Agri-food systems generate over a third of global greenhouse gas emissions: it is therefore crucial to find win-win solutions promoting resilience across climate, environment, and development simultaneously.
Evaluations play a crucial role in this context: since 2010 IFAD’s Evaluation Policy provided for all project performance evaluations to address how projects support Environment and Natural Resources Management (ENRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA). The Evaluation Manual includes guidance for rating performance on these two criteria, along with OECD DAC criteria and others. These specific ratings and assessments are subject to the same quality assurance process as all IFAD’s evaluations, and the performance on these criteria is reported to the governing bodies for learning and accountability.
However, while incorporating such considerations is the first step, ensuring that sufficient know-how is available in each evaluation to credibly assess the ENRM and CCA effects is quite another matter.
In the last 10 years, 90% of IFAD projects evaluated were rated moderately or satisfactory in their support to ENRM and CCA. However, only 30% were found to do no net harm to the ecosystem. This points to the need for a close examination of the methods being used to rate ENRM and CCA by the IFAD Evaluation Office.
A recent thematic evaluation on IFAD support for smallholder farmers to adapt to climate change, reviewed how IFAD’s agricultural projects interacted with the surrounding ecosystems. Methodologically, no precedence existed to assessing this human-ecosystem nexus. The Evaluation Team developed a rubric approach to assess the consequences of IFAD projects on selected dimensions of ecosystem – such as, water quality and management and soil health. Of the 20 case studies conducted, covering 14% of IFAD’s portfolio of projects engaged in Climate Change Adaptation, only six were ‘doing no harm’ or better, as shown in the figure below.
RE: How are development projects affecting the environment and how do we evaluate this impact?
Dear Yosi,
Thanks for raising this important topic!
Agri-food systems generate over a third of global greenhouse gas emissions: it is therefore crucial to find win-win solutions promoting resilience across climate, environment, and development simultaneously.
Evaluations play a crucial role in this context: since 2010 IFAD’s Evaluation Policy provided for all project performance evaluations to address how projects support Environment and Natural Resources Management (ENRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA). The Evaluation Manual includes guidance for rating performance on these two criteria, along with OECD DAC criteria and others. These specific ratings and assessments are subject to the same quality assurance process as all IFAD’s evaluations, and the performance on these criteria is reported to the governing bodies for learning and accountability.
However, while incorporating such considerations is the first step, ensuring that sufficient know-how is available in each evaluation to credibly assess the ENRM and CCA effects is quite another matter.
In the last 10 years, 90% of IFAD projects evaluated were rated moderately or satisfactory in their support to ENRM and CCA. However, only 30% were found to do no net harm to the ecosystem. This points to the need for a close examination of the methods being used to rate ENRM and CCA by the IFAD Evaluation Office.
A recent thematic evaluation on IFAD support for smallholder farmers to adapt to climate change, reviewed how IFAD’s agricultural projects interacted with the surrounding ecosystems. Methodologically, no precedence existed to assessing this human-ecosystem nexus. The Evaluation Team developed a rubric approach to assess the consequences of IFAD projects on selected dimensions of ecosystem – such as, water quality and management and soil health. Of the 20 case studies conducted, covering 14% of IFAD’s portfolio of projects engaged in Climate Change Adaptation, only six were ‘doing no harm’ or better, as shown in the figure below.