| 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 GIZ (2017) 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 | NAP GN (2016): Vertical Integration in National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Processes |
| Prospect | To get quantitative expressions of the progress of integrating adaptation into development planning. |
| Potential use of M&E findings | 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 IIED’s website on the Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD) framework Repository of Adaptation Indicators at national level (GIZ, 2014) |
