{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019027484143763214, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028188865398167725, 'mean_word_length': 5.859903381642512, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The use of indicators for monitoring and evaluation of adaptation: lessons from development cooperation agencies

In the context of scaled-up funding for climate change adaptation, it is more important than ever to guarantee value for money of adaptation interventions. Robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) ensures that the prospective benefits of interventions are being realized and it helps to improve the design of future projects and programmes. This paper is the first empirical assessment of M&E frameworks used by development cooperation agencies for projects and programmes with adaptation-specific or adaptation-related components. It analyses documents for 106 projects across 6 bilateral development agencies. The analysis finds that Result Based Management, the Logical Framework Approach and the accompanying logframe are the most common M&E approaches used for adaptation. In applying these approaches, the long-term perspective of most adaptation initiatives means that it is particularly important to clearly differentiate between outcomes, outputs and activities. In addition, M&E frameworks for adaptation should combine qualitative, quantitative and binary indicators. Baselines for these indicators should be specified to improve understanding of progress. Significant challenges remain in relation to dealing with shifting baselines, attribution and time lags between interventions and outcomes.