Overview of CSI spend on environment in 2025

[CASE STUDY] Beyond simple metrics in environmental M&E 

Social development monitoring and evaluation (M&E) often involves navigating complexity in establishing indicators that accurately assess programme effectiveness. However, environmental programmes face some additional evaluation challenges, says Dr Karen Kotschy, a specialist freelance research and evaluation consultant.  

Drawing on her extensive experience in complex environmental programmes, including the RESILIM-O Programme in the Olifants River catchment and the Tsitsa Project in the Eastern Cape, Kotschy encourages approaching environmental M&E with a focus on meaningful learning. This approach transcends basic activity assessment and greenwashing and aims to build a learning culture that supports effective environmental interventions.  

Complexity, scientific specialisation and meaning 

Environmental projects are inherently challenging to assess due to their multifaceted and often highly complex components, says Kotschy.  

Effective environmental programmes necessarily span different scientific disciplines. A single project might include, for example, specialisations in water, air, biodiversity and climate. Each of these components can require niche technical expertise for effective programme measurement.  

Even relatively simple environmental projects involve complex interactions between different specialities. “Measuring water quality, for example, is not as simple as putting a test strip in the water. Many different variables need to be measured and considered,” Kotschy explains. 

Once the necessary specialist input has been included, the next imperative is to effectively communicate what is often highly scientific and technical information. “There is a great deal of expertise that goes into understanding, for example, the climate change impacts and modelling relevant to a particular area, which then need to be communicated simply.” 

Kotschy emphasises the social necessity of conveying complex data in a way that stakeholders can understand and trust. This is not just about science communication, but requires building the relationships and trust which support this communication. Environmental programme stakeholders may have very different, often competing priorities, ranging from conservation to agriculture and industrial development. She notes that identifying effective strategies to communicate results meaningfully and enable co-learning is crucial to project success.  

Elusive terminology challenges measurement 

Environmental M&E often involves measuring concepts that challenge a consistent definition. Terms such as ‘resilience’, ‘adaptation’, ‘diversity’ and ‘redundancy’ are not only time- and context-specific, but can also have different meanings for different stakeholders.  

“Resilience is not one thing. It’s a multidimensional concept, made even more complicated by the fact that there are so many different definitions of it and that people understand it in different ways.” Kotschy explains that the concept initially reflected an ecosystem’s ability to bounce back from shocks, but now it also encompasses a system’s capacity to transform into something new and innovative when needed. The term ‘resilience’ captures both an ecosystem’s ability to remain stable and its ability to change. Since terminology in this sector varies so greatly depending on its context, Kotschy emphasises the importance of contextualising it early on. 

‘Adaptation’ in small-scale agriculture, for example, might consider the capacity to alter farming practices in response to climate change impacts. However, it might also look beyond crop choices, water-saving methods and pest control to include risk transfer, avoidance, or mitigation, which may extend beyond a strict definition of adaptation.  

Understanding the boundaries of terminology in the project context enables M&E efforts to develop unique and relevant indicators that support the work.  

Recommendations for improved environmental M&E 

Kotschy shares several learnings for more effective environmental M&E.  

1. Develop stakeholder alignment strategies: Rather than trying to force identical goals, the M&E process can use collaborative processes, such as system dynamics workshops, to discuss and understand project complexities and perspectives. This provides different stakeholders with the opportunity to know how their respective interests align with the broader environmental picture. It also creates the space for shared understanding through participation in the M&E design process. Avoiding top-down project design in favour of consultative and contextualised participation increases the likelihood of project success, while also creating space for organisational, community and individual growth and learning. 
2. Embrace participatory M&E: Environmental M&E should involve stakeholders from the outset and throughout the process, encompassing design, data collection, analysis and storytelling. Taking a collaborative approach can shift M&E from a compliance burden to an empowerment tool. This kind of learning-focused approach is beneficial to the field of M&E, by building transferable organisational capacity, as well as the communities in which it is practised. Embracing community monitoring builds advocacy that can extend well beyond a project’s immediate limits and lifespan. Kotschy gives an example of how a community water quality monitor on the Tsitsa project found herself presenting her work and advocating for her community to an academic audience, to much acclaim.  
3. Build adaptive M&E systems: Evaluation processes that prioritise learning through deliberate, consistent opportunities for reflection on collected data enable course correction where necessary. Understanding the added complexities inherent to environmental M&E and investing in a participatory, learning-focused system is the key to designing more effective environmental programmes and avoiding the common pitfalls that lead to superficial “green washing” rather than meaningful ecological impact.