Seite - (000069) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

earnings, and desperately wants to keep this secret from his wife Sybil. But the Spanishwaiter in thehotel,Manuel, discoverswhat goeson.Basil asksManuel to deny, ifSybilwouldquestionhim, thathehasanyknowledgeof this.WhenBasil is discovered by Sybil in suspicious circumstanceswith a lot ofmoney, he needs to proof thathecamebythismoneythroughlegalmeans,andheasksManuel tovouch for him. Manuel looks at Basil, grins, and in a proud performance exclaims: “I know nothing”. After a few seconds he repeats, with added emphasis: “I know nothing”, thus sealing Basil’s fate. The evidence based movement came to the foreground and argued for randomized controlled trials and counterfactual impact evaluations by claiming that old fashioned evaluations could be thrown in the wastepaper basket, and that therewas a serious gap in evidence that needed to be filled.On international cooperation the evidence onwhatworks andwhat doesn’t was, to adaptManuel’s phrase: “we know nothing”. However, an analysis of the dimensions of time, space and scale demonstrate that randomized controlled trials are particularly goodat covering a fewof them, and that inmanycases evaluators will need to explore othermethods and tools to provide evidence on impact.As a result of thenarrowscopeof evidence that is acceptedby the evidencemovement, theywillhavedifficulty inexplaining topolicymakers,boardsandparliaments that what theywant to see evidence on cannot be provided through randomized con- trolled trials. The three dimensional matrix of time, space and scale provides a systemic ordering of demand for impact evidence, and inspiration for how this can be uncovered through various evaluation techniques. It underscores the wide range of scientific tools and approaches as discussed in the Stern report (2012). Further analysis is needed. No doubtmore scientific tools exist and can be placed in the matrix. Itcouldbedevelopedasaheuristic tool to identifykeyevaluationquestions and approaches. It also demonstrates that impact evidence is available throughout thecycleofprojects,programmesandpoliciesandthatdemandfor impactevidence canbe throughout the lifetimeof a project andwill get to higher levels and scales after the project has ended. In the case of climate change mitigation, the matrix provides a better under- standingwhy impact is visible at project level and inmarkets directly influenced (andhopefullychanged)bytheproject,but that impactat theglobal level is illusive, not visible, andhasnot led to thedesired change in trends.Especiallywheregoals are formulated at the highest level the matrix may be useful in providing a systematic understandingwhy impact cannot (yet) be demonstrated at that level. My suggestion is to further develop thematrix as an analytical tool to: 1. Better identify thedemandfor impactevidence: is itonwhetheraspecificcausal mechanismworks, or is it whether the problem that needs to be addressed is becoming solved, orwhether global, regional or national trends aremoving in the right direction, and if so, how that is linked to the intervention. 2. When the demand is identified, how would this translate to key evaluation questions that focus on the right moment in time, at the right location and at the appropriate scale? 3 Mainstreaming ImpactEvidence inClimateChange andSustainableDevelopment 49