Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-1 (section)

=== 1.4.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of Adaptation ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

M&amp;E encompasses a broad range of activities serving multiple purposes, including tracking progress of adaptation efforts over time, understanding equity and effectiveness of adaptation options and outcomes, and informing ongoing adaptation processes (Section 17.5.2.1). While monitoring and evaluation are often referred to jointly as ‘M&amp;E,’ monitoring usually refers to continuous information gathering, whereas evaluation denotes more comprehensive assessments of effectiveness and equity, often resulting in recommendations for decision makers (Sections 17.5.1.1; 17.5.1.7). In some literatures M&amp;E refers solely to efforts undertaken after implementation. In other literatures, M&amp;E refers both to efforts conducted before and after implementation. As shown in Figure 1.8, M&amp;E is essential to the process of iterative risk management, both in terms of adaptation assessment prior to implementation and M&amp;E of implemented adaptation measures. AR6 highlights that M&amp;E after implementation is much less common than adaptation assessment prior to implementation (Section 17.5.2.1; [[#Berrang-Ford--2020|Berrang-Ford, 2020]] ).

<div id="_idContainer050" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:54e0dcb506b10fdcca978fbba749c74e IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_1_008.png]]

'''Figure 1.8 |''' '''Adaptation assessment prior to implementation and M&amp;E during and after implementation.''' Both systematic assessment of adaptation needs and options and M&amp;E of implemented adaptation are key to iterative climate risk management and to achieving effective and equitable adaptation. Most assessments to date have referred to aspects prior to implementation. There is much less systematic evidence on adaptation action, and even less evidence on adaptation outcomes and impacts and their implications for climate change impacts, risks, vulnerabilities and resilience. Figure 17.9 provides more detail on M&amp;E.

Tracking adaptation planning and policies : Since AR5, interest in M&amp;E for tracking progress in adaptation has grown substantially at the local, national and global level. The Paris Agreement calls for a global stocktake every 5 years starting in 2023 (Cross-Chapter Box PROGRESS in Chapter 17). It also encourages states to monitor and evaluate their adaptation plans, policies, programmes and actions and provides guidance on communicating information about adaptation to the international community ( [[#UNFCCC--2015b|UNFCCC, 2015b]] , Article 7.9d; [[#UNFCCC--2018a|UNFCCC, 2018a]] , Decision 9/CMA.1; [[#UNFCCC--2018b|UNFCCC, 2018b]] , Decision 18/CMA.1).

Since AR5, a large number of case studies on individual local to national level adaptation measures have been published (see [[#Chambwera--2014|Chambwera et al., 2014]] ; [[#Keskitalo--2019b|Keskitalo and Preston, 2019b]] ), as well as comparative studies across countries over multiple years ( [[#Lesnikowski--2016|Lesnikowski et al., 2016]] ; [[#Biesbroek--2018|Biesbroek et al., 2018]] ; [[#Biesbroek--2020|Biesbroek and Delaney, 2020]] ). The existing literature now allows for at least preliminary conclusions about where and why we observe adaptation efforts, as described in the sectoral, regional and synthesis chapters of this report.

While case studies provide context-specific insights, global inventories are essential for tracking global progress on adaptation ( [[#UNEP--2018|UNEP, 2018]] ; UNEP et al., 2021; Cross-Chapter Box PROGRESS). Until recently, the dominant approach surveyed National Communications to the UNFCCC to measure the amount of adaptation planning activity worldwide ( [[#Gagnon-Lebrun--2007|Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala, 2007]] ; [[#Lesnikowski--2016|Lesnikowski et al., 2016]] ). More recent assessments have focused also on the quality of local and national adaptation planning to better characterise its potential merits, shortcomings and effects ( [[#Woodruff--2019|Woodruff and Regan, 2019]] ; UNEP et al., 2021) and have compiled inventories of adaptation projects ( [[#Leiter--2021|Leiter, 2021]] ) and local adaptation policies ( [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al., 2018]] ; [[#Lesnikowski--2019b|Lesnikowski et al., 2019b]] ; [[#Olazabal--2019|Olazabal et al., 2019]] ; see also Section 6.4.6). Chapters 16 and 17 of this report offer an initial synthesis, but efforts to compile a comprehensive global, empirical inventory of climate change adaptation remain in an early phase (e.g., [[#Tompkins--2010|Tompkins et al., 2010]] ; [[#Berrang-Ford--2011|Berrang-Ford et al., 2011]] ; [[#GEF--2011|GEF, 2011]] ; [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ; [[#Lesnikowski--2016|Lesnikowski et al., 2016]] ; [[#Fankhauser--2017|Fankhauser, 2017]] ; [[#Leiter--2021|Leiter, 2021]] ; [[#Tompkins--2018|Tompkins et al., 2018]] ).

Improving effectiveness : Information regarding the effectiveness of adaptation remains scarce (UNEP et al., 2021), which hinders efforts to improve adaptation practice. A recent comprehensive review found that only 2.3% of the close to 1700 articles identified by the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative as documenting implemented adaptation provide evidence of risk reduction (Chapter 16; [[#Berrang-Ford--2020|Berrang-Ford, 2020]] ). However, there is limited but emerging evidence of the use of M&amp;E by different actors to assess adaptation progress (Section 17.5.1).

Existing case studies use varying criteria for assessing effectiveness, complicating comparisons. Judgements regarding successful adaptation are contingent on the chosen scale and perspective (success for whom?) ( [[#Adger--2005|Adger et al., 2005]] ; [[#Dilling--2019|Dilling et al., 2019]] ) and on the level of risk, that is increasing climate risks may cause previously successful adaptation to become insufficient. Rather than a binary outcome (successful or unsuccessful), adaptation can be viewed on a continuum from successful adaptation to maladaptation (Section 17.5.2). Assessments of adaptation success need to account for distributional effects and differential vulnerability, as well as consider connections across different scales and complex interactions with other change processes (Section 17.5.1). Recent literature has begun to identify how adaptation can better achieve its intended objectives ( [[#Eriksen--2021|Eriksen et al., 2021]] ). For instance, inclusive M&amp;E can legitimise and validate M&amp;E and foster commitment and learning.

Informing ongoing adaptation : Iterative risk management involves an ongoing cycle of assessment, action, learning and response in which M&amp;E plays a central, enabling role (Section 1.2.1.1). Assessing the risk reduction provided by adaptation, both planned and implemented, often requires projections of anticipated future climate, socioeconomic conditions, and the effectiveness and implications for justice of each option (Section 17.4.4). Understanding the potential for maladaptation may also require such assessments (Section 1.4.2). Processes, such as adaptive pathways, that involve anticipating future responses (Boxes 11.4; 11.6; Sections 11.7; 17.3) entail monitoring to detect early warning of approaching thresholds or changes in the solution space (e.g., more rapid than expected sea level rise or new social acceptance of managed retreat) that suggest the need or opportunity to adjust or expand current adaptation efforts ( [[#Haasnoot--2021|Haasnoot et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="1.4.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="limits-to-adaptation"></span>