1. Linking RVAs with
Monitoring, Evaluation,
and Learning in NAP
processes
Preliminary reflexions from 12 countries
22 February, 2023
Dakar, Sénégal
Esther Tinayo, Lensational trainee, Kenya (2021)
2. Purpose and rationale
• Study aimed at understanding how
countries are linking RVAs with
MEL in NAP processes
• Countries are investing substantial
resources in developing both RVAs
and MEL systems in the context of
NAP processes
• Yet, limited attention has been given
to linking RVAs with MEL in the
NAP process
3. Grace Ntesio, Lensational trainee, Kenya (2021)
Approach
• Desk-based research and stakeholder
consultations conducted in 2022
• 13 interviews largely with the senior heads of
vulnerability assessment units in the
government departments responsible for
adaptation planning
• 12 country case studies where climate
change risk and/or vulnerability assessments
had been, or intended to be, repeated at regular
intervals over time as part of NAP processes
• Africa: Rwanda, South Africa, Zambia
• Asia-Pacific: Nepal, New Zealand
• North America and Europe: Austria,
Finland, Germany, Sweden, UK, USA
• Latin America: Peru
4. Theoretical links between RVAs and evaluation in NAP
processes (Draft)
Evaluation
dimensions
Examples of key questions Role of RVAs
Impact Are your adaptation actions contributing to
change exposure and vulnerability to climate
change?
If repeated more than once, standardized RVAs
can measure changes in risks, vulnerabilities,
and preparedness over time
Adequacy Are our adaptation targets appropriate and
sufficiently ambitious, given the evolving
context?
If repeated more than once, standardized RVAs
can help measure changes in the broader risk
and vulnerability context in which adaptation
actions take place
Effectiveness To what extent are the adaptation targets
reached?
Indirect – Provide baseline information which
can help determine adaptation targets
Relevance To what extent are the adaptation efforts
consistent with the priorities of key
stakeholders?
Indirect – Can offer a basis for identifying and
prioritizing adaptation actions with key
stakeholders
Efficiency Are adaptation actions implemented within
the planned timeframe and resources?
None
Sustainability Can the adaptation efforts be replicated and
scaled up in the near future?
None
5. Country case studies results
• 7 of the 12 countries studied have repeated their
RVAs at least once to improve their approach to
measuring and understanding their risks and
vulnerabilities.
• When counties repeat their RVAs, most of them
make modifications – often substantial ones – to
their initial or previous RVA.
• Only two of the 12 countries reviewed - New
Zealand and Sweden- explicitly link their RVA to
the MEL system of their NAP.
6. Preliminary lessons
• Establishing a baseline RVA is difficult and takes
time (multiple attempts) for most countries. Once
countries completed their first RVAs, many view it
as flawed or inadequate.
• There seems to be a growing consensus that RVAs
should be repeated every five years, if it is
affordable.
• In the country case studies, the agency responsible
for coordinating the NAP also carries out the RVA.
But more discussion is needed within government
on how to specifically align the NAP MEL activities
with the RVA to help the two processes inform
each other.
8. Linking RVAs with MEL in
the NAP process
• What roles can RVAs play in the MEL
of the NAP process?
• What are the implications for the
design of RVAs in MEL?
• What are the barriers and enablers to
creating more synergies between the
two i.e MEL and RVAs?
Quels rôles les ERV peuvent-elles jouer dans
la SEA du processus PNA ?
Quelles sont les implications pour la
conception des ERV dans le SEA ?
Quels sont les obstacles et les catalyseurs à la
création de plus de synergies entre les deux,
c'est-à-dire le SEA et les ERV ?
Lier les ERV avec le SEA dans
les processus PNA
Editor's Notes
In theory, R/VA can contribute to evaluate the adequacy of adaptation actions against the evolving broader environment where adaptation efforts take place as well as the impacts of adaptation actions in terms of reduced exposure and vulnerability to climate change.
7 of the 12 countries studied have repeated their RVAs at least once and their main motivation for repeating RVAs is to improve or refine their approach to measuring and understanding their risks and vulnerabilities.
The current focus of most surveyed countries is on monitoring and reporting on progress instead of assessing the impacts of their interventions (incl. understanding changes in vulnerability).
When counties repeat their R/VAs, most of them make modifications – often substantial ones – to their initial or previous R/VA. Some of these revisions are made because authorities want take account of lessons learned related to methodology, technical issues, etc., and they want the R/VA to be more comprehensive (e.g., covering more sectors).
Only two of the 12 countries reviewed, New Zealand and Sweden, explicitly link their R/VA to the MEL system of their NAP. Both countries have laws that bind their R/VA and NAP systems together and sets out cycles whereby the two systems inform – and are informed by – the other.
When counties repeat their R/VAs, most of them make modifications – often substantial ones – to their initial or previous R/VA. Some of these revisions are made because authorities want take account of lessons learned related to methodology, technical issues, etc., and they want the R/VA to be more comprehensive (e.g., covering more sectors).
There seems to be a growing consensus that the R/VA should be repeated every five years, if it is affordable.
An alternative is for a government agency to carry out special R/VAs to address critically important sectors, areas, institutions or features (e.g., infrastructure, ground water sources, shorelines, cities, food production areas).