Measuring Progress in Adapting to a Changing Climate

OECD cross-country survey

Overview

The cross-country survey on adaptation measurement gathered information on existing practices, achievements and persisting challenges faced in measuring adaptation progress at the national level. The survey consisted of 26 open-ended and multiple-choice questions on adaptation policy context, measurement processes and approaches and key challenges as well as emerging good practices. The survey was sent to 48 countries and targeted national government officials working on climate adaptation. The countries included 38 OECD Members, 6 OECD accession countries (Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Peru, Romania) and 4 OECD key partner countries (China, India, Indonesia, South Africa) and the European Union (EU). The OECD received 30 countries responses, which corresponds to a 62.5% response rate.

Survey

Adaptation policy context

1. If available*, please indicate if your country has developed the following documents and provide the respective links (or indicate planned publication date if they are currently being developed or revised).

[please check all that apply]

□ National or sectoral climate risk assessment

Please insert links:

□ National adaptation strategy (NAS)

Please insert links:

□ National adaptation plan (NAPs)

Please insert links:

□ Additional sectoral (SAPs) or sub-national adaptation plans

Please insert links:

* Note for federal countries: additional information about sub-national policy documents can be provided.

* Note for EU countries: This question can be skipped if the information is already available on the EU Climate-Adapt website (https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries).

2. If a climate risk assessment has been developed, what does it assess? [please check all that apply]

□ Past and/or projected climate hazards

□ Past and/or projected vulnerability

□ Past and/or projected exposure

□ Past and/or projected socio-economic and environmental impacts

□ Other: [please specify]

Note: The definitions of the terms hazards, vulnerability, exposure and impacts can be found in IPCC, 2022.

3. If a climate risk assessment has been developed, to what extent does it inform the development of adaptation policies in terms of priority and objectives setting?

[please check on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (fully aligned)]

 

1 (not at all)	2	3	4	5 (fully aligned)
□	□	□	□	□

Measuring progress in implementing national adaptation policies

4. Does your country define the following elements in its NAS/NAP/SAP? [please check all that apply]

□ A vision for adaptation (e.g. people and ecosystems are resilient to climate change)

□ Objectives or goals (e.g. reduce vulnerability and/or exposure, enhance capacity, strengthen the knowledge base for adaptation)

□ Targets (e.g. “keep the share of climate-related economic losses per year within 0.08% of the national GDP”)

□ Adaptation actions (e.g. “develop a Coastal Zone Management Programme, restore damaged wetlands”)

□ Financing or investment options for implementing adaptation actions

□ Monitoring and evaluation (e.g. a framework, which may include indicators, to monitor and evaluate progress on the implementation of the NAS/NAP/SAP)

□ Other: [please specify]

Please share a link where more information related to the above can be found:

5. If applicable, at what level are adaptation objectives or targets formulated? [please check all that apply]

□ At the national level

□ At the subnational level

□ At the sectoral level (e.g. transport, energy, water…)

□ None of the above

□ Other: [please specify]

6. If applicable, what is the process followed for developing the objectives and targets?

[please check all that apply and if available, provide additional details in the box]

□ Stakeholder engagement

□ Expert consultation

□ Inter-ministerial consultation

□ Subnational consultation

□ Other: [please specify]

If available, please share additional details (e.g. number and types of consultations):

7. If applicable, please characterise the objectives and/or targets:

a.In general, are the objectives and/or targets defined qualitatively or quantitatively?

