Can acting early help climate-affected communities in the Asia Pacific?

Jennifer Waidler, Kriti Malhotra and Jonas L. Heirman

As COP 29 draws to a close, WFP’s impact evaluation team reviews takeaways from the recent Climate Impact Evaluation Forum in Bangkok, where more rigorous evidence could support a region plagued by severe climate shocks, such as floods and tropical cyclones, affecting millions of people.

Climate change has a disproportionate impact on individuals who are living in poverty and poses a critical threat to the decades of progress made in reducing global poverty.

The World Food Programme (WFP) in partnership with governments and the wider humanitarian community supports vulnerable populations affected by climate shocks in the most timely and cost-effective ways possible.

But how do we know which programmes bring the highest benefit at the lowest cost? What is the value of acting early, as compared to after a climate shock happens?

Through impact evaluations, WFP generates causal evidence on the effectiveness of programmes and its impact on household’s food security, coping strategies, psychological well-being, and other outcomes to better inform future humanitarian and development responses.

However, having evidence is not enough. Stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of programmes need to sit together to contextualize findings and decide how to make the best use of evidence for future decisions.

Sharing the latest climate evidence in the Asia Pacific

Building on the success of the WFP Impact Evaluation Forum held in Rome in 2023, the WFP Regional Bureau of Bangkok (RBB), in partnership with the Office of Evaluation, hosted a Regional Impact Evaluation Forum, to discuss the latest evidence from programmes that protect vulnerable people against climatic shocks through early action.

This 3-day event brought together eleven WFP Country Offices from the Asia Pacific region and key Government counterparts from Thailand, Nepal, and Cambodia. It also welcomed new and emerging donors in climate finance, multilateral development banks, UN agencies and WFP staff.

The first day focused on discussing the latest causal evidence on climate change and anticipatory action, based on recently conducted impact evaluations by WFP, IFPRI, FAO and UNCHR-ISDC across countries in Asia, and Africa. Presentations showed, for instance, that Anticipatory Action improves well-being and helps people cope better during and immediately after disasters by ensuring support reaches early, and allowing impacts to happen as quickly as possible.

Moreover, resilience and climate adaptation programmes such as Food for Assets improve food security through changes in livelihoods followed by the programme, such as increases in agricultural production.

The remaining two days of the forum focused on capacity building through the delivery of impact evaluation training, discussing the basics every country office should know before engaging in an impact evaluation.

Key takeaways from the regional Impact Evaluation Forum in Bangkok

1. With planning and commitment, it is possible to conduct impact evaluations of climate actions, even without knowing in advance whether the extreme event will occur: the workshop showed that impact evaluations are possible if the right data (i.e. this could be registries), strong commitment, and proper plans are in place.
2. We cannot look at programmes in isolation: although impact evaluations measure the impact of specific programmes on specific outcomes, we should be aware of the big picture, keeping in mind that the focus should always be on the people affected by climate change. People are exposed to multiple shocks and can receive different types of support depending on the situation. Sometimes this support is classified as ‘humanitarian,’ sometimes ‘developmental’; sometimes beneficiaries of longer-term interventions need extra, time-sensitive, one-off support. One key point raised was that, in the long-term, early shock-responsive interventions should ideally be implemented through government systems. This raises a broader question: what will it take to facilitate this transition, and how can existing anticipatory action mechanisms — such as targeting, financing processes, and registries of vulnerable areas — contribute to making it happen?
3. It is important to be realistic on what programmes can achieve: when designing an intervention, as well as an impact evaluation, expectations should align with the magnitude of the response. For example, one can only expect so much with 50 dollars, while larger structural constraints such as poor infrastructure, economic opportunities and services, remain a challenge.
4. Definitions complicate climate and resilience programming and evaluations: the definition of resilience, as well as its operationalization, is always a subject of debate. As pointed by Dr Jyotsna Puri during her keynote, the change in resilience as a consequence of adaptation-related investments does not get measured well, because the pathways leading to resilience comprise various factors, including access to money, support from networks and education level, to name only a few. It is therefore key to measure the impacts of adaptation investments, considering the large amount of resources going into that area. On a positive note, the workshop highlighted that different organizations are starting to consistently use the same indicators in impact evaluations of climate or resilience programmes.
5. When there is enough evidence that a programme achieves its objectives, the focus should be on how to make a programme more effective (and cost-effective): we have plenty of evidence that cash transfers are effective. However, we need more evidence to understand what is the best targeting approach, when is the right time to respond, and what is the best delivery mechanism and modality?
6. Not all evidence is equal. There is a breath of evidence out there, and it is often hard to distinguish what to pay attention to, or how to read contradictory evidence. There is room for different stakeholders to work on generating and using climate evidence to better synthesize and share it.

Looking ahead

The Regional Impact Evaluation Forum in Bangkok provided valuable insights into the critical role of impact evaluations in navigating the complexities of climate action. However, the discussions also highlighted a crucial need for more robust evidence, particularly as climate change intensifies and its effects become increasingly unpredictable.

This evidence is vital to ensure that humanitarian and development interventions are truly effective and reach those most in need. By understanding what works, and why, we can better allocate resources, design programmes, and ultimately, strengthen the resilience of vulnerable communities in the face of climate shocks.

The upcoming Global Impact Evaluation Forum 2024, hosted by UNICEF and WFP at the United Nations this December, offers a prime opportunity to delve deeper into these issues. With a focus on experimenting, learning, and scaling up effective interventions in a fragile world, the forum will bring together key stakeholders to share knowledge, collaborate, and chart a path toward a more resilient future. We encourage everyone invested in climate action and impact evaluation to attend and contribute to this vital conversation.

Learn more and participate in the Global Impact Evaluation Forum 2024