Criteria for monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation measures.
INECC established a list of criteria for the evaluation of climate change adaptation measures, which was strengthened and validated with key stakeholders. The criteria for design adaptation measures allow planners and decision-makers to formulate measures with a greater probability of success, and to maximize their impact, in terms of reducing vulnerability to climate change, by considering enabling factors and barriers to their implementation. The criteria are:
Climate: This criterion refers to a measure addressing current and/or projected conditions and problematics related, directly or indirectly, to climate change, climate variability, and extreme events, based on available information. The climate criterion guides adaptation measures, since it refers to the condition that is changing and that has adverse effects on the population, strategic infrastructure and ecosystems.
The systemic criterion: This refers to the fact that the site for which a measure is designed is a system in which the elements are interrelated. Considering a “socio-ecosystem” approach allows identifying the positive and negative effects that the implementation of the measure can have on the rest of the system. The systemic approach allows integrated management that considers land, water, climate, biodiversity, as well as the management of environmental services provided by ecosystems. The term socio-ecosystem is used to emphasize that human communities are explicitly considered.
Viability: This criterion refers to the possibility that an adaptation measure can be carried out based on its technical, economic and social attributes, as well as the context in which it is promoted. This element includes the analysis of limitations and opportunities, considering economic, technical or technological, social, cultural, institutional, regulatory and political variables for its implementation, as well as social and environmental safeguards.
Measurability: This stablishes that an adaptation measure must consider a baseline (e.g. assessment of vulnerability to climate change), explicit goals and metrics that facilitate its monitoring and evaluation.
Capacities: This represents the skills, resources, and competencies that people, institutions and communities possess to solve problems and propose strategies in an innovative way that facilitate the modification of unfavorable conditions, in a sustainable way (PNUD, 2009). This criterion seeks that the adaptation measure strengthens the technical, financial, organizational and/or human resources capacities at the community and institutional level.
Local context: This criterion considers those social, economic, cultural, political and environmental characteristics that are present in a specific territory. An adaptation measure is expected to consider that vulnerability is differentiated among social groups of a community.
Governance: it’s a broad notion of participation for decision-making, which is not restricted to the work of the public sector but transcends the generation of networks with different actors and their dynamics of collaboration. This criterion considers gender, age groups, intergenerational justice, indigenous intercultural communities, and populations particularly vulnerable to climate change. Additionally, it is important that an adaptation measure, to be effective, contributes to reducing inequality gaps, particularly gender.
Alignment: This criterion refers to the articulation and congruence that adaptation measures have with territorial planning instruments and international, national and subnational public policy, in order to contribute to the fulfillment of commitments in the matter.
Sustainability: This represents the continuation of benefits from an adaptation measure after completion, considering the probability that they will be continued in the long term. In this sense, they are the net benefits that are likely to withstand risks over time (OECD, 2002). A sustainable measure over time can be considered as one in which its benefits continue after the implementation period, based on the availability of economic, social and institutional resources to continue it.
Distribution of benefits: This focuses on ensuring that the positive effects are distributed in a fair, equitable, inclusive and transparent manner. It is recommended that these benefits include a greater number of people who are in conditions of vulnerability to climate change, so that the gaps in social inequality are not exacerbated and, if possible, reduce them.
Co-benefits: This criterion refers to all those positive effects both anticipated and not expected in the initial objectives of the implementation of the adaptation measure and that affects the improvement of other objectives related to well-being. These positive effects depend on local circumstances, so they may present high uncertainty when replicating adaptation measures (IPCC, 2014b).
These positive effects can be reflected in environmental, social or economic variables, as well as in synergies with mitigation. On the other hand, negative externalities.
Flexibility: This criterion allows reversibility in the measures, in case if they do not respond to the climatic, environmental and social conditions with which they were planned, thereby reducing the social and economic costs of unforeseen circumstances.
No-regret criterion: This refers to measures that can have positive effects regardless of the climate scenario in question, being commonly win-win actions.
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Burkina Faso
- Costa Rica
- El Salvador
- The European Commission
- The Marshall Islands
- The Netherlands
- New Zealand
- North Macedonia
- The Philippines
- Republic of Korea
- San Marino
- Sao Tome and Principe
- The United Kingdom