Development 2 Alle Tabellen

Monitoring the integration of adaptation into planning

M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

Qualitative assessment based on interviews

Learning

P

L-M

H

M

Quantitative or qualitative indicators

Management, Accountability

P

L-M

L-M

M

Each approach is described in the tables below.

Approach 1: Qualitative assessment based on interviews
Prospect To provide in-depth understanding (learning) of the achievements and shortcomings of the mainstreaming process.
Potential use of M&E findings Results of the assessment could be used to improve the mainstreaming process. The target audience includes those who carry out the mainstreaming process and those who can influence it.
Description A qualitative assessment of the mechanism and degree of integration of adaptation into planning processes (mainstreaming) and its effectiveness based on interviews with key informants involved in and/or affected by the implementation of the mainstreaming. Effectiveness can be assessed by the extent to which climate change impacts are taken into account in planning and decision making. A set of guiding questions may be used for interviews.
Benefits and limitations Qualitative assessments can offer a more in-depth understanding than quantitative indicators, particularly in regard to HOW and WHY things work or do not work.  Depending on the perspective, number and composition of involved interviewees and on the exact assessment procedures the results may differ in their comprehensiveness and degree of subjectivity. Interviewees involved in the mainstreaming may be hesitant to discuss shortcomings of the process.
Resources needed Qualified interviewers. Know-how to develop the assessment details. Time and financial means to conduct a series of interviews.
Example from practice A study by IISD & GIZ (2016) examined the in-country coordination processes for national adaptation planning in Jamaica, Togo and Kenya through qualitative interviews. The results are meant to inform effective coordination mechanisms which facilitate the integration of adaptation into national planning and budgeting processes.
Links

Link to study by IISD & GIZ to be added in January 2016

Approach 2: Quantitative indicators
Prospect To get quantitative expressions of the progress of integrating adaptation into development planning.
Potential use of M&E findings To track implementation and assess results for management and accountability purposes.
Description An indicator-based assessment of selected aspects of the mainstreaming process based on quantitative and/or qualitative information. The criteria for scoring, what needs to be achieved to get a certain score, need to be clearly defined, e.g. through scorecards. This way, qualitative information can be converted into quantitative scores.
Benefits and limitations Quantitative indicators can provide a snapshot of the status quo of the mainstreaming process, albeit being limited to aspects which can be more easily quantified. Quantitative indicators are not well suited to get an in-depth understanding of how and why the mainstreaming process works and where the shortcomings are.
Resources needed Resource requirements largely depend on the efforts needed to gather the respective data and on the number of indicators. If the data can be collected with relative ease than resource needs can be lower than for qualitative assessments.
Example from practice
  • The Climate Investment Funds’ Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) has operationalized the indicators “Degree of integration of climate change in national, including sector, planning” and the “Evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination mechanism to mainstream climate resilience” through scorecards (Röhrer, & Kouadio, 2015). The indicators are specified through five sub-questions which are measured at national level against criteria to be defined by the national stakeholders.
  • To assess the development of mainstreaming capacity of line ministries executing the Government of Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) strategy a participatory self-assessment approach was designed (Adler et al., 2015). An assessment matrix covering three aspects of mainstreaming (planning, staff awareness and skills as well as safeguards and equity) provides the scoring criteria. A qualified assessor and the interviewees jointly agree on the score for each component based on the assessment matrix.
  • IIED’s Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD) framework suggests indicators for climate risk management (track 1) and for adaptation and development performance (track 2) based on a theory of change. A number of generic indicators for track 1 have been defined and can be assessed through scorecards (Brooks et al., 2014).
Links The Climate Investment Fund’s website on measuring results: http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/measuring-results IIED’s website on the Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD) framework: http://www.iied.org/tracking-adaptation-measuring-development-tamd Repository of Adaptation Indicators: examples from national monitoring and evaluation systems. (Hammil, Dekens, Leiter, Olivier, & Klockemann, 2014)

Unterseite 2

Monitoring the implementation of adaptation programmes, projects or actions

M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

Defining and monitoring activities and outputs

Management, Accountability

P

L

L

H

Tabellen mit Details pro M&E approach werden noch hinzugefügt

Unterseite 3

Monitoring the implementation of National Adaptation Plan process (NAP process)

M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

Defining and monitoring milestones in the NAP process

Management, Accountability

P

L

L-M

L

Background: The NAP process

The National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process was established by the parties to the UNFCCC to reduce vulnerability and integrate adaptation into policies and planning processes at all levels. The #initial guidelines for the formulation of NAPs state that least developed country parties should “provide information in their national communications on the progress made and the effectiveness of the national adaptation plan process.” (UNFCCC, 2011, p. 86).

