This chapter presents the main findings from this report. It first discusses the rationale for adaptation measurement, including a framing discussion on what needs to be measured and how. This is complemented by findings from a stocktake of OECD countries’ current practices and achievements in measuring progress in implementing national adaptation policies. The chapter is informed by a cross-country survey carried out in OECD member and partner countries, as well as expert workshops, and in-depth country case studies in Chile, Korea, the Slovak Republic, and the United Kingdom.
Measuring Progress in Adapting to a Changing Climate
Insights from OECD countries
Abstract
1.1.1. Rationale for measuring adaptation progress
Global greenhouse gas emissions are still on the rise and the impacts of global warming are increasingly being felt across countries. Ocean acidification, sea level rise, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, storms, extreme precipitation periods and floods are all taking a rising social, economic and environmental toll on countries. To address these impacts, many countries have made climate change adaptation a national priority. Adaptation policies and actions are rolled out as part of a process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects. They seek to moderate or avoid harm as well as exploit beneficial opportunities in human systems (IPCC, 2022[1]).
Countries’ adaptation policies and practices have advanced significantly in recent years. All OECD countries have adopted national adaptation strategies (NAS) or plans (NAPs), which lay out adaptation priorities and objectives for cross-government actions at national, sectoral and sub-national levels over a multi-annual period, such as three or five years. Many countries have NAS/NAPs that are already in their second or third iterations. In this process, adaptation objectives and actions are adjusted to constantly evolving knowledge of climate risks and impacts, and as experience is gained in implementing adaptation actions.
Measuring adaptation progress is key for informing and adjusting adaptation policies, priorities and practices. It involves assessing climate risk, tracking adaptation implementation, helping to understand what is effective for reducing climate impacts (and under what circumstances), and informing policy design. Countries have made significant strides in measuring adaptation. Half of OECD countries (19 countries) have developed at least one report that documents the implementation status of their national policies (OECD, 2022[2]). Globally nearly 40% of countries (63 countries) that have adopted a national adaptation policy have started to track its implementation (Leiter, 2021[3]).
Adaptation measurement is critical for understanding implementation progress and adjusting adaptation policies. It helps to understand changes in the level of losses and damages suffered from extreme climate events, and identify adaptation needs and policy gaps. It also informs and improves the planning of ongoing and future adaptation actions and enables decision makers to adjust policies and actions to evolving socio-economic and climate conditions (Lamhauge, Lanzi and Agrawala, 2012[4]; EEA, 2015[5]). Adaptation measurement is also key for evaluating accountability and enhancing transparency to ensure resources earmarked for adaptation contribute to agreed objectives (OECD, 2015[6]; IPCC, 2018[7]; EEA, 2015[5]) and in an efficient way (Adaptation Committee, 2021[8]; UNFCCC, 2022[9]) (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019[10]).
At the international level too, adaptation measurement is becoming increasingly important. On the one hand it is needed for documenting the progress made towards various international framework goals, such as the Paris Agreement – notably on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), see Box 1.1 – and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UNFCCC, 2012[11]; OECD, 2020[12]). Ideally, the information required for international reporting is included in countries’ national adaptation measurement systems, instead of requiring additional efforts (Jeudy-Hugo, Errendal and Kotani, 2022[13]). On the other hand, international reporting mechanisms can support national adaptation measurement efforts by enabling peer-learning between countries on best practices for implementing adaptation actions.
The Paris Agreement established the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) in 2015 to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change. This overarching goal has been discussed and refined over the years, notably through the two-year Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh work programme, which aims to accelerate action guided by a set of thematic targets. The targets highlight priorities for adaptation in the sectors of water, food and agriculture, health, ecosystems and biodiversity, poverty and livelihoods, infrastructure, and cultural heritage. The targets were adopted at COP28 in 2023 as part of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Framework for Global Climate Resilience, which also sets out further work to develop indicators.
Although the Paris Agreement did not specify whether and how progress on the implementation and the effectiveness of adaptation actions needed to be assessed, countries that have submitted adaptation communications outline efforts to enhance the ability to track and understand adaptation effects. These include an increasing number of quantitative time-bound targets, more detailed indicator frameworks to monitor progress, and comprehensive information on synergies between adaptation and mitigation as well as sustainable development.
Nevertheless, countries face difficulties in assessing whether and how their adaptation actions contribute to achieving their objectives and whether they are ultimately and effectively increasing their resilience to climate change. This is primarily due to the difficulty of identifying a causal relationship between adaptation action and a reduction in climate risks, and the achievement of the desired impacts on society, the environment and economy. The OECD survey conducted as part of this report (see Section 1.1.3), on measuring progress in implementing national adaptation policies, found that countries face several difficulties, with the two most challenging being the complexity of adaptation as a topic and measuring effectiveness (Figure 1.1).
Country responses to “To what extent are the challenges in measuring progress listed below experienced by your country?
Note: Share of responding countries (29 responses) to question 22: "To what extent are the challenges in measuring progress listed below experienced by your country?". Responses of countries that selected “other”: Costa Rica: “Use of climate information, use of climate services, use of historical information on losses and damages by territories”; Indonesia: “Adaptation literacy”.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
1.1.2. Defining adaptation measurement
In the context of the OECD’s work, adaptation measurement refers to all efforts that track progress in implementing adaptation policies and that seek to evaluate their effectiveness. Therefore, adaptation measurement is defined as the processes, methodologies and tools for measuring the degree of implementation of adaptation policies over time and space, with the aim of evaluating the effect of such efforts on reducing exposure and vulnerability, as well as reducing climate impacts.
Other terms and definitions are closely linked and can be used in different contexts. For example, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), monitoring and reporting (M&R), and monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) are all terms often used in the context of development co-operation interventions and applied predominantly to interventions at project (rather than programme) level (Noltze et al., 2021[18]). Earlier OECD work has explored the complementarity of assessing specific interventions at the project level with assessments of national strategies to strengthen adaptation (Lamhauge, Lanzi and Agrawala, 2012[4]). Adaptation measurement, as interpreted in the OECD’s work, aims to help countries evaluate nationwide, cross-cutting efforts to adapt to climate change. It seeks to move beyond a project or programme-specific approach in order to comprehensively capture adaptation progress.
The process of adaptation measurement is informed by each step of the adaptation policy cycle (Figure 1.2). The first step involves establishing a baseline of current and projected climate risks (including climate hazard levels, as well as exposure and vulnerability), and ideally the likely impacts on society, economy and environment (e.g. climate change could lead to an average annual agricultural yield loss of 10-20% between 2020 and 2050 due to greater water scarcity). The second step includes defining adaptation objectives – grounded in identified climate risks and impacts – against which progress can be assessed (e.g. increase agricultural water use efficiency). This step involves setting objectives and possibly targets that are measurable and achievable within a specific timeframe (e.g. introduce water-saving measures by 2025). Subsequently, adaptation measurement seeks not just to monitor implementation progress, but also to evaluate whether implemented adaptation actions are effective and efficient in reducing climate risks and their impacts (e.g. would crop yield losses due to droughts decline if a drought of the same severity recurs at some point in the future).
1.1.3. Report methodology
This chapter presents the findings of a stocktaking exercise that sought to shed light on countries’ approaches, objectives and achievements in measuring progress in implementing their national adaptation policies. The findings build on a cross-country survey, four country case studies, and expert workshops organised by the OECD:
The cross-country survey (see Annex A) was sent to 48 countries and targeted national government officials working on climate adaptation. The countries included 38 OECD member countries, 6 OECD accession countries (Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Peru, Romania), 4 OECD key partner countries (The People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, South Africa) and the European Union (EU). Of these, 30 countries responded to the survey, which corresponds to a 62.5% response rate. The survey gathered information on countries’ existing practices, achievements and persisting challenges faced in measuring adaptation progress at the national level.
Four OECD country case studies were carried out: in the United Kingdom (Chapter 2), Chile (Chapter 3), Korea (Chapter 4) and the Slovak Republic (Chapter 5). The case studies sought to document and compare countries’ adaptation measurement approaches, achievements and challenges. The case studies were guided by a structure and research questions so as to maximise comparability of the results (Annex B). The main national counterparts consulted in all countries were the ministries of environment.
Two expert workshops were organised to inform the report’s findings. The first expert workshop was co-convened by the OECD and the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Committee. It aimed to bring together country and academic experts to share and discuss progress in developing measurement frameworks and instruments. The second expert meeting focused on developing meaningful adaptation policy indicators, and sought to establish an exchange between environmental information and adaptation experts from OECD countries to discuss how existing information can be used to build adaptation indicators. Additional country dialogues were organised at the COP26 and COP27.
This chapter looks at the main elements of adaptation measurement, building on the results of the survey, case studies and experts discussions. In addition to presenting the rationale for measuring progress on implementing adaptation policies, it describes how climate risk assessments serve as the measurement baseline when setting and measuring adaptation objectives and target. The chapter also dives into the importance of developing and presenting relevant data and information for adaptation measurement. Finally, the chapter looks at the institutional framework and how the results of adaptation measurement inform policy development.
1.2.1. Assessing climate change risks and impacts
The starting point for measuring adaptation progress is understanding current and future climate risk (Figure 1.2). This is done through climate risk assessments (CRA)1 that bring together knowledge of climate change hazards, exposure (e.g. location of assets, infrastructure, value chains, ecosystems, communities), and vulnerabilities across multiple geographies and timescales (Figure 1.3):
Information on climate hazard includes the likelihood and intensity of the occurrence of floods, wildfires and other climate events, and their expected change in intensity and frequency under given climate change scenarios.
Exposure determines the degree to which a population, physical assets or ecosystems are exposed to climate hazards. It can be measured in terms of exposed population (e.g. number of people in a flood-prone area), assets (e.g. number of businesses, hospitals) or ecosystems (e.g. biodiversity, wetlands) in areas at risk, for example of flooding or coastal erosion.
