Seite - (000266) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

evaluations, paying special attention to the context under which amechanism is triggered to generate an IO. As a result, it could identify a number of pertinent programme theories and specific contextual conditions for each type of implemented interventions. This approach encourages the evaluator to go beyond deterministic cause-and-effect world and can provide explanations (rather than judgments) about what may work for whom, under what circumstances. CCA programmesbynature are quite complex, and are characterisedby“multi-sectoral nature, cross-thematic focus, and long timeframes” (Bours et al. 2014), whilst impact of climate change felt differently in a different location and context. Thus simplycollecting“bestpractices”ofCCAinterventionswillnothelppolicymakers and stakeholders toknowwhatmayworkunder their owncircumstances, andhow theyaresupposedtoworkforwhom.What thisanalysishasrevealed is that it isnot just about “doing right things” or about “doing things right”; but it is also about “doing right things right, in right context”. Some of the findings of this meta-analysis can indeed help provide useful explanations. For example, a rather usual intervention of closely coordinating withnational and local governmentmaynot automaticallyproduce the anticipated resultofahigher levelofrelevanceshouldtheprioritiesofCCAnotbeidentifiedby hostgovernmentor lineministriesprior to theprogramme.Aresult ofan increased level of stakeholder involvementmay not be guaranteed by simply building part- nershipsatanearlystage;as itmaydependonhowspecificandfocusedprogramme design is. Ensuring an increased level of adaptive capacity and a high level of utilisation of introduced adaptivemeasures iswhat virtually allCCAprogrammes wish to achieve through, e.g., facilitating training and transferring techniques and know-how.But even thismaynotwork if specifically identified targetedgroupsof people are notwell aware of climate risks, or cognisant of specific skills that they themselveswant toacquire.Moreover, fosteringasenseofownership towardsbuilt capacities and introduced adaptive measures is key in generating the linkage between the programme’s inputs and attainment of the desired ends, in this case high likelihood of sustainability. But such generative mechanism may not be triggered under the context where key partners do not have a high level of understanding of programme’s intended overall objectives (as opposed to, e.g., their understanding toward introduced adaptivemeasures). TheCMOconfigurations presented in this paper should not, however, be con- sideredamerecheck-list forfutureCCAprogramming.Rather, theyprovideagood platformthroughwhichpolicymakers,programmedesignersandimplementerscan be guided, in order for them to make better decisions and develop CCA programmes that are suited for the respective circumstances. Finally the authors would like to emphasize the point that adoption of realist approach in international development is still at its nascent stage. Exactly how critical realism should be adopted in international development evaluation still remains to be discussed and a challenge. Closer comparative examination of the frameworkput forwardbyPawson (2013) andWonget al. (2013), and its research implicationsinsocialsciencesexplainedbyDanermarketal. (2002)shouldbedone to identify the methodological gaps (and potentially misapplied parts in our 252 T.Miyaguchi and J.I.Uitto