Monitoring and Evaluation

Imprint Published by: Contact adelphi Caspar-Theyss-Strasse 14a   Contact adelphi Caspar-Theyss-Strasse 14a 14193 Berlin / Germany T +49 30-8900068-0 F +49 30-8900068-10 E clifit@adelphi.de I www.adelphi.de Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH CF Ready Program Godesberger Allee 119 53175 Bonn/Germany T +49 228-24934-111 F +49 228-24934-215 E info@giz.de I www.giz.de Dennis Tänzler T +49 30-8900068-20 www.clifit.org Dorit Lehr E cf-ready@giz.de T +49 228 24934-133 http://www.giz.de/expertise/html/3041.html Any content written by named authors do not necessarily reflect the views of adelphi nor GIZ nor of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Although the authors take all possible care to ensure the correctness of published information, no warranty can be accepted regarding the correctness, accuracy, reliability and completeness of the content of this information. August 2014

Terms of Use This Training Material was developed by adelphi with financial support from GIZ’s CF Ready Program on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany If you would like to adapt this presentation to your needs, please respect the following terms of use: The imprint is mandatory. It may neither be altered nor removed from the presentation and should always be printed out as part of the presentation, if applicable. The German Cooperation, GIZ and adelphi logo must not be moved or removed. No other logos or further information may be placed in the footer area. If you wish to add your own content please indicate in the respective slides that the respective content has been added and that it was not part of the original version provided by the authors mentioned in the imprint. If you would like to make substantial changes to the content of this presentation or have other questions regarding the material, please contact cf-ready@giz.de or clifit@adelphi.org

Here the picture includes a number of water meters on the pipes, measuring the flow. This symbolizes the importance of tracking and evaluating the effectiveness of climate finance, and of having a rigorous system in place to do so.

Content Objective of this session Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) – what do we want to measure? International frameworks for Monitoring and Tracking Adaptation

What you can expect to learn from this session: Get familiar with the challenges of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) frameworks for adaptation projects Application of this knowledge to the finance area through a) measuring the impact of adaptation project >> effective spending b) options of tracking and coding >> transparent spending

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) – what do we want to measure?

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of adaptation impacts – what do we want to measure? Purpose M&E approaches or methods To monitor whether an adaptation project is proceeding according to plan and achieving its results Monitoring using a theory of change (Guidelines by GIZ, WRI/GIZ) To monitor whether a (sub)-national adaptation plan or strategy is being implemented and achieving its results Developing a (sub)-national M&E system and/or integrating adaptation into existing (sectoral) M&E systems in the country. No specific guidance currently exists, but the WRI/GIZ guidebook may provide general advice “Adaptation monitoring and evaluation (M&E) assesses whether adaptation measures have achieved their desired results and whether resources have been used efficiently and effectively. M&E can ensure accountability, which is particularly important in the context of climate finance. In addition, adaptation M&E can also support project and programme management under uncertainty and facilitate learning about what does and does not work, and why. The learning aspect is particularly important as adaptation is still a relatively new policy field. The core question addressed by adaptation M&E is whether adaptation has actually taken place, i.e. whether vulnerability has been reduced or adaptive capacity has been strengthened. For instance, adaptation M&E tries to answer whether an adaptation project has supported its target group to better cope with the likely impacts of climate change. Given the overlap of adaptation with established development areas such as rural development or disaster risk reduction, it is essential to demonstrate the additional benefit of adaptation projects to justify the resources spent.” Source: GIZ 2013. A closer look at Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of Adaptation To monitor and evaluate the collective performance of numerous adaptation programmes and/or projects In case of programmes/projects being managed by the same organisation: use of predefined standard indicators that can be aggregated across projects. Example: Adaptation indicators of the Adaptation Fund (AF, 2011) Source: GIZ 2013. A closer look at Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of Adaptation

Adaptation M&E on a project level

Adaptation M&E on a project level GIZ’s Adaptation made to measure: Five-step model The principal aim of M&E is to demonstrate the benefits of adaptation. M&E needs to be already considered during the planning and design phase Adaptation M&E at the project level does not require a completely different M&E system Potential challenges for adaptation M&E at the project level: Designing meaningful adaptation indicators beyond the output level. Dealing with the uncertainty in climate and socio-economic development. Evaluating project results after the project lifetime. 5. Operationalise the M&E system 4. Define indicators and set a baseline 3. Developing a results framework 2. Identify the contribution to adaptation 1. Describe the adaptation context Source: www.adaptationcommunity.net GIZ, 2014. Integrating climate change adaptation into development planning. Training module 6

Types of adaptation indicators Indicators can be categorised by type of adaptation activity: Source: OECD, 2011

Adaptation M&E on a national level

Adaptation M&E on a national level Setting up national M&E system: Five-step model Effectively managing adaptation to climate change at national level requires an understanding of whether adaptation is taking place and what the outcomes of adaptation are. M&E provides evidence for assessing the results of adaptation efforts and tracking progress towards climate resilient development. Source: www.adaptationcommunity.net GIZ, 2014. Integrating climate change adaptation into development planning. Training Module 6.

