Seite - (000126) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

was drafted by November 2013, but also required a series of reviews by the Evaluation Office and subsequent revisions, so that it was shared within UNEP for comments as late asFebruary2014.Considering that theperiodcoveredby the evaluation ended on31December 2012, therewas a time lag ofmore than 1 year betweenmuchoftheinformationcollectedfor theevaluationandthedistributionof its first draft report. During the first half of 2014, comments were received from UNEP staff and data from theUNEPProgrammePerformanceReport 2012–2013 was incorporatedwhere appropriate tomake the report as up-to-date as possible. Because theconsultants’ teamhadbeendisbandedbymid-2014,finalisationof the report was done internally in the Evaluation Office. The report was finally published in January2015. 6.7 LessonsLearnedon theEvaluationApproach This evaluation has shown the importance of developing an appropriate analytical framework, well suited for the scope and complexity of the object of evaluation. The analytical framework and evaluation approach used for the UNEP Climate Change Sub-programme Evaluation, combining three interlinked areas of focus (strategic relevance, sub-programme performance and factors affecting perfor- mance), five concentric units of analysis (UNEP as a whole, sub-programme, component, country and project) and a Theory of Change approach, allowed the evaluation team to cover the standard evaluation criteria in a comprehensive but concisemanner, remaining strategic andwithout drowning in the details. TheToCapproachhelpedmakingacredibleassessmentofUNEP’scontribution towards impact, sustainabilityandup-scaling,butdidnotallowthiscontribution to be quantified. In other words, the evaluation could not determine to what extent higher-level changes beyond stakeholder capacity (direct outcomes), such as changes in environmental management practices or greenhouse gas emissions, could be attributed to UNEP’s efforts alone, and which changes might have happened anyway. In any case, a credible attribution of impact at the sub-programme or sub-programme component level would have been impossible without extensive impact assessments at the country or project level, which are currentlynot available inUNEPandcouldnothavebeen realisticallybuilt into the sub-programmeevaluation framework. There appears to be a trade-off between the time that is invested in quality assurance and stakeholder involvement during the evaluation process, on the one hand, and the up-to-dateness of information provided and sustained stakeholder interest in the evaluation, on the other. Strong internal stakeholder involvement during the inception and data collection and analysis phases of the evaluation throughinterviews,discussions,surveysandcommentingonintermediateproducts, 108 M.Carbon