1 / 16

Key messages

Towards a framework for assessing climate change interventions through impact evaluation Martin Prowse, ODI. Key messages. The applicability of impact evaluation to assessing climate change interventions has not been widely considered

knut
Download Presentation

Key messages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards a framework for assessing climate change interventions through impact evaluationMartin Prowse, ODI

  2. Key messages • The applicability of impact evaluation to assessing climate change interventions has not been widely considered • However, some mitigation and adaptation measures show potential in the short term • Mitigation: Biofuel production, forest protection initiatives, and environmental labelling • Adaptation: Community-based adaptation • Other measures show potential in the longer term (for example, projects within NAPAs)

  3. Overview I • To what extent has impact evaluation been applied to climate change interventions? • How can we assess if IE could be applied to climate change interventions? • What are the generic shortcomings of impact evaluation?

  4. Overview II 4. Four mitigation measures (green growth strategies, environmental labelling initiatives, biofuel production, forest protection) 5. Four adaptation measures (community-based adaptation, disaster risk screening, GEF LDCF, GEF SCCF) 6. Conclusions

  5. 1. To what extent has impact evaluation been applied to climate change interventions? ‘In the context of impact evaluations of GEF projects, it is clear that the rigorous impact evaluation model is neither appropriate nor affordable’ Mixed experience from using IE-type approaches GEF’s alternative: Bamberger’s ‘Shoestring Methodologies’ and a ‘Theory of Change’ approach

  6. 2. How can we assess if IE could be applied to climate change interventions? • Costly and time consuming • Suited to small-scale interventions, not large-scale policy reforms • Direct budget supports limits scope for ex ante IE • How does IE intersect with country ownership?

  7. 3. What are the shortcomings of impact evaluation? • Institutional inertia • Moral and ethical concerns • Technical capacity and institutional compliance

  8. 4. Four mitigation measures • Green growth strategies (carbon credits from offset projects in non-Annex I countries) • Environmental labelling initiatives (which illustrate the ‘carbon footprint’ of products) • Biofuel production (of second-generation biofuels such as jatropha) • Forest protection schemes (such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation – REDD)

  9. 4. Four mitigation measures

  10. 5. Four adaptation measures • Community-level adaptation (an autonomous, bottom- up approach) • ORCHID (disaster risk screening tool) • GEF Least Developed Country Fund (provides adaptation finance to the poorest countries, especially through National Adaptation Plans) • GEF’s Special Climate Change Fund (again has a primary focus on adaptation)

  11. 5. Four adaptation measures

  12. 4. Community-based adaptation • Autonomous bottom-up approach to adaptation • Builds on local technical knowledge and coping strategies • Incongruence with IE? (i.e. participatory standpoint vs. ultra-positivism) • But ‘with and without’ comparisons of CBA are possible

  13. ORCHID • Mainstreaming climate risk management through appraising projects and programmes • Probably not desirable to randomise organisations or programmes • Might be possible to use quasi-experimental methods

  14. 6. GEF’s Least Developed Country Fund • Provides finance to the poorest countries, mainly for adaptation • Supported completion of NAPAs • Common priorities: water resources; food security; agriculture; infrastructure. • NAPAs: variable quality, with focus on conventional development projects • IE can assess such projects

  15. 7. GEF’s Special Climate Change Fund • SCCF has a primary focus on adaptation • Again, a focus on water resources, agriculture, infrastructure • Plans a reminiscent of conventional development projects

  16. Conclusions • The applicability of impact evaluation to assessing climate change interventions has not been widely considered • However, some mitigation and adaptation measures show potential in the short term • Mitigation: Biofuel production, forest protection initiatives, and environmental labelling • Adaptation: Community-based adaptation • Other measures show potential in the longer term (for example, projects within NAPAs)

More Related