Measuring vulnerability provides complementary information on the propensity or predisposition of natural, built, and human systems to be adversely affected by a climate hazard (2019[19]; ISO, 2021[20]; IPCC, 2022[1]). While different people and assets might be exposed to the same level of climate hazard, their likelihood of suffering damage and loss differs. By combining social, environmental and economic factors that determine the level of vulnerability, policy makers can identify at-risk individuals, assets or ecosystems and prioritise adaptation efforts accordingly.
While adaptation cannot change the likelihood of a hazard occurring or its intensity, it can influence exposure and vulnerability, and thus determine the level of climate impacts. Understanding all components of climate risk, including hazards, is important to determine the areas that are hazard-prone and thus assess the exposure of people and assets in these areas.
Source: Based on (IPCC, 2022[1])
CRAs allow countries to determine areas where adaptation efforts are most needed and serve as a baseline to measure whether adaptation actions are reducing the exposure and vulnerability of people, sectors or regions over time. Since climate risks are significantly shaped by climate mitigation efforts, as well as socio-economic development and adaptation responses, the CRA must be updated regularly to track changing hazard levels, exposure and vulnerability. Doing so provides relevant baselines for measuring adaptation progress over time. Regular assessments of climate risks also allow for a comparison of current and past risk levels to understand the factors responsible for changes in climate risk, and whether progress has been made in reducing exposure and vulnerability to prevailing hazard risk levels.
CRAs are increasingly becoming standard practice for countries. However, the extent to which countries measure different elements of climate risks and impacts varies depending on data availability and interpretation of the concepts of hazards, exposure and vulnerability (Singh et al., 2021[21]). The OECD survey (Annex A) finds that the large majority of responding countries have undertaken some form of CRA, with 23 countries (80% of respondents) reporting having developed a national or sectoral CRA (OECD, 2022[2]). Most countries update their CRAs regularly, often every five years. This is the case for several EU Member States, as this is the interval recommended by the EU (EEA, 2022[22]).
Measuring climate risk starts by identifying climate hazards threatening the country, while taking into account uncertainty surrounding future climate change. Of the survey respondents, 60% (18) report that they assess climate hazards (
Figure 1.4). Given the interdependence of climate hazards with future emissions pathways, different climate scenarios are usually considered when assessing expected hazard recurrence and severity. For example, for each risk identified in the United Kingdom’s (UK) CRA was assessed in the in the context of a 2 and 4 degrees Celsius global warming scenario, disaggregated into regional scenarios (CCC, 2021[23]). The Slovak Republic, in comparison, uses the RCP4.5 scenario for all of its hazard projections for 2041-2070. This moderate scenario projects emissions to peak around 2040 and decline thereafter, and assumes a global temperature rise of between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius by 2100 (OECD, 2023[24]). Indicating the probability of each hazard to occur can help comprehend the degree of uncertainty attached to the results (EC & EEA, 2019[25]).
While OECD countries have made progress in identifying the hazards threatening their territory, fewer of them assess exposure to a changing climate. Out of the 23 countries reporting conducting CRAs, only 12 assess the exposure of people, socio-economic assets, ecosystems and environmental services (
Figure 1.4) (OECD, 2022[2]). For example, the UK CRA finds that around 10% of hospitals, 23% of listed buildings and 18% of scheduled monuments in England are at risk of significant flooding (CCC, 2021[23]). The Slovak Republic finds that more than 16% of the country’s population resides in areas at high risk of extreme heat (OECD, 2023[24]).
Country responses to “If a climate risk assessment has been developed, what does it assess?"
Note: Share of responding countries who state having developed a CRA (23 responses) to question 2: "If a climate risk assessment has been developed, what does it assess?"; All response options are referred to as “past and/or projected” in the survey. Responses under “other” include the following: France: cost of inaction; Germany: adaptive capacity, climate risk with and without adaptation; Hungary: vulnerability analyses of the Hungarian National Adaptation Geo-Information System; Lithuania: inter-connected risks; UK: actions being taken, adaptation shortfall and potential for actions, and prioritisation of risks using an urgency framework. Fewer countries state that they measure exposure (12) than vulnerability (16). This is likely due to differing characterisations of vulnerability. Some of the countries that report assessing vulnerability do not in fact assess the variables that reflect the vulnerability definitions set out above. Instead, they actually assess exposure variables. Overall, existing climate risk assessments have a better assessment of exposure than vulnerability because the concept of vulnerability is complex and data are scarce and difficult to measure.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
Similarly, the quality of information on vulnerability varies significantly across countries because of methodological and data limitations. Assessing vulnerability requires, for example, spatial micro data on households’ socio-economic characteristics (such as age, income, gender, education and migration backgrounds), which need to be mapped with exposure information, and updated regularly. As a result, vulnerability information remains limited or coarse, with 16 out of 23 countries reporting conducting regular CRAs that include vulnerability assessments (OECD, 2022[2]). The Slovak Republic, for instance, has identified indicators as children aged below 4, elderly people aged over 70 years, municipalities with high shares of low-income groups and unemployment to characterise vulnerability. It maps these indicators spatially by district (Figure 1.5), which is good practice (OECD, 2023[24]). In some other countries, vulnerability is described qualitatively, for example for particular groups, assets or ecosystems vulnerable to specific hazards, and is not demonstrated using data.
Vulnerable population aged ≥ 70 (%) (upper left); vulnerable population aged ≤ 3 (%) (upper right); unemployment rate (%) (lower left); municipal income per capita (EUR) (lower right)
Source: (OECD, 2023[24]).
Finally, some OECD countries also make use of information on historical climate related impacts to identify areas and communities at risk from climate change. Of the responding countries, 13 (43%) document past socio-economic and environmental impacts as part of their CRA (
Figure 1.4). For example, the UK documents in its CRA a wide range of past and anticipated future impacts (though not always quantitatively projected) on people’s health, livelihoods, ecosystems, and the economy. These impacts include health and productivity, deterioration in soil health and agricultural productivity, and impacts on water availability and energy supply (see Chapter 2). Germany has quantified losses and damages from past climate hazards between 2000 and 2021, and includes both direct losses, as well as those caused through indirect effects, such as reduced worker productivity due to heatwaves (OECD, 2022[2]; Prognos, 2022[26]; UBA, 2021[27]).
To conclude, the wider the coverage of detailed information on climate hazard, exposure and vulnerability, the easier it is to measure adaptation progress. Robust and regularly updated exposure and vulnerability information enables adaptation objectives and targets to be determined and adjusted, and greatly facilitates the measurement task. For example, if the baseline finds that 50% of the elderly population live in high flood risk zones, an adaptation objective could be to reduce this share by a target date.
1.2.2. Setting adaptation objectives and targets
The second step in adaptation measurement is to lay out clear, and ideally measurable, adaptation policy objectives (Figure 1.2). In setting objectives, countries define the level of ambition of their adaptation policies for addressing climate risks and reducing impacts, thereby determining the acceptable levels of risks. For instance, France’s objective is to implement measures to adapt to warming of 4ºC by 2100 (Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion & Ministry of Energy Transition France, 2023[28]). This section sheds light on current country practices in defining adaptation objectives, using baselines and defining targets. It also highlights the need for a collaborative process in defining objectives.
Using climate risk assessments to define adaptation objectives
As indicated above, climate risk assessments enable to create a baseline to inform adaptation objectives against which progress can be measured. The OECD survey finds that most responding countries use their CRA to inform their national adaptation policies (Figure 1.6) (OECD, 2022[2]). The UK, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Portugal and Czechia use information on exposure and vulnerability to determine their adaptation policy objectives (Defra, 2018[29]; Ministry for the Environment New Zealand, 2022[30]; Ministry of the Environment Czechia, 2021[31]; Environment Agency Portugal, 2019[32]; OECD, 2022[2]). The UK links objectives to the climate risks that the NAP responds to (CCC, 2021[33]). For instance, the UK’s third NAP includes the objective to “minimise the impact on the transport network of climate change-driven increases in incidences of river, surface water and ground water flooding, so that assets remain operational throughout their design life, the risk of fatalities and major disruption are reduced as far as possible, and resilience plans enable people and freight to move safely in the event of a loss of service on any given route, while also ensuring staff safety” (Defra, 2023[34]). Another objective is to “protect critical infrastructure assets from flooding to 1-in-1 000-year flood event standards”.
Number of responding countries to “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?”
Note: 25 responses received to question 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?”. Number indicated above bars represents the number of responding countries, while horizontal axis shows a range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (fully aligned). Only respondents that answered “yes” to having developed a “National or sectoral climate risk assessment” in question 1 were able to answer to this question.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
Characterising robust adaptation objectives
Robust adaptation objectives encompass a range of characteristics, from the definition of a country-wide vision to the identification of sectoral and/or regional actions. A first step in setting adaption objectives is therefore to break down broad, higher-level adaptation visions into concrete objectives. A hierarchy of objectives can help translate an overarching vision into measurable objectives. Canada’s NAP, for example, sets out the following vision: people “living in Canada, communities, and the natural environment are resilient in the face of a changing climate”. It then sets further direction for adaptation for five interconnected systems of society, represented in Figure 1.7 (Government of Canada, 2023[35]).
All countries responding to the OECD survey have adaptation objectives that state the medium to long-term impact that they aim to achieve by implementing policies and actions; 27 responding countries (90%) report that they have defined a broad vision – or high-level objective – for adaptation (OECD, 2022[2]).
Example from the health sector
Note: The number of objectives, and respective targets and indicators may vary by objective or target. Examples are adapted from Canada’s NAP.
Source: Authors, based on (Government of Canada, 2023[35]), Canada's National Adaptation Strategy: Building Resilient Communities and a Strong Economy.
Robust adaptation objectives reflect spatial differences within countries. As different regions within a country may vary in their exposure to specific climate risks, defining sub-national adaptation objectives helps reflect territorial disparities and enables policy makers to adjust adaptation action accordingly. Countries define their adaptation objectives at different levels of jurisdictions. All but one of the OECD countries responding to the survey define objectives at the national level, while 60% also set sub-national objectives (OECD, 2022[2]; OECD, 2023[36]).
