training and capacity building, and infrastructure investments to provide effective risk management inherent to drought in the municipality of Piquet Carneiro.
This rain-fed agriculture DPP has been approved at the State level as a model to
follow by other Municipalities across the state and the region, and to feed into
the State Plan.
• In such participatory approaches, it is key to involve all partners’ representatives
in the design of the Results Framework as much as possible – it will be more
realistic and promote greater commitment. In the Drought NLTA implementation, because of the different paces of its pieces, not all of partners were already
onboard when the RF was designed and reviewed. This resulted in the design of
some milestones that only partially happened as the program developed.
• Perhaps the greatest limitation that this approach presents is the difficulty to link
long-term, impact evaluation outcomes and, more specifically, indicators, to the
program.
Requested by the WB Team, Drought NLTA partners suggested some indicators, but most of the suggested do not capture impact (e.g., # of downloads of
Drought Monitor information maps and narratives from the Drought Monitor
website).
The difficulties with designing impact indicators for a drought resilience program like the Drought NLTA are that: (i) baselines are very challenging to establish
and subsequently compare; (ii) attribution of impact of DM and the DPPs in
increasing drought resilience might only be possible by comparing against when
the next drought happens; and (iii) isolating the influence of an specific tool, such as
the DM, from other influences in building such resilience, is very difficult. For
example: the suggested indicator # and distribution of monitoring network points
across nine Northeast states, suggests that it would be possible to identify the
impact of the DM in facilitating the expansion and penetration of climate and
agriculture monitoring networks in Brazil. However, this impact is difficult to
assess because other factors could be contributing equally or more to the expansion,
such as economic and political decisions that have no direct relationship with the
Drought Monitor.
Other suggested long-term indicators to be monitored that fall in a similar
situation are:
• # of cities that adopt urgent measures (such as water rationing) during drought
declaration periods
• # of water tank-trucks to provide water for human use during drought declaration periods
• # of people with non-interrupted access to water during drought declaration
periods
Designing and evaluating the impact of drought preparedness and other climate
change adaptation and resilience initiatives remains a challenge that this specific
approach, to date, could only begin to scratch, precisely because of the complexity
of the factors that influence the outcomes. However, if contribution to impact can
324
E. Bretan and N.L. Engle
This rain-fed agriculture DPP has been approved at the State level as a model to
follow by other Municipalities across the state and the region, and to feed into
the State Plan.
• In such participatory approaches, it is key to involve all partners’ representatives
in the design of the Results Framework as much as possible – it will be more
realistic and promote greater commitment. In the Drought NLTA implementation, because of the different paces of its pieces, not all of partners were already
onboard when the RF was designed and reviewed. This resulted in the design of
some milestones that only partially happened as the program developed.
• Perhaps the greatest limitation that this approach presents is the difficulty to link
long-term, impact evaluation outcomes and, more specifically, indicators, to the
program.
Requested by the WB Team, Drought NLTA partners suggested some indicators, but most of the suggested do not capture impact (e.g., # of downloads of
Drought Monitor information maps and narratives from the Drought Monitor
website).
The difficulties with designing impact indicators for a drought resilience program like the Drought NLTA are that: (i) baselines are very challenging to establish
and subsequently compare; (ii) attribution of impact of DM and the DPPs in
increasing drought resilience might only be possible by comparing against when
the next drought happens; and (iii) isolating the influence of an specific tool, such as
the DM, from other influences in building such resilience, is very difficult. For
example: the suggested indicator # and distribution of monitoring network points
across nine Northeast states, suggests that it would be possible to identify the
impact of the DM in facilitating the expansion and penetration of climate and
agriculture monitoring networks in Brazil. However, this impact is difficult to
assess because other factors could be contributing equally or more to the expansion,
such as economic and political decisions that have no direct relationship with the
Drought Monitor.
Other suggested long-term indicators to be monitored that fall in a similar
situation are:
• # of cities that adopt urgent measures (such as water rationing) during drought
declaration periods
• # of water tank-trucks to provide water for human use during drought declaration periods
• # of people with non-interrupted access to water during drought declaration
periods
Designing and evaluating the impact of drought preparedness and other climate
change adaptation and resilience initiatives remains a challenge that this specific
approach, to date, could only begin to scratch, precisely because of the complexity
of the factors that influence the outcomes. However, if contribution to impact can
324
E. Bretan and N.L. Engle