Annex C1.3 Examples of logframes to track capacity development results within climate change projects
Example 1 - Tracking capacity development results for integrated landscape management in East Africa
The Transboundary Agroecosystem Management project for the Kagera River Basin illustrates how tracking capacity development comprehensively across the individual, organizational and enabling environment can be systematically integrated into the results framework.
This project was implemented in Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi as part of the Global Environmental Fund for 6,8M USD, 2010-2015. The goal was to adopt an integrated ecosystems approach for the management of land resources in the Kagera Basin thus contributing to climate change adaptation, mitigation, increased food security and more sustainable rural livelihoods. The three pillars of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) were thus at the core of the integrated landscape management approach of the project design. The four project components to enhanced sustainable land management (SLM) were (a) Effective transboundary coordination and information sharing to promote SLM, (b) Enabling policy, planning and legislative conditions in place to support SLM, (c) Enhanced capacity and knowledge at all levels (field, districts, countries, regions) for the promotion of – and technical support for – SLM and agroecosystems in the basin and (d) SLM practices implemented and benefiting land users. The mid-term review found that the monitoring and reporting framework established at the beginning of the project was not adequate to capture the desired changes in capacity at objectives and outcome levels given the narrow focus on individual capacities. In line with these recommendations, the capacity development outcome indicators were revised for each dimension with specific emphasis on capturing the organizational and enabling environmental dimension (see table below). The revisions substantially increased the quality of the subsequent implementation as it allowed for deeper and more systematic tracking of capacity development results.
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS | OUTCOME INDICATORS | TARGETS |
|---|---|---|
Individuals | Proportion of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) farmers who changed their land management related practices for better consideration of climate change adaptation needs and potential for climate change mitigation. Proportion of service providers and districts involved in the project implementation having adopted agro-ecosystem management concepts, approaches, assessment methods, and/or practices in their work. | 75% of FFS farmers adopting new practices on their farm have increased their yield, and are better equipped to adapt to climate change and harness synergies for reducing/removing GHG emissions. 75% of technical stakeholders adopted new agro-ecological and climate-smart approaches, methods and practices. |
Organizations | Agencies, organizations or communities collaborate more effectively to formulate and implement land management policies or bye-laws including agro-ecology and climate-smart agriculture principles. FFS model for SLM learning and up scaling adopted by districts or national ministry. Project’s supported data on climatic related variables, and land resources and management hosted and used by organizations and ministries. | 1 collaboration mechanism created e.g. multi-disciplinary watershed committees. 50% of districts in the project area or 1 national ministry. At least 1 or 2 organizations and ministries in each country have hosted and are using the data in their work. |
Enabling Environment | Increased dialogue, coordination and consultation among key actors, different types of actors, and/ or between central and decentralized government authorities on agro-ecosystem management. Number of revised/updated policies, plans, programmes or strategies related to sustainable land management based on policy recommendations. Regional linkages on transboundary issues related to climate change and agro-ecosystems consolidated. | 1 national multi-stakeholder process for knowledge sharing on SLM organized e.g. consultations, networks, consultative forums, stakeholder platforms, partnerships. 2 policy recommendations on SLM discussed through multi-stakeholder processes, and resulting in 1 revised/updated policy, programme or strategy. 1 transboundary issue related to SLM and climate change between adjacent countries discussed and Action Plan defined. |
Source: FAO, 2017d
Example 2 - Tracking Individual and institutional capacities for Climate Change adaptation in Lao PDR (see previous box)
In the realm of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Project to enable wetland users in Lao PDR to adapt to climate change, FAO and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) supported national actors to self-assess their individual and institutional capacity needs, identify opportunities to respond to these needs, and plan effective capacity development actions. Through a participatory, multi-stakeholder capacity assessment process, detailed action plans with budgeted activities and dedicated results across the three capacity development dimensions (individual, organizational and enabling environment) were jointly developed. Activities to be conducted as part of the project implementation include raising awareness among local communities, capturing and sharing indigenous knowledge, strengthening co-management systems among wetland users, and sharpening climate change policies and strategies, strengthening cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms as well as identifying alternative livelihood options for local community members. Particular care was provided to craft specific capacity development results, indicators and means of verification reflected as follows in the Project Log Frame (selected areas in Logframe below):
