Monitoring and Evaluation

Guiding questions

• Which indicators for your M&E fit your case best?

• What is your envisaged reassessment period for the monitoring climate risks?

• Do you want to focus on the M&E of the risks or also include respective adaptation measures?

• Are both, key and less urgent risks, included?

• How are key risks dealt with? Do necessary steps contribute to alleviation of the identified risk?

• What are key indicators, metrics, methods and means to track the risks, as well as the progress on adaptation and resilience-building?

• What works well? What does not?

• How do you evaluate the performance in the CRA itself? What could have been improved? Which stakeholders were relevant and should be included more?

• What role do stakeholders play in your M&E (e.g. also in the light of a policy outcome?)

• Is learning ensured? How?

• What is the feedback from stakeholders?

• Is new data available regarding the risks and/or the system? What else is needed (e.g., data, resources, competencies, research) to understand the risks better?

• How do you want to communicate your final outcome?

Monitoring and evaluation is both a departure and ending point, as the goal of the CRA is to iteratively go through its process while aiming at continuous improvement. This step therefore also brings in another momentum of opportunities. The M&E step is essential for ensuring Climate Risks (Key and Less Urgent Risks) are effectively monitored and managed and that climate risk management efforts can have appropriate impact. It may include participatory processes and has a special focus on the learning component.

The M&E step unites two separate but also connected sub-steps. While Monitoring has its focus on the process, Evaluation puts emphasis on the outcome – Monitoring therefore refers to the surveillance of climate hazards and their respective risks, whereas Evaluation aims at (re-)evaluating the Climate Risk Assessment itself. In Monitoring, regions should take into account Less Urgent Risks as well as Key Risks and observe them over time. Putting them into context in relation to specific objectives, principles or needs that were set earlier (e.g., during Scoping or Risk Exploration) concludes the cycle. On the other hand, Evaluation comprises of an iterative reflection on the Climate Risk Assessment cycle, including a comparison of factual and projected climate risk situations. The frequency of Evaluation is defined by the region and may vary according to Risk Outcomes, objectives or policy interest. Learning is of key significance in this step as evaluation may continuously generate new knowledge and data and can thus influence processes with regard to, e.g., governance, policy and decision-making or relevant ministries and institutions. It is crucial to understand what works well and what does not and act upon it – as in the CRA process and as in dealing with risks. Both M&E steps can facilitate participatory processes and include relevant stakeholders for most extensive engagement and comprehensive understanding of the CRA, thus ensuring that the process is robust and put into context.

Guiding questions - Efficacy, impact and usefulness

• How efficiently did you use your resources (e.g. time, staff, cost)?

• How might your efficiency/non-efficiency have impacted the CRA process?

• How would you value the impact of the CRA regarding an improved understanding of risk (e.g. public awareness and engagement, institutional capacity, funding and investment)?

• How do you evaluate the applicability of the Risk Assessment for CRM practices (e.g. number of times used, acceptance by experts and stakeholder, translation of results into CRM)?

Selecting indicators for this process is crucial to summarize output of the CRA and make it more valuable. Indicators should be linked to specific objectives, sectors as well as stakeholder’s needs and can be assessed quantitatively or qualitatively. While it is difficult to provide a full set of indicators due to the heterogeneity of regions and risk situations, regions can define their individual indicators that are more relevant for their context and purposes. Tracking changes of indicators, as well as risk thresholds or trigger levels, may be helpful to indicate a potential overshoot of risk tolerance and need to be attributed to (further) CRM measures. Depending on the focus of the M&E indicators may change. Below, a non-exhaustive list of potential M&E indicators is provided; while Climate Risk Monitoring refers to workflow specific and unspecific indicators, the Climate Risk Assessment Evaluation provides an initial set of performance indicators.

Indicators for Climate Risk Monitoring

Workflow unspecific indicators

Frequency, intensity, spatial distribution, and duration of climate events; public awareness and engagement; institutional capacity

Workflow	Indicators/impact
Flood risk	Number of overflows; losses and damages (inju-ries, hospitalisations, fatalities, livestock, crops, business, tourism, buildings, etc.); disruption of public infrastructure
Drought risk	Losses and damages to agriculture (crops, live-stock); availability of tap water; extent of agri-cultural areas and people affected
Heat risk	Health impacts (hospitalisations and fatalities); economic productivity
Fire risk	Number of fires; extent of affected areas and people; losses and damages (injuries, hospitalisa-tions, fatalities, agricultural and forest areas, farm and wild animals, buildings, tourism, etc.); disruption of public infrastructure
Snow risk	Disruption of public infrastructure; losses and damages (injuries, hospitalisations, fatalities, livestock, business, buildings, etc.)
Wind risk	Disruption of public infrastructure; losses and damages (injuries, hospitalisations, fatalities, livestock, business, buildings, forests, etc.))

Indicators for the Evaluation of Climate Risk Assessment process

Performance Indicators	Examples
Efficacy	Efficient use of resources e.g. time, staff, cost
Usefulness	Raised awareness, improved understanding of risk (Public awareness and engagement, institu-tional capacity, funding and investment)
Impact	Applicability for Risk Assessment and CRM (number of times used, acceptance by experts and stakeholder, translation of results into CRM)

While Communication is part of the participatory processes and should thus be enforced throughout the whole CRA, at this stage it is reasonable to communicate results to the public and/or key audiences with a focus on policy- and decision-makers. A CRA may inform policy making and policy revision for CRM and supports learning over time.

Tip

The output of the M&E step can inform a report or plan to document and communicate results. This should also include marginalized and disproportionately affected groups as well as gender aspects.

Tip

At this stage it can be relevant to reassess targets, objectives and responsibilities in national/sectoral adaptation plans (NAP/SAP) or strategies (NAS) and include them in the M&E process.