• A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system at sub-national
level that is designed to collect adaptation outcomes and climate trend information ex-ante is crucial if enhanced resilience is to be proved through an adaptation evaluative framework process.
• It is possible to find and document adaptation outcomes of a community in
3 years if the interventions are designed from resilience assessments, an M&E
system is established at the beginning of the intervention, baseline data is
collected and verified, monitoring visits are conducted regularly to ensure that
the adaptation interventions are implemented effectively and time is taken to
document the changes happening in the communities through narratives. This
can be regarded as M&E best practice.
15.8 Implications for Planning Policy and Practice
The results of this feasibility study have elicited a few implications for planning and
investment in the use of participatory resilience M&E methodologies as detailed
below:
• Using M&E to influence planning: TAMD in Isiolo was applied before the
adaptation interventions begun. This had two advantages (a) the county adaptation committee were able to prioritise the activities that needed to be done under
climate risk management and (b) the county adaptation committees was able to
collect baseline data against indicators they had designed for CRM. In this way
information that had never been collected before was now available for decision
making and future planning on CRM. This ex ante M&E fits within the development evaluation approach described by Patton (2010)
23 . It is also proposed by
the World Bank
24 for new or redesigned poverty and inequality reduction programs. This is because despite the upfront investment costs, this method can be
cost effective in the long term as it allows for the adjustment and refinement of
programs before implementation, and programs are likely to be better targeted as
a result. This method can also provide useful information on the political
consequences of new programs and therefore provide for the design of appropriate risk mitigation measures before implementation by decision makers.
• Resilience measurement by communities and planning: Project or program
M&E is usually undertaken by independent individuals or institutions. During
an evaluation exercise, it can become frustrating if the relevant data or information was not collected during the course of the project or packaged appropriately.
23 Patton, M. (2010). Developmental evaluation applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24 Busjeet, G. (undated). Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation: Methods and Tools for Poverty
and Inequality Reduction Programs. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit Poverty
Reduction and Equity Unit. The World Bank. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
EXTPOVERTY/Resources/ME_ToolsMethodsNov2.pdf
286
I. Karani and N. Kariuki
level that is designed to collect adaptation outcomes and climate trend information ex-ante is crucial if enhanced resilience is to be proved through an adaptation evaluative framework process.
• It is possible to find and document adaptation outcomes of a community in
3 years if the interventions are designed from resilience assessments, an M&E
system is established at the beginning of the intervention, baseline data is
collected and verified, monitoring visits are conducted regularly to ensure that
the adaptation interventions are implemented effectively and time is taken to
document the changes happening in the communities through narratives. This
can be regarded as M&E best practice.
15.8 Implications for Planning Policy and Practice
The results of this feasibility study have elicited a few implications for planning and
investment in the use of participatory resilience M&E methodologies as detailed
below:
• Using M&E to influence planning: TAMD in Isiolo was applied before the
adaptation interventions begun. This had two advantages (a) the county adaptation committee were able to prioritise the activities that needed to be done under
climate risk management and (b) the county adaptation committees was able to
collect baseline data against indicators they had designed for CRM. In this way
information that had never been collected before was now available for decision
making and future planning on CRM. This ex ante M&E fits within the development evaluation approach described by Patton (2010)
23 . It is also proposed by
the World Bank
24 for new or redesigned poverty and inequality reduction programs. This is because despite the upfront investment costs, this method can be
cost effective in the long term as it allows for the adjustment and refinement of
programs before implementation, and programs are likely to be better targeted as
a result. This method can also provide useful information on the political
consequences of new programs and therefore provide for the design of appropriate risk mitigation measures before implementation by decision makers.
• Resilience measurement by communities and planning: Project or program
M&E is usually undertaken by independent individuals or institutions. During
an evaluation exercise, it can become frustrating if the relevant data or information was not collected during the course of the project or packaged appropriately.
23 Patton, M. (2010). Developmental evaluation applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24 Busjeet, G. (undated). Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation: Methods and Tools for Poverty
and Inequality Reduction Programs. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit Poverty
Reduction and Equity Unit. The World Bank. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
EXTPOVERTY/Resources/ME_ToolsMethodsNov2.pdf
286
I. Karani and N. Kariuki