Similarly, sectoral adaptation objectives help to allocate responsibility for actions to relevant line ministries and agencies, thereby strengthening accountability for adaptation actions across government. Most countries (70% of responding countries) classify their adaptation objectives by sector. Table 1.1 gives some examples of countries’ sectoral objectives, which include better adapting agricultural production, improving irrigation water use, fostering the climate resilience of infrastructure, reducing climate-related diseases or diversifying energy resources. Austria has defined 14 sectoral objectives (for health, transport, spatial planning, etc.) and subdivided them into lower-level objectives, each associated with a number of actions to achieve them. Thus its overarching objective for the health sector is subdivided into nine specific objectives that focus on raising awareness, informing the public and improving the capabilities of co-ordinated emergency services to prevent or minimise health risks and lower fatal casualties in cases of extreme events or outbreaks of infectious diseases. These detailed objectives allow Austria to narrow down what it needs to assess when measuring adaptation progress (e.g. whether climate-related topics have been included in medical studies and in training of nursing staff, paramedics, and home helpers) (BMK, 2021[37]).
Most countries then associate their objectives with actions to be implemented. All responding countries (except one) report having associated the adaptation actions set in their NAS or NAP to a specific objective (OECD, 2022[2]). New Zealand, for instance, has assigned a number of actions to each of the 14 objectives set out in its NAP, distinguishing them as critical actions (31 in total) and supporting actions (40 in total). As an example, New Zealand’s NAP lists a number of actions to achieve the objective of reducing the vulnerability of infrastructure assets exposed to climate change. These include defining a resilience standard or code for infrastructure and integrating adaptation into Treasury decisions on infrastructure (Ministry for the Environment New Zealand, 2022[30]).
To be measurable, objectives should be associated with targets, together with a baseline and a timeframe towards which progresss will be measured. Adding targets to objectives helps formulate what actions would be expected in a given timeframe (see examples of targets in Table 1.2). A target is a nearer-term goal that should be specific enough, measurable (i.e. defines a quantitative threshold that leads towards the objective), achievable, realistic/relevant and time-bound (SMART). Targets, timeframes and baselines should be modified as new information becomes available, or as predictions of climate change evolve. An example of a target is for 100% of public institutions to integrate climate adaptation actions into their operational planning by a certain date. Canada, Costa Rica and the UK, for instance, have developed targets for some objectives on the natural environment and adaptation capacity (Table 1.2). Figure 1.8 shows that while the great majority of responding countries include a timeframe for some objectives, only 10 countries do this consistently for all objectives (OECD, 2022[2]). However, more than 40% of responding countries do not establish baseline values for their targets at all and those that do only define baselines for some targets (Figure 1.8). Korea and Mexico are among the few countries that link each of their adaptation progress indicators to both a baseline and a timeframe (see Chapter 4. Korea).
Country responses to “Are the objectives and/or targets associated with a baseline? and “Are the objectives and/or targets time-bound?””
Note: As share of respondents based on 30 responses received to both question 7.b: “Are the objectives and/or targets time-bound?” and question 7.d: “Are the objectives and/or targets associated with a baseline?” out of a total of 30 respondents to the questionnaire.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
Source: Authors’ compilation integrating examples from (Ministry of Environment and Energy Costa Rica, 2022[39]); (Defra, 2018[29]).
Setting adaptation objectives through a collaborative process
In addition to CRAs, adaptation objectives are often also informed by consultations with relevant stakeholders. Generally, consulting a wide range of stakeholders in the objective-setting process helps reflect diverse knowledge on key climate risks as well as potentially differing views on what an objective should aim to achieve. Stakeholder engagement can also help to analyse acceptable levels of risk and what is achievable in terms of cost, timescales and political will (in the light of international, national and regional landscapes). Furthermore, it establishes accountability and legitimacy for the decision-making process, building confidence among stakeholders that the objectives are grounded in credible evidence. According to the OECD survey, objectives are often defined through both expert consultations and inter-ministerial consultations (both 93% of responding countries) (Figure 1.9). France, Japan and Luxembourg all launched public consultations to inform the development of objectives in their NAPs. Peru explicitly seeks to involve indigenous or native people, Afro-Peruvian people, women and youth in setting its adaptation objectives.
Some countries have also set up cross-agency committees to facilitate organised and inclusive co-ordination across the relevant stakeholders. Portugal has established the Co-ordination Group of the Portuguese NAS, including representatives from the Portuguese Environment Agency, nine different sectors, its autonomous regions and municipality associations (OECD, 2022[2]). As part of its NAP development process, Costa Rica set up a NAP Technical Committee composed of 150 actors from relevant sectors, regions and institutions who play a strategic role in environmental planning processes climate risk management; as well as representatives of academia and civil society.
Country responses to “If applicable, what is the process followed for developing the objectives and targets?”
Note: 30 responses were received to question 6: “If applicable, what is the process followed for developing the objectives and targets?”, out of 30 respondents to the questionnaire. Respondents could provide multiple answers. “Other” types of consultation (i.e. public consultation and sectoral consultation) were reported by 13% of country respondents and included public consultations and sectoral consultations with different ministries.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
Involving the ministries responsible for implementing the various adaptation interventions in defining objectives is not only useful to ensure that the objectives are appropriate, but can also help increase their buy-in for implementing adaptation actions (UNEP DTU Partnership, 2018[40]). Developing sectoral adaptation targets jointly can help achieve a shared understanding of the acceptable level of risk, ambition and accountability in each sector. Existing sectoral policies, issues, standards, guidance and research should be considered, as well as regional priorities and cross-sectoral issues. Germany is in the process of developing measurable objectives and corresponding indicators and has put each sectoral ministry in charge of defining sectoral objectives and targets, underpinned by a broad stakeholder consultation process (Federal Parliament Germany, 2023[41]).
1.2.3. Measuring adaptation policy progress and effectiveness
Once the risks and adaptation needs have been assessed, countries implement adaptation policies to achieve the defined objectives (Figure 1.2). Progress against these objectives needs to be assessed, including measuring the implementation of adaptation policies and actions, and evaluating the effectiveness and relevance of the actions taken, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Measuring progress in policy implementation
Tracking the implementation status of the actions listed in national or sectoral plans helps gauge whether an action has been completed within a set timeframe and budget. Implementation monitoring is a well-established practice in adaptation. In the UK, the NAP Monitoring Tracker tool demonstrated the status (on-track, off-track, delivered) of each of the 253 actions set out in the second NAP (CCC, 2021[33]). Similarly, Ireland tracks implementation progress for 423 climate action measures, of which 60 focus on adaptation (Government of Ireland, 2022[42]). France also monitors the implementation progress of its 240 NAP actions, indicating implementation status as percentage progress towards completion. Regular reports also indicate whether the actions are completed, ongoing, delayed or abandoned (Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy France, 2015[43]).
Most OECD countries (70% of all responding countries) report tracking implementation outputs from their adaptation policies (OECD, 2022[2]). These include for example the implementation of physical adaptation measures, regulations, strategies or plans, institutional changes, or capacity and awareness strengthening measures (e.g. research activities or communication tools). The elements reported can also represent social, environmental or economic changes resulting from a policy, for instance, the extent of marine protected area, share of impermeable land in urban areas, flood warning registrations, reported and forecast percentage of households with water meters, or the percentage of FTSE100 companies evaluating climate risks to their supply chain (Chapter 2. United Kingdom). These elements are commonly measured as they can rely on readily available data collected for other activities related to infrastructure, agriculture or businesses.
As additional resources (or inputs) need to be allocated to enable the implementation of planned actions, a majority of countries also track the resources allocated to adaptation (60% of surveyed countries). Ideally the level of resources needed (expressed either in staff time, financial resources or equipment), and the source of resources (e.g. national, sectoral, or local funds), are spelled out in the initial adaptation planning process. However, planned level and source of resources are not commonly integrated into OECD countries’ national or sectoral planning documents, and it is even rarer for the resources actually engaged to be reported (OECD, 2022[2]). An exception is Korea, which in its third NAP determines the level of budget needed for each adaptation action and documents the percentage budget execution rate, indicating how much of the planned budget has been spent at different implementation intervals (Chapter 4. Korea). Germany assesses the extent to which resources and competencies are sufficient for implementing the country’s NAS in the absence of an overall record of direct and indirect national public expenditure on climate adaptation (UBA, 2019[44]).
In addition to measuring the ressources allocated to the implementation of adaptation actions and their direct results, many countries also look into factors that influence their enabling environment. This can refer to the institutional context for adaptation or co-ordination processes (Norway, Germany), or the level of mainstreaming of adaptation across other policy domains. To a lesser extent it can also include indirect drivers of vulnerability or adaptive capacity (social, economic and environmental). Finland, for example, assesses sectors’ institutional capacities for responding to climate change risks, the role of stakeholder participation in promoting NAP implementation, and the level of collaboration between different actors and sectors. It also collects evidence of lessons learnt from implementation, notably on successes and challenges (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland, 2020[45]).
Quantifying the effectiveness of adaptation policies
In complement to implementation tracking, a key objective of adaptation measurement is to understand the effectiveness of adaptation actions and policies. Adaptation effectiveness is defined as the extent to which an action reduces vulnerability and exposure, increases resilience, and avoids maladaptation (IPCC, 2022[1]). This is the most complex measurement step as it seeks to establish a causal link between adaptation actions and the impact resulting from a reduction in exposure and vulnerability. In practice, measuring effectiveness requires attributing a change in climate impacts to a given adaptation action or policy. An increasing number of countries are seeking to assess the effectiveness of their national adaptation policies and even mandate such evaluations in their legal framework. Yet, 80% of responding countries reported finding it “quite” or “very” challenging to measure the effectiveness of their respective adaptation policies (OECD, 2022[2]), mainly due to the challenge of attribution.
While about one-third (30%) of responding countries state that they measure the impact of their policies, they predominantly measure changes in climate impacts, without assessing whether an implemented action or policy has contributed to these changes (i.e. attribution). Several countries, such as Colombia, Germany and the UK, have developed climate impact indicators – such as annual damage from coastal and river flooding, agricultural losses from drought, or the number of heat-related deaths per year – which they use as proxy to measure policy impact (Table 1.3).2
Note: *commonly reported, ** typically reported only by OECD countries, *** not routinely reported, and requiring bespoke analysis to yield an impact estimate.