The MRV+ System under Kenya’s National Climate Change Action Plan Policy context Kenya National Climate Change Action Plan 2013 - 2017 M&E for adaptation Kenya MRV+ MRV of GHG Purpose Informing and guiding on implementation of climate change actions Fulfilling international reporting obligations Demonstrating Kenya’s climate finance readiness and attract international finance Process Institutional set up Integrated into existing institutional structures Draws on information already gathered as part of standard M&E Establishment process Review of existing practices and literature Design of the system building on existing structures ~20 months Resources ~100 people to set up and run the system Up to 3 years to operationalize the system Kenya’s 2010 National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) is a national framework for addressing climate change. Its implementation is supported by the Kenya National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) for 2013-2017. Under the NCCAP, a National Performance and Benefit Measurement Framework (NPBMF) has been developed to monitor, evaluate and report results of mitigation and adaptation actions, including the synergies between them and related socio-economic benefits. The Framework includes a system that brings together the Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation activities and the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of adaptation activities, together called the MRV+system. The final set of adaptation actions to be monitored and evaluated through the MRV+ system will be specified in the National Adaptation Plan (NAP), which is under development and expected to be released in 2014. The MRV+ system is a national framework supported by sectoral and sub-national M&E activities. Specifically, the M&E of adaptation uses indicators that cover all nine planning sectors at both the national and county levels. The MRV+ system will be integrated into existing institutional M&E structures, such as the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES), overseen by the Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (MED) within the Ministry of Devolution and Planning. Thus, the MRV+ system will draw on information that has already been gathered by ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) as part of its standard M&E. The system will be overseen by a Steering Committee, chaired by a representative from the National Climate Change Council (NCCC). The Chair will ensure that information is fed up to the NCCC and to the highest levels of government. The Steering Committee will evaluate adaptation performance against outcome-based national adaptation indicators. The MRV+ system will be housed and managed in the Climate Change Secretariat, which is located in the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (MEWNR). A four-person management team will oversee the day-to-day operations of the MRV+ system as well as coordinate the associated working groups and Technical Analysis Groups (TAGs). The management team will define the adaptation indicators, provide technical support for their measurement, and offer guidance to MDAs on M&E. Source: GIZ 2013 Find out more on Kenya’s MRV+ system and 9 more case studies in GIZ study: GIZ 2013. Monitoring and Evaluating Adaptation at Aggregated Levels: A Comparative Analysis of Ten Systems Indicator-based approach Institutional adaptive capacity 62 national-level, process-based indicators 10 short-listed outcome-based indicators Vulnerability 62 national-level indicators on local-level outcomes 10 short-listed outcome-based indicators Reporting Annual reports or Medium Term Plans for Ministries, ƒƒ Departments and Agencies ƒƒ Vision 2030 progress reports Biennial Update Report (BUR) to the UNFCCC (every two years starting in December 2014) ƒƒ National Communications to the UNFCCC Source: GIZ 2013. Monitoring and Evaluating Adaptation at Aggregated Levels: A Comparative Analysis of Ten Systems GIZ 2014. Kenya: The MRV+ System under Kenya’s National Climate Change Action Plan

M&E of multiple adaptation projects – international approaches

Defining, coding, and tracking climate finance Common challenges for climate finance Additional challenges for adaptation finance Complexity of the climate finance due to multitude of actors, mechanisms and rapidly changing environment Clear internationally agreed definitions of mitigation and adaptation finance needed Actions, which contribute to adaptation or mitigation co-benefits, are often not “coded” as climate relevant Double-counting adaptation and mitigation spending, when it involves multiple institutions Lack of tracking of private finance and complex methodological issues related to it Multiple and overlapping reporting systems on the international level No common metrics for tracking outcomes of adaptation projects are often intangible and difficult to quantify, and often cannot be directly compared across different locations Uncertainty inherent in climate projections and climate impacts. Close interconnection between climatic and non-climatic stressors Long time scales – in many cases, the ultimate success of adaptation can only be measured far into the future Additional challenges for adaptation and ways to address them, and build up a results-based monitoring system for adaptation are discussed in more details in: GIZ 2012. Adaptation made to measure. A guidebook to the design and results-based monitoring of climate change adaptation projects (http://www.bonn-perspectives.de/documents/knowledge/climate/2013/bope_climate_adaptation-made-to-measure-en.pdf) Source: ODI 2012 GIZ 2013. A closer look Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of Adaptation

