CGE TRAINING MATERIALS
FOR VULNERABILITY AND
ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT
Chapter 9: Integration,
Mainstreaming, Monitoring
and Evaluation
CONTENTS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
1
9.2 INTEGRATION
1
9.2.1
Integrating VULNERABILITY Assessment Outcomes
2
9.2.2
Integrating Adaptation Outcomes
9
9.2.3
Cost Benefit Analysis
11
9.3 MAINSTREAMING
12
9.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
16
9.5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
21
9.6 REFERENCES
23
i
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of three interrelated components:



Integration;
Mainstreaming;
Monitoring and evaluation.
Integration, in this context, refers to the analysis of vulnerability and adaptation (V&A)
assessment outcomes across sectors. The aim of integration is to understand the
interrelationships between sector-specific climate change and the relative importance of
risks to help inform impact and adaptation priorities. Mainstreaming focuses on tools and
approaches to incorporate V&A assessment outcomes in national planning – thus
ensuring that climate change is considered in development priorities. Finally, monitoring
and evaluation is concerned with the process of review and reporting on adaptation
implementation and using this process to improve adaptive decision-making.
9.2 INTEGRATION
As chapters 5–8 have clearly demonstrated, climate change impacts do not happen in
isolation from each other. What happens in one sector, or region, can affect other
sectors or regions. Indeed, impacts that are the result of a climate impact on another
sector, region or population can be as important as the direct effects of climate change.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in chapter 6, irrigated agriculture could be more
sensitive to reduced deliveries of water for irrigation if climate change resulted in a
decline in run-off than to the effect of higher temperatures on crop yields.
It is important for policy makers and other stakeholders to understand how a sector,
community, region or nation could be affected in total by climate change, and what the
total impact may be. This can be useful to understand the severity of climate change, to
set policy goals for adaptation and mitigation, and to understand how climate change
could affect sustainable development (e.g. meeting Millennium Development Goals). In
addition, it may be important to know how different sectors, regions or populations
compare in terms of relative vulnerability to help set priorities for adaptation that can
guide the allocation of adaptation financing appropriately.
Approaches to integration are discussed separately for (i) impacts and (ii) adaptation.
Page 1
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
9.2.1 INTEGRATING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES
In broad terms, the outcomes of vulnerability assessment undertaken in different sectors,
such as health, water and agriculture can be integrated in two ways:
(i) Cross-sectoral;
(ii) Multi-sectoral integration.
Cross-sectoral integration involves integrating impacts across related sectors. These are
sectors that can be directly affected by climate change and by climate change impacts in
other sectors. Cross-sectoral integration involves examining a small number of sectors
that are strongly interrelated, such as water and health. For example, human health can
be affected by changes in water resource management. Similarly, human health can be
affected by decreases in food security, as a result of declines in agricultural production.
Chapter 8 provides further information on the linkages between the implications of
climate change on human health and their relationships with other climate change
impacts.
The second type of integration, multi-sector integration, involves combining results
across all impacts in all sectors. The objective is to estimate the total effects of climate
change or to compare relative impacts and vulnerabilities across sectors. This can
involve examining impacts across sectors using a common method to sum, compare or
contrast results following sector-specific vulnerability assessments. Alternatively,
integrated approaches can be used to inform vulnerability assessments overall, helping
to ‘frame’ the approaches used and to ensure that V&A is undertaken in an integrated
manner from the beginning.
CROSS-SECTORAL INTEGRATION
In early national communications there was often a strong sectoral assessment
component to V&A that resulted in challenges in drawing linkages between sectors. As
the understanding of the linkages of climate change vulnerabilities across sectors has
increased – for example, the links between agricultural impacts, water and health in rural
communities – sectoral assessments (chapters 5–8) are increasingly seeking to address
such cross-sectoral issues.
As a result, many recently submitted national communications now mention that some
