topic that is high on the political agenda for a short period only. The results that are
of interest for the wider public materialize only with a certain time lag and are not
available with the first 3–5 years of a project. In fact, more time between the
intervention and the evaluation would be needed in order to assess whether the
adaptation measures have been effective and contributed to increased resilience, or
whether mitigation measures finally resulted in the expected reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This also leads to the question if a highly diverse portfolio
covering a timeframe of 12 years can be assessed with the same methodology.
Finally the methodological challenges to assess effectiveness also depend on the
topic. For adaptation interventions they are considerably higher than for those
projects in the field of mitigation. Contrary to the field of mitigation, no clear
metric and reliable baseline data exist for measuring adaptation and a lot of the
measures are rather more of a qualitative than quantitative nature. Therefore, it is
more difficult to find adequate indicators, which can measure effectiveness of the
interventions. Thus, more time needs to be invested in the development of baselines
and measurement, reporting, and verification systems. Moreover, aggregating and
scoring will remain difficult.
Finally the influence and effectiveness of projects working on the policy level to
create a better climate change framework is difficult to measure. The assessment
concentrated here on interviews with Swiss experts engaged in policy dialogue in
international institutions and initiatives and on the institutions’ results reporting.
5.5.3 For Practitioners/Program Managers
• Results reporting: As in other areas of intervention, the common difficulties in
assessing results statements at outcome and impact level have been experienced
in the climate change assessment. It revealed several lessons in term of Result
Based Management (RBM) and monitoring for project managers of climate
change relevant project. Despite the fact that the reorganization process of
SDC (2008–2012) has focused on result orientation and that results based
management within SECO has been improved, it appears still premature to
expect comprehensive and well-documented result reporting on all interventions. This is especially the case for the earlier projects under review. Given the
fact that the design of projects in terms of climate change has improved
significantly over time, it can be expected that a similar assessment in a few
years would be more successful in gathering quantitative and qualitative results,
thus allowing for an aggregation at higher level. However, this depends on the
development of result frameworks with smart and standardized indicators across
the portfolio. Consequent baseline studies and the onset and rigorous monitoring
during implementation are further preconditions.
This does not mean that gathering results on climate change effectiveness will
become an easy task. The above-mentioned measures need significant resources.
Consequently the expectation on a quantitative monitoring of GHG emission
5 Lessons from Taking Stock of 12 Years of Swiss International Cooperation. . .
91
of interest for the wider public materialize only with a certain time lag and are not
available with the first 3–5 years of a project. In fact, more time between the
intervention and the evaluation would be needed in order to assess whether the
adaptation measures have been effective and contributed to increased resilience, or
whether mitigation measures finally resulted in the expected reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This also leads to the question if a highly diverse portfolio
covering a timeframe of 12 years can be assessed with the same methodology.
Finally the methodological challenges to assess effectiveness also depend on the
topic. For adaptation interventions they are considerably higher than for those
projects in the field of mitigation. Contrary to the field of mitigation, no clear
metric and reliable baseline data exist for measuring adaptation and a lot of the
measures are rather more of a qualitative than quantitative nature. Therefore, it is
more difficult to find adequate indicators, which can measure effectiveness of the
interventions. Thus, more time needs to be invested in the development of baselines
and measurement, reporting, and verification systems. Moreover, aggregating and
scoring will remain difficult.
Finally the influence and effectiveness of projects working on the policy level to
create a better climate change framework is difficult to measure. The assessment
concentrated here on interviews with Swiss experts engaged in policy dialogue in
international institutions and initiatives and on the institutions’ results reporting.
5.5.3 For Practitioners/Program Managers
• Results reporting: As in other areas of intervention, the common difficulties in
assessing results statements at outcome and impact level have been experienced
in the climate change assessment. It revealed several lessons in term of Result
Based Management (RBM) and monitoring for project managers of climate
change relevant project. Despite the fact that the reorganization process of
SDC (2008–2012) has focused on result orientation and that results based
management within SECO has been improved, it appears still premature to
expect comprehensive and well-documented result reporting on all interventions. This is especially the case for the earlier projects under review. Given the
fact that the design of projects in terms of climate change has improved
significantly over time, it can be expected that a similar assessment in a few
years would be more successful in gathering quantitative and qualitative results,
thus allowing for an aggregation at higher level. However, this depends on the
development of result frameworks with smart and standardized indicators across
the portfolio. Consequent baseline studies and the onset and rigorous monitoring
during implementation are further preconditions.
This does not mean that gathering results on climate change effectiveness will
become an easy task. The above-mentioned measures need significant resources.
Consequently the expectation on a quantitative monitoring of GHG emission
5 Lessons from Taking Stock of 12 Years of Swiss International Cooperation. . .
91