Adaptation Fund results management framework Goal: “Assist developing-country Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting the costs of concrete adaptation projects … ” Impact: Increased resiliency at the community, national, and regional levels to climate variability and change Outcomes: Reduced exposure at national level to climate-related hazards and threats Strengthened institutional capacity to reduce risks associated with climate-induced socioeconomic and environmental losses Strengthened awareness and ownership of adaptation and climate risk reduction processes at local level Increased adaptive capacity within relevant development and natural resource sectors Increased ecosystem resilience in response to climate change and variability-induced stress Diversified and strengthened livelihoods and sources of income for vulnerable people in targeted areas Improved policies and regulations that promote and enforce resilience measures Each outcome includes 1-2 outputs with concrete set of indicators Source: Adaptation Fund Results Framework and Baseline Guidance

Green Climate Fund: Initial results management framework for adaptation LEVEL EXPECTED RESULTS Paradigm shift Increased climate resilient sustainable development Fund level impacts Increased resilience and enhanced livelihoods of the most vulnerable people, communities, and regions Increased resilience of health and wellbeing, and food and water security Increased resilience of infrastructure and the built environment to climate change threats Improved resilience of ecosystems and ecosystem services Project / programme outcomes Strengthened institutional and regulatory systems for climate responsive planning and development Increased generation and use of climate information in decision-making Strengthened adaptive capacity and reduced exposure to climate risks Strengthened awareness of climate threats and risk reduction processes Core indicator: Total number of direct and indirect beneficiaries; number of beneficiaries relative to total population Source: See detailed indicators in the GCF decision B.08/07, Annex VIII, Table 1 Schalatek L. Moving Beyond “Business as Usual”. Heinrich Boell Foundation, 2015.

Tracking climate finance spending: Performance-based climate resilient grants by LoCAL programme LoCAL promotes mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and resilience into local panning and budgeting systems with Performance-based climate-resilient grants (PBCRGs) Grants consist of a financial top-up, covering additional costs of making investments climate resilient, complementing regular budget allocations Grants are included in the municipal budget revenue (as a separate line) and expenses (if possible in one or separate lines) Grants are disbursed in the context of local annual planning and budgeting cycles, and selected measures are implemented Performance are appraised in terms of the degree to which additional resources have been used to build resilience and promote adaptation to climate change, and audits are undertaken as part of the regular national process Source: http://www.local-uncdf.org/performance-based-climate-resilient-grants.html

Monitoring and Tracking Adaptation Activities (II) PPCR results framework Approach Strength Challenges Activity categorized as either financing an adaptation-relevant sector or supporting institutional capacity development. Focus on knowledge management and learning Quality of reporting limited to detail of project documents which form the only means of verification. Relies heavily on expert judgment. The PPCR results framework has 11 indicators. Five of them are core indicators. The eleven indicators cover two M&E levels – transformational impact (six indicators) and PPCR program outcomes (five indicators). The indicators cover resilient development planning, adaptive capacity, decision making, and innovative investment approaches to reflect the expected transformation process in PPCR countries Transformational impact indicators: A1. Increased resilience of households, communities, businesses, sectors and society to climate variability and climate change: A1.1 (optional): Change in percentage of households (in areas at risk) whose livelihoods have improved (acquisition of productive assets, food security during sensitive periods of the year) A1.2 (optional): Change in damage/losses($) from extreme climate events in areas at risks that are the geographical focus of PPCR intervention A1.3 (core): Numbers of people supported by the PPCR to cope with effects of climate change A1.4 (optional): Percentage of people with year round access to reliable and safe water supply (domestic, agricultural, industrial) A2. Strengthened climate responsive development planning: A2.1(core): Degree of integration of climate change in national, including sector planning - e.g., national communications to UNFCCC, national strategies, PRSPs, core sector strategies, annual development plans and budgets etc. A2.2 (optional): Changes in budget allocations at national and possibly sub-national level of government to take into account effects of climate variability and climate change (CV&CC) PPCR program outcomes: B1. Strengthened adaptive capacities: B1 (core): Extent to which vulnerable households, communities businesses and public sector services use improved PPCR supported tools, instruments, strategies, activities to respond to Climate Variability and Climate Change B2. Improved institutional framework in place: B2 (core): Evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination mechanism to mainstream climate resilience B3. Use of climate information in decision making routinely applied: B3 (optional): Evidence showing that climate information products/services are used in decision making in climate sensitive sectors B4. Climate responsive investment approaches identified and implemented: B4 (optional): Leverage of PPCR funding against public and private investments in climate sensitive sectors B5. Climate responsive investment approaches identified and implemented: B5 (core): Quality of and extent to which climate responsive instruments/ investment models are developed and tested Source: PPCR Results Framework and its logic model: (https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/10889) Read more on multilateral development banks (MDB) joining efforts to track climate finance: (http://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/article/multilateral-development-banks-join-forces-to-track-climate-financing-10102/) Source: adapted from ODI, 2013

