Page - (000108) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

• Scope and focus: The challenges for the consultants in commissioning an assessment with such a narrow scope are twofold. Firstly, consultants might tend toexpand their assessment tootherOECDDACevaluationcriteria suchas relevance, efficiency or sustainability. In particular in a casewhere the climate change relevant portfolio under review is predefined by the commissioner, the consultants might refuse to accept this climate change earmarking by the mandatorywithout additional re-verification and assessment. Secondly, the focus on accountability for effectiveness as well as the renouncement to develop recommendations also demands a clearmanagement of expectations toward the project managers. The intensive involvement of responsible project managers often leads to the expectation that the scope of theassessment canbewiden individually and that a report oneffectiveness also produces recommendations. The SDC/SECO reports on effectiveness treat learning clearly as a secondary objective and the formulation of recommenda- tions is not part of the evaluation. • Method: Froma clearmethodological point of view, themain challenge lies in the late introduction of climate change earmarkingSDCandSECO’s interven- tions, the fact that climate change benefits are co-benefits inmost projects and that results relevantforaccountability towardthepublicareonlyachievedwitha significant time-lag. Earlier interventions implemented before the introduction of theOECDRioMarkers in 2006 for adaptation and 2010 formitigation (see References)oftendonothaveanexplicit focusonclimatechangemitigationand adaptation. As a consequence, they often lack clear climate change related objectives, indicators and baselines. Nonetheless, they have potentially pro- duced significant results in terms of climate change mitigation or adaptation and areworth to be included in a report on effectiveness.Asmentioned above, thecomplexityand the resourcesneeded toassess theireffectiveness ishowever much higher in comparison with newer project that have systematically inte- grated climate change into their results framework (with respective indicators and targets) and consecutivemonitoring and evaluation activities. It is important to notice that the portfolio assessed for this analysis embraced projectsand initiatives thatwerenotexplicitlymakingreference toclimatechange. Initially theprojectsandprogrammesimplementedmainlyduringtheearlierperiod were neither fully geared towards nor openly declared as climate change relevant interventions. Only over time, some of them were gradually oriented towards climate change and declared as such. The introduction of theOECDRioMarkers between 2006 and 2010 supported a clear earmarking of climate change relevant projects. Finally the Bill to Parliament on ODA 0.5% in 2010 specifically earmarkedsomeofitsfundstotackleclimatechange.Asaconsequence, theprecise trackingofclimatechange relevant interventionswas farmoredifficult for thefirst half of the period2000–2012andmanyprojects had to be classified expost. The challenge of time-lag between the implementation of a project and the presenceofmeasurable results at outcomeand impact level isparticularly relevant forclimatechange.Areportoneffectiveness isaverychallengingundertakingfora 90 M.EggerKissling andR.Windisch