Suchergebnisse

Although over 70 countries adopted a national climate change adaptation plan (NAP), little is known about the extent to which these plans are implemented. NAP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems can play an important role in tracking implementation but have rarely been studied. Based on a systematic review including outreach to country representatives and international organizations, a comprehensive inventory of NAP M&E systems is compiled documenting government practices from over 60 countries. In contrast to previous studies, this stocktake does not rely on stated intentions of M&E but requires evidence such as monitoring and evaluation reports. The extent of NAP M&E involvement globally and countries' respective status are determined and compared to a baseline from the 2017 Adaptation Gap Report of the United Nations Environment Programme. Results show a 40% increase in the number of countries that are developing or using NAP M&E systems and almost a doubling of published NAP evaluations. However, over 60% of countries that adopted a NAP do not systematically assess its implementation, leaving a critical gap in understanding the impacts of NAPs. These findings support calls for greater attention to the quality of adaptation planning and for assessing its implementation and effectiveness.

AbstractMonitoring and evaluation (M&E) efforts to prepare for, adjust to, and reduce the impacts of climate change—a process known as adaptation—can help to understand the results of adaptation interventions and better account for progress over time. Information on adaptation is so far typically gathered through either project and program, or national‐level climate change adaptation M&E systems with limited connection between them. However, given that adaptation takes place at multiple scales, a complete picture of the adaptation progress can only be established if information from national and subnational levels is combined. The chapter outlines three avenues illustrated by examples from practice on how information on adaptation interventions and evaluation results can be connected across scales in order to improve the evidence base for adaptation planning and decision making.

Leading evaluation practitioners were asked about lessons from the recent 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) for evaluation practice. Contributors emphasize the importance of evaluating equity between rich and poor countries and other forms of climate injustice. The role of the evaluation is questioned: what can evaluation be expected to do on its own and what requires collaboration across disciplines, professions and civil society – and across generations? Contributors discuss the implications of the post-Glasgow climate 'pact' for the continued relevance of evaluation. Should evaluators advocate for the marginalized and become activists on behalf of sustainability and climate justice – as well as advocates of evidence? Accountability-driven and evidence-based evaluation is needed to assess the effectiveness of investments in adaptation and mitigation. Causal pathways in different settings and 'theories of no-change' are needed to understand gaps between stakeholder promises and delivery. Evaluators should measure unintended consequences and what is often left unmeasured, and be sensitive to failure and unanticipated effects of funded actions. Evaluation timescales and units of analysis beyond particular programmes are needed to evaluate the complexities of climate change, sustainability and to take account of natural systems. The implications for evaluation commissioning and funding are discussed as well as the role of evaluation in programme-design and implementation.

This perspective identifies how recent advances contribute to re-evaluating and re-constructing global environmental negotiations as a research object by calling into question who constitutes an actor and what constitutes a site of agreement formation. Building on this scholarship, we offer the term agreement-making to facilitate further methodological and ethical reflection. The term agreement-making broadens the conceptualisation of the actors, sites and processes constitutive of global environmental agreements and brings to the fore how these are shaped by, reflect and have the potential to re-make or transform the intertwined global order of social, political and economic relations. Agreement-making situates research within these processes, and we suggest that enhancing the methodological diversity and practical utility is a potential avenue for challenging the reproduction of academic dominance. We highlight how COVID-19 requires further adapting research practices and offers an opportunity to question whether we need to be physically present to provide critical insight, analysis and support.