Approach: Defining and monitoring milestones in the NAP process
Prospect Knowing whether the NAP process in a particular country is advancing in accordance to predefined milestones or targets.
Potential use of M&E findings To track the implementation of the NAP process for management and accountability purposes.
Description Milestones or targets for the NAP process in a particular country are defined and their achievement monitored at agreed points in time. The milestones or targets need to be specific enough to enable an unambiguous assessment based on document analysis or interviews.
Benefits and limitations Agreeing on milestones or targets for the NAP process can provide orientation for its implementation. Comparing actual progress with milestones does not directly provide an understanding of how and why the mainstreaming process works or not but it can indicate the need for adjustments or further analysis.
Resources needed In general, resource requirements are low compared to other M&E approaches since some of the data is expected to be readily available from document analysis.
Example from practice The Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) has defined ten “Essential functions” that the NAP process should deliver to countries (UNFCCC, 2013). The NAP process can subsequently be monitored on whether these functions are fulfilled in a given country. The LEG has developed a tool for this purpose (“PEG tool”) which defines expected outcomes and a list of specific questions for each essential function. The Stocktaking for National Adaptation Planning (SNAP) Tool by GIZ (2014) defines seven success factors for the NAP process. Countries can assess their current and intended future level on these success factors. Progress over time can be illustrated in a radar chart (see GIZ, 2014).
Links Guidebook on the development of national adaptation M&E systems (Price-Kelly et al., 2015).Website of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) where information on the PEG tool will be posted: http://unfccc.int  Information on the NAP Process including the SNAP Tool: https://gc21.giz.de/

Unterseite 4

M&E approach General purpose Focus on processes or outcomes Complexity Subjectivity Experience
Database of adaptation activities Management,Knowledge sharing P L-M M L-M
Approach: Database of adaptation activities
Prospect Getting an overview of adaptation activities by various organisations at national or sub-national level.
Potential use of M&E findings Continuous stocktaking of existing initiatives. May provide the bases for sharing experiences and creating synergies.
Description An online database where adaptation activities can be registered. A template may be used including information such as objective and target group, how the activity contributes to adaptation, implementing organization, location, funding source and volume, duration, summary of actions.
Benefits and limitations
Resources needed Medium: initial programming of the database and ongoing maintenance for IT systems and possibly for quality check of content and for user service.
Example from practice
  • The South African National Climate Change Response Database contains more than one hundred adaptation activities which are mapped by location. Upon login users can retrieved information about each or submit their own adaptation activities.
  • German Federal Environment Agency.
  • In addition to national databases there are also international ones including the Adaptation Learning Mechanism (adaptationlearning.net), weAdapt.org as well as the Climate Impacts: Global and Regional Adaptation Support Platform (cigrasp.org).
Links

Unterseite 5

Assessing the results of adaptation projects

Timing M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

On an ongoing or repeated basis Qualitative assessment involving beneficiaries

Management, Learning

P/O

L

H

M

Theory of change with adaptation-specific indicators

Management, Accountability

P/O

M

L-M

M

Repeated vulnerability assessments

See specific purpose “Assessing whether vulnerability has been reduced”

At a certain point in time, typically after completion Impact evaluation

Learning, Accountability

O

H

L

L

Assessing avoided economic losses and health benefits 

Accountability

O

H

L

L

Tabellen mit Details pro M&E approach werden noch hinzugefügt

Unterseite 6

Assessing the results a portfolio of adaptation projects

M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

Project-specific indicators informing a synthesis of portfolio results

Accountability

P/O

M

M

L

Common (core) indicators for every project to enable aggregation

Accountability

P/O

M

L-M

M

Tabellen mit Details pro M&E approach werden noch hinzugefügt

Unterseite 7

Assessing whether vulnerability has been reduced

M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

Measuring vulnerability with indicators as part of a results-based monitoring system

Management, Accountability

O

M

L-M

M

Repeated vulnerability assessments Simple

Accountability

O

L

H

M-H

Data intensive

Learning, Accountability

O

M-H

L-M

L

Tabellen mit Details pro M&E approach werden noch hinzugefügt

Unterseite 8

Assessing progress towards adaptation goals and targets at national level

M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

Qualitative assessment without indicators

Learning, Management, Knowledge-sharing

L-M

M-H

L

Indicator-based assessment Trend indicators

Management

P/O

M

L

L-M

Based on assumptions about how activities lead to outcomes

Management, Accountability

P/O

M-H

L-M

L-M

Tabellen mit Details pro M&E approach werden noch hinzugefügt

Unterseite 9

Assessing resilience to climate change at national level

M&E approach

General purpose

Focus on processes or outcomes

Complexity

Subjectivity

Experience

Indicator-based assessments

Management

O

M

L-M

L-M

Household level questions as part of national census surveys

Management

O

M-H

H

L

Tabellen mit Details pro M&E approach werden noch hinzugefügt