Monitoring and Tracking Adaptation Activities (III) OECD DAC Adaptation Marker Approach Strength Challenges Stage 1: Adaptation focus is categorized: UNFCCC provisions as 1. ‘principle objectives’, 2. ‘significant objectives’, or 3. ‘not targeting the objectives.’ Stage 2: Adaptation intervention is categorized into enabling activities and sectoral activities. Integrates adaptation tracking into DAC Community aid tracking processes To avoid double- counting, includes assessment of overlap between different objectives New separate unit to develop methodologies and measure private finance flows, incl. those mobilized by public intervention Only tracks activities that identify climate change in project documentation; Data gaps; Reliant on self-reporting; Simplistic in capturing the range and scope of adaptation finance Applied mainly to bilateral ODA More precise eligibility criteria and activity descriptions needed for clear understanding of what qualifies and should be quantified Further harmonization needed to make reported data comparable with the reporting under UNFCCC “Extensive work and discussions on how to measure and track climate finance have taken place in different bodies and settings at the OECD. MRV-related work on climate finance is being dealt with, for instance, in the OECD DAC through the DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP-STAT) and the DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation (ENVIRONET), as well as in the OECD Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG). Under the umbrella of the OECD, a Research Collaborative on Tracking Private Climate Finance (RC) has recently been set up. Furthermore, the OECD has become an important place for dialogue and exchange with international finance institutions (IFIs) to discuss approaches and work on MRV of climate finance. In this way, the OECD is providing a forum for sharing experience, finding common ground and learning lessons. Activities marked as ‘principal’ are funded solely on the basis of a climate-related objective; activities marked ‘significant’ have prime objectives other than climate mitigation or adaptation but nevertheless also support climate concerns in a more indirect way. A project can be labelled as primarily targeted at mitigation, primarily targeted at adaptation, significantly targeted at mitigation, or significantly targeted at adaptation. There are also cases where the same project can be marked as both mitigation and adaptation-related (or against other Rio markers) to reflect the fact that it targets multiple objectives (e.g. in the case of biodiversity projects). Thus, the Rio marker system recognises that finance may target more than one climate objective and assesses the size of the mitigation-adaptation overlap to avoid double counting. The OECD Rio marker data encompasses a spectrum of climate-related aid, the lower bound reflecting commitments targeting climate as a ‘principal’ objective, the upper bound reflecting commitments to those with either ‘principal’ or ‘significant’ climate objectives. The use of the Rio marker data for reporting to the UNFCCC, however, varies across Parties: although some Parties draw heavily on the Rio markers, this is not universal practice, and it is not clear to what extent reporting across Parties is consistent or whether different approaches are taken. There is ongoing work at the OECD to increase the overall coverage of climate-related finance. This is concerned, firstly, with the integration into the CRS database of further information by aid providers outside the DAC, such as multilateral organisations, non-DAC countries and private foundations. The OECD is also working on expanding the coverage to achieve a better reflection of climate-related non-ODA flows in the future. Coordinated and hosted by the OECD Secretariat, the Research Collaborative on Tracking Private Climate Finance (RC) is an open network for interested governments, relevant research institutions and international finance institutions. The RC aims to cooperate and share best available data, expertise and information to advance policy-relevant research. Its overarching aim is to contribute to the development of more comprehensive methodologies and systems both for measuring overall private climate finance flows to, between and in developing countries, and for determining those private flows mobilized by developed countries’ public interventions.” Source: GIZ 2014 See more on the UNFCCC and other tracking approaches at: GIZ 2014. Measuring, Reporting and Verifying Climate Finance Source: adapted from ODI, 2013 GIZ 2014. Measuring, Reporting and Verifying Climate Finance

