Integration of Adaptation in Water and Food Security Programs
Jelmer Kamstra presented an evaluation of climate-change adaptation in Netherlands-funded water and food-security programmes, while Pim de Beer moderated the discussion. The evaluation examined how adaptation was integrated and whether programmes reduced climate risks for vulnerable people.
10 November 2025 | 10:00 GMT-3 to 10:30 GMT-3 | Belém, Brazil
The team assessed 19 programmes carrying Rio adaptation marker in the OECD CRS and conducted field visits in Bangladesh and Mozambique. Its three-step analysis through a climate lens considered risk analysis, the integration of adaptation strategies, and implementation. Programmes were then rated qualitatively from maladaptive to transformative. About half were classified as responsive because adaptation appeared in both design and implementation. The remainder were classified as blind or sensitive, meaning that strategies were absent or documented without observable implementation. Weak or overly general climate-risk analysis often produced reactive, vague, or missing adaptation strategies. The evaluators could not consistently determine whether programmes had reduced exposure or vulnerability because monitoring systems rarely captured adaptation results. Marginalized groups were frequently excluded from vulnerability analysis, participation, or affordable solutions. The evaluation found no evidence for the assumed trickle-down benefits of targeting relatively better-off groups. More inclusive examples combined participation, immediate livelihood needs, climate experience, and specific attention to women and girls. Kamstra recommended applying the climate lens at programme design and revisiting it during implementation. He also called for adaptation monitoring that follows the risks identified for each programme. The discussion recommended making a substantive climate lens mandatory for programmes reported under the Rio adaptation marker. It further proposed removing the marker when midterm evidence shows that adaptation has not been integrated. These lessons connect climate-finance accountability with more equitable and measurable adaptation in development programming.