Seite - (000124) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

components, some cause-to-effect relationships were either non-existent or had beenoverlooked, and several keydrivers and assumptions hadbeenneglected. As explained above, attribution of large-scale, global changes toUNEP’swork wasdifficultdue to the largelynormativenatureofUNEP’swork.Casualpathways fromUNEP outputs to impact on the environment and human living conditions tended to be very long,withmany external factors coming into play all along the causal pathways. The reconstructed ToC was used to assess the likelihood of impactby considering four distinct elements: • UNEP’s effectiveness in achieving its expected direct outcomes. This included verificationofprogressonoutputdeliveryand,most importantly,of theextent to which UNEP outputs led to increased stakeholder capacity, for instance: enhanced access to information and technological know-how, enablingpolicies and regulatory frameworks, or increased access to climate changefinance. • The validity of the ToC. The purpose was to prove the causal connection between UNEP direct outcomes and results higher-up the causal pathways. This was done by applying logic, through interviews with key stakeholders, and through analysis of evaluative evidence of progress towards impact at the country or lower geographical levels. • The presence of drivers and validity of assumptions. The evaluation had to collect adequate evidence, mostly through desk review and key informant interviews, to verify the presence of an adequate enabling environment in supported countries. • Early signs of large-scale progress on medium-term outcomes, intermediate states and impact. In itself this was not evidence of UNEP’s contribution to higher-levelchanges,butwasstillnecessary to informstakeholdersaboutglobal trends. Also, if UNEP’s contribution to direct outcomes had been established, theToCwas very likely to be valid, and the required driverswere present and assumptionswere valid, then the likelihood ofUNEP’s contribution to impact was very high even though it remainedunquantifiable. 6.5 DataSources The evaluation team conducted a comprehensive desk review spread over the inception and main evaluation phase. During the inception phase, it helped to reconstruct the ToC of the components and the sub-programme as a whole, and to refinekeyareas of analysis and the evaluation approachhighlighting evaluation challengesandinformationgaps.During themainevaluationphase, itwasessential to collect information on achievements, impact, sustainability and upscaling, and themain factors affectingperformance,while also leaving roomfor unanticipated results. The evaluation team conducted an in-depth analysis of CCSP key docu- ments: background documents on climate change science and technology, the UNFCCC process and Climate Change finance, UNEP strategy and planning 106 M.Carbon