Source: adapted from (OECD, 2021[46]), Managing Climate Risks, Facing up to Losses and Damages, https://doi.org/10.1787/55ea1cc9-en.
Countries face methodological and empirical challenges in attributing implemented actions to the measured impacts on climate risk reduction. A first difficulty in assessing effectiveness is measuring climate change impacts. Climate impacts measure the level of actual (not projected) losses and damages caused by climate variability and extremes. Climate impacts result from climate risk, compounded of hazard, exposure and vulnerability (IPCC, 2022[1]). Impacts can be represented, for example, by the number of people wounded, the number of buildings damaged or the level of business disruption. The assessment of climate impacts is limited by information availability. Some types of climate impacts get more frequently measured than others (Table 1.3). For example, insured losses are commonly reported by insurance companies and therefore readily available, at least in an aggregate form. Other types of losses, such as reduced worker productivity (assessed by Germany for some past heatwaves), require in-depth analysis and data and are therefore rarely regularly documented. In the UK, efforts are being undertaken by the UK Climate Change Committee to produce new indicators for climate impacts such as the prevalence of flooding impacts, deaths from overheating or monetary impacts of climate-related water shortages (Chapter 2. United Kingdom).
Attributing changes in climate impacts to a given action or policy is also challenging. Isolating the effect of adaptation requires the evaluation of a change in impact, controlling for the intensity, duration and location of the hazard. An observed reduction in losses and damages may be caused by actions taken outside of the planned and monitored public actions. For example, private actions driven by economic interests or policies that do not target adaptation can also reduce impact. A dam constructed by a private power operator to produce electricity (driven by a policy favouring the production of renewable energy) can affect flood risks downstream.
While quantitative impact assessments exist that highlight impacts on beneficiaries and understand attribution levels, to date these are mainly carried out for individual programmes or projects and are predominantly found in academic research. Causal inference methods range from randomised control trials to natural experiments that identify before and after affects in defined regions or population groups. One such study in Korea assessed the effect of heatwave alerts and health plans on reducing the mortality risk of heatwaves. For this study, a difference-in-difference method was used to measure the difference in outcomes for programme participants before and after the implementation of the programme, compared with non-participants in seven major cities between 2009 and 2014 (Heo et al., 2019[47]).
In complement, cost-effectiveness studies can help select adaptation measures that maximise a result based on comparable levels of resources employed. For instance, Dottori et al. (2023[48]) used flood risk modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis to assess four key adaptation strategies to reduce flood risk across Europe (building-based flood proofing, relocation measures, strengthening of dykes, and reducing flood peaks using detention areas). By estimating by how much each of these solutions can lower projected flood losses in Europe, they can assess their relative cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness can also be assessed ex-ante by predicting how effective specific adaptation measures will be in future scenarios. This can help policy makers select and implement adaptation actions. For example, in Toronto and Montreal (Canada), researchers calculated the expected impacts of a heat mitigation strategy involving increasing the albedo effect on roofs, walls and ground on the reduction in heat-related mortality (excess heat-related deaths). They did so by coupling a weather forecasting model with an urban canopy model. The impact on heat-related mortality was assessed by measuring the intermediate effect of increasing surface albedo on air and dew-point temperature and near-surface wind speed (Jandaghian and Akbari, 2020[49]).
Qualitative approaches to measuring the impact of adaptation policies
Due to the complexity and limitations of quantitative effectiveness assessments, many OECD countries rely on qualitative assessments of the impact of their policies. For example, some countries adopt a theory of change approach to understand the causal relationship between actions and results. This approach links inputs to outputs, outcomes and finally overall impacts (Table 1.4) and enables a qualitative discussion on which part of the results can be attributed to the policy action. In Germany’s evaluation of its NAS, it assessed adaptation impacts by establishing plausible causal relations between inputs, implemented actions, outputs, outcomes and policy impact. In Mexico, an evaluation co-ordination group held workshops which identified 13 conditions and steps needed to achieve long-term climate policy objectives and attribute actions to outcomes. This evaluation compares, to the extent possible, the information used to assess objectives and associated indicators against the conditions identified in the theory of change (INECC, 2017[50]).
Another qualitative approach to gauging policy impact and attribution is to consult experts and relevant stakeholders. For example, Austria discusses the impact of policy implementation using expert interviews or surveys of stakeholders responsible for implementing specific actions. Some countries guide the consultation with evaluation criteria or questions that aim to qualitatively assess the effectiveness of implemented actions. Finland, for instance, asks effectiveness-related questions of sectoral and sub-national government officials as well as independent experts, such as “How and in what ways has the NAP promoted risk reduction and adaptive capacity?” (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland, 2020[45]). Germany also asks whether the measures are sufficient to manage the six key climate risks identified in the country’s CRA3 and to shed light on potential implementation gaps (UBA, 2019[44]). Interestingly some countries also seek second opinions to validate the findings (see Section 1.4).
Some countries also focus on assessing the quality of their adaptation plan. Germany, for instance, assesses whether the adaptation policies are suitable by documenting their development, the extent to which the content reflects the main challenges of adaptation and climate risks assessed, the quality of exchange and co-ordination between government levels and sectors (UBA, 2019[44]). The UK, in its 2021 adaptation progress report, looks into whether the plans in place prepare for a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature and consider the risks of a 4-degree Celsius scenario. The progress report assesses whether the objectives are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART), whether they clearly state outcomes that are appropriate, consider short-term and long-term climate impacts, have an effective monitoring and evaluation framework and demonstrate clear links between the outcomes and corresponding actions (CCC, 2021[53]). The EU recently published guidance on developing and updating good quality adaptation strategies and plans, highlighting the importance of creating an institutional framework and ensuring stakeholder buy-in, conducting CRAs, identifying and prioritising adaptation options, as well as essential elements of an action plan (e.g. accounting for different emission scenarios, establishing instruments to mainstream adaptation, estimation of investment needs) and an M&E framework (EC, 2023[54]).
In parrallel, some countries (Czechia, Finland and Ireland) qualitatively review the challenges, barriers, maladaptation and potential limits identified in the implementation of measures (UNFCCC, 2022[9]). Generally, adaptation actions can result in a spectrum of outcomes, ranging from maladaptation to successful adaptation, reflecting a range from decreasing to increasing resilience. Maladaptation, of which there is increasing evidence across sectors and regions (e.g. increasing use of air conditioning), can lock people into situations of vulnerability and exposure that can exacerbate inequalities and might be difficult to change (Schipper, 2020[55]). Finland, for instance, evaluates barriers related to legislation, information and co-operation in the implementation of its adaptation measures (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland, 2020[45]). Ireland looks into the reasons for delays in the implementation of their NAP: these include administrative delays (e.g. approval processes), capacity and capability constraints (e.g. resourcing and competing priorities), public and stakeholder consultation efforts (e.g. the need to consult in the first instance and the required analysis of submissions), technical and physical limitations, and legislative delays (e.g. drafting, passing and enacting bills) (Climate Change Advisory Council Ireland, 2022[56]).
Finally, although rarer, some countries qualitatively assess whether adaptive capacity has increased overall (i.e. whether society, ecosystems and the economy are better prepared and able to cope with climate related hazards) as a result of their invested resources and implemented actions. For example, Finland identifies processes and practices relevant for increasing adaptive capacity, namely advances made in research, communication and education of climate risks and awareness, and incorporation of climate risks by businesses (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland, 2020[45]).
Data identification, collection and preparation is fundamental for adaptation measurement. This section discusses current country practices in data management for adaptation measurement. It also covers the use of indicator-based frameworks and highlights the related resources and technical constraints that countries may face when establishing databases.
1.3.1. Collecting data and information for adaptation measurement
Data and information requirements for adaptation measurement
Countries rely on a mix of qualitative and quantitave data and information to measure progress on adaptation. While quantitative information can help track progress over time, enable comparison between jurisdictions, and is easy for policy makers to grasp, qualitative information can provide essential information on the “why” and “how” of adaptation successes and failures. Qualitative data can also provide complementary information: for instance, as part of a survey to collect societal perceptions of climate risks and their impacts, German citizens were asked whether they believed heatwaves would affect their work efficiency (UBA, 2019[57]). As both quantitative and qualitative data have different advantages and disadvantages, combining them can ensure that the overall narrative of adaptation progress and performance is robust, consistent and contextualised (EC, 2023[54]).
Countries already have useful and relevant data and information at their disposal. Most responding countries (80%) mainly rely on existing data and information to measure adaptation, often extracted from publicly available sources (Figure 1.10). Environment agencies, meteorological offices and other public bodies are key owners of information on climate hazards and exposure. Different government agencies hold sectorally relevant adaptation information, such as the health, agriculture or infrastructure ministries. Similarly, governments can collect relevant information from the private sector through publicly available corporate disclosures on climate-related information or specific reporting mandates.
Country responses to “How is relevant data and information to measure progress on adaptation collected or generated?”
Note: 28 responses were received to question 11: “How is relevant data and information to measure progress on adaptation collected or generated?” out of a total of 30 respondents to the questionnaire. Two countries mentioned ‘Other’ – the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) uses commissioned research, and Indonesia, which noted: “methodologies and instruments for monitoring and evaluation, validation and verification”. Multiple answer question.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
Countries need historical and projected data on temperature and precipitation, as well as relevant information on other hazards (e.g. soil moisture levels to assess drought risk). Most countries have temperature and precipitation data at their disposal, but may struggle to integrate climate change projections into hazard models and data. To assess exposure, countries need data on the size and location of populations and assets, or the area of ecosystems exposed to a specific climate hazard. While census data often provide sufficient figures on population levels and density, geospatial data on non-public assets can be difficult and resource-intensive to retrieve. Spatial disaggregation of hazard and exposure data more broadly remains an issue, as local data are often lacking, incomplete or inconsistent (Adger, Brown and Surminski, 2018[58]).
