National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Systems for Climate Change Adaptation

Table of Contents

• 1.0 Introduction 10
• 2.0 Background 12
• 2.1 Defining MEL for Adaptation 12
• 2.2 Components of a MEL System for Adaptation 14
• 2.3 Linking MEL Systems for Adaptation Across Scales 18
• 3.0 Methodology 21
• 4.0 Key Findings 23
• 4.1 The Context for the MEL System 23
• 4.2 Approaches for the MEL System 31
• 4.3 Monitoring and Reporting 36
• 4.4 Evaluation and Reporting 36
• 4.5 Learning 39
• 5.0 Progress Made in MEL Systems Over the Past Decade 40
• 6.0 Recommendations for Strengthening MEL Systems for Adaptation 44
• References 47
• Appendix A. Diverse National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Systems in Nine Countries 55
• A1 National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning System for Adaptation in Canada 55
• A2 National MEL System for Adaptation in France 63
• A3 National MEL System for Adaptation in Kenya 69
• A4 National MEL System for Adaptation in Namibia 78
• A5 National MEL System for Adaptation in Peru 82
• A6 National MEL System for Adaptation in Somalia 87
• A7 National MEL System for Adaptation in Tonga 90
• A8 National MEL System for Adaptation in the United Kingdom 95
• A9 National MEL System for Adaptation in Vietnam 105
• Figure 1. The MEL of NAP processes refers to both a distinct phase and a dedicated set of activites throughout the NAP process 12
• Figure 2. The UAE FGCR and its linkage to MEL systems 20
• Figure A1. Adaptation cycle for Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy 57
• Figure A2. NAS adaptation cycle timeline 57
• Figure A3. Timelines for the national knowledge assessments 58
• Figure A4. Targets for the system on infrastructure 59
• Figure A5. Implementation progress of sub-actions in the nature and environment sector 66
• Figure A6. The MEL system for the NAP 85
• Figure A7. Progress in integrating JNAP 2 activities into the ministry’s corporate planning and reporting process (theme 1) 93
• Figure A8. Percentage of progress in JNAP 2 activities in the past three months by objective 93
• Figure A9. “Monitoring map” for the working land and seas thematic area 98
• Figure A10. Preparedness ladder 99
• FIgure A11. Scoring criteria for policies and plans 101
• Figure A12. Scoring criteria for delivery and implementation 102
• Figure A13. 2023 performance summary of the water supply sector 103
• Figure A14. M&E Framework and focal points at all levels 106
• Figure A15. Diagram of M&E organization, direction, and coordination 107
• Figure A16. Contents of the M&E of adaptation activities 107
• Figure A17. Logical framework of the national M&E system 108
• Table 1. Components and sub-components of a MEL system for adaptation 15
• Table 2. A list of selected countries 22
• Table 3. Summary of context components across countries 29
• Table 4. Approaches to MEL systems for adaptation across countries 33
• Table 5. Types of reporting done by countries based on M&E activities 37
• Table A1. Saskatchewan indicators and targets for measuring resilience 61
• Table A2. Indicators for monitoring the NAP 72
• Table A3. Subset of indicators for the food and nutrition security sector 73
• Table A4. Examples of indicators in the Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture M&E framework 74
• Table A5. Example key performance indicator under Kenya’s MEL system for the NCCAP III 75
• Table A6. Indicators, targets, and results achieved in the food and nutrition security sector 76
• Table A7. Guidelines for information collection and calculation for M&E indicators at the ministerial/sectoral level 109