Effi ciency and eff ec veness predominate as key principles

Diff erent approaches to evalua on refl ect diff erent understandings of what successful adapta on is. And this is refl ected in the development of indicators: adapta on as an end itself (outcome), or as a means to achieve predetermined processes or changes. However, two characteris cs arise in the indicators used. The fi rst is the use of SMART indicators – the standardized approach to indicators. Because the main idea is that indicators should be measurable and focus on results in a par cular

me-based project, there is a bias towards developing indicators that are measurable. Quan fying results as means to measure eff ec veness leads to the development of indicators that are detached from the underlying reasons of a par cular result.

The second common characteris c is that specifi c predetermined indicators of adap ve capacity and risk are dominant across the frameworks. Current evalua on approaches focus on measuring the eff ec veness (achievement of results) and effi ciency (in monetary value) in terms of risk and capacity to manage stresses and shocks. As a result, important issues discussed in sec on 1 in rela on to equity and sustainability are sidelined. As highlighted in sec on 1, it is not just success that needs to be measured, but also failure. In short, exis ng approaches are not run against indicators of maladapta on such us the distribu on of vulnerability (Barne and O’Neil, 2010). Embedding generic indicators – such as poverty and access to and control over resources – of adap ve capacity and vulnerability is cri cal, in par cular, to ensure that adapta on and disaster risk reduc on interven ons do not exacerbate exis ng vulnerabili es, or vulnerabili es of other groups or sectors. Not doing so translates into current M&E frameworks as being project focused and not addressing issues about the opera onal environment and longer-term developmental context.

Research in recent years has demonstrated the rela on between disaster risk reduc on, adapta on and development. In fact, recent frameworks highlight that in prac ce it may be diffi cult to dis nguish between development and adapta on interven ons (McGray et al., 2007). These frameworks focus on ex-ante evalua on, on evalua ng poten al adapta on op ons along the whole spectrum of ac vi es, in order to inform

planning processes and policymaking. For post-evalua on approaches, more recently, the Hedger et al. (2008) framework provides a holis c approach to evalua on from a development perspec ve that allows for a comprehensive understanding of the overlaps between evalua on approaches of development interven ons and adapta on, and the need to integrate both at all levels and scales. Nevertheless, the development of such frameworks has been dominated by academic research but these

34 Learning to ADAPT

methodologies at the interven on level. Learning thus becomes central to the design of pragma c frameworks that go beyond theore cal approaches. In summary, what the current approaches off er is the iden fi ca on of poten al areas of interven on and an evalua on of value for money. They also contribute to the understanding of the technical challenges involved in evalua on processes in the context of climate change. However a focus on technical challenges to measure impact sidelines the set of challenges that emerge by deepening the debate around decision-making processes. As a result, current approaches limit the understanding of how adapta on and disaster risk reduc on ac ons take place.

3.2 What is missing?

The 2010 World Bank guideline on M&E of adapta on recognizes that the decision-making process that leads to the choice and implementa on of a par cular set of adapta on measures is, per se, ‘an important outcome of the project that should be monitored and evaluated as such’ (2010c: 7). On the other hand, it also states that, ‘an adapta on process is successful only if it delivers measurable improvement in the adap ve capacity of natural and managed systems, and increased resiliency of communi es to clima c shocks’ (2010c: 7). While current approaches seem to address the second set of indicators, what is missing is a comprehensive set of M&E frameworks that capture the factors that lead to par cular set of adapta on and disaster risk reduc on choices. A clear gap emerging from the above review is that exis ng approaches do not address percep ons of risk and capacity or how capacity leads to ac on; as a result, li le a en on has been given to capturing the decision-making processes at household level.