Results Chain | Indicators | Baseline1 | End of Project Target | Means of Verification and Responsible Entity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome 1: Improved understanding of Climate Change (CC) impacts and risks, in target wetlands. Individual CD level | Outcome Indicator 1.1: Perceptions and understandings of CC impacts and risks resulting from training and from vulnerability assessments at district level communities around the target wetlands | Limited existing awareness of CC vulnerability due to a) the CC and wetlands study project site | 70% of members of district offices staff covering the target wetlands (28 out of 40) and 70% of members of community organisations (both men and women) in the target villages are aware of CC impacts and risks | Awareness and common understanding scorecards to be developed in Year 1. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) surveys to be carried out in provincial and district and communities around the wetland areas, in year 1, immediately prior to mid-term review and immediately prior to final review |
Output 1.2: Effective training programme on CC/CCA and VDRA in wetlands Individual CD Level | Output Indicator 1.2.1: Numbers of stakeholders trained in participatory CC vulnerability and DRM management (CCA Outcome 2.1 Indicator 5) | None5 | Totals:
| Records of meetings and trainings including whether as a result of conducting learning needs assessment Quarterly progress reports of project |
Outcome 2: Efficient and cost-effective adaptation measures applied to reduce the impact of CC and natural disasters on wetlands eco-systems and local livelihoods. Individual CD Level | Outcome Indicator 2.1: Numbers of families, in the 20 villages apply adaptive agricultural practices, systems and infrastructure (e.g. climate smart agriculture, improved cropland management, dry and wet season rice cultivation, livestock production, aquaculture) | Around 160 families are applying two or more of these practices. | 1,280 families (total 8,400 family members) apply two or more of these practices. | Qualitative and quantitative approach such as farmer surveys with quantifiable baseline from capacity needs assessment , focus group discussions on Most Significant Change and KAP methodology |
Output 2.1: Planning and inter-sectoral coordination frameworks for the two sites promoting CCA measures Organizational / Institutional CD Level | Output Indicator 2.1.2: Frequency of meeting of coordination mechanisms that embrace CCA in target wetlands and buffer zones. | Current meetings do not fully address CCA | 1 Conservation National Committee meets annually; 2 provincial conservation committees meet at least 2 times annually Site specific wetland stakeholder committees meet at least 2 times annually | Review of meeting minutes of coordination mechanisms together with focus group discussion to assess whether stakeholder issues were reflected during meetings |
Output 2.2: Organizational and Institutional capacities of water/natural resources/wetlands user groups strengthened to apply effective governance of NRM use and management Organizational / Institutional CD Level | Output indicator 2.2.1: Capacities of user and governance groups including coordination mechanisms6 | Village clusters or “development clusters” promote development and local governance Village councils are responsible for community resources such as village protection or production forests. Village leaders play important roles in managing small-scale irrigation, enforcing fishing rules and allocating land. | User and governance groups covering all key areas of target wetlands have individual and organizational capacities to apply effective natural resource governance with a specific focus on adaptation and resilience issues and a gender focus | Focus group discussions, 7s Organizational Development questionnaire and KAP surveys Quarterly and annual project reports including water use by each community |
Output Indicator 2.2.2: Number of villages in wetland and buffer areas covered by effective governance groups and water user groups9. | Local governance groups do not currently address wetland management and do not specifically provide for CC adaptation measures | All target villages have governance groups and wetland user group with procedures and processes providing for adaptation considerations. | Focus group discussions with stakeholders to assess quality of governance groups | |
Outcome 3: Efficient and cost-effective CC adaptation and disaster management measures in wetlands integrated and budgeted in local and national planning processes Enabling Environment CD Level | Outcome Indicator 3.1: # local, regional and national level plans that incorporate CC vulnerability assessments, CCA measures and analyses (and mitigation measures as needed) of impacts on wetlands, with corresponding budget allocation | No local plans provide for application of CC/DRM assessment approaches At least 1 national plan provides for application of CC/DRM assessment approaches |
| Review of plans and project documents from national, provincial and district levels |
Outcome indicator 3.2: Number of institutions adopting tools for participatory CCA and DM planning and M&E in wetlands | None | Participatory CCA and DM planning and M&E is used in 2 other districts within the province, and for 2 other wetlands nationally DONRE and DAFOs in four districts |
| |
Outcome indicator 3.3: Perceptions of effectiveness of institutional coordination at national level in support of CCA | # of respondents by scorecard rating TBD through baseline evaluation of perceptions | # of respondents by scorecard rating 70% of members of the institutions targeted for improved institutional coordination have favourable perceptions of the effectiveness of this coordination | Questionnaires/focus group scorecard ratings | |
Output 3.3: Institutional mechanisms for inter-sectoral coordinating CC resilience in wetlands strengthened at national level Organizational / Institutional CD Level | Output Indicator 3.3.1: Existence and frequency of meeting of coordination mechanisms for CC resilience in wetlands | Existing coordination mechanisms:
| Revise members of committees to integrate new sectors into wetlands management.
| Composition of members. |
Source: Author adapted from Global Environmental Facility Project, "Climate Change Adaptation in Wetlands Areas (CAWA) Global Environmental Facility Project in Laos PDR"
1. Example 2: "Tracking individual and institutional capacities for climate change"