13.1 Introduction
Climate change is a reality. Although it is important to acknowledge that the
evidence of the linkage between rising economic loss of disasters and climate
change has not been statistically established (Pielke 2014), changing precipitation
and temperature patterns, as well as occasional hydro-meteorological extreme
events, such as floods, droughts and landslides, have been hitting people especially
at the community level, who have to rely on natural resources for their daily
substance (Global Humanitarian Forum 2009). Reflecting the urgency and importance of climate change, the donor community for the past decade has been funding
a number of climate change programmes in developing countries in close collaboration with host governments and various UN agencies. And it is in recent years
that their initial implementation cycles have been completed and subsequently their
ex-post evaluations have been conducted. In the meantime, discussions regarding
evaluation practice, its criteria and framework specifically tailored to climate
change projects and programmes have taken place, most notably through such
communities of practice as Climate-Eval, the International Development Evaluation Association, and United Nations Evaluation Group.
Discussions in such arena have highlighted a number of difficulties related to
evaluating climate change projects and programmes, including shifts in the objects
of evaluation, new metrics, and greater focus on risk, uncertainty and complexity
(Picciotto 2009). More specifically, evaluation of climate change adaptation (CCA)
projects and programmes poses a number of difficulties and complications. For
example, Valencia (2009) lists five types of such features: (1) “success” of CCA is
when nothing happens; (2) evaluation of CCA occurs too early to tell whether the
intervention has successfully withstood the projected impacts; (3) there are uncertainties of climate scenarios; (4) short-term weather variability disguises effectiveness of adaptation measures; and (5) contribution rather than attribution should be
emphasized, because of the complexity of “overall adaptation process that is largely
shaped by external factors” (Bours et al. 2014).
Even though very few evaluations on CCA have been conducted so far
(Feinstein 2009), Uitto (2014) emphasizes the need of the evaluation community
to start building “an adequate body of evaluative evidence” from this area in order
to synthesize the lessons.
13.2 Approach and Study Material
In light of such background, the purpose of this paper is to adopt and test a certain
philosophical lens, called critical realism, to a meta-analysis of CCA evaluation
reports and to show implications of this approach for the current as well as future
CCA programming.
236
T. Miyaguchi and J.I. Uitto
Climate change is a reality. Although it is important to acknowledge that the
evidence of the linkage between rising economic loss of disasters and climate
change has not been statistically established (Pielke 2014), changing precipitation
and temperature patterns, as well as occasional hydro-meteorological extreme
events, such as floods, droughts and landslides, have been hitting people especially
at the community level, who have to rely on natural resources for their daily
substance (Global Humanitarian Forum 2009). Reflecting the urgency and importance of climate change, the donor community for the past decade has been funding
a number of climate change programmes in developing countries in close collaboration with host governments and various UN agencies. And it is in recent years
that their initial implementation cycles have been completed and subsequently their
ex-post evaluations have been conducted. In the meantime, discussions regarding
evaluation practice, its criteria and framework specifically tailored to climate
change projects and programmes have taken place, most notably through such
communities of practice as Climate-Eval, the International Development Evaluation Association, and United Nations Evaluation Group.
Discussions in such arena have highlighted a number of difficulties related to
evaluating climate change projects and programmes, including shifts in the objects
of evaluation, new metrics, and greater focus on risk, uncertainty and complexity
(Picciotto 2009). More specifically, evaluation of climate change adaptation (CCA)
projects and programmes poses a number of difficulties and complications. For
example, Valencia (2009) lists five types of such features: (1) “success” of CCA is
when nothing happens; (2) evaluation of CCA occurs too early to tell whether the
intervention has successfully withstood the projected impacts; (3) there are uncertainties of climate scenarios; (4) short-term weather variability disguises effectiveness of adaptation measures; and (5) contribution rather than attribution should be
emphasized, because of the complexity of “overall adaptation process that is largely
shaped by external factors” (Bours et al. 2014).
Even though very few evaluations on CCA have been conducted so far
(Feinstein 2009), Uitto (2014) emphasizes the need of the evaluation community
to start building “an adequate body of evaluative evidence” from this area in order
to synthesize the lessons.
13.2 Approach and Study Material
In light of such background, the purpose of this paper is to adopt and test a certain
philosophical lens, called critical realism, to a meta-analysis of CCA evaluation
reports and to show implications of this approach for the current as well as future
CCA programming.
236
T. Miyaguchi and J.I. Uitto