How have your evaluation methods captured the impact of development projects on the environment or climate change?
This is a timely question because although the importance of integrating climate considerations into development programs is increasingly recognized, how such programs account for climate change often remains overlooked.
A good starting point for meaningfully capturing the impact of development programs on climate change in evaluation methods is to first ‘mainstream’ or integrate climate considerations throughout the evaluation. In a 2021 paper published in Global Food Security (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100509) we shared a framework with guiding questions for different evaluation components:
Evaluation scope
a. Does the introduction of the evaluation acknowledge a climate change issue(s)? b. Does the evaluation include an objective/question/criterion specific to the assessment of climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
Evaluation approach
a. Is climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts mentioned in the evaluation theory, methodology, methods, and/or analysis?
Evaluation results
a. Does the findings section provide information on climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
b. Does the conclusion provide information on climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
c. Are there specific recommendations to address climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
What indicators have you found to be most effective in measuring improvements or changes in the environment/climate change, as well as contributions to improved mitigation and adaptation? Emission levels? Resilience measures? Climate finance raised? Insurance products made available? Or others?
In the above-mentioned study, we also applied the framework to examine evaluations of UN agencies working in food and agriculture (e.g. FAO, WFP, IFAD, UNICEF, UNEP, UNDP) and found many different approaches and indicators used. For example, IFAD defined a new adaptation criterion in an updated evaluation manual (2016) as: “The contribution of the project to reducing the negative impacts of climate change through dedicated adaptation or risk reduction measures”. IFAD also offered core questions to guide the evaluation such as: “To what extent did the program demonstrate awareness and analysis of current (climate) risks?”.
It is important to note that climate mainstreaming in program planning and evaluation is not keeping up with the urgent need for climate action. In a paper currently in press in WIREs Climate Change titled “Greener through gender: What climate mainstreaming can learn from gender mainstreaming” (doi: 10.1002/wcc.887), we leverage lessons from gender mainstreaming to accelerate progress in climate mainstreaming, drawing on a review of mainstreaming practices from the UN agencies mentioned above (stay tuned!).
RE: How are development projects affecting the environment and how do we evaluate this impact?
How have your evaluation methods captured the impact of development projects on the environment or climate change?
This is a timely question because although the importance of integrating climate considerations into development programs is increasingly recognized, how such programs account for climate change often remains overlooked.
A good starting point for meaningfully capturing the impact of development programs on climate change in evaluation methods is to first ‘mainstream’ or integrate climate considerations throughout the evaluation. In a 2021 paper published in Global Food Security (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100509) we shared a framework with guiding questions for different evaluation components:
Evaluation scope
a. Does the introduction of the evaluation acknowledge a climate change issue(s)?
b. Does the evaluation include an objective/question/criterion specific to the assessment of climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
Evaluation approach
a. Is climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts mentioned in the evaluation theory, methodology, methods, and/or analysis?
Evaluation results
a. Does the findings section provide information on climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
b. Does the conclusion provide information on climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
c. Are there specific recommendations to address climate change adaptation, mitigation, and/or impacts?
What indicators have you found to be most effective in measuring improvements or changes in the environment/climate change, as well as contributions to improved mitigation and adaptation? Emission levels? Resilience measures? Climate finance raised? Insurance products made available? Or others?
In the above-mentioned study, we also applied the framework to examine evaluations of UN agencies working in food and agriculture (e.g. FAO, WFP, IFAD, UNICEF, UNEP, UNDP) and found many different approaches and indicators used. For example, IFAD defined a new adaptation criterion in an updated evaluation manual (2016) as: “The contribution of the project to reducing the negative impacts of climate change through dedicated adaptation or risk reduction measures”. IFAD also offered core questions to guide the evaluation such as: “To what extent did the program demonstrate awareness and analysis of current (climate) risks?”.
It is important to note that climate mainstreaming in program planning and evaluation is not keeping up with the urgent need for climate action. In a paper currently in press in WIREs Climate Change titled “Greener through gender: What climate mainstreaming can learn from gender mainstreaming” (doi: 10.1002/wcc.887), we leverage lessons from gender mainstreaming to accelerate progress in climate mainstreaming, drawing on a review of mainstreaming practices from the UN agencies mentioned above (stay tuned!).
Steven