Adaptive Sustainability lessons the Climate Investment Funds’ PPCR evaluation, including three ex-posts

by | Jul 7, 2025 | Adaptive Sustainability, Bangladesh, Climate Investment Funds (CIF), emerging outcomes, foreign aid, ICF, Mozambique, Resilience, Samoa, Sustainability, Sustainable development, Valuing Voices

Adaptive Sustainability lessons the Climate Investment Funds’ PPCR evaluation, including three ex-posts

We have evaluated less than 0.002% of how well and long results last (at least USAID data before the DEC disappeared). Hence we need to do more. 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…

Reblog:Ex-post Eval Week: Are we serious about project sustainability and exit? By Abu Ala Hasan

by | Jan 18, 2021 | Aid effectiveness, Bangladesh, Exit strategies, Project cycle, Sustainable development

Ex-post Eval Week: Are we serious about project sustainability and exit? By Abu Ala Hasan

Published on the American Evaluation Association AEA365blog series: https://aea365.org/blog/ex-post-eval-week-are-we-serious-about-project-sustainability-and-exit-by-abu-ala-hasan/  January 18, 2021

I am Abu Ala Hasan, an independent consultant. I am an anthropologist, have been working in the NGO sector for 17 years. A large portion of my work are evaluations and research.

In 2018 we (Jindra Cekan and I) were selected to design exit strategy and learning documentation for a client. When we started, we found, despite having a plan for devising exit strategy, the implementing organisations involved only paid attention to that at the end of the project, having only three months.

Most startling was the fact that the informants, ranging from partner NGO officials,  to community members involved gave us blank looks when asked about readiness for exit. Few NGO executives said that they would be able to continue some of the activities themselves. Almost none of the community members could answer exit questions; rather they tried to explain about the project services and their benefits.

People sitting around a table with large piece of paper with squares drawn in and round stickers in several of the squares.

Though it was thought provoking, it was not surprising at all due to existing NGO culture, where in practice, interventions are initiated and decisions made by the NGOs or funders, rather than the community.

So, why does it happen?  First and foremost, exit is not taken seriously. Rather than trying to ensure sustainability of the project from the beginning or designing the project to achieve it, it is added, as if, an auxiliary component; apparently to fulfil criteria by outsiders. The word ‘exit strategy’ was mentioned twice and ‘sustainability’ five times in the action plan, a 38- page document, and we saw few activities.

While it takes time, the trend of project cycle has been increasingly heading towards shorter duration. A decade ago most projects were planned for five years or longer but now one to three years is the norm. This is not only counterproductive for sustainability but also detrimental to bring about significant social change (outcome/impact). The community members’ reactions indicated that sustainability was unfamiliar; it appeared, they were not informed or there was no such discussion with them. Planning for sustainability was not taken seriously.

Hot Tips:

To ensure sustainability and proper exit:

  • There should be sincere commitment and effort towards sustainability and exit from NGOs
  • Sustainability and exit planning should be built in the project implementation process from design stage. Projects should be designed for sustainability and not ignored
  • Involvement of the community members, their voice and participation in decision making at all stages is very important for sustainability and proper exit
  • Except for emergency projects, development projects should be longer in duration and properly evaluated periodically

Rad Resources:

For exit and sustainability planning these resources could be helpful:

This week, AEA365 is celebrating Ex-post Eval Week during which blog