In May 2021, the NAP Global Network conducted a review of the available NAP progress reports. The results indicate that these reports use different objectives, approaches to evaluating progress, and ways in which the results are presented and communicated. The process of developing a progress report seems to present as many challenges as it does opportunities to strengthen NAP processes.

1. WEBINAR
Approaches to progress reports on
National Adaptation Plan (NAP)
implementation
June 24, 2021

2. Objectives
• Provide an overview of the different
approaches used to progress reporting,
and how they can be determined based on
the objectives and resources available.
• Share best practices and lessons learned
on NAP progress reporting.
• Looking at some of the challenges faced
by countries as well as remaining gaps.

3. Today’s Agenda
3:00 - 3:05 Welcoming
Introduction of agenda, objectives, speakers
3:05 - 3:20 Presentation
Results of review of existing progress reports
3:20 - 3:40 Discussion
Experiences from Kenya + Burkina Faso
3:40 - 3:55 Q&A
Participants can ask questions

4. Our Country Experts
KENYA
THOMAS LERENTEN LELEKOITIEN
NAP focal point
Deputy Director,
Climate Change Adaptation -
Climate Change Directorate
Ministry of Environment and Forestry
BURKINA FASO
KOUKA OUEDRAOGO
NAP focal point
Inspector General of Water and Forests,
Permanent Secretariat of the National
Council for Sustainable Development
Ministry of Environment, Green Economy
and Climate Change

5. Overview of existing national
adaptation progress reports
June 2021

6. Background
• Development time: 2 months - 1 year
• Implementation periods reviewed between
1-7 years
• On average, involvement of dozens of
stakeholders from all key sectors
• Most documents focused on tracking
progress of implementation of adaptation
activities, a few on tracking outcomes or both
• Some documents included best practices
from other countries
• Most documents had the same structure
• A few covered mitigation aspects as well

7. Objectives
Decision-making, Accountability,
Information sharing & Communications
Primary objectives
• Measure the implementation status
of climate adaptation activities
• Evaluate the integration of climate
adaptation in development planning
• Evaluate climate adaptation outcomes
• Evaluate the NAP process
(e.g., effectiveness, institutional
capacities, coordination, relevance)

8. Secondary objectives:
• Identify and highlight opportunities,
challenges, gaps, and lessons learned
• Make recommendations for the next NAP
• Inform policy-making
• Raise stakeholder awareness and
engagement
• Enhance reporting capacities
• Increase responsibility and accountability of
contributors to the NAP implementation
• Inform the general public and international
audiences on the country’s NAP
implementation

9. Approaches
Based on the primary objectives:
• Traffic light colour system, percentages of
implementation, completion criteria
• Qualitative evaluation of how well
adaptation is integrated into policies,
strategies, programs, and budgeting
• Risk heatmaps (impact, vulnerability)
• Indicators using trend descriptions and
appraisals
• Readiness and preparedness criteria
• Qualitative evaluation of the relevance and
effectiveness of the NAP process
• Survey of stakeholders’ views and
understanding of climate change
adaptation and the NAP process

10. France

11. Belgium

12. Finland

13. UK

14. Germany

15. Presentation &
Communication
of results
Based on the identified audiences and objectives:
• Results organized in two ways (aggregate results,
broken down by sector/theme/objective)
• Both qualitative and quantitative methods used
• Vizualization tools: tables, color codes, trending
arrows, bar and donut charts, graphs
• Most documents were available for download
online through the governments’ websites
• Additional comms products: shorter version of
the report, translated version, or infographic

16. Kiribati

17. Kenya

18. Brazil

19. Challenges
• Certain sectors did not have a good
understanding of the NAP process
• The lack of coordination/leadership in
certain sectors
• Systematic M&E of adaptation remains
rare in most sectors
• Insufficient responses
• Getting official support from the Ministry
in charge of coordinating the NAP process
• Unreliable data and lack of data
• Difficulties with new software or
reporting templates

20. Reflexions
• The approaches used seem in most cases to have been determined based on
the objectives and the resources available
• The development of the reports offered good opportunities to raise
awareness about the NAP process and the reporting requirements
• A simple 1-year or mid-term evaluation can help identify gaps, bridge them
before the end of the term and clarify reporting needs and expectations
• Gaps remained (gender and social inclusion, strategic linkages between
national and sub-national planning, alignment, communication)

21. Resources
https://napglobalnetwork.org/articles

22. info@napglobalnetwork.org | www.napglobalnetwork.org
@NAP_Network