governments, and in parallel rights-based approaches focus on the claims and
voices of citizens, and duties of the state, and mechanisms to enable accountability
and action on both sides.
10 Rights-based projects address inclusion and power
imbalances and ensure poor, marginalised and vulnerable have opportunities to
participate.
11 The human rights principles and standards applied in the project
informed the evaluative method and sharpened the focus of participatory
techniques.
The evaluative research component was explicitly built into the project design,
and related to the project objective of strengthening the evidence base for childcentred, community-based adaptation. The research brief was: help project implementers understand how children and their communities are adapting to climate
change by developing a set of indicators, and a process – a method – for gathering
and analysing evidence. An indicator approach was selected because the
implementing organisations considered that it would be a straightforward basis to
systematically understand, measure and communicate outcomes.
12 At the same
time, a set of indicators addresses the complexity of CCA that means there is no
single appropriate metric for adaptation.
13
As detailed in section 4, the main evaluative tool was focus group discussions
(FGDs) with children. A total of 18 FGDs were conducted to pilot, develop and
apply the indicators and method in Las Navas (including in Barangays of San Isidro
and Hangi) in Northern Samar; Salcedo (including Barangays Matarinao, Garawon
and Alog) and Hernani in Eastern Samar; and Maria Aurora (including Barangay
San Joaquin), Dinalungan and Baler (including Barangay Zabali) in Aurora.
16.3 What ‘Type’ of Evaluation?
The research aimed to help project implementers to learn from real-time feedback
about how the project was supporting children and their communities to adapt to
climate change. From the outset it was clear that the approach needed to be both
10 Cornwall, Andrea and Celestine Nyamu-Musembi. 2004. “Putting the ‘Rights-Based Approach’
to Development into Perspective.” Third World Quarterly 25(8):1415–37.
11 Uvin, Peter. 2007. “From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach: How
‘Human Rights’ Entered Development.” Development in Practice 17(4–5):597–606. doi:10.
1080/09614520701469617
12 Chong, Joanne, Anna Gero and Pia Treichel. 2015. “What Indicates Improved Resilience to
Climate Change? A Learning and Evaluative Process Developed from a Child-Centred, Community-Based Project in the Philippines.” New Directions for Evaluation.
13 Bours, D, C McGinn and P Pringle. 2014, “Guidance Note 1: Twelve Reasons Why Climate
Change Adaptation M&E Is Challenging”: SEA Change CoP. (http://www.seachangecop.org/
node/2728), Brooks, N, S Anderson, Jessica Ayers, Ian Burton and I Tellam. 2011. Tracking
Adaptation and Measuring Development. Iied Climate Change Working Paper No. 1. London,
United Kingdom: International Institute for Environment and Development.
294
J. Chong et al.
voices of citizens, and duties of the state, and mechanisms to enable accountability
and action on both sides.
10 Rights-based projects address inclusion and power
imbalances and ensure poor, marginalised and vulnerable have opportunities to
participate.
11 The human rights principles and standards applied in the project
informed the evaluative method and sharpened the focus of participatory
techniques.
The evaluative research component was explicitly built into the project design,
and related to the project objective of strengthening the evidence base for childcentred, community-based adaptation. The research brief was: help project implementers understand how children and their communities are adapting to climate
change by developing a set of indicators, and a process – a method – for gathering
and analysing evidence. An indicator approach was selected because the
implementing organisations considered that it would be a straightforward basis to
systematically understand, measure and communicate outcomes.
12 At the same
time, a set of indicators addresses the complexity of CCA that means there is no
single appropriate metric for adaptation.
13
As detailed in section 4, the main evaluative tool was focus group discussions
(FGDs) with children. A total of 18 FGDs were conducted to pilot, develop and
apply the indicators and method in Las Navas (including in Barangays of San Isidro
and Hangi) in Northern Samar; Salcedo (including Barangays Matarinao, Garawon
and Alog) and Hernani in Eastern Samar; and Maria Aurora (including Barangay
San Joaquin), Dinalungan and Baler (including Barangay Zabali) in Aurora.
16.3 What ‘Type’ of Evaluation?
The research aimed to help project implementers to learn from real-time feedback
about how the project was supporting children and their communities to adapt to
climate change. From the outset it was clear that the approach needed to be both
10 Cornwall, Andrea and Celestine Nyamu-Musembi. 2004. “Putting the ‘Rights-Based Approach’
to Development into Perspective.” Third World Quarterly 25(8):1415–37.
11 Uvin, Peter. 2007. “From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach: How
‘Human Rights’ Entered Development.” Development in Practice 17(4–5):597–606. doi:10.
1080/09614520701469617
12 Chong, Joanne, Anna Gero and Pia Treichel. 2015. “What Indicates Improved Resilience to
Climate Change? A Learning and Evaluative Process Developed from a Child-Centred, Community-Based Project in the Philippines.” New Directions for Evaluation.
13 Bours, D, C McGinn and P Pringle. 2014, “Guidance Note 1: Twelve Reasons Why Climate
Change Adaptation M&E Is Challenging”: SEA Change CoP. (http://www.seachangecop.org/
node/2728), Brooks, N, S Anderson, Jessica Ayers, Ian Burton and I Tellam. 2011. Tracking
Adaptation and Measuring Development. Iied Climate Change Working Paper No. 1. London,
United Kingdom: International Institute for Environment and Development.
294
J. Chong et al.