Adaptive Sustainability lessons the Climate Investment Funds’ PPCR evaluation, including three ex-posts
I am excited to share our latest Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Adaptive Sustainability report including three ex-post evaluations conducted by our Valuing Voices team for ICF in Samoa, Bangladesh, and a former colleague in Mozambique (Appendix E). They are part of the PPCR project’s evaluation of this “$1 billion Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) [that] champions pioneering resilience strategies and approaches, in the countries and regions most vulnerable to the destructive impacts of climate change”. We evaluated sustainability, climate resilience, and transformation, building on ex-post evaluation work done at the Adaptation Fund with Margaret Spearman. I reviewed nearly 40 other country reports to identify the drivers of sustainability and did intensive ex-post evaluations 3-5 years after closure in this Final report (April 2025) just published. Sincere thanks to the excellent ICF team (Jessica Kyle, Isabel Morford-Cheibub with Laura Kuhl) and the CIF team for this learning opportunity.
More broadly, here are sustainability and resilience-relevant lessons from the final report summary findings:
“The PPCR’s stated goal is to integrate climate resilience into countries’ core development planning and provide incentives for scaled-up action and transformational change, and was also meant to pilot and demonstrate ways to build resilience that could guide future adaptation initiatives. The evaluation finds that the PPCR advanced climate resilience through pioneering programs, planning, and investments, and modernized climate information services, successfully demonstrating new, innovative, and effective ways to embed climate resilience into national development. However, while the PPCR contributed to transformational change, it sometimes missed opportunities to deepen systemic change, enhance private sector engagement, increase scale, and strengthen long-term sustainability….”
More granularly, for the three ex-post case studies, we aimed to answer three Adaptive Sustainability evaluation questions:
1. Have the project outcomes/impact(s) been sustained since project completion, including what emerged?
2. How are the sustained project outcome(s) climate-resilient?
3. What signals of transformational change were noted by interviewees?
Adaptive Sustainability
The case studies evaluated outcome(s) ex-post, including the levels of specific outcomes and impact(s) at ex-post compared to the final project evaluation. They identified which drivers of sustainability (e.g., ownership, resources, partnerships, capacities) contributed to existing and emerging outcomes (what emerged from local efforts to sustain results differently ex-post). Findings are organized based on what was positive and what was negative, as well as what unexpected results or instances of maladaptation were observed ex-post. The teams looked for Emerging vs Advanced Transformation Signals across: a) Flexibility and dynamism, b) Capacity, ownership, and resources, and c) Vulnerability reduction and redundancy.
Some of the high-level lessons across all the PPCR projects regarding adaptive sustainability were:
1) High local ownership has contributed to most PPCR-supported infrastructure and natural assets still being operational, and agricultural practices continuing
2) Project outcomes have been sustained so far, though this is unlikely to last many more years.
3) Some unintended distributional justice issues arose after project completion, with vulnerable groups not experiencing the same lasting benefits as other stakeholders
4) There is limited evidence of follow-up or ongoing monitoring after project completion, representing a lost learning opportunity.
All three ex-post detailed cases’ adaptive sustainability results were mixed. Table 2 below shows Ownership, followed by Capacity, and Partnerships being moderate, and Resources to sustain results being weaker drivers of adaptive sustainability. Therefore planning for ongoing resources to sustain operations and maintenance of assets is a clear lesson.
In the fieldwork, some elements continued to be sustained, mainly due to local ownership and other resilience sources (see the Samoan pool below). “There are multiple backup systems in place. Village governance structures, along with rehabilitated pools, provide redundancy and alternative water sources in case of government water supply disruptions due to climate events.”
Several assets faltered due to a lack of sufficient ongoing operations and maintenance while other assets disappeared or held on. One Bangladesh market stall sank months after construction, in part due to climate shocks and in part to insufficient design for resilience, while other assets, such as roads, withstood years of cyclones thanks to local maintenance:
In Mozambique, more farming irrigation assets were sustained than failed in the face of management design and climate stresses, but ownership was the driver to ensure continuation. At one site, a lack of resources, capacities, and partnerships limited success; however, the local farmers’ determination found additional resilience resources to compensate for irrigation issues, utilizing a natural spring and reverting to manual watering.
Across the cases, local ownership is the primary driver; however, resources are still needed. The CIF found the lessons to be very illuminating and is incorporating them into future programming. Let us know how you can use these lessons as well…
31 years of Valuing Voices of national participants, project partners, donors and technical staff. Let’s have sustained impact!
