Reflections from my experience in complex adaptation contexts: Drawing from my work on community‑ and nature‑based adaptation initiatives in Southern Africa and beyond, I believe evaluators sometimes overstate the absence of foresight in evaluation. The challenge is rarely the lack of tools, but rather timing, depth, and intent. Climate disruption, ecosystem degradation, shifting geopolitical conditions, and cascading crises are no longer background noise; they actively shape development pathways and community decisions in real time. Yet foresight is often introduced late in the evaluation cycle, applied superficially, or treated as a technical add‑on rather than a strategic lens. When evaluation is not explicitly designed to engage with uncertainty, power dynamics, and interacting risks from the outset, it struggles to reflect the true complexity of adaptation systems.
In practice, this becomes clear when evaluating climate and nature‑based adaptation interventions. An evaluation that only looks backwards is like navigating by a map of where you’ve been, in terrain that is constantly reshaping itself. Integrating foresight means adapting tools we already know how to use, such as scenario planning, participatory approaches, and forward‑looking Theories of Change, to ask not only what has worked, but what may work under different future conditions. Embedding adaptive management, with regular feedback loops and real‑time data, allows evaluations to remain relevant as contexts shift. Most critically, community perspectives, through co‑evaluation, anchor foresight in lived realities, surfacing local knowledge about risks, trade‑offs, and opportunities. When intent is truly future‑informed, evaluation moves beyond the rear‑view mirror to act as a compass and horizon scanner, helping decision‑makers identify adaptation pathways that are resilient to cascading shocks and ultimately more just, sustainable, and humane.
RE: From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Can Become Future-Informed
Zimbabwe
Wilbert Marimira
MEAL Specialist
CARE International
Posted on 29/04/2026
Reflections from my experience in complex adaptation contexts:
Drawing from my work on community‑ and nature‑based adaptation initiatives in Southern Africa and beyond, I believe evaluators sometimes overstate the absence of foresight in evaluation. The challenge is rarely the lack of tools, but rather timing, depth, and intent. Climate disruption, ecosystem degradation, shifting geopolitical conditions, and cascading crises are no longer background noise; they actively shape development pathways and community decisions in real time. Yet foresight is often introduced late in the evaluation cycle, applied superficially, or treated as a technical add‑on rather than a strategic lens. When evaluation is not explicitly designed to engage with uncertainty, power dynamics, and interacting risks from the outset, it struggles to reflect the true complexity of adaptation systems.
In practice, this becomes clear when evaluating climate and nature‑based adaptation interventions. An evaluation that only looks backwards is like navigating by a map of where you’ve been, in terrain that is constantly reshaping itself. Integrating foresight means adapting tools we already know how to use, such as scenario planning, participatory approaches, and forward‑looking Theories of Change, to ask not only what has worked, but what may work under different future conditions. Embedding adaptive management, with regular feedback loops and real‑time data, allows evaluations to remain relevant as contexts shift. Most critically, community perspectives, through co‑evaluation, anchor foresight in lived realities, surfacing local knowledge about risks, trade‑offs, and opportunities. When intent is truly future‑informed, evaluation moves beyond the rear‑view mirror to act as a compass and horizon scanner, helping decision‑makers identify adaptation pathways that are resilient to cascading shocks and ultimately more just, sustainable, and humane.