1 / 45

Presentation IPEN 2012 Astana, Kazakhstan Dr. Christine Wörlen

The Climate Change Evaluators ‘ Community of Practice: Meta-Evaluations for Climate Change Mitigation; Tools and Usability. Presentation IPEN 2012 Astana, Kazakhstan Dr. Christine Wörlen. Outline. The Climate- Eval Community of Practice

laszlo
Download Presentation

Presentation IPEN 2012 Astana, Kazakhstan Dr. Christine Wörlen

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. The Climate Change Evaluators‘ Community of Practice: Meta-Evaluations forClimate Change Mitigation; Tools and Usability Presentation IPEN 2012 Astana, Kazakhstan Dr. Christine Wörlen

  2. Outline • The Climate-Eval Community of Practice • The tools for evaluating climate mitigation projects • --- and how they can be used for project design • The other opportunities for knowledge creation at the community of practice

  3. The Climate-Eval Community of Practice

  4. History • 2007 Astana Workshop • 2008 Alexandria Conference • 2009 Website • 2010 linked-in • 2011 Jordan; Durban • 2012 – Russian-language group in Linked-In Functions: Knowledgerepository Analytical work

  5. Importantelements • Andrew • Website • Linked-in • Webinars • Discussions (online, telephone) • Some face-to-face interaction

  6. Analytical workoftheClimate-Eval Community of Practice: The Mitigation Meta-Evaluation as an example

  7. Typicalclimatechangemitigationevaluationchallenges (I) • Baselineissues: counterfactualcanbedifficult • Ultimate impact: GHG-emissionreductiontogetherwitheconomicdevelopment (→ indicatorandmeasurementchallenges) • ismostlynot reacheddirectly but throughchanges in behaviour (investment, utilization) of GHG emittingactorsandtheirsupplychain

  8. Evaluation Framework (TokleandUitto (2009)) Evaluation framework GHG emissions reduction or avoidance Impacts RESULTS Sustainable market transformation for increased energy savings or applications of renewable energy Outcomes Enabling policies, strategies, standards and certification in place Adequate finance available Adequate business infrastructure Awareness created Innovation and technology diffused Develop enabling policies standards and certification Develop financing instruments and mechanisms Develop business models and provide enterprise support Develop and disseminate Information and knowledge Demonstrate creative project approaches and technologies PERFORMANCE Strategies

  9. Typicalclimatechangemitigationevaluationchallenges (II) • Not onlyonegroupofstakeholdersplays a role in achievingthatresult, but a wholesector; consistingofusers, suppliers, financiersandpolicy . • But: manyclimatemitigationinterventionsaffectonlyonegroupofstakeholders (e.g. users OR supplychain OR policymakers OR financiers). • Issueswithattributionandcontextcomplicate „usual“ measurementchallenges – evenfortheevaluationof a singleawarenessorcapacitybuildingmeasure, thecontextandother initiatives needtobetakenintoaccount.

  10. Keep developingthis Framework Theoryof Changeso thatit will beableto : • Reproduce „complete“ theoryofchange – not just thegroups / capacities / factors / aspectsthatarethesubjectoftheproject • Reflect sectoral context in a complete but „lean“ manner • Reflect relative importanceofimpeding / supportivefactorsforinterventionresults • Allowforthedevelopmentof (outcome) indicatorsacrossstakeholdersandinterventionsand GHG savingspotentials • Be flexible andrigorousatthe same time

  11. Evaluation Framework (TokleandUitto (2009)) Evaluation framework GHG emissions reduction or avoidance Impacts RESULTS Sustainable market transformation for increased energy savings or applications of renewable energy Outcomes Enabling policies, strategies, standards and certification in place Adequate finance available Adequate business infrastructure Financial sector Awareness created Innovation and technology diffused Financial sector Supply chain and infrastructure Develop enabling policies standards and certification Develop financing instruments and mechanisms Develop business models and provide enterprise support Develop and disseminate Information and knowledge Demonstrate creative project approaches and technologies Consumers Policy makers Consumters PERFORMANCE Strategies

  12. Theory of Non-Change: Barriers to energy-efficiency behavior Consumers / Users Supply chain and infrastructure Financial sector Policy makers Every group of stakeholders can slow down the diffusion of new technologies / behaviors. Typically, they are impeded by • IGNORANCE, • LACK OF MOTIVATION, • LACK OF ACCESS; • LACK OF EXPERTISE; • LACK OF BUSINESS MODELS, • LACK OF COST EFFECTIVENESS; • LACK OF AFFORDABILITY

