Abstract

The paper examines the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) approaches of major global results measurement frameworks (RMF) and national frameworks to draw lessons for aligning country systems and fund-level results frameworks to measure adaptation success.

The Paris Agreement provides a foundation for the most robust climate change transparency system to date, requesting countries to provide information on their progress to adaptation targets. Linking up country-led and global monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems can be mutually beneficial. It would help streamline workflows and reduce reporting burdens, minimise resource wastage and win ‘buy-in’ from the people responsible for making sure these systems work. 

Aligning global results measurement frameworks (RMF) and national M&E systems offers multiple benefits for global climate funds and developing countries. Despite considerable international attention for adaptation M&E, there is limited evidence that M&E systems are linking across levels. So they miss out on the efficiencies of using existing frameworks. An overemphasis on upward reporting to funders also risks neglecting downward accountability and adds layers to already complicated M&E requirements. 

Global RMFs that are better integrated with national systems can help countries develop and entrench national climate change M&E systems, generating country buy-in and integrating climate change M&E across government ministries to accurately report against their own priorities. But if developing countries lack sophisticated M&E systems, it is difficult for climate funds to justify linking up with national systems. To resolve this, we recommend funds invest in climate M&E or draw lessons from countries that have begun nurturing improved M&E systems.