Measuring vulnerability to hazards requires refined socio-economic data. Chile, for instance, assesses poverty levels; density levels of children under five, elderly over 65, and female-headed households with dependent people (children, adolescents and older adults); as well as population densities in urban areas (Ministry of Environment Chile, 2020[59]). As vulnerability factors are highly varied and context-specific – ranging from the age of materials and use rates of services and infrastructure to climate risk awareness among citizens – collecting data to assess these factors at the national level can be extremely resource-intensive. As a result, the quality of information on vulnerability varies significantly across countries and some vulnerability information remains limited or coarse.
To assess progress on the implementation of adaptation actions, countries need to document information on the measures implemented, such as the number of strategies developed, investment measures carried out, regulations updated or introduced or communication campaigns carried out. Implementation progress reporting also requires data on environmental and socio-economic changes that may have been achieved as a result of implemented measures. For example, the share of permeable land in urban areas, extent of protected areas. Finally, countries also need data on the resources used to implement the measures.
Most importantly, adaptation measurement is dependent on data that indicate climate impacts on the environment, economy and society to assess whether these impacts have decreased or not. Such data might include, for instance, rates of tree crown defoliation, annual economic damage from extreme weather events, percentage change in heat-related mortality, claims expenditure for property insurance, number of weather-related disruptions to power supply, and crop yield fluctuations. Ideally, impact data should be directly linked to climate change, such as heat-related mortality or economic damage induced by extreme weather events, instead of using proxy data that presume a relationship with climate change. Many countries lack the systematic documentation of climate-induced impact data, which explains the relatively low measurement of climate impacts described in Section 1.2.3. Countries also lack data on cascading and cross-sectoral impacts, such as the reduction of government finances due to lower tax revenues from impaired households and firms (EEA, 2022[22]; Financial Stability Board, 2021[60]).
Even where data exist, there can be gaps arising from limited spatial coverage or limited time series (EEA, 2015[5]; OECD, 2022[61]), or simply differences in reporting that render data less comparable. For example, regional disparities in climate risk and adaptation needs mean that sub-national jurisdictions report very different types of data and information, posing a methodological problem for countries in aggregating them in a relevant way at national level (Ellis, 2014[62]). For instance, in Costa Rica, 20 cantons established their own monitoring frameworks for tracking progress. Similarly, changes in the resources or methods devoted to data collection and administrative changes (e.g. staff turnover) can affect the continuity and quality of the data collected. In Austria, for instance, the information-gathering method was altered between the first and the second progress report, making it difficult to compare them, and to obtain an accurate evaluation of progress (BMK, 2021[37]). A prerequisite for addressing data gaps is an effective measurement agenda, with sufficient long-term funding.
OECD countries are making progress in assessing their data needs and gaps. Some countries (e.g. Germany, Norway and the UK) specifically assess data and information gaps in their measurement reports. For instance, Norway’s auditor explored whether the transport ministry had enough data to assess the climate adaptation of transport infrastructure (Office of the Auditor General of Norway, 2022[63]). The UK CCC has flagged that nearly 40% of adaptation outcome measures lacked relevant and up-to-date datasets (e.g. either because they do not exist, or where they do exist, are not up to date, are not sufficiently comprehensive in scope or only provide a point-in-time snapshot) (see Chapter 2. United Kingdom).
Generating new evidence: collecting additional data and information
In addition to the use of existing available data (or data collected for other purposes), countries request and collect additional adaptation-specific information through the following methods:
Self-assessment: Data and information, mainly qualitative information, is collected by a number of countries through self-assessments. Korea bases its adaptation measurement to a large extent on annual self-evaluations requested from all ministries and local governments. Each ministry conducts the self-evaluation using a standardised template for all adaptation projects for which they are responsible (286 projects are being reviewed for the 3rd NAP). The ministries assign scores to the performance of each action based on changes from the evaluation results from the previous year. They also look at other factors, such as compliance with the implementation schedule and budget disbursement, or the extent to which the target set out in the plan has been achieved.
Surveys and questionnaires: Standardised surveys sent to local governments, sectoral representatives and national ministries can allow countries to collect new and harmonised information. In Ireland, for example, the Climate Action Regional Offices (CAROs) collect information on progress by sending a standardised survey to all 31 local authorities. Germany has conducted a one-off survey to assess the impact of the German Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change on 249 municipalities across all 16 states. Finland’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry conducted a national online survey addressed to non-government stakeholders (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland, 2020[45]).
Participatory approaches: Another way of collecting data is to involve a wide range of stakeholders through interviews, consultations, workshops or the establishment of expert panels. For example, Austria conducted 10 thematic workshops to assess progress towards all of its 14 adaptation goals, guided by standard questions. The workshops were documented, with the reports commented on again by all participants and used as the basis for the evaluation of progress in all fields of action, as well as towards each adaptation goal set out in the NAP (BMK, 2021[37]).
To harness data and information on climate risks and on measures implemented from a broad range of non-government and public organisations, reporting mandates have also been set up. In the UK, the Adaptation Reporting Power gives the government a legal instrument to request direct public bodies and major infrastructure providers to report on climate risks and impacts they have faced and measures they have taken to prepare for them. Switzerland, in the revision of their current CO2 law, specifically mandates its supervisory authorities to report on financial risks arising from climate impacts (Federal Council Germany, 2022[64]). Korea also systematically collects information on progress from each local authority, which is mandated in law. It uses a point system to present individual actions in relation to NAP, which enables comparison (Chapter 4. Korea).
To orientate data collection efforts, some countries also establish wish-list indicators for which data are not yet available, but that are deemed relevant to assess progress. Identifying a so-called indicator wishlist can help establish clarity on what needs to be measured and further encourage the development of methodologies and the generation of data. The UK, for instance, developed its indicator list using this approach, but 60% of its indicators remain on the wish-list because data are not yet available to populate them (Chapters 2 and 4).
1.3.2. Building adaptation indicators
In addition to collecting data, countries need to find ways of analysing them to report on their risk, impacts, needs and adaptation progress. Standardised indicators allow data to be presented in a simplified manner and synthesised, helping to facilitate communication and comparability (Ellis, 2014[62]). OECD countries highlight that indicators are particularly useful to i) clearly convey adaptation progress by showing trends or rates of change in implementation; ii) identify existing gaps and further adaptation needs; iii) show the extent to which measures have contributed to overarching targets and objectives; and iv) provide a comparable perspective across adaptation in different sectors, contributing to quality assurance and accountability (OECD, 2022[2]). However, developing indicators is also a resource-intensive and time-consuming process, which needs to be borne in mind when developing a measurement framework.
Indicators play a prominent role in adaptation measurement, as reflected by the large share of countries that use or intend to use indicators to measure progress in the implementation of adaptation policies (80% of responding countries). While around 30% of responding countries have developed indicators and are using them to measure progress, in others the process is still underway (OECD, 2022[2]).
Future OECD work on adaptation measurement will focus on establishing common indicators for different sectors that can report on climate hazards, exposure, vulnerability, implementation progress and inform adaptation effectiveness.
This section presents an overview of legal and policy frameworks for adaptation measurement and analyses the main institutional actors and stakeholders responsible for adaptation measurement. It discusses how measurement results are used by policy makers, and how the use of the results is promoted at the national level, highlighting links and synergies between national and international adaptation measurement.
1.4.1. Institutional and policy frameworks for adaptation measurement
National legal frameworks for adaptation measurement
Legal mandates for measuring adaptation progress have been beneficial to ensure consistent reporting, increase data coverage, and help secure the capacities needed, including financial and human resources, to undertake adaptation measurement (Reckien et al., 2023[65]). An increasing number of countries anchor adaptation measurement in their climate laws (Table 1.5). Some of these laws require simple tracking of the implementation of adaptation policies, while others seek to evaluate the effectiveness of measures. Finland, for example, is one of the few countries whose law requires an analysis of whether their NAP has been effective overall in reducing climate risk (FINLEX, 2022[66]). In the UK, the existence of a statutory requirement to evaluate the NAP has been a driver of the extensive measurement activities undertaken by an independent statutory body (EEA, 2015[5]). These laws often determine the entity responsible for measuring adaptation progress (Table 1.5). In Norway the entity for reporting on implementation progress is the supreme legislature; in Finland and the UK it is the parliament.
Selected countries with a legal mandate to review adaptation policies
Source: (Federal Council Switzerland, 2021[67]); (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2022[68]); (Ministry of Climate and Environment Norway, 2017[69]); (Ministry of Justice Japan, 2018[70]); (Mexico, 2023[71]); (Parliamentary Counsel Office New Zealand, 2019[72]); (The National Archives UK, 2008[73]); (FINLEX, 2022[66]); (Office of the Attorney General Ireland, 2021[74]); (Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2021[75]); (Government of the Republic of Indonesia, 2021[76]).
In the European Union (EU), the EU Climate Law provides a framework for promoting progress on implementing adaptation measures. It has also encouraged countries to consider anchoring adaptation measurement in national climate laws (EEA, 2022[22]; 2015[5]). Under the EU Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, Member States are required to report biennially to the European Commission on progress in national adaptation, which is summarised and documented by the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2022[22]) (EC, 2018[77]). Every five years from 2023 onwards, the European Commission will asses collective progress, including the consistency of relevant national measures, submit its conclusions to the EU Parliament and Council, and publicly issue recommendations if there are inconsistent actions by Member States.
At the sub-national level, some countries also mandate sub-national entities to assess progress in implementing state or local-level adaptation plans and measures (e.g. Indonesia, Korea, Mexico). Finland sets out sector-specific and regional reviews of adaptation. The laws in France, Ireland and Sweden mandate regional authorities to prepare climate risk assessments (see Section 1.2.1).
National adaptation strategies and plans
All 38 OECD member countries have either a National Adaptation Strategy (NAS), National Adaptation Plan (NAP) or both (Table 1.6). The OECD survey shows that 80% of responding countries include a specific section on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in their NAPs (OECD, 2022[2]). This section tends to lay out the purpose of adaptation measurement, i.e. to monitor and evaluate the progress and effectiveness of adaptation policy implementation, and enhance the knowledge base, accountability, and/or learning in order to improve adaptation policies and practices. This stated purpose influences the way M&E is conducted, who might be involved in this process, the methodological approach, and even the extent to which the information produced can be used to support policy and practice (EEA, 2015[5]). While most countries are vague about the actual step-by-step process of measurement, some describe the steps in detail in their NAPS. Colombia, for example, has clearly set out the individual steps of the measurement process4. Czechia and Japan define what exactly needs to be measured and even suggest some indicators to be used for this purpose.
