Page - (000063) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

overnight. This takes time; in fact the impact assessment done at the end of the project asked for “adequate time” to pass and for a stable situation to be achieved before impact is assessed (Ittyerah et al. 2005, p. xv). And if individual projects need adequate time to have an impact, it follows thatmarket change can only be observed andmeasuredover even longer stretches of time.Longer time lapses are well known in environmental circles and on environmental impact, as Hilde´n (2009)andRowe(2014,54–55)havepointedout,but theytendtobelessassociated withmarket change.The slowpaceofmarket change ismore oftenobservedwith impatience, raising the question why no change is happening, which ledW€orlen (2014) inher studyof climatemitigation evaluations to reformulate the “theoryof change” approach to a “theory of no change approach” that focuses on a better understandingofmarket barriers andhow they canbeovercome. In general environmental boundaries do not follow jurisdictional boundaries. One ecosystem may spread over several countries, and one country may have several ecosystems. Rowe (2012) asked attention for the fact that location may differ conceptually and practically between a social and economic system that is targeted forchangeandanecosystemthat is influenced through the same interven- tionoraction.But this isnotonlyanissueofdifferent locationsofsystems,butalso of scopeof an intervention: itmaybe focusedonadirect impact in thevillages in which it is implemented,while other areas are still outside the scopeof theproject or have not yet been approached by suppliers, or invited to participate byState or Federal government. It is an issueof scalewhen impactneeds tobeobservedat several levels: thatof energy supply and demand, of greenhouse gas emissions related to energy, of greenhousegasemissionsincludingdeforestationandalternativesourcesofenergy, of livelihood and financial resources issues in the villages, of hilly rural areas in general, andperhaps somewhatmore removed,whether greenhousegas emissions in India are positively influenced bywhat happens in remote hilly areas. The last doesnot seemlikely, and itmay lead toa feelingofdisenchantment– if it doesnot help India, itdoesnothelp theworld, and itdoesnot stopclimatechange.3But that was thereason theprojectwasco-fundedbytheGlobalEnvironmentFacility in the first place! Scale is not easily defined. It seems clear that while interventions or actions move fromone actor tomultiple, fromone location tomany, from a “local” to a “national” or even “global” level thatmovingup scales is involved, but scales can also be understood in terms of different dimensions or sectors. Kennedy et al. (2009) recognises jurisdictional andmanagement dimensions as different scales, and Bruyninckx (2009) asks attention for overlap and discrepancies between social, economic, environmental and spatial scales. Yet even though there is no universal agreement onhowscales shouldbedefinedorwhat their boundaries are, 3Andagoodoverall conclusionontheprojectwasformulatedbyRatnaReddyetal. (2006,4078): the overall impact of the project appears to be slightly positive or neutral in amajority of key indicators.Certainly not amajor contribution to reducedgreenhousegas emissions as hoped for. 3 Mainstreaming ImpactEvidence inClimateChange andSustainableDevelopment 43