Bilateral and multilateral climate-related finance to developing countries explicitly
targeting adaptation to climate change reached USD 10 billion in 2013 (OECDDAC 2015). The continuous integration of adaptation into planning processes and
the technical and financial support to developing countries have resulted in hundreds of adaptation projects around the globe. This leaves decision makers, fund
managers and project implementers with the question of what is being achieved.
What are the results of all these adaptation interventions? Do they lead to a
reduction in vulnerability? How can the outcomes of adaptation be assessed?
Addressing this need, several frameworks and guidebooks for Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) of adaptation have been developed covering the project or
community level (CARE 2012; Olivier et al. 2013; Pringle 2011), the national
level (Ford et al. 2013; Price-Kelly et al. 2015; Hammil et al. 2014a) or multiple
levels (Brooks et al. 2011; Leiter 2015). An overview of 22 publications and
guidebooks for adaptation M&E has been compiled by Bours et al. (2014a).
The increasing number of frameworks and tools for adaptation M&E makes it
difficult for decision makers and their advisors to quickly identify an appropriate
one that matches their needs. In the field of climate change vulnerability and impact
assessment, which is faced with an even greater proliferation of methods and tools,
the PROVIA guidance has made an attempt to structure the selection process
through decision trees (PROVIA 2013). Whilst the PROVIA guidance provides a
useful overview of adaptation M&E literature, the proposed decision tree for M&E
focuses on the project level only and consists of rather general questions
(e.g. “Have you considered who else needs to be involved in the evaluation?”)
(PROVIA 2013, p. 52). It is also focusing more on evaluation than on ongoing
monitoring and prescribes the use of indicators, which excludes other relevant
M&E approaches from the start, including those based on qualitative information.
Overall, the PROVIA guidance does not comprehensively identify the breath of
specific reasons to engage in M&E of adaptation and does not directly indicate
applicable M&E approaches for each of them. Fisher et al. (2015) provide an
extensive list of methodologies of potential use for adaptation M&E. Yet, apart
from assessing their applicability to simple, complicated or complex interventions
they do not link them to initial reasons for undertaking monitoring and evaluation of
adaptation.
In fact, decision makers typically encounter M&E in regard to a specific reason
or information need such as finding out whether the implementation of an adaptation plan is advancing, or whether a community is better equipped to dealing with
climate change impacts as result of an adaptation intervention. Such specific
purposes for M&E therefore provide a logical starting point to guide the selection
of M&E approaches. Hence, the Adaptation M&E Navigator is structured along
specific purposes for undertaking adaptation M&E and matches them to relevant
M&E approaches. A short description including benefits and limitations, resources
needed for implementation, practical examples and links to further guidance is
provided for each approach to facilitate decision-making. The sequence of steps in
selecting a suitable M&E approach and the scope of the Adaptation M&E Navigator are shown in Fig. 18.1. The following part of this chapter outlines the content
328
T. Leiter
targeting adaptation to climate change reached USD 10 billion in 2013 (OECDDAC 2015). The continuous integration of adaptation into planning processes and
the technical and financial support to developing countries have resulted in hundreds of adaptation projects around the globe. This leaves decision makers, fund
managers and project implementers with the question of what is being achieved.
What are the results of all these adaptation interventions? Do they lead to a
reduction in vulnerability? How can the outcomes of adaptation be assessed?
Addressing this need, several frameworks and guidebooks for Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) of adaptation have been developed covering the project or
community level (CARE 2012; Olivier et al. 2013; Pringle 2011), the national
level (Ford et al. 2013; Price-Kelly et al. 2015; Hammil et al. 2014a) or multiple
levels (Brooks et al. 2011; Leiter 2015). An overview of 22 publications and
guidebooks for adaptation M&E has been compiled by Bours et al. (2014a).
The increasing number of frameworks and tools for adaptation M&E makes it
difficult for decision makers and their advisors to quickly identify an appropriate
one that matches their needs. In the field of climate change vulnerability and impact
assessment, which is faced with an even greater proliferation of methods and tools,
the PROVIA guidance has made an attempt to structure the selection process
through decision trees (PROVIA 2013). Whilst the PROVIA guidance provides a
useful overview of adaptation M&E literature, the proposed decision tree for M&E
focuses on the project level only and consists of rather general questions
(e.g. “Have you considered who else needs to be involved in the evaluation?”)
(PROVIA 2013, p. 52). It is also focusing more on evaluation than on ongoing
monitoring and prescribes the use of indicators, which excludes other relevant
M&E approaches from the start, including those based on qualitative information.
Overall, the PROVIA guidance does not comprehensively identify the breath of
specific reasons to engage in M&E of adaptation and does not directly indicate
applicable M&E approaches for each of them. Fisher et al. (2015) provide an
extensive list of methodologies of potential use for adaptation M&E. Yet, apart
from assessing their applicability to simple, complicated or complex interventions
they do not link them to initial reasons for undertaking monitoring and evaluation of
adaptation.
In fact, decision makers typically encounter M&E in regard to a specific reason
or information need such as finding out whether the implementation of an adaptation plan is advancing, or whether a community is better equipped to dealing with
climate change impacts as result of an adaptation intervention. Such specific
purposes for M&E therefore provide a logical starting point to guide the selection
of M&E approaches. Hence, the Adaptation M&E Navigator is structured along
specific purposes for undertaking adaptation M&E and matches them to relevant
M&E approaches. A short description including benefits and limitations, resources
needed for implementation, practical examples and links to further guidance is
provided for each approach to facilitate decision-making. The sequence of steps in
selecting a suitable M&E approach and the scope of the Adaptation M&E Navigator are shown in Fig. 18.1. The following part of this chapter outlines the content
328
T. Leiter