Note: Blue = NAS; Yellow = NAP; Orange = other framework; Green = both NAP + NAS; EU countries are marked in bold.
Eighteen responding countries have also developed sectoral adaptation plans. Most of them include an M&E section, which can help engage sectoral actors and data holders in adaptation measurement. Ireland, for example, has developed sectoral plans for nine different sectors, which include an M&E section (Department of the Environment Climate and Communications Ireland, 2023[78]).
Key actors and their responsibilities for adaptation measurement
The Ministry of Environment (MoE) (or the ministry which has a statutory responsibility for the environment) typically takes a lead role in adaptation measurement, either by conducting adaptation measurement itself (e.g. Greece) or through a co-ordinating function by centralising information from all other ministries and sub-national and sectoral authorities (e.g. Chile, Korea) (OECD, 2022[2]). The fact that all surveyed countries report that not only a ministry, but also a government agency (such as an environment agency), a statistical office, a scientific agency (e.g. meteorological institute) or an audit office are involved in the measurement effort shows the shared character of the task (Figure 1.11 and Table 1.7).
Country responses to “What are the roles and responsibilities of the following institutions or stakeholders in the process of measuring progress on adaptation?”
Note: As a share of respondents based on 30 responses received to the question 10: "What are the roles and responsibilities of the following institutions or stakeholders in the process of measuring progress on adaptation?" (multiple answers possible; open question). Examples given for “Ministries: include Ministry of Environment, Inter-ministerial working group. Examples given for “Other government agencies” include Environment Agency, National Office for Statistics, scientific agencies (e.g. meteorological institute), Audit Office, or similar. Examples given for “Independent body focused on climate change” include Climate Change Council, Committee, or Centre, or similar. Sub-national level institutions included those at the provincial/state, regional or municipal/city levels.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
Several countries have established inter-ministerial working groups (or councils of ministers, or committees) to co-ordinate meaurement tasks. In Germany, the Interministerial Working Group on Climate Change Adaptation regularly prepares a monitoring report of climate impact trends and implementation progress, and also sets out future priorities for measures to address identified implementation gaps. All federal ministries work together in this group under the leadership of the Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMUV) in order to update Germany’s NAS every four years (OECD, 2023[79]).
Note: 30 responses received to question 10: “What are the roles and responsibilities of the following institutions or stakeholders in the process of measuring progress on adaptation?”, i.e. all 30 respondents to the questionnaire. Countries listed in the right column include those that reported a role for the respective bodies in the survey, even if the body is not yet involved, but the intention stands.
Sub-national authorities (e.g. states, regions and cities) have a key role in adaptation measurement given their place-specific data and their direct role in implementation (OECD, 2023[36]). Indeed, 24 surveyed countries (80%) report that sub-national authorities contribute to adaptation measurement (OECD, 2022[2]). In France and Portugal, for instance, sub-national authorities communicate progress to the national government on the implementation of actions set out in the NAS or NAP. In Peru, sub-national governments are responsible for measuring their own adaptation policies and report progress to the national Ministry of Environment (OECD, 2022[2]). In Ireland, local authorities develop Local Authority Progress Reports and submit them to the national Department of Environment, Climate and Communications (Climate Action Regional Offices, 2022[83]). Sub-national authorities’ differing priorities, resources and capacities to contribute to adaptation measurement may lead to uneven depths of reporting or integration of sub-national information into national adaptation measurement. Ensuring sub-national governments’ responsibilities are clearly defined, such as in national adaptation policies or laws, could help secure the capacity required for adaptation measurement at sub-national level.
Reviews undertaken by independent non-government bodies provide a critical perspective on adaptation measurement. Just over half of responding countries indicate that there is an independent expert advisory body involved in adaptation measurement (OECD, 2022[2]). The UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) is a good example: it has been carrying out an independent assessment of adaptation progress every two years (Box 1.2). The CCC demonstrates that having a clear statutory mandate, strong leadership and sufficient power to hold the government to account increases independent bodies’ effectiveness in reviewing adaptation progress, provided they have resources to do so (Averchenkova, Fankhauser and Finnegan, 2018[84]). Some independent bodies, while not measuring adaptation progress themselves, identify adaptation gaps and develop recommendations. An example is the French Haut Conseil pour le Climat, which has done this every year since 2021 (High Council for Climate France, 2021[85]).
Established by the UK Climate Change Act in 2008, the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) is one of the oldest climate change advisory bodies in the world. Its design, as a body that includes provisions for feedback and evaluation of government progress, has been emulated by other countries (Nash and Steurer, 2019[86]). In terms of adaptation, its statutory duties are to monitor, evaluate and report on progress and advise policy makers in the UK Parliament and devolved legislatures (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) on the risks and opportunities presented by climate change.
In 2009, the CCC established its Adaptation Committee. It is mandated to develop biennial adaptation progress reports of the UK’s NAP and Scotland’s Climate Change Adaptation Programme, as well as a five-yearly independent climate change risk assessment that identifies where additional adaptation actions are needed based on current and planned policies. The CCC also has an important role in independently developing suitable indicators to assess adaptation progress. Its assessments are based on data and information provided by or generated through consultations with government departments, industry representatives and non-government bodies, such as the British Red Cross, British Ports Association, Forestry Commission and Public Health England.
The CCC’s work is a well-recognised and trusted source of information, benefitting from its position as an independent body holding the government to account. Its clear statutory mandate and strong leadership power offer a good practice model for other countries.
Note: The Adaptation Committee was previously called the Adaptation Sub-Committee.
Audit offices can scrutinise action and spending on adaptation by public bodies, and assess how well they are adapting and reporting publicly on the value for money that is being achieved from public investments. Audit offices may also assess the (state) government’s implementation of adaptation measures (Table 1.7). Sweden’s National Audit Office (NAO) has assessed whether central government efforts to support municipalities’ climate adaptation of the built environment are efficient (NAO Sweden, 2022[80]). Similarly, Norway’s NAO has assessed the Norwegian authorities’ work on adapting infrastructure and buildings to climate change (The Office of the Auditor General Norway, 2021[81]). In Australia, the New South Wales (NSW) Audit Office has assessed how effectively the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and NSW Treasury have supported state agencies to manage climate risks to their assets and services (Audit Office NSW Australia, 2021[82]).
Academia, NGOs, civil society and the private sector can also have roles in the measurement process. Some countries have established scientific advisory committees to advise the MoE. In Chile, for example, the National Council for Sustainability and Climate Change, composed of representatives from civil society, academia, and the corporate sector, among others, issues its opinion and makes proposals on adaptation measures, their progress, and the effects of their implementation (OECD, 2022[2]). Academic institutions or researchers commonly provide data, often focused on climate impacts, risks, and vulnerabilities, analyses of adaptation progress and sometimes advice on the adaptation measurement framework. In some countries academic institutions have representatives in a (scientific) committee involved in adaptation measurement. The OECD survey shows that in 60% of responding countries, academic institutions are involved in the measurement process. In 40% of countries NGOs and/or civil society are involved (OECD, 2022[2]).
The private sector can also act as an information provider and can assess its own progress in adapting to the climate impacts they face. The private sector can benefit from engaging in adaptation measurement as a way to increase its transparency and accountability in managing climate risk and potential ambition in financing and implementing actions (UNEP, 2021[16]). At present, relevant private sector data and information gathered for national adaptation measurement focuses on understanding the level of companies’ awareness of their climate risks. There is less information on the actual climate impacts they face or their progress in addressing them. Due to the growing importance of climate risk management, as well as sometimes mandatory climate-related corporate disclosures (e.g. for environmental, social, and governance or in the context of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures), the private sector’s interest in assessing climate risks and resilience levels is increasing. How private sector information is integrated into national adaptation measurement differs between countries. Some countries use specific indicators. For example, Korea monitors whether a manual for adaptation has been developed for all industries vulnerable to climate change (Chapter 4. Korea). The UK monitors the percentage of FTSE100 companies evaluating climate risks to their supply chains, and surveys businesses to assess the proportion reporting on adaptation, in line with TFCD recommendations (CCC, 2021[52]).
1.4.2. Fostering the use of adaptation measurement results
Adaptation measurement generates evidence for policy decisions that feed into the learning process of the adaptation policy cycle (Figure 1.2). The majority (80%) of survey responding countries publish their adaptation measurement findings in a monitoring, evaluation or progress report (OECD, 2022[2]). The reports often include information on the methodology used and process followed to assess progress, adaptation objectives, and evolving climate risks and impacts. The frequency with which countries publish their measurement reports vary. The OECD survey shows that most responding countries (70%) publish measurement reports every one to five years, while some (10%) publish them in the middle and/or at the end (20%) of the implementation period of their NAS or NAP (Figure 1.12). Few countries publish reviews on an ad hoc basis. More than half of responding countries make their adaptation measurement reports publicly available (Figure 1.13) (OECD, 2022[2]).
Country responses to “At what frequency are reports published?”
Note: As a share of respondents that publish reports on adaptation measurement, based on 30 responses received to questions 13: “Is progress on the implementation of adaptation policies documented in a report?” and 25 responses received to question 14: “If yes, at what frequency are they published?” out of a total of 30 respondents to the questionnaire. Few countries (e.g. Costa Rica) that state that they do not document progress in a report have still reported the frequency set out in their national adaptation policy.
Source: based on (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
Country responses to “how can results be accessed?”