Monitoring and Tracking Adaptation Activities (III) UNFCCC level Approach Strength Challenges National Communications as main financial information reporting document Common Tabular Format (CTF) for reporting on financial support, technology transfer and capacity-building Biennial Reports for developed countries Agreed single reporting format for developed countries that provides fairly detailed and comprehensive financial information Harmonized and coherent reporting practice needed in the longer run Joint understanding on terminology and reporting parameters is critical Climate-related private finance tracking and reporting needs to be enhanced MRV of climate finance under UNFCCC appears to be institutionally fragmented “Reporting financial information under UNFCCC is mainly undertaken by submitting National Communications (NatComs) every four years. In addition to the NatComs, a Common Tabular Format (CTF) for reporting on financial support, technology transfer and capacity-building support was developed under UNFCCC and agreed at the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP18) in Doha in 2012 (UNFCCC, Decision 19/CP.18; UNFCCC, Decision 2/CP.17). Biennial Reports (BRs) for developed-country Parties have to be submitted every two years with tables that use the CTF. Although there is scope for future improvement in the CTF and room for more streamlined reporting under UNFCCC, the fact that it was possible to achieve consensus among the various Parties on a single common reporting format has to be acknowledged. In this respect, reporting on climate financing has entered a new phase under UNFCCC, because for the first time there is one common reporting format at hand requiring developed-country Parties to provide fairly detailed financial information in a more comprehensive and comparable manner. The CTF requires provision of information in the following fields: summary information on the overall level of public financial support through multilateral and bilateral channels; indication of what new and additional financial resources have been provided and clarification on how developed-country Parties have determined that such resources are new and additional; detailed information on financial contributions to climate-specific funds (e.g. Adaptation Fund, Least Developed Countries Fund, Special Climate Change Fund, Global Environment Facility), to international financial institutions (e.g. World Bank, regional development banks) and to multilateral institutions (e.g. United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme); detailed information on public bilateral support, including information on the recipient country, region, project/programme; information on the provision of support for technology development and capacity-building; information on further elements such as status (provided, committed, pledged), funding source (e.g. Official Development Assistance, Other Official Flows), financial instrument (e.g. grant, concessional loan, non-concessional loan, equity), type of support (mitigation, adaptation, cross-cutting, other) and sector (e.g. energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry, water and sanitation). With regard to MRV of climate finance, COP18 in Doha requested the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), ‘in preparing a first biennial assessment and overview of financial flows, to consider ways of strengthening methodologies for reporting climate finance’ (UNFCCC, Decision 5/CP.18). As set out in its work programme, the SCF will prepare the first biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows in 2014 and present them at COP20 in Peru (UNFCCC, CP/2012/4). It will give the ‘big picture’ of climate finance and include meta-information on public and private sources as well as the geographical and thematic distribution of flows, and draw on accessible sources such as the NatComs, BRs and other relevant climate finance literature.” Source: GIZ 2014 See more on the UNFCCC and other tracking approaches at: GIZ 2014. Measuring, Reporting and Verifying Climate Finance Further guidelines for measuring and tracking climate finance to be developed Biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows to be presented at COP20 in Peru to give a “big picture” and include meta-information Source: adapted from ODI, 2013 GIZ 2014. Measuring, Reporting and Verifying Climate Finance

Key Questions What is experience with M&E frameworks in your country? What are key challenges to design M&E frameworks for adaptation projects in line with international requirements?

Thank you for your attention!!!

BACK UP In some cases qualitative input is converted to a number, e.g. by letting people rate statements on a scale from 1-5, as is done in the UNDP vulnerability reduction assessment.

Methods of adaptation M&E Adaptation M&E seeks evidence that adaptation has taken or is taking place. Common methods of adaptation M&E are: Employing indicators (quantitative or qualitative) Surveying stakeholders (e.g. the local population) Eliciting expert opinions Qualitative evidence may consist of stories or narratives from community members. Indicators may refer to one aspect, e.g. number of policies considering climate change, or may be composite or index indicators that are summing up multiple inputs. In some cases qualitative input is converted to a number, e.g. by letting people rate statements on a scale from 1-5, as is done in the UNDP vulnerability reduction assessment.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of adaptation impacts – what do we want to measure? Development without climate change with enhanced adaptive capacity Adaptation Vulnerability as a proxy with climate change Time

