Page - (000340) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

Bilateral andmultilateral climate-relatedfinance todevelopingcountries explicitly targeting adaptation to climate change reached USD 10 billion in 2013 (OECD- DAC2015). The continuous integration of adaptation into planning processes and the technical and financial support to developing countries have resulted in hun- dreds of adaptation projects around the globe. This leaves decisionmakers, 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?Howcan the outcomesof adaptation be assessed? Addressing this need, several frameworks and guidebooks forMonitoring 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) ormultiple levels (Brooks et al. 2011; Leiter 2015). An overview of 22 publications and guidebooks for adaptationM&Ehasbeen compiled byBours et al. (2014a). The increasing number of frameworks and tools for adaptationM&Emakes it difficult for decisionmakers and their advisors to quickly identify an appropriate onethatmatches theirneeds. In thefieldofclimatechangevulnerabilityandimpact assessment,which is facedwithanevengreaterproliferationofmethodsand tools, the PROVIA guidance has made an attempt to structure the selection process through decision trees (PROVIA2013).Whilst the PROVIAguidance provides a usefuloverviewofadaptationM&Eliterature, theproposeddecision tree forM&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&Eapproaches from the start, including those based onqualitative information. Overall, the PROVIA guidance does not comprehensively identify the breath of specific reasons to engage inM&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 adaptationM&E. Yet, apart fromassessing their applicability to simple, complicatedor complex interventions theydonot linkthemtoinitial reasonsforundertakingmonitoringandevaluationof adaptation. In fact, decisionmakers typically encounterM&Ein regard to a specific reason or information need such as findingoutwhether the implementation of an adapta- tion plan is advancing, orwhether a community is better equipped to dealingwith climate change impacts as result of an adaptation intervention. Such specific purposes forM&E therefore provide a logical starting point to guide the selection ofM&E approaches. Hence, the AdaptationM&ENavigator is structured along specific purposes for undertaking adaptationM&E andmatches them to relevant M&Eapproaches.Ashort description includingbenefits and limitations, resources needed for implementation, practical examples and links to further guidance is provided for eachapproach to facilitate decision-making.The sequenceof steps in selecting a suitableM&Eapproachand the scopeof theAdaptationM&ENaviga- tor are shown in Fig. 18.1. The following part of this chapter outlines the content 328 T.Leiter