Note: 24 responses were received to the open-ended question 15: “If yes, how can results be accessed?”, of a total of 30 respondents to the questionnaire. Only respondents that answered positively to question 13 were able to answer question 15. 21% of countries responding to question 13 did not answer question 15. In countries colour-coded with light to dark orange the results inform supranational mechanisms of adaptation-related reporting, notably the UNFCCC adaptation communication, regular progress reports under the EU Regulation on the Energy Union and on the EU Climate Adapt Platform, which also informs EU adaptation progress reports.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
The OECD survey shows that nearly all responding countries undertake adaptation measurement to inform policy making (OECD, 2020[88]), with 60% of responding countries stating that the results inform priorities for action in subsequent adaptation policies (Figure 1.14). In Korea, the 2021 Framework Act on Low Carbon and Green Growth requires poor performance or areas that need improvement to be addressed in the future NAS (Korea Environment Institute, 2023[89]). Switzerland’s second NAS (2020-25) was developed based on the assessment of the first NAS (2012), including the impacts of implemented actions as well as changes in the adaptation framework conditions (Federal Office for the Environment Switzerland, 2014[90]). Similarly, France states that its second NAP (2018-22) has been developed based on the recommendations of the evaluation of the first NAP (2011-15) (Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition France, 2018[91]).
Country responses to “How do the results inform policy-making?”
Note: Share of respondents based on 24 responses received to the multiple answer question 16: “If yes, how do the results inform policy-making?”, out of a total of 30 respondents to the questionnaire. Responding countries that have adopted a revised NAS or NAP and also conducted an implementation assessment of the preceding NAS or NAP (first row, left bar) are Austria, France, Germany, Korea, Portugal, Spain and the UK.
Source: (OECD, 2022[2]), OECD Survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies. Details in Annex A.
The findings from adaptation measurement can also inform adaption budgeting decisions by identifying areas where funding has been insufficient or where resources have been misallocated (see Section 1.2.1). Ten surveyed countries (30%) state that the measurement results inform budgeting decisions (OECD, 2022[2]). The Netherlands’ evaluation of its Delta Programme, for example, identified the need to improve freshwater supplies. Consequently an additional EUR 100 million were allocated to improve freshwater supply for the period 2022-27, in addition to the EUR 150 million that had already been set aside (National Delta Programme, 2021[92]). Korea measures the budget execution rate for each action set out in its NAP, indicating how much of the foreseen budget has been spent at the time of the assessment (as a percentage), and whether the level is in line with the foreseen budget spending plan (Korea Environment Institute, 2023[89]).
References
[8] Adaptation Committee (2021), Approaches to reviewing the overall progress made in achieving the global goal on adaptation: Technical Paper, UNFCCC, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ac2021_tp_gga.pdf.
[58] Adger, W., I. Brown and S. Surminski (2018), “Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 376/2121, p. 20180106, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0106.
[82] Audit Office NSW Australia (2021), Managing Climate Risks to Assets and Services, https://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/our-work/reports/managing-climate-risks-to-assets-and-services.
[84] Averchenkova, A., S. Fankhauser and J. Finnegan (2018), The role of independent bodies in climate governance: the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-role-of-independent-bodies-in-climate-governance-the-UKs-Committee-on-Climate-Change_Averchenkova-et-al.pdf.
[10] Berrang-Ford, L. et al. (2019), “Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 9, pp. 440–449, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0490-0.
[37] BMK (2021), Zweiter Fortschrittsbericht zur Österreichischen Strategie zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel [Second Progress Report on the Austrian Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change], https://www.bmk.gv.at/themen/klima_umwelt/klimaschutz/anpassungsstrategie/publikationen/oe_strategie.html (accessed on January 2023).
[52] CCC (2021), Cross-sector-adaptation indicators, https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Cross-sector-adaptation-indicators.xlsx (accessed on 2022).
[23] CCC (2021), Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk, Climate Change Committee, https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/independent-assessment-of-uk-climate-risk/.
[53] CCC (2021), Progress in adapting to climate change: 2021 Report to Parliament, Climate Change Committee, https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2021-progress-report-to-parliament/.
[33] CCC (2021), Second National Adaptation Programme Monitoring Action Tracker (excel sheet), https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCC-Second-NAP-Monitoring-Action-Tracker.xlsx (accessed on January 2022).
[83] Climate Action Regional Offices (2022), Local Authority Climate Change Adaptation Strategy / Climate Change Action Plans: Annual Progress Report 2022, https://www.caro.ie/getattachment/Local-Authority-Climate-Action/Local-Authority-Adaptation-Progress-Reports/LA-Adaptation-Strategy_Annual-Progress-2022_i01.pdf.aspx?lang=en-GB.
[56] Climate Change Advisory Council Ireland (2022), Annual Review 2022, https://www.climatecouncil.ie/media/climatechangeadvisorycouncil/contentassets/publications/CCAC-ANNUAL-REVIEW-2022.pdf.
[34] Defra (2023), Third National Adaptation Plan: Annex 1: Climate risks and opportunities: The 61 climate risks and opportunities, and planned actions to address them by government departments, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171134/NAP3_Annex_1_Climate_risks_and_opportunities.pdf.
[29] Defra (2018), The National Adaptation Programme and the third strategy for climate adaptation reporting, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/climate-change-second-national-adaptation-programme-2018-to-2023 (accessed on January 2023).
[78] Department of the Environment Climate and Communications Ireland (2023), Sectoral Adaptation Planning, https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/51df3-sectoral-adaptation-planning/#.
[48] Dottori, F. et al. (2023), “Cost-effective adaptation strategies to rising river flood risk in Europe”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 13, pp. 196–202, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01540-0.
[87] Dudley, H., A. Jordan and I. Lorenzoni (2022), “Advising national climate policy makers: A longitudinal analysis of the UK Climate Change Committee”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 76/102589, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102589.
[54] EC (2023), Guidelines on Member States’ adaptation Strategies and Plans, https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-07/Guidelines%20on%20MS%20adaptation%20strategies%20and%20plans.pdf.
[77] EC (2018), Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ:L:2018:328:TOC&uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.328.01.0001.01.ENG.
[25] EC & EEA (2019), Assessing climate change risks and vulnerabilities: Conducting risk and vulnerability assessments, https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/knowledge/tools/urban-ast/step-2-4/index_html.
[22] EEA (2022), Advancing towards climate resilience in Europe: status of reported national adaptation actions in 2021, https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/metadata/publications/advancing-towards-climate-resilience-in-europe-status-of-reported-national-adaptation-actions-in-2021 (accessed on April 2023).
[5] EEA (2015), National monitoring, reporting and evaluation of climate change adaptation in Europe, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/national-monitoring-reporting-and-evaluation.
[62] Ellis, J. (2014), Climate Resilience Indicator Literature Review, http://datacat.cbrdi.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/ClimateAdaptation_LitReview_15-03-15%5B1%5D.pdf.
[32] Environment Agency Portugal (2019), Presidência Conselho de Ministros: Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 130/2019 [Presidency of the Council of Ministers: Council of Ministers Resolution No. 130/2019], https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/news-archive/portuguese-national-adaptation-plan-for-climate-change-2019-2030-adopted (accessed on January 2023).
[64] Federal Council Germany (2022), Klimapolitik: Bundesrat verabschiedet Botschaft zum revidierten CO2-Gesetz [Climate policy: Federal Council adopts dispatch on revised CO2 Act], https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-90389.html#:~:text=Mit%20dem%20revidierten%20CO2%2DGesetz,Zeit%20von%202025%20bis%202030.
[67] Federal Council Switzerland (2021), Climate policy: Federal Council adopts message on revised CO2 law, https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-90389.html#:~:text=Mit%20dem%20revidierten%20CO2%2DGesetz,Zeit%20von%202025%20bis%202030.
[90] Federal Office for the Environment Switzerland (2014), Anpassung an den Klimawandel in der Schweiz - Aktionsplan 2014–2019 [Adaptation to climate change in Switzerland - Action plan 2014-2019], https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/klima/publikationen-studien/publikationen/anpassung-klimawandel-schweiz-2014.html.
[41] Federal Parliament Germany (2023), Bundes-Klimaanpassungsgesetz [Federal Climate Adaptation Law], https://www.recht.bund.de/bgbl/1/2023/393/VO.
[60] Financial Stability Board (2021), The Availability of Data with Which to Monitor and Assess Climate-Related Risks to Financial Stability, https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P070721-3.pdf.
[66] FINLEX (2022), Climate Change Act (Finland), https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2022/20220423.
[35] Government of Canada (2023), Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy: Building Resilient Communities and a Strong Economy, Environment and Climate Change Canada, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2023/eccc/en4/En4-544-2023-eng.pdf.
[42] Government of Ireland (2022), Climate Action Plan 2021: Progress Report Q4 2021 and Q1 2022, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/dd9b4-first-climate-action-plan-2021-progress-report-highlights-impactful-delivery-across-key-sectors-but-challenges-remain/.
[76] Government of the Republic of Indonesia (2021), Regulation of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Number 98 of 2021 on the Implementation of Carbon Pricing to achieve the Nationally Determined Contribution Target and Control over Greenhousgas Emissions in the National Development, https://jdih.menlhk.go.id/new/uploads/files/abstrak/LLPERPRESNO98TH2021_pdf_menlhk_abstrak_05182022104603.pdf.
[68] Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (2022), National Climate Law 4936/2022 on the transition to climate neutrality and adaptation to climate change, https://climate-laws.org/geographies/greece/laws/national-climate-law-4936-2022-on-the-transition-to-climate-neutrality-and-adaptation-to-climate-change.
[47] Heo, S. et al. (2019), “The use of a quasi-experimental study on the mortality effect of a heat wave warning system in Korea”, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, Vol. 12/16, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122245.
[85] High Council for Climate France (2021), Rapport annuel 2021 – Renforcer l’atténuation, engager, l’adaptation [Annual Report 2021 – Strengthening mitigation, engaging adaptation], https://www.hautconseilclimat.fr/publications/rapport-annuel-2021-renforcer-lattenuation-engager-ladaptation/.
[50] INECC (2017), Evaluación Estratégica del Programa Especial de Cambio Climático 2014-2018 [Strategic Evaluation of the Special Program Climate Change 2014-2018], Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático, https://cambioclimatico.gob.mx/evaluacion-estrategica-del-programa-especial-de-cambio-climatico-2014-2018-2017/.
[1] IPCC (2022), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/.
