Page - (000315) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

rigour and participatory goals of evaluating a community-based CCA project. Secondly, asking questions that prompted communities to think about what it means to be more resilient, is not only a way to ascertain how the project has helped improve understanding, but is also key to enabling this resilience. And thirdly, by asking communities “what else is needed?” beyond project activities todatehelps to informthedetailsof subsequentactivities, andalsohelps to inform howandwhat changes to lookout for asmeasures of community-defined success. This example also illustrates that there are practical limits to the “ideal” evalu- ationprocessbut that it is possible tousefullydrawonkeyprinciples to inform the approach to evaluatingaCCApractice.Therewerepractical limits to full applica- tion of a right-based approach, and the extent to which children themselves are included in the development of the approach and the analysis and articulation of learnings. Therewere also limits towhat ‘can be knownor found out’ through an evaluation about causal relationships betweenactivities andoutcomes,when there areamyriadof interacting factorsatplay. Itwasneverthelessparticularlyuseful to use the project’s general theory of change to guide the evaluation, but allowing flexibility for the specific links and relationships – such as how knowledge, combined with formal and informal communication activities would assist com- munities toadvocate for changeand influencepracticeandpolicy–wouldemerge. In practice,we developed strong teamandorganisational partnerships between the NGOs and research organisations involved in the evaluation and the project, whichprovedparticularlyvaluablegiventhetypeofprojectandtheprojectcontext. Whilst not ‘developmental evaluation’ to its full extent – researchers were not embedded in the team on a continuous basis – the approach was far from the ‘conventional’ end of the research spectrumwhere external groups of academic researchers seekoutanexistingappliedproject inorder to testor calibrateamodel or theory. The process involved joint learning and reflection from both implementing and research organisations throughout the project. The project was adjusted in real time to integrate lessons learned from the evaluative research; concurrently, the evaluative approach itself evolved to reflect lessons from the project’s activities on the ground. Embedding research within practice – in the inherentlyuncertaincontextof supportingacommunity toadapt toclimatechange – provided new pathways for realising and sharing learnings from the ground, to achieve better adaptationoutcomes. Acknowledgements Wethank themanychildren, youthand their communities for sharing their viewsandperspectiveswithus in:LasNavas (including inBarangaysofSan IsidroandHangi) in Northern Samar; Salcedo (including BarangaysMatarinao, Garawon andAlog) andHernani in Eastern Samar; and Maria Aurora (including Barangay San Joaquin), Dinalungan and Baler (includingBarangayZabali) inAurora. 16 EvaluatingClimateChangeAdaptation inPractice:AChild-Centred. . . 303