Long-term learning in climate projects

National systems for monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) are increasingly essential for tracking the effectiveness of climate change adaptation efforts. This comparative study, led by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, analyzes how nine countries have developed and operationalized their national MEL systems for adaptation. Drawing from literature reviews, policy analysis and key informant interviews, the report identifies patterns, challenges and opportunities that define the current global landscape of adaptation MEL. The report examines in depth the following elements: – The status, purpose and enabling environments of national MEL systems, including leadership, institutional arrangements, data flows, capacity, finance and engagement – Comparative approaches used in planning and developing MEL systems, such as links with IVRAs, the use of Theories of Change, indicator design, and GESI integration – National strategies for adaptation monitoring and evaluation, including data sources, reporting frequency, and methods for assessing progress – Integration of learning as an intentional function of MEL, highlighting cases where feedback loops inform policy adjustments and planning – Country-specific MEL profiles from Canada, France, Kenya, Namibia, Peru, Somalia, Tonga, the United Kingdom and Vietnam – Progress since the 2014 baseline study on adaptation MEL, illustrating advances in systems maturity, inclusiveness, and responsiveness – Recommendations for aligning MEL systems with global climate goals, particularly the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience – Comparative tables and figures offering visual summaries of frameworks, performance indicators, and institutional responsibilities By emphasizing diversity in national contexts while promoting shared principles of transparency, effectiveness and inclusion, this report serves as a strategic resource for governments, donors and technical partners involved in strengthening national capacities for adaptation monitoring, evaluation and learning.

Evaluation in complex settings: reflections on practice and evaluator roles How do you evaluate progress when change is slow, messy—and everyone values different things? In complex, collaborative initiatives—like those in climate adaptation, freshwater management, or food systems—evaluation needs to do more than measure short-term outputs. These efforts span long timeframes, involve many actors, and aim to shift behaviours, relationships, and systems. Success is rarely linear—and depends on your perspective. That’s where complexity-aware monitoring, evaluation and learning (CAMEL) comes in. Complexity-aware approaches support real-time reflection, learning, and adaptation—complementing traditional methods by helping teams make sense of what’s shifting and navigate uncertainty together. In my latest Learning for Sustainability post, I outline five grounded practice patterns drawn from complexity-aware evaluation across several long-term, collaborative initiatives. 🔹 Begin with grounding and orientation Start with people, not metrics. Evaluation builds shared purpose when it begins with context, relationships, and dialogue. 🔹 Make learning central, not an afterthought Reflection isn’t a luxury—it’s how programmes adapt. Pause points and learning loops matter as much as plans. 🔹 Hold space for multiple perspectives of value Not all outcomes are measurable—and not all value is visible. Evaluation can surface what matters across perspectives. 🔹 Support systemic co-design and adaptive management Evaluation helps connect daily work with long-term direction—enabling strategy to evolve with learning. 🔹 Design for reflection and use The goal isn’t just a report—it’s shared insight. Co-authored findings and reflective tools support real-time use. Importantly, these patterns aren’t just about new methods-they invite us to rethink the evaluator’s role itself. In complexity-aware practice, evaluators step into the role of learning partners, not just external judges—holding space for reflection and supporting others to ask the questions that matter most. This often means navigating multiple accountabilities and working relationally. Interpreting insights together, co-authoring reports, and co-designing simple reflection tools can help teams internalise learning—creating moments of reflection not just for those involved in the collaborative initiative, but for evaluators too. Evaluation becomes less about delivering answers, and more about helping people make sense of where they’ve been, where they are, and where they might go next. Independence remains vital—but in complexity, it’s held differently—not as distance, but as perspective. Rigour comes through reflection, shared inquiry, and staying close to what matters. 🔗 Link to the full post is in the comments. #Evaluation #SystemsThinking #AdaptiveManagement

Whether you're a seasoned expert in Nature-based Solutions (NbS) or new to the field, this landmark report is for you. Our amazing team at E Co. has produced "Promoting Nature-based Solutions in the Pacific: Key Insights and Recommendations 2025" for the Pacific Community-SPC. Drawing on analysis of 124 real-world initiatives, it uncovers universal lessons on project design, financing, and long-term success that are essential for practitioners and investors everywhere. For anyone working to finance, design, or de-risk Nature-based Solutions, the report offers crucial lessons. For a powerful visual summary of what's at stake, check out the 'Ridge to Reef' diagrams on page 46 (figure 14). They perfectly illustrate the difference between a degraded and a healthy, resilient ecosystem. Here are a few key takeaways: 💡 Defining the asset: A project isn't a Nature-based Solution just because it involves nature. To be an investable solution, it must be designed to deliver clear social, economic, and cultural benefits that address a specific societal challenge. 💡 Understanding the limits: Nature-based Solutions are not a silver bullet. Knowing when an engineered or hybrid approach is more appropriate is crucial for managing project risk and ensuring credibility with stakeholders. 💡 De-risking through community: Genuine community leadership is non-negotiable for long-term success. Projects driven by local ownership are more sustainable, significantly reducing operational and reputational risk. 💡 Matching finance to ecology: Short-term funding cycles are a critical barrier. The report explores the need for financial models that align with ecological timescales, allowing solutions to mature and deliver lasting returns. This report is packed with detailed sectoral analysis and recommendations relevant to anyone in the climate finance and sustainability space. The full report is below. Dive in and let me know your thoughts, and please repost to your network if they would be interested. Great work Ellie La Trobe-Hogan, Clare Wingfield, Malki Rodrigo, Aurelio Padovezi, Federico G. Riet Sapriza, Michael Ruggeri, Frank Thomalla, and Patricia Tona Katto