  13. Strategies to remove the barriers to energy-efficiency behavior • IGNORANCE, • LACK OF MOTIVATION, • LACK OF ACCESS; • LACK OF EXPERTISE; • LACK OF BUSINESS MODELS, • LACK OF COST EFFECTIVENESS; • LACK OF AFFORDABILITY • Information campaigns • Incentives (financial / nonfinancial) • Buildup of infrastructure • Capacity building • Business model development and demonstration • Reduce cost (economies of scale, economies of scope, subsidies) • Make financing available

  14. Potential barriersto market transformationandinterventionstrategies (TOC 2) GHG emission reduction / reduced climate change impact Overarching objective Market transformation from GHG-emitting to GHG non-emitting behavior Necessary precondition for MT and immediate outcome ccm intervention • awareness • expertise • access • business model • cost effectiveness • affordability • awareness • motivation • expertise • access • cost effectiveness • affordability • motivation • awareness • expertise • affordability • awareness • expertise • affordability • Business model Supply chain and infrastructure Financial sector Consumers / users StakeholderGroup Barrier Removal Strategies (incomplete) Develop and disseminate Information and knowledge for awareness Technical training Financial assistance (investment subsidies , loans, financial risk guarantees) Policy makers Provision of external advice and best practice models Develop enabling policies standards and certification Develop locally adapted solutions (business models, contractual arrangements, technologies)

  15. Stakeholderand potential barriersto market transformation • Lack of awareness of energy efficient technology (ignorance) • Lack of technical competence (expertise) • Lack of access to technology for manufacturing or distribution • Lack of business model • Lack of cost effectiveness • Lack of working capital (affordability) • Lack of awareness of energy efficient technology (ignorance) • Lack of motivation / interest • Lack of technical competence (expertise) • Lack of access to technology • Lack of cost effectiveness • Lack of investment capital (affordability) Market Transformation GHG redu +econ. benefit • Lack of motivation / interest • Lack of awareness of energy efficient technology (ignorance) • Lack of technical competence (expertise) for designing effective policies • Lack of fiscal means (affordability) • Lack of technical competence for evaluating technology (expertise) • Lack of business model (risk) • Lack of cost effectiveness • Lack of liquidity (affordability)

  16. “Barrier Circle” – or “why things are NOT changing” Red: “This barrier is a show-stopper for the market.” Orange: “This is a significant barrier.” Yellow: “Not a good situation, but no significant challenge.” Green: “This potential barrier is not impeding market development.”

  17. Simplification: leave off inner two circles (intermediate and ultimate objectives)

  18. Then: Overlay with project

  19. Project strategies can be aligned with the respective barriers.

  20. TONC-Circle and Barrier Removal Strategies

  21. Approach of this study • Test Theoryof Non-Change (TONC) on a setofclimatemitigationinterventionsfromonesector (e.g. energyefficientproducts) • Refine TONC, clarifyterminologyandbarrier-strategycouples • Test on othersectors • …todevelopgeneralizedSector Transformation TOC • (Developindicatorsforthebarriers. As barrierremovalistheresultoftheproject, thesecan also betheresultindicatorsfor market transformationinterventions.) NB: Evaluation studies are the only possible source for this type of analysis. However, due to the variations in evaluation questions and other factors, not all of them are equally useful for this analysis.

  22. Testing the TONC: Market Transformation through Demand Side Management in Thailand since 1992 • Thai economy: 10.6% annual growth between 1986 and 1995 • Energy demand increased in step • In 1992: Energy Conservation Law with obligatory energy reporting for large consumers and other (softer) measures. • The national energy utility EGAT started • We look at 2 cases: • energy efficient lighting in households and • energy efficiency in industrial and commercial facilities • Crises: • Thai / Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 • Privatization of EGAT in 2000-2002 • Test Question: can the model reflect market transformation successes and failures?

  23. Three different markets • Replacing T12 tubes by T8 tubes • Replacing light bulbs with energy savings bulbs (compact fluorescent lamps, CFLs) • Replacing inefficient building chillers (large AC units) in commercial and industrial buildings with efficient building chillers.

