Presentation - Measuring progress in implementing national adaptation policies - Timo Leiter
0 likes173 views
The document reviews the global stocktake of national adaptation monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, revealing that over 60% of countries with a national adaptation plan (NAP) are not tracking its implementation. It highlights significant progress in developing these systems since 2017, but notes that challenges remain, particularly in stakeholder engagement and establishing effective processes. The report emphasizes the complexity of national adaptation M&E compared to project-level evaluation and calls for further work to assess national adaptation progress.
Presentation - Measuring progress in implementing national adaptation policies - Timo Leiter
- 1. Global stocktake of national adaptation M&E systems Timo Leiter Doctoral researcher Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment T.L.Leiter@lse.ac.uk OECD & UK Climate Change Committee, 27 September 2021 @TimoLeiter
- 2. >70 countries have a national adaptation plan A global stocktake of NAP M&E systems Do governments track implementation?
- 3. Global stocktake of national adaptation M&E systems How many countries are tracking progress? Two approaches: Intention-based Statements of intent about M&E, e.g. in NAPs, NDCs or National Communications Evidence-based Evidence that NAP M&E is under development or in operation @TimoLeiter Chapter 3 in the Adaptation Gap Report 2020 Open access: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a rticle/pii/S1462901121002379?via%3Dihub Examples of evidence are: • Progress or evaluation reports • Documents outlining the development of NAP M&E systems • Information from people involved in the development process of the M&E system
- 4. Chapter 4 The search strategy
- 5. Global stocktake of national adaptation M&E systems Development phase Application Early stage: 6 Stalled prior to 2015: 6 Advanced: 22 Approved: 5 NAP progress report published: 23* NAP evaluation published: 15 Benin, Cook Islands, Jordan, Paraguay, Sri Lanka, Uganda Australia, Mongolia, Nepal, Poland, Tanzania, Tunisia Albania, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Grenada, Ireland, Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Vietnam Finland, Indonesia, Philippines, St. Lucia, Turkey Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, Cyprus, France, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands (Delta Programme), Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom *+ Sweden = 24 Belgium, Cambodia, Chile, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Netherlands, Philippines, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom @TimoLeiter As of 1 August 2021 See Table 3 If a country is missing, please email: T.L.Leiter@lse.ac.uk
- 6. Progress since 2017 @TimoLeiter Significant progress since 2017 • The number of countries engaged in developing or applying mechanisms to track NAP implementation has increased by 40% since 2017. But gap remains • 60% of countries that adopted a NAP are not tracking its implementation (!) • More than 1/3 of OECD member countries appear as not having started the development of systems to assess adaptation progress. No evidence could be found for: Costa Rica, Denmark, Greece, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, United States As of 1 August 2021 See Figure 2
- 7. Development process Mandate From a law, a climate change policy or from the NAP itself At least 9 countries: M&E stipulated by a national CC law Fiji, Finland, Greece, Japan, Kenya, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, and the UK Development process At the time of NAP adoption, the M&E system has usually not been completed Multi-year process 2-5 years or more from beginning until first published report Typically led by the Ministry in charge of the NAP Some countries formed technical working groups, e.g. Canada and Finland Stakeholder engagement: primarily government entities Science/academia involved in some countries in indicator formulation (e.g. Germany, Ireland, UK) M&E system is typically continuously developed, even after the first report has been published (some examples are: Austria, Chile, UK) @TimoLeiter
- 8. Scope and content Scope M&E usually linked to a national policy or NAP Usually about implementation and the achievement of objectives Scope sometimes limited to the national level Some countries have separate sectoral adaptation M&E systems Effectiveness of national policies is not the same as effectiveness of individual programmes Mechanisms Some countries have elaborate results frameworks with defined outputs, outcomes and indicators (e.g. Philippines, Tonga, Turkey) Others report progress based on implementation vis-à-vis NAP actions (e.g. Brazil) Combination of different components E.g. indicator-based monitoring, activity-based reporting, national climate vulnerability/risk assessments To generate different types of information for different purposes Evaluation Often looking beyond implementation: what worked, what experiences were made? Undertaken/commissioned by government entities except in Ireland & UK by independent bodies @TimoLeiter Brazil’s 1st NAP M&E report (2017): http://euroclimaplus.org/intranet/_documentos/repositorio/Plan%20Nacional %20de%20Adaptaci%C3%B3n_2016.pdf
- 9. Role of indicators @TimoLeiter Leiter, T. & Pringle, P. (2018). Pitfalls and potential of measuring climate change adaptation through metrics. UNEP-DTU. Intended to be used by most countries But discrepancy between proposed indicators and their actual operationalisation Commonly proposed for progress reports, but seldom for evaluations which place more importance on experiences of what works which cannot be fully captured through indicators (example: Germany’s NAP evaluation) Indicators good for some type of information, but not others Indicators have limitations, e.g. not good at answering HOW or WHY change happened (Leiter & Pringle, 2018) Indicators can also direct attention away from important factors that might be more difficult to measure Therefore useful to combine different types of information Some expressed through indicators, others gathered through surveys, interviews and exchange events Most indicators focus on outputs rather than outcomes Report from Grenada
- 10. Challenges Getting started Agreement on purpose of M&E Getting buy-in from stakeholders Establishing institutional arrangements Designing the M&E system Deciding what to monitor Components of the M&E system Arranging regular data gathering Securing resources For the development and the operation of the NAP M&E system Practically all developing countries that engaged in NAP M&E have been supported financially or technically for at least some part of the NAP M&E development process Communicating findings Linking to policy processes @TimoLeiter Submission by GIZ 2017(includes a section on experiences made in the support of developing national adaptation M&E systems): https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/14_GIZ%20submission%20on%20Indicators.pdf
- 11. Conclusion >60% of countries that adopted a NAP are not tracking its implementation. National adaptation M&E is not the same as project-level M&E More complex, more actors, different institutional arrangements Dynamic: M&E systems often continue to be further developed over time Main challenge at the start is not indicators, but processes and buy-in More work needed to assess national adaptation progress To inform domestic adaptation policy and planning As input to the Global Stocktake @TimoLeiter
- 12. More information Under Monitoring & Evaluation ResearchGate: Timo Leiter www.researchgate.net/profile/Timo_Leiter @TimoLeiter
- 13. Thank you! T.L.Leiter@lse.ac.uk Publications on ResearchGate: Timo Leiter @ TimoLeiter www.researchgate.net/profile/Timo_Leiter