These fi ndings suggest that evalua on approaches and M&E methodologies currently used in adapta on ini a ves and disaster risk management are missing an orienta on towards learning and understanding of how adapta on and adap ve capacity develops. This resonates with the growing recogni on of the limita on of mainstream M&E approaches to capture change (Guijt, 2007). These fi ndings point to the need to revise the determinis c view of adapta on within M&E frameworks and to consider more carefully the intricacies of individuals’ and communi es’ decision-making processes. Recent research demonstrates how choices and decisions about whether to cope with or adapt to are socially and culturally driven (O’Brien, 2009; Heyd and Brooks, 2009). A large literature pertaining to human decision-making and ac on, tradi onally outside of the climate change fi eld suggests, for example, that both mo va on and perceived abili es are important determinants of ac on (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). People’s percep ons of change and risk, are formed by their past experiences, the social and cultural environment that they live in and the informa on that they are able to access (Grothmann and Pa , 2005). The decisions that people and communi es make regarding adapta on op ons will be infl uenced by their own percep ons of the changes that are happening and the impacts that they have had or may have in the future (Hoon et al., 2008).

Grothman and Pa (2005) applied a ‘model of private proac ve adapta on to climate change’ to study decision-making processes of farmers in

Zimbabwe in response to seasonal climate forecast informa on received to help inform their decisions and improve their yields. Grothamn and Pa revealed that farmers did not change their decisions in response to the climate informa on: farmers that used to plant maize did not change their crop to others such as millet, which, given the climate forecast, would have been more produc ve. Further, the socio-cogni ve model demonstrated that farmers were not limited by a lack of means – but by a lack of ‘adapta on inten on’. Farmers’ percep on of the risks associated with not taking adap ve measures deviated from the ‘objec vely assessed risks’. The farmers were reluctant to believe that their ac ons could protect themselves from harm – indica ng low they perceived adap ve capacity. The fi ndings of a determinis c or economic evalua on most probably would have been diff erent. They would have captured that a seasonal climate forecast was in place, that trainings had been carried out, and even that the level of awareness was high among the farmers’ community. Economic evalua on would have chosen millet – more abundant, economic and more profi table under the given climate forecasts. However, none of these approaches would have captured if the informa on was or was not used, why it was used, and in turn how this would impact the overall vulnerability of the communi es.

The importance of analysing decision-making processes at the household level is not new in development (Thomas, 1988), but what might be new is the design of M&E frameworks for adapta on interven ons that can capture such issues. Adapta on, constrained by the capacity to adapt, involves a further set of uncertain es in decision-making processes. Put diff erently, the ability to manage shocks is a complex func on of exis ng behaviour, decision making and change. Hence, it becomes cri cal to learn how capacity is put into ac on and how this ac on leads to a reduc on of vulnerability at large. In spite of growing empirical research examining the link between cogni ve factors and adapta on (Kromker et al., 2008; Weber 2010; Pelling and High, 2005) these have been largely ignored in exis ng M&E approaches.

The importance of cogni ve and social factors in individual decision-making processes is also highlighted in the IPCC:

Adapta on will be vital and benefi cial. However, fi nancial, technological, cogni ve, behavioural, poli cal, social, ins tu onal and cultural constraints limit both the implementa on and eff ec veness of adapta on measures. (2007: 56)

Adger et al. iden fy barriers to adapta on, where cogni ve factors and decision making emerge:

• Informa onal and cogni ve barriers are where a tudes to risk and understanding of climate change and its implica ons aff ect prospects for adapta on. It is suggested that policymakers need to be aware of these barriers, provide structural support to overcome them, and concurrently

Learning to ADAPT 38

work towards fostering individual empowerment and ac on. (2007: 736) • Social and cultural limits to adapta on can be related to the diff erent ways in which people and groups experience, interpret and respond to climate change. (2007: 737)

Research on the determinants of human behaviour12 _{highlights how it is not} only cri cal to understand how change happens at the individual level, but also to look at the social context and the opera onal environment within which change takes place. Put diff erently, building adap ve capacity is largely an internal process. But how that capacity develops into ac on and change is highly dependent on the broader opera onal environment within which communi es live.

Monitoring and evalua on frameworks that support learning and space to gather evidence of such issues will allow for improved prac ce – the ul mate goal of M&E.

4. Learning to adapt: Principles for M&E of Climate Change