[7] IPCC (2018), Strengthening and implementing the global response, In Press, https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/168495473/SR15_Chapter4_Low_Res.pdf.
[20] ISO (2021), ISO 14091:2021: Adaptation to climate change: Guidelines on vulnerability, impacts and risk assessment, https://www.iso.org/standard/68508.html.
[19] ISO (2019), ISO 14090:2019: Adaptation to climate change: Principles, requirements and guidelines, https://www.iso.org/standard/68507.html.
[49] Jandaghian, Z. and H. Akbari (2020), “Increasing urban albedo to reduce heat-related mortality in Toronto and Montreal, Canada”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 237/110697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110697.
[13] Jeudy-Hugo, S., S. Errendal and I. Kotani (2022), Adaptation in the global stocktake: Options to deliver on its mandate, https://doi.org/10.1787/396b5224-en.
[89] Korea Environment Institute (2023), Measuring Progress in Implementing Adaptation Polices in Korea.
[75] Korea Legislation Research Institute (2021), Framework Act on Low Carbon and Green Growth, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=53039&lang=ENG,%20date%20of%20search.
[4] Lamhauge, N., E. Lanzi and S. Agrawala (2012), “Monitoring and Evaluation for Adaptation: Lessons from Development Co-operation Agencies”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg20mj6c2bw-en.
[3] Leiter, T. (2021), “Do governments track the implementation of national climate change adaptation plans? An evidence-based global stocktake of monitoring and evaluation systems”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 125, pp. 179-188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.017.
[71] Mexico (2023), General Law on Climate Change (2023 Amended Text), https://climate-laws.org/documents/general-law-on-climate-change-2023-amended-text_3db4?id=general-law-on-climate-change_14c5.
[30] Ministry for the Environment New Zealand (2022), Aotearoa New Zealand’s first national adaptation plan, https://environment.govt.nz/publications/aotearoa-new-zealands-first-national-adaptation-plan/ (accessed on January 2023).
[45] Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland (2020), Implementation of Finland’s National Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2022 - A mid-term Evaluation, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162461/MMM_2020_9.pdf.
[69] Ministry of Climate and Environment Norway (2017), Act relating to Norway’s climate targets (Climate Change Act), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2017-06-16-60#:~:text=Section%201.-,Purpose,and%20progress%20of%20this%20work.
[91] Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition France (2018), Le plan national d’adaptation au changement climatique [National climate change adaptation plan], https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2018.12.20_PNACC2.pdf.
[28] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion & Ministry of Energy Transition France (2023), Trajectoire de réchauffement de référence : ouverture de la consultation publique [Reference warming trajectory: opening of the public consultation], https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/trajectoire-rechauffement-reference-ouverture-consultation-publique.
[43] Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy France (2015), Evaluation du plan national d’adaptation au changement climatique [Evaluation of the national climate change adaptation plan], https://cgedd.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/Affaires-0009000/010178-01_rapport.pdf.
[39] Ministry of Environment and Energy Costa Rica (2022), Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático 2022-2026 [National Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2022-2026], https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/NAP_Documento-2022-2026_VC.pdf.
[59] Ministry of Environment Chile (2020), Mapas de Riesgo Climático [Climate Risk Maps], https://arclim.mma.gob.cl/index/.
[38] Ministry of Environment Chile (2017), Plan de Acción Nacional de Cambio Climático 2017-2022 (PANCC-II) [National Climate Change Action Plan 2017-2022], https://mma.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Anteproyecto-PANCC-2017-2022-FINAL-2016-04-18.pdf.
[70] Ministry of Justice Japan (2018), Climate Change Adaptation Act（Act No. 50 of 2018), https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3212/en.
[31] Ministry of the Environment Czechia (2021), Národní akční plán adaptace na změnu klimatu [National Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan], https://www.mzp.cz/cz/narodni_akcni_plan_zmena_klimatu (accessed on January 2023).
[80] NAO Sweden (2022), Central government efforts to adapt the built environment to climate change, https://www.riksrevisionen.se/download/18.10b506a2185b30c547e2e980/1673853455568/RiR_2022_29_summary.pdf.
[86] Nash, S. and R. Steurer (2019), “Taking stock of Climate Change Acts in Europe: living policy processes or symbolic gestures?”, Climate Policy, Vol. 8/19, pp. 1052–1065, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1623164.
[92] National Delta Programme (2021), Sizeable investment in Delta Plan on Freshwater Supply, https://english.deltaprogramma.nl/news/news/2021/09/21/sizeable-investment-in-delta-plan-on-freshwater-supply (accessed on April 2023).
[18] Noltze, M. et al. (2021), “Monitoring, evaluation and learning for climate risk management”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 92, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/58665de0-en.
[24] OECD (2023), “Adaptation measurement: Assessing municipal climate risks to inform adaptation policy in the Slovak Republic”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 35, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dad34bb3-en.
[36] OECD (2023), “Climate adaptation: Why local governments cannot do it alone”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be90ac30-en.
[79] OECD (2023), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Germany 2023, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/f26da7da-en.
[2] OECD (2022), OECD survey on Measuring Progress in Implementing National Adaptation Policies.
[61] OECD (2022), Virtual event: Developing meaningful adaptation policy indicators.
[46] OECD (2021), Managing Climate Risks, Facing up to Losses and Damages, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/55ea1cc9-en.
[12] OECD (2020), Common Ground Between the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework: Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3edc8d09-en.
[88] OECD (2020), Improving Governance with Policy Evaluation: Lessons From Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/89b1577d-en.
[6] OECD (2015), National Climate Change Adaptation: Emerging Practices in Monitoring and Evaluation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229679-en.
[74] Office of the Attorney General Ireland (2021), Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/act/32/enacted/en/print.html.
[63] Office of the Auditor General of Norway (2022), The Office of the Auditor General’s investigation into government authorities’ effort to adapt infrastructure and built-up areas to a changing climate, https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/globalassets/reports/en-2021-2022/document-3-6-2021-2022---investigation-into-government-authorities-effort-to-adapt-infrastructure-and-built-up-areas-to-a-changing-climate.pdf.
[72] Parliamentary Counsel Office New Zealand (2019), Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0061/latest/LMS183736.html.
[51] Pearce-Higgins, J. et al. (2022), A framework for climate change adaptation indicators for the natural environment, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108690.
[26] Prognos (2022), Bezifferung von Klimafolgekosten in Deutschland [Quantification of costs of climate change impacts in Germany], https://www.prognos.com/de/projekt/bezifferung-von-klimafolgekosten-deutschland#allePDFs.
[65] Reckien, D. et al. (2023), Quality of urban climate adaptation plans over time, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00085-1.
[55] Schipper, E. (2020), “Maladaptation: When adaptation to climate change goes very wrong”, One Earth, Vol. 3/4, pp. 409-414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.014.
[21] Singh, C. et al. (2021), “Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice”, Climate and Development, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1964937.
[73] The National Archives UK (2008), Climate Change Act 2008 (UK), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/section/59.
[81] The Office of the Auditor General Norway (2021), The Office of the Auditor General’s investigation into government authorities’ effort to adapt infrastructure and built-up areas to a changing climate, https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/globalassets/reports/en-2021-2022/document-3-6-2021-2022---investigation-into-government-authorities-effort-to-adapt-infrastructure-and-built-up-areas-to-a-changing-climate.pdf.
[27] UBA (2021), Klimawirkungs- und Risikoanalyse für Deutschland 2021 (Kurzfassung) [Climate impact and risk analysis for Germany 2021 (short version)], https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/KWRA-Zusammenfassung.
[57] UBA (2019), 2019 Monitoring Report: on the German Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change, https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/421/publikationen/das_2019_monitoring_report_bf.pdf.
[44] UBA (2019), Politikanalyse zur Evaluation der Deutschen Anpassungsstrategie an den Klimawandel (DAS) – Evaluationsbericht [Policy analysis for the evaluation of the German Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (DAS) - Evaluation report], https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/politikanalyse_zur_evaluation_der_deutschen_anpassungsstrategie_an_den_klimawandel_das_-_evaluationsbericht.pdf.
[16] UNEP (2021), Adaptation Gap Report 2021: The Gathering Storm - Adapting to climate change in a post-pandemic world, https://unepdtu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/adaption-gap-report-2021.pdf.
[40] UNEP DTU Partnership (2018), Adaptation metrics: perspectives on measuring, aggregating and comparing adaptation results, Christiansen, L., Martinez, G. and Naswa, P. (eds.), https://resilientcities2018.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/UDP_Perspectives-Adaptation-Metrics-WEB.pdf.
[14] UNFCCC (2023), Decision -/CMA.5 Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation referred to in decision 7/CMA.3, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma5_auv_8a_gga.pdf.
[17] UNFCCC (2023), Workshops under the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sb2023_07.pdf.
[9] UNFCCC (2022), Synthesis report for the technical assessment component of the first global stocktake: State of adaptation efforts, experiences and priorities, UNFCCC, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Synthesis%20report%20on%20the%20state%20of%20adaptation%20efforts%2C%20experiences%20and%20priorities.pdf.
[15] UNFCCC (2021), Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation. Proposal by the President, https://unfccc.int/documents/311109.
[11] UNFCCC (2012), The Rio Conventions: Action on Adaptation, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/rio_20_adaptation_brochure.pdf.
← 1. Other terms include climate risk and impact assessments (CRIA), climate change impact and vulnerability assessments (CCIV).
← 2. Some countries and organisations use different classifications to measure adaptation progress. Most countries do not, for instance, distinguish between inputs and outputs, but consider both under one category. This may lead to inconsistent assessments of individual elements (e.g. inputs only being measured for some actions, but not for all).
← 3. Damage caused by increasing exposure to heat in agglomerations, impairment of water use by increasing warming and summer droughts, damage to buildings and infrastructure by heavy rain and flash floods, damage to buildings and infrastructure by river flooding, damage to coastline by rising sea levels and storm surges, changes in species composition and natural development phases due to gradual rise in temperature.
← 4. Such as develop the CRA, assess early implementation results, identifyhow resources can be optimised and barriers overcome, identify the impact that actions had on climate risks, extract lessons learned.