The vulnerability function (IPCC 2001) to wheather and climate induced hazards such as drought, heavy rain falls etc. of a system (e.g. eco-system, watershed, household, village, city, country) to wheather and climate induced hazards Exposure Sensitivity Potential Impact Adaptive Capacity Vulnerability In the frame of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on Climate Change in 2001, Working Group II “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” defines vulnerability “as the extent to which a natural or social system is susceptible to sustaining damage from climate change. Vulnerability is a function of the sensitivity of a system to changes in climate (the degree to which a system will respond to a given change in climate, including beneficial and harmful effects), adaptive capacity (the degree to which adjustments in practices, processes, or structures can moderate or offset the potential for damage or take advantage of opportunities created by a given change in climate), and the degree of exposure of the system to climatic hazards.” potential or capability of a system to adjust to climate variability and extremes

Baseline development Develop impact chain from vulnerability functions for impact groups Step1: Identify relevant exposure factors (weather and climate) for the selected impacts. Step 2: Identify natural, physical or land-management related factors which make an area or a group of people sensitive towards an impact. Step 3: Identify political, social, economic and cultural factors which contribute to a high or low adaptive capacity.

Baseline development Development of adaptation measures: Example: land degradation, erosion and landslides Adaptation Measures: Erratic but intensive precipitation events Deforestation Unsuitable cultivation of steep slopes Land degradation Erosion and landslides Knowledge of farmers on proper land management Vulnerability of village farmers to land degradation, erosion & landslides Exposure Sensitivity Impact Adaptive Capacity Afforestation with indegenous species Plant suitable crops High dependency on natural resources Provide skills training to diversify farmer incomes Awareness raising & training on land management

Assessing and managing the risks of Climate Change (IPCC 2014) With the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPPC published in 2014, Working Group II “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” introduces a new focus on risks, explained by the chart included in this slide: “Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems. Changes in both the climate system (left) and socioeconomic processes including adaptation and mitigation (right) are drivers of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability.” (Working Group II, 5th AR IPCC 2014) Glossary of terms (according to IPCC 5th AR): Hazard: The potential occurence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damages and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems and environmental resources. Exposure: The presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems, environmental functions, services and resources, infrastructure or economic, social, or cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected. Vulnerability: The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. Risk: The potential for consequences where something of value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, recognizing the diversity of values. Impacts: Effects on natural and human systems. In this model it primarily refers to those effects caused by extreme weather and climate events and of climate change. IPCC, 2014 (p. 3): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

Assessing and managing the risks of Climate Change (IPCC 2014) Vulnerability Hazard Risk Exposure Example: Communities located at flood-prone river bank Community settling at the river bank, living in shanty houses Loss of lives and assets of community due to floods Number of houses and people and the time they spent in the flood-prone area Frequent floods

Assessing and managing the risks of Climate Change (IPCC 2014) Vulnerability Hazard Risk Exposure Potential adaptation measures: Communities located at flood-prone river bank Improve houses to sustain floods, educate community members to recognise early signs of flooding Measures result in reduction of probability of occurence and negative impacts Relocate community from the river bank to another area Build flood breaks or establish early-warning system

Monitoring and Tracking Adaptation Activities (I) UNDP M&E Adaptation framework Approach Strength Challenges Adaptation interventions and Adaptation processes are categorised Sector themes help determine actors, roles, responsibilities, methods, technologies and results. Difficult to represent cross-sector activities; relies heavily on expert judgment M&E framework for adaptation is organized according to “Thematic Areas” (TAs) representing key climate change-sensitive development objectives, as well as priorities that have emerged from country assessments and the scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Thematic Areas TA1: Food security TA2: Water security TA3: Public health TA4: Disaster risk management TA5: Coastal zones TA6: Natural resources Adaptation Processes • Policymaking and planning • Capacity building and awareness raising • Information management • Decision-making for investments • Livelihoods and resource management Indicators will measure the success of a portfolio / project in achieving: • Coverage: the extent to which projects engage with stakeholders • Impact: the extent to which projects deliver the intended results, or bring about changes in behaviour that support the portfolio’s objectives. • Sustainability: the ability of stakeholders to continue to adapt beyond project lifetimes. • Replicability: the extent to which experiences, results and lessons are captured and disseminated for broader benefits. See more information on the UNDP M&E Adaptation framework at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/15Oct_2008/presentations_pdf/Bo%20Lim.pdf Source: adapted from ODI, 2013