consideration of integration and/or inter-sectoral interactions and dependencies has
been undertaken, albeit at a strategic level. For example, the second national
communication of Malaysia states:
“Using a sector dependence approach wherein mutual reliance amongst sectors
is considered, all sectors are found to be directly dependent on water resources,
energy and the public health sectors.”
Page 2
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
Consequently, the assessment of cross-sectoral integration has tended to use qualitative
methods that involve identifying links between sectors and highlighting the direction of
impacts. These rely on application of expert judgement that can be undertaken by the
national communications project team, or through an extended process using a broader
group of stakeholders. Often, if such broader engagement processes are used there is
wider view taken of all sectoral dependencies and interactions – rather than just between
one or two sectors – and as such these processes become multi-sectoral analyses (as
outlined in the multi-sector integration section).
Quantitative cross-sectoral integration approaches can be used to link the outputs from
quantitative impact assessment models from one sector into quantitative impact
assessment models from related sectors. In practice, the time, cost and effort required to
consider undertaking such quantitative analysis between two sectors stimulates
consideration of multiple sectoral interactions. As such, the use of quantitative
integration approaches are generally applied to multi-sectoral integration analyses, as
shown in the next section.
MULTISECTOR INTEGRATION
The purpose of multi-sector integration is to help understand how a society as a whole
might be affected by climate change. It is intended to help understand the breadth of
climate change impacts (e.g. what sectors, regions, populations might be affected) and
the potential severity of impacts (e.g. how many people could be harmed, how much
might economic output be changed). In addition, multi-sector integration can be applied
to determine relative vulnerabilities across sectors. The intention of such integration is to
both highlight priorities of specific impacts and also to ensure that the inter-dependence
of impacts is explicitly considered.
To be effective, multi-sector integration should be as comprehensive as possible,
covering as many affected sectors, regions and populations as possible.
The simplest, and most often used in national communications by non-Annex I Parties,
is to use a narrative-based cross-sectoral analysis – or one that ‘tells the story’ of how
sectoral impacts are judged to interact, and the implications of such interactions. The
great majority of recently submitted national communications use this approach to
discuss multi-sectoral dependencies and interactions, and describe how this narrative
assessment has helped shape adaptation priorities.
An extension of the qualitative narrative-based multi-sectoral analysis is to use a set of
common metrics to provide additional rigour to the assessment. Such ranking
approaches can employ a range of qualitative indices through ‘multi-criteria analysis’.
Page 3
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
This approach has been used by least developed countries (LDCs) in the national
adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs)1 and also by a number of non-Annex I Parties
in their national communications.
An example of a simple approach to relative vulnerability ranking is shown in Table 9 - 1
which can be used for ranking current or future vulnerability. The first column of the table
lists the sectors of concern, such as coastal resources, water resources, agriculture and
human health. For each, current vulnerability can be ranked on a scale from low to high
for various categories. Social impacts indicate human vulnerability. The rank assigned
indicates the typical climate impact (e.g. the impact of reduced run-off on malnutrition, or
how many lives may be lost because of flooding events). Economic vulnerability ranks
the magnitude of climate impacts on, for example, agricultural livelihoods and industrial
processes. The rank indicates the magnitude of climate impacts (e.g. how changes in
water resources have affected sorghum production with subsequent contraction of the
workforce, or infrastructure damage due to coastal inundation). Environmental impacts
include effects on ecosystems, such as soil erosion and desertification. Other impacts
can also be considered (e.g. how drought could affect the ability to meet Millennium
Development Goals). The rankings can then be summed to provide a qualitative
assessment of vulnerability.
Table 9-1: Ranking vulnerability across multiple sectors
Sector
Social
impacts
Economic
impacts
Environmental
impacts
Other
impacts
Ranking
Water
resources
Coastal
Resources
Agriculture
Human Health
1
<http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/ldc/application/pdf/annguide.pdf>.
Page 4
