Metrics for success and effectiveness of adaptation at different levels

1. NAP EXPO - MALAWI
Topic 3.3—Metrics of success and effectiveness of
adaptation at different levels, from the local to the national
level and higher, and how to ensure coherence and scaling
including with SDGs
Tracy C. Kajumba, Regional Climate Change and Development Advisor – Irish Aid

2. Introduction;
Why measuring adaptation is important
• Assessing whether the adaptive actions taken are effective, and useful
• Value for money audit; international financing/commitments to
global financing targets
• Crucial that funds are spent effectively and efficiently and that
stakeholders learn from adaptation efforts to improve outcomes for
vulnerable communities.
• At UNFCCC - establishment of the global goal stresses the urgency of
addressing the issue of how to measure and track adaptation at and
across different levels over time

3. Metrics of success and effectiveness of adaptation
• Metrics deals with the quantitative rather than the qualitative, focusing on results
than processes; Units of measurement, aggregation or comparing of adaptation
results
• Indicators vs metrics ; indicators measure particular adaptation success being
achieved. Metrics refer to the specific units of measure. Different indicators have
different metrics and one metric could measure different indicators
• Mitigation effectiveness can be measured through the metric "tonnes of CO2
equivalent reduced“ – so how do we measure adaptation? No universally accepted
metric for assessment of adaptation effectiveness
• Different institutions have developed their own adaptation metrics frameworks or
mainstreamed standardised indicators in their M&E frameworks
• The value of metrics is context specific – measures at local level may not be the same
for institutional level measurement – how does this them respond to the global
measurement for adaptation effectiveness
• The UNEP 2017 adaptation gap report reviewed different frameworks and concluded
that most of them are not suitable for linkages from local to global measurement, and
the indicators used were mostly proxies for adaptation outcomes

4. What constitutes effective and adequate adaptation
and how is it measured?
• Focus on either the process of adaptation such as improved planning systems
for climate change, or the outcomes such as fewer deaths from climate
related extreme events.
• Measuring progress through indicators that track institutional changes such
as improved use of climate information in planning and improved budgeting
for climate change -- a focus on institutional changes assumes that an
improved enabling environment will lead to better outcomes
• Another metric is measures of vulnerability and resilience. This seeks to
measure the capacities that different actors have to anticipate, absorb and
adapt to climate risks and offers a short-term assessment of changes that
might support effective adaptation.

5. Adaptation frameworks at different levels
• National governments have developed climate change adaptation strategies
and plans, they have also been addressing how to assess the effectiveness of
their adaptation efforts, developing results frameworks and indicators to
measure progress – Uganda example using TAMD
http://pubs.iied.org/10158IIED/
• Local level indicators and metrics need to be adapted and contextualised to
the local context – Using Theories of change
• Measuring institutional capacity for climate risk management –planning,
budgeting, capacity building, coordination, using climate information,
awareness, participation in planning processes
• Participatory approaches to develop metrics and indicators to create
ownership of adaptation activities thru stakeholder engagement (ref; TAMD
framework)

6. Linkages with the SDGs
• SDG indicators cut across development progress at all levels
• Methodology to encourage a cross-sectoral monitoring of the goals
and targets.
• Many of the SDG indicators and targets are interlinked ; use of shared
measurement methods
• Mainstreaming the SDG indicators in sectors strategies and national
policies and plans, would be essential for the successful
implementation of the SDGs
• Coherence of Indicators with in the national strategic frame works
and linkages in reporting

7. How to ensure coherence and scaling
• Need to have a balance between policy and practice – concepts,
methodologies, different measures (output/outcome basis) – e.g. PMF and
National standard indicators – linkage with global frameworks?
• Process and results based indicators – important at different scales –
resilience as a process and an outcome
• Data collection over longer time scales to address the changes
• Strengthening indicators with narratives e.g. Theories of change to justify
the context, targets, baselines – informing policies and different levels
• Contribution rather than attribution – how to measure and differentiate
from adaptation and development effectiveness

8. Key messages for reflection…
1. Metrics on cost benefit analysis of adaptation have limitation – e.g. how to
value human life and human health, cost of displacement and migration etc
2. Long term wellbeing indicators ; need for long term adaptation planning over
long time horizons vs 5 year Government plans?
3. Uncertainty of climate change trends and local impacts: is data available?;
Change of climate risks and trends; Access to weather and climate
information, future projections? etc
4. How to strengthening statistical capacities of the countries for monitoring
progress and evaluating impact? – skills, resources, coherence
5. Majority of the indicators are process oriented and not outcome based – do
they measure adaptation effectiveness and resilience in the long term?