  24. Market barrier cycle for efficient T8 light tubes in 2002 (Na Phuket; WB Post-IA)

  25. WB DSM + GTZ project activities for T8 light tubes(Na Phuket, Sulyma, WB)

  26. T8 market after DSM Project in 2000 (WB evaluations)

  27. Market barrier cycle for energy savings bulbs (CFL)(Na Phuket; WB Post-IA)

  28. Project approach for efficient CLF (Na Phuket; WB Post-IA)

  29. Market barrier cycle for efficient CLF at the end of project (2000) (WB ICR)

  30. Interim test result • Tool can reflect changes in market barriers and barrier removal strategies • Easy to handle • It becomes clear that every “market” (in the sense of a GHG emission reducing activity) needs its own set of analyses as the barriers are not of the same strength • Currently only qualitative analysis possible – more standardization needed for it to have more predictive power

  31. Industrial Energy Efficiency in 1992 Overall economic boom Rapid investment in new industrial and commercial facilities Energy efficiency is an afterthought Supply chain is happy to provide inefficient chillers Policy makers know what to do but not how

  32. Industrial Energy Efficiency in 1992: ENCON law, WB/GEF DSM project, GTZ project Law requires large facilities to conduct Energy Audits DSM project with EGAT as implementing agency to include industrial energy efficiency From 1996: GTZ provides training to policy makers

  33. Industrial Energy Efficiency in 2000: no success, due to financial crisis Energy Audits have been conducted by many but not implemented EGAT as implementing agency is in the process of being restructured Financial markets broke down, so that users can’t afford investments They also have other worries…

  34. Industrial Energy Efficiency in 2001: WB GEF Building Chiller Replacement Project Took three years to develop EGAT unavailable New implementing agency is a large bank

  35. Industrial Energy Efficiency in 2001: WB GEF Building Chiller Replacement Project Is removing a number of barriers

  36. Industrial Energy Efficiency in 2001: WB GEF Building Chiller Replacement Project Is removing a number of barriers …but receives competition from EGAT once national funds are released

  37. …leading to a vibrant building chiller market in 2005.

  38. Impact of 1997 Asian financialcrisis on energyefficiencyprojects in Thailand • Original motivation for energy efficiency efforts was economic growth, not climate change! • Projects that were designed and implemented immediately after the financial crisis were affected more strongly than those that were under implementation during the financial crisis (example: Building Chiller Replacement, Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund). • Impact of financial crisis on ongoing projects: extension in time, slowdown of privatization of public entities (EGAT), more difficulties to include private sector in projects, households were comparatively less affected.

  39. Alternative display: comptable • Color codeallows to compareseveralprojects in tables • Here: casestudyPolanddistrictheating

  40. Useof TONC in project design • TheoryofNo Change: Analyzingbarriershelps find out wherethenextproject can push theenvelope, cost-effectively(ClimateWorks evaluation, GEF EO impactstudy); itlooksacross different stakeholdergroups • UseofToolforcomparing different projects can helptransferlessonslearned / usefulprojectapproaches / bestpracticesfromoneprojectotanother. • UseofComparison Table allowsforchoiceofmostappropriate alternative behavior to beimplemented in nextproject. Overall, thisanalysistellsyouwhat to do next.

  41. How do peopleusetheClimate-Eval Community of Practice?

  42. Elements ofthe Community of Practice • Mostly online • Members register, • Weekly (periodic – maybe twice or once a month) newsletter • Other social media: Twitter (@climateeval with 247 ‚followers‘) • Discussions through linked-in (language subgroups – French, Spanish and soon, Russian) • Online resources: • Database of evaluations (500+) • Multimedia content – recordings of webinar, etc • Blog posts • Job announcements

  43. Membership • Institutionalevaluators • Project managers • Consultants / independentandconsultingfirms • Researchers in universitiesandthink-tanks

  44. Importantelements • Andrew • Website, newsletter • Linked-in (including a group in Russian) • Webinars • Discussions (online, telephone) • Some face-to-face interaction Howcouldyouenvisionusingit? Whatwouldmakeitmorehelpful to you?

  45. Thank you for your attention. • Further Questions? • www.climate-eval.org • Climate-eval(at)climate-eval.org • Christine Wörlen, woerlen(at)arepo-consult.com

More Related