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
This approach to qualitative multiple-sectoral assessment can be used to examine the
cross-linkages between sectors. For example, in the V&A assessment of the Bhutan’s
second national communication section 4.9 Cross-cutting Issues (p.106), states:
“It is expected that climate change impacts and vulnerabilities will not occur in
isolation. Non-climate factors, linkages between sectors, as for instance the link
between glaciers and GLOFs and water resources and energy production and
the subsequent impacts on agriculture and human health and settlements should
also be taken into consideration.”
As a result, Bhutan’s second national communication2 prepared a matrix to analyse the
linkages between the different sectors in this assessment presented in Table 9-2.
Importantly, the analysis in Bhutan provided the context for including specific reference
to cross-cutting sectors within the sectoral adaptation priorities.
Table 9-2: Bhutan cross-linkages between targeted sectors (Bhutan, second
national communication)
The Second national communication for Colombia 3 used an innovative process to
explicitly address integrated vulnerability themes (Figure 9-1). Colombia used a broad
consensus-building approach within a risk-based framework (see chapter 2) to develop a
method to estimate and provide an integrated evaluation of vulnerability “to allow
comparisons to be made and assign values for different sectors, ecosystems and
institutions in the face of climate change.”
2
<www.nec.gov.bt/climate/snc/>
3
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/items/2979.php
Page 5
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
To do this, Columbia used the outputs of climate change models (see chapter 4) to
develop sensitivity index (ISA) to the relative affectation index (IRA) that was:
“… based on the discussion and consensus of more than 80 professionals in
different sectors and specialties; the intention was to introduce priorities with
using the judgement of experts to identify each of the coverage, ecosystems or
territories which might suffer impact from adverse events in climate change in the
worst scenario.” (Second national communication for Colombia, Executive
Summary p.57)
Figure 9-1: Integrated multi-sectoral vulnerability assessment process used in the
Colombia second national communication
The most complex form of multi-sectoral analysis is to undertake integrated assessment
of economic impacts as the common ‘currency’ across sectors and areas, using
benefit/cost approaches. For example, under the World Bank Economics of Adaptation
Page 6
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
to Climate Change (EACC) 4 programme, seven country-level assessments
(Mozambique, Ghana, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Bolivia and Samoa) were
undertaken in parallel to a global-level economic analysis.
For Samoa, EACC applied records of past economic loss due to natural disasters to
develop a macro-economic model of the interactions between climate and the economy.
The estimated costs of impact without adaptation and with adaptation were compared. In
addition, the study applied a cost-benefit test to assess the appropriate timing of
adaptation projects identified in Samoa’s NAPA (World Bank, 2010b). Such data and
modelling intensive approaches are valuable in communicating the need for adaptation
and can inform policy design.
In the Ethiopian EACC project, an economy-wide modelling exercise was undertaken
which linked a dynamic multi-sectoral and multi-regional computable general equilibrium
model (CGE) with a range of sectoral climate change impact models that generate
quantitative estimates of effects on water systems, agriculture, hydro-energy and road
transport infrastructure (World Bank 2010a) (Figure 9-2).
4
<http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/country-case-studies-economics-adaptation-climatechange>.
Page 7
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
Figure 9-2 Flow chart of model sequencing (World Bank, 2010a)
The use of integrated economic assessments is an emerging approach within nonAnnex I Parties, given both the technical capacities required, the data requirements and
also the treatment of ‘non-market’ values, such as ecosystem services and
social/cultural values. There is clearly a trend towards the use of such models, and it is
likely that specific training and capacity-building activities will take place in coming years.
Page 8
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
9.2.2 INTEGRATING ADAPTATION OUTCOMES
The exercise of setting priorities across vulnerabilities, as outlined in the previous
section, can be particularly useful for identifying which adaptation options are considered
of highest priority and which adaptive actions can be considered as addressing ‘key’
vulnerabilities. There are a variety of approaches to assist in setting priorities among
adaptation measures, including:



Screening tools;
Multi-criteria assessment;
Benefit-cost analysis.
These tools can be used either as extensions of the same (or similar) approaches used
in helping to consider the multi-sectoral integration of vulnerability assessments, or as
stand alone adaptation assessments. Ideally, the choice of tool to help prioritize
adaptation actions (by either absolute priority or the urgency of implementation) will link
to tools used for assessing relative vulnerabilities.
Adaptation actions can be organized by sector, vulnerability or region, depending on
decision-making preferences. Evaluating and ranking adaptation options can be useful
for setting priorities for domestic action.
There is no right or wrong way to evaluate adaptation options and set priorities. However,
involvement of stakeholders is critical because any ranking of adaptation options will
involve value judgements. Importantly, LDC Parties that have prepared NAPAs (and in
the future national adaptation plans (NAPs) may build on the information contained in
these documents to prepare subsequent national communications.
SCREENING ANALYSIS
One simple method is the screening analysis. It involves answering yes/no questions
about adaptation options. Those options with the most yes’s can either be given the
highest priority or be subject to more rigorous analysis, such as multi-criteria
assessment or benefit–cost analysis. The matrix prepared by Antigua and Barbuda
(Table 9-3) as part of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Country
Studies Program is an example of application of a screening analysis.
Page 9
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 9-3: Screening matrix used in Antigua and Barbuda (Mizina et al., 1999)
(Note: Italics indicate adaptation measures that ranked highest)
High priority means that adaptation needs to be addressed now, or soon, rather than
delayed. A target of opportunity is a decision that is being made now to address other
issues that are sensitive to climate, and should consider climate change. The other
categories are self-explanatory.
MULTICRITERIA ASSESSMENT
A more quantitative approach to evaluating adaptations is multi-criteria assessment. This
can be a particularly good tool to use with stakeholders who can identify criteria to be
used in assessing adaptations. The criteria need not be measured using common
Page 10
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
metrics. The stakeholders can rank how well each adaptation does in meeting the
criteria, using an ordinal (e.g. high, medium or low) or quantitative scale (e.g. 1–5). If a
quantitative scale is used, scores can be summed to determine which options are the
highest priority. Criteria can be weighted to reflect relative importance. Adaptation
options can also be evaluated for different climate change scenarios. Results can be
added using weights for likelihood of the scenarios (or also considering present climate
and weighting it based on its importance relative to the climate change scenarios).
Further guidance on the application of multi-criteria assessments, and different types of
such assessments, are provided in the UNFCCC Compendium on methods and tools to
evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change5.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Cost-effectiveness analysis typically involves comparing the relative costs of different
options that achieve the same or similar outcomes. For example, analysis of the relative
costs of options to protect coastal areas would fall into the category of cost-effectiveness
analysis (provided the outcomes of the options are similar). One form of costeffectiveness analysis is to examine the relative costs of achieving a certain outcome,
such as saving a human life. Cost-effectiveness analysis would examine the ‘costs per
life saved’ as a way of comparing the cost-effectiveness of options.
Further guidance on the application of cost-effectiveness analysis is provided in the
UNFCCC Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability
and adaptation to, climate change.
9.2.3 COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is the most in-depth type of analysis that can help prioritize
adaptive actions. The key advantage is that, because benefits of adaptation actions are
expressed in monetary terms and used to compare these with the costs of inaction, a
powerful case can be made for the ‘economic efficiency’ of adaptive actions. Such
analyses have been developed in some Annex I countries within the broader context of
5
www.unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_workprogramme/compendium_on_methods_tools/items/2674.php
>.
Page 11
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
assessing the relative costs of mitigation and adaptation, for example the Stern Review
on the economics of climate change in the UK.6
However, for CBA to be meaningful it requires expression of all benefits (e.g. avoided
adverse impacts from an adaptation) and costs in a common metric, to allow benefits
and costs to be compared to estimate whether the benefits exceed the costs. This may
be straightforward if benefits concern goods bought and sold in markets: these have
well-established prices. Other benefits that are not bought and sold in markets, such as
illness, human life and biodiversity, are more difficult to express in monetary terms.
Further guidance on the application of CBA analysis is provided in the UNFCCC
Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and
adaptation to, climate change. In addition, the World Bank Economics of Adaptation to
Climate Change reports provide a valuable resource on the theory, methods and
constraints of the practical application of CBA in assessing potential adaptive actions.
9.3 MAINSTREAMING
Adaptation mainstreaming is defined by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) as:
“The iterative process of integrating adaptation considerations into policy-making,
budgeting and implementation processes at national, sector and subnational
levels. It is a multi-year, multi-stakeholder effort that entails working with
government actors (head of state’s office, environment, finance and planning
bodies, sector and subnational bodies, political parties and parliament, national
statistics office and judicial system), non-governmental actors (civil society,
academia, business and industry, general public and communities, and the
media) and development actors. (UNDP, 2007)
Mainstreaming is the process of integrating climate concerns and adaptation responses
into relevant policies, plans, programmes, and projects at the national, subnational and
local scales (USAID, 2009). The concept developed based on the recognition that
adaptation measures are rarely implemented solely in response to climate change.
Rather, adaptation measures also commonly achieve other development benefits
6
Stern, N., S. Peters, V. Bakhshi, A. Bowen, C. Cameron, S. Catovsky, D. Crane, S.Cruickshank, S.
Dietz, N. Edmonson, S.-L. Garbett, L. Hamid, G. Hoffman, D. Ingram, B. Jones, N. Patmore, H.
Radcliffe, R. Sathiyarajah, M. Stock, C. Taylor, T. Vernon, H. Wanjie, and D. Zenghelis (2006), Stern
Review: The Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London.
Page 12
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
through a focus addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability (see chapter 2). A
useful way of assessing climate change is through consideration of strategic and
operational scales. Strategic mainstreaming refers to the incorporating of climate change
within policies and plans, while operational mainstreaming can refer to the evaluation of
risks to achievement of development objectives associated with climate variability and
change, and identifying effective, efficient and equitable measures to deal with those
changes.
Adaptation strategies for climate change can also be made more effective when all the
parties can be affected, participate in a decision-making process. There are significant
socio-economic differentiations between men and women that are also deeply rooted in
social structures around the world. These include differences in access to and control of
resources and education, as well as unequal opportunities to participate and influence
the decision-making process. In this respect, it is critical to also take the following into
account:

