human).

Table 9-: Selected resources on monitoring and evaluating climate change adaptation

Resource Year Description Link

World Bank

Monitoring and Evaluation: Some tools, methods and approaches

2004

Provides overview of a sample of M&E tools, methods, and approaches, including their purpose and use; advantages and disadvantages; costs, skills, and time required; and key references

<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/28/36484032.pdf>

Page 18





OECDMonitoring and Evaluation for Adaptation: Lessons from Development Co-operation Agencies Draft Paper

2011

Report compares the approaches used by the agencies in evaluating projects and programmes with adaptation-like activities, to get a better understanding of (i) the particular characteristics of M&E in the context of adaptation and (ii) whether there are best practices in the choice and use of indicators for adaptation

<http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/oecd-paper-examines-lessons-from-development-agencies-in-monitoring-and-evaluation-for-adaptation/>

UNDP

Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change

2007

Addresses the complexity of adaptation to climate change by organizing their framework according to the following six thematic areas (TAs): TA1: Agriculture/food security; TA2: Water resources and quality; TA3: Public health; TA4: Disaster risk management; TA5: Coastal zone development; and TA6: Natural resources management. As reiterated and importantly, the UNDP framework states, “ultimately, interventions should be guided by stakeholder priorities and agency expertise, and this framework can be used as a reference for adapting a sensible monitoring approach.”

<http://www.undp.org/climatechange/pillar_adaptation.shtml>

GEF

Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tool

2011

The global environment facility has developed a tool to support the measurement of progress towards achieving adaptation outcomes, as established at the portfolio level of the LDCF/SCCF results framework. The tool provides example indicators that can be used to measure progress towards selected project outcomes. This may be used as a tool to define indicators of relevance to your national communications

<http://www.thegef.org/gef/tracking_tool_LDCF_SCCF>

Page 19

http://www.thegef.org/gef/tracking_tool_LDCF_SCCF



http://www.undp.org/climatechange/pillar_adaptation.shtml



http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/oecd-paper-examines-lessons-from-development-agencies-in-monitoring-and-evaluation-for-adaptation/




Learning to ADAPT:

monitoring and evaluation approaches in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction – challenges, gaps and ways forward

2011

The paper describes the key practical challenges for M&E in the context of climate change and examines current M&E efforts in adaptation and disaster risk reduction, comparing methodological aspects and the conceptual underpinnings. Importantly, it represents a set of principles – ADAPT (Adaptive, Dynamic, Active, Participatory and Thorough) to facilitate the development of M&E frameworks for interventions that aim to contribute to integrated adaptation processes

<http://community.eldis.org/.59d49a16/Learning-to-ADAPT.pdf>

9.5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Integration may be necessary to address questions posed by policy makers and other stakeholders. Importantly, integration enables the identification of priority needs, a platform to communicate results, demonstrates a case for funding support, and provides a platform for policy formation that considers the cross-cutting nature of the impacts of climate change. The output of integration is an understanding of priority adaptation needs across sectors.

Mainstreaming provides a mechanism to ensure that climate change is considered as a component of broader development initiatives, by incorporating climate change considerations into relevant policies, plans, programmes and projects at the national, subnational and local scales. It is an important tool in ensuring a holistic approach to managing the impacts of climate change.

A monitoring and evaluation framework will provide the required mechanism to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of adaptation measures. It will enable an adaptive approach to manage the impacts of climate change and a transparent and accountable mechanism to report internally and externally on the progress being made in enhancing resilience to the impacts of climate change. Importantly, implementation of an M&E framework will enable transparent reporting on the progress made between the national communications.

Page 20

http://community.eldis.org/.59d49a16/Learning-to-ADAPT.pdf




9.6 REFERENCES

CARE. 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. CARE International.

Gigli S. 2008. Designing A Performance Assessment Framework For The Australian Government’s Adaptation Initiative: Status quo of the international debate, challenges ahead and key steps. Report prepared for AusAID under minor contract 45838.

Lamhauge N, Lanzi E and Agrawala S. 2011. Monitoring and Evaluation for Adaptation: Lessons from Development Cooperation Agencies: Draft paper. Paper for presentation at the Task Team meeting, Bern, 20–21 June 2011, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Mizina SV, Smith JB, Gossen E, Spiecker KF and Witkowski SL. 1999. An evaluation of adaptation options for climate change impacts on agriculture in Kazakhstan. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 4: pp. 25–41.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2009. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation: Policy Guidance. OECD. Available at <http://www.oecd.org/dac/environmentanddevelopment/oecdpolicyguidanceonintegratingclimatechangeadaptationintodevelopmentco-operation.htm>.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2007. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change. Draft for Comments, United Nations Development Programme, July 2007.

USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2009. Adapting to Coastal Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners. Available at: <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADO614.pdf>.

World Bank. 2010a. The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Ethiopia. The World Bank Group. Available at <http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climate-change-study-homepage>.

World Bank. 2010b. The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Samoa. The World Bank Group. Available at <http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climate-change-study-homepage>.

Page 21

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climate-change-study-homepage




http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADO614.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dac/environmentanddevelopment/oecdpolicyguidanceonintegratingclimatechangeadaptationintodevelopmentco-operation.htm

http://www.oecd.org/dac/environmentanddevelopment/oecdpolicyguidanceonintegratingclimatechangeadaptationintodevelopmentco-operation.htm

Documents

CGE Training Materials for Vulnerability and Adaptation ...€¦ · Web viewFurther guidance on the application of multi-criteria assessments, and different types of such assessments,