Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) supports understanding whether progresses in implementing adaptation and achieving its aims has been made. M&E can provide the basis for learning, accountability and reporting at the national, subnational and project levels.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of adaptation supports keeping track of the implementation of adaptation plans and actions and assessing their effectiveness and outcomes in alignment with the Paris Agreement.
Adaptation M&E can focus on the process of adaptation (i.e. is implementation taking place?) as well as on its outcomes, i.e. whether the objectives of adaptation actions are achieved.
M&E of climate adaptation differs from M&E of mitigation (also called MRV), because adaptation is context-specific and there is no global success indicator for adaptation similar to “reduction in GHG-emissions”. Adaptation M&E systems and indicators therefore need to fit to the respective context and purpose.
The use of adaptation indicators is common but has certain limitations that need to be considered.
Adaptation M&E can support the ongoing managementof adaptation interventions by assessing progress and pointing out needs for adjustments.
Adaptation M&E can support learning and exchange about what works well and what does not, thereby helping to improve adaptation actions.
Adaptation M&E can provide accountability by demonstrating and reporting on results.
The Paris Agreement calls for enhanced transparency of adaptation actions and encourages Parties to share information on adaptation progress. A Global Stocktake will assess the collective achievement towards the goals of the agreement every five years, including progress on adaptation. Country-specific adaptation M&E systems can generate information that supports planning and decision making and facilitates implementation of the Paris Agreement.
M&E of climate adaptation can be done for a variety of purposes, be it to monitor adaptation projects, the implementation of a national action plan, or the achievement of NDC goals.
Each of these purposes may require different methods, e.g. depending on whether the primary focus is on management, learning or accountability. M&E approaches also differ according to the level of application, e.g. whether M&E is undertaken at the project level, the national level or across levels. Therefore, there is no one-size-fits all approach for adaptation M&E.
Key considerations for the design of adaptation M&E systems include the context, the M&E purpose, the target audience and the available resources.
The Adaptation M&E Navigator provides orientation and suggests relevant M&E methods.
Countries are increasingly developing national adaptation M&E systems. A study by IISD & GIZ (2014)illustrates ten such systems with detailed factsheets (factsheets updated mid-2017).
So far, there is far more emphasis on monitoring than on evaluation. Methods available for impact evaluation of adaptation projects are summarized in a guidebook.
GIZ’s experience in supporting partner countries in the development of adaptation M&E systems has been compiled in a submission to the Nairobi Work Programme in 2017
M&E can provide the basis for learning, accountability and reporting, and GIZ has developed several tools to facilitate its application at national and subnational level.
The graphic below shows the tools available for adaptation M&E and their application level (national, project or multi-level). The navigation on the right leads to further details including publications translated into Spanish and French. Directly clicking on any gear-wheel is a shortcut to open the English publication.