Access, control and distribution of benefits;

Levels of vulnerability, resilience and autonomy of men and women when
confronted with different threats;

Importance of local knowledge for socio-economic development;

Subsistence and adaptation gender strategies.
The UNDP mainstreaming framework outlines three components to effective climate
change mainstreaming (Box 9-1) (UNDP, 2007).
Page 13
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
Box 9-1: UNDP mainstreaming framework
1. Finding the entry points and making the case is concerned with setting the stage for
mainstreaming. It involves understanding the linkages between climate change and
national development priorities and understanding the governmental, institutional and
political contexts that inform efforts to define pro-poor adaptation outcomes, find entry
points into development planning, and make the case for adaptation mainstreaming.
2. Mainstreaming adaptation into policy processes focuses on integrating climate change
adaptation issues into an on-going policy process, such as a national development plan
or sector strategy, based on country-specific evidence (i.e. impact, vulnerability and
adaptation assessments, socio-economic analysis and demonstration projects).
3. Meeting the implementation challenge aims at ensuring mainstreaming of climate
change adaptation into budgeting and financing, implementation and monitoring, and the
establishment of mainstreaming as standard practice.
Mainstreaming climate change should be viewed as a process. While it is
assess progress in mainstreaming (through the incorporation of climate
sector policies and national plans), it is also important to monitor the
mainstreaming. CARE (2009) outline a number of elements that provide
environment for mainstreaming at the strategic level:
important to
change into
‘process’ of
an enabling

Staff and financial resources: additional work and increased responsibility will be
required to incorporate climate change adaptation across all sector programmes.
Increased budgets may also be required to employ additional project officers;

Leadership: it is important that there are ‘champions’ to promote climate change
adaptation within the national government. Without champions the issues will
struggle to gain profile in the short-term, and in the long-term it may be difficult to
achieve coordination and monitoring of progress;

Skills and knowledge: there is a need to understand the importance and
relevance of climate change to achieving sustainable development. Such skills
and knowledge are crucial to increasing understanding, ownership and effective
implementation of adaptation. Capacity can be developed through: briefings;
training materials; short courses for staff and partners; and regular knowledge
and information exchange between staff and partners working in different sectors
and in ‘lessons learned’;

