Addressing methodological challenges: measuring resilience + international coherence

1,058 views
878 views

Published on

Presentation on methodological approaches to monitoring and evaluation of adaptation: Provides examples of some approaches DFID has used to address these challenges. Presented at the Meeting of the OECD Joint DAC-EPOC Task Team on Climate Change and Development Co-operation, April 2014, Zürich, Switzerland. For more information, please contact Michael Mullan (michael.mullan@oecd.org) & Jan Corfee-Morlot (jan.corfee-morlot@oecd.org).

Published in: Environment, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,058
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
385
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Addressing methodological challenges: measuring resilience + international coherence

  1. 1. Addressing methodological challenges: measuring resilience + international coherence Juliet Field Climate and Environment Dept
  2. 2. Where fits with TAMD framework Under Track 1 the framework measures how well adaptation programmes have led to the integration of climate risk management into development processes Under Track 2 the framework measures the extent to which adaptation programmes have led to positive development outcomes Measuring Resilience
  3. 3. Resilience measure Project inputs Project outputs Outcome = improved resilience of beneficiaries Impacts (loss and well-being indicators) Climate hazards Theory of change: without the programme beneficiaries would have been less resilient to climate hazards and therefore performance of development indicators (e.g. income, deaths) would be worse than in the with programme scenario • Measure underlying factors that make people likely to experience negative effects when they are exposed to stresses or shocks • If these factors are identified they can be targeted by the project and monitored regularly even in the absence of the shock • Link in a TOC where resilience is a project outcome that contributes to impact of improvement in well being in the face of climate change
  4. 4. Resilience method – in brief Step 1: Define resilience context (of whom, to what, for what) Step 2: Identify key resilience factors – participatory methods Step 3: Quantitative and qualitative indicators based on factors, separated by dimensions (convert to scores where aggregated) Proposed dimensions of resilience Assets Safety nets Access to services Livelihood viability Adaptive Capacity Institutional and governance context Income and food access Natural and built infrastructure context Personal circumstances
  5. 5. Resilience measure cont. Step 4: Link in a flexible TOC to project outputs and impacts – describe processes and mechanisms Step 5:Identify any confounding factors Step 6: Sampling methodology Step 7: Calculate numbers with improved resilience Step 8: Attribution – control groups, feedback etc. Project inputs Project outputs Outcome = improved resilience of beneficiaries Impacts (loss and well-being indicators) Climate hazards Theory of change: without the programme beneficiaries would have been less resilient to climate hazards and therefore performance of development indicators (e.g.
  6. 6. Piloting the method (BRACED) • Flexibly adapt method to all BRACED projects (21 shortlisted) at the same time • KM support to apply • Project and programme evaluations will provide contextual information, validate and triangulate (incl experimental methods)
  7. 7. Project inputs Project outputs Outcome = improved resilience of beneficiaries Impacts (loss and well-being indicators) Climate hazards Theory of change: without the programme beneficiaries would have been less resilient to climate hazards and therefore performance of development indicators (e.g. income, deaths) would be worse than in the with programme scenario Monitoring duringproject lifetime Long timeframes Resilience measure – challenges addressed
  8. 8. Resilience measure – challenges addressed Project inputs Project outputs Outcome = improved resilience of beneficiaries Impacts (loss and well-being indicators) Climate hazards Theory of change: without the programme beneficiaries would have been less resilient to climate hazards and therefore performance of development indicators (e.g. income, deaths) would be worse than in the with programme scenario Canmonitorwithout waitingforaclimate hazardtooccur
  9. 9. Project inputs Project outputs Outcome = improved resilience of beneficiaries Impacts (loss and well-being indicators) Climate hazards Theory of change: without the programme beneficiaries would have been less resilient to climate hazards and therefore performance of development indicators (e.g. income, deaths) would be worse than in the with programme scenario Attribution easier – shorter timeframes Attribution harder Resilience measure – challenges addressed
  10. 10. Resilience measure – additional benefits Project inputs Project outputs Outcome = improved resilience of beneficiaries Impacts (loss and well-being indicators) Climate hazards Theory of change: without the programme beneficiaries would have been less resilient to climate hazards and therefore performance of development indicators (e.g. income, deaths) would be worse than in the with programme scenario Predictive link and accountability Context specific
  11. 11. Areas still to address • Designed primarily with community level projects in mind, theoretically applicable for institution building (track one) but need to determine sampling approach etc. • Link between resilience outcomes and impact on well being • Determining which resilience factors directly attributable to project outputs and which not (controlling for confounding factors) • Applying to mainstreamed climate programmes (e.g. Significant rather than Principal)
  12. 12. International approaches to ada M and E • International coherence on methodological challenges and adaptation m and e • Relevant to GCF adaptation framework design • Emerging thinking on a set of suggested principles for international approaches • Feedback welcome
  13. 13. International approaches to ada M and E • Ensures coherence of internationally funded programmes with the priorities determined in countries own national adaptation planning processes. • Builds on and reflects country results frameworks. • Uses both qualitative (e.g. scorecard approaches) and quantitative indicators to track both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ results. • Ensures that results are disaggregated across all areas so that impacts for the most vulnerable e.g. poverty levels and women and girls, are recorded. • Allows the framework to evolve along with concepts and definitions (e.g. resilience). • Allows ‘mainstreamed’ approaches to be tracked Principles for international approaches?
  14. 14. Principles for international approaches? • Allows some aggregation of results in areas recognised as important to achieve climate resilience, an illustrative list of ‘strategic areas’’ are: i) Knowledge, and awareness; information availability and usage; ii) Capacity and institutions; including level of mainstreaming, and delivery ability iii) Enabling environment: policy, regulation and standards iv) Financial flows: domestic and international, public and private and leverage; and v) Quantitative impacts: number of people helped to cope, increased resilience/reduced vulnerability, value of assets protected, hectares restored etc.

×