Tracking adaptation and measuring development
As countries increasingly focus on adapting to climate change, and more ‘climate finance’ becomes available, there is a growing need for frameworks and tools that let organisations track and assess whether, and how, climate adaptation interventions actually work for development.
IIED is working with partners to develop and pilot a framework, called Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD), to track adaptation and measure its impact on development.
What is TAMD?
Who is TAMD for?
The approach will be useful for a wide range of stakeholders, including developing country governments, their ministries, departments and agencies, international institutions, donors, and multilateral development banks. “It’s not something that we’re developing on its own,” says Anika Olson, Adaptation Advisor from the Department of International Development. “It’s coming from the countries themselves.”
How is TAMD different from other frameworks?
Most frameworks for evaluating responses to climate change essentially assume that adaptation can and will ‘neutralise’ climate change impacts, letting development meet its original targets. But this probably underestimates changes needed to keep development on track. TAMD takes a twin track approach that could help countries evaluate developmental outputs and outcomes of climate adaptation investments.
How does TAMD work?
TAMD builds a conceptual framework that can be used by countries to:
- evaluate how far, and how well climate risks are managed at international, national and sub-national scales, and
- use vulnerability and development indicators to assess whether development outcomes bring better local climate resilience, and whether that aggregates at larger scales to produce climate-resilient development.
The operational framework of TAMD further outlines the steps needed to apply the TAMD framework, providing practical guidance on how to put the concepts into operation.
The diagram below explains how TAMDs twin track approach can help countries track two complementary dimensions – national and sub national responses for managing climate change and their implication on development outcomes.
Over 2013 and 2014 we will pilot TAMD in several countries. The development of robust and cost-effective adaptation evaluation frameworks is underway. In collaboration with policy-makers and researchers in Kenya, Mozambique, Nepal, and Pakistan, frameworks are being tailored to specific national and sub-national circumstances.
During the first phase, our research partners completed a scoping report. We also carried out an appraisal of existing monitoring and evaluation systems in our pilot countries for designing TAMD prototypes for each country. Read the reports for Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, Ghana and Mozambique.
A cross country meta-analysis was undertaken to understand how TAMD can be applied in different contexts.
Phase two entails testing the feasibility and utility of the approach in each country. It is envisaged that this will be complete by early 2014.
We will concentrate on developing robust and bespoke frameworks tailored to national circumstances by:
- partnering with government agencies responsible for delivering social and economic development;
- working to make climate change a mainstream part of national development planning;
- using existing information on development progress;
- introducing new thinking and frameworks for assessing climate risk management; and
- fostering shared learning and a community of practice among public sector staff across developing countries.
Who is involved?
IIED is working with the climate change consultancy Garama 3C Ltd to develop and pilot the TAMD framework, with funding from the UK’s Department for International Development. We are also working in close partnership with the relevant government agencies of Kenya, Mozambique, Nepal, and Pakistan, and also in other countries such as Ghana, Cambodia and Ethiopia.
Will partner countries find it useful?
“It’s a useful tool” because it can help governments make “informed decisions, especially by county governments” says Irene Karani, Director of LTS Africa in Kenya.
TAMD Multi-Country Workshops
Meru, Kenya, March 2014: Participants from eight countries gathered to share their experiences of working with the TAMD approach. Teams from Kenya, Pakistan, Cambodia, Nepal, Mozambique and Ethiopia gave presentations on changes to the monitoring and evaluation context of their countries and their country-specific development of a TAMD framework. The progress made over the last year in testing the different evaluative frameworks was discussed in detail, and plans were made for the next six months. Participants from Uganda and Tanzania presented their climate change policy contexts and explored how they would develop a TAMD framework for their own situations. A Summary Report outlines the content of each session and provides links to all the presentations.
Edinburgh, UK, March 2013: Participants discussed how Pakistan, Kenya, Nepal, Ghana, Mozambique and Cambodia are currently assessing climate adaptation, and how TAMD can enhance the measuring of development in the context of adaptation to climate change. The workshop enabled the people who have been working on the TAMD appraisal and design phase over the last year to come together to discuss findings. They presented the evaluation frameworks to be tested for feasibility and utility in the second phase of the initiative, over the coming year. A Summary Report outlines the content and outcomes of the different workshop sessions, and the actions and thematic issues that were raised.
TAMD provides practical guidance to countries for identifying indicators of successful adaptation, and adaptation relevant development interventions. These indicators are further outlined in the operational framework.
More detailed descriptions and guidance on using the indicators is provided in a series of methodological notes listed below.
TAMD Climate Change Indicators - Methodological Notes (draft):
- Indicator 1. Climate change integration into planning
- Indicator 2. Institutional coordination for integration
- Indicator 3. Budgeting and finance
- Indicator 4. Institutional knowledge and capacity
- Indicator 5. Climate information
- Indicator 6. Uncertainty
- Indicator 7. Participation
- Indicator 8. Awareness among stakeholders
- Indicator 9: Vulnerability/resilience
These notes are subject to continuous revision based on user feedback.