Time: building ownership of climate change adaptation and subsequently
achieving ‘full integration’ is a process that will take time. Understanding how this
change can be achieved and how to manage the change will require continued
dialogue within the organization to assess progress and approaches.
Page 14
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
For information on approaches to monitor the progress in mainstreaming, refer to section
9.4 – Monitoring and evaluation. There is a broad range of information available to
support Parties mainstreaming climate change adaptation actions. A selection of these is
shown in Table 9-4.
Table 9-4: Selected resources on mainstreaming climate change
Resource
Year
Description
Link
UNDP-UNEP
2011
Practical guidance document on the
concepts, methods and approaches for
mainstreaming
<http://www.unpei.
org/knowledgeresources/publicati
ons.html>
2009
The handbook provides a
comprehensive understanding of what
mainstreaming climate change
adaptation means, as well as detailed
guidance on how mainstreaming
climate change adaptation can be put
into practice. While the handbook was
designed for CARE programme
management staff and project partners,
it provides a good introduction to the
mainstreaming climate change into
projects and programmes
<http://www.carecli
matechange.org/ad
aptation/integration
-initiatives>
GIZ:
International
Workshop on
Mainstreaming
Adaptation to
Climate Change:
Guidance and
Tools
2009
Presents outcomes of stock-take
assessment of climate-mainstreaming
tools (largely vulnerability and
adaptation assessment tools) and
methods. Annex 1 provides an
overview of each tool, target group,
costs, and levels of expertise required
for implementation
<http://www.gtz.de/
en/28511.htm>
USAID
2009
The Guidance Manual is aimed at
USAID country missions to assist in the
<http://www.usaid.
gov/our_work/cross
Mainstreaming
Climate Change
Adaptation into
Development
Planning: A
Guide for
Practitioners
CARE
International
Mainstreaming
Climate Change
Adaptation: A
Practioner’s
Handbook
Page 15
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
Adapting to
Coastal Climate
Change
A guidebook for
development
planners
OECD
Policy Guidance
on Integrating
Climate Change
Adaptation into
Development
Cooperation
2009
mainstreaming of climate change
adaptation in all projects. Chapter 4 is
specifically focused on climate change
mainstreaming. The chapter highlights
entry points to mainstream climate
change, at national, sector and local
scales
cutting_programs/
water/news_annou
ncements/coastal_
climate_change_re
port.html>
Excellent resource that provides
recommendations to integrate climate
change into national, sectoral and
project levels. Presents key challenges
and priorities for action
<http://www.oecd.o
rg/dataoecd/0/9/43
652123.pdf>
9.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
This section focuses on the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) aspects of implementation
of the priority adaptation measures identified through the national communication
process.
M&E is a performance assessment tool that informs management, learning and
accountability. M&E can enhance the effectiveness of adaptation programmes, policies
and strategies by establishing links between past, present and future interventions
(adaptive actions) and results (UNDP, 2009). It provides insight into the effectiveness
and efficiency of adaptation activities, by defining if they are delivering progress towards
their objectives in the most effective manner.
The aim of monitoring and evaluating adaptation interventions is to:




Improve future programmes and projects through feedback of lessons learned;
Provide a basis for accountability, including the provision of information to the public;
Inform policy and practice;
To test assumptions and create opportunities for learning.
Specifically, monitoring is an on-going activity that aims to provide early indications of
progress, or lack thereof, in achievement of results. Monitoring can include assessment
of inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. Evaluation aims to systematically and
objectively assess progress towards, and achievement of, outcomes (UNDP, 2009).
Page 16
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
Thus, from the perspective of climate change adaptation, M&E is the process of
reviewing and analysing adaptation measures to determine whether they are achieving
intended outcomes. M&E can lead to a number of benefits including providing outputs to
communicate performance and inform the design and implementation of new adaptation
policies (Table 9-5).
Table 9-5: What motivates evaluation and what are the benefits (modified from
USAID, 2009)
Type of activity
Motivation for evaluation
Benefits of evaluation
Place-based plan
or programme
• Planned/regular review
• Communicate performance
• Special request from
government
• Adjust design of adaptation
measures
• Unanticipated (e.g. result of
natural disaster)
• Adjust implementation strategy
• Identify and implement
emergency measures
• Compile lessons learned
• Replicate plan or programme
National/regional
policy
• Planned/regular review
• Communicate performance
• Special request from
government
• Guide design and
implementation of new policies
and adaptation measures
• Unanticipated (e.g. result of
natural disaster)
• Identify and implement
emergency measures
• Compile lessons learned
To monitor and evaluate performance, it is important to be clear on what the adaptation
action is aiming to achieve. Adaptation actions should be linked to intended outputs,
outcomes and impacts. This is commonly achieved through development of a logical
framework.
Page 17
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
There are a number of recognized barriers to monitoring and evaluating climate change
adaptation (Box 9-2). However, the field of monitoring and evaluating adaptation
interventions is rapidly evolving and there are a number of resources that can provide
guidance (refer to Table 9-6).
Box 9-2: Challenges to monitoring and evaluation adaptation (Gigli, 2008; OECD,
2009)
Challenges related to measuring the performance of adaptation interventions, includes
difficulties in clearly:

Defining adaptation goals and objectives (i.e. what is successful/effective
adaptation?);

Defining success against uncertainty of impacts and moving baselines of climate
conditions and disaster risk;

Determining adequate timing for the evaluation of adaptation activities to derive a
useful measure of effectiveness and efficiency of the intervention;

Accounting for the reverse logic phenomenon (i.e. how to measure success if the
event addressed by the intervention does not occur?);

Distinguishing a project’s contribution to particular development outcomes in light
of many other influencing factors (attribution gap);

Identifying conclusive indicators for the performance and obtain the necessary
reliable and measurable data.
There are four key steps to M&E for the specific purpose of reporting on implementation
of adaptation priorities identified in the national communications:
Establish monitoring and evaluation
The first task is to incorporate adaptation priorities within a logical framework, specifying
the activities, inputs, intended outputs and outcomes. In addition, baselines highlighting
current conditions and indicators to monitor progress should be aligned to outputs and
outcomes. There are no agreed baselines or indicators to measure progress in building
climate change resilience. Rather, appropriate indicators will be context specific and
should be selected based on an understanding of the principles of good M&E.
A core component of an M&E framework is the selection of appropriate and measurable
indicators. While outputs and outcomes outline what the activity hopes to achieve,
Page 18
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
indicators show how results will be measured. Indicators can be used to prioritize inputs
and communicate outcomes (Lamhauge et al., 2011).
Evaluation questions can also be used to monitor progress towards achievement of
outcomes. Evaluative questions are defined based on criteria used to assess adaptation
measures and should be identified early in the M&E framework development process.
For example, the final stage of national communication preparation will entail reviewing
the outcomes of the chapter to define adaptation priorities. For each adaptation priority,
evaluative questions can be developed. By establishing evaluation questions as a first
step, the necessary baselines and data monitoring and management procedures can be
put in place to support the evaluation.
Importantly, M&E frameworks should be managed in a flexible manner to review and
update indicators and evaluative questions to ensure they align with country level needs.
It is important that any M&E process adopts principles of adaptive management and
continual learning.
Developing an evaluation plan
An evaluation plan outlines the roles and responsibilities for the evaluation, the methods
that will be applied in the evaluation and the timeline for conducting and completing the
evaluation.
Conducting evaluation
External (independent) or internal evaluators can conduct the evaluation. External
evaluation can enhance transparency and accountability; while internal evaluators can
benefit from direct reflection on performance and results to guide framework review and
update.
Communicate results
The outputs of evaluation can be used to inform the development and reporting in
subsequent national communications. The contribution of selected adaptation measures
to vulnerability reduction across each sector and the overall benefits of adaptation
actions in building national resilience can be evaluated. Lessons learned can inform
subsequent vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Other benefits of M&E are
outlined in Table 9-5.
There are a number of factors that contribute to the successful implementation of an
M&E framework:





Clear objective(s) and specific means to track progress towards;
An understanding of how baseline data will be collected, where required;
Identification of key participants in the M&E process and their needs and roles;
Provision for learning, reflection and feedback into decision-making;
Assurance of adequate resources (financial and human).
Page 19
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 9-6: Selected resources on monitoring and evaluating climate change
adaptation
Resource
Year
Description
2004
Provides overview of a sample of M&E
tools, methods, and approaches,
<http://www.oecd.o
including their purpose and use;
rg/dataoecd/54/28/
advantages and disadvantages; costs,
36484032.pdf>
skills, and time required; and key
references
2011
Report compares the approaches used
by the agencies in evaluating projects
and programmes with adaptation-like
activities, to get a better understanding
of (i) the particular characteristics of
M&E in the context of adaptation and (ii)
whether there are best practices in the
choice and use of indicators for
adaptation
2007
Addresses the complexity of adaptation
to climate change by organizing their
framework according to the following six
thematic
areas
(TAs):
TA1:
Agriculture/food security; TA2: Water
resources and quality; TA3: Public
health; TA4: Disaster risk management;
TA5: Coastal zone development; and
TA6: Natural resources management. As
reiterated and importantly, the UNDP
framework
states,
“ultimately,
interventions should be guided by
stakeholder priorities and agency
expertise, and this framework can be
used as a reference for adapting a
sensible monitoring approach.”
World Bank
Monitoring and
Evaluation: Some
tools, methods
and approaches
OECD
Monitoring and
Evaluation for
Adaptation:
Lessons from
Development Cooperation
Agencies Draft
Paper
UNDP
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Framework for
Adaptation to
Climate Change
Link
<http://climatel.iisd.org/news/oe
cd-paperexamineslessons-fromdevelopmentagencies-inmonitoring-andevaluation-foradaptation/>
<http://www.undp.
org/climatechange
/pillar_adaptation.
shtml>
Page 20
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
2011
The global environment facility has
developed a tool to support the
measurement of progress towards
achieving adaptation outcomes, as
established at the portfolio level of the
LDCF/SCCF results framework. The tool
provides example indicators that can be
used to measure progress towards
selected project outcomes. This may be
used as a tool to define indicators of
relevance
to
your
national
communications
<http://www.thege
f.org/gef/tracking_
tool_LDCF_SCCF
>
2011
The paper describes the key practical
challenges for M&E in the context of
climate change and examines current
M&E efforts in adaptation and disaster
risk reduction, comparing methodological
aspects
and
the
conceptual
underpinnings. Importantly, it represents
a set of principles – ADAPT (Adaptive,
Dynamic, Active, Participatory and
Thorough) to facilitate the development
of M&E frameworks for interventions that
aim to contribute to integrated adaptation
processes
<http://community
.eldis.org/.59d49a
16/Learning-toADAPT.pdf>
GEF
Adaptation
Monitoring and
Assessment Tool
Learning to
ADAPT:
monitoring and
evaluation
approaches in
climate change
adaptation and
disaster risk
reduction –
challenges, gaps
and ways forward
9.5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Integration may be necessary to address questions posed by policy makers and other
stakeholders. Importantly, integration enables the identification of priority needs, a
platform to communicate results, demonstrates a case for funding support, and provides
a platform for policy formation that considers the cross-cutting nature of the impacts of
climate change. The output of integration is an understanding of priority adaptation
needs across sectors.
Mainstreaming provides a mechanism to ensure that climate change is considered as a
component of broader development initiatives, by incorporating climate change
Page 21
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
considerations into relevant policies, plans, programmes and projects at the national,
subnational and local scales. It is an important tool in ensuring a holistic approach to
managing the impacts of climate change.
A monitoring and evaluation framework will provide the required mechanism to evaluate
the performance and effectiveness of adaptation measures. It will enable an adaptive
approach to manage the impacts of climate change and a transparent and accountable
mechanism to report internally and externally on the progress being made in enhancing
resilience to the impacts of climate change. Importantly, implementation of an M&E
framework will enable transparent reporting on the progress made between the national
communications.
Page 22
Chapter 9: Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation
9.6 REFERENCES
CARE. 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. CARE
International.
Gigli S. 2008. Designing A Performance Assessment Framework For The Australian
Government’s Adaptation Initiative: Status quo of the international debate,
challenges ahead and key steps. Report prepared for AusAID under minor
contract 45838.
Lamhauge N, Lanzi E and Agrawala S. 2011. Monitoring and Evaluation for Adaptation:
Lessons from Development Cooperation Agencies: Draft paper. Paper for
presentation at the Task Team meeting, Bern, 20–21 June 2011, Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Mizina SV, Smith JB, Gossen E, Spiecker KF and Witkowski SL. 1999. An evaluation of
adaptation options for climate change impacts on agriculture in Kazakhstan.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 4: pp. 25–41.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2009. Integrating
Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation: Policy Guidance.
OECD. Available at
<http://www.oecd.org/dac/environmentanddevelopment/oecdpolicyguidanceonint
egratingclimatechangeadaptationintodevelopmentco-operation.htm>.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2007. Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change. Draft for Comments, United
Nations Development Programme, July 2007.
USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2009. Adapting to Coastal
Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners. Available at:
<http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADO614.pdf>.
World Bank. 2010a. The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Ethiopia. The
World Bank Group. Available at
<http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climatechange-study-homepage>.
World Bank. 2010b. The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Samoa. The
World Bank Group. Available at
<http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climatechange-study-homepage>.
Page 23