 

	None	Some	Most	All
Qualitative (e.g. strengthen disaster risk management against the impacts of climate change)	□	□	□	□
Quantitative (e.g. restore 75% of terrestrial and freshwater sites to favourable condition; 100% of residents living in flood risk areas with flood protection equipment by 2030)	□	□	□	□

b.In general, are the objectives and/or targets time-bound? (i.e. the intended year of achievement of the objective is indicated)

□ No

□ Yes, some objectives and/or targets

□ Yes, all objectives and/or targets

c.Have indicators been developed to measure progress towards the objectives? (e.g. number of people and properties at risk of surface water flooding)

□ No

□ Yes, for some objectives

□ Yes, for all objectives

d.In general, are the objectives and/or targets associated with a baseline (e.g. a reference year or period against which progress towards the objectives or targets can be compared)? (e.g. excess deaths due to extreme cold temperatures compared to first records in 1950)

□ Yes, some objectives and/or targets

□ Yes, all objectives and/or targets

□ No

If not, please explain why:

e.Have entities responsible for reaching the objectives and targets been defined? (e.g. Ministry of Environment, Environment Agency, Department for Transport)

□ No

□ Yes, for some objectives and targets

□ Yes, for all objectives and targets

□ Other: [please specify]

Please share any links where more information related to Question 7 can be found:

8. Does your country measure inputs, outputs, outcomes or impacts (see examples in brackets below) in measuring the implementation of national adaptation policies? [please check all that apply]

□ Inputs – Specific actions implemented as part of a policy (e.g. amount of spending on flood defences; environment agency staff trained to respond to flood incidents)

Please provide an example and indicate any challenges in measuring progress in terms of inputs:

□ Outputs – The deliverables resulting from a policy action (e.g. number of dykes installed; building codes integrating adaptation to flood risk)

Please provide an example and indicate any challenges in measuring progress in terms of outputs:

□ Outcomes - The likely or achieved short- or medium-term change generated by adaptation output(s) (e.g. changes in the share of buildings located in hazard prone areas (exposure); changes in the level of building damages due to floods recorded annually (climate impact); condition of flood defence assets (vulnerability))

Please provide an example and indicate any challenges in measuring progress in terms of outcomes:

□ Policy impacts - The contribution of policy outcomes to the achievement of overarching goals aimed at reducing climate risk (i.e. reducing vulnerability, exposure, hazard and/or increasing resilience and adaptive capacity) that can be attributed to a particular intervention

Please provide an example and indicate any challenges in measuring progress in terms of policy impacts:

□ Other: [please specify]

Please provide an example and indicate any challenges in measuring progress in other terms:

9. Have there been any activities undertaken or studies conducted in your country to measure the effectiveness of adaptation actions in achieving corresponding adaptation outcomes (i.e. the extent to which an adaptation action, in terms of inputs and outputs, has reduced climate risk)?

If yes, please share links or describe:

10. What are the roles and responsibilities of the following institutions or stakeholders in the process of measuring progress on adaptation?

Please check all that apply and provide a short description of roles and responsibilities (e.g. providing or collecting information relevant for adaptation measurement; carrying out or participating in the measurement process; communicating results).

□ Ministries (e.g. Ministry of Environment, Inter-ministerial working group…)

□ Other government agencies (e.g. Environment Agency; National Office for Statistics; Scientific agencies (e.g. meteorological institute) or Audit Office, or similar)

□ Independent body focused on climate change (e.g. Climate Change Council, Committee, or Centre, or similar)

□ Sub-national level institutions (e.g. at the provincial/state, regional or municipal/city levels)

□ Non-governmental organisations

□ Academia

□ Civil society

□ Other: [please specify]

11. How is relevant data and information to measure progress on adaptation collected or generated?

[Please check all that apply]

□ Existing data (e.g. data on species abundance can be used as proxy indicator for vulnerability of a habitat to climate change)

□ Requested data (e.g. information templates filled out by different entities, or questionnaires)

□ Expert or stakeholder interviews

□ Other: [please specify]

12. Is local level information on adaptation measurement aggregated at the national level? If so how?

Please describe:

13. Is progress on the implementation of adaptation policies documented in a report?

□ Yes. Please specify (e.g. progress, update, monitoring and evaluation or assessment reports):

□ No

□ Other: [please specify]

14. If yes, at what frequency are they published?

□ Regularly (e.g. every 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 years): [please specify]

□ In the middle of the implementation period

□ At the end of the implementation period

□ On an ad hoc basis

15. If yes, how can results be accessed?

Please describe (e.g. publicly, upon request, available across government, only for selected officials) and share a link if applicable:

16. If yes, how do the results inform policy-making? [Please check all that apply]

□ The results are disseminated and discussed among policy-makers

□ The results inform priorities for action in next NAS/NAP/SAP

□ The results inform the budget cycle, notably for future adaptation finance/investments

□ Results do not inform policy-making

17. Have you developed indicators to help measure progress on policies that support adaptation?

[Indicators may measure input, output, outcome, impact and/or progress towards objectives or targets set in the NAS/NAP]

□ Yes, and they are used to measure progress

□ Yes, but they have not been used yet to measure progress

□ No

□ The development is underway [please indicate the publication date_________])

Please provide an example and, if available, a link to a document containing a more comprehensive list of indicators:

18. If yes to question 17, what criteria drive indicator selection?

 

	Yes	No
Data availability and quality (e.g. temporal and geographic coverage)	□	□
Usefulness and policy relevance	□	□
Links with other topics/sectors (e.g. biodiversity, disaster risk management)	□	□
Other: [please specify]	□	□

19. If yes to question 17, please describe if and how indicators facilitate the understanding of progress on the implementation of adaptation.

[For example, the indicators can show percentage of target achieved, display an upward trend direction to indicate success, a rate of change, or enable the assignment of traffic light scores]

Please describe:

20. If yes to question 17, at what scale do indicators apply?

[Please check all that apply]

□ Sub-national

□ National

□ Sectoral

□ International

21. What challenges have you encountered in defining and using adaptation indicators?

Please describe:

Key challenges and emerging good practices

22. In your view, to what extent are the challenges in measuring progress listed below experienced by your country?

[Please indicate on a scale from “Not challenging at all” to “very challenging”]

 

	Not challenging at all	Slightly challenging	Moderately challenging	Quite challenging	Very challenging
(i) Measuring effectiveness	□	□	□	□	□
(ii) Aggregating information across geographic and jurisdictional scales	□	□	□	□	□
(iii) Comparability over time and across jurisdictions/ sectors	□	□	□	□	□
(iv) Lack of data and information relevant to adaptation measurement	□	□	□	□	□
(v) Complexity of adaptation (e.g. measuring adaptation to climate risk; interdependent and cascading climate risks)	□	□	□	□	□
(vi) Inadequate technical, legal and financial resources to undertake measurement	□	□	□	□	□
Other: [please specify]	□	□	□	□	□

Note: Discussions held at two recent OECD events distilled key challenges in measuring progress, notably (i) measuring the effectiveness of adaptation actions and policies due to the difficulty of attributing outcomes to specific actions, (ii) aggregating, often individually collected, information across scales, (iii) comparing the information overtime and across jurisdictions/sectors, (iv) lack of data due to resource constraints, and (v) the difficulty of measuring progress due to adaptation’s inherent complexity, notably due to future uncertainty of how climate impacts unfold in a particular location and cross-sector interactions and (vi) inadequate technical, legal and financial resources to undertake measurement efforts.

23. What, if anything, have you done to try to overcome some of the challenges?

Please describe and provide examples of good practices/solutions to overcome the challenges.

 

Key challenges	Examples of good practices/solutions
(i) Measuring the effectiveness
(ii) Aggregating information across geographic and jurisdictional scales
(iii) Comparability over time and across jurisdictions/sectors
(iv) Lack of data and information relevant to adaptation measurement
(v) Complexity of adaptation (e.g. measuring adaptation to climate risk; interdependent and cascading climate risks)
(vi) Inadequate technical, legal and financial resources to undertake measurement
Other: [please specify]

24. Please describe (or share a link to) any initiatives that measure progress on adaptation at the provincial / regional / local level that you wish to highlight.

Please describe (or share a link to):

25. Please share any additional insight or information that is relevant, but not covered in the questions above.

Please share information:

26. In your view, how can the OECD help support your country in measuring progress on adaptation?

Please describe: