Introduction
Establishing practical indicators for climate change projects is complicated due to its cross-cutting nature and the mid to long-term period of both mitigation and adaptation projects/ programmes as well as the uncertainty related with the impacts which could only be obtained at an undefined distant future. This compilation gives an overview of possible output and outcome indicators for climate change interventions. Most of the indicators are drawn from key donor guidelines and the links to these guidance documents are provided in for additional information and reference.
Selecting indicators
Villanueva (2011) makes a strong case that indicators should be selected
according to ADAPT principles: ones that are Adaptive, Dynamic, Active,
Participatory, and Thorough, suited to the complexities that
characterize climate interventions. Villanueva promotes M&E practice
that focuses on tracking and measuring results “in order to promote a
better understanding of how individuals deal with a changing
environment”. Given the global scope of climate change and the newness
of adaptation interventions, the evidence base that informs
interventions is nascent. We do not have a clear picture of what works
where and under what conditions; much less what the best indicators are
(Hedger et al. 2008) . This point also highlights how important it is to
harness M&E research to identify and disseminate lessons learned. If
developed and applied appropriately, indicators can be a vital tool in
tracking progress and understanding successful interventions. However,
unrealistic expectations of what indicators can do, inappropriate use of
indicators, or a desire to oversimplify can result in a failure to learn
lessons, and possibly maladaptation (i.e. interventions that may seem
helpful in the short run but ultimately cause harm to either the
population or the environment).
Some Tips
Complex socio-economic dynamics underlie adaptation effectiveness and are often either hard to quantify or the data is not available. Think carefully about how your quantitative and qualitative data sets complement one another, and together construct the most complete picture of performance and progress. Quantitative indicators are more effective when combined with qualitative information.
Consider scale and data availability. In the real world, data for the indicators we would ideally use is not always consistently available. Make the best use of what information you have.
The decision on which indicators to use should be taken in consultation with sector leaders.
No one set of adaptation indicators will work for all climate interventions. Indicators must be chosen based on the relationship between planned activities and the context in which they will be implemented.
There is an inevitable reliance on proxy indicators. These are variables that are used to measure progress when direct indicators are not available. Proxy indicators are often used in cases where direct measures of program performance are not practical, feasible, or cost-effective.
The best M&E systems are useful, practical, and efficient. Choosing too many indicators can burden the team and interfere with program implementation. Be mindful not to construct an M&E framework that is unwieldy. An appropriate balance of indicators does not necessarily mean many them.
Learning should be integrated into all processes to reflect upon the information generated by monitoring and evaluation and to continuously improve interventions based on the evidence gathered.